11 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeno1 has made that clear was saving you the time.
Since when are you speaking for No1, froggy ?
Paul's supremacy over Christ's words ? Whose religion is that ?
this isnt the first thread where matthew 25 was discussed.
much of the earlier ones people kept posting Paul to illustrate that Christ didn't mean what he said.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "He seemed to say that before there was a "law" against it, nobody coveted, which would be nonsense."
Again rather than discuss the points you resort to personal s**t; at least when I insult somebody, I actually mix in some discussion of the topic. I don't understand what Paul means; his words are unclear in Romans 7. He seemed to say that before there was a "law" against it, nobody coveted, which would be nonsense. The passage doesn't seem ...[text shortened]... discussing Scriptural interpretation at all if the only answer is "'Cuz the Church says so."
You should ponder, since you don't understand Paul, the possibility of your interpretation of Paul's words being incorrect. Paul is not talking non-sense. You simply fail to understand his words. That is a very good starting point in beginning to understand his writings. I can give you a garantee on that. That's where I started also.
No1: "I realize it's Catholic dogma that only the Church is a proper interpretater of Scripture, but I, of course, reject that and there would be no point in discussing Scriptural interpretation at all if the only answer is "'Cuz the Church says so."
The Holy Spirit is the interpretor of Scripture, no1.
The rest of the above statement is one of the usual Maraudian Strawmen.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#III
"109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
"Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#III
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The following passage, commenting Paul, seems to be of interest to the works/faith discussion, don't you think so ?
"Unable to free themselves from the slavery of sin and the power of death, they can only be rescued from defeat in the conflict by the power of God's grace working through Jesus Christ."
Oops ...... and such a statement can be read on a webpage hosted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, a body of a Church that has always been and always will be a fervent advocate of Good Works.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans7.htm
Before you start debating subjects it is usually a good policy to study the basics of the issues at hand or(!)/and attain an attitude of trying to understand and study things and leave behind you the attitude which corresponds with having a big mouth.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm tired of your s**thead comments. If you have some clarification of what you believe Paul meant, say so. Otherwise your comments are just more useless BS to continue an idiotic personal vendetta. I'm willing to dicuss the interpretation of Scripture with people who have different views than mine and to admit error if they convince me I am in error, but not to take a bunch of crap from a jerk. Stay on point or shut up.
No1: "He seemed to say that before there was a "law" against it, nobody coveted, which would be nonsense."
You should ponder, since you don't understand Paul, the possibility of your interpretation of Paul's words being incorrect. Paul is not talking non-sense. You simply fail to understand his words. That is a very good starting point in beginning ...[text shortened]... nd study things and leave behind you the attitude which corresponds with having a big mouth.
The RCC claims that it's view on doctrinal matters in Scripture is infallible, doesn't it? That means they cannot err unlike other mortals and thus, by definition, are the only proper interpreters of Scripture among the human race. My comment is correct and has I have pointed out many times, you simply don't know what a "strawman argument" is, as you persistently and constantly misuse the term.
I'll look over the sites mentioned. However, I feel that I have "studied the basis issues" of what the Gospels say regarding faith/works by reading Matthew 25, Jesus' description of the requirements for eternal salvation at Judgment Day. I await one of you loud mouthed religious fanatics to explain why he left the word "faith" out of the equation there. Judging by the responses in the last few months, I'll wait in vain.
And finally, I find it laughable that fanatics like yourself who have preconceived dogma which makes you incapable of considering even the possibility of error, would ask others to keep an "open mind". Open your own mind, Ivanhoe, if you have a functioning one, which seems doubtful.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm tired of your s**thead comments. If you have some clarification of what you believe Paul meant, say so. Otherwise your comments are just more useless BS to continue an idiotic personal vendetta. I'm willing to dicuss the interpretation of Scripture with people who have different views than mine and to admit error if they convince me I am in ...[text shortened]... "open mind". Open your own mind, Ivanhoe, if you have a functioning one, which seems doubtful.
...... watch that mouth, no1 ...... it will overstretch someday.
By the way, you failed to adress substantially the most important part of my post, the "comment on Paul" part.
No1: "I'll look over the sites mentioned."
My advice is: READ THEM.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince when was Paul elevated to God status? Who is anybody to "clarify" Christ's words. He said what He said : if you can't understand His words, read them until you do.
...... watch that mouth, no1 ...... it will overstretch someday.
By the way, you failed to adress substantially the most important part of my post, the "comment on Paul" part.
No1: "I'll look over the sites mentioned."
My advice is: READ THEM.
12 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI read both and they are both BS. The first is basically a well-written version of the "Secret Decoder Ring Defense" i.e. to interpret Scripture you work backward, first assuming what God wants to show in the Scripture and then making the particular passage fit into your preconceived ideas. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite of what a rational person does when they are trying to figure out what a document or writing is trying to say.
...... watch that mouth, no1 ...... it will overstretch someday.
By the way, you failed to adress substantially the most important part of my post, the "comment on Paul" part.
No1: "I'll look over the sites mentioned."
My advice is: READ THEM.
As for Paul, I don't find his peculiar interpretations of Jesus' words of any particular relevance. I can read the Gospels just as well as Paul did (actually better as it is unclear whether Paul read any of them!). Why should I or anyone choose to accept Paul's views on something when we can look at it ourselves and come to our own conclusions? If you want to point to words of Jesus that accord with Paul's sentiments fine but merely Paul says so doesn't impress me. Paul's belief that Man is innately sinful and evil is a mere assertion that is refuted by everyone's everday experiences, so I find his views on humanity unconvincing in the extreme.