Protestantism

[ad_orientem]

How do you know that 'tradition' yields up the 'proper' context of scriptures ?  Scripture predates Tradition. Scripture transcends tradition.  Tradition is derivative, not fundamental.

Continuity, that golden thread which goes all the way back to the Apostles, and by its fruits

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Continuity, that golden thread which goes all the way back to the Apostles, and by its fruits

Continuity doesn't tell you much about the accuracy or otherwise of the original sources, but if you want to play continuity top trumps some Australian aborigine stories have been told for 10,000 years:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/

The creation myths of the Kalahari bushmen could be as much as 20,000 years old too:

http://myths.e2bn.org/mythsandlegends/origins2490-kaangs-people.html

"Golden threads" indeed eh?

[ekim]

ad,

Continuity doesn't tell you much about the accuracy or otherwise of the original sources, ....

"Golden threads" indeed eh?

Ah, but you are forgetting the 11th Commandment:  'Thou shalt not question.'

[floo]

Ah, but you are forgetting the 11th Commandment:  'Thou shalt not question.'

It is very sad that some don't question their faith, and question those telling them what they should believe. It is a great pity the RCC hasn't been subjected to intense scrutiny by its congregations over the centuries. If it had maybe some of its ghastly doctrines, which have caused so many problems, would have bitten the dust. That goes too for the, 'you must be saved', mob, especially those who believe once you get 'saved' your eternal life insurance is guaranteed  for all eternity whatever you do thereafter! 

[floo]

Fair enough I suppose. It perhaps would be better to ask religious people where there God is now. Although that's a fruitless task as it will all be down to freewill or punishment or some other equally appalling theory.

TV to answer your question from the tower block fire thread.  Maybe god topped itself when it realised what a terrible mess it had created!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, hence all the different doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults.

That can go for anything though and knowledge of that and fear of any commitment to almost anything is what makes stuff like the BHA and NSS all mimsy wimsy and mealy wheelie.

I supposed I'm saying that all swivel eyed ranting atheist head bangers come as a bit of a breath of fresh air.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fair enough I suppose. It perhaps would be better to ask religious people where there God is now. Although that's a fruitless task as it will all be down to freewill or punishment or some other equally appalling theory.

Well that just leaves us with the everyone is really a good bloke theory beloved of atheists.....only there isn't anything real about good or bad...another theory beloved of atheists.

See CS Lewis on being angry at God for not existing.

[floo]

That can go for anything though and knowledge of that and fear of any commitment to almost anything is what makes stuff like the BHA and NSS all mimsy wimsy and mealy wheelie.

I supposed I'm saying that all swivel eyed ranting atheist head bangers come as a bit of a breath of fresh air.

How do you classify yourself?

[Nearly Sane]

Well that just leaves us with the everyone is really a good bloke theory beloved of atheists.....only there isn't anything real about good or bad...another theory beloved of atheists.

See CS Lewis on being angry at God for not existing.

Yes, Lewis really was spectacularly dumb about that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you classify yourself?

Vertebrate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Lewis really was spectacularly dumb about that.

How so?

[jeremyp]

But we have the Holy Spirit who guides the Church, for instance in its liturgies, councils etc.

Judging by the number of different versions of the church, the Holy Spirit is somewhat schizophrenic.

[Nearly Sane]

How so?

Thinking that dystheism is atheism. Some of your posts make the same mistake.

[ad_orientem]

Judging by the number of different versions of the church, the Holy Spirit is somewhat schizophrenic.

On the contrary. The rest simply are not the Church.

[floo]

Vertebrate.

Wow you do surprise me!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thinking that dystheism is atheism. Some of your posts make the same mistake.

Oh the "no true atheist" defence is it now?

I can't see how an intellectual atheist who found a negative emotion about God in his kit helps your cause.
It just suggests there could be more in that boat.In fact I'm with P Hitchens when he states there is a veritable rage against God..........I think there are a few dystheists around here.

Also Lewis talks of being angry with God for not existing. Does that fit into dystheism? I'm not sure it does.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Oh the "no true atheist" defence is it now?

That's not what the no true Scotsman argument entails. Your relentless ad homs about atheists and atheism don't validate your opinions on either.   

I can't see how an intellectual atheist who found a negative emotion about God in his kit helps your cause.

"Intellectual atheists" don't find negative arguments "about god" at all. What they actually do is to falsify the arguments some make for god(s). 

It just suggests there could be more in that boat.In fact I'm with P Hitchens when he states there is a veritable rage against God..........I think there are a few dystheists around here.

Dystheists believe in the existence of an evil god, and it suggests no such thing. Atheists do not (indeed cannot) "rage" against a god they have no reason to believe exist, though they can rage against (or at least object to) the claims some make about their god beliefs, and against the actions that follow.

Also Lewis talks of being angry with God for not existing. Does that fit into dystheism? I'm not sure it does.

No. To think there's an evil god you must also think that a god exists at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

That's not what the no true Scotsman argument entails. Your relentless ad homs about atheists and atheism don't validate your opinions on either.   

"Intellectual atheists" don't find negative arguments "about god" at all. What they actually do is to falsify the arguments some make for god(s). 

Dystheists believe in the existence of an evil god, and it suggests no such thing. Atheists do not (indeed cannot) "rage" against a god they have no reason to believe exist, though they can rage against (or at least object to) the claims some make about their god beliefs, and against the actions that follow.

No. To think there's an evil god you must also think that a god exists at all.

Thank you for your opinion which of course skates over any salient points while reaching to shut down any dissent.

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you for your opinion which of course skates over any salient points while reaching to shut down any dissent.

Your lying claim that someone disagreeing with you is trying to shut down dissent is an insult to people who suffer under repressive regimes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Thank you for your opinion which of course skates over any salient points while reaching to shut down any dissent.

Correcting your mistakes and calling you out on your lies neither "skates over salient points" nor "shuts down dissent". It just corrects your mistakes and calls you out on your lies.

If you don't like it, stop doing it. Simple really.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your lying claim that someone disagreeing with you is trying to shut down dissent is an insult to people who suffer under repressive regimes.

That's right...find a Ed herring and then fail to address questions about assertions.
Hillside starts with Fallacy boy.

That is an immediate shut down attempt by poisoning the well, ad hominem, and begging the question. On this forum though that sort of thing is lauded as a wankover in the cause of democracy.....do me a favour.

[ippy]

Thank you for your opinion which of course skates over any salient points while reaching to shut down any dissent.

Come on Vlad even the word atheist assumes there is a god around to not believe in, most of us are  non-religious because there is no good reason to think there is a god around in the first place, why would anyone go looking for an Ooslem bird when it's just as likely to be in existence as a unicorn, pixie, god or anything else someone wishes to magic up?

Non-religious is a more accurate description of my stance with regard to theism.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

That's right...find a Ed herring and then fail to address questions about assertions.
Hillside starts with Fallacy boy.

That is an immediate shut down attempt by poisoning the well, ad hominem, and begging the question. On this forum though that sort of thing is lauded as a wankover in the cause of democracy.....do me a favour.

As opposed to you wanking over the plight of people in repressive regimes by lying.

[Shaker]

Well that just leaves us with the everyone is really a good bloke theory beloved of atheists.....only there isn't anything real about good or bad...another theory beloved of atheists.

See CS Lewis on being angry at God for not existing.

Is that the same C.S. Lewis who apparently managed the interesting feat of claiming to be angry at a god he claimed not to believe existed, or another one?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

That's right...find a Ed herring and then fail to address questions about assertions.
Hillside starts with Fallacy boy.

That is an immediate shut down attempt by poisoning the well, ad hominem, and begging the question. On this forum though that sort of thing is lauded as a wankover in the cause of democracy.....do me a favour.

That's because your efforts here consist entirely either of fallacious reasoning or of flat out lying. I've falsified the former and called you out on the latter countless times, only for you to ignore both responses. I've even listed the fallacies on which you depend and identified them by number, again only for you to ignore or lie about the falsifications that undo you.

What then should I call you if not for "Fallacy Boy"? That's not an ad hom, it's description of what you do. If you don't like it, either change your behaviour or (finally) try to explain why your arguments aren't fallacious.

As I said: simple really.