What You Protestants Don't Seem to Get

[BluffTHIS!]

I have NotReady in other threads stating that he doesn't expect to find perfection of doctrine in any denomination, although he can't demonstrate logical contradictions in my views. And I have OOO and udon'tknowmickey stating that it is reasonable to believe that God doesn't care if His divine messages are transmitted down to our time free of error. Do you all not realize the implications of this? You are playing right into the hands of those who deny the truth of Christianity by claiming that Jesus didn't really exist or that even if he did then those who wrote about him made up a lot of it, and that even after that the doctrines based upon what he said are not correct interpretations of scripture even given that it is true.

When you profess faith in any belief system, whether religious, mathematical or scientific, you start out with certain premises or axioms which by definition cannot be proved to certainty, but the evidence for same is enough for you, espcially if you believe you possess personal evidence that tips the scales, although which would usually not be credible to others. How improbable those axioms might be determines how seriously non-believers are willing to take that system. In other words, you have to avoid extreme far-fetchedness. After that you derive derivative theorems or doctrines which should not conflict logically either among themselves or with the axioms. Regarding matters of religion, this is a matter of spiritual as well as intellectual integrity.

Anyone willing to accept such contradictions can claim no better thinking than someone who believes in astrology. Logic is a part of the sphere of knowledge with strong mathematical foundations. To refuse to acknowledge or to accept logical contradictions is no different than maintaining that the earth is flat or that 3^2 really does not equal 9. I give tons more respect to the intellectually honest views of atheists and agnostics like andy or David, than I do to any Christian who either can't formulate logically correct views, denies logical implications, or worse yet can't even see them.

All of this is not proof in and of itself that my particular religious beliefs, i.e. catholocism, are true. Many of you may not possess the theological knowledge to rebut various points I make to as great a degree as a theology professor in a protestant seminary would be able to. A good analogy for this is to look at these theological arguements, what we call apologetics in my church, as the various lines in a book of chess openings. Just because you know only 1/2 the line doesn't make me correct since others with greater knowledge could take it further even if they couldn't actually refute my views. But if you can't even make logical arguments with fellow Christians, then you have no hope of ever persuading thinking non-believers.

[ QUOTE ]
And I have OOO and udon'tknowmickey stating that it is reasonable to believe that God doesn't care if His divine messages are transmitted down to our time free of error.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said any such thing.

God can care and not intervene. Example: Thousands of children died of starvation in Africa today. Hundreds of people died in car accidents. People got raped, murdered, assaulted, ripped off. Does the fact that God didn't intervene mean he didn't care?

Also, even if he chose to intervene, he may have other ways of sending his message without providing the correct scriptural interpretation to exactly ONE particular religion.

Do you see how silly your logic is?

[BluffTHIS!]

I said I was done with you and am only replying for the benefit of others. God cares about everything, the only difference is how much He is willing to intervene, especially given that He allows men free will. But if you maintain that He doesn't intervene to at least see that His message is availabe somewhere uncorrupted, then you cannot logically debate about anything to do with that message. And regarding the implications for debating with non-believers, you have now adopted premises that can't be proved to a certainty, and then also allowed it to come to pass that those premises can't even be guaranteed to be stated correctly. So you are presenting unbelievers with a compound probabiility of an X% probability that a premise Y which iteself already possesses less than 100% probability of being true is correct. The fact that you don't see this is why I said I was through debating with you.

It's not enough that you try to convince non-believers to accept that Christianity is a good bet without perfect information, but you have to go and try to get them to accept a parlay instead. Good Luck.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you maintain that He doesn't intervene to at least see that His message is availabe somewhere uncorrupted, then you cannot logically debate about anything to do with that message.

[/ QUOTE ]
So are you saying the bible is corrupted? Because if it is truly his word, it satisfies your criteria for being "available somewhere uncorrupted".

How people interpret his word, or turn it down completely, is then their business, wouldn't you think?

Also, I am not adopting any premises, simply pointing out the illogic in yours. But I won't reply to any more of your religion posts. Good luck with your campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
I give tons more respect to the intellectually honest views of atheists and agnostics like andy or David, than I do to any Christian who either can't formulate logically correct views, denies logical implications, or worse yet can't even see them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

Sticking one's head in the sand or spewing dogma one doesn't understand or care to look at deeply is hardly the basis for a personal belief system.

True faith needs no proof.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
True faith needs no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to sell that to someone who doesn't already believe.

Plus you should want to know that you are placing your faith in 100% of the truth and not a lesser number, when by switching denominations or changing your views slightly it might be possible to achieve that.

[udontknowmickey]

Please give a reason why Jesus spoke in parables and the fact that he said in Mark 4:

[ QUOTE ]
10And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12so that

"they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven."


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus himself said that he spoke in parables so that some may be confused and not understand.

I am not denying that God has given us a true transmission, but just that there are times when God muddies the waters. This plays directly into divine sovereignty. God had decreed some for destruction, and this is one of the ways he brings them to reject Scripture. If they truly understood, they wouldn't reject Scripture.

You still haven't given an explanation of Romans 9 which is consistant with your view of God's foreknowledge of future rejection which is denied in Romans 9: 11)

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- (emphasis added)

These actually aren't contradictions per se, since you claim to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but the problem is that the RCC hasn't infallibly defined predestination as you do, nor has it infallibly defined the extent or scope of tradition. You're standing on air now. It's very easy to be logically consistant when there is nothing to be logically consistant to.

You have also yet to demonstrate a logical contradiction in my words. You've just been offended that I would claim that God muddies the waters, but this is entirely consistant with my system of beliefs.

I don't know why I'm still posting. My points have been made and unanswered. The RCC has not infallibly interpreted any of the verses, so now it's just your opinion against mine. I think this is my last post unless you properly interpret those verses consistant with your views.

Sorry David, I know you have been thoughally entertained by my antics these past few days, but there is only so much time I am willing to devote to debate. NotReady seems to be still going strong though.

*washes hands* *wipes dust*

Matt. 7:6

[ QUOTE ]
True faith needs no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor does true ignorance, coincidentally.

Teach the ignorant so that they too my know.

I never said that I had faith.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
Teach the ignorant so that they too my know.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the ones who aren't ignorant but require either proof or at least something that makes logical sense? Are they to be abandoned, left for dead?

The only thing(s) that I 'believe' is/are

Gasoline is three bucks a gallon where I live.
Bluffing is rarely adviseable in a loose game.
Good sex is wonderful but a good lay will do.
Momma's baby Poppa's maybe.
Hearsts don't have luggage racks.
etc...

Sorry I was under the assumption that the man thinks I am ignorant, which I am. I was asking Him to teach me. I was not giving the call to evengelism.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus himself said that he spoke in parables so that some may be confused and not understand.

I am not denying that God has given us a true transmission, but just that there are times when God muddies the waters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated I am not replying to this poster anymore and I am just replying for the benefit of others. There are many religious truths taught in parables, but really not any doctrines that are disputed among the denominations, so parables are not a correct example of what I am talking about and that should be obvious.

But what is absolutely comical about this poster's use of parables as an example, is that although Jesus did mean not to explain the meanings of parables to those hearers who did not have an open mind and heart, He explained each and every one of them to the apostles and those explanations are written plain in the gospels for anyone to read.

The reason I said I wouldn't debate with this poster is that it is too much work to constantly explain semantic meaning and logical conclusions. He just made my point in spades.

[BluffTHIS!]

NotReady and spaminator, where are you?

[baggins]

"When you profess faith in any belief system, whether religious, mathematical or scientific, you start out with certain premises or axioms which by definition cannot be proved to certainty, but the evidence for same is enough for you, espcially if you believe you possess personal evidence that tips the scales"

i don't profess faith in any belief systems. I have given my heart and my life based on my Faith in the Living God. there is a difference.

If you believe in me as a teacher and a leader, and you trust me, then it doesn't matter that other people interpret my teaching and leadership methods in varous, and often conflicting ways. what matters is that your faith rests in me, and that you follow me.

the same goes for my Faith in God. I learn from the preachers in my church, and others I discuss my faith with. I learn from Catholic and Baptist and Lutheran and Covenant and non-denominational teaching. I don't believe any of them have a stranglehold on Truth. but, I don't believe that is the point, either. I believe the point is to live our lives as fully devoted followers of Christ, and to live by the 2 simple commandments that He emphasized: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your mind, and your strength. and Love your neighbor as yourself. if you can follow those 2 things, you don't have to worry about commandments and special purification laws and whether or not you baptize your child as an infant or whether its ok to pray to Mary or sell indulgences or speak in tongues. I think the biggest weapon in Satan's very real and very potent attack on the Body of Christ (the church, ALL who believe in Him) is that of getting people mixed up and fighting over theology and politics. it takes the focus squarely away from the main point, which is to love Jesus and serve other people (through meeting their needs and leading them back to God).

we can argue about which doctrines are better, and the truth and historicity of those doctrines, and the political ramifications, but we'd be missing the point.

i hope that makes sense. at least enough for you to see where i am coming from.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you can't even make logical arguments with fellow Christians, then you have no hope of ever persuading thinking non-believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's a hoot.

Perhaps they should concentrate on non-thinking non-believers? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And what are the axioms behind your last statement?

-Zeno

You don't always have to try and prove your stance. When it comes to religions, often living an example of your faith is the best way to puruade someone. You can debate with them till you're blue in the face, but if they see you acting on your belief's they will atleast know without a doubt that you have put all your faith into your religion. That will be more persuading than ancient documentation any day.

[Peter666]

"I give tons more respect to the intellectually honest views of atheists and agnostics like andy or David, than I do to any Christian who either can't formulate logically correct views, denies logical implications, or worse yet can't even see them."

I like this statement very much. We could live in a perfect world subject only to the laws of nature if it wasn't for all those other religions and philosophies messing things up.

World peace and harmony would be achieved as long as everyone would consent to the rule of logic, which only true Catholics or true scientists/mathematicians seem to do. Of course, the agnostics and atheists would still go to Hell, but at least we would have a good time together before death.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if you can't even make logical arguments with fellow Christians, then you have no hope of ever persuading thinking non-believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's a hoot.

Perhaps they should concentrate on non-thinking non-believers? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And what are the axioms behind your last statement?

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

That it is axiomatic that you have a greater chance to persuade non-thinking individuals to believe in anything.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe any of them have a stranglehold on Truth. but, I don't believe that is the point, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that is the point baggins. Because such a belief, i.e. that no denomination possess 100% of the truth has certain logical implications. Mainly for carrying out the great commission of evangelizing. Reread my posts above and see if you get it.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
"I give tons more respect to the intellectually honest views of atheists and agnostics like andy or David, than I do to any Christian who either can't formulate logically correct views, denies logical implications, or worse yet can't even see them."

I like this statement very much. We could live in a perfect world subject only to the laws of nature if it wasn't for all those other religions and philosophies messing things up.

World peace and harmony would be achieved as long as everyone would consent to the rule of logic, which only true Catholics or true scientists/mathematicians seem to do. Of course, the agnostics and atheists would still go to Hell, but at least we would have a good time together before death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did some Christians recently rough you up in the parking lot?

[David Sklansky]

"I give tons more respect to the intellectually honest views of atheists and agnostics like andy or David, than I do to any Christian who either can't formulate logically correct views, denies logical implications, or worse yet can't even see them."

I like this statement very much. We could live in a perfect world subject only to the laws of nature if it wasn't for all those other religions and philosophies messing things up.

World peace and harmony would be achieved as long as everyone would consent to the rule of logic, which only true Catholics or true scientists/mathematicians seem to do. Of course, the agnostics and atheists would still go to Hell, but at least we would have a good time together before death."

How much would you charge me to have a debate with Not Ready or udon'tknow mickey?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
How much would you charge me to have a debate with Not Ready or udon'tknow mickey?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's no fair offerring to have him to box logical welterweights.

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe any of them have a stranglehold on Truth. but, I don't believe that is the point, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that is the point baggins. Because such a belief, i.e. that no denomination possess 100% of the truth has certain logical implications. Mainly for carrying out the great commission of evangelizing. Reread my posts above and see if you get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

no. it's not. Jesus commanded us to go out and baptize people of all nations in the name of Christ. not in the name of the Catholic church, or the baptist church, or the eastern orthodox church, or the Church of England, or any other denomination.

the point is not any one denomination having a stranglehold on Truth. the point is that we know enough to go out and serve and carry out Christ's mission for the church.

(now, if we are talking about Catholic church meaning a universal church, and not the Holy Roman Catholic Church following Papal orders and decrees and bishops and dioceses, then we may be closer to agreeing than you might think.)

there are many kinds of Truth. we are not called to sit around and ponder intellectual truths all day (at least not solely). we are called to live the Truth of the good news of Jesus Christ, and to love other people as He loves us. I'm talking truth in action. bold, relentless, active truth. not just logical imperatives regarding the minutiae of archaic theological sticking points for ivory tower academics (or even thinking lay people).

do you have to be a bible scholar or a master theologian to feed the hungry, take care of the sick and poor, or comfort the hurting people in this world?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
do you have to be a bible scholar or a master theologian to feed the hungry, take care of the sick and poor, or comfort the hurting people in this world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. But you do have to be able to see the logical implications that certain beliefs have in regards to being successful in persuading non-believers to accept the gospel. You really need to reread my original and following posts. Since I know you believe that God expects you to share the faith, then you should also believe that He expects you to try to do it in a way that has the greatest chances for getting non-believers to accept it. Same as maximizing your EV in poker.

[Peter666]

For a formal debate, I would want an autographed copy of your next book (shipping included) oh god of poker.

BluffTHIS is right, any Catholic who knows his basic apologetics should be able to logically trounce all takers.

[Peter666]

They tried, but I slew them in the spirit and excorcised their demons as their bodies convulsed and made funny noises. I also cured them of the cancer they never knew they had.

I can do the same for you if you will purchase my next Rapture video. It is sure to happen in 1999, 2001, errr 2006.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
For a formal debate, I would want an autographed copy of your next book (shipping included) oh god of poker.

BluffTHIS is right, any Catholic who knows his basic apologetics should be able to logically trounce all takers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent participated in a while, you guys need me to spell you for a bit. I still have Judaism piece languishing on the back burner. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Not at all. But you do have to be able to see the logical implications that certain beliefs have in regards to being successful in persuading non-believers to accept the gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

God's things, spiritual things, are transmitted from spirit to spirit. Man is a three-fold being: body, soul, and spirit. When God imparts something to us, He imparts it into our spirits. When we receive that and impart it to others we impart it to their spirits.

The logical mind is part of a man's soul. The unregenerate man has only his soul to guide him. His carnal, selfish, fleshly soul has had years and years to pull him away from the things of God and set him on paths of folly. You don't try to convince someone from mind to mind. The gospel is not to be accepted and received logically.

The currency of every cult from the JW's to the Moonies to the RCC is a twisting of logic to enprison its adherents, a system of thought that builds upon itself brick by brick so that the high walls no longer let Light in, leaving man in a cave of darkness.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The currency of every cult from the JW's to the Moonies to the RCC is a twisting of logic to enprison its adherents, a system of thought that builds upon itself brick by brick so that the high walls no longer let Light in, leaving man in a cave of darkness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. Many if not all heresies are the result of applying "logic" to some doctrine of Scripture.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that the logic of a finite, imperfect creature is likely to be finite and imperfect. It's only logical to believe that. Our sight isn't perfect. Our hearing isn't perfect. Our emotions aren't perfect. Our strength isn't perfect. Our will isn't perfect. But our logic is?

To deny the perfection of humanity's ability to reason isn't to deny the ultimate validty of perfect reason (which belongs to God) or the usefulness of reason so far as we are able any more than to deny we can see perfectly is to deny the sight we do have is useful and accurate as far as it goes.

Because we can't reason it all out perfectly God communicates to us. So we naturally then take His communication and subject it to the test of human reason. Why does He put up with us?

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you have to be a bible scholar or a master theologian to feed the hungry, take care of the sick and poor, or comfort the hurting people in this world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. But you do have to be able to see the logical implications that certain beliefs have in regards to being successful in persuading non-believers to accept the gospel. You really need to reread my original and following posts. Since I know you believe that God expects you to share the faith, then you should also believe that He expects you to try to do it in a way that has the greatest chances for getting non-believers to accept it. Same as maximizing your EV in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still pretty much disagree with you. I mean, I'm sure He wants me to share my faith in a way that is not ostracizing or insulting or hurting to other people. beyond that, I believe that the Holy Spirit intervenes at some point and takes hold of a person's heart and transforms it. now, I don't have a problem discussing theology. nor do i think that it doesn't matter how we present the gospel of Christ to people. but, at the same time, it's not MY job to convince anyone. my job is to "feed the hungry, take care of the sick and poor, and comfort the hurting people in this world." the Spirit that God gave us to guide us will do the rest.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
but, at the same time, it's not MY job to convince anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Matt. 28:19-20

So it is YOUR job after all. And if you try to convince them to take the gospel on faith, but also that the beliefs of the particular denomination you belong to are not 100% correct, then your chances for success are lessened, which is the point of my original post in this thread.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The currency of every cult from the JW's to the Moonies to the RCC is a twisting of logic to enprison its adherents, a system of thought that builds upon itself brick by brick so that the high walls no longer let Light in, leaving man in a cave of darkness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. Many if not all heresies are the result of applying "logic" to some doctrine of Scripture.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that the logic of a finite, imperfect creature is likely to be finite and imperfect. It's only logical to believe that. Our sight isn't perfect. Our hearing isn't perfect. Our emotions aren't perfect. Our strength isn't perfect. Our will isn't perfect. But our logic is?

To deny the perfection of humanity's ability to reason isn't to deny the ultimate validty of perfect reason (which belongs to God) or the usefulness of reason so far as we are able any more than to deny we can see perfectly is to deny the sight we do have is useful and accurate as far as it goes.

Because we can't reason it all out perfectly God communicates to us. So we naturally then take His communication and subject it to the test of human reason. Why does He put up with us?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was talking in his post about "twisted" logic, which isn't true logic. And as I said before, logic is a branch of mathematics and knowledge. And it isn't just human logic, but LOGIC. Just like mathematics in general. God made mathematics and logic, and if you hold a set of beliefs that is logically contradictory to itself in some ways, then that indicates those beliefs to be less than 100% true, and thus not fully reflective of God's truth. And heresies have not sprung from misapplied logic, but from a literalist out-of-context interpretation of various passages in scripture, which shows not only the fallacy of such methods of interpretation, but the consequences of not having an authoritative interpreter.

The height of such illogic is what I said in another post about maintaining that the reformation changed catholic doctrine which was in error, but that the new doctrines aren't 100% correct either, and that you expect non-believers to buy that new set of doctrines.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And it isn't just human logic


[/ QUOTE ]

1 Cor 3:20

"(A)THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."

[BluffTHIS!]

I can't begin to say how pathetic it is if you maintain that you can hold a set of beliefs in which some are logically contradictory of each other, but still maintain that you are correct in holding those beliefs. How hard is it for you to understand that this doesn't most likely mean that true doctrine is only "apparently" illogical because human reasoning is incapable of undertanding it fully, but rather that many of your particular interpretations of scripture are just wrong?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I can't begin to say how pathetic it is if you maintain that you can hold a set of beliefs in which some are logically contradictory of each other, but still maintain that you are correct in holding those beliefs


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

but rather that many of your particular interpretations of scripture are just wrong


[/ QUOTE ]

What you meant to say is you don't understand them according to your logic.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
What you meant to say is you don't understand them according to your logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you claim to be able to though? You have already stated that you don't expect to find perfection in any denomination's doctrine, with the logical implication that you feel comfortable only having an X% grasp of true doctrine. If all you mean is that no denomination matches your own interpretations, then you should start yet another protestant denomination. At least then you could claim its doctrines were 100% correct and be more likely to convince non-believers of same.

And as far as my not understanding your protestant interpretations according to my logic, you have also stated that you can find no logical contradictions in my views, so I see no reason to doubt the understanding of my particular denomination, the catholic church.

If you think that true doctrine and true logical implications of those doctrines can be in conflict, or that true doctrine and true science can conflict, then how can you claim to be intellectually honest? God asks faith of us, which means trusting in Him even if there is not complete evidence. He doesn't ask us to check our brain at the door to the church and accept logically contradictory doctrines as a part of a set of beliefs. If you think otherwise, then you really don't believe that God = truth, because He doesn't contradict Himself.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If all you mean is that no denomination matches your own interpretations, then you should start yet another protestant denomination.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which denomination has complete doctrinal perfection? If you say RC, please state the year and day this occurred.

[ QUOTE ]

you have also stated that you can find no logical contradictions in my views,


[/ QUOTE ]

When?

[ QUOTE ]

If you think that true doctrine and true logical implications of those doctrines can be in conflict


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

He doesn't ask us to check our brain at the door to the church


[/ QUOTE ]

I did say this.

[ QUOTE ]

and accept logically contradictory doctrines as a part of a set of beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

He doesn't contradict Himself.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did say this.

[ajmargarine]

It is safe to say that, before Jesus came the first time, the dominant "religion of God" (Judiasm) and especially it's largest sect (the Pharisees), believed themselves to be 100% correct in doctrine. In hindsight, we see the folly of that.

Now as we await His second coming, the dominant "religion of God" (Christianity) and especially its largest sect (RCC), suffer from the same delusion. You should be able to see the parallel.

100% logical acceptance of doctrine is nice; but, it is only a blanket that temporarily succors the restless soul of man; and sadly, is a substitute for 100% faith in the Son of Man.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is safe to say that, before Jesus came the first time, the dominant "religion of God" (Judiasm) and especially it's largest sect (the Pharisees), believed themselves to be 100% correct in doctrine. In hindsight, we see the folly of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Matthew 15:9

9'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

I think the broad group of people labeled "Christian" has outdone the Pharisees by a factor that is scary to think about.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Which denomination has complete doctrinal perfection? If you say RC, please state the year and day this occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

Year 33 A.D. upto now. If you believe otherwise then give examples. But if you are going to pull various texts of scripture out of context of the rest of scripture to do this, and also insist on a certain, literal or not, interpretation of same in support of your assertions, then you also have to prove why such interpretations are authoritative.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you have also stated that you can find no logical contradictions in my views,

[/ QUOTE ]
When?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the another question for NotReady thread:

BluffTHIS!: "Demonstrate a logical contradiction in the things I have said."
NotReady: "I didn't say there is one."


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think that true doctrine and true logical implications of those doctrines can be in conflict

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't ask us to check our brain at the door to the church

[/ QUOTE ]
I did say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see a difference between the faith in God that accepts some things may never be fully understood in their theological implications, and believing that a set of beliefs about God is correct when various doctrines in that set are logically contradictory? Why does this have to mean human reason can't comprehend why as opposed to that set of beliefs being false in many parts, especially when alternate sets of beliefs held by another christian denomination do not possess those internal logical contradictions?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and accept logically contradictory doctrines as a part of a set of beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you have. You have done it time and again implicitly by the statements in the post I am responding to when you say that God expects you to check your brain at the door, that you have to choose God over logic and reason when there should be no conflict between those, assuming your particular interpretations about God's doctrines are correct, and when you say you don't expect doctrinal perfection in any denomination.


In another thread I said the following in response to one of your posts:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't reconcile some concepts in the Bible to satisfy human reason. So you may choose your ultimate standard. Your ability to reason or the Bible. If you go with reason, you will eventually run into other logical contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what I am about to say, I am not referring to various Christian doctrines that have mystical or supernatural implications that cannot be fully apprehended by human reason because it is too limited in its understanding.

By your statements above you imply that various Christian doctrines can be logically inconsistent with each other or with the human reason that God has given us. Since God is truth and cannot be the author of error, how can this be? The rational explanation is that either Christianity is false, or that your understanding of it is in error. I cannot see how anyone but a cult member can believe that although some things might not be fully explained by God, that it is possible that sound doctrine is in conflict with itself internally or with its core axioms, or with human reason once those axioms are accepted, even if those axioms could not be proved to a virtual certainty to non-believers. Note that in all this I am talking about logical implications when I speak of reason, and not about whether certain beliefs appear "reasonable" on their face apart from the whole.

Thus, the only logical explanation for two conflicting passages in the bible (assuming one is not an OT one supersed by the NT), is an explanation that is a synthesis of two taken in the context of the entire bible and consonant with core axiomatic beliefs and logic, or that one of the two has to be understood in a more limited sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you disagree with that response, or can you provide another explanation for apparently conflicting passages in scripture? You have previously called such apparent contradictions "paradox". Yet why do you not also admit that an explanation for such paradox is the holding of heterodox beliefs and interpretations?

[David Sklansky]

"I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that the logic of a finite, imperfect creature is likely to be finite and imperfect. It's only logical to believe that. Our sight isn't perfect. Our hearing isn't perfect. Our emotions aren't perfect. Our strength isn't perfect. Our will isn't perfect. But our logic is?"

Is our arithmetic?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Year 33 A.D. upto now.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying Catholic doctrine has never made a mistake and that all Catholics always agree about all points of doctrine?

[ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS!: "Demonstrate a logical contradiction in the things I have said."
NotReady: "I didn't say there is one.


[/ QUOTE ]

"your views" and "things I have said" are two different things. I don't know all your views and therefore have not said you have no views that are logically contradictory. What I said in the thread you quote pertains to what you said in that thread.

[ QUOTE ]

believing that a set of beliefs about God is correct when various doctrines in that set are logically contradictory?


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure you have.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I haven't.

[ QUOTE ]

When you say that God expects you to check your brain at the door,


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

that you have to choose God over logic and reason


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

[ QUOTE ]

when you say you don't expect doctrinal perfection in any denomination.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said this. It isn't the same as logical contradiction.

[ QUOTE ]

By your statements above you imply that various Christian doctrines can be logically inconsistent with each other or with the human reason that God has given us


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a partial truth. Human reason is the qualifier.

[ QUOTE ]

that it is possible that sound doctrine is in conflict with itself


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this.

I'm stopping at this point. I didn't finish reading the post. This is why I don't debate you. You don't quote me accurately and you are constantly putting words in my mouth.
I just don't have the time.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is our arithmetic?


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. I sometimes assume people understand without infinite detailing, sometimes I shouldn't do so. I use the word logic loosely to mean the soundness of an argument. Obviously, an argument can be perfectly logical and completely unsound. When I question human logic or reason I'm talking about the soundness of the argument, not necessarily the formal logical process.

You don't really believe all arguments are sound because they are logically correct, do you?

[BluffTHIS!]

NR, I have no desire at all to misquote you. However when I say that you have said something that you say you didn't, what I am often referring to is the logical implications of what you have said. And you keep referring to "human reason" as if it is only an understanding that has to be faulty. What I am continually referring to is logic, and the logical implications of holding certain beliefs either by themselves, or most often in concert with each other. Logic is a part of mathematics and science, which is why David asked the question above. If you deny this, because you do not like the logical implications of certain things, and yet never question your own particular beliefs because of same, then how can you strive to be intellectually honest with yourself?

And regarding catholic doctrine, various doctrines are held with various degrees of certainty, and this is a very thechnical subject. Some things such as the nature of angels, can not be determined very far from scripture and thus some of those things are indeed deduced from reason. The church has changed its view of some such matters that are not really that important in the scheme of things over time. However, no doctrines, which are labeled as being held infallibly true or at the highest level of certainty, have ever been changed. And it is those major fundamental doctrines that are what I am talking about in my first post in this thread. And fundamental doctrines were what the reformation was mostly about, not archane matters such as the nature of angels or the levels of closeness to God in heaven.

Here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM) is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its table of contents. Pick a topic and find a doctrine whose truth you question and state why, and I will be happy to discuss it. And this brings up a very important point. It is not enough to say that the particular beliefs and scriptural interpretations of oneself or one's particular denomination are correct and that those of others are not. One must also be able to say why. If not, then that is indeed an example of faulty "human reason" that adopts beliefs based upon superficial factors or one's mere preference.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't really believe all arguments are sound because they are logically correct, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can only not be so if they proceed from faulty axioms. But NO argument can be sound if its conclusions are logically fallaceous.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

hat I am often referring to is the logical implications of what you have said


[/ QUOTE ]

As I was technically inaccurate in using the word logic instead of typing out "the soundness of human reason" every time (I'm inherently lazy), so you are inaccurate to logically imply something without making it clear and stating the argument.

[ QUOTE ]

And regarding catholic doctrine


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to attack Catholics. As to individual doctrines I deal with them when relevant. Anyone interested in their doctrines, the Scriptural accuracy of same and the countervailing arguments can easily find them on the net.

[ QUOTE ]

It is not enough to say that the particular beliefs and scriptural interpretations of oneself or one's particular denomination are correct and that those of others are not. One must also be able to say why. If not, then that is indeed an example of faulty "human reason" that adopts beliefs based upon superficial factors or one's mere preference.


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can remember I've never said I'm right and some other particular denomination is wrong, though since I do think some of the doctrines I believe are in conflict with what others believe I would be willing to say it when appropriate. If I do, I hope I will remember to defend my position.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

They can only not be so if they proceed from faulty axioms


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

And since we don't often know what are the correct axioms, the "soundness of our human reasoning" may be uncertain.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I can remember I've never said I'm right and some other particular denomination is wrong, though since I do think some of the doctrines I believe are in conflict with what others believe I would be willing to say it when appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

My whole point in this thread is the logical implication of not believing that any certain christian denomination possesses 100% of the truth, rather than a situation where all are faulty to a degree. If you have missed this point then you can reread my first couple posts in this thread. Also, if you think you can "pick & choose" among various interpretations of different doctrines, then doing so is bound to lead to a set of beliefs that has logical contradictions among themselves which are not necessarily a result of the axioms themselves.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if you think you can "pick & choose" among various interpretations of different doctrines


[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh ......

I never said this.

[BluffTHIS!]

OK, you didn't say exactly that, only that no denomination's doctrinal views are perfect. This however does imply that although you might agree with a majority of one denomination's doctrinal positions, on the part where you did not, you would in fact be agreeing with those of one or more other denominations. This is what I mean about seeing the implications of various sets of beliefs.

My point here is that I respect any christian who states that their denomination is the only one possessing the totality of truth, even though I wouldn't agree that to be true. What I can't give much respect to is being comfortable with a vague notion that God would be willing to allow all to be faulty to some degree without insuring that one of them could proclaim the truth in its entireity because this means being complacent about apparent theological contradictions that are merely the result of holding various incorrect doctrinal positions, along with the implications for diminished chances of success in persuading thinking non-believers.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What I can't give much respect to is being comfortable with a vague notion that God would be willing to allow all to be faulty to some degree without insuring that one of them could proclaim the truth in its entireity because this means being complacent about apparent theological contradictions that are merely the result of holding various incorrect doctrinal positions, along with the implications for diminished chances of success in persuading thinking non-believers.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I mean by faulty human reasoning, or setting one's reasoning above Scripture. Your premise that God would not allow all institutional churches to have some error can't be defended from Scripture. Given that no institutional church that has been around for more than a few years is free from error your premise is empirically false. If you stick to it in the face of contrary evidence you are deciding absolute truth based on an unsupported premise about God.

Recognizing that all humans err and that all churches are made up of humans, rather than making me complacent, inspires me to examine Scripture even more closely and to read various interpretations of it. Complacency will surely ensue to those who believe one particular source is never wrong for then they will have no need to "test the spirits" or "examine whether these things are so". Questioning what a human says about Scripture should be second nature, especially concerning things that are not obvious and clear from Scripture, such as predesdination. The Bible is simple on one level and some doctrines are unmistakeable. Other matters are far more difficult. Paul and Peter both affirm this idea.

As for persuading unbelievers, there is no requirement to have only one human source of doctrine. The requirement is to present the Gospel and defend it. The rest is up to God for I can persuade no one.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Your premise that God would not allow all institutional churches to have some error can't be defended from Scripture. Given that no institutional church that has been around for more than a few years is free from error your premise is empirically false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your arguement here is an example of the logical fallacy of affirming a consequent from a negative premise. And your premise is false as well since I can demonstrate the "institutional" church has been around since Christ started it. He proclaimed the gospel and the Kingdom of God and commissioned his apostles to spread it and gather new believers into that church. He also gave the church structure, which made it institutional, by appointing 12 apsotles and setting up one of them, Peter, at the head of them. And I can demonstrate extremely early instances of use of papal authority and an apostolic succession from the apostles. If you buy the protestant arguement that the catholic church has only existed as an institution since approximately the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., then the logical implication is that the doctrines and practices prior to that time reflect the true primitive church and were recaptured by the reformation denominations. I challenge you, as I challenged spaminator101, to read the writings of the early christians from the 100s and 200s A.D. and see if what they believed and practiced bears much resemblance to protestant doctrine and worship.

[ QUOTE ]
As for persuading unbelievers, there is no requirement to have only one human source of doctrine. The requirement is to present the Gospel and defend it. The rest is up to God for I can persuade no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

But by your arguements, you aren't really presenting the gospel, but only a interpretation of it that you can't guarantee to be totally true to that non-believer. Thus you are asking him to accept on faith not only something that can't be conclusively proved to be true, but only an interpretation of it which itself you say is not totally true. Thus you are in fact asking that he accept an even lesser probability that the gospel is true. How convincing can that be?

Furthermore, the whole crux of this matter is that you think that God gave 100% of the truth via Christ, but then allowed it to come to pass that that truth be corrupted throughout history so that at present we here and now can not be guaranteed to be able to know the totality of truth that Jesus' disciples knew. It isn't mere human reason that makes this preposterous, but logic, since the logical implication is that it doesn't matter to God that we have the chance to possess 100% of the truth, and that furthermore our chances in being successful in our task of fulfilling the great commission are not lessened by that.

[NotReady]

I have no idea what your first paragraph has to do with anything I said.
[ QUOTE ]

But by your arguements, you aren't really presenting the gospel, but only a interpretation of it that you can't guarantee to be totally true to that non-believer.


[/ QUOTE ]

This follows from nothing I said. I haven't read the rest of your post. Perhaps tomorrow.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, the whole crux of this matter is that you think that God gave 100% of the truth via Christ...

... It isn't mere human reason that makes this preposterous, but logic, since the logical implication is that it doesn't matter to God that we have the chance to possess 100% of the truth....

[/ QUOTE ]

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Truth is a Man. Not whatever your understanding thinks it is.

[Peter666]

"You don't really believe all arguments are sound because they are logically correct, do you?"

How would you know the difference between a sound and unsound argument if you are not certain about the initial axiom?

Likewise, how can you be certain of religious belief without an initial objective authority claiming infallibility in all matters of Faith?

You seem to maintain that there is no such thing as objective truth which man can compare his beliefs to, to know if he is right or wrong.

If that is so, all ideas about anything, let alone religion, are worthless, and have no reason to be maintained.

Any religion which does not claim 100% infallible authority on matters of Faith is garbage and has no reason to exist.

[Peter666]

But we do know the axioms. Religion teaches us the axioms. That is the point of a religion.

[David Sklansky]

This is what I have been waiting for. A Not Ready vs Peter 666 debate. (This is not the same as a Not Ready vs Bluff THIS debate because Peter 666 has stated that ONLY Cathlocism and Atheism are logically sound theories, all other religions or Christian denominations are ridiculous, and that without the "gift of faith" you must choose Atheism. BluffTHIS is not nearly so categorical about this issue.)

Please Not Ready, don't chicken out of what I see as your sternest test yet.

The Flying Spagetti Monster is the only true GOD.

If you have been touched by his holy appendage you would know. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Truth is a Man. Not whatever your understanding thinks it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you claim that He speaks to you directly, then your only knowledge of Jesus is the "understanding" of Him which you get from scripture, and from the interpretations of that scripture put forth by the denomination you belong to. And since the protestant reformation has spawned so many differing interpretations of what God said, how can you know which is correct?

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Truth is a Man. Not whatever your understanding thinks it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you claim that He speaks to you directly, then your only knowledge of Jesus is the "understanding" of Him which you get from scripture, and from the interpretations of that scripture put forth by the denomination you belong to. And since the protestant reformation has spawned so many differing interpretations of what God said, how can you know which is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

[BluffTHIS!]

If you can't respond in your own words to the points others make in debate, and resort to only quoting scripture, then you only make the point of my original post in this thread and don't get it. Good luck trying to persuade non-believers to believe by such methods when they aren't willing to start with the premise that the bible is true. And if you are one of those "name it and claim it" types then you really are a dolt.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How would you know the difference between a sound and unsound argument if you are not certain about the initial axiom?
Likewise, how can you be certain of religious belief without an initial objective authority claiming infallibility in all matters of Faith?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between certainty and knowledge. There's a difference between subjective certainty and objective certainty. There's a difference between revealed certainty and the claimed certainty of human reason and authority.

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to maintain that there is no such thing as objective truth which man can compare his beliefs to, to know if he is right or wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be taking lessons from Bluff on how to make unwarranted inferences.

[ QUOTE ]

Any religion which does not claim 100% infallible authority on matters of Faith is garbage and has no reason to exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of those questionable axioms to which you can then apply perfect logic and derive all kinds of unsound conclusions.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't respond in your own words to the points others make in debate, and resort to only quoting scripture, then you only make the point of my original post in this thread and don't get it. Good luck trying to persuade non-believers to believe by such methods when they aren't willing to start with the premise that the bible is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, your questions that I responded to, Does Jesus talk to you and How can you really know what the truth is, are easily answered by scripture. My experience lines up with that which I mention; thereby, I thought I adequately answered your questions. I quoted a few passages without commentary because you seem to take issue when people "interpret" scripture for themselves. As you believe yourself to be a believer, I left it up to you to interpret.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you are one of those "name it and claim it" types then you really are a dolt.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh*

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but, at the same time, it's not MY job to convince anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Matt. 28:19-20

So it is YOUR job after all. And if you try to convince them to take the gospel on faith, but also that the beliefs of the particular denomination you belong to are not 100% correct, then your chances for success are lessened, which is the point of my original post in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

since when did the command to make disciples (i.e. teach and lead those willing to follow) come to mean 'convince logically with 100% authority on all matters of spiritual mystery'?

i don't agree. i don't think that command means i have to argue and logically convince people to become christians. you don't come to Faith because you lose a logical argument about faith.

[BluffTHIS!]

And just how are you going to be successful in making disciples of thinking non-believers if you can't at least tell them you possess 100% certainty about the correct interpretation of scripture and doctrine? You have already asked them to take the gospel on faith and then are saying you aren't 100% sure about its correct interpretation if you say all christian denominations have doctrines that are faulty to some degree. The only way out of that is to maintain that precisely one of them which you belong to is 100% correct.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The Flying Spagetti Monster is the only true GOD.

If you have been touched by his holy appendage you would know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hail, fellow Pastafarian!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/FSM_himself.jpg

May His eternal grace ever shine upon us. Pray that his Noodly Appendage will touch all lost souls,

Ramen.

[Peter666]

"There's a difference between certainty and knowledge. There's a difference between subjective certainty and objective certainty. There's a difference between revealed certainty and the claimed certainty of human reason and authority."

And when revealed certainty gives the Church objective certainty in matters of Faith and Morals through its legitimate use of authority, the problem is solved. That is precisely what God did with the Catholic Church.

Without objective certainty, which is the direct intervention by God in the Holy Spirit, a religion is merely a philosophical belief that cannot assure us of supernatural beliefs with any guarantees. That makes it absolutely useless, as all religions except Catholicism are.

[Peter666]

"(the Pharisees), believed themselves to be 100% correct in doctrine."

Yeah, but the point is that they weren't. And neither are you.

"100% logical acceptance of doctrine is nice; but, it is only a blanket that temporarily succors the restless soul of man;"

It is much more than nice. It shows that it is in accordance with God's creation, hence with God Himself. If there is one single logical error within the religious doctrine, it cannot be from God, because God is perfect and will not make mistakes in His doctrine.

[ QUOTE ]
And when revealed certainty gives the Church objective certainty in matters of Faith and Morals through its legitimate use of authority, the problem is solved. That is precisely what God did with the Catholic Church.

Without objective certainty, which is the direct intervention by God in the Holy Spirit, a religion is merely a philosophical belief that cannot assure us of supernatural beliefs with any guarantees. That makes it absolutely useless, as all religions except Catholicism are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Priceless.

The Holy Ghost is proof of "objective certainty" and thus Catholicism is the only true religion.

The more you folks preach, the more you start to sound like the Hale Bopp cult.

Seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is one single logical error within the religious doctrine, it cannot be from God, because God is perfect and will not make mistakes in His doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, His mistakes in His creation are quite another matter, however.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Without objective certainty


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we define objective certainty differently.

[Peter666]

Anything coming from God is objectively certain. But this can only be believed by those who have the arbitrary grace of Faith, which you don't, sucker. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Anything coming from God is objectively certain. But this can only be believed by those who have the arbitrary grace of Faith, which you don't, sucker.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are no longer worth my time.

[Peter666]

When dealing with supernatural issues, I contend that it is impossible to be objectively certain about anything, unless it is made so by God.

Human beings by nature can only obtain to natural certainty. It requires a special grace to be certain about any supernatural truths.

[ QUOTE ]
Anything coming from God is objectively certain. But this can only be believed by those who have the arbitrary grace of Faith, which you don't, sucker. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, and "The Dude" says Nietzsche is *wrong* about christianity drowning reason.

[ QUOTE ]
It requires a special grace to be certain about any supernatural truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

"special grace" = abandonment of logical reason

Thank God he didn't touch me with his "special grace".

[Peter666]

Not at all. Nothing supernatural contradicts logic, it acts above it. This is because we are talking about Faith, a subject inherently unnatural that cannot be measured by human means.

So math, science and reasoning still apply. There is no contradiction between Faith and Reason. They are just limited to their own fields.

[Peter666]

I think this means I get my book, Sklansky. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
And just how are you going to be successful in making disciples of thinking non-believers if you can't at least tell them you possess 100% certainty about the correct interpretation of scripture and doctrine? You have already asked them to take the gospel on faith and then are saying you aren't 100% sure about its correct interpretation if you say all christian denominations have doctrines that are faulty to some degree. The only way out of that is to maintain that precisely one of them which you belong to is 100% correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's retarded. I think every major denomination has the BIG STUFF down straight:
-God created the earth and it's inhabitants
-All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
-we can find salvation through the blood of Christ
-God loves everybody, so we need to go to those people and tell them about God, and take care of them.

there are plenty of other doctrines that everybody argues about, sure. but, i don't think they are NEARLY as important as the stuff i mentioned above.

also, the Church is the Body of Christ. it is the ALL of the believers, not just one denomination's worth.

also, I DO believe there is an accessible method of accuracy
when it comes to interpretation of scripture. I think we have the Holy Spirit here to guide us. and the Spirit moves in mysterious ways. I cannot explain, or justify, or begin to guess at all that is at work through the power of the Holy Spirit. but I know god left us the Spirit to guide us while we are here on earth.

anyway, if you seek God out fervently, in prayer and wisdom and obedient faithful living in accordance with the life He has called you to, then I think God grants insight to scriptural interpretation to you when you seek it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Well I think you forgot some BIG STUFF that isn't down straight, i.e. agreed upon by all Christian denominations:

- Does man truly have free will or doesn't he?
- Are some men predestined to perdition without ever having had a minimanl opportunity for salvation?
- Can non-believers sincerely not believe (whether they ever heard it or not) in the gospel and yet be saved?
- and the BIGGEST: what is necessary to be saved?

And there is a difference between the Holy Spirit guiding an individual person in applying scripture to his own life's situation, and guiding or not one denomination in having a 100% correct interpretation.

My points above, about scriptural interpretation and BIG STUFF that is disagreed upon by various denominations, shows in fact what I said earlier that when you ask a non-believer to accept the gospel on faith, i.e. without 100% evidence, then you are also asking that non-believer to accept an interpretation of that gospel that you acknowlege also to be less than 100% sure, unless you maintain that precisely one denomination is 100% correct in its interpretation.