Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Yeah, next time, just make your point when your 'point' consists of nothing but "I believe that theology is only that religious thinking that holds Scripture and Scripture alone to be authority"
Not "theology", but "Christian theology". Islam can say what it wants about Allah. Surely you were intelligent enough to see I was saying that since the beginning. Every single post re evagelical/bible has been exactly that.
C'mon--now you're just being a stubborn bastard. If the entirety of the OP was devoid of the necessary information, how would reading it in its entirety make a difference?
Because I state my theological position thoroughly. I.e. evangelical - bible based.
If they define Christians as even something nonsensical as (1) trees or (2) people who follow Christ, and ask why Christians are against contraception, you can say "well, among whom you've labeled Christians, it's the ones who follow the Pope and call themselves Catholic that are; evangelical Reformed and trees are not.
It's true I could have presented my opinion while stating the Catholic position on every point. However, economy of time/patience made that nigh on impossible. Look at the timings on the posts.
Just because we don't agree what constellation of characteristics put someone inside or outside a group, that doesn't mean there can't be misconceptions about things like what those characteristics actually are and in what constellations you find them.
Even if we disagree on whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, we can still clear up each other's misconceptions on whether a tomato has a hard or soft skin, or if it's red or blue.
Definitely. However, the points where I was hard were points where you were describing an apple and calling it a tomato.
You need to be a little more flexible in your thinking about issues of viewpoints and taxonomy.
It's called liberalism and it rules the Western world. So no, I won't be flexible. However, a fair criticism is that I shouldn't have been so vitriolic in my differentiation between catholicism and evangelic christianity. I was pretty keen to clear the bibles name re. crusades, celibate priests, Mary etc as they were addressed.
A. You did not. You didn't stop at saying "it's Catholic heresy" you went further and said "it's Catholic heresy designed to create prolific Catholic congregations."
You disagree that it is heresy or that it was designed to create prolific congregations (looking at the time of invention and history of the church as a state - including military?)? I'm right on both accounts.
How exactly is telling people that Catholics are trying to take over the world by breeding faster than anyone necessary if you attempted to focus on theology? That's not theology OR church history. That's just prejudice.
No, it helps us understand God because we understand that he did NOT say "contraception is bad". I stated the reason for that teaching and the fact that it still exists in Catholicism as a hangover from a time in which it was strategically important to be prolific in every way. What would be prejudice is if I said "Catholics are all scum". I didn't. I just said "Catholicism isn't based on the bible" in a few different ways - non of which untruthful.
B. I said "what happened during the Reformation" not 'why did it happen'. There's a difference.
I'm lost. I don't see what difference this makes. Point is: bible is top priority and I'm showing that in every area I answered.
