Critique Time!

[Thackerie]

Drich! Listen! Nothing has to change...absolutely nothing! Do what you do best. Proclaim Jesus name the loudest. You don't have to bow down to no-one. I am with you. God Bless you my friend.

Oh, I thoroughly agree with this: You don't have to bow down to no-one.

When you worship your non-existant god, you are indeed bowing down to no one. But you don't have to.



(There's a reason why double negatives are a grammatical no-no.)

[robvalue]

Oh that is just a gut buster. Bowing down to no one! Ah hah hah! Flawless victory.

Seriously though, logic is good. Load up with logic. And evidence.

[Mudhammam]

what is my philosphy opposes the protestant notion, and how does it simultaneously embrace sola scriptura?

I can easily tell you why prima ecclesia is not valid. Because we do not have any command outside of the orginal church doctrine created hundreds of years after the NT was written that supports this notion. Meaning the church leadership want authority over what God allowed for in the bible.

I mean, simply, that I've never understood how Protestants such as yourself perceive a particular collection of writings as holding supremacy over and above the authority of popes, councils, and tradition, when it was only by the command and direction of those ecclesiastical offices and functions that the New Testament Canon was conceived and enforced.

[Godscreated]

I'm being juvenile? How so? I don't remember claiming to be really smart. I claim to be applying scepticism a lot, though.

Quite the contrary, atheism is very similar to growing up.

I'm very happy to have a sensible debate, anytime. But unsupported assertions are not part of a sensible debate. Neither are deception, logical fallacies or emotional manipulation. If you have something other than the above, I'd love to hear it. Or if you want to argue that any of the above should be part of a sensible debate, then present your case.

Will you accept as truth anything I say, without a good supporting argument and/or evidence? I hope not. So you shouldn't expect me to. Any standards you would apply to what I say you should apply to yourself.

For starters, calling someone juvenile but not saying why is a logical fallacy called ad hominem.

If you don't respect what I've said, then I'll either just label your fallacies or ignore your arguments completely as worthless.

Don't take it personally, the above applies to every apologist in the world.

The plural of incorrect is not correct, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

I wasn't speaking to anyone directly, nor was I applying it to you personally, calm down.

GC

---

Drich, keep up the good work. Being abrasive at times takes a bit of courage when you know what's following. It also shows we care enough to try and get the attention of those who are not listening.
God bless,

GC

Maybe if the god squad shut up once in a while the world would be a better place.

You don't care about any of us. You only care about your own ego and the brownie points you may get when you're dead with your invisible sky man. So let's not pretend you're here altruistically eh?

Are you claiming to read our hearts and thoughts, if so proof you can.

GC

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Maybe if the god squad shut up once in a while the world would be a better place.

You don't care about any of us. You only care about your own ego and the brownie points you may get when you're dead with your invisible sky man. So let's not pretend you're here altruistically eh?

Are you claiming to read our hearts and thoughts, if so proof you can.

GC

Haha, talking shite about 'proof' GC?

Dangerous territory for you considering the bollocks you usually come out with.

But nah, just calling it as I see it. You god squadders tend to have the biggest egos going. I'll repeat, you're here to massage it and nothing else. You just keep your religion to yourself and there'd be no problems. But you can't do that can you?

[Godscreated]

Are you claiming to read our hearts and thoughts, if so proof you can.

GC

Haha, talking shite about 'proof' GC?

Dangerous territory for you considering the bollocks you usually come out with.

But nah, just calling it as I see it. You god squadders tend to have the biggest egos going. I'll repeat, you're here to massage it and nothing else. You just keep your religion to yourself and there'd be no problems. But you can't do that can you?

My God has asked me to spread what I know is real, and I doubt you would accept the truth if it hit you in the face.

GC

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Haha, talking shite about 'proof' GC?

Dangerous territory for you considering the bollocks you usually come out with.

But nah, just calling it as I see it. You god squadders tend to have the biggest egos going. I'll repeat, you're here to massage it and nothing else. You just keep your religion to yourself and there'd be no problems. But you can't do that can you?

My God has asked me to spread what I know is real, and I doubt you would accept the truth if it hit you in the face.

GC

Depends on how coherent it was and how much it stood up to scrutiny.

When it comes to you and the rest of the god squad I take it that you're talking out of your arse as default and work back from there. Tend to discover more shit, though, as is expected.

What you know is real? I mean shit you think an imaginary man is guiding your life and giving you commands. Speaks volumes about what you know is 'real'.

[robvalue]

I would be very interested in how exactly God communicates with people.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Notice Drich hasn't answered my post. Either he's got me ignored, or can't make heads nor tails of my point and is afraid to ask.

[Drich]

You should quit telling people what they have or haven't done, and stick to those things you know.

Meh.

...and if I know what you have and have not done?

I didnot answer this because I thought the answer was selfevident.

---

what is my philosphy opposes the protestant notion, and how does it simultaneously embrace sola scriptura?

I can easily tell you why prima ecclesia is not valid. Because we do not have any command outside of the orginal church doctrine created hundreds of years after the NT was written that supports this notion. Meaning the church leadership want authority over what God allowed for in the bible.

I mean, simply, that I've never understood how Protestants such as yourself perceive a particular collection of writings as holding supremacy over and above the authority of popes, councils, and tradition, when it was only by the command and direction of those ecclesiastical offices and functions that the New Testament Canon was conceived and enforced.

But that's just it. "The ecclesiastical offices and functions" were never established with in the New Testament cannon. One can not worship the God of the bible with doctrine and traditions that God does not sanction in said bible. If catholic people want to worship the God of the pope then so be it. For me and mine we worship the God of the bible.

---

I would be very interested in how exactly God communicates with people.

Directly, and indirectly.

Angels, dreams, visions, the Holy Spirit, and the bible. God also uses people who know Him.