Adullam said:
You seem incapable of understanding anything that isn't rubber stamped or labeled so I leave you to your religion. Various groups go to the bible to cherry pick various delicacies they seek. It's biblical they say.
Add this to the "preaching" category in my last post.
Your arguments are too full of holes to comment on in detail...you miss anything that isn't of the most basic logic...
Add the sub-category of "arrogant"...
spiritual things are foolishness to the natural man, after all. We would need a translator.
More arrogant preaching.
I don't wish to argue much less with a closed minded individual.
Add the sub-sub-category of "ad-hom attacks".
These posts should be limited to a foot long at the most, I think, in any regard.
Add the sub-sub-sub-category of "pot calling the kettle black".
But I will state one obvious deflection you or someone else who uses your computer has made .
I thought you were done? Didn't you just say:
"Your arguments are too full of holes to comment on in detail."
And "I don't wish to argue much less with a closed minded individual."
Hummm.... I thought you were done "commenting", yet here you are COMMENTING. This SEEMS to be contradictory, but I could be wrong. Maybe I should launch into a contemptuous ad-hom rant instead of asking for clarification like a calm, rational Christian. I'll pretend like you did the latter and answer your SELECTIVE cut and paste job.
You said that you did not claim that creeds were authoritave. But you did...and I responded to it...then you deny you said it. How can anyone discuss with an arguer???? Arguers only seek to be right...they learn nothing. So you personify the creed mentality. How fitting! :nod
Dadof10 wrote ....And finally, if a person (you, for instance) says "I believe in Jesus" you are reciting a CREED. Here is the definition:
1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.
My response..
No creed taken out of the word is authoritave. This is where the system breaks down. Authority rests with the living God.
Your denial...
Agreed, but I never said otherwise.
Are you in politics???
My responses will be in black, yours in blue.
I asked in a previous post:
I can assume the answer to question 1 above is "nothing"? You agree with the THEOLOGY of the creeds but not the purpose? Is this correct?
In the next post you said “Correct!â€, which I assumed. This is my working hypothesis for what comes next. I am speaking here of
CREEDS IN GENERAL, which is why I used a small “câ€. If I were talking about specific creeds like the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, I would have used a capital “Câ€.
To your:
We should not short-circuit God's revelation to an individual. We cannot say...look...we already know the truth so you don't need to go to God ...just listen to us and say yes to whatever we say!
I responded:
First, no one is saying that to have a creed means we no longer "need to go to God ...just listen to us and say yes to whatever we say!". That's a classic straw-man argument. Again, the creeds are statements of faith. That's it.
Notice the “to have a creed…†and the small “câ€. I am speaking of creeds in general again.
Secondly, if the "revelation" goes directly against revealed Truth, it should be short-circuited, don't you think?
And finally, if a person (you, for instance) says "I believe in Jesus" you are reciting a CREED. Here is the definition:
1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.
Notice again, "you are reciting
a creed". Even though the entire word is capitalized for effect, the intention is obviously creeds in general because the instance is hypothetical.
The definition above is from dictionary.com and the RED “
doctrine†above (which you didn’t include in your last post)
WAS IN MY ORIGINAL POST and is the operative word. The RED “
doctrine†was the point of the definition, not the “authoritativeâ€, because I’m speaking of
CREEDS IN GENERAL, not specifically the three mentioned in the definition.
Some Creeds are authoritative to certain groups, and others are not. The point is that you believe that ALL creeds (small ‘câ€) somehow stifle the Holy Spirit. You have not even come close to proving this point. All you have done is point vaguely to "history" and the "Inquisition".
On the matter of authority, the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed are both taken directly from SCRIPTURE, which is where they get their authority. Please read that again. Churches (both Catholic and Protestant) who hold to the teaching of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, will agree that the authority comes from Scripture, not man.
If you would like to continue in this vein instead of quit, maybe you could shelf the straw-man arguments, ad-homs and preaching and deal with the points below, which you still haven't addressed.
1) You hold a creed. No matter what you believe, once it's verbalized or written, it becomes a creed.
2) Scripture holds some kind of authority to you (however you define "authority").
3) You hold beliefs that are totally contained within Scripture (I assume).
If Scripture says "we are justified by faith", and you believe that, you believe it on the AUTHORITY of Scripture. You have also just formulated a creed, which is backed by the authority of Scripture. Does this belief somehow stifle the Holy Spirit, or assist in His mission?
So, do you agree, at least in principle, that people can hold creeds that do not stifle the Holy Spirit?
Maybe next time you should simply ask for clarification, it'll b e a lot less abrasive. Someone here (Free, I think) has as a signature that says something like: If you can make any major religion look totally foolish, you probably haven't understood it. The same holds true for individuals, for the most part. I find, most of the time, that if something written seems way out there, simple clarification solves the problem. Something to think about for the future.
I think this is just under a foot. :P
Great point. Discussion over!!! 