But I'm still wondering how you have come to knowledge of Scripture itself, not just as axiomatic, but of the actual Scripture sitting in front of you.

Neil wrote:
"Your axiomatic view of Scripture is your means of knowledge, so it seems, that allows you to reject empirical science"
Not so. As my other posts on this subject should've made clear, I reject empiricism w/o appealing to Scripture at all.

Neil wrote:
BYNSE, I don't have to have an "idea of the means of knowledge" in order to reject empirical science as fallacious, so your question need not be answered. But Scripture is my axiomatic basis for all knowledge. This includes anything that can be logically deduced from it.

You've claimed consistently that any kind of inductive reasoning is fallacious. As such, scientific claims seem to fall into this category.

Neil wrote:
SJ John, I agree with your analysis. Even worse, many "conservative" Christians we've encountered do not seem to like their children that much, & can't wait for them to move out. Years ago, we were part of a typical "fellowship group" which usually arranged for childcare along with weekday social gatherings. We seemed to be the only ones who wanted to bring our children along.
Church youth programs are a symptom of this "jettison the kids" attitude, IMHO.

enough already wrote:
bysne- you could not be more wrong.

I fear that if I affirm or deny it, my statements or arguments will be judged according to biographical information rather than on the strength of the argument, or the truth or falsity of the proposition. Whether what I say is true or not doesn't depend on what faith I hold (if any), does it?

enough already wrote:
BYSNE- Are you a Roman Catholic or aren't you?

Michael Hranek wrote:
BYSNE
Doesn't matter if you "defend" the false religion of Roman Catholicism, essentially giving it your approval you make yourself a partipant in her evil deeds.

By the way, you have no idea if I'm part of the RCC. I've never claimed to be part of her.

Michael Hranek wrote:
BYSNE
I have observed the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church and other denominations too for that matter in regards to abortion.
That said, Is not the RCC supposedly famous for its "stand" against abortion?
Yet! It doesn't discipline political leaders who vote for it and make it "legal" does it.
Please understand I do not believe the RCC is actually Christian in the first place but an idolatrous deceitful counterfeit of Christianity so I would expect Catholics to do naturally what sinners do - sin without repentance against the Lord Jesus Christ they profess to believe in.
Now I know there are Catholics with all sorts of opinions many of whom disagree with the pro-Obama, sweep abortion under the rug Catholics, sweep horrible Church scandals under the rug leaders in the RCC so I have to ask.
Why, if you know there is so much wrong with the RCC do you continue to be a part of her?

I see now. It was a nice Autumn day in Oblivion. Thanks for asking.

Pikestaff wrote:
Old bones of dead sinners, relics, a myriad of iconolatry. You name it they venerate it instead of God and His Son. But thats the way of heresy, when it replaces the truth!!
Did you have a nice day in oblivion today?
Just look at the company these idolaters keep.
1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor IDOLATERS, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
May God help them to perceive the truth.

Pikestaff wrote:
"In the case of evangelical Christians, those are people who have very strong personal beliefs, they know the Bible very well, they are frequent churchgoers, and eventually they want to join an established church with deep, historical roots."
Terminology and its authentic definition is so important in debate today. Truly "Evangelical" Christians would never turn to the idolotrous practices of these old cults.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163896
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164445/page/1

The first article is by George Weigel, a devout Catholic who definitely does not downplay abortion. The second is a response to him by other Catholics. You can't make a generalization like you just did.

Michael Hranek wrote:
GG
Thanks for the "geography lesson" but no thanks as your precious Vatican is still part of Rome isn't it and Rome is still famous for its 7 hills.
But since you commented let me ask you a question since you are a self-proclaimed devote Roman Catholic, "What do you feel about Roman Catholic's down playing abortion, even the heinous murder of babies as they are being born in partial birth abortion, to endorse Obama?"

Ban the Cults from SA wrote:
I would have thought that if you come here to spout papist doctrine as if it were true,then you fit the bill

Berean wrote:
what a great idea guys!!BIG thumbs up!!
this nonsense has persisted for far too long
I've watched their foolish theology ripped apart time and time again on this forum,and they still don't get it!
Time for SA to shake the dust of their shoes and move on.....

Neil wrote:
"As for the Crusades, you apparently think Christendom should have surrendered to Islam."
Strawman, Lance. Opposition to the Crusades does not imply one prefers surrender to Islam, although for my part, I think medieval Islam might've been a bit more tolerant of Biblical Christianity than medieval Catholicism, which did not merely kill, but also tortured, in God's name.
The Crusades were a direct consequence of erroneous RCC ecclesiology & soteriology:
1) The use of violence to further the Catholic "Gospel," as opposed to John 18:36 & Matt. 28:19ff;
2) The belief that pilgrimages to "Holy Places" (Muslim hindrance of which were the ostensible reason for the Crusades) or any other such devotional acts (for the supposed remission of temporal punishment in Purgatory) could be of any merit before God.
It is all too easy for unbelievers to blame Protestants by association for the Crusades. We can only reply, "The RCC is anti-Christian, so the objection is irrelevant."
Too few people today realize that the Crusades were a perfect example of why theology indeed matters.

For your health, I would cut down to only 3 cups of coffee a day. While it was a fairly positive post, it definitely looks caffeine induced.

KK wrote:
The Vatican's statement is 100% TRUE !!!
The Democratic party is without a doubt a murderous "Party of Death" !!!
All else aside, it is good that the Vatican’s statement is a timely one !!! -- There are many Catholics throughout America and we should all pray that those who are staunch Democrats and those who are entertaining the idea of voting the Democratic ticket will hear the Vatican's call and be convicted by that TRUTH !!!

Yes, I think you mean "Schoolmen". Socrates and Plato were dealing with Sophists, although there are sophists in every age.

Neil wrote:
BYSNE,
When the Reformers contradicted the "Sophists" (I may be confusing the term with "Schoolmen"), as in Calvin's Institutes & Commentaries, and in Luther's "Bondage of the Will", they often weren't specific except in Thomas's case. So I can't be more specific, either.
Sample from Calvin: "Nor let us be detained by the subtlety of Thomas, that the foreknowledge of merit is the cause of predestination..."
It might be an audio lecture wherein Clark refutes the Tel. Argument, but I don't remember which one. I think he repeats Hume's critique (q.v.) of Paley's arguments.