Wotan, I do see your point. I'm not sure that you see mine, however. Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say which religion is the correct one. All religions disagree with the others on some point or another. Wars have been fought over them. I don't know which one is right, I just know how I feel. A few points:
As I have said many times the concept of Sola Scripture is heresy. I posted a link that goes into detail. The Bible does not stand alone. It stands on top of tradition. The 2 are not separate but form the rock of Orthodox theology.
Your point about who agrees with what is irrelevant. If the truth were as subjective as each individual interpretation then there in fact is no truth.
So you may be arrogant enough to assume that you can simple read the Bible and figure it out all in your own head but I if were a Christian I would have no more faith in your interpretation then I would in those snake handlers, Christian Indentists etc...
Wars have been fought by men who assumed they knew more then the traditions and scriptures have taught.
Tradition is constant since the beginning. Its lineage traces back through the Apostolic line to Christ. Luther begins at war with the Church over his interpretations. The foundation of the reformation is simple a rebellion against sacred tradition. Tradition that didn't begin with some Pope but was passed down from Christ.
The early Church had no Bible. How do you think they made it? Through oral traditions... its the height of human arrogance to assume you know more then you are capable of. This isn't an attack on your intelligence. I don't claim to know all the answers but as I said if I were to pick a Christian Theology it would be the one that has remained constant as rock not one that was molded by the hands and mind of every 'mini-Pope' who thinks he knows best.
Whether that be intolerant or not is irrelevant as well. Truth by definition can not be subjective.
Interesting line of thought, if somewhat ambiguous. Mine is probably no better... faith requires nothing more or less than itself. It has no prerequisite. How you GOT it is irrelevant. Yes, arguably, it's circular thinking, but to me it makes perfect sense.
The definition of faith:
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
Faith demands submission to the authority of another. Be it God or what ever.
My definition isn't 'interesting' it's accurate. Christ submitted himself to the Cross and to faith in his Father. You submit yourself to Christ by believing that it is his blood that will buy you salvation.
Faith is submission.
Yes. Precisely. Is anyone's intepretation flawless? Universal Truth... now that's one that could take years to discuss fully. In a nutshell: Truth, as humans know it, is subject to perception and interpretation. Example: you are presented with an Absolute Truth, but your perception of it is flawed because you yourself are flawed, therefore for you, the truth is imperfect, and no longer absolute. However, at least for yourself, it is still true.
As I have said if I were to adopt a Christian theology it would be one that traces its roots directly to Christ and one that has remained constant. I would not make it up on my own or rely on the made up ramblings of some other heretic.
I answered this in detail before:
I'm not singling anyone out here. Neither am I saying that ONLY Protestants have to be on guard against this pitfall. Anyone should, but it seems Protestants are the most reluctant to acknowledge this danger. Its like they read something, assume some interpretation, and that's the end of it. And if their interpretation happens to conflict with the traditional interpretation, well, then too bad for the traditional interpretation! Well, not all of them are that ego-centric, but this is the basis from which virtually every Protestant sects originated. Usually it was one man or a small group of persons, who adopted some innovative interpretation and then split-off from whatever group they were affiliated with and then created yet another sect. As if one more sect added to the hundreds already existing was what the world really needed.
All Protestantism pivots on this false idea. It must attack the real Church or else they have nothing, no legitimacy, nothing. Even the cults within Protestantism use the same tactic against earlier establish Protestant sects to establish their own legitimacy. But from the beginning it is a tactic based on a groundless premise.
Most all Protestant sects identify themselves either by their founder's name or some particular aspect of Christian doctrine which they have chosen to emphasize: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Russellites, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostal, Seven Day Adventists, etc. Each name in itself bespeaks a partial or man-made doctrine.
For example, Calvinism is just a doctrine according to John Calvin, not Jesus Christ. It presumes by its very name that nobody prior to 1500 knew what they were doing - an unbelievably arrogant and self-serving premise which essentially brands the all the great theologians, evangelists, and martyrs of Christianity as dimwits, fools, or liars.
So in short your 'Sola Scripture', interpretation carries far less weight.
The personalities in the Orthodox leadership may change but basic 'Theology' doesn't change on the whim of those personalities like it has historically with all the various Protestant sects.
You yourself claim to be 'enlightened' enough to have figured it out on your own. To me that is a sure sign of human arrogance.
The Bible, the Scriptures themselves, are indeed the wisdom of God, handed down through the ages by FLAWED humans. I find it unlikely that any modern translation of the Bible is actually 100% accurate. A philosopher might say that the correct interpretation is the one that helps you at the moment you read it, which of course will vary from moment to moment.
Either you have Faith in what you are reading or you don't. If you believe the Bible itself to be 'flawed' then wouldn't you expect your interpretations to be even more flawed? After all your foundation is already made of clay.
I have stated that Tradition along with Scripture are the rock. Interpretations of Scripture change with the whim person reading it. Traditions places Scripture in context and help guides you through some of the traps. Combined they form a 'Theology' that has remained constant and traces its origin to Christ.
Which one is right? You? Them? Catholics? Orthodox?
Do you admit that only one can be right?
If so then would you choose one that is in a state of constant change and adaptation or one that has remained constant through the test of time?
I can't tell you what to believe. That requires faith (submission) on your part. I can read what you say and decide for myself if I agree with you and I don't. So I reject your version easily enough.
Okay, fine, I agree. So which one was it that he sat at the head of? Don't they all make the same claim? (I'm actually asking, because I don't know about all of them, just a few.)
Who are 'all'? The Catholic Pope has descended directly from Peter. Peter was chosen by Christ to sit at the head of his Church. 'All' those others are in conflict with that and they all can't be right.
For more detail see Jaged's reply.
Originally, yes, but some religions, or at least some people within them, appear to take the tradition as being more important than the lesson it's supposed to teach, and that's where I have a problem.
This has been asked and answered many times:
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests.
The 2 go hand in hand.
Slightly less on topic, but I also have a problem with the term "Christian", because it implies the worship of Christ above God. Mind you, what other word for it could we use?
No it doesn't. First Christ mediates for you before God. This was the point of the cross. Christ paid the price for your sins. Christianity doesn't necessarily mean 'worship of Christ' ( all though Christ is God made flesh). Christianity simple means the followers of Christ. That you believe and have faith in his message and then its through him that you will find eternal life.
You and Nuke may share the same problem in applying 'literal definitions' to things mean so much more.
Given that you are not Christian, Wotan, I have to assume that you're something of a student of philosophy. If so, you should understand this core belief of mine quite plainly: wisdom is most meaningfully born from the union of disparate ideas, but this can only occur when an effort is made to truly understand that with which you do not agree. Pretty wild, huh? Wotan!
Wisdom doesn't manifest itself. Wisdom does not always equate to truth.
Self declared wisdom isn't really wisdom at all but arrogance. So people search for wisdom their entire lives and never really find it. The idea that you are or I or anyone can become wise relying just on our selves defies logic.
