Nick Fuentes says don't read your bible, just listen to "clergy"
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Back in the day when I red the Bible I became a convinced atheist. Almost as if a person needs to read Scripture through a correct paradigm to come to a correct interpretation. I wonder what that paradigm is? Could it perhaps be the institution established by the One that speaks through the text? Nah, that's a man-made tradition. Just read it in your closet and you'll definitely get everything right on your own. Your interpretation will most likely align with what at least one of the 10000 different sects teaches out there.
Assuming any of them is the true Church (spoiler alert: it is not because history) 10000 to 1 for being correct is not that bad I guess.
There is no "true Church" other than the personal ministry of Jesus Christ himself; no other path. All men are fallible and so all the works of men are corrupt.
Yes, but the paradigm is simple: God is Good.
If you read the bible as though God is a fallible human who makes mistakes (or even that exists within space and time), and try to judge Him, you will find Him wanting because he doesn't do and say what you would do and say. You implicitely place yourself above God, hence atheism.
If you instead approach the matter as though everything God does is Good, and then try to understand why it's Good, you will come to the Truth.
Catholicism is great at "converting" Jews and Browns, but terrible at bringing people to God's Truth.
a) Men (plural) implies sum of one (singular) within all (singular).
b) All falls (inception towards death) so that each one within can rise (life).
God implies good implies everything doing...IS implies each thing trying to define everything to one another, which can't be good.
Aka con (together) vert (to turn)...a conflict. God delineates (inception towards death) apart (life)...a variance of opposing differences not in conflict with one another unless choosing to turn against one another.
No one believed this prior to Luther 15c. after Christ. Anyone who knows basic Church history can't be a Protestant.
Concentrate. The argument is that the Bible doesn't interpret itself - no text does. The question is what is the authority that holds the correct interpretation. The Pope, the Church - the group of "fallible men" that produced and compiled and kept unchanged the infallible Bible canon you appeal to - or individual faliable people (like you) who tend to disagree on what the text means because they come to it with their own theoretical baggage and assumptions. Only one of those will bring you to correct interpretation.
So? Appeal to (fallible) authority? I like to call this The Catholic Fallacy.
No earthly authority holds the correct interpretation. There is one Truth that none of us are privy to; all we can do is seek it. By seeking with the simple, and indisputable, assumption that God is Good, the bible can set you on the right path.
The Eastern Church would like a word...
Seriously, I don't think the bible is infallible either, being recorded and propagated by men. I'm not literalist by any means. The bible, to me, is a map that can set you in motion. It's still up to you to take the journey, and maybe go astray and find your way back, but the only infallible thing that we know of is God Himself and his creations. The only way to Truth is by putting yourself in alignment with God; no amount to interpretation will help you if you don't do that.
How about people who purposefully obfuscate the text so that they can claim the authority of God? Do they not have their own "baggage"? Do they not constantly make concessions to earthly powers to maintain their positions?
If I'm wrong (and, ultimately, I am) only I reap the consequences. I'm not misleading others for my own aggrandizement
So where was the Church hiding in the meantime?
Who of the millions of protestants reading the Bible is on the right path and holds the correct doctrines and how do you determine that if each person is their personal authority on interpretation.
So you're not even Sola Scripture guy? This is actually the muslim line of argumentation. What's the criteria that you use to discern which parts of the Bible are true? How do you know you're aligned with God and not in delusion? Based on feelz?
That's a tu quoque. Even if they do that doesn't help your case.
Not exactly. If you spread false teachings publicly and misleading others it's not just about you, regardless of your intentions which I believe are good.
Mennonites are Christians with a sound knowledge of the gospel, and a strong tradition of studying the Bible. They encourage everyone in their community to study scripture and pray.
If you look at their fruits, it's what you'd (well what I'd) expect. Strong communities with good family values. A proper understanding of the gospel is key, but you know what it comes down to more than anything? NOT ADDING TO IT. It's surprising how uncommon it is.
Look at all the cults that claim the name of Jesus (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) and what do they all do? They add new traditions, books, practices, prophets, requirements to scripture. Mennonites (and other faithful protestants) come to the same conclusion of the gospel message using scripture. No extra-biblical "revelations" needed.
SPELL (as in go-spel) implies the articulation of natural sound. Spelling implies the distortion of sound knowledge.
A contradiction in terms...every implies all; one implies each.
Another contradiction in terms...com (together) uni (apart from one another).
And yet suggested words are added to perceivable sound...
Inviolate worship of jews, even when directly confronted. Unfortunately.
They don't fight in the Jew's wars (join the US military). They live outside the system and have their own schools and build their own houses.
I'd say that's good enough.
Ah, you’re talking about the Amish, not Mennonites (for the most part). We don’t really associate with them beyond economically. They’re a psychotic cult that rapes their own children.
They also don’t fight back when they’re attacked.
Ones perception...not the suggestion by another.
Script/skribh - "to cut, separate, sift"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/script
All perceivable separating each ones perception from one another implies the natural script...if one reads the written scripture by another, then one is tempted to ignore analysis (perceivable moving through perception) for synthesis (consent holding onto suggested).
Inspiration implies natural script; information implies artificial script...only oneself can discern this.
Correct vs incorrect aka a conflict of reason implies an artificial script run by others within oneself from outside.
God was before free will of choice was given to choose correct or incorrect from one another.
Implies the one within all who articulates natural sound into speech to distract one another.
The line (inception towards death) differentiates each interpreter (life) from one another...aligning with one another implies death to interpretation.
Differentiation implies analysis; alignment implies synthesis.
Sincere question: If the Orthodox were the true church because the Pope excommunicated Patriarch Michael I in
10661054, why wouldn't the Greek Melkites be the true church after the Patriarch excommunicated Patriarch Cyril IV in 1724? Or more generally how do we know one branch is favored over another or whether both are favored differently?Your question makes no sense. What has the post-schismatic Pope excomunicating the Patriarch Michael I has to do with EO being the true Church? The Melkites are uniates and went to Rome. What's confusing you there? We know what the true Church is because it keeps the apostolic faith unchanged in line with the dogmas of the ecumenical councils and the Church fathers. This is why Rome defected when they introduced the filioque and papal supremacy which contradicted the teaching and structure of the Church of the first millenium.
What about all the other churches who say they do the same and that the other churches left them? See, I don't see that credential for Orthodoxy among the 10,000. The credential I do see is that they had the upper hand in
10661054 and they've been well-reserved ever since. The question's logic is that if Rome is out because it excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity, well I find that Constantinople also excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity in 1724. If Rome "defected" by adding filioque (and/or supremacy), then why excommunicate the Uniats when they might be part of God's purpose to reveal the resolution of filioque or supremacy to the Orthodox? Why would the Orthodox take such a firm position on it when they reserve judgment about other matters because (I understand) they don't have critical mass to call ecumenical councils anymore, or they don't out of politeness? Does semper idem forbid new councils?Because I know the logic of excommunication or of reservation shouldn't be determinative, I don't see what logic would be useful, and I just see the root (Jesus) and the branches (body members). I'm glad this takes the discussion to meatier matters that we're both more interested in.
Let's go one by one if you wish. I already did Rome. The Protestant sects don't even have apostolic succession and are ahistorical (where was the Church before Luther came)?
Did you read my reply at all? Rome's falling away has nothing to do with what happened in 1066. The schism was 12 years before that and the reasons for it go back centuries before that.
Because the Church's foremost mission is to keep the true faith intact. The Body of Christ can't tolerate falsehoods and contradictions.
Ecumenical councils were called for a good reason, namely to resolve pressing issues dealing with Church dogma and doctrines. If such an issue presents itself such a council can be called.