- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Christians who somehow thought it wasn’t Christianlike to vote for Trump
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:50 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:50 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'll stick with the Bible rather than man's traditions as my final authority.
the men who gave us the BIBLE? So you know how to interpret better than the men in THAT church? that is why we have over 30k denominations today. it is a huge shite sammich filled with heresy.
run back to the georgia board or wherever you came from jagoff.
1
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:58 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:God gave us the Bible. Men received it. This is a fundamental error of the RCCs and EOCs.
the men who gave us the BIBLE?
quote:I'm not better than anyone. I just read the Bible and it is clear to me how someone is saved, and that way doesn't line up with what the "Church" teaches. Do you know why? Because the "Church" isn't merely interpreting the Bible, they are making theological conclusions based on extra-biblical traditions.
So you know how to interpret better than the men in THAT church?
quote:Sin is why all division exists, but it's better to have division than be unified around error.
that is why we have over 30k denominations today.
quote:In certain denominations, yes, but I believe the same is true for the RCC and EOC.
it is a huge shite sammich filled with heresy.
quote:I'm sorry you are frustrated by this discussion, but there is no need for name calling.
run back to the georgia board or wherever you came from jagoff.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This is a fundamental error of the RCCs and EOCs.
The RCC and EOC wrote and assembled the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Protestant scholarship admits that without the RCC EOC the Bible would not have been written and assembled.
This is your fundamental error.
The Muslims hold that God dictated the Koran to Mohammed and M. wrote it down. That's not the way that the Christian Bible came to be. Your teaching is closer to the way that the Koran was received by man. It's a heresy.
The RCC EOC worked very hard for over a thousand years to assemble the New Testament. I know that you would like everybody to ignore that absolute truth and fact of history because you dislike the RCC EOC.
If the men of the Church never bothered to assemble, hand copy and preserve the New Testament, we would not have it today.
You can say it was all God's work but you conveniently ignore the Church's role because you really hate the RCC and EOC and you work to discredit both very endlessly and tirelessly here on Political Talk.
But we will be here to remind you of your error.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Men wrote, re-wrote, edited, copied, and redacted the books of the Bible. Men also argued, fought, and negotiated what they considered to be authoritative.
There, fixed it for ya.
quote:
and it is clear to me how someone is saved
It is objectively (I know you like that word) not clear, else there wouldn’t be 20,000 Christian denominations or whatever all arguing about what is “truth” and who is “saved”.
quote:
Sin is why all division exists, but it's better to have division than be unified around error.
No, it’s because it is a book filled with thousands of irreconcilable contradictions and all the groups develop their own dogmas and cherry pick their bibles to support their dogmas.
quote:
I'm sorry you are frustrated by this discussion, but there is no need for name calling
You’re a hypocrite and I’m glad others are calling you out. And I’m going to call you out for your knowledge that Anu created the world and Enki created mankind and you reject them, and you shake your fist at them - at your creator. You know they are real and you hate them.
This post was edited on 9/11/25 at 10:40 pm
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:17 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm not better than anyone. I just read the Bible and it is clear to me how someone is saved, and that way doesn't line up with what the "Church" teaches. Do you know why? Because the "Church" isn't merely interpreting the Bible, they are making theological conclusions based on extra-biblical traditions.
This is another lie that you repeat endlessly on Political Talk and you have repeated this lie here dozens of times for decades.
The Apostles learned directly from Jesus, and He handed-down practices, teachings and commands. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. What He handed down directly to the Apostles is the Word of God.
These practices, teachings and commands were absorbed by the Church years before any of the New Testament was written, and Centuries before it was assembled into an organized canon of books. When the Early Church followed what the Apostles handed-down directly from Jesus, they were following The Word of God. Christ did not leave a book. He formed a Church and handed down to that Church His entire message. None of His message was in writing until years after he Ascended to Heaven.
The EOC and RCC define what Christ directly handed-down to the Apostles as Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition existed before the written Word of God existed. The written Word of God is a product of Sacred Tradition, because it was handed down directly to the Church from the Apostles.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:22 pm to Champagne
quote:The Old Testament was written and received by the Jews without the NT Church. The New Testament was written by the Apostles or someone close to them through the guidance and preservation of the Holy Spirit. The NT Church received what God wrote through human authors.
The RCC and EOC wrote and assembled the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Protestant scholarship admits that without the RCC EOC the Bible would not have been written and assembled.
quote:That's a false accusation. I don't believe the Bible was written by one person or "dictated" by God word for word. Faithful men wrote God's word as they were carried along (inspired) by the Spirit. Once the last writing was completed, the canon was finished.
The Muslims hold that God dictated the Koran to Mohammed and M. wrote it down. That's not the way that the Christian Bible came to be. Your teaching is closer to the way that the Koran was received by man. It's a heresy.
quote:Most of the NT was already accepted by the Church long before any Council made any declaration about it. The Church received what God provided; she didn't create it, herself.
The RCC EOC worked very hard for over a thousand years to assemble the New Testament. I know that you would like everybody to ignore that absolute truth and fact of history because you dislike the RCC EOC.
quote:Yes, it's true that the Church received God's word and that God preserved it through the Church, however you are not talking about just the mechanism, but the authority of the Church. That's where we have a disagreement.
If the men of the Church never bothered to assemble, hand copy and preserve the New Testament, we would not have it today.
quote:I haven't ignored the Church's role. I've clarified it. Catholics in particular (but it seems like EOCs also speak this way) speak as if the Bible was created by the Church, and that if not for the Church's authority to determine Scripture, Scripture wouldn't even be here. Not only does that put the Church in the place of God in terms of authority, but it denies God's providential care to protect His own word, putting the emphasis on the creature that serves Him, instead.
You can say it was all God's work but you conveniently ignore the Church's role because you really hate the RCC and EOC and you work to discredit both very endlessly and tirelessly here on Political Talk.
And that's been a key irritation and aggravation to me about the RCC in particular: she continually places herself in the place of God.
quote:I know you will.
But we will be here to remind you of your error.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:29 pm to FooManChoo
Guys…I enjoy these theological debates quite a bit. However, given the true evil in the world can we as Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. all put these aside and fight the bigger fight? We’re all on the same team.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:07 am to FooManChoo
SOLA SCRIPTURA
Foo,
You put yourself in all kinds of illogical pretzels trying to hold onto what the Church has always considered a heresy.
I hope you take time to read this article, digest it and Lord have mercy on all of us.
Foo,
You put yourself in all kinds of illogical pretzels trying to hold onto what the Church has always considered a heresy.
I hope you take time to read this article, digest it and Lord have mercy on all of us.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 6:34 am to Champagne
quote:
This is another lie that you repeat endlessly on Political Talk and you have repeated this lie here dozens of times for decades.
That’s all Foo does. Lies.
quote:
The Apostles learned directly from Jesus, and He handed-down practices, teachings and commands. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. What He handed down directly to the Apostles is the Word of God. These practices, teachings and commands were absorbed by the Church years before any of the New Testament was written, and Centuries before it was assembled into an organized canon of books. When the Early Church followed what the Apostles handed-down directly from Jesus, they were following The Word of God. Christ did not leave a book. He formed a Church and handed down to that Church His entire message. None of His message was in writing until years after he Ascended to Heaven.
That’s a well thought out argument, Champagne. You know I don’t believe Jesus was divine or even existed, but if he did, this makes so much sense.
The church traditions existed before there were epistles and gospels. It is using this tradition - those beliefs about God and Jesus - that they were able to sift through over 50 gospels and select the ones that best fit their existing beliefs and traditions. Without church tradition, you wouldn’t even have any scriptures.
quote:
Sacred Tradition existed before the written Word of God existed. The written Word of God is a product of Sacred Tradition, because it was handed down directly to the Church from the Apostles.
Completely agree.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:08 am to TheDeerHunter
quote:I’ve read all sorts of anti-sola scriptura literature before, watched debates, and participated in online discussions about it for years. I’m familiar with all the arguments and talking points. My position is not based on ignorance of these things, however, out of respect, I read the link you provided.
SOLA SCRIPTURA
Foo,
You put yourself in all kinds of illogical pretzels trying to hold onto what the Church has always considered a heresy.
I hope you take time to read this article, digest it and Lord have mercy on all of us
I’m not going to respond to any of the arguments presented, as I’ve done a fair amount of that already, and would rather debate you and others here rather than an article that can’t provide a response. However I will make one observation about one of the opening statements:
quote:Since the issue is about authority and right interpretation, I’ll push back by saying that one large split occurred half a millennia prior to the Protestant Reformation over a disagreement with authority and interpretation, as I know you are deeply familiar with.
At some point, every Protestant with integrity must ask themselves why Protestantism has resulted in so many different groups who all claim to possess the correct interpretation of the Bible. If Protestantism and Sola Scriptura truly come from God, why can none of these groups agree on what the Bible says, or on something as basic as what it means to be Christian? How can they all claim to know what the Bible says, and yet not agree on what that is?
Regardless of whose side was right, the Church was still considered one organizational body until the East and West excommunicated each other. The primary drivers for this were authority and interpretation. The West claimed the Pope was the supreme head of the Church and the East saw the Patriarchs as equal in authority. The West also interpreted the Scriptures as showing that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, while the East interpreted it as the Father only.
Both saw the Church as the one functional authority, and yet the split occurred anyway, and with no higher standard to appeal to, the differences are not resolved even 1,000 years later.
In other words, appealing to the Church did not preserve unity, so the claim that appealing to Scripture creates division doesn’t move the needle for me.
That doesn’t even speak to other divisions in Church history, like the 3 concurrent Popes in Catholicism, even though they make the same principled appeal to unity through the Church.
Here I will need to refer back to a quote attributed to Martin Luther: “Peace if possible. Truth at all costs.”
His statement summarizes what I believe the Scriptures teach regarding seeking peace and unity if we can (Rom. 12:18), while realizing divisions are to be expected due to sin in the world (Matt. 10:34-36; 1 Cor. 11:19).
This post was edited on 9/12/25 at 9:30 am
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:18 am to FooManChoo
Thank you for reading and for the reasoned response.
You know I’m Orthodox and yet, you consistently bring in the errors of the Roman Church to give credence to Protestant innovations.
If you would like to show me how / where the Orthodox Church “gets it wrong”, then I will gladly engage you.
You know I’m Orthodox and yet, you consistently bring in the errors of the Roman Church to give credence to Protestant innovations.
If you would like to show me how / where the Orthodox Church “gets it wrong”, then I will gladly engage you.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 9:26 am to TheDeerHunter
quote:Sure thing. I don't shy away from a challenge to my faith, and I appreciate you taking the time to find something for me to look at. It was also helpful that it wasn't very long.
Thank you for reading and for the reasoned response.
quote:I do this for a few reasons, primary of which is that I'm simply more familiar with Catholicism, so it's a reference point that I can engage with.
You know I’m Orthodox and yet, you consistently bring in the errors of the Roman Church to give credence to Protestant innovations.
Secondly, there is a lot of overlap between the RCC and EOC. I know they are not the same and don't even have communion with one another, but both have similar presuppositions and teachings about authority (which is the primary discussion point for the last several pages).
Thirdly, I'm engaging with both Catholics and Orthodox in this thread, about the same subjects (which also highlights my second point). While I might be specifically responding to you, I know Champagne and other RCCs are reading and come out here and there to respond to me on the same issues, so I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone, in a sense.
I'll say that I'm trying to be careful to bring up distinctions where I feel necessary, so as not to accuse the EOC of something that the RCC does exclusively, or vice versa, but I'm imperfect so I don't always help myself by providing the necessary distinctions with enough clarity to satisfy everyone. I'd ask for some patience from you and others with me on this, as I really do know that you are not the same and I'm trying to respond in good faith, even if imperfectly. I'm happy to receive correction if I do get something wrong, though.
quote:While I'd be happy to engage with that (like the charged topic of the filioque), I'd rather stick to sola scriptura if possible, but I'm fine with going where you or others want to go with the topic.
If you would like to show me how / where the Orthodox Church “gets it wrong”, then I will gladly engage you.
This post was edited on 9/12/25 at 9:31 am
Posted on 9/12/25 at 9:42 am to FooManChoo
Sola Scriptura is a man proclaiming: "I will believe THIS part of Sacred Tradtion but not THAT part of Sacred Tradition." Sola Scriptura ignores Sacred Tradition that is not explicitly written down, and I contend that this is error.
The New Testament is a written product handed down directly from God to the Apostles to the parchment paper. All Sacred Tradition is handed down from The Word of God, Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to us - the Church.
Since the New Testament is handed down like all Sacred Tradition, the New Testament is, in fact and in Logic - a product handed down from God and thus is Sacred Tradition.
It is quite illogical and in error for any man to declare, "I shall focus on THIS Sacred Tradition and find a new theology, and I will condemn THAT Sacred Tradition because my new theological creation of mine requires that I edit out all Sacred Tradition that conflicts with this new theology that I have created myself."
And so I reiterate my opinion that it's dangerous for one to edit, cherry pick and choose on his own what is and what is not handed down directly from God to us. And I reiterate that the Jewish Faith, the RCC and EOC are in alignment on this issue of Sacred Tradtion including both written and orally handed down doctrine. It's the Protestants who stand alone on this matter in Judeo-Christianity.
I think I've chosen the right side, in my humble opinion.
The New Testament is a written product handed down directly from God to the Apostles to the parchment paper. All Sacred Tradition is handed down from The Word of God, Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to us - the Church.
Since the New Testament is handed down like all Sacred Tradition, the New Testament is, in fact and in Logic - a product handed down from God and thus is Sacred Tradition.
It is quite illogical and in error for any man to declare, "I shall focus on THIS Sacred Tradition and find a new theology, and I will condemn THAT Sacred Tradition because my new theological creation of mine requires that I edit out all Sacred Tradition that conflicts with this new theology that I have created myself."
And so I reiterate my opinion that it's dangerous for one to edit, cherry pick and choose on his own what is and what is not handed down directly from God to us. And I reiterate that the Jewish Faith, the RCC and EOC are in alignment on this issue of Sacred Tradtion including both written and orally handed down doctrine. It's the Protestants who stand alone on this matter in Judeo-Christianity.
I think I've chosen the right side, in my humble opinion.
This post was edited on 9/12/25 at 9:45 am
Posted on 9/12/25 at 9:45 am to Padme
I’m a Christian and I was not the biggest fan of Trump in 2016. I did not want Hillary in office though so I pulled the lever for Trump. I don’t personally like the man but I don’t really care about the “would you have a beer with him” test. Obama and Bush passed that test and they mostly sucked in office.
I voted for Trump in 2024 with enthusiasm.
And I so far I’m happy with most of the results. He’s redefining what people should expect out of politicians IMO. The days of promising the world but delivering nothing are hopefully behind us for a while.
I voted for Trump in 2024 with enthusiasm.
And I so far I’m happy with most of the results. He’s redefining what people should expect out of politicians IMO. The days of promising the world but delivering nothing are hopefully behind us for a while.
This post was edited on 9/12/25 at 9:47 am
Posted on 9/12/25 at 9:57 am to Champagne
quote:I'm reminded of the great philosopher, George Costanza, who once said, "it's not a lie if you believe it".
This is another lie that you repeat endlessly on Political Talk and you have repeated this lie here dozens of times for decades.
Obviously I'm saying that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I don't recall ever getting a satisfying response to my statement that shows that what I've said is untrue. I'm still waiting for that.
quote:Even if I were to agree with you that the extra-biblical traditions/practices that Jesus gave to the Apostles carry the same weight of authority for the Church universal as the written Scriptures, a big problem with this teaching is that we don't know what Jesus actually passed down to the Apostles; the full list wasn't preserved for us. There is no collated record anywhere, like we have with the Bible. There is no list of teachings that Clement says he received from Peter or Paul, or Ignatius from John. There is merely the assumption that if the Church developed a doctrine hundreds of years later, it was because it was Apostolic in origin, even if there is no evidence of it in history.
The Apostles learned directly from Jesus, and He handed-down practices, teachings and commands. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. What He handed down directly to the Apostles is the Word of God.
While RCCs in particular like to point to John 21:25 and the many teachings of Christ that were not written down, that verse speaks of so many teachings of what Jesus did (and taught, I presume) that there wouldn't be enough paper to write them all down (which I presume is John's meaning). And yet, those teachings and works of Christ were never written down, even by the disciples of the Apostles who supposedly learned about many of those things.
An additional point to consider is that the ECFs were not unanimous in their teaching and understanding of everything. You make it seem as though there is a singular line of transmission of Apostolic oral teaching that the whole Church received, agreed with, and taught unanimously, and yet that simply isn't what happened. There were all sorts of teachings with disagreements, such as on the use of icons in worship.
So while the Scriptures went unchanged from their completion until full and formal acceptance by the universal Church, the Scriptures were always there. The oral teachings of the Apostles weren't represented throughout all Church history, and there was much disagreement on what the teachings were until the controversies were settled hundreds of years later, (or nearly 2000 years later, with the Marian dogmas).
quote:God built a people for Himself (Israel), and yet He also gave that people His revelation through the Scriptures long after He created that people, and those Scriptures would form the ultimate standard of judging truth for that people, not the oral traditions handed down from Moses. In other words, God did not (originally) leave a book, but the book came later as the highest authority for the people.
These practices, teachings and commands were absorbed by the Church years before any of the New Testament was written, and Centuries before it was assembled into an organized canon of books. When the Early Church followed what the Apostles handed-down directly from Jesus, they were following The Word of God. Christ did not leave a book. He formed a Church and handed down to that Church His entire message. None of His message was in writing until years after he Ascended to Heaven.
The same is true for the NT Church. Christ taught His disciples, who would go on to teach the Church, handing down what was sufficient and necessary in their writings, which God preserved for the Church.
quote:And yet only the Scriptures are described as being "God-breathed". The example of the Scriptures, themselves, is that Jesus and the Apostles upheld Scripture as the ultimate standard for truth, not even the revered traditions of the fathers, like Moses. Jesus taught that the Pharisees sat on the chair of Moses (speaking to his authority), and yet they were not infallible in their traditions, nor were those traditions held as equal or superior to the word of God in the Scriptures.
The EOC and RCC define what Christ directly handed-down to the Apostles as Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition existed before the written Word of God existed. The written Word of God is a product of Sacred Tradition, because it was handed down directly to the Church from the Apostles.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 10:37 am to Champagne
quote:Yes, and that's a fundamental difference between Protestants and Catholics. We say that only the Scriptures have the quality of being "God-breathed", and therefore only the Scriptures have God's ultimate authority behind it above all other authorities.
Sola Scriptura is a man proclaiming: "I will believe THIS part of Sacred Tradtion but not THAT part of Sacred Tradition." Sola Scriptura ignores Sacred Tradition that is not explicitly written down, and I contend that this is error.
quote:The New Testament is everything that God handed down to us to be Scripture, of which nothing has been lost. Oral traditions were not written down and preserved, and therefore we can only guess as to what all those teachings from Jesus to the Apostles were. The RCC, instead, looks at developments that have occurred throughout Church history to assume they flowed from a single thread back to the Apostles. That's a big assumption, especially when the evidence is sparse or non-existent, but that's a fundamental presupposition.
The New Testament is a written product handed down directly from God to the Apostles to the parchment paper. All Sacred Tradition is handed down from The Word of God, Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to us - the Church.
quote:I won't argue there. I'd just point out again that the New Testament is authoritative because of its source from God as being God-breathed.
Since the New Testament is handed down like all Sacred Tradition, the New Testament is, in fact and in Logic - a product handed down from God and thus is Sacred Tradition.
quote:It's not illogical at all. It only seems that way based on your presupposition that even the oral teachings of the Apostles are equally authoritative as the written Scripture for the Church today.
It is quite illogical and in error for any man to declare, "I shall focus on THIS Sacred Tradition and find a new theology, and I will condemn THAT Sacred Tradition because my new theological creation of mine requires that I edit out all Sacred Tradition that conflicts with this new theology that I have created myself."
If I agreed with you that both the writings of Scripture and the traditions of the Church were equally God-breathed and equally authoritative, It would be irrational for me to arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe.
quote:I agree. At this point, it is the Protestant church (collectively) who stand alone in seeing the Scriptures as supreme in authority, and that's a shame, but not for the reason you think it is. I hope the RCC and EOC one day repents of this.
And so I reiterate my opinion that it's dangerous for one to edit, cherry pick and choose on his own what is and what is not handed down directly from God to us. And I reiterate that the Jewish Faith, the RCC and EOC are in alignment on this issue of Sacred Tradtion including both written and orally handed down doctrine. It's the Protestants who stand alone on this matter in Judeo-Christianity.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 5:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I hope the RCC and EOC one day repents of this.
We don't need to repent of anything, and, I think that I have provided ample material to demonstrate that my arguments are stronger than yours.
I think it's time for you to admit that it is possible that my side is right and your side is wrong. Can you admit that?
Posted on 9/13/25 at 7:31 am to Champagne
quote:Yes, they do.
We don't need to repent of anything
First and foremost is damning those who trust in Christ by faith alone as the basis for their justification.
Mind you, that doesn’t mean that such Christians do not do good works of obedience, but that they do not trust that those works add to their justification.
By your standard, I will be damned if I do not repent of not trusting in anything but Jesus Christ alone to save me from my sins, even though in many ways, I’m a better Christian (in terms of good works) than most RCs I’ve met.
There is a lot to repent for, but that’s the big one that keeps us separated.
quote:By what standard do you say that? Your own opinion? Of course you think your arguments are stronger, because you are already convinced they are right. Obviously I think the same way for the arguments I provide. Thinking you are right doesn’t mean your anrguments are stronger.
and, I think that I have provided ample material to demonstrate that my arguments are stronger than yours.
quote:I can admit that your side could be right, but only as an exercise in humility in recognizing that I’m not omniscient.
I think it's time for you to admit that it is possible that my side is right and your side is wrong. Can you admit that?
However, I can’t see how your side could be right if the Bible is understandable and true. For your side to be right overall, it would mean that the Bible is either untrustworthy or that it is so unclear that the Ethiopian eunuch and Bereans had no business reading the Scriptures themselves, because only infallible teachers can make heads or tails of it.
Could you admit that the Protestant position could be right?
This post was edited on 9/13/25 at 8:10 am
Page 26 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News