Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Thekla]

It's SELF alone declaring what God did or said (with SELF ALONE designating self alone as the SOLE one to interpret what is in the heart of self alone and then appointing self alone as the arbiter for correctness of the intepretations of self alone of what is in the 'heart' of self alone to support the claim of self alone for self alone). Yes, self alone claims it for self alone, then self alone uses such as a perfect circle. Studied any of the cults? Studied the early LDS?

Interesting - I've never read that the RCC is considered a "cult" in any professional or academic writings on "cults". Have you ?

 

[sunlover1]

then why is there so many disagrements on doctrine?

Right. If God implanted doctrines into us, He'd implant the same in each.
And wouldn't that have been just so much simpler

But He chose to let us use our own minds, bless God!

 

[Montalban]

I've always believed that God implants doctrine into us. We know what's true because we have Holy Spirit.

Then why are you disagreeing with me? I have the truth given to me by the Holy Spirit!

 

[BloodyRachel]

Then why are you disagreeing with me? I have the truth given to me by the Holy Spirit!

The Holy Spirit gives all truth. Therefore, we can't BOTH have the Holy Spirit. God isn't the author of confusion. If a prophet tells us to follow foreign gods, we don't listen.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The Holy Spirit gives all truth. Therefore, we can't BOTH have the Holy Spirit. God isn't the author of confusion. If a prophet tells us to follow foreign gods, we don't listen.

Now if I'm understanding you correctly, you are claiming to 1. Have the Holy Spirit which 2.cannot inhabit both you and someone with whom you disagree therefore 3. I do not have the Holy Spirit.

Did I miss anything?
Please ask the Holy Spirit for me.
Thanks.

I'm just going to go sacrifice to Molech now.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It's SELF alone declaring what God did or said (with SELF ALONE designating self alone as the SOLE one to interpret what is in the heart of self alone and then appointing self alone as the arbiter for correctness of the intepretations of self alone of what is in the 'heart' of self alone to support the claim of self alone for self alone). Yes, self alone claims it for self alone, then self alone uses such as a perfect circle. Studied any of the cults? Studied the early LDS?

Interesting - I've never read that the RCC is considered a "cult" in any professional or academic writings on "cults". Have you ?

If you read what you quoted, your question and confusion will both vanish.

Then perhaps you might consider responding to what is posted?






.

 

[BloodyRachel]

Now if I'm understanding you correctly, you are claiming to 1. Have the Holy Spirit which 2.cannot inhabit both you and someone with whom you disagree therefore 3. I do not have the Holy Spirit.

Did I miss anything?
Please ask the Holy Spirit for me.
Thanks.

I'm just going to go sacrifice to Molech now.

I don't think I said WHO has the Holy Spirit. I just said not everyone can have him. That's true if people disagree about really important topics.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It's SELF alone declaring what God did or said (with SELF ALONE designating self alone as the SOLE one to interpret what is in the heart of self alone and then appointing self alone as the arbiter for correctness of the intepretations of self alone of what is in the 'heart' of self alone to support the claim of self alone for self alone). Yes, self alone claims it for self alone, then self alone uses such as a perfect circle. Studied any of the cults? Studied the early LDS?

If I told you that my employer appointed me to be a service technician, it's not me appointing myself.

Actually, it's YOU exclusively CLAIMING something for YOU exclusively.

I disagree with you that if self alone claims remarkable things for self alone, ergo much is from God.





.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

If you read what you quoted, your question and confusion will both vanish.

Then perhaps you might consider responding to what is posted?






.

I read it the same way. Your constant guilt-by-association fallacy is transparent, CJ.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I don't think I said WHO has the Holy Spirit. I just said not everyone can have him. That's true if people disagree about really important topics.

Therefore, since we disagree "on really important topics," one of us is an impostor.
Cool.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Actually, it's YOU exclusively CLAIMING something for YOU exclusively.

Now, if you had some written document from that employer, that would be different. The document we have from God is called His "Scripture" and as we all know, it never once so much as even MENTIONS the RCC or LDS or any other denomination (at all, for anything, regarding anything).

I disagree with you that if self alone claims remarkable things for self alone, ergo much is from God.
.

And the bible never authorizes itself in the sense of its contents.
Plenty of 'non-canonical' scripture purports the same things as does John's Apocalypse and Luke's Gospel.
Your argument is broken.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Therefore, since we disagree "on really important topics," one of us is an impostor.
Cool.

Thus, your rubric is rejected by you: self alone agreeing with self alone does NOT indicate that self alone is correct and is infallibly "preserving" what was correctly taught in the First Century.... It's possible to be WRONG - in spite of sincerity and passion. Thus, your rubric falls. It's just that self can designate self as immune to what self accuses everyone else of - but such ego doesn't imply correctness, either.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I told you that my employer appointed me to be a service technician, it's not me appointing myself.

No. It's YOU claiming something for yourself. That's it. That's all.

Your argument is broken.

Okay. I alone say that I alone am infallible and sinless. Ergo, I am?

If self claims whatever for self, ergo God agrees and it is indisputably so?

Are you embracing a radical form of "name it, claim it?"

Or perhaps considering Mormonism?



.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Okay. I alone say that I alone am infallible and sinless. Ergo, I am?

If self claims whatever for self, ergo God agrees and it is indisputably so?

Only if self has the authority from God to speak in such a way. You know, like how Paul writes 'this is a true saying', and it's true, because he has that inspired and infallible authority.

Are you embracing a radical form of "name it, claim it?"

Or perhaps considering Mormonism?

Ha, ha.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I told you that my employer appointed me to be a service technician, it's not me appointing myself.

No. It's YOU claiming something for yourself. That's it. That's all.

Only if self has the authority from God to speak in such a way.

... according to the claim of self for self.


Could you specifically quote God where he specifically gives you such "authority" to speak for Him?


Are you promoting your own radical form of "name it/claim it?" OR are you insisting that because the LDS claims much for the LDS alone, ergo all such is true?





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

OR are you insisting that because the LDS claims much for the LDS alone, ergo all such is true?

You just quoted the answer in your very post.

"Only if self (LDS) has the authority from God to speak in such a way."

...and I don't believe LDS has that authority.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I told you that my employer appointed me to be a service technician, it's not me appointing myself.

No. It's YOU claiming something for yourself. That's it. That's all.

Only if self has the authority from God to speak in such a way.

... according to the claim of self for self.

...and I don't believe LDS has that authority.

Of course, they do claim it - and believe it. And your rubric for evaluating such is what SELF alone claims for SELF alone. Truth is, NEITHER of you were ever promised, authorized, or exempted of or from ANYTHING. By Jesus, by any Apostle. None of them so much as even MENTIONED either of you - even once. For anything, about anything, concerning anything - even just completely in passing. It's EXACTLY as you stated: SELF alone claiming huge stuff for SELF alone. That's it. That's all.




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Of course, they do claim it - and believe it.

Good for them?

And your rubric for evaluating such is what SELF alone claims for SELF alone.

It's not that simple.

Truth is, NEITHER of you were ever promised, authorized, or exempted of or from ANYTHING. By Jesus, by any Apostle. None of them so much as even MENTIONED either of you - even once. For anything, about anything, concerning anything - even just completely in passing. It's EXACTLY as you stated: SELF alone claiming huge stuff for SELF alone. That's it. That's all.

Well, that's what you believe. I believe otherwise. So when you say 'truth is', I disagree -- 'truth isn't.'

Have you figured out what Scripture is yet so I can try to propose something more or equally inspired/reliable/authoritative/etc.?

And can't written things be forged/altered/destroyed? How is that so reliable?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I told you that my employer appointed me to be a service technician, it's not me appointing myself.

No. It's YOU claiming something for yourself. That's it. That's all.

It's not that simple.

Bingo.

Thus the fundamental flaw in your "name it/claim it" rubric, this concept of yours that if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true. And ergo self alone declaring that self alone is "the best method of preserving dogma."






.

 

[sunlover1]

And can't written things be forged/altered/destroyed? How is that so reliable?

Forgeries?

Who would do that?