ARGH! It's happening again:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=366057#post366057
Apparently, the people who don't see things which a specific person feels are obvious are *actually not Christians*.
So, for instance, if I think that the text in 1 Romans 26-27 about "men with men" may have been a reference to Roman pagan rituals, and I'm not sure how it applies to other things, that means I'm *not a Christian*.
If I don't think that it's *CLEAR* - not just possible to observe, but *CLEAR* - that the Bible has always been firmly against slavery as it was practiced through most of the last two thousand years, that means I must not be a Christian, because *I* don't have the Holy Spirit guiding me in interpreting the Bible; we can tell this because I don't come to the "right" answers sometimes.
Clearly, I've had it wrong. I always thought we were supposed to pray, and contemplate, and seek God's will, and do so with an eye to the possible errors of those who came before us, lest we fall into their mistakes. But no; if I were a *REAL* Christian, the Holy Spirit would guide me, and I wouldn't "twist Scriptures", and I'd get the right answers immediately, and never have doubts.
!@*#*!@#*.
I like Catholics. I may disagree with you guys on some things, but at least your model of things allows for the possibility that I could have faith and seek truth, without being obliged to immediately come to the same answers as the Church every time.
I particularly like that I'm not Christian according to the "historical" definition. Wouldn't the "historical" definition of Christian include accepting transubstantiation? Do you think the guy pointing out that I'm not Christian, and therefore my attempts to understand Scripture are as irrelevant as those of any of the atheists (who, after all, cannot be scholars, because only Christians can read foreign languages), accepts transubstantiation?
!@*#!*@#.
Fuss fuss fuss.
...
Oh, dear.
I hope nothing in here needed to be *KEPT* cold.