NationStates

The title. Primarily aimed at Christians. Non-Christians can weigh in. I expect civilized debate to occur.

Everyone respect each other!

Now, my opinion:

I'm Catholic, I disagree with it.

I have a few arguments against the doctrine:

First of all, it contradicts itself. The Bible does not say you may only use the Bible. Since sola scriptura is often used to say "You should not do this because it is not in the Bible," either this is valid or the most common application of sola scriptura is invalid. Either case does not help sola scriptura.

Second, the Bible embraces the Papacy. "You are Peter, and on this Rock I shall build my Church." He also then says that "You," which unambiguously refers to Peter, has the keys to the kingdom. The Papacy does not support sola scriptura. Ergo, sola scriptura is not true.

Third, it doesn't define what Scripture actually is. That would be the Council of Trent. So, then the Council of Trent would also be infallible. Why? Why wouldn't God extend that protection to other councils? One of which approved Papal infallibility?

First reply, and I'm a godless heathen! This might be fun.

Back when I was a Catholic, I didn't believe in Sola Scriptura - I was a Catholic.

Now that I'm not a Christian, I adopt the stance of "Ne Scriptura."

I’m Catholic so I disagree with Sola Scriptura, considering it’s quite contradictory with the Bible not saying it’s the only source for Christian knowledge, and that the Bible embraces the Papacy.

Religious people say: The scriptures were divinely inspired by God.

I say: But the Bible is a collection of disparate works and for every book that is in the Bible, there are several written by apostles and prophets that were rejected.

The religious reply: God divinely inspired the people to curate the right books for the Bible and leave out the wrong ones.

And at this point I have to ask, with all this divine inspiration going on, who's to say the Pope hasn't been divinely inspired to speak the truth of God's word? Who's to say that theology posted on internet forums isn't every bit as divinely inspired as scripture?

I'm an atheist, I don't got a dog in this fight, but Sola Scriptura is pretty silly when you realize the circular reasoning: How do we know scripture is true? Because it's divinely inspired. How do we know it's divinely inspired? Because scripture says so.

obviously page has been divinely inspired to make that post.

Probably belongs in the Christian Thread, but since we're here:
It's difficult to take seriously if you are passingly familiar with Biblical scholarship. Sometimes too much is made of the "problems" with scripture. It is something that Christians have worked very hard to research and refine. And they deserve quite a bit of credit for that. But at the same time, there are instances where something got randomly penned into the margins, or something, and then got included in later Bibles, and that sort of sinks the idea of Sola Scriptura.

It will never totally replace fossil fuel scriptura.

Page wrote:Religious people say: The scriptures were divinely inspired by God.

I say: But the Bible is a collection of disparate works and for every book that is in the Bible, there are several written by apostles and prophets that were rejected.

The religious reply: God divinely inspired the people to curate the right books for the Bible and leave out the wrong ones.

And at this point I have to ask, with all this divine inspiration going on, who's to say the Pope hasn't been divinely inspired to speak the truth of God's word? Who's to say that theology posted on internet forums isn't every bit as divinely inspired as scripture?

I'm an atheist, I don't got a dog in this fight, but Sola Scriptura is pretty silly when you realize the circular reasoning: How do we know scripture is true? Because it's divinely inspired. How do we know it's divinely inspired? Because scripture says so.

considering that god does sometimes have a sense of humour he probably decided to arbitrarily leave some books out just to mess with people

It’s about as wack as the rest of the religion, or frankly all religions in general.

North Cromch wrote:

Page wrote:Religious people say: The scriptures were divinely inspired by God.

I say: But the Bible is a collection of disparate works and for every book that is in the Bible, there are several written by apostles and prophets that were rejected.

The religious reply: God divinely inspired the people to curate the right books for the Bible and leave out the wrong ones.

And at this point I have to ask, with all this divine inspiration going on, who's to say the Pope hasn't been divinely inspired to speak the truth of God's word? Who's to say that theology posted on internet forums isn't every bit as divinely inspired as scripture?

I'm an atheist, I don't got a dog in this fight, but Sola Scriptura is pretty silly when you realize the circular reasoning: How do we know scripture is true? Because it's divinely inspired. How do we know it's divinely inspired? Because scripture says so.

considering that god does sometimes have a sense of humour he probably decided to arbitrarily leave some books out just to mess with people

God decided to prank mohammed (pbuh) and the crusades were an unintended side effect

If the Bible isn't the sole source of Christian doctrine, then what is? Is there something equal to the Bible in the eyes of Christians? If so, what makes it as important as the Bible?

Hispida wrote:

North Cromch wrote:considering that god does sometimes have a sense of humour he probably decided to arbitrarily leave some books out just to mess with people

God decided to prank mohammed (pbuh) and the crusades were an unintended side effect

I'd say something about this but I might start another crusade.

I prefer the Iliad and Odyssey myself. The Greeks were a better class of Deity than Yahweh. Just my take. Or the Aesir or the Egyptians.

Should we add a Poll? Suggested answers:

• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is the only authority on religious truth
• In cases of conflict, Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) overrules other sources of religious truth
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is just as important as tradition/central authority
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is still important, but tradition and central authority matter more
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) has no special weight at all
• I am not part of a religion with an equivalent to Scripture, so I have no need to value it
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) only matters when it aligns with my views.
• Fossil Fuel Scriptura is better than Sola Scriptura
• Other(explain)

I, myself, as a Catholic, don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura itself is quite contradictory to the Bible, which doesn't say that you may only use the Bible.

A m e n r i a wrote:If the Bible isn't the sole source of Christian doctrine, then what is? Is there something equal to the Bible in the eyes of Christians? If so, what makes it as important as the Bible?

Hispida wrote:God decided to prank mohammed (pbuh) and the crusades were an unintended side effect

I'd say something about this but I might start another crusade.

The Papacy

Juansonia wrote:Should we add a Poll? Suggested answers:

• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is the only authority on religious truth
• In cases of conflict, Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) overrules other sources of religious truth
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is just as important as tradition/central authority
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is still important, but tradition and central authority matter more
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) has no special weight at all
• I am not part of a religion with an equivalent to Scripture, so I have no need to value it
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) only matters when it aligns with my views.
• Fossil Fuel Scriptura is better than Sola Scriptura
• Other(explain)

Fossil Fuel Scriptura?

Vikanias wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:If the Bible isn't the sole source of Christian doctrine, then what is? Is there something equal to the Bible in the eyes of Christians? If so, what makes it as important as the Bible?



I'd say something about this but I might start another crusade.

The Papacy

So every single Christian is obliged to follow the Pope without question?

A m e n r i a wrote:

Vikanias wrote:
The Papacy

So every single Christian is obliged to follow the Pope without question?

That’s not what I meant at all, I just answered the part where you said ‘is there something equal to the Bible in the eyes of Christians’ which since I am a Catholic is the Papacy. Christianity is a wide net with hundreds of sects, so saying Christianity as a whole can see one thing as equal to the Bible isn’t possible, there are very few things all major denominations of Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism) agree on, and that was just my view on something equal to the Bible, which I think is the Papacy.

It's lazy.

Vikanias wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:
So every single Christian is obliged to follow the Pope without question?

That’s not what I meant at all, I just answered the part where you said ‘is there something equal to the Bible in the eyes of Christians’ which since I am a Catholic is the Papacy. Christianity is a wide net with hundreds of sects, so saying Christianity as a whole can see one thing as equal to the Bible isn’t possible, there are very few things all major denominations of Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism) agree on, and that was just my view on something equal to the Bible, which I think is the Papacy.

I see, thank you

If you tried to read the Vedas as sola scriptura you'd be in for quite a headache, as well as committing a major sin (the Vedas are only to be learned through a teacher).

Having been raised as a Catholic, and more importantly having lost an uncle to fundamentalist millenarian lunatics, I think sola scriptura as a concept is downright silly. Literalism is folly given that many Bible stories like the fables of Jesus or the prophet Jonah were understood even in their time to have been allegorical in nature. And confining theology solely to what is written in the Bible leaves no room for any of the theology to have come after it, like the influential works of Thomas Aquinas. The world would be far less bright for Christians if we burned on the pyre all possibility for deduction, evaluation, and reason on the premise that there can be no interpretation of the book but the book itself.

Page wrote:Religious people say: The scriptures were divinely inspired by God.

I say: But the Bible is a collection of disparate works and for every book that is in the Bible, there are several written by apostles and prophets that were rejected.

The religious reply: God divinely inspired the people to curate the right books for the Bible and leave out the wrong ones.

And at this point I have to ask, with all this divine inspiration going on, who's to say the Pope hasn't been divinely inspired to speak the truth of God's word? Who's to say that theology posted on internet forums isn't every bit as divinely inspired as scripture?

I'm an atheist, I don't got a dog in this fight, but Sola Scriptura is pretty silly when you realize the circular reasoning: How do we know scripture is true? Because it's divinely inspired. How do we know it's divinely inspired? Because scripture says so.

What's funnier is that it doesn't actually say so (except Revelation, I guess). A Church council said so.

A m e n r i a wrote:

Vikanias wrote:
That’s not what I meant at all, I just answered the part where you said ‘is there something equal to the Bible in the eyes of Christians’ which since I am a Catholic is the Papacy. Christianity is a wide net with hundreds of sects, so saying Christianity as a whole can see one thing as equal to the Bible isn’t possible, there are very few things all major denominations of Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism) agree on, and that was just my view on something equal to the Bible, which I think is the Papacy.

I see, thank you

To elaborate, one thing people sometimes miss with Papal Infallibility is that it applies to teachings, not actions. Popes can sin, and they can issue sinful commands. They just cannot lead the Church into error.

El Lazaro wrote:

Juansonia wrote:Should we add a Poll? Suggested answers:

• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is the only authority on religious truth
• In cases of conflict, Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) overrules other sources of religious truth
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is just as important as tradition/central authority
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) is still important, but tradition and central authority matter more
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) has no special weight at all
• I am not part of a religion with an equivalent to Scripture, so I have no need to value it
• Scripture (or my religion's equivalent) only matters when it aligns with my views.
• Fossil Fuel Scriptura is better than Sola Scriptura
• Other(explain)

Fossil Fuel Scriptura?

It's a pun on Sola(r) Scriptura, first used in this thread by Emotional Support Crocodile.