/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15196790]

>Sola Scriptura
Hey Protestants, what if the Devil quotes the Scriptura?

[Anonymous No.15196793]

>>15196790
Nothing changes, Protestants still go to hell and all is right with the afterlife.

[Anonymous No.15196798]

Protestantism is theological liberalism.

[Anonymous No.15197032]

i want to fuck gaston desu

[Anonymous No.15197185]

>>15197032
Gaston fucks you kid

[Anonymous No.15197192]

>>15196790
It's still the scripture. If the Devil quotes it do you think that makes it false?

[Anonymous No.15197260]

>>15197192
The Scriptura or the interpretation?

[Anonymous No.15197841]

>>15196790
>what if the Devil quotes the Scriptura?

can't. if the devil touches a bible his hands catch fire

even more, i mean

[Anonymous No.15197912]

>>15196790
I'll just ask him to repeat it in red

[Anonymous No.15198157]

>>15196790
You mean exactly like he did while Jesus was fasting for 40 days?

Read the Bible before posting retarded shit

[Anonymous No.15198318]

>>15198157
So are you telling me that the Devil supports the same doctrines than the Protestants? The Devil was in his right to interpret the scriptura regardless of the rabbinical authority just as protestant is in his right to interpret regardless of the Church's authority on the matter.

[Anonymous No.15198330]

>christcucks

[Anonymous No.15198343]

>>15198330
Imagine not worshipping YHWH aka the Mightiest Being on the Whole Creation. Sad!

[Anonymous No.15198634]

>>15198330
Based.

[Anonymous No.15198650]

>>15198318
You can't criticize his right to interpret scripture... We should be more openminded

[Anonymous No.15198671]

>>15198318
I mean of course anyone can interpret anything however they want. Most of those interpretations are wrong but it's not because a central authority says so it's because they are wrong not correct. Otherwise you fall into relativism with might makes right on top

[Anonymous No.15198715]

>>15198671
>because they are wrong
how can you tell?

[Anonymous No.15198730]

>>15198715
Again what you're arguing here is relativism and that there is no objective truth. Some authority giving a subjective opinion is not the objective truth. Do you believe in objective truth and that human beings can access it?

[Anonymous No.15198747]

>>15198730
>Some authority giving a subjective opinion is not the objective truth
How do you know it's subjective? Do you own the Truth? Let me guess, your opinion is objective

[Anonymous No.15198769]

>>15198671
So you admit that the Devil was doing the correct thing when citing the Bible to Jesus.

[Anonymous No.15198781]

>>15198730
>what you're arguing here is relativism
i'm arguing that you're the relativist bugman by not recognizing an objective authority which interprets scripture.

[Anonymous No.15198782]

>>15196793
what about catholic priests molesting kids?
do they go to heaven?

[Anonymous No.15198789]

>>15198781
>objective authority
You realize this is a contradiction right? Objective means independent of any subjective opinion. It doesn't mean deriving from a central authority. Is 2+2=4 because a math priest said it was?

[Anonymous No.15198828]

@15198789
>>objective authority
>You realize this is a contradiction right?
is Christ not an objective authority? would you distrust him if you were standing in a synagogue where he was interpreting scripture?

[Anonymous No.15198837]

>>15198828
I mean that's the next step right? I'm not a Christian I'm an atheist and you've hit the nail on the head. God's opinions are just as subjective as mine he is not an objective authority because an objective authority is a contradiction in terms. See Hume's is/ought distinction:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason

[Anonymous No.15198842]

>>15198837
>I'm an atheist
>See Hume's is/ought distinction:

[Anonymous No.15198848]

>>15198842
But he came up with that himself I'm just agreeing with him

[Anonymous No.15198855]

>>15198837
>he does not directly perceive the logoi of all objects, both created and uncreated

[Anonymous No.15198881]

>>15198837
>I mean that's the next step right
Next step into the abyss as a logical conclusion of your false position.

[Anonymous No.15198883]

>>15198782
no, there are kids there

[Anonymous No.15198888]

>>15198881
But it is the logical conclusion. Now you have to show how someones opinion can be objective and not subjective. Or at least define objective and subjective

[Anonymous No.15198899]

@15198888
>But it is the logical conclusion
Starting from a false bugman premise, anything is logical and true.
>define objective
Define "define".

[Anonymous No.15198919]

>>15198899
You're kidding right. Here is what google says to get you started I understand that your definition made be different.

Objective
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

[Anonymous No.15198926]

>>15198899
Subjective
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

[Anonymous No.15198939]

>>15198919
>You're kidding right.
No. Define "definition" and "define".
>(of a person or their judgment)
>representing facts
Define "person", define "facts".

>>15198926
See above.

[Anonymous No.15198956]

>>15198939
And this is what I was talking about before. You've fallen into total relativism to hide.

[Anonymous No.15198966]

>>15198956
It's just the logical conclusion of atheism. I'm just being a better atheist than you.

[Anonymous No.15198986]

>>15198966
I never said it wasn't. But what I'm asking is why you aren't a relativist. Give me your solid objective definitions or join me in the muck.

[Anonymous No.15199042]

>>15198986
>I never said it wasn't.
Define "I".

[Anonymous No.15199053]

>>15199042
You're just agreeing with me at this point. All apologetics devolves into stubborn refusals to budge in the end since faith is not rational

[Anonymous No.15199068]

>>15198888
There's literally no point arguing with theists; they start with faith and rationalise their way backwards towards the unverifiable axioms they need to prop their big Jewish book on.

[Anonymous No.15199269]

>>15199053
>You're just agreeing with me at this point.
Define "you".

[Anonymous No.15199364]

>>15198781


https://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/how-the-17th-c-french-catholic-use-of-pyrrhonian-scepticism-against-calvinism-created-the-french-enlightenment-skeptics/

[Anonymous No.15200667]

[Anonymous No.15200777]

>>15196790
>its another OP got BTFO so he made another thread

[Anonymous No.15200926]

>>15198837
>an objective authority is a contradiction in terms
>See Hume's is/ought distinction
Just so you know, I have traced your IP. I am going to read Hume, and if your claim is still as retarded as it seems I will find you and beat you shitless

[Anonymous No.15201821]

>>15200777
More like
>OP obliterates Protestants
>OP makes another thread to continue obliterating them