Dorothy B. wrote:
flyingaway wrote:
sola scriptura can be obliterated by ONE comment
namely, that: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is sufficient. SS is a self defeating "doctrine" of men
The Word is described (within itself) as sufficient for teaching but nowhere does it say that the WRITTEN (key word there) is sufficient for salvation. Most of the New T wasn't written until at least something like 70 years after the Ascension and even then.. written versions weren't available until the printing press was invented in 1440
so what did people do before there were written Bibles?
I guess they were all misled by the horrible evil Catholic Church and are now frying in Hell
(The way things have "progressed" in society in general, I would say more people are Hell-bound today than back in those old dark ages.. though God knows_)
"flying away",
Are you aware that you are like a bull in a china shop with regard to apologetics? If I were a non-Catholic and heard you speak I would run in the other direction as fast as I could go.
God's love is the greatest power in the world.
Peace!
Dorothy
Oh, Dorothy. If you only knew! No, you are so very misinformed. Why, after nine measly years of Bible college and seminary and after only reading a few tens of thousands of pages on biblical exegesis, philosophy, and theology, when I read the underlined comment above, I was shocked and thunderstruck. My worldview was, in a word,
totally obliterated. I was left feeling as Saul that scales had fallen from my eyes. If only those great many scholars I have read in my few years of study had made such a simple and obvious observation! Why, I do believe that once I recover from my shock I'll be enrolling in RCIA at my earliest convenience.

edit:
On a less salty note, flyingaway, if you are all open to constructive criticism. Learn a little humility and about the idea of charity. Even granting you the absolute and undeniable truth of the Catholic faith, if you wish at all to be effective in your apologetics, lay off these over simplifications and, more fundamentally, the assumption that those who disagree with you are idiots. In fact, you would do better to presume the opposite. Presume they actually know
more than you, especially about their own position. Then you can be in a position to actually hear them and their concerns. You can really learn what they think rather than what you think they think. And maybe you could ask enough
well-placed questions that you might actually lead someone to start thinking about the right answers.
Or keep on with your nonsense. Whichever. I do hope you take this criticism as intended, in good faith and charity.
