Thread 17940395

>There's 40,000 christian denominations and they all have an incorrect interpretation of the bible.

>bible interpretation is such a joke academic field.

>anyways, here's my personal interpretation of the bible which just-so-happens to make it look as stupid and incoherent as possible.

To be fair it's impossible to interpret a stupid and incoherent book to be smart and coherent. 40000 interpretations before this one failed, why would the 40001st interpretation be any different?

You know you don't have to pretend to have an interpretation. You don't have to pretend to be an ex-Christian. You don't have to pretend that you don\t still call yourself an ex-Christian 12 years after you renounced it. You don't have to pretend that you're an atheist.

>>17940402
> why would the 40001st interpretation be any different?
Two words: holy spirit, prophetic providence and divine inspiration.

>>17940395 (OP)
Exactly why you should just read the church fathers and agree with them.

>>17940395 (OP)
the biggest protestant achievement was to turn christianity from an organized group into a collection of individuals

caths - all of them agree on theology or they are supposed to anyway

prots - each 1 of them believes whatever they want

>>17940565
cataholics just have a short list of core dogmas that are required, there’s flexibility beyond them

>>17940411
Why does the "Holy Spirit" lead different people to wildly different interpretations? Which one is the "correct" one? How do you discern between an interpretation lead by the "devil" or the "Holy Spirit" and which one do you follow?

>>17940411
>Two words: holy spirit, prophetic providence and divine inspiration.
five words: learn to count.

>>17940411
That's 7 words.

>>17940565
>all of them agree on theology

>>17940395 (OP)
shut up if I want to be a loser hedonihilist then just let me be a loser hedonihilist.

>>17940402
That's funny, I can't help but notice that only your interpretation makes the bible look stupid and incoherent, while all the other ones at least act on good faith.

>>17941035
you dont understand catholicism do you?

>>17941617
I do. Which is why it is a laughable claim that doesn’t represent reality. The fact that James Martin, Joe Biden, Cardinal Hollerique, Cardinal Marx, and so many other Cardinals can confess unity and faith with men as Taylor Marshall, bishop Athanasius Schneider and Edward Faser is the product of centuries of ecclesiological regressions. That the same church body can be home to LGBTQ+ Masses and Tridentine Masses demonstrates they do not all agree on theology and the only unity they have is hollow institutional unity around the big papa in Rome.

>>17941617
You mean like Fr. James Martin promoting homosexual rights for years without response from the vatican? Since you all believe the same thing, I'll take that to mean you think being gay is great.

>>17940565
which is why the majority of professed catholics approve of abortion and think transubstantiation is just a metaphor kek

>>17941826
I know a papist in her 60s who was born and raised in Rome. She told me the term transubstantiation is "new", that they never believed they were eating Jesus with their mouths, and she has vocally defended homosexuality, abortion, feminism, and said we shouldn't follow the bible (so she at least believes one thing the church or Rome has taught for centuries).
Anyways sola scriptura would be a disaster let's put that bible down and follow the pope

>>17940565
>the biggest protestant achievement was to turn christianity from an organized group into a collection of individuals
You think Roman Catholicism was like a literal hivemind, like a colony of bees or something? Did the Reformation cause them to lose this property?

>caths - all of them agree on theology or they are supposed to anyway
No, that doesn't make sense. Catholicism is, like many other things, primarily a political movement. In order to be a member, one has to have political allegiance to a certain person or group of people. There is Roman Catholicism based in Rome, and there are other forms of Catholicism in eastern lands who aren't tied to Rome. The main branches of Protestantism were also political movements at their inception. The main difference between these groups is where political loyalty was said to be, with theology being, de facto, a secondary matter.