Immortal Awakened
Member
its been four or five times now that ive presented a perspective and youve somehow associated that perspective with something that i dont even believe, likely through the context of your own pretextual religious lense; youre simply obfuscating my statements thus far; if you cant read the text for what it says (not associating it with things that i havent said), it seems impossible to communicate; many people with whom i dialogue present more of a dualistic mindset, but yours seems the opposite; more relativistic in natureJamesThePersian said:Well, it's a bit rich having a go at me for judging you as something you aren't when you are happy to judge my apology as insincere. It was not, but if you wish to take it as such that is your prerogative. I didn't actually confuse textual infallibility with sola scriptura. The two are intimately related. You cannot have the latter without the former and the only people (up to now) who I've ever come across who argue for textual infallibility have been sola scripturalists. I have already apologised, however, for misinterpreting your stance as sola scripturalist. Please try to understand that the only evidence I had to go on was what you wrote in your posts. That this lead me to an incorrect conclusion is unfortunate but I wasn't attacking you. As for your ignorance, I referred specifically to your apparent lack of knowledge on the development of the canon, and did not call you ignorant in general. There are plenty of subjects that I am ignorant of, this just doesn't happen to be one of them, but if you can't distinguish between a specific comment that you appear to lack an understanding of a certain topic and a general insult then perhaps it would be better that we don't correspond further. I genuinely do not have, and nor did I ever have, any interest in upsetting you unnecessarily.
James
if i present one word or concept, it is not necessary to automatically associate it with another word or concept which i did not use; they are in fact different; since you are perhaps the only person who has ever done this within the many hundreds that ive dialogued with over the internet, it stands to reason that the error rests with you; either that, or youre just doing your best to obsfucate my perspective after the manner of some manipulative debate tactic
if someone doesnt understand what im saying, then they should simply ask, instead of assume, as you continually do; you seem to be interpreting my statements through your own pretextual religious lense, instead of taking the words at their face value; for example, infallibility and sola scriptura do not always go together; many people believe that the bible is infallible, while not holding to it exclusively; if you feel that your church is the true church, then i suppose it makes a certain amount of sense that you dont acknowledge the existence of many other religious perspectives beyond your own