Roy Moore


Uh, yes we can, see this?

That’s a list of writings by people we call the early Church Fathers in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries.

The Bible wasn’t alone in establishing Doctrine – it was a part of a broader tradition we have a lot of documentation on. We have more documentation on this, than we have on the American Founders & the Constitution.

Which you’ve clearly never paid any attention to, because, and I’ll be blunt here, you didn’t care. Only people who care about history, give it any attention.


It doesn’t matter if it’s me you’re pointing to or not (and you have not explained the other two).

If you’re claiming it’s made up at all, when St. Augustine was saying it 1800 years ago, you’ve damned well goofed. No room to deny it, none.

The truth is, there are doctrinal concepts & debates I know about that you don’t, because I received different training and have walked in different theological circles than you.

I’ll fully admit that this works both ways. But you clearly didn’t think like this yourself.

Your blindness here was pride; you assumed I couldn’t possibly know something like this about Christianity when you didn’t, so you automatically resorted to preaching. Your mistake.


One doesn’t know whether to cry or laugh at such hubris, AS. "You’re right because you ‘know’ more than those you’re arguing with???


Not more, I know different things.

I know Thomism, because I was raised in Thomism.

Conversely, anyone who was trained in the precepts of Martin Luther, would likely know more about that than I.

This isn’t hubris at all, it’s simple logic.


(Laughing my posterior off)

Get the lumber out of your own eye, Slim. (Not holding breath)


? Susanne demonstrated it.

She tried to tell me, that Aquinas wasn’t saying God was “being Itself”.

Yet he clearly was, as he dedicated an entire chapter of the Summa Theologica to it.

The only “log” here is yours. You assumed I couldn’t know something about Christianity you didn’t.
It was evident in every word you passed onto me.

OTOH, I assumed we knew different things, because we were raised in different traditions.

I made an equitable assumption, while you made one that was entirely self-serving.

Your entire error, the entire reason you kept making wrong accusations, is because you couldn’t admit that maybe what I was speaking wasn’t wrong, just from a tradition you weren’t familiar with.


Oh, and just so were clear; the Early Church did in fact view God as being existence itself, you can’t deny that:

So invoking the Council of Nicaea, is futile. They too practiced Classical Theism, and saw no contradiction in doing so.

The reason looking at Merriam-Webster didn’t turn up a definition, is because it wasn’t made for philosophy terms. Unlike the encyclopedia this entry above comes from.

It also doesn’t have the philosophical definition for “divine simplicity” (a different name for Being itself) or of “accidents”, so no surprise.


Those who place selective oral traditions and the words of men above the Scripture have always drawn different conclusions than those who trust the Scriptures above selective traditions and the words of men.

In fact, if that were not true it would essentially prove the Bible is unreliable.

Christians have a personal relationship with God, not with religious dogma about God; that is what seperates Christendom from every other Faith.


Oral Tradition and the Church created Scripture. They don’t contradict, the former precipated the latter.

Scripture, did not fall from the damn sky, it came from a broader tradition, of which it is only a part.

If the men who wrote the Bible, followed Classical Theism, you’re on thin ice trying to suggest they contradict.

You RET, may claim that you understand the Bible better than its authors; but excuse me if I find this highly credulous.

The fact you discount oral tradition when the Bible itself says to heed it (already cited one of the places it does that), tells me all I need there.


Those who believe the origin of Scripture is men always draw different conclusions than those who believe all Scripture originates from and is preserved in its integrity by God.

Nothing new here.

All those who believe that it is not possible to rightly divide the word of God without a direct, submitted personal relationship with God always draw different conclusions than those who believe “learned men” are the ones best able to tell everyone else what to believe.

Nothing new here either.


The Letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

Gee, sure seems like a man’s name is somewhere in that title. :vb-unhappy:

Yet, you’re wrong again, it’s not even about men, it’s about tradition. The Fullness of Truth.

That you don’t get that, means you’re either obfuscating here, or that there is an entire segment of Christianity’s own heritage, that you know next to nothing about.

It likely owes to the fact that certain Protestants, don’t give a damn about tradition or history, that doesn’t stem from the 16th century.To your own detriment, as a few have managed to break from your number and acknowledge:

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

– Cardinal John Henry Newman, former Evangelical.

Straw man, no one at any time denied the necessity in having a personal relationship with God.

Quit making crap up RET.


As I said, nothing new here; these 2 perspectives are irreconcilable and they have been from the moment Jesus chose his Disciples from “those not worthy” in the eyes of the “religious learned”.

There is nothing new under the sun.


False dichotomy, the tradition that created the Bible is not irreconcilable with it. You’re just ignorant of it is all.

And bringing up Jesus anointing the Apostles is dumbfounding, in light of Apostolic succession.

Which also gives us Apostolic tradition.

If you want to ignore what the Bible says on these things, be my guest. Not my problem if “Bible Alone” is a view that contradicts itself.



Stiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill going; nothing outlasts Alaska Slim’s posting when he’s been told that he’s wrong…


FC, everything I’ve stated to you is apart of Catholic Theology.

That you act surprised by it, just means you’ve never actually gone & talked to a Catholic before.

It’s not “surprising”, you just didn’t care to ever go find out. Be honest. Or quit the peanut gallery crap.


You stated at the beginning of this whole nonsense that God wasn’t a being. When I cited scripture to demonstrate that God is in fact a being, you went into the contortions of saying that (not literally, but you get the idea) you:
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another that the Bible supports your position instead of actually citing scripture yourself.

I don’t really give a rip about Catholic theology (or what someone you’ve linked to purports it to be); Catholicism isn’t the be-all and end-all of Christian doctrine; God’s word is.

As to being honest and cutting the crap, you first…


And that’s part of the argument, I didn’t make this up FC, we use “I AM” to substantiate God as being the same as Existence. Which should tell you that there’s some aspect to it you’re not accounting for.

You trying to use that as evidence, just comes across to me as an attempt to put your own interpretation of the phrase above that of the Church Fathers, and leaving the full significance of the phrase by the wayside, which I showed by posting its translation from Hebrew.

Equally, I suspect that you still don’t know what is being Claimed by denying God is a being. That you’re somewhere along the lines of RET’s thinking, that this is somehow Deism.

Which makes further references from Scripture pointless. If you don’t understand the claim, what am I using scripture to substantiate?

I had to get you to understand the claim first. But you wouldn’t budge, nor put in any effort to understand. You just kept speaking from misconception, and continued to throw accusations at me.

And “understand” isn’t the same as “agree”, just so we’re clear.

I imagined you didn’t, that’s not the point.

The point is you claiming I’m doing or saying something outlandish, when it’s apart of Christian theology.

It was apart of the early Church, it’s still apart of the “unreformed” Churches. If it’s anything, it’s old hat.

You can disagree with it, fine! I don’t care! I didn’t come here to start a debate on Sola Scriptura or have any debate on theology at all. I came here to offer a different viewpoint to CSbrown (and oddly enough to defend viewing God as love), and when you & Susanne questioned what I said, I was willing to show:

  1. That yes, this is in Christian theology (Surprise?)
  2. What it means.
  3. Why it’s there.

Going further into #2 and #3 was contingent on my sensing you making some kind of effort to understand. Yet what I sensed far more, was just more attempts to use this to leap frog things at me.

Despite my not coming here, for any of this. I wasn’t coming here to try and correct your theology. In the end, all I was doing was trying to show that #1 was right, and that I wasn’t making any of it up.


If that’s the “original” interpretation of “I am” then why do you think the Bible used by the Catholic Church doesn’t say that?


It’s talked of in the Catechism, on the definition of “YHWH”.


Non-responsive. Try again.