| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
> Well, that's about as valid as listening to sovereign citizens' interpretation of the US constitution. (At least from the Catholic point of view as far as I can tell.) From an "axiomatic perspective" this means accepting much more encompassing axioms than the holy scripture; such a "proof" requires much more than "the Bible/Quran says" as huijzer implicitly used in his argument "That’s why the Bible and Quran are against usury.", but more like "the Bible says and we additionally accept the following axioms that imply that the Pope's interpretation of the Bible is the correct one". | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | eru 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Nah, you can start from the Pope, and you only care about the Bible insofar as the Pope says you should care about it. Very simple 'axiom'. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||