by jimwalton » Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:10 pm
> St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin. The most venerated figures within the faith.
Yeah, I said "The Bible."
Augustine: Was not a persecutor of Jews. He was suppresionistic but not antisemitic, as far as I know. If you claim otherwise, you must support it. While he may have said some nasty things, he didn't advocate murder or genocide. He also spoke strongly against heretics and defended the faith. If you contend that he advocated killing them, you'll have to prove it.
Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther. Yep. Terrible. Not what the Bible teaches.
John Calvin's views about Jews are highly debated, but he did recommend killing heretics.
Yep. All regrettable and horrible. They were wrong. It's not what the Bible teaches. Again, we cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. The Bible never teaches that Jews, heretics, or apostates should be killed. Nowhere, never. I go by the Bible.
> Fun for everyone who is not going to be eternally tortured for not believing in mythology
Hell is for those who deny the truth about Christ, not for people who refuse to believe in mythology. And you should know that there is much debate about whether the Bible teaches eternal punishment for all who reject Christ, or only for those who reject Christ eternally. So if you want to seek truth, come to Jesus and be saved, and you won't have to worry about the possibility of hell. Hell is only for those who refuse to come to Jesus, denying the truth.
> Your interpretation of the bible might be the most wholesome, that is not the track record of most bible interpreters.
You can't speak for most interpreters. I'm confident you have not done a quantitative study.
> You can not elevate your personal interpretation above everyone elses, and especially not those who were hailed as Saints, and could read the books in original greek and hebrew.
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were great Bible commentators. They were obviously wrong about certain things in their lifestyle and in their perception of others. I respect their Bible teachings, but not all of their life choices. I can make a distinction between those two. I also study the texts in the original Hebrew and Greek. And, by the way, we have access to more documents and to more information via archaeology than they ever dreamed of, so we have a larger body of work to guide us in interpretation than they did. We regard the teachings of Luther and Calvin as reputable, but they have been superseded in many cases by the new information available to us that was not available to them. We are able to interpret more accurately and reliably than they were.
> Religions are not the same.
I agree. To sound grand and magnanimous by saying, "I accept all religions" is actually to either violate them all or violate reason, or both. All religions, plainly and simply, cannot be true. Some beliefs are false, and we know them to be false. So it does no good to put a halo on the notion of tolerance as if everything could be equally true. To deem all beliefs equally true is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that to deny that statement would also, then, be true. But if the denial of the statement is also true, then all religions are not true.
The religions actually contradict each other. It's possible that all are wrong, but it's not possible that all are right. if any are right, it has to be one of them and no more. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life's purpose. Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions, but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.
We all have a right to proclaim what we believe about ultimate things, but that doesn't mean that everything we believe is right. The thinking person must honestly weigh the evidence and come to the right conclusion.
> When fundamentalists point to scripture, and do something terrible- it is an issue of the fundamentals of religion.
I disagree. When fundamentalists point to scripture and then do something terrible, they are using the religion as a cover for their self-will. The problem is not with the religion but with the religionist.
> Where are the Jainists who shoots up cartoonists in Paris? Where are the Jainists who kills Jews for accusations of torturing crackers (case of medieval christianity)?
I take it you're a Jainist. I have some Jainist friends—WONDERFUL people. Jainism forbids crime, and so does Christianity.
> St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin. The most venerated figures within the faith.
Yeah, I said "The Bible."
Augustine: Was not a persecutor of Jews. He was suppresionistic but not antisemitic, as far as I know. If you claim otherwise, you must support it. While he may have said some nasty things, he didn't advocate murder or genocide. He also spoke strongly against heretics and defended the faith. If you contend that he advocated killing them, you'll have to prove it.
Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther. Yep. Terrible. Not what the Bible teaches.
John Calvin's views about Jews are highly debated, but he did recommend killing heretics.
Yep. All regrettable and horrible. They were wrong. It's not what the Bible teaches. Again, we cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. The Bible never teaches that Jews, heretics, or apostates should be killed. Nowhere, never. I go by the Bible.
> Fun for everyone who is not going to be eternally tortured for not believing in mythology
Hell is for those who deny the truth about Christ, not for people who refuse to believe in mythology. And you should know that there is much debate about whether the Bible teaches eternal punishment for all who reject Christ, or only for those who reject Christ eternally. So if you want to seek truth, come to Jesus and be saved, and you won't have to worry about the possibility of hell. Hell is only for those who refuse to come to Jesus, denying the truth.
> Your interpretation of the bible might be the most wholesome, that is not the track record of most bible interpreters.
You can't speak for most interpreters. I'm confident you have not done a quantitative study.
> You can not elevate your personal interpretation above everyone elses, and especially not those who were hailed as Saints, and could read the books in original greek and hebrew.
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were great Bible commentators. They were obviously wrong about certain things in their lifestyle and in their perception of others. I respect their Bible teachings, but not all of their life choices. I can make a distinction between those two. I also study the texts in the original Hebrew and Greek. And, by the way, we have access to more documents and to more information via archaeology than they ever dreamed of, so we have a larger body of work to guide us in interpretation than they did. We regard the teachings of Luther and Calvin as reputable, but they have been superseded in many cases by the new information available to us that was not available to them. We are able to interpret more accurately and reliably than they were.
> Religions are not the same.
I agree. To sound grand and magnanimous by saying, "I accept all religions" is actually to either violate them all or violate reason, or both. All religions, plainly and simply, cannot be true. Some beliefs are false, and we know them to be false. So it does no good to put a halo on the notion of tolerance as if everything could be equally true. To deem all beliefs equally true is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that to deny that statement would also, then, be true. But if the denial of the statement is also true, then all religions are not true.
The religions actually contradict each other. It's possible that all are wrong, but it's not possible that all are right. if any are right, it has to be one of them and no more. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life's purpose. Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions, but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.
We all have a right to proclaim what we believe about ultimate things, but that doesn't mean that everything we believe is right. The thinking person must honestly weigh the evidence and come to the right conclusion.
> When fundamentalists point to scripture, and do something terrible- it is an issue of the fundamentals of religion.
I disagree. When fundamentalists point to scripture and then do something terrible, they are using the religion as a cover for their self-will. The problem is not with the religion but with the religionist.
> Where are the Jainists who shoots up cartoonists in Paris? Where are the Jainists who kills Jews for accusations of torturing crackers (case of medieval christianity)?
I take it you're a Jainist. I have some Jainist friends—WONDERFUL people. Jainism forbids crime, and so does Christianity.