Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:10:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910103713.E63148-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3668DB28-C4E0-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > And...did God tell you this? By the way, in these discussions, I > > always > > detect an equivocation on the meaning of the words "acceptance," > > "tolerance" etc. Disagreement with someones views means by definition > > that you think they are false. If Christ says, "I am the way, the > > truth, and the life, no-one comes to the Father but through me," this > > automatically excludes the notion that there are "many ways to God". > > Truth has the unmistakeable quality of clarity, not confusion. Truth > > also has the quality of being the opposite of falsehood, something that > > people cannot seem to grasp when it comes to ultimate questions. > > > > That is if you believe that is what Christ said. And that is if you > believe in Jesus Christ. And also if that is how he said it, then how > do priests have any special in with God? They don't. > This was part of the core of > the Protestant revolt, the fact you do not need a priest to talk to > God. One can disagree with someone's belief but still accept that they > believe it and not hold it against them in some way. That certainly was an issue in the Reformation. But at the core, the reformation was doctrinal. Luther said that all the other abuses of the medieval church he could have been content to disagree with, but the thing that really irked him was the corrupt doctrine. In the end, he and all the other protesters were forced to leave the church, as the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent declared itself to be unreformable. > > You are absolutely correct, the Jewish and Christian God have the same > > roots. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. The fact that > > many Christians have persecuted Jews is a most lamentable fact, yet it > > does not change the nature of truth. Such Christians to the extent > > that they persecute others, are in direct contradiction with what > > their religion teaches. > > > > Are they? It depends on who you hear. Popes in the past advocated > this and said it was the "Will of God" when if you read what was said > in the Bible was not that at all. In this case who is correct, the > Pope or the religious leader? This is why the reformers insisted so much on Sola Scriptura. As the apostle Paul put it, "Let God be true but every man a liar." I think inherent in your question is the assumption is that it isn't possible to know the truth, since everyone has different opinions. I think we all know better than that, and that if we truly are seeking truth, we will find it. > The person who interprets the Bible? > That is the slipper slope one can encounter here, persecution of any > who do not fit with those in power. The Inquisition was a prime > example. The witch-hunts too. It's a comon thread through history, > persecution of those different or who have what a leader wants. > Religion is a great tool for that at times. I agree, it can be used for the propagation of evil. I don't defend the inquisition (It persecuted mostly Protestants, after all!) but what has this to do with the nature of truth? > > You are endorsing subjectivism, which is completely irrational. Why > > should anyone accept such an irrational premise? I can accept that > > people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that I think we are both > > right. > > > > I am not saying that, what I am saying is that God is a personal thing, > just because someone believes differently than you doesn't mean you > have to tell them they are wrong constantly I don't. However, when these discussions arise, I would be remiss in my responsibilities to God if I didn't point out error. Truth is not subjective, and not everybody's belief's are equally valid. That doesn't mean I want to persecute them, or silence them, or anything like that. > It was not Mohammed that spread that but another of Islam...<name> > Islam was in fact one of the most enlightened religions for many many > years. In the times of the crusades it was christianity as a whole > that was killing any who were different in beliefs. Yes, and those who were persecuting others for their beliefs were in direct violation of the teachings of Christianity. I think what is often missed in this is the fact that people were woefully ignorant of the Bible during the time of the medieval church, due to the laypeople not being allowed to read it for themselves. (Not to mention the lack of things like printing presses) > And if we want to > get into spreading beliefs by the sword christianity as a whole is just > as guilty. I reject this claim. People who have called themselves Christians have certainly persecuted others, but to say that Christianity "as a whole" is just as guilty is to commit the fallacy of the sweeping generalisation. Nor is it fair to those of us who abhor such actions. > Chrsitianity at its core is about non-violence, yet massive > violence has been used to spread it, do you not see the inherent irony > there? Yes, and it is indeed lamentable in those situations where it occurs. Of course, since you admit above it is about non-violence, wouldn't we have to say that those who committed such acts of violence were not in line with what their religion taught? > > But of course all of this is irrelevent as to what the truth is. > > Another of the great foundations we have in the country is the freedom > > of speech, including the right to criticize others. > > > > > > Right, but what the "Founding Fathers" believed that is was important > all religions should have a chance to equally flourish. Not any one > above the other. This is what being accepting of the fact that others > have different beliefs is about. This is not a bad thing. It would be difficult to show that the founding fathers were interested in all religions flourishing. In fact, Madison stated that he opposed the establishment of a particular religion so that Christianity could flourish. Christianity flourishes best when it is not the priviledged position. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020910103713.E63148-100000>