Posted on 09/15/2014 8:56:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[SNIP]
Well, if ISIS is not Islamic, then the Inquisition was not Catholic. The fact is that there are no defensible criteria for whether a faith is “true,” since all faiths are man-made and accrete doctrine—said to come from God, but itself man-made—that becomes integral to those faiths. Whatever “true faith” means, it doesn’t mean “the right religion: the one whose God exists and whose doctrines are correct.” If that were so, we wouldn’t see Westerners trying to tell us what “true Islam” is.
No, if “true” means anything, it must mean “true to some principles.” As far as I can see, there are only two such principles: true to scripture or true to some code of conduct that the writer approves. But these definitions often contradict each other, so no “true” religion can be specified.
First, the truest religion could be that which sticks the closest to scripture. In that case the “truest” Christianity and Judaism would be literalist and fundamentalist. They would adhere to the creationism set out in Genesis, as well as to the immoral behaviors sanctioned by God in the Old Testament. These include killing those children who curse their parents, as well as adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath. Although these are clear moral dictates of God, no modern Christians or Jews obey them, for the rules are reprehensible. Nevertheless, there is a case to be made that a fundamentalist Southern Baptist is a “truer Christian” than a liberal Unitarian, and a misogynist Orthodox Jew a truer believer than a modern reform Jew.
You can cherry-pick the Qur’an as easily as you can the Bible, for both are filled with calls for violence and genocide that distress us.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
RE: Muslims and Protestants were founded for the same reasons. They both hate the Catholic Church.
Protestants “hate” the Catholic Church in the same manner the Catholic Church “hates” the Protestants.
You must have many leather-bound books.
I especially enjoyed this deep thought. Your train of thought sort of derailed.
But every historian talks about how the crusades did “grow an economy” from East to West. Also, if a society thinks a crusade against its own members, then the growing of the economy is not the major issue now is it?
I will mark you down as pro crusade, and pro religious genocide.
I suggest you read a good book.
I read a good one every day. But thanks for the advice.
“Protestants “hate” the Catholic Church in the same manner the Catholic Church “hates” the Protestants”.
Give me a break. You obviously don’t read too many postings on FR religion forums.
NKP: Give me a break. You obviously don’t read too many postings on FR religion forums.
That's right! The Catholic Church "hates" the Protestants in a completely different i.e. more virulent manner.
The Inquisition comes to mind.
Compared to non-Catholics on FR who post Scripture to refute the errors of Catholicism.
No, not the same.
FRoman Catholics long for a return of the Inquisition and have stated as much on this forum.
Non-Catholics post Scripture to expose the errors of Catholicism.
BIG difference. I don’t see non-Catholics displaying the blood lust that many FRoman Catholics have expressed.
Catholics are calling for the return of the inquisition? On this forum ? Torture and disembowelment? You lie. Right through your teeth. I’ll try to pray for you. ..but you sound like a member of ISIS then anyone who believes in Christ. A burka may suit you.
No, I do not lie.
Here are some links.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/replies?c=1890
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2842523/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3199175/posts?page=27#27
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3135195/posts?page=642#642
Yup, Islam is a war plan — conceived through the blade.
Exactly.
“I don’t see non-Catholics displaying the blood lust that many FRoman Catholics have expressed”.
The “pot calling the keddle black” comes to mind, or do I need to repeat myself.
RE: Give me a break. You obviously don’t read too many postings on FR religion forums.
Two problems with your use of the word “hate”.
1) Protestants ( at least the real Christians among them, not the PINO’s ) DISAGREE in points of doctrine and authority with Catholics. Disagreement is NOT HATE.
2) There could be some FReepers who might hate Catholics. But don’t generalize this to represent EVERY Protestant. That is crooked thinking.
Notice I use the word “hate” in quotes, not the hate ( not in quotes ) that you use.
"No, if “true” means anything, it must mean “true to some principles.” As far as I can see, there are only two such principles: true to scripture or true to some code of conduct that the writer approves. But these definitions often contradict each other, so no “true” religion can be specified."
Another 'know-it-all' atheist.
Jerry Coyne would have to be omniscient in order to know and make the universal claim that "no “true” religion can be specified." Maybe he thinks he can see forever.
And since Coyne is a philosophical naturalist he has no metaphysical foundation for his abstract, universal, invariant "principles" in the first place. His assumption that there are no rationally acceptable and testable arguments that are not empirical scientific arguments is not itself an empirically testable scientific argument, which makes his arguments here self-refuting.
That doesn't deter him, though. He proceeds next to display his abysmal ignorance of Scripture and mixes in some moral hectoring, for which he also has no foundation at all, and which is contraindicated by his own philosophical naturalism:
"In that case the “truest” Christianity and Judaism would be literalist and fundamentalist. They would adhere to the creationism set out in Genesis, as well as to the immoral behaviors sanctioned by God in the Old Testament. These include killing those children who curse their parents, as well as adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath. Although these are clear moral dictates of God, no modern Christians or Jews obey them, for the rules are reprehensible."
From a Christian perspective, suffice it to say that Coyne is apparently ignorant of basic hermeneutics, historical context, and has never heard of the New Covenant, though it is right there in the text in multiple instances.
His flailing 'analysis' is worthless.
Cordially,
“You must have many leather-bound books.”
Not only do I have them I’ve read them - and I’m willing to bet you haven’t.
“I especially enjoyed this deep thought.”
Not a deep thought - just common knowledge among historians.
“Your train of thought sort of derailed.”
No, actually that didn’t happen.
“I will mark you down as pro crusade,”
That’s fair.
“and pro religious genocide.”
Nope. The crusades were never about that. If they were then you would not have had so many medieval Muslim leaders complaining about the Turco-poles (who were Muslims) willingly working for Christian leaders. But again someone would actually have to read a book on the subject to know that.
“I read a good one every day.”
Most likely not about the crusades - which is what you’re attempting to talk about.
“But thanks for the advice.”
You’re welcome.
“You are woefully unprepared for this discussion.”
No, actually I’m very well prepared.
“The world today has two whole classes of people with Spanish surnames that would overwhelm your puny arguments in a millisecond.”
Not a single one. Again, “What forced conversions of Jews on the part of Spanish Inquisition? Name them.” Can you do it or not?
“You don’t know any Jews with Spanish surnames, do you?”
Yes, I do. And none of their ancestors were Jews who were forced to convert by the inquisition. Their ancestors may have been forced to convert by the Spaniards, but not the Spanish Inquisition. To stop such practices was in fact one of the reasons for the inquisition’s establishment.
“Give it up - like it or not, Catholic church owns the Spanish Inquisition.”
No, only some of it. Come back when you learn the facts.
Links?
Surely you have something to back up your statement.
“Too clever by a half.”
Nope, it’s just the truth.
“You still lose.”
No, I won long ago. Every time you post without a single scrap of evidence to prove your claims I win. Every time you show that you have apparently never read a single book or article about the topic you’re posting about I win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.