Interpretation of Texts (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 23:08 (5171 days ago) @ dhw


> Finally, thank you for your patience in putting up with all my questions and for lighting so many interesting fires!-DHW, -No worries about all the questions, I love them.-So, the inquisition was actually not based on scripture at all. Period. No where in the bible is anyone given any directive to torture anyone. The closest might be considered stoning.-The Crusades were based solely off politics, not scripture. However, history and loyalty to the Church were in the favor of the Pope when he made the power play. I know you are looking for is a scriptural reason for what they did, but honestly, there was none. The large majority of people at that time were illiterate, and of those few that could read, most couldn't read Latin. At that point in time, the Church could have said, "Thou shalt eat Chinese Babies for breakfast, and Mongolians for lunch. So sayeth the Lord." and only a very very small minority would have known that the bible didn't actually say that. What they used to convince people of a spiritual basis to fight for the crusades though, was the fact that in the Bible Jerusalem is the land that was promised to the nation of Israel. Since the Church saw itself as the new Spiritual Israel, according to to their interpretation of Galations 6:16- 6:16 And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God.-Despite the tenuous connection, they took it as their right to claim Jerusalem as their divinely gifted property, and because it was inhabited by Muslims, they painted them as vile infidels. At the end of the day though, it was all political, and had virtually nothing to do with any basis in scripture whatsoever. That just happened to be an easy excuse because virtually no one could tell them they were mistaken.->I wonder what you yourself are hoping to prove by showing that these events actually occurred, and that the Bible's authors do not contradict themselves or one another, and that their reported prophecies came true. While I'm in tune with your scepticism towards unproven scientific theories that masquerade as gospel truth, I remain highly suspicious of "gospel truth", and am curious about what lies behind your quest.-I am not trying to prove God exist, if that is what you mean. I am trying to prove that the Biblical writers were not crackpots that modern people have tried to imply. I think I posted this on another thread just yesterday or so. See Neanderthal man thread I think.-Saying that Men are responsible for their own actions is not the easy way out, it is the only honest statement about the situation that can be made. I'm sorry if you feel that I was trying to escape the argument. Far from it. But by that same token, they are also vindicated in their successes. Read up on the Purple Triangle in Nazi Germany. There are people out there, very good people, who believe strongly enough that they are willing NOT to fight, but to still die for those beliefs. Two sides to every coin.-To put it in a decent analogy. If you wrote a cookbook on how to make the perfect cake, and the baker failed to follow the instructions, or decided to change the ingredients, and messed up the cake, would you fault the instructions, or the baker?-> You do not think that religion in the sense of a man-made organization "was ever the intent of the Koran or Bible". I wonder if Moses the lawgiver told his 600,000 men to do it their own way in the desert. And didn't Jesus himself teach in the synagogue and temple? Well, I'll take your word for it, though it might come as a shock to millions of Muslim, Jewish and Christian worshippers, preachers and teachers that they're going against God's wishes. -Jesus also supposedly taught in the hillsides, at a well, on a boat, and standing on the water. Moses also didn't claim infallibility, and when he did rise above his appointed station he was chastised by Godly justice and only allowed to see the promised land, not enter it. The Pope obviously forgot that one. And the ancient Israelites did have a temple, but, they did not hold mass, or anything of the sort. The idea for a church came from a direct misinterpretation of the bible. Basically, all people everywhere that believed in Christ were considered the 'Church'. Though the term assembly is the literal translation, it had absolutely no relevance to a building or an organized structure of any sort. It would be analogous to saying 'Science', which implies a standard ideology, but no specific organization, such as the Royal Academy.