Interpretation of Texts (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 23:43 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > 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. ...
> -And don't forget the 800lb-Gorilla--economics. That period of time saw an immense flourishing of Arabic culture and power. Jerusalem was a center in that trade. -
> 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.
> -I was completely unaware of this part of the Holocaust. Good stuff! At the same time this resurrects an old story from the Delian League. I forget the name of the town, but they were told to pay tribute to Athens or be conquered. The leaders of the city refused, and the town was absolutely leveled. -One of the worst parts of humanity is that which is willing to give up life for an abstract idea. -> 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?
> -One of my arguments for NOT putting the 10-commandments in front of courthouses is the fact that people weren't following them immediately after they were given them. (Never make a law that can't be enforced!)-> > 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.-I will support Balance here; Many Synagogues (especially towards the end of his career) were closed to Jesus. Add to it, his following had more people than could probably have fit in most of them. -Balance, you get around to checking out the failed prophecy in Ezekiel yet?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"