You confuse dishonesty with disagreement, John.
You have to twist, distort and pretend that you are arguing at the extreme.
Ironic given that Folau's tweet -- ie, the core of this discussion -- was just that, an argument from the extreme.
The fact that the scientific knowledge in Scriptural times was imperfect is no argument against the spiritual and moral standards being developed.
Developed is the key word. We don't necessarily accept early interpretations of scripture -- the killing of homosexuals being a case in point -- we develop them according to new understandings, new discoveries and new scholarship.
This process has been going on for millennia.
For instance, just for the record, I don’t believe that the earth is flat or that it was created in seven days. Pretending that I hold extreme views is no argument against what I really believe.
Glad to hear it! I had my doubts!
(There was a little wink at the end of the paragraph -- ;-) -- in attempt to ensure you didn't take it too seriously.)
Typically, you have twisted my reference to “Christians” to make it look as though I disagree with Folau, ...
Not at all. You bought up the term. Here's the context:We’re not interested in the views of “Christians” here, Faz. Anyone can call themselves “Christian”, just as anyone can call themselves “Catholic” regardless of how their views relate to true Catholicism. The site is called True Catholic.
...when in reality, I was arguing against the view you put when you claimed that because some Christians reject the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, we are all free to reject that teaching, and any other we find uncomfortable.
Yes, a bit like what Folau would argue about the Assemblies of God view of Catholics. Catholics are idolatrous and just because they might be 'uncomfortable' with that, doesn't make it untrue.
From his point of view -- as expressed in the tweet -- Catholics 'true' or not, are going to hell.
As an aside, a more Catholic understanding of idolatry would be the 'worship' of money and material things.
He could have demonstrated his detachment from his considerable wealth by paying for his own defence and encouraging his supporters to send the pledged monies (somewhere near $2M I believe) to support people in real need.
And “they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” doesn’t specify who will do the putting to death.
LOL. There's a twist!
So no, again, just for the record, I do not wish the death penalty be applied here on earth. What happens in Eternity is beyond my control.
Therefore, you've 'developed' from the simple understanding of that scriptural reference.
That's what we do.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »