Yes, Catholics can be “contentious,” but the text I cited wasn’t an encyclical. Not all texts carry the same authority: teachings affirmed by a council are binding on all Catholics. There are exceptions, of course, but even the most traditionalist Catholics try to interpret these texts in ways that allow non-Catholics to be saved under very exceptional circumstances. They can’t reject the teachings outright without being considered heretical. If we include mainline and liberal Protestants, that clearly makes a majority.
the constant arguments among biblical scholars
Find me one non-fundamentalist biblical scholar who holds this position. I’ll wait, since this isn’t up for debate. Scholars debate when, how, and why particular laws changed, and what those developments mean, not the existence of these changes. If you don’t approach the Bible as the inerrant word of God (a view rejected by most Christians, even in the very fundamentalist-friendly United States) it’s clear that the Old Testament laws consciously contradict one another: they respond to one another. So the laws can’t be eternal, as within the Pentateuch itself they aren’t!
In other words, “have blind faith”?
I didn’t said that at all, you’re distorting what I’m saying. Why is it so hard to have honest exchange of view on this subject on Lemmy?
Development of the productive forces of social labour is the historical task and justification of capital.
Here, Marx is praising capitalism, because it develops the productive forces. If I used this quote to say that The Capital is pro-capitalism, or not clearly anti-capitalist, you’d say that I understood nothing or was arguing in bad faith. And you’d be right accusing me of that, as The Capital is anti-capitalist at its core. Of course, that don’t work with less clear subjects.
I just ask you to give the Bible the same treatment as any other book.
Yes, Catholics can be “contentious,” but the text I cited wasn’t an encyclical. Not all texts carry the same authority: teachings affirmed by a council are binding on all Catholics. There are exceptions, of course, but even the most traditionalist Catholics try to interpret these texts in ways that allow non-Catholics to be saved under very exceptional circumstances. They can’t reject the teachings outright without being considered heretical. If we include mainline and liberal Protestants, that clearly makes a majority.
Find me one non-fundamentalist biblical scholar who holds this position. I’ll wait, since this isn’t up for debate. Scholars debate when, how, and why particular laws changed, and what those developments mean, not the existence of these changes. If you don’t approach the Bible as the inerrant word of God (a view rejected by most Christians, even in the very fundamentalist-friendly United States) it’s clear that the Old Testament laws consciously contradict one another: they respond to one another. So the laws can’t be eternal, as within the Pentateuch itself they aren’t!
I didn’t said that at all, you’re distorting what I’m saying. Why is it so hard to have honest exchange of view on this subject on Lemmy?
I’ll give an other example from The Capital. That’s what Marx wrote in the chapter 15 of the volume III:
Here, Marx is praising capitalism, because it develops the productive forces. If I used this quote to say that The Capital is pro-capitalism, or not clearly anti-capitalist, you’d say that I understood nothing or was arguing in bad faith. And you’d be right accusing me of that, as The Capital is anti-capitalist at its core. Of course, that don’t work with less clear subjects.
I just ask you to give the Bible the same treatment as any other book.
Yeah I don’t think you really understand what I’m trying to say, and I don’t know how to make it any more clear. Agree to disagree I guess
If I’m missing the point in your opinion, it’s surely because I genuinely don’t understand, you’re right. Sorry if that’s the case.
Agree to disagree is often a sane conclusion.
(Sorry for the deleted comment too, it was for an other thread.)
deleted by creator