3) What question? Is admission of ignorance a dishonest answer? I'm sorry I haven't read the details of the history that you have, but I refuse to take a stance prior to having done so. I don't like to simplify complex religious, political, and historical phenomenon the way you seem to, and it's not cowardice to refuse to answer a question prior to sorting through the details required to make even close to an accurate judgment. And I certainly never said that these men didn't think they were pious. I've mentioned the phenomenon of self-deception several times now; the thing about self-deception is that the person guilty of it isn't exactly aware of it. All that said, I'd appreciate you stepping back from name-calling and assuming you can judge my motives and intent. I am more than willing to admit to the wrongs of Christians. That doesn't entail, as you seem to think it does, that every person who claims to be Christian actually is by mere fiat. You have yet to provide, for example, a single shred of evidence that the LRA deserves the label Christian independent of their mere profession of some elements of Christian belief. The Christian church tends to be ecumenical enough for Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox to admit, on some level, that they are all part of the same Body (though unfortunately some think certain denominations are less central to that body than others are). But isn't it telling that all of these churches would deny that, say, Westboro Baptist Church is truly part of the universal church? Most Christians would also deny that Jehovah's Witnesses and the LDS are part of the church, despite the obvious centrality of the Christian tradition to the development of those traditions. So why should anyone, Christian or non-Christian alike, think the LRA is Christian? What links them, doctrinally, to the historic church? Do they accept the Nicene creed? Do they accept the Trinity? Do they accept the Divinity of Christ or what Christ declared to be the two greatest commandments of the Torah? From what I have read, Kony has not publicly mentioned Christ, and focuses not on the commandments of the New Testament but instead on the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament (though I truly wonder at his interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill").
4) If say that a passage says something, and the context of that passage demonstrates otherwise, then yes, I'm going to deny your claim. Jesus clearly isn't referring to all Jews, because he never says, "If you are a Jew and hold to my teaching, then you really are disciples and are no longer Jews anymore." Rather, he simply says that Jews can be his disciples. And if you still want to universalize the passage to all Jews and not those he is speaking with, you'll have to provide reason for it and not just assume the truth of your reading. After all, Jesus doesn't say this to just any group of Jews. In most occasions in the New Testament, he does not take this kind of polemic toward the Jews. There are many Jews who don't accept his teaching who he never goes off on in this manner. How do you account for that?
5) I didn't trivialize or minimize anything. You're the one who brought up these atrocities, and I wholeheartedly admit the existence and horror of these events. Again, I see both the good and the evil within Christianity, and I admit ignorance as to how to interpret (some of) the evil. (I'm no more a telepath than you are.) But you, on the other hand, are painting a very monochrome picture of Christianity, and if anyone is guilty of evasion here, it is you. See, I have asked you how an anti-semitic Christian could ever make logical, coherent sense of various biblical passages, and you ignore the question (and those passages). You may disagree with my interpretation of certain passages of Scripture that you have presented, but at least I give you my interpretation. You, on the other hand, offer no response whatsoever to how a Christian could consistently interpret Paul's remarks in Romans 3 and 11, 1 Cor. 1 and 10, and in Ephesians and Colossians. So it seems like you're the only one who gets to argue on the basis of Scripture and history? Your textual and historical evidence counts, and mine doesn't? That's fair.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/12 03:49 (UTC)4) If say that a passage says something, and the context of that passage demonstrates otherwise, then yes, I'm going to deny your claim. Jesus clearly isn't referring to all Jews, because he never says, "If you are a Jew and hold to my teaching, then you really are disciples and are no longer Jews anymore." Rather, he simply says that Jews can be his disciples. And if you still want to universalize the passage to all Jews and not those he is speaking with, you'll have to provide reason for it and not just assume the truth of your reading. After all, Jesus doesn't say this to just any group of Jews. In most occasions in the New Testament, he does not take this kind of polemic toward the Jews. There are many Jews who don't accept his teaching who he never goes off on in this manner. How do you account for that?
5) I didn't trivialize or minimize anything. You're the one who brought up these atrocities, and I wholeheartedly admit the existence and horror of these events. Again, I see both the good and the evil within Christianity, and I admit ignorance as to how to interpret (some of) the evil. (I'm no more a telepath than you are.) But you, on the other hand, are painting a very monochrome picture of Christianity, and if anyone is guilty of evasion here, it is you. See, I have asked you how an anti-semitic Christian could ever make logical, coherent sense of various biblical passages, and you ignore the question (and those passages). You may disagree with my interpretation of certain passages of Scripture that you have presented, but at least I give you my interpretation. You, on the other hand, offer no response whatsoever to how a Christian could consistently interpret Paul's remarks in Romans 3 and 11, 1 Cor. 1 and 10, and in Ephesians and Colossians. So it seems like you're the only one who gets to argue on the basis of Scripture and history? Your textual and historical evidence counts, and mine doesn't? That's fair.