Search results

The Apostles didn't do most of that, though. They didn’t declare anyone saints, nor do we need them as inerrant guides to virtue, as they are obviously not inerrant since no one is inerrant, and we already have a perfect guide to virtue in the form of christ himself. It's also odd to credit them...

He established a kingdom, yes, but not a kingdom of the earth (john 18:36), so the idea he intended the church to run as one is not supported by the gospel. It does not logically follow that God would tear the temple veil in two, destroying the barrier that has separated men from him (Matthew...

Ok, but that's again shifting more into very personal poetic arguements. If you have any sort of emotional reaction to something, you probably care about it, love and hate aren't special in requiring you to care about the underlying topic.

How exactly does "Have a neutral third party you both respect adjudicate disputes between you and your fellows" translates to "and also that third party must be organized into a massive hierarchical universal church with solo authority to interpret scripture" in your view?

I'm not sold on the "some of the same part of the brain is involved, therefore same thing" logic at play there, there's a massive leap in logic there. It's not uncommon for the same part of the brain to light up when doing all sorts of things, that doesn't mean they're two sides of the same coin...

And given that no part of that canon supports your claim that the teachings of any part of that church can overule the scripture itself, nor does it set anyone's judgement as the meaning of that s scripture above anyone else (with the possible exception of Peter, who has been dead for two...

The gospel was given to us by Christ, not the church, and he at no point suggested that the teachings of men could in any way overule his own words, and in fact explictly said otherwise at several points. John 4:16 being the most famous.

That's simply wrong, as shown by the actions of Christ himself, who forgave not only the people outside his fellowship that persecuted him but also those that tortured and executed him, and who's example Matthew 5 calls us to emulate. True, however it is a far greater error to read it as a...

I'd say it's more based on envy than hate. I don't thibk that hate is a part of love or that it the two are inextricably linked. That's taking that verse grossly out of context. The full passage says That is nearly the exact opposite of your claim, there is an explict command to love one's...

I don't think anyone's suggested doing that, there's a fairly wide middle ground between "woo-hoo, hate is awesome!" and "this man is guilty of hate think! Bailiff, take him to the mind scrubber!" Think of societies or cultures that do take explict stances on hate as a concept, religions must...

I doubt that's true. You're lumping a massive range of ideologies under one banner and ascribing motivation to all of them as if they were united by common logic rather than politics and strength in numbers, which is a really, really shaky premise. Again, I think you've got it backwards. It's...

I'm not sure that's all it means, there are certainly some people that are genuinely motivated by a desire to stop certain forms of hateful conduct. But this claim, where Aldarion is going "You claim you're against hate, but I don't see you doing anything to stop hateful thing X, therefore this...

This sounds shaky. Yes, it's clear that when people on the left say they're "against hate" they mean they're against only certain kinds of hate, and I agree that if you hate something, you probably care about what it threatens a fair bit. However, those are more or less side points, and I...