The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The exclusivity of Jesus > Comments

The exclusivity of Jesus : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 25/5/2011

Seeing the exclusivity of Jesus doesn't mean believers are narrowly sectarian or ignorant of other religions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All
Trav, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 7:35:57 PM

Of course not all worldviews are equally valid ...

.. but by the same token - when it comes to religious worlviews - it is "arrogant and bigoted to claim to know the truth and to tell everyone else (however tactfully) that they are, in fact, wrong, or at least not completely right".

...........................

Otokonoko, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 9:35:58 PM

Yes, it would be best if people could live through the examples of the stories of Jesus' example - lives governed by charity, decency and love- rather than through His name while living "by the tenets of cruelty and self-service"

How much does a myopic worldview allow the latter?
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 26 May 2011 7:15:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My posting was an attempt at my "understanding", which I suppose is similar to "interpretation", though I see a subtle difference in intent."

In order to 'understand' something there must be a correct interpretation which can be determined by rational investigation. I can understand "Allons, enfants de la patrie!" because I can look up a dictionary and ascertain what French speakers mean by it.

I can't understand "Erky perky pinky doodle pop!" because there is no agreed meaning and no amount of rational investigation will reveal one. All I can do is to impose my own meaning on it via wishful thinking, then debate, abuse, torture or kill -- depending on my level of certainty -- anyone who wants to impose a different meaning, or who points out that it is inherently meaningless.

The fact that there are thousands of religions and cults, all of which disagree on their most fundamental tenets, is a pretty good indicator that the scripture and other 'revelations' of God are just another "Erky perky pinky doodle pop!"
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 26 May 2011 7:26:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre:

"Squeers, I think your "sophistry" comment (soft-pillowed), and your "sanctimonious" comment (fairly direct) were hardly called-for - but then, your overall response I found to be objective. Don't necessarily agree, but appreciate your viewpoint. On the positive side, I always pick up a few new interesting terms from you - "exegesis" for example. Thanks".

I was initially impressed with this article and I still think this is a good way to resolve the problem, at least in the minds of religious adherents. I also think that in the abstract--that is divorced from doctrine and reducing Jesus and God purely to the values they "represent" (which to a large extent is what theologians do. Terms such as God and Jesus {the person} are incomprehensible and incongruous respectively)--the values espoused are certainly worthy of emulation.
Having considered all this I then came to the final paragraph and saw that everything that preceded it was indeed sophistry, and not contemplated self-reflectively (either personally or on behalf of the church) or for the sake of reconciling textual aporia, and so being reconciled in the humble faith that "Christ, through is grace, makes us who we are in truth".
No, the final paragraph was triumphant, designed to retroactively not only counter criticism, but both to refute and condemn it simultaneously--which is what afforded the author the luxury to wax sanctimonious at the last. Instead of invoking the depth of love and grace etc. for contemplation, Peter Sellick has rationalised the dispute (based on real discrimination by real men and church policy) into a purely one-sided affair--the necessary premises of sanctimony.

In Peter's defence, he clearly has strong convictions, and rationalists are often just as offended and indignant in defence of their world-view.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 26 May 2011 7:45:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, thanks for that explanation, you are far more learned in these matters than I. (And another new word for me.)

Jon J, At least my gobbledygook was based on an objective as well as subjective evaluation of an issue of text and its applicability to reality. I made no mention of fundamental tenets or of revelations of God, that is just all your construct. Sorry if my posts cause you angst or offend your dignity, but the counter-view you put forward is demonstrably untenable.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 26 May 2011 8:39:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers’ post encouraged me to look at the last sentence of the article again. It is:

“For when we understand it a right a life lived in the way of Christ is to be envied.”

We really don’t know what a ‘life lived in the way of Christ’ is. We can discount the miracles as merely standard treatment for that type of writing in that time. We cannot even be sure that there was a real person as the basis of the myth.

Given that there are a number of people we can model ourselves after.

A life lived in the way of Darwin, Newton or Einstein would mean a life lived in a search for scientific explanations.

A life lived in the way of Shakespeare, Racine or O’Neill would mean a life lived to produce drama.

A life lived in the way of Thoreau, Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. would mean a life lived for social justice.

A life lived in the way of George Eliot, Goethe or James Joyce would mean a life lived to produce literature.

Even if we can’t attain the heights those people did we can be as creative as we can be. If we are not particularly creative we can at least appreciate what these people did and enjoy their works. It seems to that an appreciation of real people and a life lived in emulation of them is far more worthwhile than living a life in emulation of a semi-mythological religious figure.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 26 May 2011 9:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey skeptic, just curious to know who the 30 (or maybe 40) percent are who contribute in a valuable manner to society? Always looking to improve myself where I can...
Posted by rational-debate, Thursday, 26 May 2011 9:04:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy