|
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Whether he really (was) a Christian is not something we would know for sure, because we can not read his mind, but it's basically completely irrelevant. The point is that he used Christian rhetoric and he had the church's support because he could find foundation for his ideas in the Bible. |
Actually, the church did not oppose him because he took policy positions that were favourable to them not because he took theologically sound positions.
| quote: | If you can find support for evil deeds in a religious text, then the religious text is partially responsible for being used in that way. For example. when it says in the Quran that you should kill unbelievers, then the Koran is partially responsible if someone feels compelled to kill infidels, because he/she has read it there.
And i am not saying everything is bad. |
You can't hold an idea responsible, even in part. You can't hold a book responsible, even in part. Kapital is not liable for the purging of the generals in the USSR, The White Man's Burden is not responsible for The Residential Schools abuse of Natives in Canada, The Catcher and the Rye did not lead directly to the murder of John Lennon, The Bible is not responsible for the hollocaust. Any attempt to argue to the contrary is absolute folly. Certainly, books can inspire deeds but you cannot credibly argue that a book is responsible for the deeds of a person.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down 
|
|