Posted by Jeff Downs on June 23, 2002 at 20:44:47:
In Reply to: Re: Free Material on Cults and World Religions posted by Jenny on June 23, 2002 at 18:04:17:
> I don't want to get into a religious debate on this board, but I do have to make a comment on what you said above.
A debate you might not want to "get into", a discussion - you're already in.
> I do not believe there is any 100% right religion.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
> I believe the bible, which is a basis for many religions & their beliefs, can be interpreted MANY different ways. It has to do with perception.
Sorry to be so blunt Jenny, but you are 100% wrong. Now don't get made, cause the bottom line is
you are telling me the same thing.
Jenny, are you trying to tell us, that if 10 different people interprete the Bible 10 different ways, they
can all be correct on their interpretation. Again, if that is what you are saying you are just dead wrong.
Jenny, part of interpreting (hermeneutics) any piece of literature, is to understand what the author
intended to say. Now, if you don't want to know that, than sure, you can
make the Bible, a newspaper column, a magazine article or even your letter here, to mean whatever I would like it to mean. What you are telling us
is that the authors of the text, did not have an intended meaning. Do you have an intended meaning to your letter, or is it just
ramblings as you say in your closing?
Just to put a lable on all of this, in case you don't know, you are giving me everything a Postmodernist would say.
Postmodernism is the idea that there really is no absolute truth. You have your truth, I have mine, etc...etc... The problem is,
the person who would say that there is no absolute truth, is stating an
absolute truth. They have hung themselves by their own words.
> Just ask 10 people who witness a traffic accident to file a report, and I guarantee you will get 10 differing answers. Some answers might be minor, some might not. The point is they will all be different. Are they all wrong? No, not really. The same is true with religion.
They are giving different perspective of the accident. But, your analogy fails.
An accident and a book are two different things. When an author writes, he is conveying certain ideas. The author
wants you to grasp his ideas. Again, I'm sure you are trying to communicate
certain ideas in your post. If you we're not, then what would be the point of writing.
You also want me or whoever reads it to understand the ideas you are trying to convey. Not just take it to mean whatever I want it to mean.
It could happen, but just because it could, doesn't mean it should and certainly is not the intention of the author.
> I think the bottom line is love of God....
Humm, wondering if you could define God for me?
> I've seen too many religions use their beliefs to commit crimes against humanity in the name of God.
According to your understanding of tolerance, who are you to say they are/were wrong?
> I think it's kind of sad to see you print that "I have a religious right
> to disagree with specific thoughts and also have a right to say that someone is wrong" because technically, dogma is a human concept and also who are you (or me or anyone) to put down someone else's belief simply because "you" (or me or anyone) think it is wrong?
Jenny, why in the world do you see this is sad? Obviosly, because you think I am wrong. And if you think
I am wrong, how in the world can you say "who am I to put down someones religion"? Can you not see that you are doing the very same thing with me.
This is what I tried to point out in my first response to you. It is like you tell me that you can not type a word of english. While at the same time,
you are doing it.
> That ruins the possibility of you claiming to practice religious tolerance. If you think they are wrong, you aren't tolerating.
>...sorry that I rambled.
Again, Jenny, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you don't not know what you are talking about.
First, you still have not defined "Religious Tolerance" I suggest you look up the word tolerance.
Jenny, by definition, you don't tolerate someone you agree with. You tolerate people or ideas that you DISAGREE with.
So, I can tolerate someone elses viewpoint on whatever subject is being discussed. But, it doesn't mean I agree with them.
Which is certainly where I would stand with your E-mail.
Let me recommend a few book two books to you:
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Francis Beckwith, Gregory Koukl (Baker, 1998; ISBN#: 0-8010-5806-6).
Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Douglas Groothuis (InterVarsity Press, 2000; ISBN#: 0-8308-2228-3).
or
God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. David Wells (Eerdmans, 1994; ISBN#: 0-8028-4179-1).
In Christ,
Jeff Downs