The passage from Luther as a younger man is indeed a mainstream view born pretty directly from Christian scripture and doctrine. The latter passages are a terrible evil, and are quite a stretch from the original texts. In the evolution of Luther's thinking, we see the crux of our discussion.
While I imagine you will mount a credible defense that Christianity -- the strict adherence to Christ's teachings -- has no place for the killing of heretical rabbis, Luther's comments as an old man are the inevitable results of the assertion that a certain school of thought is the one true path to God. Hence the proposition that religion inherently leads to human suffering. When a school of thought claims The Way, The Truth and The Light, there is by definition a devaluing of all other claims to truth. When the argument revolves around one's fitness to sit at the right hand of the Creator, devaluing someone's truth is devaluing their fitness before God. It becomes inevitable that your opponents are heretics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jim: It is the crux indeed. I do not accept the notion that professing one faith necessarily means belittling others. And, I think the root of that belief can be seen in each of our questions. For example, I believe in the objective existence of God. That means that there is something real religion is point all people toward. Religion is not just a set of conventions, for me, it is a method of finding an objective truth. So, I am unconcerned about ignoring parts of religion that have fallen away because they don't forward the pursuit of understanding God.
It is just like I don't care that Kepler believed in triangle power. We don't study most of what Kepler thought was important, but he really nailed the way planets move. And I give him a tip of the hat and say that was great, thanks Kepler. If you didn't think there were planets out there, you might say, "How can you ignore all of this other stuff that Kepler talked about? How can you cherry pick the few things and say that's what Kepler is about?" But because we both acknowledge the existence of planets, it's easy for us to focus on the portion of Kepler's work that moved science along and not worry about triangles. (At least magic ones.)
Similarly, I personally believe very strongly in Christianity. I believe Jesus Christ has changed my life. BUT, I personally do not believe that Buddha couldn't do that for someone else. Not even a little do I believe that. I believe absence of spirituality is less good than addressing sprituality. But I don't personally see the need to hold my religion above other religions.
I guess this would be like some Marxists kid telling you that rich people only care about their money. You know that's not true, and not only in one instance, but because you have experience that suggests the link between money and cold-heartedness is not what the Marxist kid thinks it is. It is not an essential link.
Now, none of this is NOT a defense of my position nor support of it. It's an explanation of why I think the way I do. But, it is worth noting where I'm coming from.
Matt: John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
No one comes to the Father but through Jesus. You have said that your interpretation of Christianity is more mainstream than some evangelicals, and while I gave you that, I don't think I can give you more.
You maintain that you follow Christ's teachings. He's pretty explicit about the value of his teachings over the value of Buddhism. You've chosen to say you follow Christ, and you argue that cherry picking in the Bible is intellectually defensible based on the idea that it's fallible. That Jesus' teachings are the path.
John 14:6 is telling you, I'd argue, that Jesus does not agree with you that Buddha can change someone's life toward an understanding of absolute truth the way He has done for you.
Post a Comment