Re: Religious Book Discusion Groups

On Mar 30, 7:35 pm, the Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
 > The problem is, of course, that by following this procedure, you
almost
> certainly guarantee that the 'truth' you get is not truth at all. There
can be
> only one 'adequatio' in the classic definition of truth, "adequatio rei
et
> intellectus".
>
> Not to mention, there cannot be more than one truth. Everything else is
only
> approximation, whether good or bad. But once you insist on there being
more than
> one, you guarantee your approximation will be bad.

This is the Christian fundamentalist idea that there are 'absolute
truths' and no other religion holds these 'truths.' This sup****ts an
'us v them' or 'I'm right and you're wrong' mentality that has lead to
narrow-mindedness and religious violence. In the minds of those who
believe this there is no other 'true' religion than Christianity.

When asked where this 'absolute truth' comes from they will say the
Bible, which they believe is inerrant and when asked why the Bible is
inerrant they will say because it's the 'word of God.'  I encountered
this circular logic among otherwise intelligent people who wouldn't
accept a non-peer reviewed science journal, yet will accept an
anthology of translated manuscripts, where none of the original texts
exist, the meanings of missing or damaged ****tions was decided by
committee and many parts were passed down orally before being
transcribed.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org