Are you even reading what I’m writing lol how is that remotely relevant? Of course I know how contradictory the Bible can be. It’s just not relevant to the discussion.
What I don’t understand is why you are framing it is if it has to be one or the other. The book has contradictions. Also sometimes the pope/church scholars look at a section and go “for a while we thought this section meant X. We now think it means Y.” They didn’t rewrite anything or add a new rule or something. They just reinterpreted the text.
We reinterpret law. We reinterpret scholarly works. We reinterpret famous literature. We reinterpret historical texts. And yes, the church sometimes reinterprets scripture.
Reinterpreting text doesn’t mean that the text can’t contain contradictions. I’m not really sure where you’re getting that idea. Again, it’s not one or the other. You’re basically saying the church can’t ever go “hey we think this is more accurate so we are now updating things” for some reason. Which would be utterly bizarre for someone to assert in any other domain.
I made an offhand comment about Christianity being full of contradictions, and then you turned it into an argument. I never framed it as anything other than a criticism of the Bible and its myriad inconsistencies.
Is that what we say when courts re-interpret existing law?
I am now an atheist but just because I dislike the church doesn’t mean I’m going to be intellectually dishonest.
Eh?
Are you not aware of the myriad contradictions present in the text of the Bible alone? Don’t even need to talk specifically about Catholicism…
Are you even reading what I’m writing lol how is that remotely relevant? Of course I know how contradictory the Bible can be. It’s just not relevant to the discussion.
Please help me understand what you mean then. Because I took
to suggest that people are just interpreting Biblical text differently, not that there are inherent contradictions. Which there are. A lot.
What I don’t understand is why you are framing it is if it has to be one or the other. The book has contradictions. Also sometimes the pope/church scholars look at a section and go “for a while we thought this section meant X. We now think it means Y.” They didn’t rewrite anything or add a new rule or something. They just reinterpreted the text.
We reinterpret law. We reinterpret scholarly works. We reinterpret famous literature. We reinterpret historical texts. And yes, the church sometimes reinterprets scripture.
Reinterpreting text doesn’t mean that the text can’t contain contradictions. I’m not really sure where you’re getting that idea. Again, it’s not one or the other. You’re basically saying the church can’t ever go “hey we think this is more accurate so we are now updating things” for some reason. Which would be utterly bizarre for someone to assert in any other domain.
I made an offhand comment about Christianity being full of contradictions, and then you turned it into an argument. I never framed it as anything other than a criticism of the Bible and its myriad inconsistencies.
Everything else is you.
I tried. Have a good rest of your week. Feel free to have the last word.