Foxfyre wrote:... I teach comparitive religions ...
I submit that by the evidence such is not the case; what you demonstrate is not teaching but rather is the preaching of a particular religious construct. For one to teach anything in honest, nonpartisan manner, that one must draw upon objective, legitmately authoritative source material, transmitteng therefrom to the target audience a balanced, accurate, non-agendized sum-and-substance precís of the subject at study. Now, while I don't teach comparative religion - in fact I don't much teach anything at all, having neither the patience nor the compassion to perform the excercize meaningfully - I've long studied it, diligently, objectively, and in painstaking depth through post-secondary and into graduate academic setting along with ongoing independent study, theologic, philosophic, and historic. From my point of view, it is difficult to determine whether your demonstrated disingenuousness pertaining to the matter derives from conscious, agenda-driven duplicity or from a mere paucity of knowledge and understanding. In anyevent, the promulgation of misinformation is not teaching, it is, at the most charitable, proselytization, if not outright propagandizing. And BTW - I'm of the broad school which holds that the academically accepted and generally applied course title for the matter here at discussion is "
Comparative Religion", in the singular, not, as in your useage, "
Comparative Religions", the plural. A pedantic, perhaps even (and if so, admittedly) pedagogic, point to be sure, but a valid, concrete point none the less.
Foxfyre wrote:There is a difference between 'scripture' and a New Testament.
Yeah ... precisely the same differentiation as may be made between same as between "Novels" and
Moby Dick.
Quote:There is a difference between authoritarian writings and what would be considered 'canonized' as Scripture.
Yeah, sorta; the functional difference is consensus of opinion, and even that is not uniform across the various religions which derive their particular, occasionally conflicting, itterations of "scripture" from the Abrahamic mythopaeia. Not to say, mind you, that the Abrahamics are singular in such respect, far from it - just putting them at the top of the list of those displaying enthusiasm for the practice.
Quote:There was no full agreement and there has never been full agreement among the Church leaders hten or now as to all the interpretation of the writings and/or which ones deserved to be elevated to the status of Scripture.
Thus unambiguously putting the lie to the notion any one or another anthology of myths, mysteries, morés, aphorisms, fables, parables, hero legends, and assorted other fanciful literary excercizes might represent the immutable, revealed, incontravertable truth of some omnipotent, omniscient, patristic overseer.
Quote:And as I do not care to exchange insults with any member here, I'll move on until such member, trolls, and children take their naps.
Well, that's up to you, but if you're not going to use 'em, don't leave your binky and your teddy there; pick 'em up and put 'em back in your cubbyhole. And don't wander too far off if you don't wanna miss snack time.
Oh, and Set ... mind the sticks if you would, please; play nice now.
