You’re mixing things up, maybe because I’m not clear or maybe consciously. It’s probably the first. I hope.
What most Christians believe is that one can be saved without believing, and I proved that citing official Catholic texts. Maybe these texts aren’t true to the Bible, but that is of no consequence, they’re still a proof that most Christians believe what I said. The first question was not “can non-Christian be saved?” it was “do Christians believe that non-Christian can be saved?” and these are two different things.
Now, about the Bible, I did not contradict myself. Let’s take an other text: The Capital by Marx and Engels. It’s not a simple text: to understand it wholly, you must have a strong economical, philosophical and historical culture. It needs time, efforts, and this text is still debated today, as there are different legitimate interpretations. But even without them, you can read it and some things will be clear, for example that capitalism should be fought. A text can be difficult on its parts and clear on the whole on a few subjects.
It’s the case with the Bible. That the Law is not eternal is very clear, so if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.
You didn’t prove anything. Depending on what statistic you’re looking at, Catholics aren’t even a majority of Christians, but even if they are, do you honestly think all Catholics follow the “official Catholic texts”? Catholicism is famously one of the more contentious Christian sects, and always has groups that disagree with the Pope and their leadership.
That the Law is not eternal is very clear
Again, it isn’t, or else this entire thread wouldn’t be happening, and the constant arguments among biblical scholars about that very verse wouldn’t be happening.
if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.
Lol. In other words, “have blind faith”?
If that’s your argument, you aren’t making it in good faith, and I have no interest in continuing further.
Yes, Catholics can be “contentious,” but the text I cited wasn’t an encyclical. Not all texts carry the same authority: teachings affirmed by a council are binding on all Catholics. There are exceptions, of course, but even the most traditionalist Catholics try to interpret these texts in ways that allow non-Catholics to be saved under very exceptional circumstances. They can’t reject the teachings outright without being considered heretical. If we include mainline and liberal Protestants, that clearly makes a majority.
the constant arguments among biblical scholars
Find me one non-fundamentalist biblical scholar who holds this position. I’ll wait, since this isn’t up for debate. Scholars debate when, how, and why particular laws changed, and what those developments mean, not the existence of these changes. If you don’t approach the Bible as the inerrant word of God (a view rejected by most Christians, even in the very fundamentalist-friendly United States) it’s clear that the Old Testament laws consciously contradict one another: they respond to one another. So the laws can’t be eternal, as within the Pentateuch itself they aren’t!
In other words, “have blind faith”?
I didn’t said that at all, you’re distorting what I’m saying. Why is it so hard to have honest exchange of view on this subject on Lemmy?
Development of the productive forces of social labour is the historical task and justification of capital.
Here, Marx is praising capitalism, because it develops the productive forces. If I used this quote to say that The Capital is pro-capitalism, or not clearly anti-capitalist, you’d say that I understood nothing or was arguing in bad faith. And you’d be right accusing me of that, as The Capital is anti-capitalist at its core. Of course, that don’t work with less clear subjects.
I just ask you to give the Bible the same treatment as any other book.
You’re mixing things up, maybe because I’m not clear or maybe consciously. It’s probably the first. I hope.
What most Christians believe is that one can be saved without believing, and I proved that citing official Catholic texts. Maybe these texts aren’t true to the Bible, but that is of no consequence, they’re still a proof that most Christians believe what I said. The first question was not “can non-Christian be saved?” it was “do Christians believe that non-Christian can be saved?” and these are two different things.
Now, about the Bible, I did not contradict myself. Let’s take an other text: The Capital by Marx and Engels. It’s not a simple text: to understand it wholly, you must have a strong economical, philosophical and historical culture. It needs time, efforts, and this text is still debated today, as there are different legitimate interpretations. But even without them, you can read it and some things will be clear, for example that capitalism should be fought. A text can be difficult on its parts and clear on the whole on a few subjects.
It’s the case with the Bible. That the Law is not eternal is very clear, so if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.
You didn’t prove anything. Depending on what statistic you’re looking at, Catholics aren’t even a majority of Christians, but even if they are, do you honestly think all Catholics follow the “official Catholic texts”? Catholicism is famously one of the more contentious Christian sects, and always has groups that disagree with the Pope and their leadership.
Again, it isn’t, or else this entire thread wouldn’t be happening, and the constant arguments among biblical scholars about that very verse wouldn’t be happening.
Lol. In other words, “have blind faith”?
If that’s your argument, you aren’t making it in good faith, and I have no interest in continuing further.
Yes, Catholics can be “contentious,” but the text I cited wasn’t an encyclical. Not all texts carry the same authority: teachings affirmed by a council are binding on all Catholics. There are exceptions, of course, but even the most traditionalist Catholics try to interpret these texts in ways that allow non-Catholics to be saved under very exceptional circumstances. They can’t reject the teachings outright without being considered heretical. If we include mainline and liberal Protestants, that clearly makes a majority.
Find me one non-fundamentalist biblical scholar who holds this position. I’ll wait, since this isn’t up for debate. Scholars debate when, how, and why particular laws changed, and what those developments mean, not the existence of these changes. If you don’t approach the Bible as the inerrant word of God (a view rejected by most Christians, even in the very fundamentalist-friendly United States) it’s clear that the Old Testament laws consciously contradict one another: they respond to one another. So the laws can’t be eternal, as within the Pentateuch itself they aren’t!
I didn’t said that at all, you’re distorting what I’m saying. Why is it so hard to have honest exchange of view on this subject on Lemmy?
I’ll give an other example from The Capital. That’s what Marx wrote in the chapter 15 of the volume III:
Here, Marx is praising capitalism, because it develops the productive forces. If I used this quote to say that The Capital is pro-capitalism, or not clearly anti-capitalist, you’d say that I understood nothing or was arguing in bad faith. And you’d be right accusing me of that, as The Capital is anti-capitalist at its core. Of course, that don’t work with less clear subjects.
I just ask you to give the Bible the same treatment as any other book.