|
Jastiger posted:I agree but with one caveat about your part about the historical interpretation: Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely the existence of Jesus, Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. A lot of the rest has risen and fallen, but its important to note that there has always been (and almost has to be) a literal interpretation of religious texts. The difference in sects is often not so much interpretation but rather how much you consider to be literal. More a sliding scale than a modular choice. Do you mean that all religions will interpret some part of their holy text literally or that all holy texts have some religion that will interpret some of it literally? Either way, why does that have to be true? Or are you saying it's just inductively true based on observed religions?
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:My point isn't that its always been true for ALL sects but that its been true for the traditional sects that help define why the other sects are different. So your point is that some major religions interpret some parts of their religion literally, and that sometimes we distinguish between religions on the basis of these interpretations. Yea, totally.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I didn't think it was contentious, I thought it was obvious, but someone did, so...... Your point that all religions take some part of their holy text literally is contentious. Ascribing the literal meaning of a religion's holy texts to the belief system of all of that religion's followers can fuel discrimination against them. This is on topic in the Islamophobia thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I wasn't disputing the books, they're likely good pieces of literature. Yes. People are often blind to the societal, political, and economic forces that affect their decision making.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you're in a position of authority at a school and dismiss a threat as "eh, it's probably nothing" and ignore it or turn it away with only a cursory investigation, and it turns out to be something serious, people could possibly be injured or killed and you and your organization will definitely get your pants sued off. If you treat it seriously and it turns out to be nothing, you've inconvenienced some people and can blame the whole thing on someone else. It's the reason stuff like swatting works. I agree. I think it also comes from an uncertainty of who bears the burden of investigation. Is it the teacher's responsibility to check the veracity of claim? Or the principal's? Or the police's? In this situation it seems the teacher should have looked at the bag to understand the misunderstanding, but I wouldn't place the burden of investigation on the teacher if the claimed bomb was inside the student's locker. When confronted with a serious task, without clear authority to resolve it, people report up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 07:11
|
|