Comment: The Art of Choosing

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: freedom is not equal to relativism (see in situ)

The Art of Choosing

I did not say that "freedom is equal to relativism". One can not interpret text in any way one chooses. The text itself gives limits to valid interpretations.

How do you know that choosing, that is, heresy is equal to a poor choice? How can you know this? So you say that choosing itself is a poor choice whatever that means as heresy means to choose. To be a human being is to choose, that is, in a sense human being is condemn to heresy, to choosing. Like for example Sartre says one is free to choose, but one is not free not to choose.

Maybe orthodoxy is a poor choice which has all kinds of unintended consequences. Are you sure it doesn't have?

Jesus explains only few of the parables, not all of them which means that we are in the same ambiguous place with most of the parables, EVEN IF Jesus might have had one true meaning to all of them. But we do not have these explanations. Of course one cannot interpret parables and the teaching of Jesus in a relativistic way as any way one chooses. But this does not mean that there is only one way to interpret it. One cannot interpret any way one chooses, but at the same time there is not one single true interpretation. If there would be there wouldn't be all of these different groups of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptists, etc., etc.). They all interpret the Bible in a different manner and all of them think that their own interpretation is the true one. How can this be the case? So are all the other groups than one's own actually heretics in some way of the word?

You write: "Are you saying that the only alternative to heresy is blindly following someone? Isn't it possible for a thinking person to agree with what others say is right? If Ron Paul says auditing the FED is right, and you agree, are you blindly following him?"
Yes, that is, what I am saying if we take the word heresy in its etymological meaning as 'choosing' and actually even 'blind following' is in a sense a heresy as one makes a choice to follow blindly. Of course a thinking person can agree with others, but only by thinking oneself and doubting all kinds of possibilities and playing with different ideas, but this in a way heretic. And about Ron Paul and auditing the FED. In a sense Ron Paul's ideas are heretic in the mainstream GOP and the supporters of him are definitely heretic from the point of view of the most of Republicans. How do you know that actually the forms of Christianity that the mainstream Christians named as heretics where not the True Christians as they thought of themselves to be in a similar manner as many Ron Paul supporters think of themselves as the True Republicans even if the Church of GOP names them the heretics? We do not know as most of these 'heretic'/true Christian texts where destroyed and we know their teachings mostly through those (for example Irenaeus) who thought of them as heretics. Maybe the situation would be similar if we would only have few quotes from Ron Paul left and mostly our understanding of RP's thought would be interpretations of it by people like Santorum, Bill Kristol, O'Reilly and Dick Morris.

In this reply I have used the word heretic in many different ways consciously.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--