@eris_nerung@TheGr8terGood@memeticsisyphus I think he would say that Locke was correct in recognizing that the distinctions, even within Christianity, are far from superficial.
Indeed, it's their non-superficisl character that makes *toleration* necessary in the first place
@miltonappl3 Bernard didn't know the "historical context" of the Song of Songs, the idea that he had to would have been absurd. It makes complete sense that he would write with the intent to be read in the same way.
Indeed, the authors regularly make it explicit that they want this!
I do something so reflexively when reading classics that I've long ago stopped noticing that I do it, and I think it's something worth mentioning: I read each one for internal consistency, like a math equation which demonstrates itself. This approach has made the vast majority of the canon thoroughly enjoyable, and I think it's largely the way these authors want to be treated. It's also why I have extreme trouble understanding people who like secondary sources or who reflexively need to know about Elizabethan court drama to read Shakespeare, for example. To me, that's like trying to figure out about John von Neumann's wife in order to learn about his quantum theory.
@miltonappl3 Yes! I'm deeply grateful to UChicago's commitment to primary source-first reading, because it allowed me to recognize it in the sources themselves.
@kitten_beloved@Chris_arnade To Hawthorne: I have written a wicked book, and feel spotless as the lamb....It is a strange feeling -- no hopefulness is in it, no despair. Content -- that is it; and irresponsibility; but without licentious inclination.