3 ms·

Acknowledging this is a potentially very touchy subject, and definitely veering way off topic ... I'd still like to ask: If you're selecting which bits of a t

by Jedd 11y ago

Acknowledging this is a potentially very touchy subject, and definitely veering way off topic ... I'd still like to ask: If you're selecting which bits of a text to adopt, and interpreting other bits, why do you need the text (which contains things you obviously disagree with) as a 'basis of a moral framework'? Is there anything in your particular preferred version of the text that unambiguously allows the reader flexibility to pick and choose which bits they will agree with (my understanding is that this isn't the case - but my knowledge is not deep in this area).

protomyth 11y ago
Yeah, a bit out of topic and I'm not a Biblical scholar or a learned man. Just another sinner trying to be a good person. Church elders have long sermons on how a religion changes with new discoveries, I just go with the flow and keep the theme. That said, I'll try. Its not so much selecting, as knowing that the context has changed in thousands of years. Burying your poop and what hand to use eating were important things back then, but only really practical on a survival show now. I have plumbing and good soap. How to treat slaves is not something the modern world should care about. Its not about disagreeing with the text, its understanding that whole free will and gaining dominion over it all sometimes discards the old conditions by freeing people. Its was a survival manual after all too. "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" are not something that loses their context. They speak to how to treat others and don't lose any meaning with era. Our changes to the world have not changed such fundamental truths. We are still humans and some things are eternal. The parables are still good lessons.
- Jedd 11y ago
  Thank you for your thoughtful response. At the risk of sounding churlish, however, I think you dodged my question : ) I know that I should not murder, and that I should not buy / keep slaves. Yet I don't need to refer to a text that agrees with my position on the former, but is (at best) ambiguous on the latter. (The precise mechanism by which I've come to know both things are bad is not something I can conveniently answer, before you ask. Quoting K-Pax may be necessary.) My question was if you have the necessary innate / internal / nascent / instinctive understanding to know slavery is bad (as one example) then what's the point of using a text that advocates slavery as the basis of a moral framework?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Well, I tried, as I said I'm not a scholar but a student. > I've come to know both things are bad is not something I can conveniently answer, before you ask Yet, you ask me the reason I use a text that is the basis of my church's beliefs that were taught to me to show those are bad. I don't think its instinctive to know its bad or else it would have not been such an institution in the first place. To be fair to the Bible, it doesn't advocate slavery, but it does have commands on how to treat slaves including freeing them. I guess there is a pragmatism in lessening the horror when its not ingrained to end it outright.
benjohnson 11y ago
This is a very good question. As a Lutheran, we don't receive the Bible and make of it what we will as interpretation of the Bible is done by the church and involves a lot of tradition - we have vast libraries filled with the writings of the early church and other doctors of the church. My own woefully incomplete study materials occupies 12 cubits of shelf space - That's 5.4 meters for you modern types. :) The body of knowledge is so vast for example that at one point economics was considered a small subset of theology.
moftz 11y ago
He also states his belief in the principles of the US Constitution, a document that has been heavily edited using amendments. We do not follow the original copy anymore as we have progressed and found different ways to run the country. Additionally, like any text, we can interpret the document differently depending on the bias of who is reading it. The second of three commas in the 2nd amendment makes the amendment have different meanings on who you ask. Pro-gun says the comma seperates the right of the militia and the right to bear arms. Anti-gun says the comma doesn't mean anything and only the militia have a right to bear arms. The whole idea of the New Testament which is what Christians follow, is supposed to be an amendment to the Old Testament. The only issue is that there is no copy of the Old Testament with the repealed parts striked out. One could argue that the Old Testament is the book of law but the New Testament is the guidebook on how to follow the law, whats ok to break and whats not. Very rarely do we have situations in life where we have absolute laws and absolute consequences. Marijuana is federally illegal but legal in certain states. Speeding can get you anywhere from a warning to a hefty ticket depending on how the cop feels about you. You can hem and haw about how Christians don't follow the Bible to the letter but it really doesn't matter. Everything progresses (and regresses) over time, changing from the original intended meaning to the new interpreted meaning and maybe back again.

by Jedd 11y ago

protomyth 11y ago

Yeah, a bit out of topic and I'm not a Biblical scholar or a learned man. Just another sinner trying to be a good person. Church elders have long sermons on how a religion changes with new discoveries, I just go with the flow and keep the theme. That said, I'll try. Its not so much selecting, as knowing that the context has changed in thousands of years. Burying your poop and what hand to use eating were important things back then, but only really practical on a survival show now. I have plumbing and good soap. How to treat slaves is not something the modern world should care about. Its not about disagreeing with the text, its understanding that whole free will and gaining dominion over it all sometimes discards the old conditions by freeing people. Its was a survival manual after all too. "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" are not something that loses their context. They speak to how to treat others and don't lose any meaning with era. Our changes to the world have not changed such fundamental truths. We are still humans and some things are eternal. The parables are still good lessons.

Jedd 11y ago
Thank you for your thoughtful response. At the risk of sounding churlish, however, I think you dodged my question : ) I know that I should not murder, and that I should not buy / keep slaves. Yet I don't need to refer to a text that agrees with my position on the former, but is (at best) ambiguous on the latter. (The precise mechanism by which I've come to know both things are bad is not something I can conveniently answer, before you ask. Quoting K-Pax may be necessary.) My question was if you have the necessary innate / internal / nascent / instinctive understanding to know slavery is bad (as one example) then what's the point of using a text that advocates slavery as the basis of a moral framework?
- protomyth 11y ago
  Well, I tried, as I said I'm not a scholar but a student. > I've come to know both things are bad is not something I can conveniently answer, before you ask Yet, you ask me the reason I use a text that is the basis of my church's beliefs that were taught to me to show those are bad. I don't think its instinctive to know its bad or else it would have not been such an institution in the first place. To be fair to the Bible, it doesn't advocate slavery, but it does have commands on how to treat slaves including freeing them. I guess there is a pragmatism in lessening the horror when its not ingrained to end it outright.

benjohnson 11y ago

This is a very good question. As a Lutheran, we don't receive the Bible and make of it what we will as interpretation of the Bible is done by the church and involves a lot of tradition - we have vast libraries filled with the writings of the early church and other doctors of the church. My own woefully incomplete study materials occupies 12 cubits of shelf space - That's 5.4 meters for you modern types. :) The body of knowledge is so vast for example that at one point economics was considered a small subset of theology.

moftz 11y ago

He also states his belief in the principles of the US Constitution, a document that has been heavily edited using amendments. We do not follow the original copy anymore as we have progressed and found different ways to run the country. Additionally, like any text, we can interpret the document differently depending on the bias of who is reading it. The second of three commas in the 2nd amendment makes the amendment have different meanings on who you ask. Pro-gun says the comma seperates the right of the militia and the right to bear arms. Anti-gun says the comma doesn't mean anything and only the militia have a right to bear arms. The whole idea of the New Testament which is what Christians follow, is supposed to be an amendment to the Old Testament. The only issue is that there is no copy of the Old Testament with the repealed parts striked out. One could argue that the Old Testament is the book of law but the New Testament is the guidebook on how to follow the law, whats ok to break and whats not. Very rarely do we have situations in life where we have absolute laws and absolute consequences. Marijuana is federally illegal but legal in certain states. Speeding can get you anywhere from a warning to a hefty ticket depending on how the cop feels about you. You can hem and haw about how Christians don't follow the Bible to the letter but it really doesn't matter. Everything progresses (and regresses) over time, changing from the original intended meaning to the new interpreted meaning and maybe back again.