4 ms·

As someone who works for a scholarly text analysis company focused on in-depth & intricate understanding of what Judao-Christian authors meant, I concur with th

by pnathan 13y ago

As someone who works for a scholarly text analysis company focused on in-depth & intricate understanding of what Judao-Christian authors meant, I concur with this. It is really hard to understate the volume of words and man-millenia spent reading and writing about these books. So not only is it possible to read your sacred book and still believe it, it's possible to read your sacred book and remaining fragments from other regional books (sacred and otherwise) - all in "close-to-original" language, and a wealth of other secondary material, and then still believe. You'll just slap your forehead than you might have originally bargained for when you started your quest...

cdwhite 13y ago
Your description of "a scholarly text analysis company focused on in-depth & intricate understanding of what Judao-Christian authors meant" really piques my curiosity---I associate that sort of thing with academia (seminaries and religious studies departments, medieval studies, maybe a few classicists), not a (presumably for-profit) company. If you don't mind my asking, what company do you work for, and what do they do?
- pnathan 13y ago
  Shoot me an email (in my profile) and I'll respond.
  - cdwhite 13y ago
    Done.
loup-vaillant 13y ago
> It is really hard to understate the volume of words and man-millenia spent reading and writing about these books. So much brain power spent on scriptures which are, in the light of current knowledge… improbable to say the least. Sounds like a huge waste of effort, really. Take the Genesis, for instance. Currently, only creationist crackpots actually believe it. It's more of a symbol. It seems however that some centuries ago, every Christian, including the most knowledgeable theologians, believed it. Instead of trying to explain why the text was written for a good reason, wouldn't it be simpler to just recognize, as our knowledge expands, that the Elders were simply mistaken about such and such point, an move on? Just archive the mistakes and strike them from the cannon already, it would be much simpler for everyone. But I guess a religion that routinely admits its own mistakes wouldn't be very religious, now would it?
- pnathan 13y ago
  Loosely, no. Sorry. :-/ Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). Pretty sure the modern literalist movement is a post-1850 phenomenon. I don't get into the creation story discussions, it is entirely irrelevant in many ways to me. Waste of our time, IMO. Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. I read in one intro book on it (by a rabbi, I think) that doubt is one of the defining characteristics of Jewish faith. Anyway, modern scholarship tries in part to disentangle what was meant in the context of that time and place, determining what the precise meaning (or set of meanings) could have meant, then drawing out inferences to be taken from the work. This does involve, from time to time, revising our understanding of what happened when, where, and why. The story of the early reformation is, in one dimension, loosely a story of rereading the texts and throwing out certain interpretations based on closer analysis.
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    > Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. I called them "creationist crackpots" for a reason. What I don't get, is why what shouldn't be interpreted literally, isn't simply stricken from the canon. I mean, what is the point of writing about a world created in seven days (oops, six), if we know it wasn't? Sabbath? > Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). That's sooner than I expected. Which leaves us around 6 centuries to amend the book. > Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. Even if they aggressively show interest in doubt and questioning, I doubt it's for actually doubting an questioning, like, to the point of having some members realizing their religion is probably wrong after all. Here's a related example, from http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ """ Once, when I was holding forth upon the Way[1], I remarked upon how most organized belief systems exist to flee from doubt. A listener replied to me that the Jesuits must be immune from this criticism, because they practice organized doubt: their novices, he said, are told to doubt Christianity; doubt the existence of God; doubt if their calling is real; doubt that they are suitable for perpetual vows of chastity and poverty. And I said: Ah, but they're supposed to overcome these doubts, right? He said: No, they are to doubt that perhaps their doubts may grow and become stronger. [1]: http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ """

by pnathan 13y ago

cdwhite 13y ago

Your description of "a scholarly text analysis company focused on in-depth & intricate understanding of what Judao-Christian authors meant" really piques my curiosity---I associate that sort of thing with academia (seminaries and religious studies departments, medieval studies, maybe a few classicists), not a (presumably for-profit) company. If you don't mind my asking, what company do you work for, and what do they do?

pnathan 13y ago
Shoot me an email (in my profile) and I'll respond.
- cdwhite 13y ago
  Done.

loup-vaillant 13y ago

> It is really hard to understate the volume of words and man-millenia spent reading and writing about these books. So much brain power spent on scriptures which are, in the light of current knowledge… improbable to say the least. Sounds like a huge waste of effort, really. Take the Genesis, for instance. Currently, only creationist crackpots actually believe it. It's more of a symbol. It seems however that some centuries ago, every Christian, including the most knowledgeable theologians, believed it. Instead of trying to explain why the text was written for a good reason, wouldn't it be simpler to just recognize, as our knowledge expands, that the Elders were simply mistaken about such and such point, an move on? Just archive the mistakes and strike them from the cannon already, it would be much simpler for everyone. But I guess a religion that routinely admits its own mistakes wouldn't be very religious, now would it?

pnathan 13y ago
Loosely, no. Sorry. :-/ Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). Pretty sure the modern literalist movement is a post-1850 phenomenon. I don't get into the creation story discussions, it is entirely irrelevant in many ways to me. Waste of our time, IMO. Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. I read in one intro book on it (by a rabbi, I think) that doubt is one of the defining characteristics of Jewish faith. Anyway, modern scholarship tries in part to disentangle what was meant in the context of that time and place, determining what the precise meaning (or set of meanings) could have meant, then drawing out inferences to be taken from the work. This does involve, from time to time, revising our understanding of what happened when, where, and why. The story of the early reformation is, in one dimension, loosely a story of rereading the texts and throwing out certain interpretations based on closer analysis.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  > Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. I called them "creationist crackpots" for a reason. What I don't get, is why what shouldn't be interpreted literally, isn't simply stricken from the canon. I mean, what is the point of writing about a world created in seven days (oops, six), if we know it wasn't? Sabbath? > Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). That's sooner than I expected. Which leaves us around 6 centuries to amend the book. > Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. Even if they aggressively show interest in doubt and questioning, I doubt it's for actually doubting an questioning, like, to the point of having some members realizing their religion is probably wrong after all. Here's a related example, from http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ """ Once, when I was holding forth upon the Way[1], I remarked upon how most organized belief systems exist to flee from doubt. A listener replied to me that the Jesuits must be immune from this criticism, because they practice organized doubt: their novices, he said, are told to doubt Christianity; doubt the existence of God; doubt if their calling is real; doubt that they are suitable for perpetual vows of chastity and poverty. And I said: Ah, but they're supposed to overcome these doubts, right? He said: No, they are to doubt that perhaps their doubts may grow and become stronger. [1]: http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ """