I think that throughout history, most Jewish and Christian thought would have accepted the notion the God condoned slavery. However, one of the underlying principles in Jewish thought (that (most) Chrstians have adopted) is that God works through history and that people who follow God grow in new understandings of what God wants. IAMOG is not wrong to claim that slavery is condoned, (or, at minimum, accepted) in the bible, he simply misses the point that the accepted understandings of what appears in the bible have been under constant reinterpretation throughout the life of that (many authored) work, meaning that what is understood about God today may differ from what was understood about God in the past.
If the bible was clearly understood with no development of understanding through the years, there would be no multi-volume Talmud and there would not be numerous councils, synods, bulls, and encyclicals passed down through the ages.
I don’t necessarily reject the literalist interpretation, or the dictation of the Lord’s word idea, but since it’s pretty clear that the bible, divinely inspired or not, was actually written down by humans, and humans are prone to screwing up, it’s not only possible that errors were made, it seems rather likely some were. :smack:
Well, no. That is a more informal definition that is sometimes used, but the primary meaning of agnostic is the first definition listed at dictionary.com:
“One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.”
Saying it’s impossible to know isn’t the same as saying not all the facts are in. I’m not going to quibble over definitions. You can use the informal one if you want, but that’s not the one I’d use.
Nope, that’s not it at all. I am quite sure. After carefully examining the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence that exists does not support the existence of God. I’m quite sure about that.
See, you’re confusing the idea that it’s possible for God to exist, but there is no evidence, with the idea that God might exist. Try substituting another concept for God, like unicorns. It’s not impossible for unicorns to exist, yet I am certain that they do not, because there is no evidence that they do, and hence no reason to believe that they do.
As someone put it in another thread, I am as sure that God does not exist as I am sure that tomorrow, objects will not start falling up. Gravity could reverse tomorrow, but I have no reason to believe that it will. Likewise, I have no reason to believe that God exists.
Doesn’t matter what I call myself - SOMEBODY is either going to bitch about it, or make false generalizations. So “non-religious” is just as good as anything else.
Also depends how you define “religious”. Again, I use the FIRST definition, which is:
“Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.”
Since I neither believe in nor revere any god or deity, I can accurately describe myself as “non-religious”. If somebody else wants to use a different definition, that’s their problem.
Star and planet formation isn’t random chance: it’s gravity.
Stellar nucleosynthesis isn’t random chance: it’s nuclear physics.
Biological evolution isn’t random chance: it’s statistics.
In other words, the Bible can mean whatever men want it to mean. Or, as John Dryden put it,
Happy, who can this talking trumpet seize,
They make it speak whatever sense they please,
This side today and that tomorrow burns
And all are God Almighty in their turns.
‘A tempting doctrine, plausible and new,
What fools our fathers were if this be true!’
There are certainly people who oppose the non-literalist tradition using that argument. However, it should be noted that the traditions of interpreting and re-interpreting the bible rarely involve pop-up ideas with no basis in previous understanding. The method of the Talmudic debate and the councilar pronouncements has always been to take the tradition of the accepted meaning of the Scripture, compare it against the current milieu, and see how that tradition speaks to the current situation. On some occasions, this has led to a change in the perceived meaning of the scriptural passage. (E.g., passages regarding ethical conduct toward slaves are seen as precursors to a realization that slavery itself is unjust that were given to a people in a world that could not imagine an absence of slavery.) In most cases, even this sort of change does not occur. In fact, the most widespread “re-interpretation” of Scripture in the last 200 years has been the abandonment of the clear understanding that the Revelation of John was presented to a specific community, but with a universal message of hope, substituting an odd claim that is is some guidebook to actual future events.
Against this claim by believers of continued development of the understanding of revelation, some (many?) would posit that people are simply “changing” meaning to make their current beliefs more comfortable under the pressure of changing social norms. That argument has certainly been waged on the SDMB before this. It would, however, be a hijack of this thread to pursue it here.
Whenever anyone says, “It’s obvious that…,” the only thing that is obvious is that he or she is giving his or her personal understanding of what something debatable means.
I really have a hard time seeing any essential difference between these statements.
To me the second reads, “We currently are doing such-and-such so let’s have a meeting and see if we can figure out an interpretation of Holy Scripture that will ratify our actions.”
I find myself in agreement with David Simmons here. I respect the idea that the relevant interpretations of the Bible or Talmud or Koran that are prevalent world wide weren’t generally arrived at by flipping coins or picking numbers, or something else completely arbitrary. It does not change the fact, however, that the ability to interpret the books differently than as literally written means about the same thing. If you want it to mean this, you just have to argue effectively at whatever council, meeting or whatever for your interpretation. That says to me that the value of a sacred text is weakened significantly and the rituals and rules that make up an organized religion become far less compelling.
That’s what I just can’t accept. Either they got it right the first time, or there’s no way to know who’s right, so what’s the point. If I can’t know which interpretation is the right one, objectively and logically, then I can’t accept any of them. And since there is no absolute objective and logical interpretation that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, I remain a good little sceptic and keep going with only what has been proven.
There’s an old saying in Christian circles that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” I.e., if you want to know the meaning and application of a passage, you go to somewhere else in the Book for a guideline on how to understand it.
A good example of this taken to an extreme is found in Zev’s explanation of how a capital trial would be conducted in Jewish courts. The command, “Thou shalt do no murder” (a more accurate rendering than the common “Thou shalt not kill”) is applied to ensure by extremes that a court which can legally condemn to death is not acting out of personal or vengeance motives.
For Christians, the two commandments that Jesus set above all others, and the related teachings, are supposed to shape their understanding of what some angry and irritated prophet or one element in a correspondence is actually saying. The precise words written may not give the all-important context in which the passage is to be understood. A knowledge of cultural custom or literary form may also be important.
A good example of the latter is in I Corinthians, in which Paul carefully shows that a Christian woman is free in Christ to wear her hair as she wishes, including uncovered and flowing down – and then immediately tells her not to do so in public. What’s the reason here? Does God have a problem with uncovered, free-flowing women’s hair for some stranger reason? No – the cultural context is that Corinth, the city in which the church Paul was writing to was located, was a major port city in which prostitution was a major industry. And a woman who went out in public with uncovered, free-flowing hair was “advertising” – she was either a prostitute looking to pick up a john, or a woman interested in casual sex. Therefore, to avoid appearing to be such women, the Christian women of the church in Corinth, though free to do as they listed, were to avoid doing something that would bring public scandal on them and the church.
Context is everything. You said it exactly how it is, Poly. In the other thread (witches, potions) I did just that when I connected it to the prohibition against “false” gods.
Unfortunately, people toss the context right out the window when it suits them. They selectively cut and paste. Night becomes day. It gets twisted into hate thy neighbor, thou shalt kill, all sorts of nonsense. If more people actually read the bible for themselves, instead of having some charlatan spoon feed pre-selected snippets to them, maybe they would act differently, or at least feel less “righteous” about what they do.
If some people use the Bible as their moral guide then I’m all in favor of reinterpreting it. As I understand it, (Asimov’s Guide to The Bible, Isaac Asimov) the Bible was put into written form during the Babylonian Exile and for the purpose of keeping the Hebrew exiles together as a separate group within Babylonian society. The Hebrew leaders knew that the previous group taken as prisoners into Assyria a couple of hundred years before the Babylonian captivity had simply vanished, probably because of assimilation into Assyrian society. They wanted to avoid that.
They based their written Bible on legends and folklore handed down orally from past ages and those sources were the product of a rather primitive, tribal society of nomadic desert dwellers.
[speculation]Such a society was harsh because survival on the desert was, and is, hard when you are trying to live off the land. Any violation of the accepted, tried-and-true methods of surviving endangered not only the individual but the group as a whole because the group was small. So their folklore contained harsh strictures and severe punishment for non-conformity. As the Hebrews moved more and more into the cities and became civilized (in the sense of being able to fit into a complex civil [citified] society) the harsh penalties became less necessary and the words could be reinterpreted to fit the new conditions.[/speculation]
In that case reinterpretation is not only a good idea, it is absolutely necessary. I think Biblical literalists are in a constant state of frustrating retreat because the condition necessary for harmony in society have changed almost immeasurably since the time of the origination of the legends on folklore on which the Bible was originally based.
But doesn’t the concept of using the traditional interpretation as your starting point, presuppose that they got it right in the first place? In my limited understanding of biblical scholarship, the “traditional” interpretations often turn out to be just as fallible as any other. Isn’t that true? Tell me if I’m wrong, because I’m no bible scholar, but what I’ve gleaned from a lot of these threads is that there was a lot of “politics” going on in the early formation of the Church, and what ended up getting accepted as tradition wasn’t necessarily the most historically or even spritually informed.
It presupposes that they got it right for them in their time and place. As to whether any group “got it right,” clearly different people will look back and challenge the decisions made. The general approach within the community is that the Spirit of God moves such discussions in the proper direction despite the personalities and politics involved.
At some point, (probably sooner than later), this discussion is going to break down along the lines of “We believe it.” vs “Where is the proof?”. I acknowledged that point in my first and last statements in response to aldiboronti. If God does not even exist, everything said regarding how we perceive God or the will of God is obviously in error. I have no intention of getting into a “god or no-god” debate, simply because we’ve done a lot of those already and I doubt that anyone will be persuaded if we go around it again. I have offered my views solely as an insight into one tradition of thought for those for whom it is unfamiliar. I am not trying to persuade anyone that my belief is correct
Maybe an example would make it more clear. I recall from Cecil’s article on the Gospels and from many threads here, that while the tradition is that the Gospels are all eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, and that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute who is referred to in the Gospels, both of those traditions, on further study, would seem to be erroneous. I’m sure others could come up with many other examples. As I said, I’m far from being an expert.
I’m curious - If you do believe that God influences the powers-that-be to discover the correct interpretation of the Bible, why then would any mistakes ever be made? Or if those aren’t mistakes, why would God allow them to appear to be mistakes?
Not my intention at all. You brought up the concept of relying on tradition as a sort of bedrock of Bible interpretation. My only intent was to discuss whether people think that’s a sound idea, or whether it might suffer the same inherent problem as sometimes occurs in the legal system when one relies on “bad precedent”. I didn’t mean it in the broader sense of whether God exists altogether.
