|
OP, you seem inclined to look at religion in pragmatic terms, so think of the Bible as a collection of literature. Christians, then, are essentially an organized group of fans that has been around for a couple thousand years. This is not an insult! Art is extremely powerful and is capable of communicating Truth in a unique way. But part of that uniqueness is subjectivity: the Truth that a work communicates may be different for different people. Hence the existence of art criticism, and the nonexistence of single, unambiguously correct interpretations of any work worthy of the word "art". So, ultimately, you're asking "why do people interpret this literature differently, and how do I pick the right one?" and the answer is the same as any literature: interpretation is subjective and the right one is the one that gets you amped up to go contribute something to the universe. And if none of them do that then try a different book.
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
If the only reason to be Christian is fear of hell, then rest easy knowing that it's exactly as likely that there exists a god that will eternally drat you for being a Christian as one that will do so for not being one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I choose to not interpret any of it because I have the strangest notion that morality and empathy exist as human qualities without the damnation/approval of a diety. Impressive, could you share your secret for reading a text without interpretation? You could probably make a real name for yourself, since it would be the first time in all of human history that someone has managed it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its simple: I read about the Exodus (that never happened), the Great Flood (that was a regional event), and God's acceptance and use of genocide, closed the book and said "Anyone willing to interpret this as other than what it is, is just unwilling to accept the fact that god is a lovely and evil person" As other than what? Could you explain how you arrived at a conclusion about what a text "is" without interpreting it? Separately, it's pretty impressive to become the foremost authority on the whole of an anthology of over 50 separate pieces of literature after reading approximately three of them, presumably in the absence of any other criticism or scholarship. I imagine that demonstrating this sort of preternatural acumen really impresses Christians and Jews when you try to browbeat them into deconversion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, what you are saying is the Bible is really one of those magic eye books, and if I stare long enough I can see past the petty egotistic sociopath and see a kind a loving omnipotent being? I am saying that all literature is subject to interpretation, and therefore getting smug about people discussing their hermenuetic is laughably ignorant and your own hermeneutic as illiterate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hand-waving away God's actions through interpretation and argument that some things are metaphorical instead of literal is not 'interpreting' anymore than making excuses for accidentally hitting someones car. Right, but what you are doing is reading Huck Finn say "friend of the family" and then making GBS threads on anyone who argues that the novel doesn't portray him as an irredeemable white supremacist. e: Meanwhile, a fundamentalist uses the exact same reading as you but since they assume that Huck can't ever be racist in any way, they decide that saying "friend of the family" is okay, if not commendable. Pro tip: if you find yourself agreeing with a fundamentalist about textual interpretation, you done hosed up. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Agreeing? Somewhat. More agree that its wrong where they find it right. But unfortunately, while SOME of the Christian churches have chosen to interpret it in better light, the ones most people have to deal with have not. You and fundamentalists both have a similar interpretation of the Bible (theirs is better, of course, because they have actually read the whole thing): a series of simple historical accounts and ethical commandments that are intended to be factual/consistent and unambiguous. The place where you differ is in whether the Bible should determine the value of your moral system or vice versa. But fundamentalism is a recent, particularly ignorant heresy and using it to attack Christians who don't share it is ridiculous. It's like if I told you I learned empathy for the victims of racism from The Bluest Eye and you told me I was wrong because I thought Cholly Breedlove was a real person and approved of his behavior. Absolutely, there exists a religion based on that reading of the Bible. That doesn't make it a good or supportable reading, but I guarantee you that being able to argue against its proponents on both moral and hermeneutic grounds is doing more good than just yelling that God is evil and they're stupid. e: And the fact that a work has multiple interpretations speaks well of it, not poorly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:What if I took an extra amount of time to decide what I will wear in the future... does that still count as using logic to dress when I get dressed at that future time? Just because you don't put a decision into action for a while doesn't mean you arrived at it in a logical way. Most people, in my experience, use a combination of methods--logic, habit, randomness, various heuristics--whether they're planning in advance or dressing in a rush (though the ratio of the methods might change). e: When building an outfit, you may need logic for some questions ("what pants are appropriate?") and intuition for some ("what pants are attractive?"). Similarly, developing an interpretation of a text requires a combination of skills in order to be both meaningful and coherent. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If it was written for the purposes of art and entertainment? Absolutely. If it was written to be a clear moral guideline that one is supposed to apply to their entire life? gently caress no. Do you believe there exists a single, objective morality that is knowable by humans and can be communicated perfectly through text? I'm guessing not. So then wouldn't being open to interpretation be a necessary component of being a religious text of any lasting value? Do you believe that the creators of the Bible considered it an unambiguous list of objective moral commandments? If so, why did they pad it with so many books of fiction and poetry and legends and letters and weird jacked up dream sequences?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I believe that given a set of parameters that we can find actions that are objectively better at fulfilling those criteria than others, yes. But we're talking about setting the parameters of what is moral, not just about discerning how to accomplish those goals. (I also think that you're entirely too optimistic about our ability to create objective, communicable correct solutions for moral questions of any kind of scope or complexity, but that's irrelevant if we can't even all agree on the questions in the first place.) quote:But we're talking about a book presented by its followers in America as being written by men, but by an all powerful super-being. I haven't seen anyone in this thread disputing that some people, even a large and powerful group of people*, have tremendously stupid and harmful hermeneutics. In fact, I am specifically saying: those people exist, and the fact that you are taking their side of a theological argument should really make you rethink your position. You (and them) are attempting to read a perspective into the Bible that it was not written or compiled with any intent of communicating, getting a stupid result, and then just running with it instead of wondering if maybe your assumptions might be at all flawed. Then you (both) turn around and claim that others don't "really" believe in the Bible when they undertake serious, rigorous scholarship and criticism. Of course it's perfectly possible, and fine, for there to be no interpretation of the Bible that makes it resonate with you. I think it's got some cool stuff in there about wealth (and some really questionable stuff, of course), but I've never felt like it was indispensable to my life. That's why I'm not a Christian. That's why the obvious answer for GAINING WEIGHT... is "apparently you're not a Christian." But the last thing they, or anyone, need is for people gleefully to reinforce the harmful assumptions that are causing their problem in the first place, like arguing for a reading of the Bible "without interpretation". * Indeed, I'd argue that the fundamentalist hermeneutic was developed specifically to try to force the Bible to justify aggressive pursuit/defense of temporal power, particularly with respect to white supremacy. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Gaining Weight, given your apparent intense discomfort with subjectivity, maybe the religion you're looking for is libertarianism. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:drat, aren't we pissy tonight. No, I'm not a troll. I just haven't gotten an answer to my question yet, beyond "hey just dive in and believe," which is still a problem, because: dive in and believe what? If you find a belief that truly speaks to you, you (hopefully) won't need to post a thread to try to get people to artificially convince you of its objective factuality. If not, that's fine too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Not to necro this thread, but I was just reading this post at Slacktivist and I thought it would be useful for the OP as a window into the contrast between their understanding of Biblical interpretation and a more workable one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Tell me where I endorsed Pascal's Wager once GAINING WEIGHT... posted:
e: There's also this post where you say that you'd like to be Christian because of the "benefits package": GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I would really, really like to believe. The benefits package is enormous! You get to not fear death, you get to know your life has purpose, you get to know where you and everything in the universe came from, you get guidance, you get a constant divine friend to help you in times of trouble, you get a community...the list goes on and on! But there are too many barriers in my way to really take the plunge. If some of those barriers can be knocked down, though...if there is a good reason to think of Christianity as true, as well as all other faiths as false, then I want to know about it. If my "problems" are simple misunderstanding, or failure to see something a certain way, I want to know about it. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 12:03
|
|