Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:26:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Here’s my point: though you fancy yourself a “rational” person, you are just
as irrational as anyone, but can’t/won’t admit it, because that would be
“unscientific”. I realize that that is an “ideal”, but you fail to grasp
your ideals much the same way I do mine. The very existence of the universe
is irrational, but that doesn’t bother you in the least. So I reject your
blind trust in rational thought because you only adhere to it when it is
convenient.
|
Well, I think the issue is that the Bible gets treated differently than most
other written works.
I find that your (John’s) particular take on Christianity is something closer to
“inspired from the Bible” rather than “based on the Bible”. The Bible itself is
so ridiculously vague and open to such wide interpretation (especially
considering the cultural differences of modern times) that you could hardly
claim anything otherwise.
It’s more along the lines of “I have a set of moral, ehtical, and supernatural
beliefs which the Bible can be said to support”. The scientific approach to the
Bible would be more like “Starting with no concept of morality, ethics, or the
supernatural, I found that the Bible clearly suggested X, Y, and Z”.
Sadly, as I think you’re trying to point out, that later approach isn’t really
possible. As a human in human society, you can’t NOT have concepts of morality
and ethics. It might be theoretically possible to not have a concept of the
supernatural, but I would be inclined to believe it’s never happened to anyone.
When you read something like the Bible, you will find that it supports certain
ideals which “seem right” to you, and it may condemn ideals which “seem wrong”
to you. And as a reader of such an ambiguous text, you have the option to
interpret things as one way or the other quite frequently.
So, you can try to interpret a Bible passage ignoring what you “want” it to say,
and come up with a fairly unbiased meaning. But it’s impossible to prove that
your interpretation really IS unbiased. How would you prove it, anyway? Gut
feeling about your experience with language and communication, really. “From my
experience, when someone says ‘XXXXX’, they mean ‘XXXXX, XXXX, XXXX’”.
“Comparing to other literature at the time, ‘XXXXX’ means ....” etc.
You can try to debate it rationally, but determining whether or not you’re truly
being “rational” is... well... either impossible or very difficult. And I think
you’ll only get “proof” in the same manner as you’d get it in a court case. If
everyone involved agrees that you’re being rational, that’s probably the best
you’ll get.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
