Religion: pros & cons (Religion)

by dhw, Friday, October 17, 2014, 16:56 (3688 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by dhw, Friday, October 17, 2014, 17:34

TONY: The bible is only wide open to interpretation when people ignore what it says either through ignorance, malice, or in the pursuit of self-interest.-This is an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that in the argument over blood transfusions, every member of every other branch of Christianity (and Judaism) is guilty of ignorance, malice or self-interest? There are even Jehovah's Witnesses who question the validity of your interpretation, and suggest that saving life would be more in line with Christ's thinking than sticking rigidly to a dubious interpretation of the bible. Besides, I thought you said the NT invalidated the old laws. Acts 15:19-20 merely says people should abstain from idols, fornication, things that have been strangled, and blood. Hardly a commandment to sacrifice a life rather than submit to an advance in medical science that was unknown at the time. About 20 years ago, my wife nearly died through horrendous post-operative negligence, and was hovering between life and death for three days. She was saved by massive blood transfusions. You ask: “So, a simple question, if you would not eat something, would you mainline it into your bloodstream?” Yes of course I would, if it meant saving my life, my wife's, or anyone else's. So too would the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope.-But I'm using this only as an illustration of the two points I raised earlier: 1) the bible is wide open to interpretation. I challenge your assumption that anyone who interprets it differently from you does so out of ignorance, malice or self-interest. 2) The bible is an unreliable moral guide. Once again, this is because its texts allow for multiple interpretations. With respect to you (and I really don't want this to develop into a personal confrontation - we are arguing about the authority of the bible and not our personal standards of morality), I simply cannot accept the moral priorities of anyone who is prepared to sacrifice the life, say, of a child because they are afraid to disobey what they think to be God's commandment - though millions of other sincere believers challenge their interpretation.-Re Onan, I was aware that it was a case of coitus interruptus and not masturbation. My point was that it is an example of believers interpreting the bible in what I regard as a destructive manner. You may blame the Catholics for their ignorance, malice or self-interest, but I doubt if their scholars would agree with you. That doesn't mean you're wrong. I'm not going to argue about the meaning of these ancient, man-made texts. But I will argue if you tell me that only one interpretation - namely yours - can possibly be right.
 
The same applies to inter-faith marriages. I don't have your knowledge, so I googled the subject and found this:-What Bible says about inter-faith marriages-http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_bibl.htm-You will disagree when the authors say the texts (some of which you have also referred to) condemn inter-faith marriages. You may be right. You may be wrong. It's a matter of interpretation.-You raise two interesting points: that the Jews and Christians worship the same God. Yes, but they have different views of what God wants, and since they base their views of his will on the bible, it follows that the bible is open to different interpretations. Secondly, you don't know how a Jew can be agnostic. Jews are unique in that the term is not confined to religion. Nobody really knows how to define its non-religious component: race, nation, culture, family, ethnicity - none of them quite fit. But I have no doubt that if I'd been born in Nazi Germany, my protestations of agnosticism would not have saved me. “Once a Jew, always a Jew.”