Interpretation of Texts (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 14:35 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I am not trying to prove God exists, if that is what you mean. I am trying to prove that the Biblical writers were not crackpots that modern people have tried to imply.-I think we've both been pussyfooting, so I will now be direct. Every single book in the Bible is based on belief in God, and many of the writers claim direct contact with God, even to the point of recording conversations. If there is no God, these writers were deluded, so for all the wisdom and the poetry and the fascinating stories, "modern people" would have a point. Your whole case in fact rests on proving that God exists! There's nothing wrong with that, and as someone who honestly doesn't know what to believe, I welcome all approaches to the subject, and I'm already learning a great deal from yours. (I've just read your excellent piece under "Ontological Arguments", and will try to respond to you and Matt later.)-You wrote: "Execution by means of pelting the offender with stones afforded a mechanism whereby the whole community could share in it." Exactly. And since it was a capital offence to entice a Jew away from the true God, this is ample proof that organized religion was integral to Judaism.-The fact that the death penalty was abolished by the Sanhedrin in 30 AD wouldn't have been much help to those who were executed BC by order of Moses/God. If it was God's will that the death penalty should be carried out for betraying the faith, what divine right did the Sanhedrin have to abolish it? Alternatively, since their argument was that only God should execute the sinner, the death penalty couldn't have been God's will, so what right did Moses have to impose it? The stoning tradition is still going on in countries like Iran, Nigeria and Somalia, and I doubt that it would be enforced if the authorities felt there was no backing from their sacred scriptures, but I'm not going to hunt through the Koran to prove it. My point is that this slavish devotion to ancient texts can do enormous damage, and the texts provide direct support for the violence and bigotry indulged in by those who consider theirs to be "the true faith". -You write: "Both of the references to John and Mark are specifically direct punishments from God, not from man." But Mark tells his listeners to go and preach the gospel to every creature. Why? In order to save their souls from the eternal damnation which is the punishment for not believing in Jesus. Wouldn't ANYTHING be better than eternal damnation? Besides, I object in my puny human way to God damning all the good, kind, clean-living Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Dogon, Amerindians, Humanists etc. for thinking differently, or being brought up in a different society. -I'm glad you acknowledge that Timothy's line about women priests is a valid argument. The rest of your post concerning women simply supports my contention that you can find whatever you want in the Bible. Yes of course there are other more conciliatory passages and stories. My point is that there are texts in the Bible that actively encourage bigotry and violence, and it is no counter to argue there are other texts that say nice things. As I have pointed out, you can find virtually any message you want in there. But I don't trust a book that gives you virtually any message you want.