Interpretation of Texts (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 14:15 (5167 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: Of course the Sanhedrin abolished the death penalty. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, the Mosaic Law covenant was done away with at Christ's death according to the scripture.-There's still controversy over whether Christ was against the death penalty or not, but I'm happy to acknowledge that both Christians and Jews turned their back on many of Moses' laws. My point was twofold: 1) that these laws were in force for approx. 1500 years, and that doesn't seem to me to reflect too well on Moses/God, and 2) the communal stoning of the unfaithful proves that organized religion was not only intended but also integral to Jewish society.-B_M: Additionally, there are different ways to look at the damnation bit. First, according to the scriptures, hell doesn't exist...-Or perhaps according to your interpretation of the scriptures? But I never mentioned hell anyway. Nor did I mention a soul that lives on past the body. I don't know what John meant by the wrath of God or everlasting life (difficult to imagine if it's not something independent of the body, and in any case body + soul = identity, so I'd say you are and have both), and I don't know what Mark meant by being damned, or for that matter what Matthew meant when he talked of hellfire and the damnation of hell. But when Mark tells people to spread the gospel, and those who don't believe in Christ are damned, I can well understand folk getting the impression that drastic action may be required to save the souls of their fellow humans. And I'm still appalled in my puny way at the very idea of good Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. being damned for worshipping the wrong God.-In the context of my post about Timothy's bigoted views on women, you write: "I have found that when you take the verses in their entire context, instead of picking and choosing, and you cross-reference them to the other text, it severely limits your ability to interpret them however you want." Cross-referencing means directions given by the author to consult other texts. I'm not sure what you mean by "entire context" ... the whole Bible, every social history, every commentary? What "other text" are you referring to? In Corinthians 13, 34/35, Paul says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame to let women speak in the church." (More evidence, incidentally, of organized religion.) In your analogy of the cookbook, you blamed men for disobeying instructions. I'm saying that the Bible sometimes issues clear instructions, and they do untold damage (as do its unclear instructions!). In Corinthians 6, 9, Paul announces that "[nor] effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind" will "inherit the kingdom of God". My modern translation makes it clear that the reference is to homosexuals. Can you tell me where Paul provides cross-referencing, or what is the "entire context" that demonstrates he didn't intend discrimination against women and homosexuals? -I'm aware that for someone who clearly holds the Bible to be sacred, my comments may seem offensive. Please don't take them personally!