Interpretation of Texts (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 18:08 (5167 days ago) @ dhw


> 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!-I'm most certainly not offended, nor will I ever be in a debate unless it is reduced to personal insults, which I have not noticed out of anyone on this forum, which is truly incredible and I wish to thank and commend all of you for. I'm not sure sacred is the right word to describe my view of the bible, but in a way I suppose I do. The one thing I notice most when people attempt to pick it apart, is that generally are unable to do one very fundamental thing, which is, to let go of their preconceived notions of right/wrong and good/bad. I think the average person hunts for a religion or belief system that fits their idea of what a belief system should be, and it doesn't really work that way. I will detail that thought in a subsequent post, but for now, let me answer a few of your remarks. -
>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.-One of the things I have always striven for when considering God, is to first and foremost not try to impose my standards on him, and secondly to try and understand him by the universe around me as, it being his work, it should reflect in someway his mind. -So, to say that His law only held for 1500 years or so and that his law didn't reflect well on him I think is a double foul, not because you question it, but because it seems you question from the wrong perspective and with preconceived notions of what's right and wrong. -To the second statement, I admit to finding that flat wrong. Making it a law that the community must perform its own executions does not specify an organised religion as a necessity. IF you mean by organised religion that there should only be one religion, then sure it suggest that. If by organised religion you mean that there should be a human head of the Church and a categorized hierarchal structure beneath it, then I think you out in left field a bit on this. -Now some have taken parts of the new testament to mean that there should be a Church, because it uses the word assembly a lot, and there is a line that says 'do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together..' or some such. But even today we say things like, "Surround yourselves with people you wish to be like." This does not mean to form an organised cult, but to keep people around you whose attributes you admire, who share the same values, and who you can count on to help you should begin to lose your way. The early christians were surrounded by Greeks and Romans, whom we well know had a long history of Polytheistic beliefs. It is understandable that they be admonished to gather together with people of like faith so that they did not get sidetracked from what they believed they should be doing. That does not mean that they should form a Church and have rank and file member ship and leadership structure. ->..those who don't believe in Christ are damned-16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.-Here is an example of how easy it is to mine a quote without meaning to. Notice that prior to being condemned the creature must be taught, and reject the teachings. -
As a side note, I found this when I was researching the 'damned' comment: -Mat 23:15	
"Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves! (child of hell here literally means 'child of Gehenna'