Interpretation of Texts (General)

by dhw, Thursday, September 30, 2010, 17:09 (4975 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

PART ONE-BALANCE_MAINTAINED finds that when people criticize the Bible, they are unable to let go of their preconceived notions of right and wrong. He tries not to impose his own standards on God, but to understand him "by the universe around me as, it being his work, it should reflect in some way his mind."-I agree with this 100%, but you won't like my continuation of your thoughts. The universe around me, as I see it, is filled with love, beauty and goodness; it is also filled with hate, ugliness and evil. All of these terms require subjective definition ... they're preconceived notions, if you like ... but we are exchanging ideas, and in a moment we'll see how far our notions coincide and/or clash. If God exists, however, this is how he created the universe, and so this is the reflection I see. The impersonality with which the world metes out its pains and pleasures suggests to me that either there is no God, or he is the deistic version.-And so to right and wrong, though first I'd like to thank you again for your tolerance and for the trouble you're taking to tackle these thorny problems. I'll try not to repeat Matt's answers to your post, though there will inevitably be an overlap. Your comments on health seem to suggest that God's prescription (wrath/damnation/condemnation/hellfire) is designed as a preventative measure to save the body here on Earth. Having worked with many homosexuals in the theatre, I can say in all honesty that health is not a problem (one actor friend has just celebrated his 85th birthday), and since there are so many homosexuals in the church, God's prescription obviously hasn't worked there either. And why should it? I'll admit that the idea of sleeping with another man repels me, but so too does the idea of eating raw meat, or for that matter of sleeping with 99% of the women I see every day in my hometown. This is a matter of personal preferences ... full stop. And since so many other animals are homosexual, let's not go down the road of it being unnatural. -In terms of the threatened punishment, assuming that God's "damnation" (King James version) is the worst punishment you can think of, I'd say that's pretty unfair on all the homosexual actors and musicians I know. But God is all-powerful, so he makes the rules. If I disagree, more fool me. There are many societies in which the rules are also different from mine. In Nazi Germany, it was considered right by the authorities to slaughter the Jews. There are Muslim authorities who consider it right to assassinate the infidel, and to stone adulterers and homosexuals. They all have their reasons. Does that mean you and I should let go of our preconceived notions of right and wrong? Of course not. Why, then, should I approve of what I see as God's indiscriminate slaughter of all my fellow humans with his Flood, or his damnation/condemnation of my 85-year-old actor friend for his homosexuality, or of me because I haven't been baptized? -There are no universally recognized criteria for right and wrong. The most we can hope for is consensus. (Matt, if you're there, that's intersubjectivity on a broad scale!) So let's see if you and I can agree on a general precept (preconceived notion): right entails contributing to other people's happiness and wellbeing, and wrong entails depriving them of their happiness and wellbeing. As a member of a particular society, I would place murder, rape, theft, physical & psychological abuse, and under certain circumstances adultery too in the second category. If homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery don't do anyone any harm, I see no reason to condemn or damn the perpetrators. (Not sure about bestiality, because I don't know what harm it might do to the beast.) And I certainly see no reason to condemn or damn, let alone stone someone to death because he has a different religious belief from mine. If you share my preconceived notions, I don't see how you can avoid inner conflict when you are confronted with what you presume to be God's. If you don't share them, I'd be very interested to know your own concept of right and wrong.-PART TWO to follow