Daughter alledgedly strangled by father over hijab in Ontario

fett on 23/12/2007 at 20:06

Here again, you guys are off into a very Far-Eastern view of the Bible, which is radically opposed to it's Middle-Eastern context. You're doing the same thing with it that Westerners do, and it's not okay just because you're spiritualizing rather than literalizing it's terminology (yes, I just made up those words). When you take the precepts out of their cultural context they can mean anything you want them to, which is both intellectually and historically dishonest. As much as the Bible has to say about spiritual issues, it is very much a book of history and must be interpreted as such. That's why new-age and mystic religions tend to come up with laughable interpretations much like the ones you guys are rolling out here. There's very little room to wonder, "What if Jesus really meant..." The text and language are clear - we already know what he really meant, and it's pretty much embodied in historic church theology.

Thirith on 23/12/2007 at 21:00

But we get Jesus filtered through the minds of the writers. The Bible is not supposed to be God's direct dictation, as the Quran purports to be. I agree that we can know pretty well what the writers wanted to get across, but they are biased, unreliable and compromised in a number of ways.

fett on 24/12/2007 at 00:19

Agreed, but you're going deeper into veracity issues that aren't in question here. Christian laymen take the text at face value, as do Christian scholars. Whether it is word-for-word accurate isn't the issue. Epos is suggesting that when Jesus said X he possibly meant Y or X+Y+Z. I've noticed a propensity to re-interpret the biblical text itself (not what Jesus actually said, since there's no way to re-construct it word for word) as a means of pointing out the narrow mindedness of the traditional Christian interpretation.

All I'm saying is that while spiritualizing the text allows it to mesh well with other religious philosophies, it does great violence to the text itself and the original intent of the authors. They wrote from a very theologically narrow, 1st century, Pharisaic POV and to try to make the teachings into anything beyond that ignores the historical context. This is the same thing Americans do when they take a verse that says, "If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, pray, etc. I will heal their land..." and try to make it about America. It's obviously only about Israel, and though people may find some personal application for that verse, it doesn't change the fact that it was written to Israel, about Israel, and only for Israel, no matter what kind of interpretive twist you try to put on it. The same is pretty much true for most all of scripture with the exception of the gospel of John and a few of Paul's letters. Even then, the POV was the same, and there was no intent for application or interpretation beyond that specific POV. You are of course free to apply it any way you want, but you can't do so and pretend that it's possible that the writers intended your private interpretation. If there's any single thing the church (both Protestant and Catholic) has gotten right through the centuries, it's the relationship of the Trinity, means of salvation, and pretty much every other major doctrinal issue. There is very little disagreement or open debate on these, and there becomes less and less of such as we continue to study the DSS and understand the original language better.

paloalto90 on 24/12/2007 at 01:07

Quote Posted by fett

I don't doubt that Jesus Christ thoroughly understood his own nature and who he was.As to whether the world perceived who he was is a different question.Judging by the questions asked of him, and the councils after he left this plane who debated the issue,I would say that the Bible does not close the book on this subject.However I think it is likely that the nature of something that was "created from the foundation of the world"might be too large to fit in a narrow historical and cultural context.After all Jesus teachings transcend all religions including the Jewish one.
I can hear the flushing of the rich literature of mystics both east and west go down the toilet.

Epos Nix on 24/12/2007 at 03:27

Quote:

As much as the Bible has to say about spiritual issues, it is very much a book of history and must be interpreted as such.

Sir, I am not a Christian. I'm not a Christian precisely because I found the Bible's content lacking when applied to real-world context, perhaps like you have. I found that's one area Buddhism has no problem with... Buddha spent 40 or so years teaching his philosophy and left very little to the imagination concerning what you must do to replicate what he once did when he became Enlightened.

That said, I interpret the Bible more for fun and to see how often the two religions agree than out of any means of necessity to do so. Even if Christ was the dogmatic fundamentalist you claim he was, this fact alone does not invalidate the wisdom in his words. Even one who does not believe in any of the superstitious content within the bible can see that his words alone bear repeating and the world would probably be a bit better off if everyone lived his teachings to the fullest.

fett on 24/12/2007 at 06:56

I agree with both of you. But you have to admit there's a danger when people interpret it in the way that seems best to them, then act on it because it's a 'message from God'. In that case the text serves its greatest purpose within the context it was intended. I think the words of Jesus are some of the most widely applicable of all religious leaders. But you'll best understand them in their fullness when you realize that regardless of their far reaching application, there was an immediate application, and good interpretation (of ANY historical or religious text) requires that primacy be given to that first application. I was only pointing out the tendency of many mystic religions to favor the secondary over or in favor of the first, thereby coming up with all kinds of bizarre ideas about what the biblical writers intended to say. Taking into account the primary audience and application forestalls those bizarre ideas 99% of the time.

Vasquez on 24/12/2007 at 08:36

Quote Posted by fett

But you have to admit there's a danger when people interpret it in the way that seems best to them

This becomes a danger only when people assume the same interpretation will also be BEST FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
I used to invite Jehova's Witnesses for a cup of tea and talk about the Bible with them, just out of interest. After a while it got boring, though, because the conversation went on in sort of a senseless loop, and the biggest questions were basically answered with no real answeres: "Well, because." When pushed, it might expand to include "God works in mysterious ways."
:rolleyes:

Epos Nix on 24/12/2007 at 10:38

Quote:

But you'll best understand them in their fullness when you realize that regardless of their far reaching application, there was an immediate application, and good interpretation (of ANY historical or religious text) requires that primacy be given to that first application.

You and I are going to disagree on this no matter what, I'm guessing.

Putting the commentaries of the authors aside and taking only Jesus' words as they are, I'd actually go as far as to say our viewpoints are opposite: I think it almost a sin to box Jesus' teachings in to their cultural and historical viewpoints. How do you box a being's viewpoint as such when their view consists of all of space and time at once? If the man could see not only his own destruction but the ultimate destruction and end of the world, is it so far-fetched to think that his teachings were to all of humanity at once as he could literally see the ramifications of his teachings in the God-scale of things?

And I also love it when people rail against me for attributing an Eastern-flair to the Bible despite its middle-Eastern origins...

If an Ultimate Truth exists and would it be that Jesus and Buddha (or any other philosopher) found this Truth, rather than calling it an Eastern Truth or a middle-Eastern Truth, wouldn't it make far more sense to simply label it TRUTH? Granted, they are trying to describe this Truth in cultural context, but to a man who knows Truth, 'culture' is merely a delusion brought on by society.

As for Jesus' teachings specifically, I especially love the (http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/Trans.htm) Gospel of Thomas. I know I know... its not 'official', but there is good wisdom to be had here despite such. It also acts as a bridge for an 'Eastern thinking' viewpoint, especially with its nod to reincarnation (line 84), non-Self (line 112), and the transient nature of matter (line 7).

scumble on 24/12/2007 at 12:30

Quote Posted by fett

I have probably mentioned this before, but Thomas L. Thompson takes a distinctly non-historical approach to the Bible without being against the religious message - i.e. (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-History-Thomas-L-Thompson/dp/0712667482/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198498964&sr=8-1) The Bible In History.

I have to say it seems a fairly unreasonable to claim that everything in it is essentially fictitious, but he seems to think that the repeating themes of exile and return in the old testament are symbolic rather than supposed to be taken literally. He says a lot about how the imperial powers of the region - Egypt and whatever Turkey used to be - habitually dislocated the locals, Hebrews among them, and this theme in the bible has more to to do with a sustaining belief that they are the chosen people but they are being punished for not being good enough. God is regularly seen kicking ass when there is a hint of lack of faith.

Still I think I'm getting into Jewish Theology rather than Christian here.

I suppose it was just pointing that there was an opposite to a literalist (historical) reading, not that I'm suggesting yours is necessarily. I suppose it just helps me to forget religious baggage when I read it, as I find this squabbling about textual errors and whether or not something actually happened the way it is described terribly dull.

Like you say, the more fundamental problems are more important.

I reckon you ought to try writing a book about it actually, assuming you could be arsed of course.

paloalto90 on 25/12/2007 at 07:06

Quote:

I agree with both of you. But you have to admit there's a danger when people interpret it in the way that seems best to them, then act on it because it's a 'message from God'.

I can see your concern about just accepting any message that comes along,but can you convince me that the councils of men who very much shaped what would be acceptable in the Bible and what would not,thus altering what would become the historical context of the Bible, that these were also not interpreting in the way that it seemed best to them? They claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit which would be direct contact with God.Is it different than a single individual who "gets a message from God."

The problem is one of discernment.Yet there is no training to teach individuals how to discern the voice of God from the spirits that mutter and peep or from just your own thoughts.

So we really don't know the accurracy of the councils versus any single individual or other groups and writers of the time,like Origin of Alexandria who taught about reincarnation.Was he guided by the Holy Spirit?

One trend that seems to be pretty universal is that the original spark enters this plane of existence like Gautama or Jesus or Mohammed and then it filters down through the various individuals who have varying levels of understanding.After a while it gets so muddied that pretty soon it ossifies into dead ritual unless the priest or minister or guru himself can tranfer some of the original fire from the original spark.The common denominator of all religions is fire, and the transfer of that fire from above to below.