Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Apparently you guys can't let go of literalism.

Not so. I am not demanding Biblical literalism at all, or claiming that all Christians are Biblical literalists. Why do you keep projecting on me something I have repeatedly denied and explained?

It takes a certain amount of creative interpretation to make the Old & New Testament hang together, to say the least, but creative interpretation is precisely what a living tradition requires.
And that is what I am trying to find out. What creative interpretation has been used and why. I also want to understand why anyone wants the Old Testament and New Testament to 'hang together'. If the Old Testament is not correct then why have it at all? If it requires 'creative interpretation' then why not produce the interpreted version?

I don't see why you can't give religion the same leeway as science: to remain open-ended to some extent, to change as new things come to light. You're about as open-minded as Torquemada.
I give religion plenty of lee-way and change is exactly what I am asking for. But you might have missed one of the key points of the discussion:
Zahlanzi previously said quite clearly that such laws were 'no longer' necessary. He actually justified them as being moral in the past. Many Christians are extremely reluctant to openly admit that certain things in the Bible are outright wrong.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Gee whiz scottie, it's like you think what you read today would have meant the same thing when it was written thousands of years ago.

If you want to interpret stuff, you have to be creative and above all there has to be some point to your interpretation. Here's an example: http://www.trinitymcc.com/worship/sermon_God_gays3.htm

Not a bad effort. ...[text shortened]... esus and the woman caught in adultery, which pretty much addresses all the 'stoning' laws?

cool priest. not many clerics are so open minded

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not so. I am not demanding Biblical literalism at all, or claiming that all Christians are Biblical literalists. Why do you keep projecting on me something I have repeatedly denied and explained?

It takes a certain amount of creative interpretation to make the Old & New Testament hang together, to say the least, but creative interpretation is precis xtremely reluctant to openly admit that certain things in the Bible are outright wrong.

The tenor of your questions suggests that you are interpreting things literally, without taking historical context into account. If that's not your intention, you might consider the way you put things. An aggressive, confrontational approach seldom yields good results -- unless you want to get under people's skin, which is fine, just not productive. Sorry about the Torquemada comment.

As for creative interpretation -- if you're really interested in learning about how people do these things, you've got some reading ahead of you. I could suggest The Collected Posts of Vistesd as a start (especially with regard to midrash) and then you'd have to get hold of some books. And you'd have to suspend your disbelief ... treat it as a game.

The New Testament simply doesn't make sense without the Old to compare it to. When Jesus says he's come to fulfil this and that, there's no context without the Old Testament. Also, the linear bias of the Judaic / Christian approach to time makes history quite important.

Things in the Bible and elsewhere are outright wrong by today's standards. However, they constituted the morality of the times in which they arose. Witness the morality implicit in the Iliad. The Bible as a whole can be taken as a document in moral evolution. So, it's incorrect to say that things in the Bible are 'outright wrong' without being anachronistic.

I imagine that many Christians simply don't question the assumptions under which they live. Some of them are just plain ignorant. And no doubt the Biblical massacres and what-not make for uncomfortable reading. But the same holds true in many other spheres -- say, fast food. William Burroughs wrote 'Naked Lunch', he said, so that everyone could see what was on the end of their fork.

I tend to treat religion and psychoanalysis the same way -- as a 'talking cure' without any empirical basis that can either yield remarkable results or lead to tragic dependencies and other problems. But everything that exists is ambiguous. Even science is a two-edged sword. Not sure if it's the same one coming out of the horseman's mouth in Revelations ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Ask yourself what the point of that interpretation was.

Apparently to justify having distasteful stuff in the Bible. As I said, it is all about refusing to openly admit that it could in fact be wrong. You keep telling us to discard the idea that Christians are literalists yet you keep pointing us to literalists. Why? Why cant you show us some references to people who essentially admit that much of the OT is wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Apparently to justify having distasteful stuff in the Bible.

No, it was to explain what the material meant in context (that is not literalism: literalism doesn't look below the surface) and use it to address a topical issue.

See my previous comment. If that fails, I give up. Whether it's my writing at fault or the way you interpret things, I'll then have to live with the fact that you 'just can't see' what I'm getting at.

By the way, I think the Jeffersonian Bible has all the 'distasteful stuff' cut out. I can't see why anyone who'd want to face the facts of their religion would bowdlerise the text. Of course, if I were in charge, I'd include all the stuff that was cut at Nicaea and take a soteriological perspective.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have another interpretation? Are you saying that the Bible does not say that adulterers should be stoned to death? Or are you saying that part of the Bible is not really part of your religion? If so why is it still there?

Yes, but I don't claim it to be the only possible interpretation. That's what fundamentalists do and that's what you are doing.

The bible is a historical text. I find it interesting that you think we should read any such document devoid of historical context.

I'm saying that stoning to death is not a part of Roman Catholic religion and most major Christian denominations. I find it interesting that you cannot face this simple fact: Almost all Christians do not believe nor practice stoning to death. It's absurd to say stoning to death it's part of their religion.

And it's still there because it is a historical religious text. The amount of myth and metaphors should be enough for anyone impartial to realize that it cannot be interpreted as a code of law.

Or are you saying that part of the Bible is not really part of your religion?
It's certainly not part of my religion. What do you think my religion is?

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, but I don't claim it to be the only possible interpretation. That's what fundamentalists do and that's what you are doing.

The bible is a historical text. I find it interesting that you think we should read any such document devoid of historical context.

I am clearly not communicating my points correctly. You and Bosse de Nage are not getting what I want to say at all (maybe my fault).
In fact you and Bosse de Nage appear to be doing nothing more than trying to sweep the problem under the carpet.
The real question is the source of the verse and not the 'historical context'. An additional question is whether or not Christians believe that the law was / is just / reasonable in any context.
Why the reluctance to actually face it head on?
Did the law come from God? Was it intended by God? Was it acceptable to God? Was it acceptable to Jesus? Why have neither, and most of their followers refrained from speaking against it in over 2000 years?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am clearly not communicating my points correctly. You and Bosse de Nage are not getting what I want to say at all (maybe my fault).
In fact you and Bosse de Nage appear to be doing nothing more than trying to sweep the problem under the carpet.
The real question is the source of the verse and not the 'historical context'. An additional question is wh ...[text shortened]... ve neither, and most of their followers refrained from speaking against it in over 2000 years?

Why don't you look at what the people who do believe in the Bible have to say about that?

From "The interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (Vatican):

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

[...]

It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Originally posted by Palynka
Fundamentalist interpretation starts ....

My question is not 'what do fundamentalists think?'. You keep telling me that not all Christians are fundamentalists etc, but instead of actually answering my questions you point me to someones opinion of fundamentalists. Whats that all about? Why are my questions so hard?

Does the Vatican think that the 'laws' in question came from God and if not then why won't they say so in plain English?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My question is not 'what do fundamentalists think?'. You keep telling me that not all Christians are fundamentalists etc, but instead of actually answering my questions you point me to someones opinion of fundamentalists. Whats that all about? Why are my questions so hard?

This is the official Vatican's opinion. 😕

Why are my questions so hard?
Right back at you. I think this is so blatantly obvious that your refusal to admit this is tantamount to cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by Palynka
This is the official Vatican's opinion. 😕

Opinion on what fundamentalists think, but nothing to do with my questions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Opinion on what fundamentalists think, but nothing to do with my questions.

Hilarious. Do you remember what this conversation is about?

How is the Vatican's official opinion on how to interpret the bible meaningless? This is a quote that expressly attacks literal interpretations AND stresses the importance of historical context.

Originally posted by Palynka
Hilarious. Do you remember what this conversation is about?

I didn't realize that the conversation was about literal interpretation although you and Bosse de Nage seem intent on making it about that - even though nobody seems to be contradicting you on it.

How is the Vatican's official opinion on how to interpret the bible meaningless?
When did I say it was meaningless? I though I said it was irrelevant. Not the same thing.

This is a quote that expressly attacks literal interpretations AND stresses the importance of historical context.
I must be missing something. As far as I can see, all it is doing is attacking literal interpretation. What I am looking for is an explanation, not an statement of 'well it doesn't mean this and we don't mean that and we don't believe xyz'.
What do Christians believe the verses are all about and what do they mean when put into 'historical context'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't realize that the conversation was about literal interpretation although you and Bosse de Nage seem intent on making it about that - even though nobody seems to be contradicting you on it.

[b]How is the Vatican's official opinion on how to interpret the bible meaningless?
When did I say it was meaningless? I though I said it was irrelevant ...[text shortened]... ieve the verses are all about and what do they mean when put into 'historical context'?[/b]

I didn't realize that the conversation was about literal interpretation although you and Bosse de Nage seem intent on making it about that - even though nobody seems to be contradicting you on it.
Err... No. Scottishinnz brought it up, you've backed it up, I showed that it is ridiculous and now you're backtracking.

When did I say it was meaningless? I though I said it was irrelevant. Not the same thing.
So you want to take the arrogant and indefensible position of deciding what theists have to believe in, even in the face of evidence showing that they don't believe it?

As far as I can see, all it is doing is attacking literal interpretation. What I am looking for is an explanation, not an statement of 'well it doesn't mean this and we don't mean that and we don't believe xyz'.
Explanation for what? Stoning? It was a common form of punishment going back to Sumeria, at least. It isn't surprising that the writers of the text were influenced by the practices of their time. This is what being put into historical context is.

Originally posted by Palynka
So you want to take the arrogant and indefensible position of deciding what theists have to believe in, even in the face of evidence showing that they don't believe it?

We have clearly misunderstood each other completely.
I asked some questions about what Christians do believe, and your reply what what the Vatican doesn't believe. I consider that irrelevant. I really cant see how that is "deciding what theists have to believe in". I simply don't care whether they don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, or what they think of the interpretation of the Bible by Muslims. I want to know how they themselves interpret the passage in question and how it impacts their beliefs.

Explanation for what? Stoning? It was a common form of punishment going back to Sumeria, at least. It isn't surprising that the writers of the text were influenced by the practices of their time. This is what being put into historical context is.
I have asked a whole string of questions none of which has been answered. I want an explanation as to whether or not the common form of punishment of stoning was considered moral by God at the time and if not why nobody (including God) seems willing to speak against it.
Your continual evasion of the question speaks volumes.