Scriptural Interpretation

[ProfessorDavey]

Again, this is NOT 'our Christian heritage' -whatever that is.
As Christians, we have no right to discriminate on grounds of need - quite the opposite, in fact. I rejoice that many American Christian groups are amongst those suing Trump claiming his policies are illegal under U.S. law.
They are certainly antichristian.....you HAVE read the media this morning? People granted visas now turned away - not only Moslems, or perceived 'enimies', but women and children, and some who even helped America in her illegal wars.
the 'Land of the free' is soiled by a man like Trump.

Problem is, Anchorman, there are alternative versions of what is 'Christian' - and that includes a very longstanding interpretation that is discriminatory on all sorts of grounds. Lets not forget that both slavery and racial segregation (both in the USA and SA) were justified by an interpretation of Christianity. And currently we see Christianity being routinely used as justification of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

So it may well not be part of your Christian heritage (and good on you for that), but it is part of other people's Christian heritage - and it is for you to argue, and hopefully, win that argument within your own religion. And I trust if you take up that challenge that you wont 'cherry pick' which people shouldn't be discriminated against and those that it is OK.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Problem is, Anchorman, there are alternative versions of what is 'Christian' - and that includes a very longstanding interpretation that is discriminatory on all sorts of grounds. Lets not forget that both slavery and racial segregation (both in the USA and SA) were justified by an interpretation of Christianity. And currently we see Christianity being routinely used as justification of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

So it may well not be part of your Christian heritage (and good on you for that), but it is part of other people's Christian heritage - and it is for you to argue, and hopefully, win that argument within your own religion. And I trust if you take up that challenge that you wont 'cherry pick' which people shouldn't be discriminated against and those that it is OK.

Your post has whetted my appetite for a possible thesis from the same public atheist stable on why Stalin and Pol pot were Christians.......possibly based around Stalin's attendance at a seminary and Mr Pot once having a good friend called Chris.

IMHO this is another largely non sequitur post based on a ridiculous modern notion of self identification and ''religion is the root of all evil (question mark) philosophy''.

[Shaker]

IMHO this is another largely non sequitur post based on a ridiculous modern notion of self identification and ''religion is the root of all evil (question mark) philosophy''.

Which is still something that nobody has ever claimed, despite your being told this repeatedly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your post has whetted my appetite for a possible thesis from the same public atheist stable on why Stalin and Pol pot were Christians.......possibly based around Stalin's attendance at a seminary and Mr Pot once having a good friend called Chris.

IMHO this is another largely non sequitur post based on a ridiculous modern notion of self identification and ''religion is the root of all evil (question mark) philosophy''.

Distraction tactic.

We aren't talking about atheists (who by the way have no defining doctrine or book or philosophy or belief), nor about the appalling atrocities of the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot, who are of course linked ideological by extreme authoritarian marxist views.

No we are taking about Christianity and the fact that it has been (and continues to be) used to justify discrimination against all sorts of groups based on gender, race and sexuality for example. Plus also others argue that Christianity justifies exactly the opposite (albeit rarely where sexuality is concerned).

So the point was that there is no settled view on whether Christianity justifies discrimination or justifies rejecting discrimination. This is a battle that continues to be wages within Christianity.

[ProfessorDavey]

IMHO this is another largely non sequitur post based on a ridiculous modern notion of self identification ...

What do you mean by that Vlad. There is no accepted interpretation of Christianity - hence the huge numbers of separate denominations which vary in their interpretations of what Christianity means. And further how that interpretation should play out in our society.

You may not like that a different Christian denomination takes an alternative view to you and uses the bible (presumably the same source as you do) to justify racial segregation or Westboro Baptist type extreme views on homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that you can simply dismiss their interpretation as wrong. Because they will dismiss your interpretation as wrong and it is a case of your view against theirs as there is no objective way to demonstrate who is right and who is wrong, and critically both start from the same source material, which undoubtedly you both believe to be critical, yet take divergent routes thereafter.

and ''religion is the root of all evil (question mark) philosophy''.

Where did I say that Vlad? I didn't - quite the reverse - actually what I was doing was pointing out to Anchorman that although his view, based on his interpretation of Christianity, are (to my mind) right, that others have view with I, and I assume he, find abhorrent which are also justified on the basis of Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by that Vlad. There is no accepted interpretation of Christianity - hence the huge numbers of separate denominations which vary in their interpretations of what Christianity means. And further how that interpretation should play out in our society.

You may not like that a different Christian denomination takes an alternative view to you and uses the bible (presumably the same source as you do) to justify racial segregation or Westboro Baptist type extreme views

Yes.......and you eagerly accept them as Christian views because it suits your argument.
Would you welcome a group of insistent and convinced flat earthers as geophysicists.....I doubt it.

[Stranger]

Would you welcome a group of insistent and convinced flat earthers as geophysicists.....I doubt it.

You can dismiss flat Earthers using evidence. On what basis do you dismiss the interpretations of Christianity that you don't like?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes.......and you eagerly accept them as Christian views because it suits your argument.
Would you welcome a group of insistent and convinced flat earthers as geophysicists.....I doubt it.

I make no judgement - I merely state that both groups are equally convinced that their interpretation of the bible is the correct one and there is no way that either can prove the other wrong.

And that is the difference with your rather poor analogy with flat earthers as geophysicists - as the principles of geophysics can prove that flat earthers are wrong and therefore being a flat earther is not consistent with being a geophysicist. By contrast you cannot prove that the Westboro Baptist church's interpretation of the bible is wrong and therefore their interpretation is no more demonstrably consistent or inconsistent with being a Christian than your interpretation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can dismiss flat Earthers using evidence. On what basis do you dismiss the interpretations of Christianity that you don't like?

The new testament. They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising it in exactly the same way Flatearthers bowdlerise reference to curvature. Any one should have realised that.

[Shaker]

The new testament.

That's the same source text that all 30-odd thousand denominations of Christianity claim to base their contradictory and inconsistent beliefs on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I make no judgement - I merely state that both groups are equally convinced that their interpretation of the bible is the correct one and there is no way that either can prove the other wrong.

And that is the difference with your rather poor analogy with flat earthers as geophysicists - as the principles of geophysics can prove that flat earthers are wrong and therefore being a flat earther is not consistent with being a geophysicist. By contrast you cannot prove that the Westboro Baptist church's interpretation of the bible is wrong

They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising the Bible rather than taking a different interpretation in the same way Flatearthers edit out curvature or people edit out bowdlerisation of the bible. Which is what you seem to be doing here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the same source text that all 30-odd thousand denominations of Christianity claim to base their contradictory and inconsistent beliefs on.

Non sequitur to the question of bowdlerisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising the Bible rather than taking a different interpretation in the same way Flatearthers edit out curvature or people edit out bowdlerisation of the bible. Which is what you seem to be doing here.

Wrong - using the defining methods of geophysics it is possible to prove flat earthers wrong. There is no such equivalent manner in which you can prove the Westboro Baptist church's interpretation of the bible to be wrong. You might think they are wrong (as may many many others) but that isn't the same as proving them wrong. And no doubt they will be as vehemently committed to their interpretation of the bible as you are to yours.

And no doubt they would think that you are 'airbrushing' out of the bible certain elements which they feel are critical to their interpretation just as you feel they are doing. It is simply alternative interpretation of the same starting material.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong - using the defining methods of geophysics it is possible to prove flat earthers wrong. There is no such equivalent manner in which you can prove the Westboro Baptist church's interpretation of the bible to be wrong. You might think they are wrong (as may many many others) but that isn't the same as proving them wrong. And no doubt they will be as vehemently committed to their interpretation of the bible as you are to yours.

And no doubt they would think that you are 'airbrushing' out of the bible certain elements which they feel are critical to their interpretation just as you feel they are doing. It is simply alternative interpretation of the same starting material.

Non sequiter to Bowdlerisation I'm afraid. Same principles apply. Any organisation which ignores complete tracts of a discipline cannot be representative of that discipline whether the original discipline is right or wrong.

[Shaker]

Any organisation which ignores complete tracts of a discipline cannot be representative of that discipline whether the original discipline is right or wrong.

And yet, given how often you invoke their names, you seem happy to take Stalin and Pol Pot as in some way representative of atheists generally and insinuate that a forty-year-old popular science book provided the ideological footings of Thatcherism even though it had nothing to say about politics or economcs at all, and furthermore, Dawkins has spoken out, forcefully and often, against that kind of me-first selfishness.

Touch of the old hypocriticals there, Vladdychops.

[ProfessorDavey]

Non sequiter to Bowdlerisation I'm afraid. Same principles apply. Any organisation which ignores complete tracts of a discipline cannot be representative of that discipline whether the original discipline is right or wrong.

You are arguing from your own conclusion.

No doubt the Westboro Baptists firmly believe that you are ignoring complete tracts of discipline, namely those that lead to their interpretive conclusions from their reading of the bible. The whole reason why we have different denominations is exactly for the reason that each believes others inappropriately focus on, or ignore, aspects of doctrine which they feel are irrelevant or critically important (delete as appropriate). So please justify objectively why your reading of the bible is right and theirs is wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are arguing from your own conclusion.

No doubt the Westboro Baptists firmly believe that you are ignoring complete tracts of discipline, namely those that lead to their interpretive conclusions from their reading of the bible. The whole reason why we have different denominations is exactly for the reason that each believes others inappropriately focus on, or ignore, aspects of doctrine which they feel are irrelevant or critically important (delete as appropriate). So please justify objectively why your reading of the bible is right and theirs is wrong.

You have blurred up the line between having a disagreement over a text and bowdlerising it to suit a poor argument which depends on the demographic of this forum to give it the sustenance it would rightly not deserve in a world of full scrutiny.

The Westboro Baptist church would fail any application of the trades description act.

This forum is becoming the place to market old rope.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Westboro Baptist church would fail any application of the trades description act.

In your opinion - no doubt in their opinion your brand of Christianity would fail the trade's descriptions act.

That's the point - we are in the world of differing opinion and interpretation from the same starting point. Who is right, who is wrong, damned if I know, but then it isn't my argument - it is for the varying brands of Christianity to argue the toss until they come to an agreement (and I'm not holding my breath). For the rest of us we have no alternative to accept both as simply different brands of Christianity, rather than one as being Christianity and the other not-Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In your opinion - no doubt in their opinion your brand of Christianity would fail the trade's descriptions act.

That's the point - we are in the world of differing opinion and interpretation from the same starting point. Who is right, who is wrong, damned if I know, but then it isn't my argument - it is for the varying brands of Christianity to argue the toss until they come to an agreement (and I'm not holding my breath). For the rest of us we have no alternative to accept both as simply different brands of Christianity, rather than one as being Christianity and the other not-Christianity.

Once again......you are confusing interpretation with Bowdlerisation.
The issue is yours and your inability to discriminate.

[ProfessorDavey]

Once again......you are confusing interpretation with Bowdlerisation.
The issue is yours and your inability to discriminate.

Firstly it was you who brought up Bowdlerisation, not me - I was already discussing interpretation, so let's focus on the original discussion shall we.

But secondly - on Bowdlerisation - no I am not confused. As far as I am aware this is deleting or ignoring certain elements in a book because they are deemed objectionable. Well in literal terms I don't think this is relevant at all as I don't think that either the Westboro Baptists nor mainstream Christian denominations actually remove sections of the bible they don't like. However in a less literal manner both will have an equally legitimate argument that the other effectively 'airbrushes' out certain sections that they find objectionable and are inconvenient to their broader doctrinal view.

[ad_orientem]

30-odd thousand denominations of Christianity

You mean 30-odd thousand denominations of Protestantism.

[Anchorman]

You mean 30-odd thousand denominations of Protestantism.

And at least eighteen of Orthodoxy.

[ad_orientem]

And at least eighteen of Orthodoxy.

Eh? The Monophysites and others like them ceased to be Orthodox when the rejected the faith of the Chalcedonian fathers.

[Stranger]

Eh? The Monophysites and others like them ceased to be Orthodox when the rejected the faith of the Chalcedonian fathers.

You do realize how comical this is, don't you?

[ad_orientem]

You do realize how comical this is, don't you?

You'll need to explain yourself then.