= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1953)
I'm partway through Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions, and it's very, very interesting. Much better fodder than I usually see from people misusing those concepts. It's refreshing to see points made in context to their original meaning, and intelligently applied! I'm giving myself some time to let my thoughts simmer, before making a few comments on a couple of them.
I want to know what's true. Even if Christianity wasn't true, I've already found a great deal of Truth in its teachings for how to live life. The Bible, I feel, encourages a rational mindset, as much as many might think otherwise - to not use one's intellect to examine one's religion would be to reject many of Jesus' teachings. Most specifically, it would reject Jesus' parable about taking a treasure (reason) that the Master (God) has given his servant (Man), and burying it in the ground instead of using it to create more treasure (knowledge). It also can be seen in the way that the only people Jesus really gets angry at throughout the entire bible, and cries out against, are members of the 'true religion' (Pharisees) who abused and misused the tenets of their religion to push their own preconceptions.
The Holy Trinity: yes. The miracles: yes. Jesus' life: yes. Moral teachings: yes.
Creationism: Not supported by the bible, nor by a thorough examination of the Ancient Hebrew culture, where the '6 days' were considered a metaphor for time too vast to be comprehended by the mortal mind. The Genesis sequence contains quite a few inherent metaphoric parallels with our scientific understanding of how the world was created, too.
Biblical literalism: sorta. I believe the bible was divinely inspired but I believe that man's language is completely unable to manifest any sort of 'perfect understanding' as the language itself is imperfect. Even, theoretically speaking, were the bible able to present a perfect language, man is imperfectly able to understand it. So on a technical level, yes, I believe in biblical literalism (except where scholarly study, historical cultural examination, and the bible itself tells us it's not literal), but in practice, I treat it a lot more loosely in recognition of man's inherent bias.
Prayer as a powerful force: Yes, but not like a wish-granting genie. Really, the power of prayer is more a power of inspiration and internal moral / emotional strength, an effect which could be explained by a placebo effect. Studies also show that prayer does have a powerful healing effect - but only if the subject knows that they are being prayed for. But medically speaking, attitude is a strong component of healing, not simply biochemical response to stimuli - so it might be internal strength, might be a placebo effect. As an attitude towards the world around one, I see 'answers' to prayers quite a bit, but not so much that I can rule out coincidence and a Rorschach-like effect upon the world around me.
Heaven and Hell, angels, demons, faith or works: I believe Heaven is where beings go in order to serve and follow the rules (which are there for our benefit, not just arbitrary). I believe that when beings of free will expressed a desire to do things their own way, not according to the rules, God created a place we call "Hell" which is where people who wish total freedom from the rules can go to do things their way without hurting the people who are following the rules. Not a punishment at all. As such, the "Salvation" question becomes rather a bit more complex as neither faith nor works is an appropriate descriptor. I'm looking into some theological scholarly writings at the moment which recently were brought to my attention which goes into more detail on this concept.
Prophecies, finally, tend to be awfully confusing till after they've happened, so till I see fire in the skies over Israel or an earthquake that shakes the whole world at once, I'm really not paying too much attention to them. The prophecies of the OT seem to have held up pretty well, though.
Having been religious (in particular, a very traditionalist Catholic, more so than my parents by far)† for a good chunk of my life before averting to atheism a few years ago (as an adult), I would have agreed with you, but a bit uneasily. And now, I can't help but point out a distinction.
When you point to the Bible for moral light, you're really pointing to a relatively small fraction of the total text, and much of that has been given new interpretations†† that the original apostles didn't use.
Let's give an example: to pick a passage that's less emotionally charged and less often bruited about in this connection, let's consider the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42. People twist this every which way to make it sound more fair to Martha, when the simplest reading is just that Luke thought that the one best thing you could do with your life was to be an apostle, and wrote the episode in a way that showed this. Luke wasn't thinking about how the story should be interpreted within a large society where the majority are Christians going about daily business like Martha, because he expected the end times to come too soon for that society to be realized on Earth. He really, genuinely, wanted the reader to conclude that they should forget living like Martha††† if they possibly could, and imitate Mary instead.
Now, when faced with a passage like this, what do you prefer? The simpler interpretation which doesn't seem to help you as moral guidance? Or a more convoluted one which meshes with the way you think the truth should be lived in the world today? Which interpretation would you expect to find upheld in letters of the Church Fathers who lived before Rome converted? Which interpretation do you think was more likely for Luke?
And most importantly, if you're saying you're learning about moral truth from the Bible, but you're choosing your preferred interpretation of Scripture by aesthetic and moral criteria of the modern era, rather than criteria that are closer to the text and the history, why do you need the Scripture at all? Why not just state your aesthetic and moral principles and be done with it?
† Sorry for these distracting parentheticals, but I know the assumptions I'd have made had I read the unadorned account from someone else.
†† For one year at school, I took on the task of finding both Scripture readings and commentary from the Church Fathers to be read during a weekly prayer group. The latter task proved to be a lot harder than it seemed, because the actual content of typical passages from the Church Fathers is really foreign, and not in an inspiring way either. Augustine gets read today in schools as exemplar of Christian thought basically because he's the only Church Father of the Roman era who doesn't look completely insane on a straightforward reading of any full work.
††† There are places of honor in Luke and Acts for patrons who help the apostles, but they're rather clearly supporting roles, and less admirable than the miracle-working apostles themselves.
Every time someone says, "The simplest reading..." about a passage, I really draw back cautiously. I see, usually, two types of people who say "There's only one way to read that passage," on any nonspecific passage. The first is "I know what it means and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I know the Will of God," and the second is "I know what it means and it's stupid and there is no God."
I'm not saying you're doing that - quite the opposite, you agree that there are many ways to approach the passage. The way Luke may have approached it, I couldn't say. I just see a story being presented, and Jesus rarely said anything in a straightforward manner. He always presented things in such a way that those listening to it had to really think about what he meant, and there are many ways to interpret it. Even Jesus, when pressed, usually meant many things by his stories. Admittedly, this wasn't a parable, this was an 'event that happened', but I think any of Jesus' responses still need to get considered carefully.
Second, we have the fact that you're talking about what Luke saw in it. I don't pretend the Apostles were perfect or didn't have their flaws. Every apostle, every prophet, was shown to be particularly flawed - unlike many other religions, the chosen of God in JudeoChristian belief were terribly flawed. There was a suicidally depressed prophet, there was the rash murderer, there were liars and thieves. The closest to a 'good' prophet was Joseph of the Coat of Many Colors, but even he had his moments of spite and anger.
I'm interested, but not dedicated, to what Luke thought of the situation. I'm much more interested in what Jesus did in the situation. Additionally, what about the context in which that scene appears? Jesus was constantly about service ... and that's what Martha was doing. He never admonished Martha ... he simply told her that Mary had made her choice, and it was better. He never said Martha should make the same choice, either.
It's worth noting that Mary was in a position that was traditionally denied women - but Jesus defended her right to be there, listening and learning from a teacher.
And I almost forgot the 'most importantly' part...
The strong lessons I learn from the bible ... wouldn't necessarily have occurred to me otherwise. Yes, I interpret them from my bias of modern life and mores ... but the bible presents me with things I wouldn't have thought to bring forward and consider. Methods of thinking I wouldn't have come up with on my own, or by talking with most others. This doesn't mean it's 'The True Faith', but it does make it a useful tool.
At any rate, we need to be careful not to go too much further. This is getting dangerously close to a theology discussion rather than a 'meet the new guy' discussion.
Anyhow, I think it's illuminating to be aware of what criteria actually go into one's judgments of Biblical interpretations. Your particular examples will vary.
Oh, I quite agree! Thank you very much for the time spent sharing your thoughts. ^_^