"The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day."
followed tags: 22
followed domains: 0
badges given: 1 of 2
member for: 242 days
COL Comparison: Chicago-Boston
*Note, in case you're unfamiliar, that'll get you in a multi-family with quarter-operated laundry in the basement, utilities not included, and parking will be an extra $200, thanks. Move-in will be first month, last month, deposit of one month, and the cost of one month's rent for broker fees ($2152*4 = a cool $8600)
My brother lives in one of these mid-size cities where he's paying off a 3-bed/2-bath house in the middle of downtown at $200 less than what we pay for a 1-bed/1-bath basement. We're technically in the Greater Boston Area which really means our commutes are an hour+, but it also means that our rent is about 2/3 as much as anywhere on the T. You do the math on what my brother pays for his spacious luxury.
He also has two dogs in that white picket mansion, and he didn't have to ask nobody's permission 'bout that.
We have good jobs, good education, and good prospects. The allure of mid-sized cities is stronk.
Regular ol' filter team for the pres and his fixin' boys with the possibility for a special master.
- the middle of a workday [...] sign off
Agreed, I spent too much time on this today.
- I don't think it's fair to project into the future and predict exactly what society and culture will think about today's religions and philosophies. But we can disagree on this.
I don't need to predict. It's happening now, my dude.
- pursuing the truths in the 4000 year old theology [...] with a couple hundred years of sometime sketchy philosophy
Your basis is no better than mine. We all have the same pool of human knowledge. Apologists use the same sketchy philosophy as the rest of us.
- I wonder how you make moral judgments and interpretations?
I trust myself to act and think in the right way. I trust the people around me to let me know if I don't. Same as everyone else, you included. More on that if we ever talk again.
- I appreciate you refraining from attack
Hey hey, that's no problem. Just wanted you to know a little about who you were talking to before you started jumping to conclusions about how much I've thought about this and what my understanding of the material might be.
The interpretation that Jesus' death rewrites the saving covenant is just that - an interpretation, curated, reinforced, and maintained by religious scholars and followers. There are many other opposing interpretations of that event, and each lays claim to "moral supremacy" (though I agree with KB, that is a detestable phrase). The Evangelical sect makes no argument for moral supremacy that these others do not. Historically, Protestantism is a centuries-long tradition of interpreting religious texts according to changing human preferences.
In fact, it sounds like you explain a familiar thought process. An old paradigm exists that conflicts with a set of mores. The OT "old" paradigm is distasteful for whatever reason - killing children being one of them, ostensibly and agreeably. So a part of the set of known mores is that we don't really want to murder our children for insolently drinking late at night and eating Burger King too often, and so a new interpretation is required to fit our stated cultural preference. A new interpretation is required to fit modernity, how humans now live.
"But PTR, if the text remains the same, how does the new interpretation come about?"
Someone just says it, 95 theses-style.
The Bible is clear, succinct, and to the point: kill insolent sons, deny women public voice, give away all possessions.
Human-interpreted theology is a convoluted maze of analysis, clarification, explanation, caveats, perception, perspective, and omission. "I'll take Cherry-picking for $500, Alex!"
Usher NT "new" paradigms - a la Jesus' Covenant of Salvation - which will soon be OT "old" paradigms in a few thousand years (i.e. now), and the OT "old, old" paradigms are detestably, can't-cop-to-it archaic.
(note: would rather not get bogged down in passages, as that's a rabbit trail of several hundred pages and 66 books of "wisdom tradition, [...] poetry, myth, history, and correspondences")
And as people realize that they do want women's suffrage, and as people realize that they don't want to give away eeeeeverything, still yet even more interpretations occur. The ancients weren't prepared for modern philosophy, and so now the interpretation of God's omnipotence must also jive with free will. We have to figure out how God's omniscience and soul-saving grace can account for the lost indigenous souls, for babies, for dogs. People choose individually how these fit their morality - they interpret, you interpret, I interpret.
I morally interpret without all that because as long as I'm ethically "winging it", I'm starting from scratch. Explaining and justifying all this 4000 year old theology is not how I want to spend my "long life journey ahead". If it makes you better to choose from an old book, that's ok. I've read some of those too.
But you've got to realize that at the end of the day, everyone's just figuring out what to believe based on what they know and experience. It's a scramble; there's no supremacy to be had.
Hi, yeah, always happy to see some proselytizing out in the wild. Happy to engage amicably if a bit barbed :)
I was raised in the Evangelical Christian tradition. If you think my reading is "ultimately shallow", you've got another thing coming. You can say I've cherry-picked the text, but the Bible is full of similar, and some more blatant, passages.
If you want to discount some of those passages, that's your go-ahead. It's your book after all. But you can't claim a moral supremacy from the text while also discrediting the text based upon your preference. If you discredit the text based on your preference, it appears to onlookers that you've substituted the moral authority of the text for your own - not a great look if you're trying to set yourself apart from everyone else out here ethically "winging it". Kinda looks like you're doing a bit of cherry-picking on your own. How do they taste? Pitted?
Would like to know your thoughts on that apparent contradiction.