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.
I'm glad you're engaging, and I can handle some barbs - I am a Christian in the modern world, and barbs are common and not always misguided. I apologize if I mis-characterized your reading of the bible. I certainly made some assumptions based on your reply, and it seems many of them were incorrect. I'm sorry for that - poor debate and discussion skill on my part. So, I would argue that if you used a single passage to negate the bible because of that passage's seeming contradictions, then yes you have cherry-picked, but I don't cherry-pick when I disagree that the same passage is not contradictory. But let me explain why. In my understanding, from my own readings and from the teachings I've received from others in the faith, the bible taken as a whole and understood properly as a collection of different writings with different objectives (this is important - not every passage in the bible should be taken literally, and this is supported by the context of the literature of the day in which each piece was written and the historical reading thereof), the New Testament tells the story of how the Passion Story and Jesus' Resurrection (etc.etc.) not only creates a new paradigm between man and God, but also abolishes a lot of the Old Testament legal structures because in Jesus is found the New Law, the New Way. For O.T. Israelites, the Law was the only way to godliness/heaven. The N.T. creates a radically new narrative in which the Law is no longer that Way. Jesus is the Way now. I'm sure none of this is new to you, having been raised in the community. But it's key, because I find it supports my claim that cherry-picking is not necessary for the bible as a whole to be consistent and true. It's holistic in its entirety, and the key is the radical change that Jesus brings to reality. It follow that moral supremacy is a valid claim, because I'm not "discredit[ing] the text based on [my] preferences". I'm informing passages that SEEM contradictory at first blush with the wider context of the rest of the biblical narrative. And this is where the argument that I'm cherry-picking becomes weak for me - I don't see it as cherry-picking. I see it as reading the passages into the greater context. Inter-textual (between the books in the bible) reading is critical because the work is complete in its wholeness, not in specific passages. If you have some more blatant passages to point out, I'd appreciate it. I may not be able to refute your claims, as I'm only human and still have a long life journey ahead.
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. NT "new" says you don't have to kill your children, "Praise God!" It says women are subservient, "Praise God!" It says give away everything you own, "Hell no!" (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.
I'm pretty gassed for the day from all of this (in the middle of a workday), so I'm going to sign off for now with the admission that I sometimes struggle to determine what is human interpretation and what is divine revelation. Even still, at the bottom of all things, I do see an objective reality that is informed by the bible and God's guiding hand throughout history. Of course, we haven't even scratched the concept of individual revelation that does help us understand God's will when we read the bible, but that would be a whole can o' worms on this page I don't want to open. I could anticipate how you will all react to it anyways - :) 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. "Explaining and justifying all this 4000 year old theology" I prefer to look at what I do as pursuing the truths in the 4000 year old theology, and refusing to throw the baby our with the bathwater just because modern times seems to believe they've discounted the entire body of thought with a couple hundred years of sometime sketchy philosophy. "I morally interpret without all that" This is a whole other debate to be had, about the source of morality. Theists argue that morality is inherent in humans and therefore needs to come from somewhere objective. I wonder how you make moral judgments and interpretations? What is the moral ideal against which you measure ideas, claims, and actions? (honest inquiry, not a gotcha) I appreciate you refraining from attacking my character throughout all of this, I really do. It's tiring to hear over and over that I'm intellectually bankrupt, that I'm disingenuous, that I'm a sheep, etc. etc. etc. every time I talk about my worldview online. I appreciated hearing well-crafted arguments against my positions instead.
1. Agreed, I spent too much time on this today. 2. I don't need to predict. It's happening now, my dude. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. See #4.the middle of a workday [...] sign off
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.
pursuing the truths in the 4000 year old theology [...] with a couple hundred years of sometime sketchy philosophy
I wonder how you make moral judgments and interpretations?
I appreciate you refraining from attack