(03-13-2020, 10:51 PM)Reltzik Wrote:(03-11-2020, 05:26 PM)SteveII Wrote: I would say that the NT teaches that being a Christian should make you aware that you are not better than anyone else. Humility and thankfulness for undeserved grace is a pretty central theme.
That's certainly an interpretation I would take away from the NT as well.
But quite a few people don't. That interpretation HAPPENS. Leave out whether it's correct or incorrect. It exists. It affects the world. It leads to harm. Interpretation leads a thousand different directions, quite a few of them unsavory. That's what makes it dangerous.
So I've asserted this several times already, but I'll put it to you as a challenge. Can you offer either:
A) A good argument that interpretation of the Bible (and acting on / living by that interpretation) is NOT a somewhat dangerous and/or reckless path to follow, given that a certain percentage of interpretations lead to very unhappy happenings?
.... or...
B) Some way to get at original ideology without interpretation?
If not, it would seem that any widespread adoption of Christianity would result in some number of atrocities through harmful interpretations, without comment on whether those interpretations were correct or not.
I enjoyed reading your comments and the obvious thought you put behind them.
I'm going to go with B because I don't think it necessary to interpret the NT in the sense you mean.
Definition of interpret
transitive verb
1: to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
interpret dreams
needed help interpreting the results
2: to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE
interpret a contract
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interpreting
Throughout your response above, you used interpret/interpretation in the second sense of the definition. But I would go further than that. I think a case can be made that much of the NT content is already the interpretation (in the sense of 1) of the underlying truths. Let's grant for the sake of this argument that the gospels contain the teachings of Jesus (as most Christians believe). Jesus took great pains to "explain or tell the meaning of." He used parables and analogies everywhere.
Take the passages I mentioned previously. Matthew 5 (the Sermon on the Mount) or Luke 10 (Love you neighbor as yourself, who is your neighbor?...the Good Samaritan). I'm not sure there needs to be any attempt "to explain or tell the meaning of". The underlying truths were just explained in plain language. With the nature of the NT, it would take hours to cite all the similar gospel passages and then move on to the epistles which echo the themes but provide more "how and why" to implement them--it would be easier for someone to cite an example to the contrary.
You brought up the passage below as a possible source of interpretation issues.
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The last verse seems very important to the meaning of the previous verses because it answer the question "why am I saying this?" AND, the very next verse starts the series of (hate is a bad a murder, lust is as bad as adultery, and ends with loving your enemy) to make it even more difficult to keep the law--because the point is no one can keep the law--it is and always was impossible.
There is no reasonable way to spin these verses to imply that some atrocity x is permitted because Jesus didn't abolish the OT Law. If a "convert or kill" has it's root here, you simply pulled a verse out of context because any potential inference (and I think even that characterization is being to generous) to that is quickly cleared up with more plain language from the same passage. Further, there are several other passages that deal with what the law's purpose is in even clearer terms.
- No one (except for Jesus) has ever succeeded in keeping the law (Acts 15:10)!
- The law illustrates the impossible standard (Galatians 3:10-11; Galatians 5:3)
- The law cannot bring salvation (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:8-10, 16; Galatians 3:1-5).
- As Paul makes clear, the law's job was to act as a schoolmaster in order to bring us to Christ (Galatians 4:1-7).
I will say that a few secondary doctrines are not as clear as we would like and --but I think they are all in-house squabbles and not germane to atrocity justification. Let me know if I am wrong.
You brought up slavery as an example of interpretations that were used to justify both sides. Those who used the Bible to support it needed to do two things: 1) equivocate on the various types of slavery and 2) ignore vast stretches of the Bible. Taken together, using the Bible as a defense is illegitimate. Such an assessment is not limited to our time or culture because neither of those two things change over time or culture. Chattel slavery based on race is contrary to Christianity for all times because it violates core principles of Christianity.
A quick comment about Jewish Deicide. How would one draw the conclusion that an entire race is culpable for putting Jesus to death from anything in the NT? I could see if you didn't have a NT perhaps but nearly every main character and author was Jewish and the entire theme depends on Jesus being crucified. I read the article on how people justified it. It is really really thin and, as I said in the last paragraph, violates core principles of Christianity.
No discussion on this would be complete without pointing out that there is a difference between Catholic and protestant views and can lead to confusion. The Catholics believe that they have the unique ability to add to what it means to be a Christian. That obviously leads to confusion because that makes many concepts a moving target. I am arguing for a NT-only definition of Christianity.
In summary, a 'Christian interpretation atrocity' is because of interpretation (in the second sense of the definition). I think it is obvious that the NT as a whole acts as a check against taking passages out of context--especially in the categories of violence and hate.
