- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
In so many cases, how we interpret scriptures says as much about us and our views as the scriptures say about other people and their views.
Which has made me wonder a few times — what truth value do they really have? If scripture is often a mirror of our own beliefs and experiences, then how can we trust them to produce truth? People’s beliefs are often skewed, flawed, and often shaped by insufficient sample sizes, as you may believe my ideas regarding the one year penalty are.
Lately, I find more inspiration and more influence on my behavior from reading the books of good thinkers on specific topics (still general, but at least focused on a particular domain) than I do vague scriptures written centuries ago, and interpreted in so many different ways.
SilentDawning wrote:Old-Timer wrote:In so many cases, how we interpret scriptures says as much about us and our views as the scriptures say about other people and their views.
Which has made me wonder a few times — what truth value do they really have? If scripture is often a mirror of our own beliefs and experiences, then how can we trust them to produce truth? People’s beliefs are often skewed, flawed, and often shaped by insufficient sample sizes, as you may believe my ideas regarding the one year penalty are.
Lately, I find more inspiration and more influence on my behavior from reading the books of good thinkers on specific topics (still general, but at least focused on a particular domain) than I do vague scriptures written centuries ago, and interpreted in so many different ways.
IMO, there is a lot of truth in the scriptures (especially the new testament, especially certain parts of it), and that truth belongs entirely to me. It just doesn’t have any bearing on me if someone else interprets the same passages differently. Since I want to be free to interpret them as a mirror of my own beliefs and experiences, I allow that others will do so as well; it is their right every bit as much as I claim it as mine.What we have to concede is that nobody is looking at these passages (like Matthew 10:35), and using them to ignite their love of the one-year waiting period. Rather, they are defending the Gospel they love, and the Church which is inseparably connected to it, and since the Church has this policy, they accept the policy without reservation. Then they see Matthew 10:35 and easily recognize how it applies to the defense they were already prepared to make for the Policy/Church/Gospel.
Personally, for me, I see the same passage as acknowledging that visionary people – people who may someday change this very policy – have to reach beyond tradition for what is right, even if it goes against the
status quo.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.