Message from @Delta
Discord ID: 734834298502381590
So am I first lol
I think so
Bett
Oh God I have an addiction
fun
Religion has it place. But there is a difference between Kneeling down and Bending over...
How can we objectively decide between an honest read of the Bible and a dishonest one? Once you start examining metaphor you enter a world of interpretation, which is subjective of course. So how can one understand anything but the literal reading of the Bible as objectively honest?
Just don’t take it as metaphor. The people who wrote it and those who read it for the majority of its existence took it literally. The ability to abstract it as metaphor is a convenience of looking at it through a modern lense.
lens*
I think you are a step ahead when your at the point you can read your holy scripture on the toilet.
That would mean you are not taking it more seriously then anything else.
What would mean you would be able to see what is really is.
However during the townhall Trav said we shouldn’t read it 100% literally but do a more “honest read” so that’s what prompted the question
Wheres all my non fellow apes
If all morality is subjective how can you call the Bible, or anything else for that matter, a bad/failed moral authority?
Elaborate
> How can we objectively decide between an honest read of the Bible and a dishonest one? Once you start examining metaphor you enter a world of interpretation, which is subjective of course. So how can one understand anything but the literal reading of the Bible as objectively honest?
@Delta That's a great question. As with any text, the Bible must be considered within its context - and I don't just mean the textual or historical context. It must be considered within the context of the culture that reads it. From my Eastern Orthodox perspective, that is within the context of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church is the body of believers that wrote the Scriptures, edited the Scriptures, canonized the Scriptures, preserved the Scriptures, and is therefore the only body that is capable of accurately interpreting the Scriptures.
@Buddha In Orthodoxy, the "metaphor vs. literal" distinction does not exist. These are modern categories that have no bearing on this ancient text, nor on the Tradition of the Church. Rather, the entirety of Scripture, and all of reality, must be understood through the prism of Christ. This has led the Church to interpret the Old Testament in highly typological, symbolic, and mystical ways. For example, St. Gregory of Nyssa, a 4th-century bishop, wrote an entire commentary on Moses, in which he explains the symbolic significance of the Burning Bush, the Ten Plagues, the wandering in the desert, and so on. So it is just inaccurate to say that "the people who wrote it and those who read it for the majority of its existence took it literally." I'm not really sure what "literally" means - the category certainly would be a strange one for St. Gregory of Nyssa. So questions like, "Did God really create water before the sun?" is completely nonsensical and irrelevant to the text.
E, come join the aftershow voice chat!
@The Scop Interesting points. I would challenge you on the body of scriptures can only be interpreted by the church. That is why we had the reformation. The accuracy of the scripture can be considered an issue. An honest, literal, and critical read would challenge several issues brought up. Unfortunately, people have to get past the first paragraph and have the curiosity and or will to finish the book. If read from a literary perspective reading there is a story across the bible. Weighing the old testament outside of the new testament detracts from our understanding. In reading the new testament many of the ideas Jesus proposed were elaborated on. Including understanding what Jesus does to the Old Testament law. If anyone can get past the claims and actually pay attention to the story there maybe a different perspective.
> @The Scop Interesting points. I would challenge you on the body of scriptures can only be interpreted by the church. That is why we had the reformation. The accuracy of the scripture can be considered an issue. An honest, literal, and critical read would challenge several issues brought up. Unfortunately, people have to get past the first paragraph and have the curiosity and or will to finish the book. If read from a literary perspective reading there is a story across the bible. Weighing the old testament outside of the new testament detracts from our understanding. In reading the new testament many of the ideas Jesus proposed were elaborated on. Including understanding what Jesus does to the Old Testament law. If anyone can get past the claims and actually pay attention to the story there maybe a different perspective.
@James B If the Church is not the objective light by which you read the Scripture, then what is? Sola Scriptura has led to 30,000+ denominations. There is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church never had a reformation. We are not part of that history. And we would say that the Roman Catholic Church began deviating from Holy Tradition within a century after the Great Schism of 1054, with the advent of scholasticism, increasing growth of the papacy and corruption, etc. The Reformation may have been justified, but it was misguided and unfortunately caused even more breakdown within the Western Church. Interestingly, Martin Luther and many of his followers actually considered going East, but for a number of reasons decided against it.
@James B I do completely agree with you on the last part. The Old Testament can only be understood in light of the New Testament. We probably have different views on how to do that and on the relationship between Christ and the Old Law. But we agree on this. You are absolutely right that the story of the Bible cannot be ignored. That should be the primary consideration, not the historical and scientific questions, because frankly, the Bible itself is not interested in those.
@The Scop The idea that the church is the only means of interpreting scripture, detracts from the responsibility of the individual to wrestle with God. I am not as familiar with Eastern Orthodox. I still believe that having a monopoly on God's word is not beneficial. Just because Eastern Orthodox has not had a schism does not mean it the ideas are correct. Remember a body of God can form when two or more people come together. The church is important, from a habitual perspective. It has to be careful though it does not become this monolith and force God's believers into a blind creed.
@The Scop I would also mention the eastern orthodox church is the outgrowth of a schism, between west and eastern Rome. so who is right?
Perhaps there were those more educated in higher positions and in the Catholic Church who thought of it as metaphor but there’s nothing to suggest the peasantry and surfs who had a hand in writing and spreading it and were led by those espousing it didn’t take it seriously. The Catholic Church I attended as a child STILL suggested to me the some nonsense stories were true.
> @The Scop The idea that the church is the only means of interpreting scripture, detracts from the responsibility of the individual to wrestle with God. I am not as familiar with Eastern Orthodox. I still believe that having a monopoly on God's word is not beneficial. Just because Eastern Orthodox has not had a schism does not mean it the ideas are correct. Remember a body of God can form when two or more people come together. The church is important, from a habitual perspective. It has to be careful though it does not become this monolith and force God's believers into a blind creed.
@James B No, it does not detract from the responsibility of the individual to wrestle with God. It allows one to move beyond asking what Scripture means and actually applying it to his life - in the application of the Scripture is the real wrestling match. I was very relieved to escape the confusion of Protestantism, from a particular denomination that didn't even know if demons were still active, and enter into the life of the Church, where the Scripture is a guide and not a source of debate. That said, there is room for disagreement in the Orthodox Church. Our structure is not nearly as rigid as the RCC - within the structure is freedom.
Your statement regarding having a monopoly on God's word betrays the Protestant mindset. Without the Church, there would be no Scripture. The Scripture can only exist in the context of the Church. It was written and compiled for the specific reason of being read in the Divine Liturgy.
As for the question of Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, that would require a long historical explanation. But the ultimate reason I am Orthodox is not because of that, but because it has the ring of Truth. But that's a discussion for another time.
> Perhaps there were those more educated in higher positions and in the Catholic Church who thought of it as metaphor but there’s nothing to suggest the peasantry and surfs who had a hand in writing and spreading it and were led by those espousing it didn’t take it seriously. The Catholic Church I attended as a child STILL suggested to me the some nonsense stories were true.
@Buddha I cannot speak for the modern Catholic Church, but that is just historically inaccurate. And, as I said, "metaphor" is an inaccurate and modern category that does not apply to Scripture.
@James B From what I can tell you like Jordan Peterson. Here are some of the things he's said about Eastern Orthodoxy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G3MsDh2ci8&t=3s
I'm enjoying watching two of my friends have an interesting chat. :)
How is that historically innacurate. Those who first spread the word of Christ were among peasantry. The vast majority of those who followed Christianity throughout Europe up until very recently were among serfdom.
Exactly they were spiritual cattle
@The Scop if there is room for disagreement there is room to breakaway. The key takeaway is putting the word of God in the hands of the people. They will wrestle with it, not all will understand it, and even the church can corrupt its meaning. I pay homage to the church for cultivating and maintaining scripture. For the Patristics for grappling with the ideas. The beginning of a relationship with God does not begin in the church, it begins with the person. Then as the person wrestles with God they will uncover its meaning. Using the framework the church provides and reading the bible someone can develop their relationship with God. You have acknowledged Eastern Orthodox is the best for you, does not mean it will work for me. I do not put all of my faith in a church, I place it on the individual who goes to church and seeks to wrestle with God.
Personally, it would be a waste of time to determine which one is right because of all different denominations. I place my faith in God and test the revelations against the biblical narrative of what we know at the moment. Besides the main sticking point is I personally do not care about the ceremony associated with any church. I much prefer to read the word directly and the ideas.
Yes, I can go full on fan boy with you about Peterson. He is kinda talking about the major Christian Faiths: Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox Christians. Yes I am protestant and came to the same conclusion, he did. Jordan talks about picking up your cross and struggle upwards. This is not lost with the other denominations.
I will admit I do not know enough about Orthodox and it principles. I would without a doubt argue that giving people the means to read the bible on their own and in a language they understand one of the better innovations. Having any Church control all aspects of ideas and scripture leads to significant corruption issues and other censorship.
I think you and I are in some form of agreement.
> How is that historically innacurate. Those who first spread the word of Christ were among peasantry. The vast majority of those who followed Christianity throughout Europe up until very recently were among serfdom.
@Buddha The inaccurate part was that the peasantry had a different view than the Fathers. You're projecting modern concepts and categories onto people who lived an inconcievably long time ago.