Dear friends (and enemies :)

It seems that one of the biggest barriers we face in bring our various passionate discussion to a point of agreement is this area of 'how' do we interpret a document?

EXAMPLE 1 "Discretionary Trust":

We all know that the trust deeds of the above, will contain very specific and legal jargon having specific meaning for life and behavior.
The place to argue it out, is in court. A judge, based on his experience will then decide a matter 'IN TERMS OF' the trust deed.

EXAMPLE 2 "The criminal code"

As far as I know, all legal/criminal code/contracts etc, begin with 'definitions'. Then, they proceed to outline what is permissable and what is not, and the various penalties for any infringement.

"Offenses"

such as: 6B "Survivor of suicide pact who kills deceased party is guilty of manslaughter"

Clearly, understanding such a document is based on our basic education and understanding of meanings.

So, in the Religious realm... can we apply the same rules?

LITERAL verses SYMBOLIC.

Clearly, from reading the Bible, there are many 'types' of literature in it.
-Poetry
-History
-Laws and Commands
-Social codes.
-Exhortations
-Predictions.
-"Stories" (such as 'parables' of Jesus.)

When it comes to assessing any religion, all this must be taken into account.

HINDUISM.

contains a lot of stories, from which the adherent is supposed to gain insights into the Divine, and learn what he should or shouldn't do in life. But not a lot of emphasis is placed on the historicity (as far as I can see) of some of these myths.

SIKHISM.

Sikhs believe that the writings of their "Gurus" are the foundation of lifes behavior.

A key distinctive feature of Sikhism is a non-anthropomorphic concept of God, to the extent that one can interpret God as the Universe itself.

In each case, one needs to examine what type of literature the document is 'claiming' to be. (i.e.. internal claim in the document itself)

Agree? Disagree?

Interesting! Still on your relentless pursuit. Religion is the all foundation of mankind( I wont disagree with that)but its time to seek simplicity not complication. The more mankind looks into religion the more confused one gets. How interpreting will being one closer to god, I will never know. Its all a question of my god is better than your! ITS it David.
Its funny that we are all on the same page, but branching out in different directions.

That's why I find it better to be neutral.

Nothing lost nothing gained.

EVO

Where does it say they are open to interpretation? Was it declared by God or Jesus? And who has the authority to do so?

EVO :) please try to limit the discussion to the topic this time.

Forget "My God is better than yours".. we have a longggg way to go before discussing that.

STEEL.. "any" document is open to interpretation.. they use words and sentences.. and this is why I made reference to legal documents.

Have a look at the Crimes act.

One good example is the issue of 'reasonable force' in self defense.
This requires a close look at the dynamics of interpersonal physical conflict, but it is defined as "sufficient force to stop an attacker" and no more.

WE LIVE...our lives daily based on interpreting texts.. we sometimes almost DIE when the Pharmacist cannot 'interpret' the Doctors writing.

It surprises me that we even seem to need this 'clearing house' debate to prepare the way for some less than fuzzy thinking on other issues.

As soon as one mentions 'religion'.. aaah.. its like a cat among the emotional pidgeons :) We need to get PAST/over that people.

INTERPRETING THE BIBLE....

New Testament. (Mark 8:34)

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Key elements.

"Come after" ...

"deny himself"...

"take up cross"

"follow"

These phrases need to be carefully looked at, and fleshed out.

Contextually, Jesus turned to address a 'crowd' which was following Him because of his miracles.

He was basically saying "This is no gravy train..it COSTS"

Only by knowing much more about the ethical and behavioral standards of Jesus, can we know what 'come after/follow' means.

Only by searching our own hearts can we know what 'deny self' means.
But one thing is clear.. it absolutely means "Christ first, me last.

The differences are that –

In secular terms, there is enough room to officially challenge on legal terms, which can be open to interpretation or circumstance. (Murder vs manslaughter). It’s possible to have laws changed, repealed or new ones implemented as society changes. It’s also possible to have a definitive judgement made on a ruling by people specifically appointed for that task.

Murder is legally unacceptable mainly because it creates social instability. It’s not a matter of morality because we sometimes execute our criminals and send our soldiers to kill others on our behalf. Laws are only there to create an environment for society to function in and like armies and police, they are really only there to protect the property of the lawgivers themselves.

In sectarianism, all we have is constant interpretation and reinterpretation without recourse to any real judgement. Some parts of religions exclude certain texts that others (of the same faith) do not. Some have even introduced new texts.

This is like having different versions of the same law applying to different people. Some people are not permitted to accept blood transfusions or go to war on religious grounds. Others are.

In Islam and Judaeism it’s not necessarily a mortal sin to kill somebody of a different faith – only in the legal sense.

You can’t apply legal rules to religion because religion is almost entirely symbolic.

Myth plays a significant part in the history of humanity and it is constantly being repeated because it reinforces social guidance and empowers the listener with a sense of understanding a greater purpose and is a constant part of our everyday lives. Many of the stories in the Bible have already appeared in previous religions. They tell of creation,heroes, messages, struggles, sacrifice, eternity and everything in between and they are universal and sometimes result in apotheosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comparative_mythology

It’s sectarian societies that create the Ayatollahs, fundamentalists and despots. It's also those who can't tell the difference between belief and social obligation and responsibility.

By the way, although we often disagree, I never regarded myself as your enemy.

David. I don't know if you are teaching religion or trying to convince yourself that god exists. But you certainly know your stuff.

Wobbles has beaten me to the punch line, as many of OLO people do.

All the best from

EVOLUTION.