FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2008, 11:54 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Beast Coast
Posts: 217
Default "You have to read it in context!"

How often do you hear someone defend a sordid statement, act, or command in the Bible by telling you to read the context? At what point does the apologist go full meta - the way a rationalist usually does - and say "Well if you consider it in the context of the culture of the people who wrote the Bible, then it makes perfect sense that they would stone homosexuals"?

For example, Acts 3:23 declares that all who do not accept Jesus "shall be destroyed from among the people." I can kind of see this being read to mean "cut off" or "exiled," but still, I'm sure it has been interpreted more often to mean that non-believers should be killed.
Jeremy D is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 03:11 AM   #2
vid
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Myjava, Slovakia
Posts: 384
Default

First of all, I don't think early Christians by time of composition of Acts (late 1st/early 2nd century) were in position to kill anybody for belief.
vid is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 08:35 PM   #3
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Beast Coast
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
First of all, I don't think early Christians by time of composition of Acts (late 1st/early 2nd century) were in position to kill anybody for belief.
Surely. Perhaps Romans 1 is a better example. That's the chapter that states that homosexuals are "worthy of death." Many liberal Christians think that this was one of the most damaging interpretations in the entire Bible.

Also worth bringing up: 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 says non-believers should be shunned. Deuteronomy 17:6-10 says they should be killed. Matthew and Luke say love your enemy. Even discounting Deuteronomy for the traditional "The Old Testament doesn't count!" bit, I'm told to read 2 Corinthians "in context" to avoid a contradiction. Huh?
Jeremy D is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 04:33 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: vienna
Posts: 74
Default

I'd just kindly ask them in what context, and how they think that would change the meaning?
vijeno is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 05:01 AM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy D View Post
For example, Acts 3:23 declares that all who do not accept Jesus "shall be destroyed from among the people." I can kind of see this being read to mean "cut off" or "exiled," but still, I'm sure it has been interpreted more often to mean that non-believers should be killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
First of all, I don't think early Christians by time of composition of Acts (late 1st/early 2nd century) were in position to kill anybody for belief.
If Acts were written by Eusebius in the fourth century all this would make more sense. The fourth century christians were consistently executing heretics and referring to non-believers as aliens.
mountainman is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 07:47 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy D View Post
How often do you hear someone defend a sordid statement, act, or command in the Bible by telling you to read the context? At what point does the apologist go full meta - the way a rationalist usually does - and say "Well if you consider it in the context of the culture of the people who wrote the Bible, then it makes perfect sense that they would stone homosexuals"?

For example, Acts 3:23 declares that all who do not accept Jesus "shall be destroyed from among the people." I can kind of see this being read to mean "cut off" or "exiled," but still, I'm sure it has been interpreted more often to mean that non-believers should be killed.
I guess the context in question would be the neighbours of Israel during its existence as an identifiable nation, starting around the end of the 2nd millenium BCE.

The bias against homosexuality could be seen as the flip of encouraging families and numerical security. One theory I've heard is that the Hebrews brought an essentially Bedouin desert morality into a more urbanized context (Canaan).
bacht is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:23 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.