Chris Weimer

Who are you?

Chuck Rightmire

It seems to me that the whole thread is based on an error. Where in the world were you that you understand that the Bible is supposed to be read with the cultural context in mind? That may be the liberal church interpretation, but the fundamentalists who form most of the true opposition to rational thinking don't say that; at least, not that I've ever heard. Most of them say the Bible applies today not matter the culture of the past.

sometimesisquint

Most Christians in this country wouldn't promote stoning rebellious children, the allowance of slavery practices, or the apparent genocidal extermination of opposing tribes and nations.

Such polarizing sections are obviously based upon an idiotic cultural context or reference, so I don't think my questions lack merit, unfortunately. They are extreme references, but that's the point, the bible is full of an array of questionable teachings or supposedly applicable stories, all of which must either be subjected to a cultural standard and accepted or identified as uncivilized rubbish and tossed out.

It's easy to make the case against stoning or slavery...but what about the rest of the book? What is the line? What criteria must we follow? That was the point I was attempting to make.

GakuseiDon

Using "cultural context" avoids problems within the Bible (IMO legitimately in many cases, in fact), so it is used by fundamentalists a lot. This is from the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy (my emphasis):
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers...

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action."

In a way, this opens the door for inerrantists to treat Genesis as myth ("myth as myth", to modify the above), and still keep the Bible as inerrant.

Chuck Rightmire

Where do they post this? The ones who claim the bible is inerrant can't be swayed by the cultural context. This seems to me to be applicable only to the more liberal churches. Those who accept the six days of creation certainly are not willing to put anything into its cultural context although they are certainly willing, now, to disavow slavery and stoning. I'm not sure but what they would do it again if the current secular laws permitted it.

GakuseiDon

... except for when the Bible appears to be wrong. Then it is very useful.

Curse those handsome devils! Probably best to go to a fundamentalist website, and ask them there? Or at least Theologyweb.

Solo

There are no problems with the Bible; it was always very boring reading for people who had no imagination.

Kind of wonder though if (the) Jesus (that I imagine) came today and spoke in plain language, if he would be understood any more than he was two thousand years ago, for:

the kingdom may be likened unto an air-traveler whom God sends to a distant land and who finds himself in a first-class seat on an airplane. And he wonders in flight, how in heaven did I get here, for I am to meet with my banker at this time. And seeing a priest in cassock, reading the Book on a seat opposite the aisle, he inquires discreetly of the meaning of his mission. He receives a long answer but it is for nought for the priest spoke in Latin. And seeing an intent gaze of another passenger of reputable mien overhearing the conversation, he turns to her: ‘Excuse me madam, can you explain why I am here, when I am expected at the bank in the City, this very hour ?’ And the woman with exotic hairdo obligingly gives her six-part opinion on the matter, alas it was in Swahili. But then the flight attendant, bringing refreshments, and seeing the worried look on her charge, comforts him, ‘dear sir, we are right on course, and right on time; the customs people at the destination are very friendly but you need to have your papers ready’.

Jiri

gstafleu

The bible is a sacred text, and an opinion about its universality versus its idiosyncrasy can only be formed by comparing it with other sacred texts. Similarly, opinions about the universality/idiosyncrasy of Christianity can only be formed by comparing it to other religions. The field that does this is called comparative mythology. Do a google and Amazon search for that term and take it from there.

Gerard Stafleu

rob117

When dealing with mythologies that still have followers the politically correct term is "comparative religion".

gstafleu

[QUOTE=rob117;4509793]Well, yes . But that then runs a real chance of omitting anything but current religions (basically: Abrahamic, Hinduism and perhaps Buddhism), which leaves out a lot of relevant stuff. Sort of starting the study of the evolution of H. sapiens with the primates. To see the flip side of this, do a google for mythology. Most sites leave out the Abrahamic religions, just a few less leave out Hinduism.

Gerard Stafleu