> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:23 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview > > > > So how do you decide which parts of scripture to follow and which > not? The whole bible? Just the NT? Just Jesus' teachings, and ignore > Paul's commentary?
If one is Christian, then the Incarnate Word of God (Jesus) has the greatest authority. Still the whole of scripture is considered by modern Christians to be authoritive. How one understands this authority in a collection of works that contains both sides of theological disputes (such as the dispute over retribution theology) tends to be complex. Literalism cannot really work consistently....I never met someone who was really a literalist concerning the whole of scriptures.....they just don't count their non-literal reading as non-literal. There are several formulations that give general rules for understanding scriptures. Peter Gomes gives one good one: scriptural principals, not scriptural practices. Shirley Guthrie give 6 reasonable principals for Christians...I think I can give them from memory if asked...if not..Teri has them. But, let me give my own set of rules for interpretation. First, one needs to set each work in context to properly understand it. One cannot get the meaning of Jonah, for example, if one thinks it was meant as a history of a minor prophet. It's a literary piece written to get a theological message/messages across...one(s) that I think happens to be great messages for their times and ours. Second, scripture is seen in light of the community's growth in their covenant relationship with God, as told from the human side. Thus, we can see the theology that God rewards good people here on earth early in the Old Testament, and then discussions of the reasons that theology doesn't work very well later. With a timeline, one can see the growth of the people's understanding....for example, the development from seeing Yahwah being one god among many (but very powerful and _their_ god) to being the God of all, who calls all to himself. As a Christian, I tend to look to Jesus and Paul for guidance in understanding scripture. Both discussed going to the heart of scripture, as did Hiller (a noted rabbi of that time...roughly). So, my questions of scripture are more guided towards what is the heart of the relationship instead of looking for specific prohibitions against things like polyester/cotton blends. In addition, I agree with the argument that all Christians have, unconsciously or consciously, a "cannon within the cannon." That is to say a central statement that one uses to interpret other parts of scripture. Mine is Jesus' answer to the question what is the greatest commandment: Love your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind and Love your neighbor as yourself. My justification for this is that Jesus is multiply attested (in the 3 synoptic gospels) to having said this.....John has a very similar saying in Jesus' farewell discourse "love one another" and Paul states..."three things endure: faith hope and love; and the greatest of these is love." > The implication that fundamentalism is the only "complete" form of a > religion is a perfectly reasonable assertion But, with Christianity, then one would have to argue that it was incomplete for most of its existence. Fundamentalism is really rather new. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
