[Vision2020] Is there a correct interpretation of the bible?

Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:14:37 EST

--part1_6b.20cc1fac.2d3ca59d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All:

This pedantic exercise in analyzing Wayne Fox's post where he argued that 
interpretations of the Bible vary, and that there are a wide variety of Christian 
sects based on this variety, appears more suited for an introductory Ethics 
course, than for a discussion which is oriented towards lessening the 
fanaticism of certain Christian sects by simply pointing out the variability of ethical 
beliefs based on the Bible.

Complete answers to all of your questions would require a tome or two, as you 
must know, given the obvious knowledge of the thorny problems in theory of 
ethics which you display.  For this reason, I think the intent of your post is 
more to embarrass Wayne Fox with a barrage of questions that explore the 
difficulty of these issues, questions the greatest thinkers, Christian and 
non-Christian alike, have pondered ad infinitum for thousands of years, rather than 
engage in honest debate.  

I will reply by acknowledging the extreme difficulties in establishing an 
objective universal ethical system.  I therefore think that fanatical dogmatism 
on the part of ANY ethical belief system based only on ONE source, the Bible, 
for example, that has contradictions, and contains bizarre justifications for 
the infliction of pain and suffering, is hubris.  I do believe that reason and 
fact can illuminate ethical issues, while I admit I have not found an 
objective universal perfect ethical system.  

I suggest that a way to construct ethical guidelines that avoid the extremes 
of fanatical dogmatism based on referencing only one ethical tradition, such 
as we find in the fundamentalist views of Christianity and Islam, and the 
complete rejection of any ethical standards that can apply to all human beings, is 
to reference and learn from the great ethical traditions of humanity from all 
religions and ethical thinkers.  Of course this won't be a perfect ethical 
system that can be proved to be objective and universal for all time.  It is 
doubtful that any human knowledge can be proved in this manner.  

But in looking to all traditions of ethical thinking with an open mind, we 
just might, if we are lucky, find a way to create enough commonality of ethical 
thinking to lessen the human habit of engaging in war and hatred to defend our 
beliefs or lifestyle, or the temptation to deny human beings their full 
development as individuals based on sex, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, 
etc.  Of course I am stating desired values I think should be universal among 
human beings, knowing full well I may not be able to rationally prove the 
ultimate truth of such assertions.

But it is odd, I think, that major religious ethical traditions in the world 
assert murder to be morally wrong, yet killing en masse is justified by the 
practitioners of these religious traditions, when conditions command.  If murder 
is morally wrong according to many of the world's great spiritual traditions, 
it appears that if this rule was followed consistently by the supposed 
followers of these traditions, much of the pain and suffering of humanity would 
vanish.

Excuse me while I assert an ethical principle I cannot prove accept to yell 
"ouch, please stop" as the fundamental fact upon which I base empathy and the 
ethical principle that lessening pain and suffering is a "good."  I know, I 
know, there are sadists who enjoy inflicting pain, and masochists who like it 
being inflicted.  Then there is the pain we must endure to gain future good, or 
inflict upon someone else for their future good, and so forth, making a simple 
ethical rule a complex mess.  And what is "pain," in the first place?  Or 
"good?"  

Consult "Principia Ethica" by G. E. Moore, if you want to have your mind 
twisted into knots, that is.

Some V2020 readers find these types of discussions here to be painful... 
"ouch, please stop."

Ted

--part1_6b.20cc1fac.2d3ca59d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
 All:
 
 This pedantic exercise in analyzing Wayne Fox's post where he argued tha=
t interpretations of the Bible vary, and that there are a wide variety of Ch=
ristian sects based on this variety, appears more suited for an introductory=
 Ethics course, than for a discussion which is oriented towards lessening th=
e fanaticism of certain Christian sects by simply pointing out the variabili=
ty of ethical beliefs based on the Bible.
 
 Complete answers to all of your questions would require a tome or two, a=
s you must know, given the obvious knowledge of the thorny problems in theor=
y of ethics which you display. &nbsp;For this reason, I think the intent of=20=
your post is more to embarrass Wayne Fox with a barrage of questions that ex=
plore the difficulty of these issues, questions the greatest thinkers, Chris=
tian and non-Christian alike, have pondered ad infinitum for thousands of ye=
ars, rather than engage in honest debate. &nbsp;
 
 I will reply by acknowledging the extreme difficulties in establishing a=
n objective universal ethical system. &nbsp;I therefore think that fanatical=
 dogmatism on the part of ANY ethical belief system based only on ONE source=
, the Bible, for example, that has contradictions, and contains bizarre just=
ifications for the infliction of pain and suffering, is hubris. &nbsp;I do b=
elieve that reason and fact can illuminate ethical issues, while I admit I h=
ave not found an objective universal perfect ethical system. &nbsp;
 
 I suggest that a way to construct ethical guidelines that avoid the extr=
emes of fanatical dogmatism based on referencing only one ethical tradition,=
 such as we find in the fundamentalist views of Christianity and Islam, and=20=
the complete rejection of any ethical standards that can apply to all human=20=
beings, is to reference and learn from the great ethical traditions of human=
ity from all religions and ethical thinkers. &nbsp;Of course this won't be a=
 perfect ethical system that can be proved to be objective and universal for=
 all time. &nbsp;It is doubtful that any human knowledge can be proved in th=
is manner. &nbsp;
 
 But in looking to all traditions of ethical thinking with an open mind,=20=
we just might, if we are lucky, find a way to create enough commonality of e=
thical thinking to lessen the human habit of engaging in war and hatred to d=
efend our beliefs or lifestyle, or the temptation to deny human beings their=
 full development as individuals based on sex, race, religion, nationality,=20=
ethnicity, etc. &nbsp;Of course I am stating desired values I think should b=
e universal among human beings, knowing full well I may not be able to ratio=
nally prove the ultimate truth of such assertions.
 
 But it is odd, I think, that major religious ethical traditions in the w=
orld assert murder to be morally wrong, yet killing en masse is justified by=
 the practitioners of these religious traditions, when conditions command. &=
nbsp;If murder is morally wrong according to many of the world's great spiri=
tual traditions, it appears that if this rule was followed consistently by t=
he supposed followers of these traditions, much of the pain and suffering of=
 humanity would vanish.
 
 Excuse me while I assert an ethical principle I cannot prove accept to y=
ell "ouch, please stop" as the fundamental fact upon which I base empathy an=
d the ethical principle that lessening pain and suffering is a "good." &nbsp=
;I know, I know, there are sadists who enjoy inflicting pain, and masochists=
 who like it being inflicted. &nbsp;Then there is the pain we must endure to=
 gain future good, or inflict upon someone else for their future good, and s=
o forth, making a simple ethical rule a complex mess. &nbsp;And what is "pai=
n," in the first place? &nbsp;Or "good?" &nbsp;
 
 Consult "Principia Ethica" by G. E. Moore, if you want to have your mind=
 twisted into knots, that is.
 
 Some V2020 readers find these types of discussions here to be painful...=
 "ouch, please stop."
 
 Ted
 
 </HTML>

--part1_6b.20cc1fac.2d3ca59d_boundary--