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

[Edna Wilmington]

Forum Members,

Please allow me to begin my reply to Ted with a few
prefatory comments.

Ted's kind reply to my previous post opens and closes
with the assertion that this forum isn't the place for
the kinds of questions I asked Mr. Fox, and
furthermore, that some folks find such discussions
painful. Hence, Ted's plea, "ouch, please stop."

Our community has been in the throes of bitter
controversy for months, and that controversy centers
on questions of right and wrong.  In early February,
there will be protests against a group of people and
their beliefs. The protesters and the organization
behind them are motivated by a sense of moral outrage
and indignation.  During the protests, it's safe to
assume people will hold placards and chant slogans
that amount to nothing less than moral assertions. 
The press will cover this, and reputations will be
affected.

I'm a citizen here, and I contend that we must do more
than recite (or shout!) our convictions, denounce
those who differ, and return to our opposing camps. 
We should be willing to discuss why we hold certain
things to be true. Otherwise, what's the point?

Sometimes old women like me feel entitled to deliver
lectures. Please, I've given my share, but this isn't
one of them. It's an honest plea to tame the invective
and raise the level of discourse as much as possible
in the interest of peace.

In my experience, discussing controversial topics in
writing can have a calming effect, and this forum is
the only place I know of where anyone can participate
in that kind of exchange in near real time.  At least,
that has been my impression since I joined.  If I'm
mistaken and this forum is instead a bulletin board
for attacks, slogans, and low-minded nastiness, then I
will resign my subscription.  On the other hand, if my
impression has been correct, then given the strength
of his denunciations, Mr. Fox should be willing to
explain the basis for them.  In my opinion, this
standard ought to apply to every participant.

Please see my replies to Ted's comments inline below:

--- Aldoussoma@aol.com wrote:

> 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.

Pomp and precision are the two primary aspects of
pedantry. The former should be avoided, but the latter
is a necessity when defining and confronting
fanaticism, which task Ted says this forum is about.

If my post came across as showy, it was not
intentional; to any offended, I beg your pardon.  I
use language I think best conveys the ideas expressed,
and I will continue to do so in the interest of
clarity.  I have read Drs. Quinlan, Ramsey, Gier, and
other academic contributors referenced here, and I
consider my approach no more lofty than any of them.

Next, with due respect, ethics courses ought not be
regarded as vain, or mere academic excercises. 
Presumably, such courses are taken (and oft-required)
to equip students with sound habits of thought and
life.  Hopefully, students use what they learn in
their daily lives, which for some of us who have taken
such courses, involves participation in this forum.

The Palouse is an area with at least two major
research universities consisting (I'm told) of over
40,000+ faculty, staff, and students.  This forum
discusses issues pertaining to those universities,
their students, and the community at large as
interrelated entities in countless ways, so it seems
reasonable to assume substantial discussion on the
issues would be viewed as beneficial.  Furthermore, I
assume a larger proportion of the community will be
willing and able to engage in such discourse, simply
by virtue of where we live.

I respectfully disagree with Ted's assessment of Mr.
Fox's post.  Mr. Fox's post was not simply "pointing
out the variability of ethical beliefs based on the
Bible."  Had it done merely that, I would have had no
interest in replying because he would have been
stating the obvious.  Actually, the post attacks a
particular system of thought generally, and by
implication, a particular group of human beings in our
community specifically.  I have asked Mr. Fox to
explain the basis he holds for leveling such an
attack.  My objective is to understand why we should
agree that his view is right and his opponents' views
wrong.
 
> Complete answers to all of your questions would
> require a tome or two...
> I think the intent of your post is 
> more to embarrass Wayne Fox... rather than 
> engage in honest debate.

Again, I respectfully disagree:  Answering my
questions would not require a tome.  We can even
address them individually if Mr. Fox prefers this.  I
have only asked Mr. Fox to explain the basis for the
views he has expressed.  As for Ted discerning my
intentions, I'm skeptical of his ability to know
anything about my motives based purely upon my having
posed ten questions to Mr. Fox.  On the contrary, my
questions may be taken at face value; honest debate is
the goal, not embarrasment of Mr. Fox or anyone else.
As Ted pointed out, "we just might...find a way to
create enough commonality of ethical thinking to
lessen" human suffering.

The rest of Ted's reply included some answers to a few
of my questions and raised a series of issues that are
pertinent to the controversies before our community. 
I'm grateful for his input, and I'll save it, perhaps
in order to discuss it further later on.  For now, in
the interest of conserving my time to dialogue, I have
to await an opportunity to read and discuss Mr. Fox's
answers to my previous post.

Edna Wilmington


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus