The interpretation I have heard from Jews (not that I have heard a lot, but bits and pieces) is that yes, all those parts are in there - but they are not all absolute dogmatic law that must be followed as strict demands. Some is ethics/moral guidance, and some of that needs to be followed absolutely and some needs to be adjusted to make sense in today's society. And some is history with no morality attached, and the reason there are rabbis instead of robots is that history's lessons needs to be understood in the light of changing circumstances. Being good, being moral, is not a matter of following a list of rules but a matter of improving life for your family and community.
However, many evangelical Christians reject this notion of relative value of different parts of the bible, or the role of spiritual leaders in interpreting abstract messages. It's ALL literally true; it's ALL 100% law that applies today; "interpreting" is wrong because that leads to liberal shenanigans like gay love and premarital sex and divorce of abusers and refusal to tithe to megachurch preachers. They like to claim that there is no variable interpretation and that they're not cherry-picking when they use bible verses to support their views.
Except, of course, they don't like being reminded that "all true all equal all law" means including a whole bunch of rules that they really don't want.
Many of them fall back on, "well, the NT overrides a lot of the OT rules," and use Paul's condemnation of wrongful lusts to argue against gay sex. However, they never mention Paul's statement that Christians should "Greet each other with a holy kiss" - that part, of course, is not meant to be literal.
when you're criticizing Christian homophobia, or Jewish homophobia, try to do it with an argument that you actually believe, and which actually engages with Christian or Jewish doctrine rather than with your imagined fake version of that doctrine
My current argument is, "why should I believe your holy book is more accurate than my holy book? Mine is newer, and thus supercedes the NT much like the NT supercedes the OT." (I have not found this argument to be convincing, but I have found it to be entertaining, so I consider that a win.)
When I need to address the "bible is literal and absolute truth" argument, if they're dragging in the OT, I pull out Psalms 137:9; if they're sticking to the NT, I start with "holy kiss" (Romans 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14) which is nowhere near as rare or as ambiguous as the verses being used to condemn abortion.
The "trap" that Bartlett sprung isn't, "aha! The bible demands this!" but "aha! In order to refute that the bible demands this, you must allow that some parts of the bible are more relevant than others!" And if they admit that, they open the can of worms of, "so... who should decide which parts to follow?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2017-09-20 06:41 pm (UTC)However, many evangelical Christians reject this notion of relative value of different parts of the bible, or the role of spiritual leaders in interpreting abstract messages. It's ALL literally true; it's ALL 100% law that applies today; "interpreting" is wrong because that leads to liberal shenanigans like gay love and premarital sex and divorce of abusers and refusal to tithe to megachurch preachers. They like to claim that there is no variable interpretation and that they're not cherry-picking when they use bible verses to support their views.
Except, of course, they don't like being reminded that "all true all equal all law" means including a whole bunch of rules that they really don't want.
Many of them fall back on, "well, the NT overrides a lot of the OT rules," and use Paul's condemnation of wrongful lusts to argue against gay sex. However, they never mention Paul's statement that Christians should "Greet each other with a holy kiss" - that part, of course, is not meant to be literal.
when you're criticizing Christian homophobia, or Jewish homophobia, try to do it with an argument that you actually believe, and which actually engages with Christian or Jewish doctrine rather than with your imagined fake version of that doctrine
My current argument is, "why should I believe your holy book is more accurate than my holy book? Mine is newer, and thus supercedes the NT much like the NT supercedes the OT." (I have not found this argument to be convincing, but I have found it to be entertaining, so I consider that a win.)
When I need to address the "bible is literal and absolute truth" argument, if they're dragging in the OT, I pull out Psalms 137:9; if they're sticking to the NT, I start with "holy kiss" (Romans 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14) which is nowhere near as rare or as ambiguous as the verses being used to condemn abortion.
The "trap" that Bartlett sprung isn't, "aha! The bible demands this!" but "aha! In order to refute that the bible demands this, you must allow that some parts of the bible are more relevant than others!" And if they admit that, they open the can of worms of, "so... who should decide which parts to follow?"