Bible not conservative enough?

[DontSayBanana]

On a whim, I checked the "why is there a dead pakistani on my couch," and apparently it's a quote from Lost that picked up steam.

[Caliga]

Pulp Fuction homage?

[Sheilbh]

Shrug. Christians have been playing pick and choose with the language, the books, what they consider important, what they ignore, etc., etc., for centuries. This is just more of the same.

To some extent.  But I think it ignores the 19th century movement of Biblical criticism or the Renaissance return to the sources - such as Philip of Spain's 3 language collection of Hebrew and Greek sources with a Latin translation.

Though I've no time for the recent trend of new translations.  The CofE had no idea how good they had it with the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer

[Berkut]

Shrug. Christians have been playing pick and choose with the language, the books, what they consider important, what they ignore, etc., etc., for centuries. This is just more of the same.

To some extent.  But I think it ignores the 19th century movement of Biblical criticism or the Renaissance return to the sources - such as Philip of Spain's 3 language collection of Hebrew and Greek sources with a Latin translation.

Though I've no time for the recent trend of new translations.  The CofE had no idea how good they had it with the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer

So what? Ignoring the stuff you don't like has been going on since the Council of Nicea. How is this any different? I bet dollars to donuts Phillip picked and chose which pieces they liked and which were clearly not truly the word of god.

You draw a distinction between this example and that example, but I don't see it. It is all salad bar religion, driven by a variety of differing, and decidedly not spiritual, motivations.

[Sheilbh]

So what? Ignoring the stuff you don't like has been going on since the Council of Nicea. How is this any different? I bet dollars to donuts Phillip picked and chose which pieces they liked and which were clearly not truly the word of god.

You draw a distinction between this example and that example, but I don't see it. It is all salad bar religion, driven by a variety of differing, and decidedly not spiritual, motivations.

Well once they decide which books were in the Bible that was it until the Reformation.  What you see in the Renaissance is an awareness at the inadequacy of the Vulgate and with the emergence of Greek and Hebrew learning an attempt by theologians to get a more accurate version of the Bible.  So the Philip II example would have the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek original next to the Latin translation precisely so that scholars could counter-reference.  I think that sort of scholarly endeavour is very different from this given that their argument is that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were insufficient to express the true robust conservatism of their faith.  This is presumptuous enough not to cherry pick the original but to say it's wrong.

I think most religious shit over the course of history has generally been spiritually motivated.

[Malthus]

You'd think conservatives would be happy google is finally answering why there are dead pakistanis in their couches.

There really is no good answer for that.

[crazy canuck]

I think most religious shit over the course of history has generally been spiritually motivated.

Really,  all the histories I have read lead to the conclusion that most religious disputes had a significant secular political dimension.

[Valmy]

Really,  all the histories I have read lead to the conclusion that most religious disputes had a significant secular political dimension.

Well they certainly tended to have extensive secular political implications at the very least.

[crazy canuck]

Really,  all the histories I have read lead to the conclusion that most religious disputes had a significant secular political dimension.

Well they certainly tended to have extensive secular political implications at the very least.

Do you think those decisions were taken without consideration of the political implications?   As an example, were the various attempts to create a universal Church Creed done because the various  Emperors who took part in those conferences over the decades decided the spirtual question was important or because they wanted the matter settled once and for all so that stability could be maintained.

[Admiral Yi]

So, who's the new guy?  And the other new guy?

[Valmy]

Do you think those decisions were taken without consideration of the political implications?   As an example, were the various attempts to create a universal Church Creed done because the various  Emperors who took part in those conferences over the decades decided the spirtual question was important or because they wanted the matter settled once and for all so that stability could be maintained.

That is different.  They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.

[Jacob]

That is different.  They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.

You could argue that the current "conservative revision" is also the result of a spiritual dispute.

[crazy canuck]

Do you think those decisions were taken without consideration of the political implications?   As an example, were the various attempts to create a universal Church Creed done because the various  Emperors who took part in those conferences over the decades decided the spirtual question was important or because they wanted the matter settled once and for all so that stability could be maintained.

That is different.  They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.

The spirtual debate itself was a tempest in a tea pot.  What was really at stake was who would control what diocese and who would enjoy the revenues from that control.  That is really what the Emperors were deciding.  As time progressed the side that lost the debate lost not only the theological issue but also their positions, titles and lands....

Same old issue of control and greed.  Very little spirtual about it.

[crazy canuck]

That is different.  They all started as spiritually motivated disputes that got so heated and contentious eventually the secular authorities felt it was important for them to step in and decide them.

You could argue that the current "conservative revision" is also the result of a spiritual dispute.

Hadnt thought of it that way but cant say you are wrong.

[Malthus]

People have always selected, re-interpreted and re-translated scripture to suit their social and political needs. like anything else, this can be done well or it can be done badly.

To my mind, one of the positive aspects of Judaism is that they have this process down to a fine art - a goodly percentage of Rabbinical debate is based on this. The scriptural *premises* may be weird (an essentially Bronze Age, if not Neolithic, set of religious texts), but one cannot argue with the logic of the *process* - which in many ways is similar to that of the Common Law, emphasizing logic (perhaps one reason so many lawyers are Jewish ... ).

In contrast, the process here looks, well, incredibly crude. That's what makes it absurd. It isn't that the authours are re-imagining scripture to suit themselves, it is that they are doing it crudely.