Religion

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)

9. What I wrote:

Tue Dec 11, 2018, 11:16 PM

Dec 2018

In Christianity, there are varying views.

One view, the hierarchical view, holds that only the Church hierarchy can determine what is the acceptable interpretation of the Bible, or verses in the Bible.

In the RCC, for example, the tradition in which I was educated, the following passages might help to understand how the RCC advises theists to read the Bible.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

108 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What constitutes a "valid" interpretation of the Bible? [View all] guillaumeb Dec 2018 OP

Basically TlalocW Dec 2018 #1

And that happens. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #2

We may argue about intent, but nobody argues that the parts we don't like are metaphorical marylandblue Dec 2018 #97

Yes, they actually do argue just that. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #99

Prefatory is not the same as metaphorical marylandblue Dec 2018 #100

The intent is the same. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #101

So you are admitting that the intent of a metaphorical reading marylandblue Dec 2018 #102

"When it agrees with whatever you think. " mitch96 Dec 2018 #35

So, it means exactly what one thinks it means MineralMan Dec 2018 #3

And you feel differently? guillaumeb Dec 2018 #7

You were raised in a literalist tradition. trotsky Dec 2018 #17

You know nothing of how I was raised. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #26

You yourself said you were raised in the RCC. trotsky Dec 2018 #34

OK. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #41

It's a statement YOU made in the post starting this thread, g. trotsky Dec 2018 #61

Again: guillaumeb Dec 2018 #74

I've read them. trotsky Dec 2018 #86

You obviously created your own definition, and your own argument. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #87

I think he is using your implied definition marylandblue Dec 2018 #88

But he states that I am a literalist in spite of my many posts, guillaumeb Dec 2018 #89

You've often accused atheists of being literalists, despite their protestations marylandblue Dec 2018 #90

I have accused SOME. Not all. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #91

His point is the same whether it is some or all marylandblue Dec 2018 #92

But you are. You take much of the Christian bible literally. trotsky Dec 2018 #94

I understand your position. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #95

Then offer up an argument as to why I'm wrong. trotsky Dec 2018 #96

It is useless to do so. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #98

Why? trotsky Dec 2018 #104

Not at all. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #105

Then offer up an argument as to why I'm wrong. trotsky Dec 2018 #106

Your reply validates my earlier response. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #107

Still no response, because you can't provide one. trotsky Dec 2018 #108

It's an unresolved issue based on a question you've never answered. trotsky Dec 2018 #93

He didn't mean that literally. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #56

... trotsky Dec 2018 #60

I feel differently, yes. MineralMan Dec 2018 #20

One can read the Bible as literal story. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #27

I don't know of any atheists who read the Bible MineralMan Dec 2018 #31

I understand. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #32

Oh, I recognize your objective here... MineralMan Dec 2018 #37

And I yours. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #43

A dissertation would not be appropriate for DU marylandblue Dec 2018 #44

Believe me, nobody wants a dissertation. MineralMan Dec 2018 #64

It would go such a long way toward ACTUAL dialog in this forum... trotsky Dec 2018 #65

I asked him once, but he punted. MineralMan Dec 2018 #67

He's playing a game that believers who fancy themselves quite intelligent often do. trotsky Dec 2018 #68

I see it a little differently. MineralMan Dec 2018 #69

I think you are right marylandblue Dec 2018 #72

There's a logical progression. Some go through the steps quickly MineralMan Dec 2018 #73

Nah. It's just random splatter from rns. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #84

For some, that kind of random sampling MineralMan Dec 2018 #85

Define "valid". Act_of_Reparation Dec 2018 #4

It means that the person in question agrees with it. MineralMan Dec 2018 #5

What I wrote: guillaumeb Dec 2018 #9

I am not asking you to repeat yourself. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2018 #14

Allow me. trotsky Dec 2018 #16

I intertepret "valid" differently marylandblue Dec 2018 #19

Acceptable at the moment, I think. MineralMan Dec 2018 #38

Meaningful discussion requires both sides to answer relevant questions Major Nikon Dec 2018 #22

The term was defined in the sentences. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #25

Perhaps your sentences didn't do an adequate job defining the term. trotsky Dec 2018 #36

Perhaps not. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #42

Or perhaps I did and they aren't the be-all, end-all "silence everyone who disagrees with me"... trotsky Dec 2018 #59

I am too stupid to decipher meaning from your prose. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2018 #52

The RCC may not have an authoritative interpretation for each verse, but marylandblue Dec 2018 #6

The Pope speaks on certain things. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #8

So what happens if you tell your priest his holy orders are worthless, marylandblue Dec 2018 #10

I would suggest that you ask a priest that question. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #24

The Pope is allowed to use Latin because he is the Pope marylandblue Dec 2018 #45

I use Latin, and I am not the Pope. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #46

Jesus spoke Aramaic and so you should too marylandblue Dec 2018 #48

If I were Jesus, guillaumeb Dec 2018 #49

Why is God edhopper Dec 2018 #11

Maybe that's just it. God isn't perfect. gtar100 Dec 2018 #13

As Epicurus said edhopper Dec 2018 #21

But we cannot know what the Creator is wiling to do. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #47

Then he is a proper wanker edhopper Dec 2018 #51

Sounds suspiciously like you made that all up. Complete fabrication. trotsky Dec 2018 #62

Well, not so, really. Here's what the French version of the MineralMan Dec 2018 #70

Your little dissertation has nothing to do guillaumeb Dec 2018 #75

No? Well, you see, I'm not constrained by your expectations. MineralMan Dec 2018 #77

No perfect being could possibly screw up as much Mariana Dec 2018 #50

Perhaps our human intelligence is not capable of discerning guillaumeb Dec 2018 #28

So it's up to us? edhopper Dec 2018 #33

I cannot answer for the Creator. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #40

So if a teacher cannot clearly explain concepts Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #57

An interesting theory. You certainly do like to think of your fellow human beings as stupid. trotsky Dec 2018 #63

Or, perhaps there is no such Creator, eh, which means MineralMan Dec 2018 #71

If a creator requires its creations to follow its instructions, but does not give them the capacity LongtimeAZDem Dec 2018 #76

There is another possibility, where there is no creator, but only MineralMan Dec 2018 #78

Which is why I expressed it as a conditional accepting the premise, so as not to leave open the LongtimeAZDem Dec 2018 #80

Good point. MineralMan Dec 2018 #81

That is interesting as I had not really heard what the RCC says about biblical interpretation. gtar100 Dec 2018 #12

Thank you for your answer. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #29

Every interpretation is valid. trotsky Dec 2018 #15

which is also to say every interpretation is invalid as well.... nt uriel1972 Dec 2018 #39

You got it! n/t trotsky Dec 2018 #58

Multiple meanings Cartoonist Dec 2018 #18

#s 1 and 2 of your response are contradictory. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #30

They aren't Lordquinton Dec 2018 #54

You mean like theism and deism? Major Nikon Dec 2018 #55

LOL. Classic gil. trotsky Dec 2018 #66

The modern church needs excuses on why it's no longer a good idea to murder disobedient children Major Nikon Dec 2018 #23

What makes it valid? Choose the interpretation that reads the way you want it to. There are many ver keithbvadu2 Dec 2018 #53

Just had this conversation with daughter woodsprite Dec 2018 #79

Greek. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #83

Laughter? Ferrets are Cool Dec 2018 #82

If it comes from the Church of the Third Revelation... Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2018 #103