[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: my boy problems (almost no otr)

On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Kelvin Bailey wrote:
> --- "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca> wrote:

> > Far be it from me to claim Chief Wiggum as an expert on scripture, but
> > he does have a point -- you can justify just about any point of view
> > you want to, depending on the verses you select.  Clearly, something
> > *more* than the Bible is needed to shape our interpretations of
> > scripture -- for proof of this, look no further than the fact that
> > many popular conservative beliefs *about* the scriptures (such as
> > "biblical inerrancy" and "sola scriptura") are not found anywhere in
> > the scriptures themselves.
>
> So why even have scripture?  You can't just do away with an argument
> from scripture by saying "well, you can justify any point of view from
> scripture", because you can't justify all view points from scripture.

True, but since I never claimed that, you haven't rebutted me.  It is not
my purpose to write off an argument from scripture simply because other
scriptural arguments are possible (and, obviously, it would be absurd to
say that *all* interpretations of scripture are equally true or equally
justifiable).  All I am saying is that it is not *enough* to say that
one's argument happens to be in the scriptures somewhere.

Those of us who bother to interpret the scriptures at all will interpret
it through *some* sort of hermeneutical screen, and the more honest we are
about that, the better.  But we can't pretend the screens aren't there,
especially if we're going to follow some parts of scripture and ignore
others -- which is something we *all* do, whether we like it or not.

> No more than you can justify murdering 11 people based on the Beatle's
> White Album.

Well, depending on your hermeneutical screen, you *could*.  But I happen
to think Manson's hermeneutical screen was seriously warped at best.

> That album didn't stop meaning what the authors inteded and start
> meaning what Manson got from it just because of his twisted reading.

Of course, this raises the question of whether the *meaning* of a work of
art is entirely dependent on an artist's *intentions* in creating it.

> Is that harsh?

Nah, just a touch myopic.  :)

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: References: