WFFaithful
Well-known member
The Bible just tells us what we want it to, it’s like a chose your own adventure of fucking ridiculousness.
Post reformation
The Bible just tells us what we want it to, it’s like a chose your own adventure of fucking ridiculousness.
Like many areas of contemporary politics, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about American immigration policy. Yes, you can derive a principle that we should treat the people trying to enter — like all people — with decency and dignity, but the Bible doesn’t speak to whether they should be granted entry or not, etc., or immigration policy more broadly. The concept of citizenship and participation in a culture were just totally different in Biblical times. Lifting quotes from the Bible on this topic is too acontextual, as it often is as applied to contemporary politics.
Like many areas of contemporary politics, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about American immigration policy. Yes, you can derive a principle that we should treat the people trying to enter — like all people — with decency and dignity, but the Bible doesn’t speak to whether they should be granted entry or not, etc., or immigration policy more broadly. The concept of citizenship and participation in a culture were just totally different in Biblical times. Lifting quotes from the Bible on this topic is too acontextual, as it often is as applied to contemporary politics.
My wife’s former pastor(Lutheran) shared information relative to the homosexual context, apparently if you go back to the earliest German translation in print that passage as well as the one in the New Testament are actually condemning man Laying with boys not man laying with man. Apparently it is a 20th century construct to change the words to condemn homosexuality as opposed to pedophilia. Kind of makes the rights condemnation more contrived.
Kinda tired of people acting like you have to, say, have daughters to understand that abusing women or trafficking children is bad. There are many things people without kids, myself included, don't know about parenting, but that's not one of them.
The Shining remake looks scary!
Huh? My point is that we shouldn’t use the Bible as a basis for social policy. I would have thought that position would be well-received on this board.
I guess not because Junebug.
Sorry, you may not have noticed the name of this thread or the point under discussion, which is the hypocrisy of the religious right in purporting to follow Biblical principles in their political and policy choices yet ignoring them when it comes to things like treating refugees with dignity or the morality of their chosen leaders. The last time we exchanged posts, a narrow focus on the title of the thread and the initial post therein was important to you. I suppose not this time.
Moreover, as a Christian, I disagree with your post. My faith does and should inform my public policy choices, and I think that is true of many millions of Americans. My method of reading and interpreting the Bible differs greatly from Franklin Graham's purported focus on literalism and inerrancy, which he and his ilk conveniently discard when it comes to such things as welcoming the stranger. Thus this thread.
As an aside, I think the conservative judicial focus on purported "original intent" and constitutional textualism is not coincidentally related to the fundamentalist Christian focus on Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Both purport to provide some reassuring authoritative objectivity and certainty to texts that are inherently imprecise, and both readily veer from their principles when necessary to promote the political preferences of the propounders.
As an aside, I think the conservative judicial focus on purported "original intent" and constitutional textualism is not coincidentally related to the fundamentalist Christian focus on Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Both purport to provide some reassuring authoritative objectivity and certainty to texts that are inherently imprecise, and both readily veer from their principles when necessary to promote the political preferences of the propounders.
A post arguing that we shouldn’t look to the Bible to inform policy decisions is on-topic and appropriate in a thread about religious hypocrisy in government policy. You know that.
As for your second point, I disagree. Policy positions based on religious texts are necessarily irrational. The only difference in you and Franklin Graham is the result, which is not a place I would like to be. If you want to appeal to principles of fairness and human dignity, I’m on board, but the invocation of Jesus as the justification for a policy position is the imposition of your faith on others. Sure, in this instance, your faith doesn’t impose on others’ freedom, but the same can’t be said about Franklin Graham, and the only thing you can do is argue against him on religious grounds. You may be right, but you are setting a dangerous precedent by having your appeal be to God.
I obviously disagree, but I’m not going to argue about it today, except to say that if your objection is to courts imposing their policy preferences then you are backing the wrong horse. Liberals don’t even make the pretense of interpretation. At least conservatives show their work, whether you agree with it or not.
Invoking the Creator in the Declaration of Independence is a far cry from invoking select passages from the Christian Bible in the minutiae of social policy. The constitution doesn’t mention God, much less Jesus, and it only references religion insofar as it says that religious exercise must be free from government interference and that Congress shall not establish it.
You are, of course, free to bring your own personal religious beliefs and prejudices into policy debates, but I would have thought that an enlightened liberal such as yourself would be leery of such arguments. What is more, if it is hypocritical to adhere to Biblical passages regarding homosexuality but not sojourners and strangers, is the opposite not also true?
I obviously disagree, but I’m not going to argue about it today, except to say that if your objection is to courts imposing their policy preferences then you are backing the wrong horse. Liberals don’t even make the pretense of interpretation. At least conservatives show their work, whether you agree with it or not.
My wife’s former pastor(Lutheran) shared information relative to the homosexual context, apparently if you go back to the earliest German translation in print that passage as well as the one in the New Testament are actually condemning man Laying with boys not man laying with man. Apparently it is a 20th century construct to change the words to condemn homosexuality as opposed to pedophilia. Kind of makes the rights condemnation more contrived.