• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Misinterpretations of Dogma

Shrooms00087

Shrooms00087

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
3,282
So with the dawning of the Reagan era, Christianity changed. They became fanatical and their interpretations of their egalitarian roots withered. This was a massive campaign by the Heritage Foundation (To read more on the topic: David Harvey: A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism).

So my question is how much space is there for Dogma to grow and change?

An example, gay marriage. No where in the Bible does it say you may not love a member of the same sex. However it does go into detail about the sexual acts of same sexual relations. Today Christians consider gay marriage a Dogma in that they may not. But do the priests warn of sodomy to straight couples before being wed? Do they make them fill out some sort of God-binding paperwork? So really the Dogma lies within the sexual acts themselves instead of love. What luck, Christians have it so easy, to not be bigots all they have to do is not picture those sexual acts! But more importantly the Dogma suggests that if they were to judge a couple based upon what they may potentially do, they're breaking another rule. Thou shalt not Judge. Which is literal blasphemy.

Paul's text, “For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge” (1 Corinthians 5:12–13), was usually taken to imply that the Church has no jurisdiction over non-Christians (“them that are without”, i.e., outside the Church).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-political/
Click to expand...

Another example. Marijuauna. Dogma: Treat your body like a temple. But isn't a temple a neatly kept, healthy structure? The Dogma seems to leave out legal medicine why marijuana? And so forth...

Is there hope for Christianity to return to a people of the Commons?
 
They became fanatical and their interpretations of their egalitarian roots withered.
Click to expand...

You'd like Liberation Theology if you're not yet already familiar.
...
mmm...a couple things:
1. That Mid-Eastern monotheism began as anti-authoritarian movement only later to collapse into a system functioning to solidify status-quo rule is somewhat unsurprising: following charismatic upheaval, people tend to build 'new' meanings into routinized institutions operated by distinct groups which use such institutions to fulfill their interests (Weber). The populace at large transitions toward performance of according routine as an end in itself, rather than as means for pursuit of those ends intended by the authors of these meanings. This is simply a manifestation of the process through which we tend to entrench stable reproduction of social structures in our social practices and according negotiation of meanings rather than 'by default' causing social change continually.
2. Is there a 'proper' interpretation of meanings in general? If so, what differentiates proper from improper interpretations?

ebola
 
Could always be more familiar.

I'd say that no there isn't a 'proper' interpretation. It's ambiguity is its salvation.
 
It means whatever people want it to mean / are told it means..

Jehovas witnesses don't believe in the after life because it likens death to sleep a couple of times. It's so full of contradictions and it's written in such a way (thank you Jesus and your parables so nobody knows what the fck your saying) that you can literally take any major part and put whatever meaning you please on it.

Do not think that I came to bring peace, but to bring a sword! Obviously a metaphorical sword he is going to use to fight away peoples temptations to do wicked things. World wide flood kills everyone but Noah, his close family and 2 of every animal.. Sure! It's metaphorical! For umm.. Be good and obey God! Beat your slave but not so he dies within 3 days? Oh but that was the old law of the land you silly goose.

I was reading a historians account of an early type of christian which i found charming:

No one city is theirs, but they settle amply in each. And for those school-members who arrive from elsewhere, all that the community has is laid out for them in the same way as if they were their own things, and they go in and stay with those they have never even seen before as if they were the most intimate friends. 125 For this reason they make trips without carrying any baggage at all—though armed on account of the bandits. In each city a steward of the order appointed specially for the visitors is designated quartermaster for clothing and the other amenities. 126 Dress and also deportment of body: like children being educated with fear. They replace neither clothes nor footwear until the old set is ripped all over or worn through with age. 127 Among themselves, they neither shop for nor sell anything; but each one, after giving the things that he has to the one in need, takes in exchange anything useful that the other has. And even without this reciprocal giving, the transfer to them [of goods] from whomever they wish is unimpeded.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, you came baring a sword in my thread! How dare you break the peace.

Noah's flood is pretty typical in religion and mythologies. Creation through destruction and so forth. I'm however more concerned with Dogma and it's interpretations like how we no longer have slaves and how it effects Dogma. Also, how that can aid a system of thought. My problem with individualists is they really miss out on the true power of being a sheep. I would much rather be a sheep marching with M.L. King, etc.
 
I most christians are pretty easy going.. There's obviously the 10 commandments but the rest of the laws were apparently just laws of the land for that time and that place.. So being able to sell your daughter for 50 silvers, beat your slaves with a rod as long as he lives past day 3 and not working on the sabbath are now throw away rules they don't have to concern themselves with..

Which is why it does my head in when you see Christian "pro-lifers" using scripture to support their cause.. it kinda mentions abortions twice in the old testament but doesn't really say anything about them in the NT. And somehow a "man laying with another man as if he were a woman is an abomination" still applies while killing all those that are a threat to Israel (Or Judea) doesn't. I don't think it mentions birth control anywhere in the ol bibliotec version kingJ.. I bet if they had condoms 2000 years ago the whole not sleeping with anyone before marriage thing wouldn't have been such a big deal.
 
I meant when it came to not taking the bible as a word for word rule book and you know it :p

Unless you are the Westboro Baptists Church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top