Anonymous #2 1w

Literalism is so so lame

0

Anonymous #5 1w

So I’m just supposed to take a pastor’s word for what in the Bible is intended to be interpreted metaphorically vs literally? Worse yet, I’m supposed to take wars that were literally fought to be metaphors? It seems like there’s a lot of room for interpretation here

1

Anonymous #2 1w

How droll. No, you’re supposed to read the book and use the current context of the world to understand what it means now, not what it meant then. It’s be silly to have time unvarying rules. I’d suggest starting with understanding the sermon on the mount as it’s the most self contained part. If you don’t feel like you’re being the kindest most charitable version of yourself you’re falling short. (It’s ok we all do and that’s sort of the point.) Happy to talk more.

0

Anonymous #5 1w

Who said that’s how it’s supposed to be used? Sure you can assume it to be like that, but then again you are making assumptions or taking the word of someone else making assumptions (or at best educated guesses) about what the Bible means. Nowhere does it state how it should be interpreted to the point where Biblical scholars debate on this

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I mean… if you want everyone to prescribe morality and your thoughts to you that’s what you’re asking for there. All anyone can do is judge what is good to do in the world and do those. If you want prescription about how you should act in every situation we’re going to need updates more frequently than every 2000 years. One interpretation of what the Pope said could be patch notes where he’s adjusting the initial rules to be inline with what is good now.

0