Another interesting article from Scoutmaster's Blog on FB; Belief structures

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So whose moral code are we going to follow in this circumstance?  The government's codified laws, the self-justification moral code of the neighbors, or the ministry of a religious organization?  And then tell me which moral code do you wish to support and which of those codes provides the closest to the Scout Oath and Laws?  Then we can get into a discussion as to the sources of those codes. 

 

Cherry-picking examples can prove anything.  There are plenty of examples of bad things done by people who follow supposedly divine moral codes, and even bad things allowed by such moral codes.

[cyclops]

That is why Ruth was in the field that day.  It is very clearly spelled out in the story.  We definitely know the motive.  She was homeless, hungry and needed the grain.

 

Nonsense. I know the story. What you just stated is a simple uncritical read of what everyone knows is written on some paper. But no one truly knows anything more than the fact that someone wrote that account on some paper. Even if we do accept that she was gleaning the fields (not a real stretch of the imagination), we still don't know all of her motives, nor those of Boaz for that matter. It was kind of nice of him to allow the hungry to grovel in the dirt of his fields for a few scraps of grain.

 

As for the homeless, your church did try to do the right thing. However, if that was in violation of zoning or some other ordinance, then the law is the law and the neighbors were within their rights to invoke it. I could fault your local government for failing to care for those homeless before and after they stepped in but you didn't give much detail so it's hard to say much beyond that.

[Renax127]

Sorry - I don't buy the whole "The Hebrew words are nuanced" argument to accept the word murder as a proper translation of either an Old Hebrew word or an Old Aramaic word and I don't buy it because back when they were written, they weren't nuanced - they knew exactly what they were saying and what those words meant, and used those words deliberately.  Those "nuances" are modern intepretations of what some scholars think the word might have meant - it's mental gymnastics (not really the word I want to use but this is a Scouting forum and the "M" word isn't appropriate) to say the word for kill didn't really mean kill - it meant kill in this kind of fashion and not some other kind of fashion.  If they meant murder, they would have created a word in their language that meant murder.

What does "First Floor" mean? Because right now in English there are contradictory meanings and even context would give no clue what they mean. Language is a tricky thing because it is very culture and time specific.

[cyclops]

'M'-word?

[Stosh]

Sometimes's it's a translation into a different language that poses difficulty.  Eros, philios and agape are three Greek words all having different meanings that get translated into one English word "love".  Eros is romantic love, philos is brotherly love and agape is spiritual love.  Two words are needed in English, but translators don't always put both down together thereby using only the word love and the reader has to figure out which one if possible.

 

Then there are offensive words that culturally would offend.  The St. Paul when writing about himself uses the word dulos  to describe his relationship to God.  Dulos means "slave" in Greek, but we don't like it so we substitute a different word "servant" and thus distort the original intent.

 

Then there are words that get used on a regular basis that the person has absolutely no idea what the word means.  We pray in the Name of Jesus.  What does that mean?  Most people don't know, but it doesn't slow them down one bit.

 

Because right now in English there are contradictory meanings and even context would give no clue what they mean. Language is a tricky thing because it is very culture and time specific. @@Renax127

 

But it doesn't stop people from doing their authoritative wild guesses when they try to convince others of the meanings.  

 

Then of course there are the slang-uages that purposely change the meanings of word.  When we "don our gay apparel" in the Christmas carol, it doesn't mean we're getting ready to head out to some homosexual parade somewhere.   There are of course the African Americans that have never been to Africa and the native Americans like me that have no aboriginal blood in my heritage, too. 

 

When people come up with the document is a living document, it means we haven't figured out a translation twist for the wording that plays into and spins into our agenda.  

 

It's a wonder anyone really knows what someone is trying to say in today's world.

[qwazse]

Sorry - I don't buy the whole "The Hebrew words are nuanced" argument to accept the word murder as a proper translation of either an Old Hebrew word or an Old Aramaic word and I don't buy it because back when they were written, they weren't nuanced - they knew exactly what they were saying and what those words meant, and used those words deliberately.  Those "nuances" are modern intepretations of what some scholars think the word might have meant - it's mental gymnastics (not really the word I want to use but this is a Scouting forum and the "M" word isn't appropriate) to say the word for kill didn't really mean kill - it meant kill in this kind of fashion and not some other kind of fashion.  If they meant murder, they would have created a word in their language that meant murder.

Okay, CP, let's suspend Hebrew scholasticism for a moment (which IMHO is only tough for Americans because most don't make the effort to learn other languages to the point of fluency), which clearly lists a dozen words that all get translated to "kill." The English text -- any translation -- is chock full of killing ... some of it explicitly sanctioned. Merlyn has gone to great pains to point this out. However, only for some of it do any prophets condemn explicitly. Most passages give soldiers a pass -- even enemy warriors who took Israel captive -- some of whom actually receive miracles.

It's not that hard to grasp that the Big Ten were an attempt at civil law: presented to readers as forward-looking to a time when the land would be settled, and having to contend with sworn enemies could be put aside.

[cyclops]

I can sure tell you my #1 murder story of all time is when Salome was manipulated by Herodias and John the Baptist paid dearly. I can tell you there's more intrigue in that whole story than in all of the soaps combined...magnificent!

#2 is for sure when Jael drove the tent peg through sleeping Sisera's head. Bravo! I think about her every time I lay my head down to sleep - with one eye open, lol.

Forget all the genocides perpetrated against different peoples, these two are standouts of Biblical drama in my opinion.

Edited September 21, 2015 by cyclops

[qwazse]

Nonsense. I know the story. What you just stated is a simple uncritical read of what everyone knows is written on some paper. But no one truly knows anything more than the fact that someone wrote that account on some paper. Even if we do accept that she was gleaning the fields (not a real stretch of the imagination), we still don't know all of her motives, nor those of Boaz for that matter. It was kind of nice of him to allow the hungry to grovel in the dirt of his fields for a few scraps of grain. ...

It seems that one can infer what one can known by the breadth of what could be written about a character. For example, in the book of Judges, nobody was beyond an ignoble caricature. Japheth was rash with no regard for life under his charge, Samson was impetuous and skirt-chasing, etc ... In other words, if someone had a motive that mattered, it got written. Ruth's designs on the owner of what was to her a foreign field were ostensibly to avoid offending so that she'd have enough food to fend off hunger. Like my feminist friends tell me, a girl means "no" until she tells you "yes."

 

This criticism applies regardless of if you'd rather treat the stories as legendary narrative. You are bound to derive conclusions by what the writer tells you. If you'd rather conclude something differently, I'd recommend finding a different narrative.

Edited September 21, 2015 by qwazse

[cyclops]

A motive that mattered in the mind (dare I say 'imagination'?) of the writer maybe. But I like the different narrative approach (I might even write it myself) although maybe I'll apply it selectively. There's just so much other good stuff in the versions we know so well already.

Edited September 21, 2015 by cyclops

[ghjim]

This is slightly off-topic relative to the last several posts but I found it interesting.     This is a quote from a (fictional) rabbi from the latest Millennium novel:

 

".... what matters is not that we believe in God.  God is not small-minded.  What matters is for us to understand that life is serious and rich.  We should appreciate it and also try to make the word a better place.  Whoever finds a balance between the two is close to God".

[MattR]

This is slightly off-topic relative to the last several posts but I found it interesting.     This is a quote from a (fictional) rabbi from the latest Millennium novel:

 

".... what matters is not that we believe in God.  God is not small-minded.  What matters is for us to understand that life is serious and rich.  We should appreciate it and also try to make the word a better place.  Whoever finds a balanc. e between the two is close to God".

@@ghjim, a lot of rabbis, non fictional at that, have talked about the balance between selfless and selfish. I saw one that says you've hit the sweet spot when you see no difference between selfish and selfless. I have a long way to go on that one. But in my defense the rabbi's example was Moses.

[Rick_in_CA]

This is slightly off-topic relative to the last several posts but I found it interesting.     This is a quote from a (fictional) rabbi from the latest Millennium novel:

 

".... what matters is not that we believe in God.  God is not small-minded.  What matters is for us to understand that life is serious and rich.  We should appreciate it and also try to make the word a better place.  Whoever finds a balance between the two is close to God".

It was an ancient rabbi that supposedly said something like: "The Golden Rule is the whole of the Torah, the rest is just commentary". I always liked that one.

[MattR]

It was an ancient rabbi that supposedly said something like: "The Golden Rule is the whole of the Torah, the rest is just commentary". I always liked that one.

There are a lot o layers to that story. It's in the Talmud and it's about Rabbi Hillel. A non Jew tells the rabbi he'll convert if the rabbi can explain Judaism while standing on one foot. So the rabbi replies "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary. Go and study it." The go study it part is key. How to treat a neighbor is just the start. One has to study the Torah to learn the rest and that's a really big deal in Judaism.

 

Of course, there's another layer above this because there's another rabbi that previously smacks this guy with a rod when asked the same question. So this story is also about the right way to bring people closer to God (start easy and don't smack them with a rod when they ask a silly question). The next layer is that each rabbi corresponds to two diverging views of interpreting scripture. Hillel's side won that argument and was more lenient. The losing side, Shammai, was more literal. This part was true. Also, Hillel was real. He lived a few decades BCE, probably Jesus knew of him. Nobody knows if the story is true. The fact that there is lots of commentary -- very true.

Edited September 24, 2015 by MattR

[Peregrinator]

Because I haven't yet seen a religious-based hypothesis that can be tested in an experiment. Perhaps you know of some and if so I'd like to learn more.

Geocentrism, age of the earth, etc.

 

But experiments are not the only critical examination that one might apply to hypotheses. For example, one might consider the logical implications of those hypotheses. And even in science one sees beliefs that get in the way of critical examinatoin, e.g., Eddington's rejection of black holes.

[cyclops]

You're right. Those two were such spectacular failures of those religious-base ideas I guess I just didn't consider them. (my apologies to Galileo)  I'm not sure what you mean by "logical implications" of those hypotheses. Beliefs that get in the way are mostly something that happens to 'scientists' and not science, per se.

I know next to nothing about plasma physics but what little I've read indicates that the topic remains consistent with the way science usually works: an idea, a hypothesis, tests, an explanation, lingering questions, new observations, new ideas, new hypotheses, new tests, new explanations. This is a process that can be found throughout scientific fields. The concept of 'belief' is one that might be held by an individual but in science, 'belief' does not necessarily have the same basis in faith that 'belief' does in religion - and while a scientific opinion might be held very strongly, it is something that is always subject to modification or rejection if evidence is found to support such action.

And as you pointed out, if we construct good hypotheses to test ideas that arise from religious doctrine, they can indeed be rejected.

Edited September 29, 2015 by cyclops