Canonical texts: Homer, Dante. Shakespeare. Goethe, Walt Whitman, other religious texts, texts with a long historical tradition of interpretation. — Janus

And verkakte Star Wars movies.. :gasp:

And verkakte Star Wars movies.. :gasp: — Tom Storm

They don't have their critics?

If anything is permissible there's no such thing as justice — frank

Should I be saying "exactly"!?

Canonical texts: Homer, Dante. Shakespeare. Goethe, Walt Whitman, other religious texts, texts with a long historical tradition of interpretation. — Janus

Plato is described as advocating a censorship of Greek texts such as Homer.

Guido Vernani, called Dante's poetry "a poisonous vessel of the father of lies, covered with false and fallacious beauty, by which the author, with poetic phantasms and figments and the eloquence of his words, his siren songs, fraudulently leads not only the sick and ignorant but even the learned to destroy the truth which might save them"

Walt Whitman - https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/venerate-walt-whitman-200/

...

The point was rhetorical anyway. I've no doubt the Bible has its avid critics. It was to ask if this constituted special pleading. It may do so for Shakespeare too.

The forum is positively suffuse with threads where someone has read a paper or watched a video on some aspect of physics, mathematics, neuroscience, economics, politics, psychology... and there's a generally lusty enthusiasm on the part of our lay membership to get stuck right in. Are any entreated to only provide constructive criticism in deference to the years of expert analysis that has gone into these various topics? No. And nor should they, this is an internet discussion forum, not a peer-reviewed journal. We'd like to hold ourselves above Twitter (or at least I would), so expect sources, citations, proper diligence..., but refraining from comment outside of a complete immersion in the text and its interpretors? That strikes me as ridiculous.

Maybe it is better to learn from a book with some prickly parts and some rough edges.
— Srap Tasmaner

You might have to draw this out a bit for me. — Isaac

I think I really fell in love with Wittgenstein in the Preface to PI, where he says, “I should not wish to have spared anyone the trouble of thinking.”

If you want to help people develop a moral sense, and an understanding of their relationship to God, you need to give them stuff to really chew on, stuff that isn’t necessarily easy to understand or readily assent to. I remember being really impressed with the way Kierkegaard opens Fear and Trembling with four different versions of the story of the binding of Isaac (not the video game), drawing out its complexity, not just as a matter of faith but also psychology.

The alternative — well, you could shorten the Bible to the ten commandments, and maybe the beatitudes. A pamphlet. Maybe you could extract enough material to make something about the size of the Sayings of Chairman Mao. Or you could make a storybook with only nice things in it — like Bible Stories for Children. All of these look more dangerous to me than what we have, because people will be spared the trouble of thinking and feeling their way to a deeper morality, and though I’m not in principle concerned with their relationship with God, I think if they’re going to have such a thing in their lives, it shouldn’t be easy or simple.

Who says I'm not? Again, the same special pleading. I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. Only positive interpretations are welcome. What other text gets that treatment? — Isaac

Should we start with the belief that the Bible is the literal inerrant word of an omni-benevolent God, then any negative interpretation would necessarily be false and would be blasphemous. Under this assumption, it is not special pleading to treat the Bible as special because this assumes the Bible is special, a tablet etched in stone by the finger of God. The Lord of the Rings is treated differently because God didn't write it in the perfect way God writes. It was written by a mere mortal for profit.

On the other hand, if we start with the belief that the Bible was written by many different people over many years and that it reveals the collective wisdom gathered over the millennia, then we would recognize its importance, but we would allow whatever criticisms you might have of it, just like any other book. Of course, some books are better than others and we tend to think more deeply, for example, about the contents of the Lord of the Rings than of Green Eggs and Ham. We don't treat Lord of the Rings as a special case by holding it to a higher level than Green Eggs and Ham. We treat it as a better book because it is on an objective level more complex and meaningful. Such too is the case of the Bible when compared to other works.

I suspect some think the Lord of the Rings is stupid fantasy bullshit, while others that it has deeper meaning. As to the former group, I'll trust them when they say it's worthless to them. As to the latter group, I'll trust them as they say it is to them. All this holds true to the Bible. Take it or leave it, but to those who have found it a guide for life, then I trust it does as they say.

I'm trying to see where there's a problem here unless the focus of your attack is upon the proselytizing and evangelizing fundamental literalists who refuse to listen to your critiques, continue to try to convert you, and then condemn you to hell. The lowest rung on the religious ladder are clearly vulnerable to your attacks and have little useful or logical response. They have been thoroughly decimated and embarrassed by your onslaught.

Now, moving up a rung on that ladder, what are you attacks on those folks?

the upshot is that religious belief is categorically distinct from factual belief. — Banno

This seems a difficult way to say that belief-in is categorically different from knowledge-of. — tim wood

No. See my post above or flick through the article. — Banno

Yes. See my post above, and yours above that.

You appear to suggest that a religious belief is not a species of belief-in (something). If not, what is it? Or that a factual belief is not a form of knowledge-of (something). If not, what is it? As to "categorically distinct," the phrase is yours.

My point being that belief fills in where fact is deficient, and that the two being different ought not to be confused or conflated. Or do you think they should be, and that fact is all anyone needs for any circumstance?

Again, the same special pleading. — Isaac

Just because @Banno says something doesn't make it so. I think religious beliefs, claims, interpretations, etc. are to be evaluated in the same exact way as any other belief, claim, interpretation, etc. You would be hard pressed to find in my writing something that says, "Because it is 'religious' you must think of it differently.'" To the extent that any of my writing gives that impression, I suspect it would be in a context where being "religious" is relevant to the thing being discussed (e.g. deciding if something is halal or harem must be evaluated within a context where those terms are meaningful rather than a context in which those terms are meaningless). You are welcome to provide me with quotes that you find troubling and I will address them.

I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. — Isaac

You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. No god or man shall rest it from your brain and some cosmic judge (that isn't god) deems your claim of entitlement correct. (Rights are non-sense on stilts, as the saying goes.) I can't help that you confuse advice about how to speak to a particular language community as somehow depriving you of your entitlement to an opinion, but I suggest that you re-read what I wrote and see where I said, "Your interpretation is wrong because it is mean." How many times have I called the god of the bible an "asshole", a "torturer", etc.? There are lots of unflattering things to be said about god and the sorts of injunctions/enjoinments that are contained in the Bible. Again, the text can support unlimited interpretations, no one of which is more right or wrong than other (though some of them have more support than others). As to what its value is to you, feel free to render it valuable or valueless, intrinsically or instrumentally.

I'm talking about the danger inherent in the ways in which it could be interpreted. — Isaac

I am talking about Banno's OP and the article he linked. To the extent what you are talking about relates to that article, perhaps we are talking about the same thing. Lewis, for his part, was not talking about how the Bible "could" be interpreted, but how to respond to specific people that worshiped/admired an evil god ("In bringing the problem of divine evil to their attention, I am presenting them with a choice they have previously avoided"). He wasn't dealing in hypotheticals (amusingly, when he does give the hypothetical of Fritz, he makes it clear that knowing that Fritz admires Hitler is not enough to indict Fritz, but that we have to know that Fritz admires Hitler because of the objectionable things Hitler does/did - "Fritz ... admires Hitler. . . Simply admiring Hitler isn't enough [to be evil]. . . . Fritz knows very clearly what Hitler would want done. Even though he admires Hitler, he does not do it. Fritz is evil .. because it is evil to admire someone [evil] . . . in full recognition of the characteristics and actions that express their evil." ).

Am I still not allowed an opinion on why people form their beliefs? — Isaac

Again, you are welcome to whatever opinion you want. But your belief on belief formation did not seem to be the topic of conversation. For my part, I wasn't asking why people formed their belief about X with relation to Y. I was commenting that when engaging with a language community, you need to speak their language. Where you demonstrate that you do not know the language (or minimally lack facility in it), members of that language community are less likely to take you seriously. Take the advice for what you think it is worth.

Describing a fact (members of a particular group tend to interpret text X through interpretive lens Y) does not mean that I agree with it or believe that there is justification for whatever judgment is being described. As far as "justification for belief", I tend to agree with you that justification is post hoc and that what you get in response to "Why do you believe X?" is not, in fact, why they believe X, but rather what they think accounts for reasons on your account. I do not expect people to understand why they believe things or to be able to account for their beliefs, I merely hope that they demonstrate pro-social behavior. (Someone asks you for justification, you give justification in the expected form, to the extent your justification is challenged and shown to be inadequate with respect to some socially established justification criteria, you acknowledge a lack of justification and alter your behavior accordingly.)

I get it. The Bible is a crap book and you can present lots of reasons for thinking so. I have zero problem with that conclusion. I also have zero problem with accepting that people who use the Bible for justification of behavior (as an appeal to authority) have problems inherent with a self-contradictory text.

Hopefully we can move on in the conversation and get to the substance of how the OP (or Banno's other claims relating to shunning Christians as a group because of their bad beliefs) relates to Lewis's article and/or the merits of Lewis's article in the first place. Evaluate any religious claim precisely the same way you would any other claim.

By the by, figuring the Bible (because we are talking about the Christian one) has around 750 pages (KJV), the New Testament is about 200 of them (which is the much less than half). You first quote from the Bible (which was in Leviticus 21) is found in the third book around page 70, or about 10% of the way in. Aside from trying to save face, you do yourself no favors by flailing about to make your case that anything "in the first half could arguably be called the opening". A simple, "I was speaking too freely and misspoke, but you are being an ass for making hey of it since we both know that it says stupid things" would have sufficed. Unwillingness to concede the obvious makes for poor conversation.

There's a lot I like about this. A thorny story which makes the reader think about right and wrong, certainly an improvement on the Disney version. But...

I think 'thorny' can go too far. If we feed our kids with tales of rapists and marauders just basically doing what they like and having a great time, would you not think we'd overdone the thorns? Would not a part of you worry that our hope that the children would simply see how 'bad' the protagonists were of their own accord may be a little 'high risk'?

So there's "think for yourself", and there's no guide at all. There's Wittgenstein writing a book full of really good questions but only pointing you in the direction of the answer, and there's Wittgenstein writing a book full of misdirection, tricks and outright contradictions, and then saying "work it out for yourself".

I think a book in which the main object of worship advocates stoning girls to death within the first 28% of the book (better @Ennui Elucidator?), is laying the thorns on pretty thick, with the whole love and compassion redeeming theme makes a very late and understated entrance by comparison.

But we needn't take my word for it. Has it worked?

Do Christians give more to charity? Maybe a bit, but depends on how you measure charity, and even then not by much. https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2014/06/bbc-poll-shows-that-religious-people-give-more-to-charity-than-non-religious-maybe

Are Christians more compassionate? Maybe a bit, but comparable to just age or education https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2006/03/30/americas-immigration-quandary/

Meh. It's not not worked. Maybe it doesn't matter at all.

Personally, as far a themes go, I think we could do better, even if our 'better' version has a few prickly thorns and Wittgensteinian standoffishness.

In analogy, here are some reports pertaining to a particular topic (the second coming, end-time prophecy, the rapture, "the signs", incentives, priorities):

^{• in 2006, a fifth of Christians believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime: Christians’ Views on the Return of Christ (2009)
• Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming (2012)
• Half of evangelicals support Israel because they believe it is important for fulfilling end-times prophecy (2018)
• For many evangelicals, Jerusalem is about prophecy, not politics (2018)
• The Rapture and the Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy (2019)
• The Evangelicals Who Pray for War With Iran (2020)
• Evangelicals Love Donald Trump for Many Reasons, But One of Them Is Especially Terrifying (2020)
• Vast Majority of Pastors See Signs of End Times in Current Events (2020)}

Not really an irrelevant minority on the fringe. Sometimes such beliefs turn to actions turn to everyone's concern.

It's easy to dismiss such beliefs as "stupid cult", "no self-respecting adherent believes that", etc. I know (and interact with) some of them; there's more to come by than the listed examples. Fortunately, many of them respect "the law of the land", at least unless their beliefs gain some wider traction.

I'm trying to see where there's a problem here — Hanover

Put simply. People select narratives to make sense of their lives, these narratives have a gravitational pull toward certain interpretations. some narratives are better than others. A narrative which has to be 'interpreted' carefully to avoid the impression that stoning girls to death is OK, is not one of the better ones.

Put simply. People select narratives to make sense of their lives, these narratives have a gravitational pull toward certain interpretations. some narratives are better than others. A narrative which has to be 'interpreted' carefully to avoid the impression that stoning girls to death is OK, is not one of the better ones. — Isaac

What is the empirical basis you have for claiming that those who have carefully interpreted the Bible to read that it's not OK to stone girls to death to prove that the Bible is not a beneficial narrative for the living of their lives or for society in general?

The best I can see is that you find the interpretations farfetched, but shouldn't effectiveness be the determinant for preservation as opposed to lack of farfetchedness? That is, shouldn't we look at the value the current institution has on people's lives, as opposed to whether you personally find it preposterous?

The power of myth can be positive, and myth is what we're talking about here, not facts. Myths are typically created to advance positive societal perspectives. The argument you make is that the biblical myth is too absurd to be true, but if it were, it would be evil. My point is that I know the myth is factually false and I would have no motivation to create a factually false myth that leads to a negative result, so obviously it's positive.

One reason that the Bible gets such positive interpretation (i.e. special pleading) is precisely because it's the narrative we use for positive effects in our society. It's the "good" book. It is therefore specially interpreted that way by definition.

It's like you're running around telling me that George Washington really wasn't a perfectly honest person and that he did not really confess to chopping down the cherry tree. Yeah, I get none of it happened. I think the myth being advanced in that narrative is that America was founded by the most honest of men, explaining its higher sense of morality than all other nations. I'm not asking that you accept that narrative as factually correct or even as accurate myth, but the message I've noted is the point of that story. I don't find the criticism that the events didn't take place or that a tree chopper is an unredeemable character at all responsive to the narrative though.

Why then and not then? It's like the 'interpretation' argument. — Isaac

I agree that 'why then and not then' is part of the crux of the issue, it's the psychological bit. There's also the normative bit regarding 'tendencies to behave as if' - a person can have a tendency to act as if X and a tendency to act as if not X, just in different contexts. If there is a notion of aggregate tendency which accurately describes the person's state of belief, there's a question of how you form the aggregate based on the contradictory belief components.

Does an abusive priest have a tendency to behave as if abuse is wrong? In some respect, they could very well preach against it and otherwise be compassionate. Therefore it would be true to say that they have a tendency to act as if abuse is wrong. But it would also be true to say that they have a tendency to act as if abuse is not wrong.

There's so much wiggle room with 'tendency' that you can probably make it mean whatever you like. Priest has a tendency to act as if abuse is wrong in context C, priest has a tendency to act as if abuse is not wrong in context D. We know you can't quantify over all contexts there since it's rather uncharitable, but what operation takes the priest's actions in C and the priests actions in D to their state of belief and who does the operation? Is it an impersonal process? Is it a bodily one? Is it both and neither?

I think it's fair to say there will be a salient distinction between someone else's summary of the priest's actions, and an accurate summary of the priest's belief state. IE, it could be true that 'priest acts as if abuse is wrong in context C and priest acts as if abuse is wrong in context D', nevertheless the priest may not have a distinction between C and D to hand, or even an evaluation of actions as acting as if abuse is wrong/right in either context.

I think we'd still need the meta construction in either case. — Isaac

I agree you need the meta 'unified belief'/'unified tendency to act as if' concept, it just isn't clear how to spell it out without making it so loose and arbitrary anyone can be construed as believing anything. Not a criticism of the approach or an attempt to block it, I'm trying to inquire how it could be done.

What characterises a tendency? How do you use actions to evaluate a 'tendency to act as if' on those states? What scope of behaviours does any particular tendency require for its evaluation? And finally - how does the answer to those questions interface with the argument?

The absence of those answers I think interfaces very clearly with the argument - the lack of answers makes it ambiguous how a believer acts as if (stoning is good) based on their worship of a God who in some context of evaluation approves of stoning. It isn't clear how to get from a tendency to act as if God is worthy of worship to a tendency to act as if stoning is justified.

I'm not seeing the relevance. Plato's critique was against all poetry, all art, and should itself not be taken as literally as you seem to want to. Vernani's criticism of Dante came at a time when Dante's work had not yet enjoyed a "long tradition of interpretation". And the critique of Whitman is an ad hominem criticism of the failings of the man, his vanity and his politics, not a criticism of the quality of his poetry.

Should I be saying "exactly!" — Agent Smith

No. You should be taking a walk in the wind to blow the cobwebs out your butt.

...there's nothing special about literalism... — Hanover

There would be, if the notion of literalism could be made coherent. I don't see that you addressed my reply. There is no fixed, immutable thing that you might call "the meaning of the bible". If this applies to literalist interpretations, then more so for those who would interpret the text more freely. The notion of an "agreed interpretive method" doesn't help; this conversation is a recognition of the fact of disagreement.

It remains that the bible is understood by some to say very specific and morally repugnant things about the afterlife. This thread was proposed as an exploration fo that view. But unfortunately most of the thread has been taken up by those who would deny of excuse that view, including yourself.

So again, yes, there are other ways of reading the bible, but they are a side issue.

I take exception to your use of "attack". I suppose your excessive defensiveness is explained by your considering a critique of literalism as an attack on your own beliefs. But if you do not hold that god punishes sinners unjustly, then you are not the subject fo the critique.

Your repeated denial of the fact that there are folk who do hold that god is unjust is unfortunate for you, but good for the length of my thread. So thanks.

His point is well taken, but obvious. — Hanover

Sometimes it is necessary to point out the obvious.

A succinct summation.

There is no fixed, immutable thing that you might call "the meaning of the bible" — Banno

And I don't see that as a problematic objection any more than how it might apply to any other foundational document, as I noted in reference to the US Constitution.

I take exception to your use of "attack". I suppose your excessive defensiveness is explained by your considering a critique of literalism as an attack on your own beliefs. But if you do not hold that god punishes sinners unjustly, then you are not the subject fo the critique. — Banno

You misread my terms. Ironic I suppose. I use "attack" only to reference the opposing point of view. I have no personal investment in the outcome of this discussion. In any event, your exception is noted in the record.

Your repeated denial of the fact that there are folk who do hold that god is unjust is unfortunate for you, but good for the length of my thread. So thanks. — Banno

Of course there are those who hold God is unjust and there are those who hold that God is just. We're not speaking of the same God.

It's like you're running around telling me that George Washington really wasn't a perfectly honest person and that he did not really confess to chopping down the cherry tree. Yeah, I get none of it happened. I think the myth being advanced in that narrative is that America was founded by the most honest of men, explaining its higher sense of morality than all other nations. I'm not asking that you accept that narrative as factually correct or even as accurate myth, but the message I've noted is the point of that story. I don't find the criticism that the events didn't take place or that a tree chopper is an unredeemable character at all responsive to the narrative though. — Hanover

Laughed at this. Perhaps 'Merca was founded on a lie, and continues to believe its own myths in the face of its grossly immoral actions towards its own people and those around the world. A pertinent example of how myths hide reality, and why myths ought to be critiqued.

It remains that the bible is understood by some to say very specific and morally repugnant things about the afterlife. This thread was proposed as an exploration of that view. — Banno

Has anyone disputed that or argued against that? The difficulty you have run into is both yours and Lewis's generalization to Christians and Christianity - too facile to be true or useful. And while Lewis is not here to reply, you as most recent endorser have been altogether dismissive or evasive of questions. One may as well conclude that Australia and all Australians are bad because some of it is and some are.

Further, as to understanding the text itself or at any point, or for that matter any text, the first rule is to ask who the intended audience is/was, and what if any special rules, considerations, or conventions apply to the original text in its original and intended use. Not to defend a text, but to understand it. It does no good to condemn a text or a portion thereof using the wrong standards. The challenge is to attempt to understand how or why some of the parts of the Bible that seem outrageous to both of us, were not considered outrageous to them, then.

Without some attempt at that understanding or digging out underlying rationale, criticism is just mere display without substance.

Laughed at this. Perhaps 'Merca was founded on a lie, and continues to believe its own myths in the face of its grossly immoral actions towards its own people and those around the world. A pertinent example of how myths hide reality, and why myths ought to be critiqued. — Banno

Myths aren't factual, which was my point. They are aspirational. If we critique our myths, we realign our aspirations, not the facts. It's for that reason we see an evolution of our myths and why the US Constitution, for example, today affords rights it never did before.

If the myth hides reality, then the myth is being used to determine reality, which isn't to treat it as myth.

You really misread my post. You act as if I were trying to herald the US as being honorable and true. My comments were neutral as to the truth of the myth. I pointed out the myth upon which the nation was built.

'Merca was founded on a lie, and continues to believe its own myths in the face of its grossly immoral actions towards its own people and those around the world. — Banno

Some truth in this, always some truth. But your paintbrush too broad. Can you say Marshall Plan? Or modern Japan or Germany? Or the American Civil War? Or NATO? And so forth.

As for George Washington, the cherry tree is acknowledged as a fable for children and the fond. But biographies of the man suggest that overall image about right. A man of even rigid honesty, integrity, loyalty, adherence to duty, nor a man to be fooled or trifled with. And he owned slaves. That's simply a fact. But the reality behind it not-so-simple. Not as defense of the fact, but towards a better understanding of the facts.

Has anyone disputed that or argued against that? — tim wood

Yes, repeatedly.

The difficulty you have run into is both yours and Lewis's generalization to Christians and Christianity — tim wood

A generalisation that exists only in a parochial misreading of the article.

Again, yes, America and Christianity both did great, good things.

But not always.

And again, the counter to my posts amounts to little more than "Banno, you can't say that!"

Also, noted the cross-posting without context. It's pertinent that the things listed occurred prior to the widespread acceptance of the neo-liberal notions of 'enlightened self interest'

But not always. — Banno

Agreed without argument. That leaves the hair-splitting; and life too short for too much of that.

And as to the dark side of any good, what to do about it? And that another topic.

My own view of western religion is that it is evolving to a psychology - that being how I find it presented even among some fundamentalists. That is, come to God not because He will smite you if you don't, but because you will be a better, happier, healthier person if you do. And some merit in this. After all how can one make good judgments if one not in a position to make them. To be sure, a work-in-progress. Pandemics, global warming, and Vlad's territorial ambitions permitting, we may get there in two-three hundred years. As with most paradigm changes, the old guard simply has to die first.

Can you say Marshall Plan? — tim wood

"...government 'aid' is always necessarily accompanied by governmental controls."

The Marshall Plan Did Not "Save" Europe

"Religion is one of the great civilizing forces of the universe.". --a character in Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.

Should I be saying "exactly!"
— Agent Smith

No. You should be taking a walk in the wind to blow the cobwebs out your butt. — frank

:grin: Why? If God doesn't exist, anything is permissible and that being so, justice is moot. I'm agreeing with you!

I think a book in which the main object of worship advocates stoning girls to death within the first 28% of the book (better Ennui Elucidator?), is laying the thorns on pretty thick, with the whole love and compassion redeeming theme makes a very late and understated entrance by comparison. — Isaac

I keep writing these posts that are somewhat complementary to yours — trying to add in whatever I feel you’ve left out that’s important — and I never really get around to trying to deal head-on with the arguments, such as they are. (And I’ve never given @fdrake that response to Mengele I promised.) Maybe it’s just my temperament, but when an argument is at loggerheads like this, I tend to think both sides are wrong (and right, in their own way) and try something else.

In this case, we might consider a claim like this: Christianity condones stoning. and is therefore bad. I am invited to defend the other side — either that stoning is actually okay, or that in fact Christianity does not condone stoning if you read the Bible with some special sophistication.

We know that Christianity, like other religions, does change over time — here taking “Christianity” to denote a sort of big tent that can hold people holding newer views, newer versions of older views, and people who hold to that old time religion. If we consider, rightly or wrongly, stoning to be a practice recommended in the scripture, and possibly also an element of the old time Christianity, then we might want to ask something like this: how does an individual Christian decide where to sit under the big tent? Why would an individual Christian choose to sit among stoners or non-stoners?

We can approach this in a slightly different way. If a Christian and his fellows do not practice stoning, despite whatever the Bible says and despite what their parents and grandparents (and so on) said about the virtue of stoning, why not? Why would any Christian not practice something condoned by scripture and their forebears? How do they come to think this is a possible way of being Christian, and how do they convince others to accept this as a kind of Christianity?

As it happens, stoning is a terrible example, and it’s odd that it’s come up here, because if you were to listicle the all-time top five quotes Jesus of Nazareth is famous for, one of those would be: “Let him that is among you without sin, cast the first stone at her.” So stoning’s not one of the interesting cases at all, because Jesus made it awfully clear where he stood, and he did so without giving the Pharisees reason to accuse him of going against the law. Christians are all set on this one.

On the other hand, we might look at what Jesus did here as an example of the technique. There’s the law that authorizes and even requires the stoning of the adulteress. Jesus does not question the law or those calling his attention to it. Elsewhere he even says that he comes not to destroy but to fulfill the law, so what’s the deal? Our question now might be, why doesn’t Jesus agree to join in an afternoon’s stoning? And further, how does he get away with it? That is, how does he not stone the adulteress and still manage not to be accused of impiety?

The question of Jesus’s piety is slightly odd. You could say the gospels assume it’s an impossibility, what with his being God and all; but then again, what with his being God and all, the idea of him being pious doesn’t quite make sense. Nevertheless, Jesus provides here an example of how religious practice can change without directly challenging existing doctrine. He just adds a little twist that makes it impossible for people of good conscience to engage in that practice.

Does he, in doing so, implicitly condemn any who, in the past, engaged in stoning in his father’s name? That strikes me as a prickly question. I expect he’d wriggle out of it somehow.

You are welcome to provide me with quotes that you find troubling and I will address them. — Ennui Elucidator

I gave the quote...

The argument is not about what it says, but what it means; what the value is in including that story both on its own and within the greater context/s of the book. If you aren’t willing to engage with the material on that level... — Ennui Elucidator

You're dismissing my engagement (the current one) on the grounds that I've not met some arbitrary threshold of contextualising that you consider necessary. That's the special pleading. Maybe you do, in fact, make exactly the same demands for contextual embedding of everyone who expresses an opinion on any subject, but I've not seen such a tendency in your posting history... yet here you are.

I can't help that you confuse advice about how to speak to a particular language community as somehow depriving you of your entitlement to an opinion — Ennui Elucidator

Ah. You'll forgive my misunderstanding, but in my defence I neither asked for such advice, nor is the giving of it anything to do with the thread topic so it was a bit left-field to hear that this is what you're doing. I appreciate the concern, but I'm fine with my current approach, thanks anyway.