The flaws of NT-based morality

[Charles]

I think you'll find that Christians are generally opposed to the practice of selective interpretation.

When asked, yes. But history gives another answer.

[Tassman]

First, don't try to move your goal posts by introducing other religions! Your conversation was specific to CHRISTIANS; you claimed that CHRISTIAN groups have changed their view of slavery, and your previous comment in this immediate subthread was in response to MountainMan's claim that CHRISTIANS reject "selective interpretation" of the Bible.

The point being made is that belief systems based upon revelation, whether CHRISTIAN or any other religion...or New Age woo...are not able to be empirically verified.

Second, do you realize that Christianity also has experts in relevant fields (biblical languages, biblical history, theology) who dedicate their lives and careers to the correct interpretation of the biblical text?

As do all the major religions but they are all based on the assumption that God exists. And, since we have no evidence for that, the rest is commentary on an assumed entity.

Third, I agree with you that different denominations within Christianity hold mutually exclusive beliefs. But is this substantially different than the situation in science, history, literature, or any other field of study? Have you ever heard of controversies within science, with different factions holding mutually exclusive views? This is the case with EVERY new theory or idea! Usually these controversies are resolved over time, but it can take many decades, and there can still be hold-outs. Alvarez' dinosaur-meteor theory took a full decade to become generally accepted, and there are still some holdouts today who do not accept a causal connection.

True! But, unlike theological/biblical beliefs, in science the competing hypotheses can be ultimately resolved as established science...to the extent we can confidently put a man on the moon. We can never have this degree of certainly re religious texts regardless of the religion or the quality of scholarship. As well, scholarship based upon Critical-Historical methodology does not recognise miraculous components (essential to most religions) as valid history

[Kbertsche]

The point being made is that belief systems based upon revelation, whether CHRISTIAN or any other religion...or New Age woo...are not able to be empirically verified.

Your comments were in regards to Christian biblical interpretation. My responses here are restricted to Christian biblical interpretation..

"Empirical verification" is a red herring in this context. We are simply discussing how to correctly interpret a text. We are not discussing how the text came to be, whether or not it is believed, or whether or not it is true.

True! But, unlike theological/biblical beliefs, in science the competing hypotheses can be ultimately resolved as established science...to the extent we can confidently put a man on the moon. We can never have this degree of certainly re religious texts regardless of the religion or the quality of scholarship.

I predict that we will each have complete certainty re religious texts at the instant that we die.

[shunyadragon]

You assume that the majority of Christians back then were OK with slavery.

The evidence indicates there were may across the globe that justified slavery with Biblical references, and pragmatic economic and colonial benefit.

[One Bad Pig]

The evidence indicates there were may across the globe that justified slavery with Biblical references, and pragmatic economic and colonial benefit.

The evidence indicates that you often have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

[Tassman]

Your comments were in regards to Christian biblical interpretation. My responses here are restricted to Christian biblical interpretation.

Regardless of the religious tradition, you will never have the certainly that only scientific methodology can bring, which was the point.

"Empirical verification" is a red herring in this context. We are simply discussing how to correctly interpret a text. We are not discussing how the text came to be, whether or not it is believed, or whether or not it is true.

This is you shifting the goalposts. We are not just “discussing how to correctly interpret a text”, you were responding to my question: “who decides which interpretation is true”. The correct answer is that, unlike science, there is no way to test which interpretation is true...there’s merely consensus opinion.

I predict that we will each have complete certainty re religious texts at the instant that we die.

I predict that we will never be in a position to know.

[Tassman]

You assume that the majority of Christians back then were OK with slavery.

Plenty of Christians back then were OK with slavery. There is considerable evidence that slavery has been justified throughout history with biblical references. The Southern Baptist Convention alone was founded primarily to retain slavery and this is the largest Protestant body in the United States.

[Doug Shaver]

I think you'll find that Christians are generally opposed to the practice of selective interpretation.

They all say so, but they all select their interpretations. What they really oppose is anyone's selection but their own.

[Kbertsche]

This is you shifting the goalposts. We are not just “discussing how to correctly interpret a text”, you were responding to my question: “who decides which interpretation is true”. The correct answer is that, unlike science, there is no way to test which interpretation is true...there’s merely consensus opinion.

The question of "how to correctly interpret a text" assumes that there is a correct (i.e. "true") interpretation. We are talking about the same thing; I have not shifted your goalposts.

You have agreed that science often has conflicting interpretations of data, with ongoing disagreement on which interpretation is correct. Are you now changing your mind about this?

[Tassman]

The question of "how to correctly interpret a text" assumes that there is a correct (i.e. "true") interpretation. We are talking about the same thing; I have not shifted your goalposts.

The question was who decides which is the correct interpretation?

You have agreed that science often has conflicting interpretations of data, with ongoing disagreement on which interpretation is correct. Are you now changing your mind about this?

What I agreed was that science, unlike textual interpretation, generally arrives at “settled science”, which is sufficiently reliable to put a man on the moon.

[seer]

Plenty of Christians back then were OK with slavery. There is considerable evidence that slavery has been justified throughout history with biblical references. The Southern Baptist Convention alone was founded primarily to retain slavery and this is the largest Protestant body in the United States.

Tass, the Southern Baptists were not the majority of Christians back in the day. And this does not change the fact that it was largely Christians who populated the Abolition movement - who actually brought slavery down, unlike your enlightenment friends who did squat. And slavery was pretty much universal back then, just about every culture practiced it in one form or another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

[Kbertsche]

The question was who decides which is the correct interpretation?

Agreed.

What I agreed was that science, unlike textual interpretation, generally arrives at “settled science”, which is sufficiently reliable to put a man on the moon.

Then you completely missed my point, which was that science often has long periods of "unsettled science", with different groups holding to differing, mutually exclusive interpretations.

[Tassman]

Tass, the Southern Baptists were not the majority of Christians back in the day. And this does not change the fact that it was largely Christians who populated the Abolition movement - who actually brought slavery down, unlike your enlightenment friends who did squat. And slavery was pretty much universal back then, just about every culture practiced it in one form or another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

The undeniable fact remains that the majority of Christians over many centuries were OK with slavery and there’s considerable evidence that often slavery was justified with biblical references. As well, judging by the current white Supremacist protests in Charlottesville over the removal of Robert E Lee’s statue, many still are OK with slavery and anti-black discrimination. Steve Bannon must be pleased.

[Tassman]

Then you completely missed my point, which was that science often has long periods of "unsettled science", with different groups holding to differing, mutually exclusive interpretations.

The point is that science has the methodology to arrive at verified facts sufficient to enable major technological advances, whereas differing, mutually exclusive textual interpretations cannot have such certainty.

[shunyadragon]

Then you completely missed my point, which was that science often has long periods of "unsettled science", with different groups holding to differing, mutually exclusive interpretations.

Over time this has been overwhelmingly resolved. The above is appealing to a 'high fog index' which does not exist in present science.