Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile my webpage Previous Previous Next Next
References: http://www.livejournal.com/users/inviolet/81287.html… - Tina Marie's Ramblings
Red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme...

God's rules (the big 10, sum) are good rules... they were neatly interpreted by Jesus as just two rules... love God and love each other. It's simple... but it's foundational.

How on Earth can we continue to function as a society if we don't have a common set of beliefs and principles?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any society in the world that doesn't have those rules at the core of their moral beliefs.

And you're right, the problem comes when people try to interpret them. Episcopalians, Pentecostals, Baptists and Catholics all believe in the infallibility of the Bible - yet they all interpret it differently, and each believe their interpretation is right.

You can't go back and ask God what he intended something to mean - you have to rely on your judgment (or the judgment of your pastor/priest/someone you trust to make these decisions) to truly understand how to apply those rules to your life.

The world seems to think that it is okay for people to pick an arbitrary set of rules to live by.

I think if you asked them, you'd find that most people live by the same set of rules. They just vary in the weight they give to each of them, and the way they apply them to their lives.

If you don't let people interpret the rules for themselves, what you now have isn't "God's rules", it's the rules of whoever is writing the interpretations. If you let every person interpret them themselves, you've essentially got each person coming up with and applying their own moral standard....

(hypocrisy can wait for another post...)

Current Mood: sleepy sleepy

2 comments or Leave a comment
From: ex_inviolet697 Date: February 12th, 2005 05:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
Indeed. Unless and until He starts talking to us again, we're on our own. And the Bible's take on the universal "be excellent to each other" is not a particularly clever one. It fails to specify context, and so you end up being told to (among other things) honor they father and they mother even if they're abusive.
acelightning From: acelightning Date: February 12th, 2005 09:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
of the Ten Commandments, four of them are Yahweh demanding demonstrations of devotion from his worshippers. of the remaining six, "thou shalt not covet" is pretty unenforceable - you can't legislate a state of mind. and "thou shalt not commit adultery" falls apart when you understand the Hebrews' highly misogynistic definition of adultery. this leaves us with "don't steal, don't commit murder, don't make false accusations, and honor your elders" - which are very good, perhaps universal, rules for a society. however, either there need to be a few more, or it really does all boil down to "be excellent to each other", or "why can't we all just get along?", or even "all you need is love".

in practice, there does have to be a short list of basic rules, precisely because people have to interpret them themselves, and they need clear guidelines to do so. the rules must not be rigid, nor enforced with too much literalness. yes, "don't commit murder" is a very good rule for a society in general - but, as has been mentioned, what about a mother who cold-bloodedly kills someone who attempts to harm her children? this is why interpretations are not only acceptable, but necessary.

so simple rules are necessary for a society to function, and continue to function. but it is not at all necessary for a society to "love", or even refer to, any particular deity. i would argue that it is actually better for a society to have secular rules, than for the rules to come out of a religious context. which is a more reasonable justification for a rule - "because this principle helps keep our society from falling apart", or "because god said so"?

2 comments or Leave a comment