From: harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Subject: Re: TANGENT (sort of): livin' Godly 'n' all that  (WAS Re: U2's denomination)
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:42:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.182409.4370@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
[citation deleted]
>>The Word of God leaves a lot of area to personal perogative and interpretation.
>
>...but here is where I disagree.  I do not interpret the Bible.  I read what
>it says.  "For no scripture is subject to vain interpretation."  (probably
>paraphrased, and I don't know the reference, but you get the idea).  Does
>this mean we can make interpretations, as long as they aren't vain.  Sure.
>Say the Song of Solomon relates Christ's love to the church, if you like.
>You may not be so wrong, there, because that is supported by what other
>scripture *says* without being interpreted.  If there is no support in other
>parts of the scripture for an interpretation, then there isn't any way to
>ascertain its truth except our own feelings, and that is an extremely
>unreliable way to do it.  So I don't interrpret.  Jesus said, after making
>a clear statement about His father's house, "...if it were no so, I would
>have told you."  You see, any interpretation of the Scripture that needs to
>be interpreted WAS interpreted IN the Scripture.  When Jesus wanted one of
>his parables interpreted, HE DID interpret it for you, so it wouldn't be
>prone to any vain interpretation.

If you really believe that you can read the Bible without interacting
with it, either you need to step back from yourself for a minute or you
are just fooling yourself.  Whenever you read or hear *anything*, the
meaning you attribute to it depends on your own experience.  Even the
connotations of a single word depend significantly on how you have
heard or seen it used in the past.

How else would you explain millions of Christians disagreeing with one
another over the applicability of a certain passage, or a particular
view of the end times?  It's not that everyone else is insincere or
deceived; it's because people interpret the Bible differently due to
their different backgrounds.  Granted, some of these interpretations
are wrong, but that does not mean that it is always sinful to believe
them (e.g., will Jesus return before or after the Millennium?).

Jesus interpreted his parables for us, but we must interpret his
interpretation when we read it and try to figure out what *that*
means.  This doesn't even touch on the issues raised in translating the
text from a very different language, while attempting to preserve the
meaning that scholars believed was behind it.  It's not just a simple
word-substitution process.

In short, just because the meaning of a passage is obvious to *you*,
don't assume that somebody else is stupid or deceived just because he
reaches a different conclusion.  The other conclusion may be equally or
more obvious to *him*.  That doesn't mean that you are both right, but
it *does* mean that you will have to approach the ensuing discussion
with more humility than "I don't interpret it" might suggest.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
From: rhm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Miller)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:05:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Christian critique of dance?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA