GeorgeW

It seems to me that there are essentially two different ways of viewing the text. The first is seeing it as a message from God to all of humankind for all time. The second is seeing it as a human message that depends on context for understanding and may or not be applicable, or meaningful, to the reader at this time. If one takes the former view (message from God), the focus is on understanding what God intends for every person at all times and in all places. If one takes the latter view (human authorship), I think there are also two basic approaches to Bible study. The first is more historical and focused on determining what the author of the text intended for his audience, at the time. The second is more philosophical and is determining what it can mean for the reader today. The results can be entirely different things. George

Mr. Kat, I would endorse what Jenell has recommended. The NRSV is considered the best English translation. As far as study resources, there are two that I find particularly useful: The Five Gospels, a product of the Jesus Seminar and The Early Christian Reader by Mason and Robinson. As a quick reference guide to both the OT and the NT, I like The Trinity Guide to the Bible by Richard Hiers. These all are have more a historical bent than theological. George

I think that 'kill' is just a bad translation a word about which various views can be held. One can oppose capital punishment, as I do, but to cite the 6th Commandment as authority is incorrect. The author did not forbid all killing and clearly not capital punishment. George

I agree. These killings are not amoral acts. They are justified by the 'greater evil.' FWIW, the translation of the Hebrew word ratsach in the 6th Commandant 'kill' is IMO a bad translation. It does not ban killing; it bans 'murder' (illegal killing). It is very clear that the Jewish law allowed all sorts of killing (enemies, adulterers, etc.). The 6th Commandment is often wrongly cited as prohibiting war, abortion, capital punishment, etc. These may be argued to be wrong on other grounds, but they are not prohibited by the 6th Commandment. George

I would argue that these (individual and cultural) variations exist within a basic, universal set of values. There is good research to suggest that we are all born with certain moral impulses and these get elaborated by culture and experience. The differences are in the details, not the basics. To my knowledge, no culture, or sane, sober and mature individual would claim that whimsically torturing babies is a morally neutral act like say pulling weeds or breaking rocks. George

Myron, Aside from a theoretical construct, does anyone really embrace absolute relativism? I have never encountered them personally or in writing. As an example, does anyone claim that killing, lying or stealing is morally neutral in all instances? Different cultures define moral principles differently on the edges, but to my knowledge no culture permits, as example, killing under any circumstance against any person at any time. Therefore, I think we would all agree that killing is a core moral absolute with clearly defined exceptions that vary from culture to culture. George

I think that pluralism and relativism are related but not the same thing. And, I think both are related to tolerance and that has a very practical result: reduction of discord and violence. George

Yes. Even the most relativistic among us does not advocate acceptance of racism, homophobia and the like. We tend to draw the acceptability line at benign beliefs and behaviors. George

Jenell, I don't agree that diversity necessarily entails discord. Of course there are many examples of ethnic strife in situations where different groups live in proximity. Nazi Germany would be a classic example. The American South (in which I grew up) until recent times is another. People lived in tight bounded domains (physical and social) and had very negative attitudes about the other. I would not consider these as pluralistic as they lacked the acceptance feature. Pluralism, as I understand it, entails both diversity and the acceptance of the diversity. I personally very much like living in a diverse culture. I am not African-American, Hispanic or Asian but that doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate their cultural differences and contributions to the "common civilization" (Merriam Webster). I am not Catholic, Mormon or Jewish, but I have no animosity against these groups. And, I don't think I am an exception or exceptional. George

As is common in discussions such as this, there are different definitions and understandings. The following seem to have some common ideas. My Merriam-Webster defines ‘pluralism’ as follows: "A state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization." Nick (in #2 above) says, "Pluralism is the acceptance that those who differ from you have a right to their difference, even if you disagree." Neon (in #4 above says, "Pluralism accepts that everybody has different opinions, beliefs, and cultures and we can all co-exist with each other in spite of our differences." All of these have some important similarities; difference, commonality, acceptance, co-existence. None express ideas about equality or hierarchy. George

Nick, a couple of questions about this. At risk of putting you on the spot (but knowing that you are careful in what you write), can you cite a concrete example of where pluralism was negative? Secondly, more rhetorically, can tolerance flourish in the absence of pluralism? George

Nick, Can you think of any societies in which the urbanites are generally less open minded (tolerant) than their rural counterparts? In the U.S., as an example, if liberal correlates with tolerant (and I think it does), it is clear that urbanites are, on average, more tolerant than ruralites. I would think that the intensity of contact would be a factor. As I recall, Wright emphasized commercial cooperation being a (or the) factor in promoting universal love. Maybe it becomes harder to hate the guy who buys your fish every week. George

Robert Wright in The Evolution of God has a lot to say about this under the rubric of 'universal love.' He relates it to the degree of contact and interaction among different religious or ethnic groups. Contact motivates mutual interests which promote tolerance (or universal love). He gives early examples such as Philo, a Jew, living in Egypt and later Paul. (He suggests that Jesus' universal love was more limited to Jews). I have a rough hypothesis that relates urbanism and tolerance as a result of interaction with those who are culturally different. Multicultural interaction would, I think, be more common in urban environments. It is easier to hate/fear the Other in the abstract than in face-to-face reality. George

It seems to me that the issue in pluralism and relativism is a matter of degree, where one draws the line. The idea of absolute relativism is, as Nick has said, a caricature; no one has no values. The more conservative worldview would draw the line much closer to home where a liberal worldview would draw it at some distance. As an example, in religion, one could view anyone outside their denomination as a heretic. Alternatively, one could draw the line at Protestantism/Catholicism > Christianity > Judeo-Christian > Abrahamic religion > any religion > any or or no religion. This plays out as well in the political world as well. Conservatives draw the line closer to home. They are more parochial, more 'patriotic,' more nationalistic, more states' rights, more assertive in promoting national interests. We see this in the idea of American exceptionalism. It surfaces in one’s view of the U.N. which some consider a serious threat to national sovereignty and others the best hope for the world and accept the right of other countries to have a say. George

Nick and Neon, I really liked your definitions. However, does anyone espouse absolute relativism? Don't we all (or most) accept that there is, at some level, absolute truth? As I have mentioned here before, someone has said, 'even relativism is relative.' As an example, I think all humans (well, maybe sane, sober and mature) would agree with the general principle: 'Thou shall not murder.' However, the relativism would come into play in the details, the exceptions. Most people, I think, make exceptions for self defense or to prevent unjustified killing. Some would define abortion after conception as murder, some after the 3rd trimester, some at birth, others at sentience. But, none of us claim it is morally right to kill an innocent 10 year old. George

"Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words." (St. Francis of Assisi) George

Maybe because we are social animals and, as such, interested in other people. George

Jenell, My condolences. George

Nick, I like that a lot, particularly the last sentence. George

This is part of the theodicy question. For, those who believe in an omnipotent and benevolent god, the answer to natural disasters is they are a warning from God. (Never mind the ambiguity of the message) I might have to revisit my view of this now that Rick Perry is running for president and Texas is suffering an awful drought. Maybe there is a message there. George

Joseph, You seem to be reading it as interpretation, commentary, elucidation of the New Testament. Is that right? Would this be different (ignoring the historical assertions or claims of revelation) from one might get from a preacher or theologian? George

Joseph: Frankly, I am immediately distracted by the opening sentences: "Just before noon on Sunday, January 12, A.D. 27, Jesus called the apostles together for their ordination as public preachers of the gospel of the kingdom." Is this level of detail purporting to be history? Noon on a specific date? I think, 'okay, what is the source?' Is it purporting to be divine revelation? Well, what can I say? If it is wisdom literature, where is the wisdom? Brent: Sorry for being such a skeptic. But, I have yet to see anything that entices me to proceed with such a huge body of material. George

Brent, Can you summarize what is particularly relevant or insightful about this passage that would be different from, or supplemental to, Mat. 5-7 in the New Testament? George

Brent, I would not say this is an issue "dear" to me, but rather one of interest. And, yes, I think that trying to persuade some of us of its "revelatory authority" would be a waste of cyberspace, and perhaps counterproductive. That is why I suggested earlier that you demonstrate its value and relevance by including appropriate references in the general discussions. I agree with Joseph that healthy scepticism is a good thing, not bad. George

Myron, I am pleased that you pointed this out. This will help others understand what might motivate some of your comments or an absence. I wish you the very best. George