The purposeful vagueness of scriptures.

[vulcanlogician]

[I only know the forum has rules when I inadvertently break them]

I'm a learn-the-rules-follow-the-rules kinda guy. But there is one forum rule that I think is silly and ought to be changed.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm a learn-the-rules-follow-the-rules kinda guy. But there is one forum rule that I think is silly and ought to be changed.

And that is?

 

[PureX]

Think Bowie was floating “far above the world” in his own metaphorical tin can when he wrote it.

[I only know the forum has rules when I inadvertently break them]

I looked up the lyrics and it really does imply itself to be a subtle metaphor for a drug overdose. Mostly just by a few specifically chosen words, though. Interesting. The implication is so slight that we might be making it up in our heads. Except that the "we" here are millions of people.

It's both scary and wonderful how intricate an complex metaphorical representations can get.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think discussion of the casual use of cannabis ought to be tolerated on the forums and not moderated. I think it's an outdated rule.

I'm fine with prohibiting the endorsement of any drug (cannabis included). But cannabis is legal where I live. I can go down the street and buy some. Yet I can't just chit chat about it here. I think it's a bad rule.

I think alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than cannabis, and while I wouldn’t personally promote the use of either, prohibition is a proven failure imo. But it seems we’ve gone way off topic…

 

[vulcanlogician]

I think alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than cannabis, and while I wouldn’t personally promote the use of either, prohibition is a proven failure imo. But it seems we’ve gone way off topic…

Agreed. Alcohol is far more dangerous. But (I think) statistically it is less deadly.

Which is worse? Dangerous or deadly?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Agreed. Alcohol is far more dangerous. But (I think) statistically it is less deadly.

Which is worse? Dangerous or deadly?

Dunno man. I lost a lot of friends to drugs and alcohol, and had a narrow escape myself. Booze is a rock bottom drug for some people, as bad as heroin for those of us who are powerless over it.

 

[ReformedGuitarist]

There are many layers of truth in scripture that can apply to different people in different ways in different circumstances, that much is true. I will also acknowledge that there are many more concrete scriptural issues on which many wise, well read scholars vehemently disagree. However this does nothing to prove that the scriptures are vague and unspecific (intentionally or otherwise), it simply proves that human beings can be wrong about things.

Albert Einstein was one of the most brilliant scientists ever, but when he interpreted the scientific data he came to the conclusion that the universe as a whole is static and unchanging. We later learned that the universe is constantly expanding, and therefore Einstein was wrong about something. Nevertheless, we still consider him one of the smartest minds in history. Just because people can be wrong doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. The fact that many intelligent people have studied scripture and come to different conclusions doesn't prove that scripture is purposefully vague, it simply means that smart people do dumb things

 

[InChrist]

Prophecies/scriptures are purposefully vague which allow for/create a wide range of interpretations. People find meaning in the interpretations that fit their experiences, reinforcing a belief in the legitimacy of various different dogmas. Ambiguity leads to self-fulfilling prophecies as individuals and societies shape their actions based on their understanding of the prophecies, influencing outcomes to match their expectations.


If viewpoints change to recognize the non-literal personal and subjective nature of contemplating/studying scriptures, use spiritual texts for personal exploration of one's own inner thoughts rather than thinking one interpretation applies to everyone, religious texts could be helpful.

How many here enjoy the study of scriptures, hold their own personal interpretations of the text, and see those interpretations as personal - not universal.

I don’t consider the biblical scriptures or prophecies vague at all…



“The Bible declares that the prophecies it provides concerning Israel supply the irrefutable evidence for God's existence—and for the fact that He has a purpose for mankind. History is not merely happenstance. It is going somewhere. There is a plan. Biblical prophecies declare it irrefutably.

Prophecy, which reveals God's plan in advance, is the missing element in all sacred scriptures of the world's religions, because false gods cannot provide it. Prophecy is not to be found in the Koran, the Hindu Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Book of Mormon, the sayings of Buddha, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. In contrast, prophecy comprises about 30 percent of the Bible.

Significantly, the God of the Bible identifies Himself as the One who accurately foretells the future and makes certain that it happens as He said it would. In fact, God points to prophecy as the irrefutable evidence of His existence and the authenticity of His Word: "For I am God, and there is none else. ...Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand..." (Isa:46:9-10).”

The God of Prophecy

What does one say to a professed atheist when he demands proof that God exists? One could, of course, challenge him to prove that God doesn't exist—and to prove the preposterous scenario tha

www.thebereancall.org

 

[1213]

Prophecies/scriptures are purposefully vague...

I don't think that is true, if you are talking about the Bible. But, maybe I am wrong, please give one example of vague scripture?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Prophecies/scriptures are purposefully vague which allow for/create a wide range of interpretations. People find meaning in the interpretations that fit their experiences, reinforcing a belief in the legitimacy of various different dogmas. Ambiguity leads to self-fulfilling prophecies as individuals and societies shape their actions based on their understanding of the prophecies, influencing outcomes to match their expectations.


If viewpoints change to recognize the non-literal personal and subjective nature of contemplating/studying scriptures, use spiritual texts for personal exploration of one's own inner thoughts rather than thinking one interpretation applies to everyone, religious texts could be helpful.

How many here enjoy the study of scriptures, hold their own personal interpretations of the text, and see those interpretations as personal - not universal.

Great topic. I might add my understanding but that’s all it is. I believe the Holy Books are all basically spiritual books and are to be read and understood with a certain degree of spiritual aptitude which is dependent on purity of heart not worldly learning. Reading these Books this way has led me to accept all the Messengers such as Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Baha’u’llah as Revelators of an ever evolving truth.

I believe all these Books complement one another spiritually and only differ in social and administrative laws.

Also, I believe that an authoritative interpretation is brought by every subsequent Messenger. So Christ clarified the Jewish interpretations, Muhammad some Christian ideas and Baha’u’llah many more.

 

[idea]

There are many interpretations of all manner of things for all manner of reasons. You claim that scriptures are intentionally vague. Again, how do you know that to be true?

Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard...

Faith, to me, is keeping whatever is best hidden, a present to unwrap, an element of surprise - exploit the curiosity gap.

I think the best texts pull the reader in by allowing the reader to help write the text. There is a saying - the book is better than the movie, book is better than the play. Talk to an actor and they'll tell you it's impossible to please someone who has read the book because none can correctly fill in all the details our minds add when reading.

Finger pointing to moon.

 

[idea]

I don't think that is true, if you are talking about the Bible. But, maybe I am wrong, please give one example of vague scripture?

No man knows the day or hour ...

it is not given to know the mysteries...

Fingers pointing to the moon

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard...

Goodbye ...

 

[idea]

Great topic. I might add my understanding but that’s all it is. I believe the Holy Books are all basically spiritual books and are to be read and understood with a certain degree of spiritual aptitude which is dependent on purity of heart not worldly learning. Reading these Books this way has led me to accept all the Messengers such as Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Baha’u’llah as Revelators of an ever evolving truth.

I believe all these Books complement one another spiritually and only differ in social and administrative laws.

Also, I believe that an authoritative interpretation is brought by every subsequent Messenger. So Christ clarified the Jewish interpretations, Muhammad some Christian ideas and Baha’u’llah many more.

I believe each must become their own authority. None should interpret for another.

No borrowed light.

"‘I thought someone could tell me how to paint a landscape. But I never found that person. I just had to settle down and try...They could tell you how they painted their landscape, but they couldn’t tell me how to paint mine." - Georgia O'Keeffe

 

[idea]

Fascinating.

What are the wide range of ways the Mandukya Upanishad can be interpreted? What about the other Principle Upanishads?

I do not have a background in Hinduism, but all texts can be analyzed from linguistic, metaphysical, or experiential angles.

From:

Mandukya Upanishad - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Etymology section lists different linguistic interpretations. Reading on the chronology and authorship has different interpretations. Several scholars and commentaries are listed. Looks interesting, I'll have to check it out.

 

[idea]

I would agree - except - I witness Quran (and Gospels over all too) to be clear, but the sorcery makes many hearts unable to recite them properly and reflect over what is clear. Decontextualizing happens to a maximum degree.

There are common human experience themes throughout textx which we all share and agree on, and other unique backgrounds and experiences which draw our minds to diverse paths.

While viewing a landscape, a geologist will notice the shape of the ground, a botanist will notice plants, a meteorologist will notice the sky, and an empath will notice the facial expressions of those they share the view with. Same surroundings, different views, what is clear to one is missed by others. We all see some prices clearly. We all miss other pieces. Sharing perspectives brings greater wisdom to all.

 

[ReformedGuitarist]

I think the best texts pull the reader in by allowing the reader to help write the text. There is a saying - the book is better than the movie, book is better than the play. Talk to an actor and they'll tell you it's impossible to please someone who has read the book because none can correctly fill in all the details our minds add when reading.

This is an interesting expression of a very postmodern idea. This is the idea that the reader brings meaning to a given text, rather than simply finding the meaning that the author imbued into the text when it was written. This type of textual interpretation leads to what I like to call "the death of the author" and it can be used to make any text (from the Bible to the U.S. Constitution) say whatever you want it to. If the reader is permitted to write their own meaning into any given text, then scripture, authorship, and any form of written language no longer has any meaning.

By that logic, I could "interpret" the above post and make it into an argument for destroying all movies and stage performances and replacing them with books. However, I presume you would reject that "interpretation" because that isn't what you (the author) meant when you wrote that message. It is the author who imbues a text with meaning, not the reader.

 

[vijeno]

And you know that to be true how?

Hihi, that's a really good question!

We can never prove the intentions of ancient writers.

But then again, we can never really prove the intentions of anybody - only make more or less educated guesses.

One argument in favour of OP's idea is historical analogy. We see vague prophecies now, we can rationally speculate that they are intentional, so they likely were also intentional back then. Not the strongest of arguments, imo, without any other support, but there you go.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One argument in favour of OP's idea is historical analogy. We see vague prophecies now, we can rationally speculate that they are intentional, so they likely were also intentional back then.

At issue is not what one can rationally speculate but what one can reasonable claim -- especially when the claim is being made for all members of a class.

Furthermore, what we can "rationally speculate" about today's utterances says exceedingly little about what was "likely" in the past.

Finally, perhaps you could tell us what warrants being deemed "rational speculation."

 

[McBell]

Hihi, that's a really good question!

We can never prove the intentions of ancient writers.

But then again, we can never really prove the intentions of anybody - only make more or less educated guesses.

One argument in favour of OP's idea is historical analogy. We see vague prophecies now, we can rationally speculate that they are intentional, so they likely were also intentional back then. Not the strongest of arguments, imo, without any other support, but there you go.

Thats so thin we can not even call it thin ice.
And I personally would avoid calling it thick water...

Though you did at least make an honest attempt.