It would be so easy for me to get into a “religious” debate,
which would have NO positive outcome in terms of my relations with family
(which is currently estranged), yet there are issues which I believe transcend
the temporal association of the familial.
Should it be ‘me’ to address these things, or should I leave it to some
other, hereto unknown, I have NO absolute knowledge, I can only follow my
convictions, hoping there will be or are others recognizing the logic, truth
and wisdom.
The Bible, in my own estimation, contains elements of truth,
half-truths and error. I once had an extremely intellectual Pastor who (after
reading one of his plethora of reading material) tried to limit this
truth-half-truth-error equation to the book of Ecclesiastes, but this
ultimately put me on a course of greater critical exploration into Biblical
assumptions. It remains to be stated I stayed within the Fundamentalist
Evangelical fold and even for a while reverted to an Orthodox Reformed
fellowship for a significant period. This is not to say I accepted all, or
most, or much of their institutional dogma, but I did allow hierarchal
authorities sufficient time and opportunity to attempt to convince me of their
positions. Ultimately upon exiting ecclesiastic environs, I would be deemed a
‘heretic’ at best (which by their standards I do not deny).
But I have come to realize, regardless of numbers or
popularity, their standards (as Biblical as they may be, and in many cases as a
result of Biblical assumption) are NOT absolute, and reliance on one or another
perceived Biblical line of reasoning only produces one or another attempt to
“copout” of what is proclaimed to be an absolute adherence to the complete
inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical canon.
Now it must be stated, and this will be used as an argument
proving my unscriptural and unspiritual thinking, that I do not recognize the
“Bible” as the inerrant, infallible “Word” of God. It does contain “truth”,
“half-truths” and “errors”. And more often than not, it is the religious (and
quite specifically “Orthodox”) approach and thinking which establishes these
errors. A general “rule of thumb” or “benchmark” of Orthodox thinking (Roman
Catholic-Protestant-Eastern Orthodox) is that all human reasoning must stand up
to the test of Biblical critique, all dependent upon one or another limited interpretations
as accepted by the denomination, elders or established hierarchy.
Now, claiming a Biblical absolute of inerrancy,
infallibility and unchanging nature, a popular way to circumvent “Old
Testament” Levitical Law is to limit the ‘law’ or ‘command’ as pertaining to
the original Hebrews, who received it under Moses as they were led out of Egypt
toward the ‘promised land’, Or as stated “were given to Jewish people.
And unless you are Jewish that would not pertain to you”. This is a fundamental error of interpretation
and understanding of the purpose of what is a ‘law’, or what is the nature of
“law” if in fact the “inerrancy, infallibility and unchanging nature” of the Bible
is to be accepted. I do state that I do not accept this absolute quality as
espoused. Law does change. Even that which is proposed as “Gods law”.
There is a significant amount of debate within the Orthodox
religious community as to the progressive nature of revelation in the history
of the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures, and culminating in the appearance of Jesus
Christ. I cannot argue against this as progressive revelation and development
of thought is a universal reality in the area of philosophy and thought. Simply
attributing one path of understanding to a “divine” character does not
invalidate it, but only approaches the same reality in terms and images suited
to a particular frame of thinking or mind. This is not an endorsement of that
framework, but understanding within a particular community, insecurities with
the limits of human intellectual ability outweigh any trust in personal and
collective knowledge. This is not a wholly unfounded mind-set, but does have a
tendency to become arbitrarily binding, IE a “retarded” state of intellectual
development and resultant emotional immaturity likely ensues.
As law’s evolve, within the context of an enlightened
community, (religious or not), greater inclusion and acceptance occur. This
does not preclude abuses of individual liberties, but these are perpetrated by
the less enlightened, or religiously intolerant, those predisposed not to
accept the changing evolving nature of all reality. There have always been, and
I believe, will always be the segment (and at times, a particularly large
segment) of the populace who for whatever reason cannot or refuse to see the
reality of the world changing around them. These could be antiquated religious
reasons, lack of education or a stubborn clinging to some preferred ignorance.
All these are ignorance of one sort or another.
Laws evolve to meet the changing climate of society. The
sluggishness of this process creates the angle of stress. If too much force or
resistance be exerted from either direction, the function of law fails. Whether
thought of as divine in nature or a process of logic, the ‘law’ sets the
reference points of our relations to each other. These, in themselves, are not
absolute, but evolving as the human mind and community are able to adapt. This
does not suppose that all peoples or regions are capable of adapting equally,
but recognizes that progress, with any sort of stability, not deteriorating
into violence and mayhem, comes slower than most enlightened would hope, and
quicker than all predisposed are prepared to accept.
