11

Thanks for engaging with the question. The only thing I would push back from my perspective is that I don’t think it’s so much about applying the principles of the Bible in your life as it is about allowing the Holy Spirit to shape your life.

I sometimes use the language that sin is an “eye problem” that leads to an “I problem.” The Bible often uses language that sin is a force or disease which affects and infects us. And yes, I believe that we’re only healed of this disease by the work of the Holy Spirit.

I think “conversation” is the key word here. It’s a means of engaging in dialogue with our predecessors, who wrestled with many of the same questions we do today.

These days, I interpret the idea of “sola scriptura” to be more closely related to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers than the infallibility of the Bible. I recognize that this may not be what Martin Luther had in mind, but I’m comfortable asserting that we don’t need to rely on the clergy to interpret scripture for us. I don’t think it’s wise to reject the wisdom of the church or to read the Bible outside of community.

Some traditions would argue that the concepts of original sin and total depravity necessitate that, as sinful people, everything we do, we do in sin, regardless of intention or knowledge.

For the most part, I reject that line of thinking. I think sin usually does involve some level of awareness. Again, I view sin primarily as the dehumanizing or objectifying of others. It’s viewing people not as other souls with inherent worth, but as a means of achieving your own desires. I think often, we are aware to some degree that we do this. But then, it could be argued that we may sometimes do this without realization.

This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.

Not always, but often, making unpopular changes is precisely what the executive is being paid to do. Their job is to implement these changes, make sure that they are the one everyone gets upset with, and then take that anger with them when they leave.

I agree with the direction you’re suggesting. I think it may also be helpful to identify a few key issues that would require more than a simple majority vote to overturn.

In particular, we’ve already gotten multiple posts on defederating from various instances, and on clearing our defederation list. My suggestion is that something like once per month we hold a vote on defederation issues. A 2/3 majority vote to defederate/refederate must be achieved to pass.

I actually haven’t heard about that podcast. Thanks for sharing!

The way that someone chooses to interpret scripture is certainly going to impact their perspective on women in leadership. I agree with you that, despite the claims of many fundamentalists, it seems difficult to uphold the Bible as a univocal, concordant text. I see a lot of issues stem from the assumption that the Bible is effectively an instruction manual with a clear and consistent message on how we are to live our lives. A great resource on this topic is “The Bible Made Impossible,” by Christian Smith.

I think an interesting example of how we should depend on biblical authority within the Bible itself is from Acts 15. By appealing to the scriptures, the early church determines that Gentiles shouldn’t be required to practice circumcision - which was one of the core elements of their faith at the time, because it was commanded in the scriptures.

In my experience and perspective, the value of the Bible comes from its role as the word which reveals the Word. I will stand firm on the conviction that Jesus is the definitive revelation of divinity - not the Bible. The Bible is useful inasmuch as it is a book about Jesus. And yes, the portrait of Jesus it provides for us is someone who declares liberation, not subjugation.

Though OP never actually stated that the machine can perfectly predict the future. If that’s the case, then yes, you should just take box B. But we’re not given any information about how it makes its prediction. If @Sordid@sh.itjust.works is correct in assuming it’s a 50-50, then their strategy of taking both is best. It really depends on how the machine makes its prediction.

I agree that we shouldn’t assume corruption if TheDude starts receiving any funds, but I think it would be beneficial to have clear expectations about how donations are being used. If it’s clear that excess funds go straight into TheDude’s pockets, great. Let anyone who wants to donate go for it. But I wouldn’t want anyone to donate thinking that they’re supporting server costs when they’re actually just tipping someone. Whichever way it goes, it just needs to be clear.