Yes, and then they write down those interpretations. And then they judge behaviors of others against those interpretations. So the Amish interpret the Bible to establish a rule against technology. Jehovah’s witnesses interpret the Bible to establish a rule against blood transfusion. They say their rules come from the Bible, you say their rules are interpretations, and only your own interpretations are actually rules.
The clergy writes the rules. The clergy invents god in their image, and “interprets” rules that benefit themselves.
Sure, but the basis for all of their rules is the bible. And you are right in how its dangerous and that was a big problem and Martin Luther is the example of someone pointing out when they clergy got out of hand and made unbiblical rules.
They dont write, they interpret and enforcement is done on a personal or community level typically. Its like you saying that the laws originate with the state not the constitution. No, the constitution is (supposed to be) the main document that the applicable laws are based on, states can go against it, but the basis is the constitution (or at least it is supposed to be).
The constitution is not the basis of law, nor is it supposed to be the basis of law. Laws do not originate from the constitution.
The constitution establishes government. The government establishes law.
If the Bible is analogous to the constitution, then the clergy is analogous to government.
To make the constitution analogous to the Bible, we would need a couple dozen different variants of the constitution, written at various times, to and from various languages. We’d have to do away with states, and the three branches. The clergy would consist of every county sheriff throughout the nation. Every sheriff would hold the full power of government, dictating what rules are important and what can be ignored. But, the sheriffs wouldn’t agree with each other on what is important.
Most importantly, we would have to remove the amendment process from the constitution, and let the sheriff’s take care of that, too.
Yes, and then they write down those interpretations. And then they judge behaviors of others against those interpretations. So the Amish interpret the Bible to establish a rule against technology. Jehovah’s witnesses interpret the Bible to establish a rule against blood transfusion. They say their rules come from the Bible, you say their rules are interpretations, and only your own interpretations are actually rules.
The clergy writes the rules. The clergy invents god in their image, and “interprets” rules that benefit themselves.
Sure, but the basis for all of their rules is the bible. And you are right in how its dangerous and that was a big problem and Martin Luther is the example of someone pointing out when they clergy got out of hand and made unbiblical rules.
Very good.
So the next time someone tells you the rules of Christianity aren’t written in the Bible, you’ll agree with them?
No, the rules are still in the bible…
You’ve already accepted the role of the clergy in writing and enforcing them.
They dont write, they interpret and enforcement is done on a personal or community level typically. Its like you saying that the laws originate with the state not the constitution. No, the constitution is (supposed to be) the main document that the applicable laws are based on, states can go against it, but the basis is the constitution (or at least it is supposed to be).
The constitution is not the basis of law, nor is it supposed to be the basis of law. Laws do not originate from the constitution.
The constitution establishes government. The government establishes law.
If the Bible is analogous to the constitution, then the clergy is analogous to government.
To make the constitution analogous to the Bible, we would need a couple dozen different variants of the constitution, written at various times, to and from various languages. We’d have to do away with states, and the three branches. The clergy would consist of every county sheriff throughout the nation. Every sheriff would hold the full power of government, dictating what rules are important and what can be ignored. But, the sheriffs wouldn’t agree with each other on what is important.
Most importantly, we would have to remove the amendment process from the constitution, and let the sheriff’s take care of that, too.