orichalcum

Now that I have a shower radio, my shower thoughts are more profound, but also wackier.
Today, I was thinking about the difference between my religious beliefs and that of various friends and associates, and I realized a fundamental difference.

I believe that the text of the Bible - and for that matter the Qu'ran, certain Socratic dialogues*, and various other divinely inspired works - offer advice to humanity. Others believe that they (or a specific text) are orders or commands for humanity.

Now, I should say, I think you ought to take God's advice very seriously, because, well, omniscence means She knows a great deal. But I strongly believe that I have the right to interpret, consider, question, and, yes, reject that advice when I feel it is inconsistent with my greater moral framework. So I choose to believe that condemnations of masturbation and non-procreative sex were societally determined and heavily influenced by the prejudices of the writers who lived at a certain time and place, and I reject those teachings.

This means that I'm looking at scriptures fundamentally differently than those who start off with a principle of acceptance. I'm not trying to judge the benefits of either position, just explain where I'm coming from here. Certainly, I need to think more about how my position involves being a much more active thinker about morality and really requires a deep knowledge of the source texts, so that I can make the best possible judgment when considering whether or not to follow them.

In other news, my Roman Civ class sold out within the first 3 of 5 days, and I already have a waiting list of 25.

*Yes, I'm lightly Neo-Platonist. :) Also Arian. (not Aryan)