Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Discussions of Faith
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:56 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,181
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Do you read legal and sacred texts differently?

I'm not sure whether this topic is likely to go haywire, but the Calguns Faith forum may be the only kind of place that it could easily be discussed. Let's see if this leads to an interesting discussion.

I've spent a lot of time trying to understand how the founding generation expected legal texts to be read, above all the Constitution (i.e. not really about how you have to read it today if you expect to win, which is different). I became very originalist, without any expectation that any court would accept such a reading. I usually notice gunnies reading it in modern context without being aware of it, and I try to avoid doing that.
dd
I've also spent a lot of time trying to understand how to read scripture as we were intended to read it, and ultimately became very originalist there as well--scripture as it could have been understood in the First and Temple Jewish contexts, most of all. I usually notice Christians reading it in modern context without being aware of it, and I try to avoid doing that. (Just to be clear: this is a variant of specifically Protestant Christian hermeneutics. The variation consists mainly in not putting much authority in reading in the context of later church history, which I suspect is probably the standard Reformation hermeneutic. I can't intelligently say much about other hermeneutics.)

As you can see, my belief in "correct" hermeneutics in both law and theology converged pretty strongly. This is back on my mind again because the snippets of Thomas' writing in Bruen that I've seen mandate the most breathtakingly originalist readings of the Second Amendment and historical precedent that I've ever read in a legal document. Most of all because it looks like Thomas is very clear that you have to read it in the original context (a huge conceptual shift that is going to have fascinating consequences). In fact it's far closer to how I've come to read the bible than how most Christians read it (whether that's good or bad is a separate debate).

With all that said, my question is whether others have ended up doing this, or do you choose instead to read inspired texts differently? Do you intentionally choose the context you read in (whether the Constitution or scripture), or not?

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:19 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy