I would say Evans, and many of the commenters, are missing the point that several hundred years of scholarship in the fields of literary and textual criticism enable us to arrive at at - least reasonable
interpretations of religious texts driven by context, the literary genre, etc..
But by
the interpretation of religious text, It would seem most likley that he would indeed be pro-life.
That's the danger of strict literal
interpretation of any religious text for that matter.
The very fact that we have so many sects of Christianity (and just so many religions in general) should bring to light that there is a no real consensus as to a universal
interpretation of religious text.
We need to also consider here that
interpretations of religious texts that lead to extremist ideas are not all that far fetched.
So, «socialism» is often merely useless, while dogmatic literal
interpretation of religious text is a real impediment and thus worse than socialism.
Not exact matches
Consequently, it is possible to have more informed
interpretations of texts than others, whether or not you believe some
religious text is divinely inspired or not.
It required them to move from literal
interpretations of the
texts to allegorical
interpretations in which the
religious insight
of the
texts was uncovered.
But neither the science
texts nor the standards address
religious interpretations of nature or
of the environmental crisis.
Perhaps most important, while the great Western religions have held that God is revealed in the events and shape
of history, none
of the
texts discuss
religious interpretations of history.
To many
of the jewish faith, the Christians hijacked part
of their
religious writings and applied their own
interpretations, often own «translations» which in parts are different from older
texts (that Christianity did not control).
The insights we seek by means
of the
text are thus neither general
religious or theological truths, nor simply the author's original insights, but the truth
of our own personal and social being as it is laid bare by dialectical
interpretation of the
text.
This means that context — in the broad sense
of cultural,
religious, social, political and economical circumstances — and
text — as Scripture in its process
of transmission and
interpretation, that is, its Tradition — do mutually interpret each other.
Instead
of telling people that their
interpretation is wrong, you can remind them that other
religious texts have been used in the past to justify atudes and laws that are recognized today as morally wrong and unjust — such as discrimination against women, people
of color and
religious minorities.
Centrifugal meaning, in contrast, refers to the more numerous connotations and layers
of interpretation that «spin off» from a
religious text.
Working in photography, video and sculpture, Idris Khan layers appropriated images taken from literature,
religious texts, music scores, and other art works to create ghostly visual
interpretations of these materials that evoke considerations
of time, authorship and image - making.
The approach advocated by the Commission gives full weight, as a matter
of interpretation, open in the
text, to the word «traditional» in sub-sec 223 (1), and avoids the mockery which would be constituted by mandating failure
of a claim if there be any gap revealed in the admissible (eg non-hearsay) evidentiary description
of the social and
religious conduct
of people without writing from pre-1788, continuously, until and during the shock and disruption
of non-indigenous settlement.