1. The interpretation of modern religion has four conversation partners that interplay to create what we know as theology today. The first conversation partner is tradition. Tradition comes from the latin word tradere meaning “to hand down”. Tradition helps provide a strong base for faith to form by providing consistency based on what has been done in the past. At the core of tradition is the Bible. The Bible has been around for centuries and provides directions for the Christian community in terms of morality and worshipping practices. If something is not found in the Bible, it is generally not accepted to be part of Christian faith. However, some people argue that the Bible is outdated and that tradition can be reinterpreted in a modern way.
A second conversation partner is culture. Today, with our culture being based off the value of technology and science, the Bible does not provide much obvious context for what is right and wrong. Since culture is always evolving, the Bible is only capable of providing a foundation. For example, Weaver discusses that the Bible speaks about the importance of marriage and how it is the only moral form of sexual expression. However, there is no comment on things like reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization to have children. Since there is no textual set …show more content…
Since many theologians believe that the fragment is fake, many people would argue that there is little meaning to be taken out of it. Personally, I responded to it as how easily history can be swayed and mistaken. Although we are almost certain the fragment is not real, how much of Christianity has been rightfully interpreted as real when it is not? A lot of things pertaining to the Bible do not have straightforward evidence. More likely than not, a lot of mistakes have been made in the past. This is exactly why everything deserves a chance to be re-evaluated. Looking at tradition alone ignores details and mistakes that scholars might have made in the
A second conversation partner is culture. Today, with our culture being based off the value of technology and science, the Bible does not provide much obvious context for what is right and wrong. Since culture is always evolving, the Bible is only capable of providing a foundation. For example, Weaver discusses that the Bible speaks about the importance of marriage and how it is the only moral form of sexual expression. However, there is no comment on things like reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization to have children. Since there is no textual set …show more content…
Since many theologians believe that the fragment is fake, many people would argue that there is little meaning to be taken out of it. Personally, I responded to it as how easily history can be swayed and mistaken. Although we are almost certain the fragment is not real, how much of Christianity has been rightfully interpreted as real when it is not? A lot of things pertaining to the Bible do not have straightforward evidence. More likely than not, a lot of mistakes have been made in the past. This is exactly why everything deserves a chance to be re-evaluated. Looking at tradition alone ignores details and mistakes that scholars might have made in the