At the center of Monday's discussion was the idea that all of religious texts can be boiled down or simplified to a basic rule by which you interpret all the rest of the text, and thus the entire religion. This idea is appealing, and it seems to make sense. One religion, one set of morals, one message: love=good, lust/egotism=bad. the problem lies in the fact that one religion isn't a unified item. It is an evolving set of ideas developed over hundreds or thousands of years by people with different world views and different interpretations of the text that came before. To try to take the huge mass of parables and lessons and advice from so many people over so much time and turn it into one all encompassing message is utterly impossible. Aside from this, it undermines the purpose of the text itself. Religious texts show the evolution of the beliefs; they provide the insight of hundreds of faithful believers, it shows the development of societies, the changing of morals. We should embrace the contradictions we find in the text as natural reshaping of the religious beliefs instead of an abstract puzzle laid before us by God. It is vital to remember that, while it was written by men who deeply believed in and followed God, religious texts are still written by men, with all of their faults and humanity. Thus, it is ridiculous to try to strain out an "interpretive rule" to tell you which parts of the bible are literal or metaphorical, because violence may just have been violence, not symbolism for "defeating sin". you cannot find the answer to God's rule in your bible. you can only find man's interpretation of that rule, and it's going to vary from person to person, from story to story, and from book to book.