What if we took the historicity of sacred scriptures off the table, and focused on their meanings?

[Prophet 451]

79. Interesting question

I'm taking a break right now from writing a university assignment on the concept of "situated knowledge". The concept comes from feminist critique (and has somehow ended up in psychology) and says that, to fully understand anything, any piece of knowledge, one must consider the time and place it was created in and also who it was speaking to. For example, when considering the New Testament, one must consider that they were mostly a product of a particular time (1-roughly 75ce), a particular culture (the Roman Empire) and directed at a specific set of people (Romans) with their ingrained preconceptions, knowledges and norms. One must also consider the power relations inherent in them, that they were written by a group of people who were, mostly, powerless and addressed to the citizens of what was then the most powerful culture on earth.

Now, whether you consider that context to be important is up to you but I would suggest that any sacred writing loses some of it's colour and meaning without it.

I also have to note that I come from a position of being a believer in an experiential faith. That is, each adherent to my faith (Luciferian Satanism) actively constructs their own version of the faith through personal gnosis and meditation and we don't have any sacred writings in the normal sense. Thus, I come from the position that, while any sacred writing represents a voice added to the debate, no writing has the stamp of "GOD APPROVED" on it.