It seems to me that there can be no one or even several possible answers, since all perspectives are unique. What ultimately is a decision is what finally rings true to each individualv inside of their unique perspectives and life experience. Sure, there may be gross commonalities, but the actual “trigger” would be different for every person.
For instance, as a non-religious person, I can answer each of the questions with a positive allegorical explanation because I’m not stupid enough to deny the wisdom or understanding. But whether I am “reading into” or just completely mistaken isn’t something that can be discovered from external criteria. I could be completely wrong, or I might have it completely right, but only from MY perspective…
I would suppose that what should be taken literally, is whatever is convincing to the individual in each circumstance, but that what is convincing has no external basis.
I find it interesting that Bob and Felix are the most willing to engage in this little discussion, while the other Christians are keeping quiet for the most part. Bob and Felix have previously admitted that they don’t feel tied to any particular denomination or scriptural interpretation. Thus, Bob and Felix have very little to lose by admitting that they simply use their own personal judgment, since by definition their respective positions with regard to faith are personal and fluid. And I think that’s fine and dandy for them, even if I disagree with this approach.
However, my point here is that if anyone makes a claim that any part of the bible should be interpreted literally has to to deal with the issue of consistency, since no-one interprets the whole bible literally. If you defend your inconsistency by saying “I don’t feel any need to be consistent” that’s fine, and I think that’s what Bob and Felix are saying. But I doubt that most Christians would be comfortable with that approach.
So, I guess I was more interested in how Christians with a more rigid belief structure deal with this issue. But since they haven’t responded I’m guessing they simply ignore it or don’t even admit that they are inconsistent.
As a research scientist who inhabits evangelical Christian circles I get into more discussions about evolution and Genesis 1 than anyone would care to have in one lifetime. Rather than make scientists defend evolutionary theory, I think the onus is on Christians to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, especially when they don’t take other parts of the bible literally. And that leads to this larger question of “what ARE the deciding factors that determine whether YOU take a passage literally or not”.
If there are any other Christians out there who care, feel free to explain your approach to dealing with the passages above. I think it could be an interesting exercise to compare with Bob and Felix.
Without malice intended, I have observed that those who have a fairly “rigid” literalist faith aren’t likely to get involved in a thread such as this. The denial of all the natural sciences seems to be their starting point. (evolution is wrong, the earth is 6000 years old, natural disasters are God’s punishment, etc). Most of the literalists I have encountered (including most of my family) operate more out of fear of being “lead astray” by openly questioning than anything else. I would be surprised to see a literalist post to this thread.
Many of the most literal minded people here are in the atheist, agnostic or deist camps. A number of those are defectors from the fundamentalist churches. Fundamentalism is pre-philosophical even when it is atheistic.
I read “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. Collins didn’t really pull Christianity and science together for me, but he is confronting the issues. Ned I think your viewpoint is close to Collins. For all I know you are Collins!
Bob’s principles of interpretation are intellectually sound. A reflective person will realize that understanding the literary product of an ancient culture requires some knowledge of the historical context. And the traditioning processes of the Old and New Testaments is helpful too. The traditional church took The Faith in a supernatural direction that poses a problem for thoughtful people today. Enquiring minds want to know how and why that occurred.
Religion involves being grasped by the Ultimate as Tillich said. Jesus said we search the scripture for in them we think we have eternal life. The scriptures speak of the Ultimate embodied in the paradox which is life. This way, truth and life is Christ.
There’s a parable about a rich man who invited his relatives to a party. When they didn’t come, he went into the highways and byways and invited the street people. Ned, you wanted the evangelicals and you got Bob, Tentative, and I. Such is life.
P.S. I don’t know if you noticed, but my avatar is Pentacostal too.
Consistency has a problem because, as I said before, consistency is brick and mortar, spiritual life is flesh and blood and inspiration. I’ ll give you an example. The parish I joined was housed in a temporary wooden building and it pulsated with life. People were loving, friendly, relatively poor and socially active. When the “Halleluja Hutch†(as it was called) was deemed not longer fit for human occupation, enough money came together to build a multi-purpose building next to it which had the appearance of a church without being one.
Since moving into this new housing, the spirit of the parish has changed. It doesn’t pulsate any more, people argue about investment and money, fractions have formed and criticism is made of sermons and lectures. The liberal and open atmosphere has become conservative and closed, prejudice and resentment blocks the spiritual processes. Our new Pastor, previously Missionary and Development- Aide in Namibia, is doing a fine job bringing people together – and yet he is criticised for the smallest thing.
Something consistent can also be synonymous with invariable, hard-and-fast, strict or fixed. I find the world isn’t the same as it was two thousand years ago, let alone as 3 or 4 thousand years ago. Those rigid monuments of the past are but ruins under the sand. It is the spirit-filled movement that rises after three days to become new and fresh.
Sorry about that, I did read your post. Can you respond to each of the 5 biblical passages I posted above? I’d be interested to know how you interpret them and why.
There have been a few more fundementalist types kicking around this site recently. I’d hoped they might be interested enough to contribute here.
I agree that the approach that you and Bob take is intellectually sound. Actually, my disagreement with it would be that it places too much emphasis on intellect. But we’ve probably been over that ground before.
LOL. Don’t get me wrong, I’m interested in how you and Bob approach scripture. It’s just that you serve as a nice control for the rest of the experiment (which may or may not happen)! Your individualized approach is at one extreme of a spectrum and the issue of literal interpretation is more of a problem at the other end.
Everyone who experiences any joy in Christ has a little bit of pentacostal in them!
I like the pentacostal environment because it forces me to excercise different muscles. I’d probably be more naturally suited to a heavy theology-type church with long-winded sermons, but I find the child-like approach of pentacostalism refreshing and different. Plus, the worship music is better and I like music…
I hear you load and clear on the church construction front. It’s such a waste.
But I disagree about consistency. God is the same yesterday today and forever. Therefore, there are unchanging truths in scripture. Our job is to find them and stick with them. In fact, as you probably know, I’m of the opinion that most of these truths have been found by others before us.
I think “literalness” often implies that meaning can traverse in both a spatial and temporal sense - as if meaning is some sort of thing, which is independent of context and can maintain internal consistency. To the extent that the idea of “literal meaning” has that sense (which I think it always will, more or less), it turns into an absolutism and likely precedes aggression.
I don’t think portions of texts can be separated into categories of wholly literal versus wholly figurative intent. Such a precise categorical distinction implies that literal meaning can exist completely independent of figurative meaning. I can’t see how that wholesale distinction can be made. A “literal” interpretation can simply mean a strong emphasis on common meaning, or meaning governed by tradition or authority, rather than on idiosyncratic meaning. Meaning is always different from person to person, whether one’s religious expressions are idiosyncratic or not.
Mystical faith wants to know this unchanging God to whom the Spirit leads us, the One behind the beliefs and the words, the One whom beliefs and words cannot describe. It is a case of following Jesus’ example more closely, going beyond a religion about Jesus and taking on the religion of Jesus. He urged us to follow him, to have the same knowledge of the Father and unconditional love which he had. He was the first-fruit of a new harvest. His followers left us the spiritual clues on this paper-chase through the millennia, but it was never about taking things literally.
If we could give up this “if you don’t do this, you’re not one of us†mode of religion and accept that the spiritual followers of Christ don’t need these quarrels, we could get on with the journey. My biggest problem with evangelicalism is that it is so damned loud that it drowns out the quiet whisper of the Spirit and is very often one-sided. I know many spiritually creative Christians but the church only gives academics a role befitting such talents. I know of many inspired people, but if they don’t fit into the box that the church puts them in, they are often cast aside. This is exactly the practice that Jesus meant when he spoke about the stone that the builders rejected.
I agree that literalism reduces to thingness, i.e. it objectifies what is spiritual. I also agree that “wholesale distinction” cannot be made. I experience that when I performed Ned’s interpretive exercise. I was making “either or” choices where the answer should have been “both and…” But that’s only one side of it— the concrete, existential side. If meaning is totally subjective, how are we communicating? (If we are.) The best example of a “both and” situation I can think of is the resurrection. Neither reduction to physical resusitation or poetry does justice to what is presented in the accounts. The atheist throws up her hands and says “bunk” (usually something stronger these days). I submit that if one reads the accounts closely and stays with them like a koan, the resurrection accounts issue in an experience to be entered into not merely an event to be believed in from afar.
That makes sense to me. It seems like conceptual difficulty in itself has the power to break us out of the patterns of easy categorization we create for ourselves. I think that is probably the power of koans when they are truly grappled with. I really like Ned’s questions - I like the difficulties. It’s just that like you said I don’t see how it could be an either/or situation.
I guess that this is one of the things about Christianity - or any other religion for that matter - that I continually have problems with. In a sense, I could claim Christian “beliefs” because the bible does contain some “unchanging truths”. How could it not? The story of man’s struggle with spirituality is contained there. But the same can be said of many sources of spiritual seeking. It comes down to finding understanding of the words, not the words themselves. I am reminded of another thread where I asked what is the litmus test of being a christian. Is it in understanding the inspired spirit of the words, or is it somehow a checklist in following the “operators manual”?
I would have every living soul be a follower of Jesus, but not in biblical words, but in the spirit of what, by his example, he asked of us. He asked us to reach beyond the words and dwell in the spirit, did he not? Is this not what is asked in other religions? In eastern philosophies? Yes, the words are different, but the understanding is remarkably the same.
Sorry, Ned. I realize this is a diversion, but from my perspective, it is the essential question. The words may point, but they are not the understanding…
Why does it need to vary widely? Why can’t it be consistently applied? The standard legal / historical methods of evaluating evidence have been around a long time. It’s rules of evidence are consistent and well defined.
Your example above demonstrates that you understand that there are different kinds of evidence, that have different strengths and weaknesses, and evaluating all the evidence allows one the possibility of determining which testimony is true. Your example also demonstrates that scientific evidence in and of it’s self can only go so far in evaluating historical events. If the pitchfork belongs to the man, the fact that his fingerprints are on it, doesn’t prove much of anything. Anyone could have used it to kill his wife. It’s the testimony of his neighbors that supplies the motive and provides the strength to the case.
I think that every legal system on the planet would be surprised to learn that all testimonial evidence is highly suspect. One can go to prison for a long time on nothing more than testimonial evidence. One doesn’t need any scientific evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that something has, or has not happened. It doesn’t follow to argue that since some testimonial evidence is not reliable that all testimonial evidence is not reliable. The whole legal system is setup to provide a method of evaluating testimonial evidence. I doubt that many lawyers or historians would agree with your conclusion.
In addition, when looking at historical events, we are looking at non repeatable events. While some material evidence may be available for empirical types of analysis, the event itself is not repeatable, therefore empirical sciences role in investigating historical events is always going to be limited. You can’t repeatedly test the hypothesis that the man stabbed his wife with a pitchfork. In evaluating historical events, one establishes historical probability, not 100% certainty (even the empirical sciences like chemistry don’t produce 100% certainty).
You’re jumping ahead to conclusions before we have even defined what valid evidence is.
Jesus to me was saying God should be utmost in your mind in all things you do. It should reflect in actions and in words.
Love your neighbor as yourself tells me we are all the same in God’s eyes and when we hurt another, we do the same to us and God.
This has two possible meanings to me. One is since Jesus is the New Covenant, He is the path to Salvation. The other is when we pray to God, we must address our prayers through Jesus since it was His Blood that has paid for our sins. For me it means not praying to the saints or priests for God’s Blessings, only to Jesus.
I believe that Jesus is the embodiment of God through the flesh. Thus, it makes sense to me His ressurection would include His Body too, because He was not born of sin. Man is born of sin because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God.
This was to explain that Jesus is the true intercessor between man and God, between Heaven and earth. That every creature with a ears to hear and minds to understand needs of the New Covenant God has ordained through Jesus Christ. Telling of the Holy Trinity that has been put into place.
This passage has more of a metaphorical connotation for me. In my opinion it is an admonishment to whatever places you into sin, needs to be put aside in thought and action. That those things will not provide spiritual advancement and could cause you to debauch your spirit into darkness.
Now Ned, I would like to know your thoughts of my original post in this thread, especially the one concerning satan and man’s fall from grace. Thanks.
Good question. What is this basis we are asking about? If there is a moral or ethical basis other than God’s absolute mandated ethics/morals… what are they? How could there be a system of ethical/moral basis outside God?
I’ll jump straight to the answer… Ethics/morals are relative. Created by the individual and adopted and shared by society. This is why every single person interprets not only scripture, not only communication, but ALL sensory input differently. We’re a bunch of subjective beings. We determine our basis of interpretation every day.
I know you will likely not agree with me Ned, but I was hoping to demonstrate the fact that you are asking how you can pick and choose from the bible. The answer is, you can pick and choose any way you like, because that is ALL that you can do. You only have your relative basis. There is no objective basis. Whatever basis you determine we should interpret the bible on, it will be a relative one.
Yet, the early disciples took things pretty literally didn’t they? Can you read the book of Acts and tell me that Jesus’ disciples didn’t take him literally?
Obviously the definition of “who we are and what we believe” has less value the more individualized your faith becomes, since “who WE are” and “what WE believe” are community issues. As I think I’ve discussed with Felix before, I think it is very important that there is a consistent framework of belief for ANY type of community and this will include, “what this community IS” and “what this community ISN’T”. It might seem more spiritual to ignore these issues but it if ignored it simply reduces the community to a group of individuals who all believe different things. And I don’t think that’s what the church is, or should be.
[/quote]
Evangelical Christianity is a strange beast especially in the US. I accept that it has many of the problems you mention.
