So you believe that Jesus literally taught us to love God and others.
So, again you take a more literal interpretation.
Again, mostly literal.
Literal.
Ok, but on what basis do you interpret 4/5 verses as literal BUT then take 1/5 as metaphorical? Just based on how it appears to you?
I’ll respond to your other post 
I agree with most of what you’ve said. Except I don’t like the KJV
Again I don’t have any disagreement with you. I hadn’t really thought about the fall of man versus Satan. The issue of election and the possibility of redemption is never “cruel or harsh” in my mind since redemption is freely given by grace. And who can question it? Not me.
I know I threw my two cents into this thread - not sure if I’m welcome to continue or not.
My point was that nothing can be completely literal in the way many people think. If I say “table” and you hear “table” we think we’ve communicated - and of course we have - but you and I are picturing two different “typical tables” or full ranges of what counts as “tableness”.
But to be more down to earth (we all know what literal means in a basic way) - in terms of the following verse…
And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, than that your whole body should be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, than that your whole body should be cast into hell. - Matthew 5:29-30
…I don’t think it can be reduced to simply literal versus figurative.
For starters, eyes and right hands don’t cause sin. So there is no problem taking this passage literally. It’s figurative meaning points beyond a false literal meaning. So it is both literal and figurative and there is no conflict. That duality never existed in the first place. The false literalness sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous.
Ned wrote:
Part 5 is something I have heard in church, studied and comparing other passages of Christ’s along with prayer. It wasn’t something I came to terms with quickly. If something else arises concerning that scripture, I will give it consideration too. Until that time I will hold to that thought.
Speaking of changing minds. My pastor of whom I have spoke of, watched his wife suffer from several bodily disfunctions. Along with dealing with that over the years and general dissent from some church members, it physically, mentally and spiritually wore on him. So, just a few months before his wife died, he announced in churched that he felt someone who suffered as she did could considered assisted suicide. You can imagine the congregations shock to hear that as well as taking me aback. He qualified his statement that he had prayed a long time over this and felt that God would allow for such situations. What do you think of his decision Ned…is it possible the Lord may have told him suicide in instances like this is ok?
Hi Ned,
I think that Acts has a number of problems. If you read Paul’s letters and then compare their description of occurrences, you can see that Acts is very abbreviated and leaves lots of problems out. It seems to be a summary from a long way off which supports the thesis that the transfer of authority from the Jewish Apostles to the Grecian-Roman Fathers did not come about without problems. After the dispersion the Jews seem to have been stigmatised and the Church forgot quickly the Semitic roots it had. Paul is historically clearer even it is not history that he is writing. The description that Luke offers is very “blue-eyed†and matter of fact – his Acts is not as good as his Gospel, probably because it is so condensed.
I would agree with you but there is a huge problem – the church is in no way the same as that early church was. The church has been developing up until today. If something can go through a development process it isn’t as consistent as you believe. The same can be said about Theology. If a recent theologian like Karl Barth can be praised from all sides for grasping something that had not been grasped until then, it tells us that either many things have been lost along the way which need to be re-found, or it tells us that theology has moved on. Either way, there is reason to believe that the consistency you believe in is questionable.
Shalom
All language is symbolic by definition and is therefore subject to the interpretation of the reader/listener.
Since the Bible is written in a language it is also subject to interpretation.
Christian theology, in it’s varied forms, is just one of many possible interpretations.
If there is a correct interpretation, it cannot, by definition, be expressed using language.
Everyone’s welcome, even anonymous folks.
Sure, but at a certain point it doesn’t really matter. If the bible says that Jesus miraculously walked on water it doesn’t really matter exactly how 2 individuals picture it in their heads (how high were the waves, what color of sandals did Jesus wear etc…). It is either a figurative rendering of a strange event that didn’t really happen, or it’s something that actually happened. Figurative or literal.
That’s a good point. If there are clear figurative elements in close proximity to the saying in question, there may be stronger justification for a figurative interpretation. I think that’s a decent approach and is probably helpful when dealing with other passages like the whole book of revelation for example.
But, what about the converse argument? If a passage contains absolutely no figurative references, should this passage be interpreted literally? And if not, why not?
To a large degree (or in a conventional sense) I agree with you as I’ve already stated. But I stand by my assertion that there is no perfectly literal meaning possible. That is to say, meaning cannot be assumed to be truly identical between any two people, as if ‘it’ left one person’s mouth and entered another’s ears, or jumped off the page or computer screen. That’s important to me, because it means that understanding others is not of a fundamentally different order from understanding oneself. Not understanding that balance might easily lead to either aggression or victimization. Obviously aggression and victimization go together and that is a too-common dynamic historically in relation to social ideologies.
That seems like a very text-heavy and impersonal approach - worthwhile, but it ignores our own intuition and intelligence. The thing is, I knew something was wrong with my understanding of that eye/hand passage the first time it came to my attention when I was 15 or so. I spotted something seriously out of whack, and I trusted myself enough not to act on it. I think it is the appropriate place of religious traditions to help people mature as individuals, in a social sense as well as a ‘spiritual’ sense. This strikes me as somewhat different than searching a text for ‘right’ answers and then feeling a disproportionate sense of guilt for life not conforming to the text. It’s a balance as everyone seems to agree, but at the moment I feel like calling attention to the natural wisdom that we all possess.
I’m not sure either that a “perfectly literal” meaning can be held by 2 different individuals. But I’m not sure it’s important either.
And I would argue that neither intuition or intelligence are important attributes in seeking to understand divine communication, and that’s what Christians believe the bible to be.
I’d argue that natural wisdom or any individual attribute should be kept in check when trying to understand scripture. But I’m a Christian. If you’re reading the bible for another purpose, I’m sure there are many other approaches.
Hi Ned,
So intuition, intelligence, natural wisdom or any other individual attribute must be kept in check. What is left? Do you really believe that everything that constitutes our being a human beings disturbs “divine communication� Is this a variation of “Give your brain up with your coat at the door�
I had begun to expect more of you.
Shalom
Maybe a clearer statement of my view is that I don’t think that any of these attributes are required to understand scripture. You know that I don’t believe in “check your brain at the door”, but I don’t agree with the assumption that gifted or intelligent folks have any great advantage either. The more of our own personal vanity that we bring to the text, the LESS likely we are to understand it.
My only criticism in calling it a “text-heavy approach” was that noone should spend their time worrying about textual analysis when their hands and eyes are at stake. It’s not only perfectly ok, but also very important and intelligent to say “this text is wrong”, even if in the final anaysis it was just a misunderstanding.
Depends on what the text is and why you’re reading it, doesn’t it? If you believe it to be communication from God himself then “worrying about textual analysis” is appropriate, even if your anatomy is at stake… Many people have given their lives after completing similar textual analysis.
Ned, real people don’t complete textual analyses. They are either insane enough to cut off their hand for a really dumb reason or sane and intelligent enough not to.
I was thinking of all those Christians who went to their death simply for refusing to say “Caesar is Lord”. Why? Because their scriptures told them that “Jesus is Lord”. Textual analysis is important if God wrote the bible.
I never said textual analysis wasn’t important. But it’s not a one-way street. Surely the way you come to understand the bible is a result of the feelings and intelligence you bring to it. Are you saying there is evidence for evolutionary theory within the bible? You came to see the book of Genesis as not literal based solely on textual exegesis? You have a dialogue with the authority and you bring your own intelligence to it.
I think everyone has some sort of balance between what they believe the text actually says (literal meaning) and what we actually take away from the text. Both aspects require some thought but I’d argue that the latter (taking from the text) is the most problematic since 2 people can read the same passage and come to opposite conclusions. Some folks might be happy with that muddle, but I don’t like it. If there are multiple acceptable interpretations that can also be contradictory, then the text doesn’t really mean anything at all, and we may as well be getting our spiritual guidance from the back of a cereal box. One can read into the text of the cereal box, everything we think is required for life, health, and happiness, no bible required.
So, I assume that the text actually means ONE thing and one thing only. In other words, there was an original purpose behind the writing and our goal is to find that purpose. However, this is easier said than done and I’ve tried to point out verses above where multiple meanings are possible. The whole point of this thread is trying to understand what choices people make at these sorts of crossroads, and more importantly, why?
I’d argue that if God actually communicated the bible, he would do so in a way that could be accessable to all, not just the intellectuals (the high priests and teachers of our time). Therefore, the uneducated man who reads a passage simply, may actually have a greater chance of reaching a correct interpretation than the educated man who brings many talents and skills to his bible reading.
That’s what I’m saying with regard to intelligence, natural wisdom. I don’t think it’s required to understand the bible.
With regard to Genesis 1, you’re right. I have approached the text from an educated position and perhaps reached different conclusions than I would otherwise have done. In my defense, I freely admit that I may be wrong!
But reducing spiritual understanding to textual exegesis is an inherently intellectual approach. This is actually what I’m saying - I’m saying that it is too intellectual. Where is the wisdom in gouging out one’s own eyes? Christians were said by Christ to be ‘the salt of the earth’. Humble people understand the bible in a way that is grounded in their basic appreciation for life - they take everything with a grain of salt, and aren’t so easily led astray. A good Christian mother would never let her child gouge out his own eyes, whether or not she thought she was going against her own religious text.
Do Protestants really believe the bible is the only communication from God? Are religious hierarchies worthless (i.e. people who have a better feeling for how to understand something) because of historical abuses? Is individual conscience not God-given?
I understand what you’re saying but I’m not sure the humbleness you’re describing is actually an intellectual approach to bible reading. It’s something else, I’m not sure what to call it…
If one reads for example that “Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his followers”, the simplest approach is to take the comment at face value and conclude that there once lived a man who was dead, but came alive again. A more intellectual persepctive might realize the inherant scientific improbability of such an event, challenge the assumed reliability of the text or motives of the writer, and perhaps construct a different interpretation concluding that a figurative new birth took place in the hearts and minds of Jesus’ followers. Many books have been written on the topic and similar intellectual readings of the bible.
I guess, I’m wondering, “why bother”? Whatever your view of the first approach, I would argue that the second approach is likely to be complete and utter nonsense. It’s an artificial intellectual construct that is completely unecessary. Either people rising from the dead is a possibility within your universe, or it’s not. If it’s not, then why waste time trying to find meaning in an ancient text that clearly states that this impossible event happened? If someone comes to the bible with such assumptions, I really wonder why they come to the bible at all? It’s a waste of time. It would seem far better to write their own version of spirituality from scratch. It’s like saying that there is no life on Mars, but then educating yourself about the solar system using a book written by a Martian.
So, when I say that bringing intelligence and wisdom to the bible is a problem, that’s really what I’m getting at. Why bother, if you’ve already decided that you’ll just re-write it anyway? The simplest approach may be difficult, but I think it has greater inherent value. It places the text in the position any ancient spiritual text should be, ABOVE the reader. If the reader isn’t comfortable with that then he is free to go someplace else.
Interestingly (to me anyway), most modern evangelical Christians also approach the bible as a prooftext for ideas that they already hold (anti-government, gun control, libertarian, consumer, patriotism, democracy-loving etc…) BUT claim that they do otherwise. That’s why you have Christians claiming that the bible supports democracy or is against social welfare or whatever idea they otherwise have in their head. I’d hoped to attract a few Christians to this thread and have a discussion about the inconsistent way that exegesis takes place in Christian circles, and I include myself in that happy band of inconsistent misfits.
It really depends what stream of protestantism you belong to. Some regard authority with some reverence and others actively teach against it. The basic idea that God can speak to individuals without need of a mediator (clergy) is so highly valued that authority sometimes gets short shrift. And I agree with the basic premise that Christians do not require a mediator between them and God, other than Christ, which is why I’m not a Catholic. But I also see some value in spiritual authority, but I’m getting off topic, I guess…
On the same basis that an infomercial, or the state of the union address should be taken literally.