Did anyone catch my original post? It was my take on picking and choosing from the supposed word of an omniscient God. Whatever basis we determine, it will be a relative one. There can be no objective or ground basis to interpret the bible from. We all get to pick and choose how we see fit. Yay for us! 
Ned,
You say, “I’m not sure the humbleness you’re describing is actually an intellectual approach to bible reading”, but you’ve misunderstood me somehow. I’m saying the opposite - that basing one’s approach to life solely on a text is an extremely intellectual approach to living. Even if that text is the most revered guide to living in a tradition (as it is with Protestantism), it can’t be the only guide, exclusive of all other factors. Fixation is not the same thing as devotion. The ‘humbleness’ I alluded to is a sense of two things: one- a broad view of what the basic message of the tradition is, so that the seemingly conflicting details aren’t a source of bewilderment, and two- a sort of solidity which comes from being grounded in an earthy approach to the highest ideals of the tradition. If the highest ideal of some religious tradition was to swim across the English Channel in January and their religious text said that this was a great and worthy thing to do… what would the appropriate response be? Certainly not to fret over textual exegesis. The sane and intelligent response would be to find a trainer, begin a training program, and not worry too much about actually meeting that goal. The broad view understands what the point of swimming the English Channel in January would be, and the earthy solidity doesn’t attempt what is currently beyond oneself to accomplish. Those two approaches could be summed up as a basic sense of how to coordinate the whole thing. That sense cannot be gleaned solely from reading a text. I associate these qualities with ‘intuition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘wisdom’, etc. rather than anything ‘intellectual’ at all. In a world where people seem to be fundamentally alienated from their own basic sanity and intelligence, it is possible for families and religious traditions to help people cultivate that sense, which is an inner strength. Instead, people often tend to ignore those qualities and confuse them with egoism, which can happen when there is an overemphasis on order and control.
I don’t think it’s very valuable or even fair to associate lack of fixation on a single text as a sole authority with the assertion that many people use that text to justify whatever they feel like believing. If it is difficult to judge others’ genuineness, then so be it. I don’t see how this could be a problem, other than for certain practical matters such as who is allowed to be an official voting church-member, or other political issues.
Hi Ned,
We don’t really have to. If you take the phrase “rose from the dead†you find it in a surrounding that poses a number of questions.
Act 10:34 – 41
Then Peter having opened his mouth, said, “Truly, I comprehend that God is not One to accept faces, but in every nation the one fearing Him and working righteousness is acceptable to Him.
The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming the Gospel of peace through Jesus Christ - this One is Lord of all - you know, the word having taken place throughout the whole of Judea, having begun from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached – Jesus from Nazareth – how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and power, who went about doing good and healing all the ones being oppressed by the Devil, because God was with Him.
And we are witnesses of all which He did, both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they also executed, having hanged on a tree. This One God raised up on the third day and gave Him to become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses, the ones having been chosen beforehand by God, to us who ate together and drank together with Him after He rose from dead.â€
The first question is in what way is this account of Peters speech recorded? Acts is “Logosâ€, that is something said, concerning all things which Jesus “began both to be doing and to be teaching until the day he was taken up, having commanded by the Holy Spirit the apostles whom he chose …†Luke breaks from reported speech into direct speech regularly and suddenly Jesus is taken from before the eyes of the Apostles by a cloud. This kind of narrative is known to provide children the necessary gate to the fantastic, making a jump into fantasy. In spiritual writings it is a means of passing from the natural to the supernatural, from the physical to the metaphysical, providing the reader an access to spiritual realities not otherwise accessed.
This isn’t fiction but a reading between the lines of history, an intuition of the importance of an occurrence, and the transfer of perspectives. The space or clearance between objects isn’t always apparent to us, we see things, not the no-thingness between them. We see what our senses are attracted to, not what surrounds us when we are looking, listening, feeling, tasting, etc. Our perception is narrowed and the change of perspective which spiritual awareness gives us allows us to take in the moment, even years later through the eyes of witnesses who record an event in this way.
Often this way of writing is regarded naïve and primitive, many people have mocked what they have seen as imaginations and superstition in ancient scriptures and mythology. In fact the opposite is true. It is our perception and our means of transporting an event which has become two-dimensional, flat and grey. The three-dimensional myths and legends with their colourful description of events, the Gospels with the miracles and wonders are able to grasp the wonderment and amazement of the moment. They provide the paradox of things inexplicable but seemingly apparent and have us asking whether we are really alive. But you have to be aware of that.
The second question is whether Peter is writing these words? No, it is a writer with the Pseudonym of “Luke†who is reporting on a speech made at least forty (or more) years before. Luke also says that Peter said that God raised Jesus up and “gave him to become visible†(δίδωμι αá½Ï„ός γίνομαι á¼Î¼Ï†Î±Î½Î®Ï‚) but “not to all the people†but only to “the ones having been chosen beforehandâ€.
He became “visible†or “apparent†to the chosen. This is the historical fact. But what does it mean to people in a scientific world or forensic evidence? Can we prove the resurrection? Can we provide tangible evidence for Jesus having “been risenâ€? No, and that is not the intention. What is important is where our senses are focussed. If we look to the grave we will not see the epitome of life. If we look to the martyr and hear his cries of pain, we will overhear the song of life which is meant to be our song. If we only remember what happened then and stress the historicity of occurrences, we will forgo the “now†of the Gospel. The power of the message lies in the fact that it is the message of life and in the fact that Christ is risen every day in those “having been chosen beforehandâ€!
Shalom
Sorry, I should have read your post more carefully.
Maybe. As long as the “broad view” is a very simple one, say the message of the Christian gospel, then I’d probably agree with you. The problem is when people bring a little more intellectual baggage to the text (see Bob’s post above for a good example:)), but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.
That’s not too bad a description. I agree that this would be a preferred approach compared with a hyper-intellectual OR a literal textual fascination (for want of a better label) approach.
Ok, it was probably terms like “wisdom” and “intellect” that threw me off your point. Usually I associate these kind of comments with people who bring a large amount of baggage to the text and end up making it say exactly what it doesn’t say. To use your own example, I’m thinking of people who don’t value swimming but read that “swimming the English Channel in January is a great and worthy thing to do”. Typically, they’ll write a book explaining why the text actually means that there is considerable value in cycling around the British mainland, or preventing other people swimming the channel, or visualizing a happy place in their head where people wear speedos and discuss swimming…absolutely anything other than what the text actually says. But you’re not saying that, I realize now…
I think it’s more of an annoyance than a problem really. I get annoyed hearing Christian Bishops tell people that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead or do any miracles at all. Other than the chance to wear a dress on TV, I wonder what made them become Christian Bishops in the first place.
As you well know, Jesus rising from the dead is found in all 4 gospels and Acts. I fail to see how the “surroundings” raise any significant questions about the meaning of “resurrection”. Ask a non-Christian what the resurrection is, and you’ll get a pretty obvious answer. And it wont involve a discussion of the “surrounding” text.
I think this is a nice example of you bring your own “wisdom” to the text in order to undermine its clearest meaning, perhaps providing a tool to eventually make it say something it doesn’t actually say. I honestly don’t know why you bother if that’s your starting point. Why not just write “the gospel according to Bob” from scratch? It would save time.
If I catch your drift, you’re simply saying that you’ve decided to re-write all the gospel accounts into something more suited for an intellectual like yourself. Did I get that right?
I guess I don’t put much stock in this kind of approach to bible reading. It sounds nice and all, and I’m sure it will impress any New Agers who are still happen to be out there, but honestly what’s the point? If your aim is to read the bible and then disregard all of it’s central claims, then knock yourself out, but I don’t think it’s an approach of any real value.
Ask yourself if a child, or someone like my grandmother who worked in a pickle factory putting tops on pickle jars, could understand the first thing you are talking about here.
I have a few simple rules when it comes to Christian theology…
(i) if it’s not OLD, then it’s probably wrong
(ii) if it’s not understandable by a CHILD/grandmother then it’s probably wrong
(iii) if it’s not held by MOST CHRISTIANS TODAY, then it’s probably wrong.
By my reckoning, your interpretation fails all 3.
Well Ned,
my first comment is that your rules are very similar to the rules of the Roman authorities who had to choose what the Christians were. Once the Jews had made it very clear that they didn’t want to be associated with the Christians, they applied Rules like yours to maintain whether the movement constituted a religion. Unfortunately it wasn’t old, it wasn’t understandable to Roman children and it wasn’t held by most Romans, so it was deemed to be subversive. The test of the day was a pledge of allegiance to the Roman emperor – which most Christians rejected – and they were mostly beheaded quickly in the interest of peace and order.
If the term “New-Age†had been around in those days, then Christians would have probably been given the label. As it was they weren’t and, although the movement survived, there were uncounted victims of such brutal sorting out. Of course such Martyrdom became the ideal for many Christians, but it generally began with an ignorance of what Roman authorities were willing to tolerate.
The second thing I have to say is that you probably can’t help the materialistic approach to the Bible you have demonstrated here. You are, like many others, just conditioned to react the way you do. The fact is though, that there is little “intellectual†involvement here, it has much more to do with intuition and the natural ability of human beings to react to tales, stories and narratives in a way that helps them more than they know. There is a positive psychosomatic process involved in listening to stories, which is why we have done it since the dawning of civilisation and why religious practice goes back roughly the same amount of time.
Nearly all scriptural sources were oral traditions before they were written down and they can still be seen to have all of the attributes of tales that are told around a camp fire. Our problem is that our society has made such practice to seem questionable. People who do such things are primitive, shady, subversive or whatever. In the course of rising education standards, the wisdom of the story-tellers was displaced by the knowledge of the schools. Although education is commendable it is contemptible to eradicate the ancient practice without understanding, which is what numerous educated idiots did. They even attacked the Bible, but instead of defending the narratives of the Bible, educated Christian idiots started to try and give the Bible a different authority than it already had, albeit in a different way.
This isn’t new however. The Pharisees and Scribes had already started emerging as lawyers and legal eagles, acting as though they could force the hand of God by some adept exegesis and adherence to various commandments. Jesus told these people that they were hypocrites. They had no faith and it was only by faith (as small as a mustard-seed) that the chosen could move mountains. Like the literalists of today, they believed that they could hold up the Bible and make claim to some clause that gives them eternal life. The pedantic study of the Bible makes these people, past and present, blind to the treasures that are contained within the tradition. It is a spiritual reading, seeking the experiences of the past, knocking on the door of inspiration and asking the naïve questions of a child that brings people to salvation – not the illusion of possessing the word of God, by which one can “work out†their salvation.
It is sad, because the very things you accuse me of are what you, along with many others, are doing yourselves. I can go to a Kindergarten and tell biblical stories tomorrow and those children will have intuitively understood more than some ardent bible-reader with all of their interpretations, translations and devotionals. It is precisely what people have said about my Bible-meetings, that when re-listening to stories, travelling with the biblical heroes, going through their experiences in their imagination, they suddenly gain insight that hadn’t been aware of before. An insight that makes the stories jump out of the pages and accompanies them for days.
If only this kind of inspiration was common-place, then Christianity wouldn’t be brought into such disrepute by ridiculous claims of inerrancy or historicity. It would be a thriving movement of inspired people who have the courage to be, and not use the Bible as proof of some right to have.
Shalom
I think that the bible is always in need of fresh interpretation. The OT prophets gave a fresh interpretation of the Pentateuch. Jesus, a religious genius, reinterpreted everything based upon his intimate relationship with God. The authors of the NT reinterpreted the OT based on the revelation of Jesus. Paul began a process of hellenization that culminated in a church dogma based on greek philosophy. Modern science has called much of that dogma into question. The 20th century demonstrated the limits of a world view based solely on naturalistic science. Maranatha!
Hi Felix,
Interpretation can mean to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate. In this sense you are right, but often interpretation is understood as to construe or understand in a particular, perhaps biased way. I believe that with natural development and a growing sensibility, mankind came to understand the environment better and has through the centuries come to understand the ancient stories better. That is why a Jesus could explain to his contemporaries better what the core message of the Tanakh is and live that message completely.
We have had several periods of regression in the history of civilisation since Christ and, for all of our supposed material progress, we are only slowly coming out of that regression. The struggles we see in the world are, like in Jesus day, the birth-pains of a new step. We have to show up the limits of world views, we have to develop further – but the journey is not outward, but inward. The scientific dominance will have you believe that they will take you to the stars, but we are an organic part of this planet. We can’t survive elsewhere like we can anywhere on the earth. Our external borders are reached, but the inward journey has much to discover.
Its a shame that people like Ned leave a discussion when it isn’t going their way, and that they fail to see that if you are going to ask how the Bible should be taken literally, that people with yours and my arguments are going to turn up, because we take the Bible seriously.
Shalom
Um, ‘people like Ned’ are actually Christians doing Christianity. You lay down an authoritation explanation of ‘how it is’ that you know full well any and all Christian traditions would say is wrong, and then when you get the predicted result, it’s because of the kind of person the audience is? How many times are you going to do this to yourself; go around, preaching apostasy, getting treated like an apostate, and then blaming the world? I mean, even if you’re right, things are proceding exact how one would have to expect.
I was through with this farce, but c’mon Ucc, your comments are so far out of line even you should be able to see it. Just what is being talked about? Interpretations of translations of interpretations of translations… ad nausea. Just which Bible should be taken literally? The KJV? Or any of a dozen other versions? Perhaps that should be argued about first, huh? Apostacy??? And who are you to declare such a thing? By what authority do you claim to make such subaltern judgement? That you, as well as others have externalized and set in concrete what is, and what isn’t is precisely the problem with religion. Dissect, define in ever more constricted “right and wrong” ways until the message that is supposed to inspire spirituality is smothered.
I’d say more, but I find this whole thing a disgusting display of the “I’m more Christian than you”.
I’m not sure how this is in any way relevant to my previous comment. I mentioned some rules that I, a Christian, use when determining the value of Christian theology. Each of my rule are justified biblically, and we can discuss that if you like. But in your response you relate my rules to Romans persecuting Christians because they deemed them to be atheists (essentially). It seems that you would like to draw a parallel between the Romans (me I presume) and the poor Christians (you I presume).
First of all, I wasn’t aware that I was persecuting you. Do you feel persecuted? I get the feeling that you do sometimes. But I’m not sure why that’s relevant here.
Again, what’s with the persecution complex? How is it relevant that Christians might have been labeled “new age”. Are you trying to start a new religion and find that the authorities are persecuting you? Do you think I’m standing AGAINST you starting a new religion and persecuting you? What’s the parallel here? If you want to start a new religion (as the Christians did) then I’d say knock yourself out! Just don’t call it the same name as one that already exists.
Condescension Bob. Pure and simple. Please stop.
I’ll admit I’m about as educated as you can get and I’m not sure that it’s of any great value either. But unlike your claim, I have no problem with people telling stories. I don’t think they are primitive, shady, subversive, or whatever. I have no desire to eradicate any “ancient practice”. I simply happen to believe that when the bible writers said “Jesus rose from the dead”, they intended the reader to conclude that, “Jesus rose from the dead”, rather than conclude “If we look to the grave we will not see the epitome of life. If we look to the martyr and hear his cries of pain, we will overhear the song of life which is meant to be our song.”. Thats all.
You can disagree with me about God’s involvement in the formation of the scriptural canon if you like, but why is necessary to call people idiots. They clearly were no such thing.
Bob, go ahead and knock yourself out with this approach. But I think it has zero value. Zero! I’ve already explained why. If you bring this amount of your own baggage to the text then you have the ability to make it say WHATEVER you want it to say. Which begs the question, why read the bible at all? Why not just write it? After all thats effectively what you’re doing, isn’t it?
All I accused you of was bringing your own ideas to the bible and using the text to support them. I told you that this approach has zero value in my opinion. I really think you’ve got a persecution complex. What else did I “accuse” you of?
That’s perfectly possible but it doesn’t mean that YOU understand them.
Again, that’s perfectly possible. But it doesn’t mean that your approach to biblical interpretation is of any inherent value.
Bob, lets cut to the chase here. I think we’ve established that you don’t accept the bible as inerrant, you don’t believe the basic creeds of the Christian church, and you don’t value any spiritual authority or church establishment. So, by any normal definition, you are NOT a Christian. So, why do you pretend like your an insider trying to make the church better, when it’s clear to everyone that you’re an outsider lobbing bricks at what everyone else understands as Christianity? It seems a little deceptive to me.
Leave the room for a while and people talk about you, eh? 
Maybe I should develop a persecution complex too.
The argument here isn’t about whether you take the bible seriously. I know that you, Felix, (and Omar!) know the bible on this forum. The argument is about HOW we approach the bible. And I see no value at all in your chosen approach to it.
Then that’s where we differ. I think we need to know the old interpretations.
You’re setting a high bar for those who are able to bring a “fresh” interpretation. Are you up for it?
I wouldn’t blame Paul for that. I’d blame Augustine. I think Paul’s thinking is very earthy and Hebrew. I also dislike greek philosophy mixed with Christianity but why blame Paul?
I don’t see a lot of naturalistic science in the bible. Maybe the old interpretations would seem “fresh” enough to you. Have you read Polycarp or Ignatius?
By almost any normal definition of a Christian, Bob’s views are clearly apostate. I doubt he would argue this point. He would probably argue that his views are still correct despite his apostasy. And he has every right to state this opinion.
I know tent, you’re confused and you want everybody else on earth to be confused too. What the heck do you want me to do about it? Like Ned already covered, it’s not about me being more Christian than anyone else. This is about The Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Baptist, etc…pretty much every Christian group numerous enough that you’ve ever heard of them being in consensus that Bob’s views aren’t Christian. Now, that doesn’t make Bob bad, and that’s not what I’m criticizing. What I’m criticizing is the fact that Bob knows this, knows it all to well, and yet when he presents his strange, minority viewpoints, he reacts to disagreement as though there’s something wrong with everybody else merely on the grounds that they hold a traditional view.
What the hell is it to you, anyway? If you aren’t up enough on Christian theology to know that Bob’s views aren’t an example of it, then stop running your mouth until you know what you’re talking about. Seriously. I know that anybody telling anybody else (except you) that they’re doing religion wrong just ticks you off, but I don’t care. Really.
Yes Ucc, I know you don’t care. And PLEASE don’t even try to tell me what I don’t know about traditional christian thinking. I’ve told you before, I was RAISED in it just like you. The difference is that it left me cold and empty. Why? Because of the very thing I’m witnessing here. You, and others like you, the “traditional” christians, continue to eat the menu and ignore the meal.
I’m confused? No, my friend. You’re the one lost in the words. Instead of understanding you cling to definitions. But that is what traditional christian thought is, isn’t it? Perhaps you are right. If you read the words correctly, say exactly the right things, perform the instructions in the manual, then you can claim a christian religion. Funny, the pharisees thought the same way, and reacted the same way as you do. They knew exactly the authentic jew and the inauthentic babblings of the prophets.
So now it is my turn to “not care”. There is no talking to those who already know how it is. This forum is no longer a place for seekers, but knowers.
Have a swell time.
Tent,
I’d like to point out something that Ned and Ucci are likely to disagree with for obvious reasons, and that is that apostasy isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Ned already alluded to this when he said that if people want to go off on their own way, they are more than welcome to. After all, apostasy is a major mechanism in the development of systems of thought. Indeed, when apostasy is done right, it can supplant orthodoxy! A classic example of this would be Martin Luther, who was clearly an apostate of the Catholic Church. But through his apostasy, we got not only Protestantism, but the Catholic Church managed to clean its own house as well! Plus we get the counter-reformation, and since I love big snazzy ritual centers, heck, I like big snazzy anything, Baroque and Rococo Churches are a fantastic addition to mankind.
Though less striking, there are plenty of others. Take Teilhard, for example. While most of his thought is still waaay out there in terms of Catholic ideology, a lot of it seems to have come into favor. So while his apostasy still goes a step too far for the orthodoxy, a lot of it got incorporated. Or Yi Yulgok, a favorite thinker of mine who caught a lot of flak for his controversial views, but now he’s on Korean currency. Heck, his note is of larger value than that of the man whose ideology he was arguing against! How much more respect could you ask for?
And then there are the real radicals, like the founder(s) of the Baha’i faith. They took Islam in a totally different direction, so much so that it is no longer even vaguely recognizable as Islam.
There is no need to bring issues of “good” and “bad” into it. In a corrupt system, apostasy can be “good”. It seems to me that Bob envisions his position with respect to Christian orthodoxy in that manner. His comments on the Hellenization of Christianity leads me to believe that he feels Hellenic philosophy obscures the true Christian message. From what I’ve gathered, he also thinks that Eastern thought (mostly Buddhism with some Daoism thrown in) can fill in the gaps that the removal of Hellenic thought creates and/or be used to clarify the Bible’s turbid qi. I don’t mean “clarifying turbid qi” in a tongue-and-cheek way, that seems to me to be precisely what he is attempting to do.
I don’t have any problem with that. Personally, I think it is fine and dandy, goes along with my views on pluralism (and how following such a path will ultimately lead the student to something resembling Neo-Confucianism. But I’m horrifically biased on that account ). I don’t think Ned and Ucci have a problem with Bob’s methodology either (aside from fearing for his immortal soul). If I can hazard a guess as to what they have a problem with, and it is something I’m quite sympathetic to, is the label “Christian” with respect to the rectification of names.
Now, quibbles over how names relate to the thing-itself aside, we can agree that names have meaning insofar as we give it to them and are useful only insofar as they are shared. Even Derrida is on the boat with this one. He thought that we can never fully communicate the thought that is in our head through language, but even his radical position holds that we can transmit a pretty decent facsimile of it as re-imagined by the listener. What needs to be avoided here is a breakdown of language. While a cat and a dog both share “petness”, it would be a mistake to call a cat a dog and vice-versa. Once that starts happening, neither word has any meaning. Even someone like me, who thinks that names have real power, knows that calling a cat a dog doesn’t make it so. The right name for the right thing is terribly important.
Now, neither Ned nor Ucci have an army of Inquisitors at their command, and even if they did I’d like to think they wouldn’t let them loose. Their label of apostate is simply a matter of applying the correct name to the correct thing. Ned has already recognized that Bob knows his Bible, and this whole conversation revolves around all of their really liking this Jesus guy. But you know that a text does not a tradition make. You’ve said it many times yourself! Nor does the admiration of a particular individual a tradition make. It isn’t a matter of little intangibles either. Both Ned and Ucci, who are very different sorts of Christians, no doubt disagree on a lot of little intangibles with respect to Christianity, but they are more than willing to see past those and recognize each other as fellow Christians. Heck, Ned has publicly recognized Soldout as a fellow Christian, all this while disagreeing with most of what Soldout said. Plus, that dude is downright loopy. But there is a commonality that is recognized with respect to Christian doctrine, and what is a Christian but someone who identifies with Christian doctrine? I mean, my girlfriend thinks that Christ was a Bodhisattva . . . does that make her a Christian? Personally, I don’t think so. Do you? I’m serious. Should my girlfriend be called a Christian because of her respect for Christ, even going so far as to recognize him as having a divine status. Or what about me? As I’ve made clear elsewhere, Jesus ain’t really my bag, but I see a lot of value in Christianity. Am I a Christian? Where is the line?
I’ll leave you with this thought: to become a student of Wang Yangming, the individual in question had to declare their intention to become a sage. But he also kicked students out. Why would he do this?
Then perhaps you should limit your discussions to children, or other people who's sole qualification in Christian theology is 'being raised in it'. There comes a point where that fails to impress, and you should have reached it long long ago.
You need any help packing your hubris?
Xunz,
I do know that the term apostacy is, in itself, not good or bad. It can be either. It was the tone in which it was offered, much like the retort above. Subtle coercion is still coercion.
The ad homs add nothing, but simply reinforce what I observed. There is a less than subtle right-wrong attitude here that is pervasive and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. Again, this forum is no longer a welcome place for seekers, just the knowers.
Ucc,
You’re right. I will limit my discussions to those who have the insight of a child and let go those puffed up with their intellectualized theology.
Hubris? Not here. Perhaps you should take a glance in the mirror.
Hi Ned,
If you set up a set of rules which have similarity to the rules of people who were known to have persecuted Christians, then it isn’t strange that someone could see a parallel – although the parallel I drew is only intended to show that similarity, no more. I do not see you as having any power over me at all – nor am I persecuted. However, as has been the case throughout history, the church has repeatedly shown an uncanny tendency to use the methods of their opposites when supposedly defending their causes – except it doesn’t defend but rather compromises them.
Again, you were playing the label game, which is an old method of undermining the words of another. It has been used in the past, again (as you say yourself) at the time when the church was growing – that in itself should call us to caution when dealing with other people. How was the golden rule again …?
I appreciate your feeling it was meant that way, but I was really just saddened by your answer and came to the conclusion that in the religious environment you are in it may be just inevitable. In fact, I have otherwise valued the exchange we have had but when it comes to name-calling I see that as the strategy of a group.
Again, it isn’t you (you have taken this personal haven’t you), but the church that has tried to upgrade their message to be academically acceptable throughout the ages. If you know that the spiritual traditions that preceded Christianity were often based on legends and mythology and debunk that as “gobbledygook†and throughout the centuries you burn people to death as witches and heretics or whatever, creating a counter-movement that uses liturgical Latin literally turned around to serve as spells to incur the Anti-Christ, then you can appreciate that a few story-tellers decapitated on the way is no great deal.
If you then hear the outcry against “Harry Potter†and other harmless fantasy tales, or hear how people try to underline that JRR Tolkien was a Christian and a friend of CS Lewis, just to make the Lord Of The Rings acceptable, the you know that this mentality is not far away. That is forgetting the extremist positions of some American evangelical groups about which we have already talked. When Christians become so defensive it is because their own message is being devalued in their eyes, but that is because Christians are conditioned that way. They can’t see that they are starving the masses by claiming that their Bible is history and that it is to be taken literally, and the fact that these people turn to other mythology is the result.
I had a long exchange with a New Testament historian some years ago (who had been the subject of evangelical rantings) and it became quite clear that it isn’t possible – and it isn’t relevant – to claim that the Bible is history. Marcus Borg has an answer for the modern day and yet he too is denounced. In Europe, in the 70’s, Billy Graham came to Germany and started off a dispute which cut the church in half. Modern theology against literalism. The polarity of this argument led to the fact that, in my eyes, neither side was completely right. Both adopted extremist positions and people fled from the church.
I was using the term “educated idiot†to describe people who are utterly foolish or insensible despite their education. Yes, there are many foolish people within the church and I have come across a number who showed themselves to be incapable of feeling or perceiving what is necessary in a certain situation.
So you believe that studying the ancient languages, attempting to find out what was originally meant and how did it sound to people, what connotations did it awaken, is “rewriting†the Bible. The strange thing about telling biblical stories the way I do is that nobody asks whether it “really happened that way†- except people who have an evangelical slant. The others just go along with the storyline and reach the point of recognition at the end. The question at the end is (for example), “Who was the neighbour in the story?†and the message is, “Then go and do likewise!â€
The funny thing is that you say to Felix, “Then that’s where we differ. I think we need to know the old interpretations†but surely you know of the saying of Christ (Mat 13:52), “For this reason, every scribe having been made a disciple in the kingdom of the heavens is like a person, a householder, who brings out from his treasury new and old …†The treasury is the Tanakh or OT, and in there you will find inspiration and wisdom, new and old. Jesus spoke in allegories to such a degree that he annoyed the Scribes and Pharisees who were up to debating theology, but not up to hearing the new and old out of the treasury of the householder. This is something which has unfortunately created martyrs within the church too.
If you can’t see that church history (even if you only take the things we know) shows Christians making all of the mistakes of the OT and more, then I suppose I am a critic of the church. But I see it as self-criticism, and my approach fully in sync with the Prophets and Christ. If we are talking about potential persecution, well, yes it would be people like me rather than people like you who would more likely be burned or crucified – but, I’m in good company.
Shalom
Glad to hear it. But I’m still not sure what your point was in talking about Romans and Christians versus my rules for Christian theology. If you had a point, I’m not hearing it.
I wasn’t playing any game with labels. You provided your interpretation of a passage. I explained why I thought it was an incorrect interpretation and further explained that I found your whole approach to bible interpretation suspect. You clearly disagree. Where are the labels? You have your method. I don’t like it. Would you rather I don’t say so?
Again, I’m not sure where the “name-calling” occurred. We were talking about how we interpret the bible. I disagree with you. Does that amount to name-calling? I took exception to your condescending tone which maybe resulted from you thinking I was “name-calling”. But I don’t understand where or when I called you any names.
Maybe I do take criticism of the church personally some times. That’s probably because I love the church. I see many, many problems with it, but I love the institution itself. I get the sense that you don’t so when you attack it I’ll sometimes agree but sometimes feel like it needs some defense.
I’m aware of some of the limitations of evangelical Christianity but I’m not sure why this point is relevant here. I thought we were talking about biblical interpretation and now were on to Harry Potter. You have an approach to the bible that I dislike. I stated clearly (I hope) why I dislike it and in defense of your aporach you’ve started hammering away at evengelical Christianity and it’s limitations. I think we’re getting off track.
And I will quite happily denounce Marcus Borg. His liberal theology views run counter to Christian theology as far as I can tell. Thankfully liberal Christainity is dying in the US so we don’t really have to bother too much about it.
The debate does get very polarized sometimes and that’s unfortunate. But there is value in stating clearly where we disagree rather than pretending disagreements don’t exist.
That seems like just a clever way to say that people who disagree with you are idiots.
No, if that’s what you think I said then you’re not listening. I said that approaching the bible with a great deal of intellectual baggage and a preconceived notion about what it will say is essentially worthless. And that’s what I think you are doing.