Biblical Instructions versus Conservative Interpretation

[johnmarc]

I have been on this forum long enough to recognize that one of the staples here is, How can you believe/support an evil God? The proponent of this position continues to list the many negative attributes of God in the hope that the conservative Christian turns away.

I submit that this line of questioning is aimed squarely at the symptoms of the issue and not the cause. As a result an effective case cannot be made.

I further submit that the underlying factors that determine a literal interpretation of the Bible have little to do with the Bible. It has to do with conservatism itself. I have yet to find a conservative Christian who does not wholly believe and support what they find in the Bible---independent of the Bible. In other words, if the Bible did not exist, their beliefs would be the same.

They are foisting their own personal and deeply held positions and prejudices onto the Bible---not the other way around. With over one thousand interpretations of Christianity, it is easy to understand why this is so. The Bible becomes the mouthpiece (and the whipping boy) for positions that are read into the Bible. The Bible isnt changing Christians; Christians are changing the Bible.

If any of this is true, atheists are attacking the messenger---so to speak. The real target is conservatism itself. What is it about the worldview of conservative individuals that cause them to cherry pick through the Bible to confirm what they already believe? And in this present day and time there is much to choose, but dissing the Bible wont make a dent because none of this is about the Bible.

Question for Debate:

(A) Does the Bible mold Christians into followers of Jesus?

Or

(B) Do Christians manipulate the Bible into support for their pre-existing positions?

[Adamoriens]

It would be helpful to know in what ways you think a text has meaning. If the Bible is truly ambiguous, it could hardly be said to have interpretations "foisted" upon it. I'm not sure if conservative Christianity is correctly informed by the Bible, but it seems to me that they would make a similar claim about liberal interpretations. Liberal readings also cherry pick the text and rely implicitly on traditions without the Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

Question for Debate:

(A) Does the Bible mold Christians into followers of Jesus?

Or

(B) Do Christians manipulate the Bible into support for their pre-existing positions?

The two ae not mutually exclusive, my response would be yes to both.

Without the bible there would be no information about Jesus to become his followers. Any written information, with the possible exception of a telephone directory, can be used to support various conclusions.

[David 2.0]

My first thought is that a yes answer may apply to both question.

Although I would think that the bible "molds" in a fashion that relates to how it is understood by the reader? Which makes it unclear exactly who is doing the molding.

Johnmarc wrote...

How can you believe/support an evil God? The proponent of this position continues to list the many negative attributes of God in the hope that the conservative Christian turns away...."

The irony for me is that on some level the antagonist has become a literalist here.
I will show you the fault in a literal interpretation by bring to the table my own literal interpretation?

[johnmarc]

It would be helpful to know in what ways you think a text has meaning. If the Bible is truly ambiguous, it could hardly be said to have interpretations "foisted" upon it. I'm not sure if conservative Christianity is correctly informed by the Bible, but it seems to me that they would make a similar claim about liberal interpretations. Liberal readings also cherry pick the text and rely implicitly on traditions without the Bible.

I am not sure that the cause of all of this is ambiguity---in some cases, certainly. The Bible is complex and complicated but cherry-picking is not a harvest of ambiguities. It is by its nature a harvest of (some) particulars.

For hundreds of years, the Christians quoting the Bible supported slavery. The fact that almost all Christians now reading the Bible condemn slavery is not a case of modern Christianity 'losing' the verses.

Look around for a couple of liberal interpretations and demonstrate for me how they "also cherry pick the text" I have my own sense about that, but would like to hear your's first.

[johnmarc]

Without the bible there would be no information about Jesus to become his followers. Any written information, with the possible exception of a telephone directory, can be used to support various conclusions.

Given how numerology is used in the Bible and other texts, yes, numerologists could give you a precise (and immanent) time for the end of the earth using a telephone book.

[johnmarc]

The irony for me is that on some level the antagonist has become a literalist here.
I will show you the fault in a literal interpretation by bring to the table my own literal interpretation?

Now, this opened my eyes. You seems to be saying to the antagonistic argument for an evil God---"When did God become literal for you?" It is rather difficult to make that argument from a position 'outside of God'. God is either a fairy tale (and therefore not real and therefore not really evil), or God is actual.

I learn stuff around here all of the time.

[David 2.0]

The irony for me is that on some level the antagonist has become a literalist here.
I will show you the fault in a literal interpretation by bring to the table my own literal interpretation?

Now, this opened my eyes. You seems to be saying to the antagonistic argument for an evil God---"When did God become literal for you?" It is rather difficult to make that argument from a position 'outside of God'. God is either a fairy tale (and therefore not real and therefore not really evil), or God is actual.

I learn stuff around here all of the time.

Yep, pretty much what I was thinking.

Additionally I have noticed that the antagonist in your situation will often time choose what cherrys to allow into the argument.

God is omniscient, omnipresent and omni-benevolent but he is completely knowable, and should behave as I see it, and like I would expect it.
Therefore he is evil...

To the antagonist often the "know-ability of God" is considered to be a special pleading, even though one could make the argument that it is "indicated" (one of the cherrys one could choose?) within the pages of the bible and other holy text.

Seems simular to me.

[Confused]

I have been on this forum long enough to recognize that one of the staples here is, How can you believe/support an evil God? The proponent of this position continues to list the many negative attributes of God in the hope that the conservative Christian turns away.

I submit that this line of questioning is aimed squarely at the symptoms of the issue and not the cause. As a result an effective case cannot be made.

I further submit that the underlying factors that determine a literal interpretation of the Bible have little to do with the Bible. It has to do with conservatism itself. I have yet to find a conservative Christian who does not wholly believe and support what they find in the Bible---independent of the Bible. In other words, if the Bible did not exist, their beliefs would be the same.

They are foisting their own personal and deeply held positions and prejudices onto the Bible---not the other way around. With over one thousand interpretations of Christianity, it is easy to understand why this is so. The Bible becomes the mouthpiece (and the whipping boy) for positions that are read into the Bible. The Bible isnt changing Christians; Christians are changing the Bible.

If any of this is true, atheists are attacking the messenger---so to speak. The real target is conservatism itself. What is it about the worldview of conservative individuals that cause them to cherry pick through the Bible to confirm what they already believe? And in this present day and time there is much to choose, but dissing the Bible wont make a dent because none of this is about the Bible.

Question for Debate:

(A) Does the Bible mold Christians into followers of Jesus?

I am not so sure it is the Bible itself that does the molding. Because scripture is so often open to interpretation, beliefs can vary quite dramatically. However, most peoples initial interpretation is what is taught to them rather than what they glean for themselves. Whether it is from a pastor, a parent, or a friend, early on in life a person comes to understand scripture by what is taught to them until they can read it for themselves and then (much later in life) are able to discern their own interpretation of what they have read. However, some people are so indoctrinated to believe what they are taught, they may never be able to discern their own interpretation. I hope these individuals are the exception to the norm. I fear they are not.

(B) Do Christians manipulate the Bible into support for their pre-existing positions?

I suspect some do it willingly and some may do it unwittingly. It's easy to make whatever prejudices you hold fit into scripture or make scripture fit in them. That is one of the major problems with such vague "teachings". The more open to interpretation they are, the more they are exploited to be used in ways that are detrimental. The more unhappy a society is, the easier it is to justify doing "wrong" things because of some deeply held belief and when you can find justification for such actions in such a Holy Book, well..... history is a wonderful record of what happens.

[Adamoriens]

It would be helpful to know in what ways you think a text has meaning. If the Bible is truly ambiguous, it could hardly be said to have interpretations "foisted" upon it. I'm not sure if conservative Christianity is correctly informed by the Bible, but it seems to me that they would make a similar claim about liberal interpretations. Liberal readings also cherry pick the text and rely implicitly on traditions without the Bible.

I am not sure that the cause of all of this is ambiguity---in some cases, certainly. The Bible is complex and complicated but cherry-picking is not a harvest of ambiguities. It is by its nature a harvest of (some) particulars.

For hundreds of years, the Christians quoting the Bible supported slavery. The fact that almost all Christians now reading the Bible condemn slavery is not a case of modern Christianity 'losing' the verses.

Look around for a couple of liberal interpretations and demonstrate for me how they "also cherry pick the text" I have my own sense about that, but would like to hear your's first.

I have a feeling that if I start quoting liberal interpretations of the Bible, this discussion will become an argument about whether liberal or conservative interpretations are most correct. At any rate, it seems to me that both liberal and conservative Christians miss the import of the primitive cosmology and social mores, the hints of polytheism and the painfully anthropomorphic nature of God. There are theologies that some of these into consideration (process theology, open theism, theistic evolution), but the overall impulse seems to be the reduction of cognitive dissonance for conservatives and the creation of a more humanistic religion for liberals. And they will claim that they're more true to the particulars or to the spirit of the text.

If you'd still like me to pick apart some particular interpretation, I wonder if you'd define "cherrypicking" to avoid confusion. Is it the unjustified emphasis of one portion of the text over another? Perhaps you'd also like to recommend somebody. I've read Spong; does he count as liberal?