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?

[johnmarc]

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?

Yes
Yes
Yes
Spong or Borg will do.

The Liberal (Progressive) Christian movement identifies with themes in the text. Ideally, the theme with the greatest of number examples is primary and so on down the list. As far as I know, this list has never been created so obviously interpretations can vary, but being directed by themes and being directed by text is a very different thing and does in fact recognize the entirely human nature of the whole.

[Adamoriens]

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?

Yes
Yes
Yes
Spong or Borg will do.

The Liberal (Progressive) Christian movement identifies with themes in the text. Ideally, the theme with the greatest of number examples is primary and so on down the list. As far as I know, this list has never been created so obviously interpretations can vary, but being directed by themes and being directed by text is a very different thing and does in fact recognize the entirely human nature of the whole.

It's my understanding that Bishop Spong denies that there is a person who can be identified as "God", much less that there's a tribal deity who has historically favoured certain Semitic peoples. I understand he also denies the historical occurrence of miracles, including the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as the Incarnation.

That's pretty much Judaism and Christianity right there. If that's not foisting one's own deeply held beliefs and prejudices onto the Bible, I'm not sure what is.

In fairness, I think it's incumbent on you to show that your charges as per the original post are true. Is the typical conservative reading of the Bible (ie. literal) completely misdirected by the bible's own standards? Does a reasonably informed literal reading do violence to the text? The suggestion seems quite absurd; Spong's liberal reading guts the book of pretty much any metaphysical significance, which seems quite contrary to its original intent.

[johnmarc]

It's my understanding that Bishop Spong denies that there is a person who can be identified as "God", much less that there's a tribal deity who has historically favoured certain Semitic peoples. I understand he also denies the historical occurrence of miracles, including the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as the Incarnation.

This is my understanding as well.

That's pretty much Judaism and Christianity right there. If that's not foisting one's own deeply held beliefs and prejudices onto the Bible, I'm not sure what is.

Would you then claim that Galileo foisted his own deeply held beliefs and prejudices onto his present day astronomy? Spong is bowing to science, objectivity, and historical critical methodology---not his own deeply held beliefs and prejudices. Most liberals come from Evangelical Christianity. Their world-views have been changed, not reinforced.

In fairness, I think it's incumbent on you to show that your charges as per the original post are true. Is the typical conservative reading of the Bible (ie. literal) completely misdirected by the bible's own standards? Does a reasonably informed literal reading do violence to the text? The suggestion seems quite absurd; Spong's liberal reading guts the book of pretty much any metaphysical significance, which seems quite contrary to its original intent.

I dont have a clue as to what its original intent might be. Lets take Matthew, for instance. It is crystal clear that whoever Matthew was, he was not an eyewitness to the events of which he wrote. If he were present and wrote of his first hand observations, we might call this history and make an educated guess, but as things stand now we can only wonder about his original intent. Did Moses write the Book of Genesis after personally witnessing the events he describes? The answer is no and no. Can we determine the authors original intent when we cannot even identify the author?

And to be fair to the Bible, we cannot assume that a book written by ancient individuals for folks with a primitive worldview is presently best viewed from its original intent.

Aligning oneself with commonly held themes within the Bible seems far more objective than picking through the Bible verse by verse to create Gods plan for the world.

[Adamoriens]

That's pretty much Judaism and Christianity right there. If that's not foisting one's own deeply held beliefs and prejudices onto the Bible, I'm not sure what is.

Would you then claim that Galileo foisted his own deeply held beliefs and prejudices onto his present day astronomy? Spong is bowing to science, objectivity, and historical critical methodology---not his own deeply held beliefs and prejudices. Most liberals come from Evangelical Christianity. Their world-views have been changed, not reinforced.

Your original charge was that the factors underlying a literal interpretation of the Bible had little to do with the Bible. My point is that the same is true for liberal theology as represented by Spong. Is Spong any more authentic to the text than the typical conservative?

In fairness, I think it's incumbent on you to show that your charges as per the original post are true. Is the typical conservative reading of the Bible (ie. literal) completely misdirected by the bible's own standards? Does a reasonably informed literal reading do violence to the text? The suggestion seems quite absurd; Spong's liberal reading guts the book of pretty much any metaphysical significance, which seems quite contrary to its original intent.

I dont have a clue as to what its original intent might be. Lets take Matthew, for instance. It is crystal clear that whoever Matthew was, he was not an eyewitness to the events of which he wrote. If he were present and wrote of his first hand observations, we might call this history and make an educated guess, but as things stand now we can only wonder about his original intent. Did Moses write the Book of Genesis after personally witnessing the events he describes? The answer is no and no. Can we determine the authors original intent when we cannot even identify the author?

If we're unsure of the true intent of the Bible, we're in no position to say that any one view is theologically suspect.

And to be fair to the Bible, we cannot assume that a book written by ancient individuals for folks with a primitive worldview is presently best viewed from its original intent.

Aligning oneself with commonly held themes within the Bible seems far more objective than picking through the Bible verse by verse to create Gods plan for the world.

Major themes would presumably include God's intimate relationship with the Jewish peoples and his redemption of mankind through the divinely-incarnate Jesus of Nazareth. These are in fact the most significant themes in the Bible, yet Spong denies the essence and coherence of both.

[johnmarc]

Your original charge was that the factors underlying a literal interpretation of the Bible had little to do with the Bible. My point is that the same is true for liberal theology as represented by Spong. Is Spong any more authentic to the text than the typical conservative?

Authentic in this context is going to be difficult to determine. Logical, reasonable, rational, and objective is not. And none of this directly answers the OP. If I grant that you are correct---that fundamentalists and liberals use their own preconceptions to distort the text---is attacking the text debilitating to Christians? Your answer and my answer would be, No. The text is the messenger/symptom and the root cause for conservatism lies elsewhere. Attack an Evil God all that you wish, but an Evil God is not what is giving us conservatism.

If we're unsure of the true intent of the Bible, we're in no position to say that any one view is theologically suspect.

Correct. But we are in a position to say that one view is more or less logically, reasonably, scientifically, objectively, rationally (and even politically) suspect.

Major themes would presumably include God's intimate relationship with the Jewish peoples and his redemption of mankind through the divinely-incarnate Jesus of Nazareth. These are in fact the most significant themes in the Bible, yet Spong denies the essence and coherence of both.

Perhaps you are confusing plot with theme or perhaps I am confusing theme with moral. If the events of the Bible cannot be shown to be actual we cannot claim historicity for the text. The claimed events of the Bible are reduced (enhanced, the Progressive community would claim) to aphorism, moral, metaphor, parable, and mythological structures. Turning water into wine is not seen as a physical miracle performed in the past but a present day admonition to turn common into sublime.

That Jesus went here and there and did this and that is plot. That Jesus (and the Bible generally) communicated an evenhanded justice for all people (but especially the marginalized) is theme.

Literalists are fussing over the number of golden eggs. Liberals are examining their lives in light of the moral. I submit that it is not about the story, but about the response to the story.

Either way, kicking the story in the teeth is not a direct pathway towards anything.

[Adamoriens]

Given your admissions, your criticism in the OP seems empty. Liberal interpretations are guilty of each transgression and unapologetically so. For all the talk of theological complexity, Spong's liberal interpretation strips away the theological ontology of the Bible and then claims that nothing is lost. But this is obviously false; the Bible purports to be a history with implications beyond the mere ethical.

What's really ironic is that liberals will accuse atheists of misreading Christianity and erecting straw men. Is there anything in liberalism besides aesthetically-pleasing stories? Is it even coherent to refer to a liberal interpretation as true? Is there anything of theological significance to be said about the world?

[johnmarc]

Given your admissions, your criticism in the OP seems empty. Liberal interpretations are guilty of each transgression and unapologetically so.

Liberal interpretations are guilty of de-literalizing the Bible. If that guts the Bible in your mind, so be it. But the process of de-literalizing does not come from preconceived notions foisted onto the Bible. It comes from 400 years of objective academic research. The only way that any of this could be called a transgression would be the discovery of new information that proved Historical Critical methodology false. That would take a miracle (and yes that was a pun)

For all the talk of theological complexity, Spong's liberal interpretation strips away the theological ontology of the Bible and then claims that nothing is lost. But this is obviously false; the Bible purports to be a history with implications beyond the mere ethical.

Spongs deliteralizing of the Bible strips away its literal aspects. If we were to discover that one of the hundreds of literal interpretations was correct, then yes Spong would be doing damage to the text. Until that time, Spong is either rendering the Bible meaningless or providing mythological structures upon which a modern people can continue to derive (a different) meaning from the text. Yes, the Bible purports to be a history, but it is not a history and we damage the text by assuming that the ancient context can be read in a modern context.

Are you implying that Matthews bodies rising from their graves must be taken literally for us to honor Matthews intentions? Matthew certainly saw no such thing and we do not honor him or the text to claim that he did.

What's really ironic is that liberals will accuse atheists of misreading Christianity and erecting straw men. Is there anything in liberalism besides aesthetically-pleasing stories? Is it even coherent to refer to a liberal interpretation as true? Is there anything of theological significance to be said about the world?

If God does not exist, is there anything in the Bible besides aesthetically-pleasing stories? Can any of it be considered (in a modern context) true? The liberal Christian answers, Yes. When we remove the onus of an after death and out of this world heaven and hell and propose that heaven and hell are present day environments that we create for ourselves, we can make efforts to live fully in this life and not fuss over preparations for an afterlife. A literal heaven and hell cannot be shown to be true. A mythological structure that describes our lowest lows as hell and our highest highs as heaven can be shown to be true. Can this be considered significant? A resounding, Yes.

[Adamoriens]

Liberal interpretations are guilty of de-literalizing the Bible. If that guts the Bible in your mind, so be it. But the process of de-literalizing does not come from preconceived notions foisted onto the Bible. It comes from 400 years of objective academic research. The only way that any of this could be called a transgression would be the discovery of new information that proved Historical Critical methodology false. That would take a miracle (and yes that was a pun)

I return again to your original complaint about biblical conservatism; it implicitly operates on assumptions that are alien to the Bible, unacknowledged prejudices that cause conservatives to cherry pick passages to support their position. My so far unchallenged observation is that liberalism does the same thing, exchanging inerrancy and the assumption of historical fact with the very opposite. And it does this not because it's more theological sound or true to the authors' intent, but because of factors that have nothing to do with the Bible.

So, if conservatism is a problem because it's not about the Bible, liberalism suffers the same defect. I still wonder what your beef with conservatism is. The best I can come up with is that the problem with conservatism is that it is 1) not liberalism; and 2) it's probably false. That liberalism evades the first and probably the second (by dint of making no theological/ontological claims) criticisms does not entail that it's somehow better; just different.

It's hard to see, then, how atheists could be erecting a straw man when there's no man.

Spongs deliteralizing of the Bible strips away its literal aspects. If we were to discover that one of the hundreds of literal interpretations was correct, then yes Spong would be doing damage to the text. Until that time, Spong is either rendering the Bible meaningless or providing mythological structures upon which a modern people can continue to derive (a different) meaning from the text. Yes, the Bible purports to be a history, but it is not a history and we damage the text by assuming that the ancient context can be read in a modern context.

The only kind of interpretive violence there is occurs when we distort a text from its original meaning. When I read the Bible and find that it is false on a conservative reading, that does not mean that the conservative reading is a damaging one. For the record, Spong's reading is no less damaging then a modern one, his being post-modern. There's no assurance that postmodern theology somehow better apprehends the Bible; on its own terms it's simply incapable of saying that some interpretation is better than another. From what you've said, I read you as voluntarily divesting yourself of any authority on the matter.

Are you implying that Matthews bodies rising from their graves must be taken literally for us to honor Matthews intentions? Matthew certainly saw no such thing and we do not honor him or the text to claim that he did.

That's an insignificant example. Spong denies that the biggest theological propositions in the Bible are true or even coherent, whilst simultaneously affirming that their loss is not the least bit significant theologically. Honouring Matthew intentions would include taking him to literally believe that there is a God and that Jesus of Nazareth literally was resurrected. In this sense I find conservatism to be much more faithful to the text, while liberals are off somewhere else superimposing the post-modern onto the ancient and accusing the conservatives of irrelevance.

[Malachi-Zede-El]

Conservative Interpretation = Their own ( Interpretation ) Meaning having their own Interpretation / Doctrine created by themselves and not God ,Interpretation
Hummmmm

[Flail]

Biblical interpretations on all sides are, of course, subjective; and since we don't even know the identity of most biblical authors the interpretations and speculations have always been and will continue to be rampant. For the most part however, it seems that interpretation has everything to do with indoctrination and emotion and nothing to do with absolute or objective truth. When it comes to an actual 'God' is it even possible for any of us to know what we are talking about?