Wednesday, December 3, 2014
This is the answer Dan's been whining about, I'm posting it here and now so it is out there with a time stamp.
““I am confident that scripture is both accurate and authoritative,” you DO recognize that what you are saying is “I am confident that MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of these texts (and the many who agree with me) is accurate and authoritative…”?”
No, I am most assuredly NOT saying that. I am saying that Scripture is accurate and authoritative no matter what my interpretation is. For example. If I interpreted scripture to say that no God exists, my interpretation is wrong for scripture clearly claims otherwise. Scripture is what it is and says what it says, no matter what interpretations people come up with. Now, if you want to argue against that authority of scripture, feel free, but you’ll need more that “It’s my opinion.” .
“ If you recognize this, on what basis should anyone accept your claim to having an “accurate” and “authoritative” human opinion? “
No basis, as I’ve never once suggested that I have an “accurate and authoritative human opinion.”. Again, your problem is in assuming that I have said something I have not said, coupled with your presumption that scripture is neither accurate nor authoritative. Both of which remain to be proven with “hard data”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Craig...
If I interpreted scripture to say that no God exists, my interpretation is wrong for scripture clearly claims otherwise.
You misunderstand my point. When you make the claim (IF you made the claim) that "No God exists, and I know it because the Bible says so!" you are stating/appealing to your personal interpretation of the texts, not "God" or ultimately even "the Bible." You are appealing to a human interpretation when you make claims about YOUR personal interpretations.
Dan: I think the Bible clearly teaches pacifism/peacemaking, not warmaking... this is an appeal to DAN's human interpretation, not the Bible.
Craig: I think the Bible clearly teaches all homosexual behavior is sinful... this is an appeal to CRAIG's human interpretation, not the Bible.
We both are looking at biblical texts, but the conclusions are ours.
With that clarification, do you now understand?
When you make this claim...
I am saying that Scripture is accurate and authoritative no matter what my interpretation is.
I would ask on what basis you make that claim? And how are you defining "accurate" and "authoritative" in that context and on what basis do you make THOSE claims?
The Bible never claims that "scripture" is "accurate." Not once. The Bible certainly never claims that the Bible is accurate.
The Bible never claims that the Bible or scripture are authoritative.
On what bases, then, do you make the claims?
Craig...
Scripture is what it is and says what it says, no matter what interpretations people come up with.
Let me give an example...
The Bible ("scripture") contains a line that says...
"Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest."
Deut 23
It's abundantly clear. Don't charge interest. Beyond that, it is an oft-repeated command. In the NT, Luke quotes Jesus...
And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great
So, according to Jesus, not only don't charge interest, but loan and don't expect ANYTHING back.
Now, according to YOUR statement, Scripture is what it is and says what it says, no matter what interpretations people come up with.
So, clearly, Scripture IS what it is and says what it says and here it says - JESUS says - lend to people and expect NOTHING back. So, if you interpret it to mean something OTHER than that, you are wrong, is that what you're saying? That there is no debate about whether or not we should expect interest or even the principle back when we loan/give it away?
OR, is it the case that these beloved words of Jesus are not a rule book or a ruling, giving a one time command for all people and times and situations? That this is not the intent of this passage (and we can tell by the way the author - LUKE, in this case - never made that claim)?
You tell me, but I rather doubt you take it literally. If you do, though, I'm begging you to give me $10,000 (keeping in mind that Jesus - the Scriptures! - literally says a few verses earlier, "Give to everyone who begs from you")...
Peace.
Craig...
I am saying that Scripture is accurate and authoritative no matter what my interpretation is.
Looking at this another way: Who determines whose interpretation is correct (and therefore, accurate and authoritative)?
You say that you lean towards treating Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history (I believe that is your leaning). I say that I lean towards treating it as myth.
Or, on the topic of killing and war, we have ten different Bible readers with ten different opinions/interpretations about what the various texts mean for us today.
Whose interpretation is the "right" one and on what basis?
If my interpretation is the right one and that interpretation would include the notion that the Bible is not a rulings book where we go to find definitive rulings for moral behaviors today, then is that authoritative and accurate?
If so, then on what basis would you not accept my interpretation? Because you personally hold a different interpretation? But you could be wrong, is this not correct?
So, in what sense is your interpretation accurate and authoritative, vis a vis my interpretation?
Craig...
coupled with your presumption that scripture is neither accurate nor authoritative. Both of which remain to be proven with “hard data”.
the facts (ie, Hard Data):
1. The Bible never makes claim to perfect historic accuracy. Fact.
2. The Bible never makes a claim as to being "scripture." Fact.
3. the Bible makes no claims as to being "authoritative." Fact.
4. The Bible makes no claims as to being a User's Guide for Atari Game systems. Fact.
Given these facts, none of us have ANY reason to suspect that we SHOULD take the Bible as User's Guide for Atari. You agree with this, right?
Given that agreement, on what basis would we make the similar demand that we must assume the Bible is "accurate" (by which you probably mean historically factual in a literal sense, when it comes to the stories therein) or "authoritative," (by which you probably mean that the Bible is our "sole" or "primary" source for knowledge about moral behavior)?
The fact is, I just have no reason to believe your apparent claims, so why would I?
DT
Craig...
coupled with your presumption that scripture is neither accurate nor authoritative. Both of which remain to be proven with “hard data”.
So, interestingly, I have no "presumption" here. I'm merely stating the facts of the text: That it makes no claim to perfect historical accuracy nor to being authoritative (and certainly not the "primary" or "sole" authority) as to moral behavior. You are the one making a presumption, is that not correct?
Are you not saying, in effect, that "although the Bible makes no claims to being an accurate historical record nor to being THE primary source for moral behavior, I am presuming both of those claims, based upon my readings and my personal interpretations (along with the wide road of many traditional interpretations) of what the Bible might be implying..."?
Presumption (MW): a belief that something is true even though it has not been proved
Am I not taking the more conservative and literalist reading of the text on this point, while you are making presumptions, by definition?
Am I mistaken? If so, how?
Craig, on an unrelated note: why "jsmmdS" instead of "jsmmdT"? Or have I asked that before?
Craig...
Now, if you want to argue against that authority of scripture, feel free, but you’ll need more that “It’s my opinion.” .
1. I'm not arguing against "the authority of Scripture." I'm pointing out that "scripture" makes no claim to be THE "authority." That is just a flat, demonstrable fact.
2. If some humans want to argue that, even though the various texts of the Bible make no claims that a. the human-selected books of the Bible are "scripture;" and b. the various texts of the Bible make no claims to be The Authority or The Primary Authority...
...if some humans nonetheless want to make that claim on behalf of the human-compiled books of the Bible, they are free to do so, but they should acknowledge right up front that this is ENTIRELY their opinions, unsupported by anything God has publicly said or that the Bible claims about itself. That is, they (you?) have to do something more than say "it's my opinion," AND they should begin by being upfront that it IS their opinion or produce some documentation from God or whomever it is they want to claim to speak for.
So yes, by all means, if you are making this as an authoritative claim, offer something other than your opinion. Or at least man up and admit it IS only your unsupported and unproven/unprovable opinion.
And to be clear, Craig - lest my words come across as harsh or angry - I'm just asking you to support what you are claiming with something much like what you're asking from me. Given that you ask me to support it, I'm sure you can understand that for yourself, you, too, must have something more than "it's just my opinion..." if you want others to accept it as anything more than an unsupported opinion.
I love you, Craig, as a brother in Christ and none of these responses are intended to be anything but respectful, reasonable responses and questions that I have and believe to be reasonable.
Peace, truly.
~Dan
To put this one other way...
““I am confident that scripture is both accurate and authoritative,” you DO recognize that what you are saying is “I am confident that MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of these texts (and the many who agree with me) is accurate and authoritative…”?”
Craig: No, I am most assuredly NOT saying that.
...When someone says (for example) "The Bible condemns any and all gay sexual activity in all circumstances and times..." they are not speaking of the biblical texts (which was written specifically to specific people at a specific time and which is questionable as to whether you are understand the intent for even then), but of their particular interpretation of those texts.
And when (if) one says, "...and we can know that all gay behavior is wrong because it's from the Bible and therefore authoritative and accurate..." they are, therefore, literally and specifically NOT speaking of the Bible, but of their particular human interpretation.
Does that make it clear?
And is there any point in that which you could possibly disagree? Since I'm just speaking of observable facts, I don't see how you could, but you tell me.
Whilst waiting for you to take notice, let me look at this from another angle...
your presumption that scripture is neither accurate nor authoritative. Both of which remain to be proven with “hard data”.
1. There is no data to support the notion that zebras have claimed to fly.
2. If I note that, "hey, there is no data that zebras have claimed to fly..." I'm not stating anything that needs to be proven, I'm just stating reality.
3. If it is the case that I am mistaken, that there is a zebra who has claimed to fly, then all one has to do is produce said zebra and I will gladly retract my flat claim. In the meantime, I am unaware of any serious claims from zebras that they can fly and can't imagine such a claim from a zebra exists, so I can flatly state, "No zebras have claimed to fly." Period.
Your claim about the Bible is like that. There is no biblical claim to "authority" or "accuracy." I see no rational reason to suspect that there is such a claim coming from the Bible. I'm not in a position to need to "prove" anything, as I'm just stating reality as I've seen it. IF even one biblical claim to "authority" or "accuracy" exists, you can produce it, but the burden is on you to produce SOMETHING to support such a claim to begin with, not on me to disprove that which does not exist, so far as I am aware.
See my point?
DT
"Craig, on an unrelated note: why "jsmmdS" instead of "jsmmdT"? Or have I asked that before?"
It was a typo, and I never bothered to correct it.
"...they are not speaking of the biblical texts (which was written specifically to specific people at a specific time and which is questionable as to whether you are understand the intent for even then),..."
One more example of a claim of fact, that is (to the best of my knowledge) unsupported by any sort of "hard data".
So it is your human hunch that these texts written thousands of years ago were intended for 19th Century London and 21st Century New York? Well, by all means, produce your hard evidence to support it.
I'm just stating the rather obvious: That people writing thousands of years ago did not write with the 21st Century in mind. The text simply does not tell us this so I have zero reasons to guess that it means what it does not say.
Do you have any data to support that theory? I'd be glad to read your data.
Again, you are the one making claims contrary to anything in the Bible, the onus is on you to support the guess.
"Do you have any data to support that theory? I'd be glad to read your data."
Since you have given no indication of having ever read anything I've ever provided in support of my position, I doubt you'll start now. I did provide you with a link to another blog, which provided numerous sources. perhaps you could choose one of those sources, and interact with the evidence provided. That might demonstrate that you will do as you say.
"Again, you are the one making claims contrary to anything in the Bible, the onus is on you to support the guess."
No, I'm not. If you want to make the specific claim that something on the OT was targeted at one specific person, time or place, then you might be correct. However, that is not the claim being made. The claim is that (at a minimum) certain parts of the Jewish scripture were intended to accurately convey information to readers/listeners beyond the immediate audience. This is hardly a claim that is outside of the scope of Orthodox Christian thought, your opinion that the OT (specifically Genesis) is a) myth, and b) substantially inaccurate is. So, why should I defend what has been accepted for centuries, while you refuse to defend your peculiar and (virtually unshared) opinion to the contrary.
Craig...
I did provide you with a link to another blog, which provided numerous sources. perhaps you could choose one of those sources, and interact with the evidence provided.
So, no, you won't provide any arguments to support your personal opinions? You will just point me to a blog who mentions many books? Fine, but his post, if it demonstrates the content of those books, is riddled with holes and begs many questions which I have asked.
If these books just authoritatively state things like "inerrancy is bound to the character of God." without acknowledging that this is an empty claim or address the rational questions raised by such a claim, then how am I any better off?
I will not spend money or much time on a book if someone can't offer up a reasonable, rational summary that isn't full of holes.
Will you go out and read all of Glenn Stassen's books on Peacemaking if someone can't convince you of the fundamental soundness of the gist of his ideas? I don't have that kind of time to waste on ideas that can't be defended in a few paragraphs.
Are you suggesting, Craig, that this "knowledge" and "wisdom" found in these books can only be understood if you read the entire book? The entire canon of books?
Which of those books have you read? Are you able to state that, Yes, David King's Volume 1 DOES deal with these questions that you raise?
Don't waste my time pointing to volumes of books if you can't reasonably defend the position/address reasonable questions in a few paragraphs. Fair enough?
I mean, I COULD tell you, "Craig, IF YOU WILL ONLY go out there and read all of Yoder's, Stassen's and the Mennonite Press' books on Peacemaking, THEN you will get it and change opinions...!" Will you do it?
Naw, of course not. Nor should you if you aren't interested in looking for peacemaking/pacifism answers/aren't convinced of that Way.
Because it is relevant here, I thought I'd post a link to NT Wright's thoughts on "authority..."
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
Not sure that I agree with everything he says, but there's a mainstream fella who is raising many of the same concerns I am. Maybe hearing it from someone more scholarly will help explain my position.
"So, no, you won't provide any arguments to support your personal opinions?"
No more than I have provided over the years.
"Fine, but his post, if it demonstrates the content of those books, is riddled with holes and begs many questions which I have asked."
No, you presume that the content of the blog is exhaustive, (or at least should be) which allows you to pass of the sources as immaterial since you were once a conservative and know all about the possible arguments. You choose to ignore the possibility that somewhere in the sources he mentions or the conference that he graciously invited you to listen to will be answers to the questions you pose.
Do you really think that your questions are so insightful that the like have never been considered before? Again, I think it will be good for you to have this conversation with someone who doesn't have the history we do. Of course, the fact that you have already determined that he won't answer your questions, doesn't speak well for your willingness to approach this with humility and an open mind.
"...en how am I any better off?"
Of course you will be much better off by ignoring them and making assumptions of what they might contain without actually reading them. Or maybe you could just go to Amazon and read the comments, because we know how accurate those are.
"I will not spend money or much time on a book if someone can't offer up a reasonable, rational "
Because, heaven forbid, you might want to go beyond a superficial summary by a third party instead of actually reading and interacting withe the actual source material. I know it's easier, and it eliminates all those annoying footnotes and nuance to just read a summary.
"Will you go out and read all of Glenn Stassen's books on Peacemaking if someone can't convince you of the fundamental soundness of the gist of his ideas?"
Unlike you, it seems, I will read (or at least try to read) just about anything regardless what people say about it. While I will certainly follow my interests from one author to another, I don't automatically reject something because of a summary. In the case of your peacemaking example, It's not a topic that's on my radar right now, but I'll make a note and invest the time and money to check one of his books out at some point. I'm always looking for something new. so why wouldn't I?
"I don't have that kind of time to waste on ideas that can't be defended in a few paragraphs."
So, if a 600 page book with footnotes, end notes and a bibliography can't be boiled down to a couple of paragraphs, it's just too much for you to even consider. Maybe, if you'd open your mind a tiny bit as well as expand your reading list, and you might get answers to some of your questions. If, of course, you really want answers. If, of course, you are willing to change your opinion if the answers don't support your preconceptions. And if, of course, you could be bothered to read something than the blurb on a book jacket.
"Are you suggesting, Craig, that this "knowledge" and "wisdom" found in these books can only be understood if you read the entire book? The entire canon of books?"
No, I'm actually suggesting that many of these concepts are complex enough that more than a book jacket blurb might be necessary to fully grasp the entire argument. Are you really suggesting that you can accurately judge the quality of a book, the completeness of the research, and the effectiveness of the whole, by reading a few paragraph summary written by a third party? If this is a sample of the quality of your ability to use your Reason, then I'm not impressed.
"Don't waste my time pointing to volumes of books if you can't reasonably defend the position/address reasonable questions in a few paragraphs. Fair enough?"
OH, so you'd rather blame me for you not doing your research. If you think that you can accurately judge the extent of what an author has written or judge it's worthiness based on a third party summary, then your demonstrating a level of shallowness I had not suspected.
To be clear, I suggested that you check out the other blog. He suggested that you check out the sources he provided while waiting for him to have the time to deal with you. I'm just suggesting that if he thinks it would help, then maybe you should consider it. I'm also not the one who is suggesting that because I was a "once upon a time" conservative that I am familiar enough with the potential arguments made that I don't need to do the research.
Have I read all the books, no. Some of them, yes. Have you read any of them, no. Will you, no.
"Naw, of course not."
Mistake #1, I already said I would. But, why would you let your negative assumptions get in the way of reality.
"Nor should you if you aren't interested in looking for peacemaking/pacifism answers/aren't convinced of that Way."
So, now the truth comes out. You presume that since you won't read books that might challenge your presumptions, that I'm not. You presume that the books/author you recommend has objective answers when it comes to pacifism. You presume that the answers you claim to seek could not possibly be found in any of the recommended books. Nor, will you bother to look. Interesting that you capitalized the word "Way", did you intend to suggest that this particular author's opinions about pacifism are somehow equivalent to Jesus "The Way, The Truth, and The Life"?
I think what I'll do is look up some random summaries of the books you mention and base my conclusions on those, since that's how you seem to roll.
Just bookmarked Glenn's Amazon page. I probably do some shopping later.
Unfortunately none of Stassen's books on peacemaking seem to be available in Kindle format. Since I've gone Kindle, I pretty much refuse to pay full price for non e books. I'll check some libraries, used book stores, and the campus book store where one of my kid's goes to school.
I do want to warn you. Don't expect me to be nearly as negative about Stassen as you have been about folks I've suggested. the reason is, that I don't have any problem accepting that pacifism is a belief that exists within the scope of Orthodoxy. Given that I will probably not object to much of what he might say as it relates to individual behavior. Where I might disagree is if he extrapolates an individual ethic as either being normative and binding on all Christians, or if he extrapolates an individual ethic as something that is demanded of nation states. I see the first as a very narrow reading of the scriptures, not in the spirit of "In non-essentials liberty", and I see the second as attempting to impose a perceived Christian standard to a secular government.
One other area which I might find problematic is the utter lack of demonstrated effectiveness of these tactics on a geopolitical level.
For example, I'm in the midst of doing a lot of reading about the failings/harm of some traditional "charity" models which has led me into a series of books about different ways to do development on both macro as well as micro levels. At this point in my current read, I agree with much of what the author is saying, but am not impressed that his track record (so far through the book) is not particularly impressive in the real world.
In much the same way, I would be more impressed if the pacifist folks had a little more actual evidence that their tactics work.
Anyway, I'll keep looking and let you know.
Craig...
So, if a 600 page book with footnotes, end notes and a bibliography can't be boiled down to a couple of paragraphs, it's just too much for you to even consider. Maybe, if you'd open your mind a tiny bit as well as expand your reading list
Craig, I have 20 adult years of reading and hearing sermons and Sunday School lessons and Wednesday and Sunday night studies on the topic. I'm familiar with the arguments. That said, being familiar with the arguments, I'm saying "HERE are the questions that point to holes in your argument. Address them, please..." and I'm waiting for someone to address the holes.
Re-reading more of what I've read and re-read will benefit me, how? Does King, et al, have something to say about the topic that the hundreds of others before him didn't say? Or have you even read King or any of the others on that fella's list? If you haven't read them, then on what basis would you recommend them?
I have no problem in theory reading about new ideas and new arguments, but someone has to make the argument appealing. If someone says, "Hey, I've just found ten authors that argue that racism is actually a good thing and they make excellent points - including biblical ones! - to support the idea..." I will tell you point blank: I will not read those books. I have no use for them. I am familiar with the arguments (such as they are) in favor of racism and am not interested in wasting time reading more of the same.
The "authority" question has traditionally been problematic, leading to all manner of schisms and bad, wrong-headed and even immoral ideas. I will not waste any more time reading hoping to find a good argument in its defense. Why would I?
RE: Stassen, his arguments tend to be about Just Peacemaking Theory, not pacifism per se. I do not believe he ever self-identified as a pacifist. fyi.
Craig...
it's not as easy to simply ignore the cumulative weight of scholarship, theology, and wisdom as equal in value to your personal, unsupported, opinion.
If what they appear to say is irrational, even counter to facts, then yes, it is easy to ignore bad claims (or perhaps bad understandings of claims). What else can I do? Bow to the bully of tradition because 100,000 dead guys can't be mistaken? No thanks.
Sorry, I pasted that last to the wrong blog... It was meant for my blog. Feel free to delete, although I guess it fits here, too.
"Re-reading more of what I've read and re-read will benefit me, how?"
So, now you are saying that you've read all the sources listed? Or are you saying that all the sources listed are just a re hash of what you have heard in Sunday School 30 years ago? Or that you have such amazing recall of all that you have heard that you couldn't possibly gain any new insight from anything else? Or that you really aren't prepared to approach any of this with an open mind, because you've already written it off as "I've already heard all of this before" or "This guy won't answer my questions.".
"... but someone has to make the argument appealing."
Yeah, because what good would it be to actually find the answers to the questions you have? Why not wait for someone to spoon feed it to you that way you don't have to put forth the effort. Get real, if you were really concerned about the answers, you wouldn't need someone else to make it palatable for you.
"Why would I?"
Because, in your own personal theological construct you have carved out a niche that doesn't need anything to be authoritative. So why start now. If your excuse is "Well, it seems to me like some (unnamed, unreferred to, unsourced) people did some things (again no specifics) that strike me as bad, so I'll just ignore the whole issue.", that's pretty weak. But, hey it's hard to climb out of your own little world. As long as you've got your little circle of friends who don't challenge you, you're all good.
RE; Stossen I was using the term pacifism(t) as a general category, not specifically related to Stossen's writings. I don't think it alters anything I have said materially. It certainly won't stop me from trying to find something and give it a read.
Craig...
Yeah, because what good would it be to actually find the answers to the questions you have?
You misunderstand, I HAVE the answers for the questions I have, I think the answers are quite clear and that your side is reading an incredible amount of ideas into a book that aren't there and that are contrary to good reason. I'm not wondering about the questions, I think the answer is pretty clear.
If YOUR side wants to win over people like me, YOU will have to make your case in a compelling way. I'm pointing you all to these questions for your sake, because I believe you to be rational people able to reason your way through your claims and that you will see the same holes that I am seeing. If you don't answer them, well, fine, that's on you.
But if you want others besides just those in your camp to agree with you, you'll at some point have to make your case in a compelling manner.
I'm certainly not going to research something I don't believe in. Why would I? How much research have you done into the societal benefits of racism or child rape or polygamy or name-something-you-don't-believe-in? It's a silly request.
As Walter Brueggemann has stated...
As our mothers and fathers have always known, the Bible is not self-evident and self-interpreting, and the Reformers did not mean to say that it was so when they escaped the church’s magisterium. Rather the Bible requires and insists upon human interpretation, which is inescapably subjective, necessarily provisional and inevitably disputatious.
I propose as an interpretive rule that all of our interpretations need to be regarded, at the most, as having only tentative authority. This will enable us to make our best, most insistent claims, but then regularly relinquish our pet interpretations and, together with our partners in dispute, fall back in joy into the inherent apostolic claims that outdistance all of our too familiar and too partisan interpretations.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2104
It is a simple observable reality that the Bible MUST be interpreted and, once interpreted, it becomes a matter of our opinions/interpretations against/compared to others'. What else can our interpretations be but human opinions and, on what rational OR biblical basis would we consider human opinions to be infallible?
“…but then regularly relinquish our pet interpretations and, together with our partners in dispute, fall back in joy into the inherent apostolic claims that outdistance all of our too familiar and too partisan interpretations.”
As soon as you relinquish your pet interpretation and agree that the “inherent apostolic claims” even existed. We might get somewhere.
“IF a text has to be interpreted to be understood (what genre is this? the reader must ask... what meaning is intended here? the reader must ask... what was the cultural and societal context of this text? the reader must ask..., etc, etc) and IF our human interpretations are not infallible, then in what sense does calling a mere text "inerrant" or "infallible" make rational or biblical sense?”
It’s statements/questions like this that make me question if you even understand what people mean when they talk about a literal interpretation or being authoritative.
Post a Comment