The whole discussion around how to interpret scripture has been going on for quite some time, and certainly isn’t going to get solved here.
What I’m noticing is they people whose default position is to not interpret scripture literally will occasionally jump on one small line or verse and attach a wooden literal meaning to it, while relegating the rest of the immediate context as figurative. Or they’ll take a passing line or phrase and elevate that above other clear passages.
I guess where I’d be concerned is when the only time people take scripture literally is when it seemingly helps reinforce their opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
The point, for us, is not taking the Bible literally or non literally. The point is taking the Bible seriously in a search for truth and love, Grace and justice.
So, when we see verses in the Bible, or poetry from Rumi, or observe graceful and elegant reality in nature... these all speak to Greater truth and beauty and when something speaks of Grace, love, beauty, Justice, Etc, we affirm and think on that. You know, whatsoever things are good true pure Noble, we think on these things.
Just as someone you know, at least from a distance, once said.
So, when we see a line in the Bible that speaks of fighting for justice for the poor or marginalized, for instance, that truth speaks to the greater reality of the notion of justice for all, and we affirm that line in the Bible.
On the other hand, when someone finds a line in the Bible that says that slavery is sometimes okay with God, and then they conclude that therefore there are times when slavery is not a great evil, we reject that wouldnly literal human interpretation of the Bible, because it has missed the greater truth.
I'm sure that makes no sense to you, but there it is.
I guess where I’d be concerned is when the only time people take scripture literally is when it seemingly helps reinforce their opinions.
Another error in your guesses is that, at least for some of us, taking the text more seriously has led us TO our opinions and AWAY from our prior opinions, rather than reinforcing them.
I used to believe that homosexuality was wrong. It was taking Scripture seriously that led me away from that position, because "the Bible" literally does not teach that homosexuality, itself, was wrong.
Same for how to treat the poor, or working for justice or welcoming the immigrants or abortion... in EACH case, taking the Bible seriously led me to abandon my old opinions rather than reinforcing them.
So, your guess, at least as far as it relates to folk like me, is just a silly guess, not based on reality but, more likely, your own prejudices and your guess is an attempt to reinforce your prejudices, rather than simply asking us.
Re: you'd be concerned when the only time people take scripture literally is when it reinforces their opinions...
One of my main concerns is that one of the times that literalists DON'T take the Bible literally is when it's pointed out that the Bible literally never calls for taking it literally. Nonetheless, y'all decided it should be taken literally contrary to anything that it ever literally says.
Another time I'm concerned about your lack of liberalism is when you insert the notion to take the Bible as the final or the ultimate Authority, when the Bible never teaches that. Would that you would take THAT information more literally.
"The point, for us, is not taking the Bible literally or non literally. The point is taking the Bible seriously in a search for truth and love, Grace and justice."
A distinction without a difference. Or more accurately, a load of crap. Those like Craig and myself...if I can speak for him just a little...do not take literally what isn't meant to be. We also don't pretend it's a big mystery as to which is which because we aren't concerned about protecting beliefs and behaviors personally pleasing or favorable. THAT is the big difference between us.
"You know, whatsoever things are good true pure Noble, we think on these things."
And still you regard this as "what Dan finds are 'good, true, pure and noble' to Dan" as opposed to what is good, true, pure and noble to God. Paul refers to the latter. By Dan's understanding, a pedophile is cool acting on his urges because he's spent time thinking on what he finds to be "good"...sex with children.
"So, when we see a line in the Bible that speaks of fighting for justice for the poor or marginalized, for instance, that truth speaks to the greater reality of the notion of justice for all, and we affirm that line in the Bible."
Sounds like a rule to me. Can't have that, now can we? More importantly, there is nowhere such a line exists. The best you can say is that there are lines that speak to YOU acting justly on behalf of the poor. Big difference.
"On the other hand, when someone finds a line in the Bible that says that slavery is sometimes okay with God, and then they conclude that therefore there are times when slavery is not a great evil, we reject that wouldnly literal human interpretation of the Bible, because it has missed the greater truth."
The greater truth is your constant reference to slavery in the OT as akin to slavery in the antebellum south. This is a willful distortion...otherwise known as a lie...that has been corrected for you many, many times over the years. What is referred to as slavery in Scripture rarely was the same as the American experience, and further, God forbade "man stealing", or kidnapping, which is what the American experience was. So when "progressives" like to pretend someone might use Scripture to justify American slavery, those who do are corrupting Scripture in much the same way "progressives" do for rationalizing other heresies.
"Another error in your guesses is that, at least for some of us, taking the text more seriously has led us TO our opinions and AWAY from our prior opinions..."
This has nothing to do with whether or not your prior opinions OR your current opinions were valid or meritorious. In your case, the neither old nor new is supportable.
"I used to believe that homosexuality was wrong. It was taking Scripture seriously that led me away from that position, because "the Bible" literally does not teach that homosexuality, itself, was wrong."
It is wrong and if you're referring to the behavior, "the Bible" LITERALLY teaches that the behavior is wrong, and does so without caveat or reference to ANY context or scenario in which it might take place. There is no legitimate argument that can be used to contradict this absolute and unmistakable fact. The behavior is strictly and clearly forbidden.
As you do with this quote, so you do in the next, using silence to provide you liberty to believe what you want to believe, rather than what believing what is actually taught. (To pretend you've found Biblical cover for your murderous support for abortion is especially abhorrent).
"So, your guess, at least as far as it relates to folk like me, is just a silly guess..."
There's no guessing on our part, Dan. We can see cheap rationalizations when you present them, and it's how you're satisfy your black soul that you are righteous in your corruption.
"One of my main concerns is that one of the times that literalists DON'T take the Bible literally is when it's pointed out that the Bible literally never calls for taking it literally."
Speaking of cheap, this is one your cheapest tactics...that Scripture must say in some specific words that satisfy Dan Trabue that it must be taken literally in order for anyone to be compelled to do so. It's patently absurd. By your self-serving, infantile logic, the various authors had no desire that what they wrote should be taken seriously...that readers were free to impose any meaning pleasing to them, rather than be passionate for the intent. It's idiotic that the authors are required, for the fakes like Dan Trabue, to say "OK, this part here? I'm being metaphorical. And this part? This you need to take literally. But over here? It's just a rhetorical flourish I thought was clever." What a pathetic attempt to pretend one is a serious student!
"Another time I'm concerned about your lack of liberalism is when you insert the notion to take the Bible as the final or the ultimate Authority, when the Bible never teaches that."
Well, it DOES teach that as has been pointed out many, many times over the years. That's not convenient for those like yourself who wish to abide that which is forbidden, but not for true Christians.
Art,
There are two problems with this conversation.
1. Dan is operating with a mistaken or intentionally distorted view of what it means when we say that we take the Bible literally.
2. He's applying his 21st century liberal litmus tests to the Bible and dismissing the Bible because ot doesn't measure up to his version of orthodoxy.
It's not that these things haven't been pointed out, it's that he chooses to believe otherwise.
You point about OT slavery is virtually indisputable. It bore no resemblance to later iterations of slavery, when you combine this with the commands related to the Jubilee it's simply intellectually dishonest to draw an equivalence between the two. It's at least as intellectually dishonest as southern white democrat slave owners and ministers using the Bible to support their version of slavery. It may be worse because presumably we have more knowledge about slavery in the Bible that they did then. It doesn't excuse the abuse of scripture to justify a form of slavery, but it's probably worth noting. It's also worth noting that other Christians, who took the scripture literally, were the driving force to eradicate slavery in the "christian west".
We can't have this discussion without acknowledging that Islam (which Dan has said really nice things about) still engages in slavery to this very day. (Dan acknowledges that this is "a problem") We can't have this discussion without acknowledging that Hinduism and it's caste system as well as Shinto essentially mandate an entire class of humans who are ordained to be virtual slaves.
None of this would really matter, except that Dan spends very little time (if any) talking about Islam and the fact that large numbers of modern day slaves are held in Islamic majority countries, yet spend an inordinate amount of time trying to demonize Christians for slavery that occurred 4000+ years ago, or 150 years ago. It sounds like strange priorities to me.
I know he'll say that since he's said that slavery is bad that he doesn't need to be vocal about modern day slavery, that his general comments are enough.
I guess that'd be more convincing if he wasn't so focused on systems of slavery the Christians led the way in eradicating hundreds of years ago.
Ultimately, it's about him applying his prejudices on others while claiming that he represents a large movement.
The Bible and slavery...
"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone..."
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another..."
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. if, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property..."
"If [an enemy state/town] does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town..."
Here we have the Bible talking about one human owning another human, forcing them either into labor or sex. That is the slavery that is being talked about here. Yes there are regulations about treating the slave with some level of decenc, but it is still one human being the property of another human. I and all moral people say that this is a great evil. Can you agree with that unconditionally? Or do you have to say there are caveats and that slavery may not always be a great evil?
I’ve repeatedly addressed this issue, and if you are interested, my response is readily available to you.
Having said that, I do appreciate you finally acknowledging that there is very little equivalence between slavery on the OT, and slavery in the US. That’s a start. Now if we can get you to be more specific about what you mean when you use the word slavery we might have something.
I’ll I’ll note that you’ve chosen not to reference where in the mythical parts of the Bible you’re specifically referencing and that you’ve indicated that you’ve edited the myths you’ve used.
I wonder what was left out?
Again, congratulations on the changing of the subject, it’s impressive how you bull right ahead with the subject you sense is most helpful to you, while ignoring and dodging anything else in your way.
It’s impressive and intellectually dishonest simultaneously.
Craig... "I do appreciate you finally acknowledging that there is very little equivalence between slavery on the OT, and slavery in the US. That’s a start..."
I think the largest part of your problem, Craig, is understanding words written by other people. You continually misunderstand the Bible, you continually misunderstand me.
And it's not like I've even said anything close to what you said I've said. I never said there is very little equivalence between ancient and modern slavery. That was not my take-away.
I said there are not the same. But they are comparable in the important elements. That is..
1. It is the literal ownership of a human being.
2. It is the literal forcing of one human being into forced labor or forced sex.
These are the essential parts of both ancient and more modern slavery. They are what make slavery a universal evil and atrocity.
Can you agree with that?
A. Do you agree that in the Bible, people literally owned other human beings as property?
B. Do you agree that this happened with God's blessing and sometimes at God's command?
C. Can you agree that this is evil?
The problem is, both A and B are literally what happened. And yet you can't bring yourself to agree with C.
As to me supposedly being off topic, the topic is a Bizarro World, your title. In a world of fundamentalists that can't unequivocally condemn rape and slavery as evil, that is truly Bizarro. Where people like you won't even address the questions, that is Bizarro.
And interpretations of the Bible is also the point of this post and looking at biblical topics like slavery or rape are a way of dealing with and looking at the question of biblical interpretation. It's just a shame that you can't acknowledge that. In fact, it's quite Bizarro.
Speaking of not understanding written words. I’ve already addressed why your behavior has driven me away from answering your questions.
Maybe you can show me where I’ve said that rape and slavery aren’t evil?
I’m choosing grace over justice in posting your comments, as for anything else I’m just following your lead. The difference is that I’ll be honest about it.
That's my point, Craig. It APPEARS you are saying that so I'm asking you, point blank, can you affirm that rape and slavery are always wrong?
Can you affirm that, in the Bible, where it commands the victim of a rape be married to her rapist, that this is a greatly evil response?
Can you affirm that, in the Bible, when God commands people to enslave other human beings or merely affirms that it's okay to enslave other human beings, that OWNING another human being is a great evil?
That APPEARS to be what you're saying, in that you continue to refuse to answer these questions directly. Also, because you affirm that you "take the Bible literally," then, when the Bible speaks of God commanding rape and slavery, that you must be okay with it, because in your world, that is literally what happened and God wouldn't command a great evil, so you must not think it's evil.
But you tell me.
That you continue to refuse to affirm a straightforward question makes people wonder if this must be the case.
If I had to guess, you DON'T believe that rape or slavery are sometimes acceptable options, but you can't bring yourself to denounce behaviors that occur with God's blessing in the Bible so, rather than deal with it directly, you just ignore the question.
Dan,
What part of I’m done answering questions while you’ve been dodging questions for weeks do you not understand?
The Bible does NOT speak of God commanding either rape or slavery.
I’d be interested to see the verse where God says something like “Thou shall go out and rape...” or “Thou shall go out and enslave...”.
What I’ve seen is God saying “If you have captives after a battle, treat them like this.” or “If X,Y, or Z happens, then do A.”.
It would clearly be better and more Godly to not take prisoners after a battle, but to kill them all in cold blood or sacrifice them. It would clearly be better to kill young women than to rape them.
I realize that the behaviors being discussed don’t meet the standards of 21st century liberals, but maybe they should be compared with the other societies in existence at that time and evaluated in that light first.
According to Dan’s definition the Axis POW taken in WW 2 were slaves because they were held against their will and forced to work.
This is the problem we get when we try to impose 21st century subjective liberal morality on ancient societies.
Of course, if one accepts subjective morality then one has no grounds to make judgements about the morality of ancient societies.
As a point of reality, the Bible does say that God commands Israel, if you have captives after a battle, you may enslave them. They are your property.
I'm saying that sort of slavery is repugnant and Evil. Can you join the rest of moral humanity and agree?
Likewise, the Bible says that God tells Israel if they have captives that are women or girls, they can take them home and bed them. This is rape. That you two wish to pretend that it's not, does not mean that it's not. It is the very definition of rape.
As a point of reality, you ignore the context in which these events took place, and impose upon them meaning that is untrue. Until you can man up and regard these events as they are written, without your 21st century leftist biases, I for one am not at all compelled to agree to anything. What's more, I totally rebuke your arrogance in stating you side with "moral humanity" as a means of compelling that agreement. You have no proof that ANY sizable segment of "humanity" sees morality as you do to any degree whatsoever. Pretending you have your finger on the pulse of humanity is ludicrous and a lame ploy to suggest we are outside the norm. Normal people don't act as you do.
Dan ignores the first word in his “quote”, whoops. That one little word betrays him.
Post a Comment