|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shouldn't we repudiate parts of the bible?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
My answer is in the thread's title. We should repudiate and denounce those parts of the bible which give basis for the political and social ideas that are used to give authority to intolerance, rage, political dominionism and intolerance. We must denounce the parts of the bible that are inconsistent with the love and compassion as most often shown in the life of Jesus.
Consider for example God's killing of all the first born in Egypt, and the distinction between Egyptians and Israel (Ex 11:7) and the thoroughness of the killing until all homes had someone dead (Ex 12:30), Moses' looting of the Egyptians' homes (Ex 12:35-6). And God says he likes it in Ex 10:2. Pretty much.
What about John 8:29-44 when we are told Jews are children of the devil. or Rev 19:17-18 when we have the supper of God, with the destruction and eating of the flesh of kings, captains, mighty men, horses and riders, etc.
Should we not challenge the canonical nature of some these passages, not just soft-sell them as symbolic or just ignore them. The word of the Lord?
Is it acceptable to accept that there will be a Day of Wrath where Christians will control what's left of a world cleansed through violence and war, with nonbelievers tormented and sent to hell? Is God watching what we're doing?
These sorts of passages and parts of the bible keep alive the approval of violence and apocalyptic terror. Doesn't silence about these things give tacit approval to the rightness of one side in war? Is this really what Jesus sought to bring?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We should see them all, first and last and totally, through the lens of Jesus. And therefore embrace them with His arms.
[ 26. July 2014, 23:08: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We should repudiate and denounce those parts of the bible which give basis for the political and social ideas that are used to give authority to intolerance, rage, political dominionism and intolerance.
a) If there are people who benefit from Bible-based 'intolerance', etc., why would they listen to what you (or 'we') have to say about it? Don't they pay their own clergy/theologians for that advice?
b) The OT has a lot of politicians in it, but Jesus doesn't seem to have stressed out about them very much. God might well be an Englishman, but our clergy never ask him to do more for our political system than give wisdom to our leaders and (if you're in the CofE) to bless the Queen. Repudiating bits of the Bible for that seems like overkill. But maybe it makes sense where you live.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We should see them all, first and last and totally, through the lens of Jesus. And therefore embrace them with His arms.
Amen. Some parts of the Bible we may not fully understand until we see God face to face.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I don't buy the idea that we have no responsibility re the interpretation and that they wouldn't listen. We're not even talking, let alone discussing it with them. We wishy-washily just vaguely ignore. No-one calls the leaders on anything, when they misuse religious texts and imagery.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Two thoughts, No Prophet.
The first is the somewhat obvious one. Where do you think the ideas come from that enable you to ask the question you are posing? From both the primitive and the secular, post-Darwinist point of view, genocide is a great idea as long as you are on the winning side.
The second is more subtle. It's who are you, or whoever it might be, who decides that his or her version of God is sufficiently pristine to be able to decide with confident which bits of scripture to excise?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
As an atheist (and a Humanist) my view is clear; the Bible should be read, understood and appreciated as literature. Itwas written by people with only a fraction of the factual knowledge of the world and the universe we have today, then re-written, altered, revised, etc by people hundreds of years later. At that point it became (metaphorically only of course!) set in stone.
Lessons of what is right and wrong and good and bad can be learnt from stories, including of course the ones retold in the Bible, and that must have started way, way back before the different parts of the Bible started to be put together, i.e. before the Torah, and certainly before the written word.
posed
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Swedenborg had some interesting ideas - which are also echoed in the modern Judaic/Kabbalistic interpretations
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
I think the 'difficult' passages in Scripture only pose a real problem to those who follow Luther's principle that the literal meaning of the text is always the most important unless those texts themselves suggest otherwise. If we understand that the great variety of genres written for a great variety of purposes which make up the Bible need only be understood as pointing in more or less veiled ways towards the fullness of perfection found in Christ for it to be inadmissible for them to justify anything short of that fullness.
Also we need to consider on what basis do we judge the Scriptures from? If you say that reason alone is enough to enable us to decide between Good Bible and Bad Bible then why would you need the Bible at all? If, on the other hand, you say that in order to make the best of all possible moral judgements we require a Divine Revelation where are we to find it if not in Scripture? And since it is Scripture as a whole which has played such a part in forming the moral sense of the West how can we tell what the effects of excising some of it might be?
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
no prophet:
I have sympathy with your view, although I see it as primarily an issue about how mainstream Christianity confronts fundamentalist Christianity. And, of course, the same problem exists for most religions, notably Islam. And it weakens the case for arguing that mainstream Islam (if that can be defined in a religion that has no central authority, at least for the majority Sunni branch) has a responsibility to denounce their fundamentalist extremists, if Christianity cannot do it.
But what do you actually propose? In mainstream Christianity, the evils of parts of the Bible are widely recognised. CSLewis (the wikipedia of Christianity?) in his excellent small book on the Psalms states that the Bible contains, alongside the word of God, some stuff that is downright evil, and he is hardly a raving liberal.
I can't see any case for a revision of the canon to exclude the bad bits, because they can serve a purpose.
Indeed, it is one of my beefs against islam that they cannot see God associated with sin, and so exclude passages that reflect badly on Prophets, such as Noah's getting drunk, and Lot's incest. You seem to want to do something similar.
And then, who decides? I don't even agree with your list. But that would take us into a tangent.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I believe the difficult passages all tell us something about God. The God of scripture isn't a fluffy bunny. I know this is hard for many to accept. Martin has a point that we should see them through the lens of Jesus. Of course, what Martin means by that and what I mean by that are a bit different.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I think the 'difficult' passages in Scripture only pose a real problem to those who follow Luther's principle that the literal meaning of the text is always the most important unless those texts themselves suggest otherwise. If we understand that the great variety of genres written for a great variety of purposes which make up the Bible need only be understood as pointing in more or less veiled ways towards the fullness of perfection found in Christ for it to be inadmissible for them to justify anything short of that fullness.
What has this to do with Luther?! These are the principles of the RCC, perfected (though by then long established) in the middle ages.
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
The one and only thing one needs to be aware of is that "literal" does not mean "literalistic". That is to say, "literal" concerns the intended direct meaning of the writer and that does depend on the chosen literary form. For example, poetry operates a lot with imagery and when the Song of Songs says "Ah, you are beautiful, my love; ah, you are beautiful; your eyes are doves." we do not imagine miniature doves stuck in eye sockets. That would be a literalistic interpretation, not the literal one. However, the literal meaning is indeed the foundation of RC bible interpretation. And this literal meaning cannot simply stand against a clear meaning of the text. One cannot for example simply declare the difficult parts of the OT as bronze age propaganda. That would not be about discovering what the writer really wanted to say (literal sense), but about saying that the writer is either lying or himself deceived.
As for the OP, Marcionists are a dime a dozen these days. It is not particularly difficult to throw away parts of scripture that do not find one's preferences. The problem is that once one has started, there is no good reason to stop. The Marcionist will eventually also redact the NT, for there is plenty in it that offends the Zeitgeist. In the end this amounts to saying "I know what God wanted to say," at which point one has become the prophet of self-religion. And that is no prophet at all.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
These are the principles of the RCC, perfected (though by then long established) in the middle ages.
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
The one and only thing one needs to be aware of is that "literal" does not mean "literalistic".
Beautifully put Ingo!
If people don't understand that the Bible contains a spiritual sense then it is no wonder that they would want to repudiate parts of it.
I especially like this in the document you quote:
quote:
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
God is indeed the author. Our part is to correctly understand what He means.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It is obviously difficult for some to see the Bible through the lens of Christ.
Which is why He delays His coming.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It is obviously difficult for some to see the Bible through the lens of Christ.
Yes. I think that this is the same as seeing that the Bible has a spiritual sense, which is all about Christ and His work, as He states in the Gospels.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Which is why He delays His coming.
Wouldn't the comprehension and adoption of that lens be the same thing as His coming?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that we should keep and enjoy the whole Bible as it is.
Some of the OT stories put adult movies in the shade. We readily accept it if a 'goody' harms a 'baddy' in a film or a novel, but wince if it happens in the Bible.
I agree that the words of the Bible are all to be seen as literature: some wisdom, some song, some letters, some records, some prophecies, and a lot of stories, all of which inform us of the human relationship with the living God.
What a rich source of written material to thank God for, and to find that God speaks to us through.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Absolutely Freddy. Jesus was the first Marcionite and at last that is breaking through.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We readily accept it if a 'goody' harms a 'baddy' in a film or a novel, but wince if it happens in the Bible.
It is criminal the way that Tolkien glorifies genocide committed against orcs.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Culturally inescapable in the face of WWI, the Russian Revolution, WWII, communism for virtually all western Christians including Lewis and Bonhoeffer.
Jesus' Marcionite example is easy to stare in the face and ignore. I did for 50 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
@IngoB
Luther wrote “it is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine.”
The Catechism states
quote:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
Do you honestly not see any difference between these two approaches?
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As an atheist (and a Humanist) my view is clear; the Bible should be read, understood and appreciated as literature. Itwas written by people with only a fraction of the factual knowledge of the world and the universe we have today, then re-written, altered, revised, etc by people hundreds of years later. At that point it became (metaphorically only of course!) set in stone.
Lessons of what is right and wrong and good and bad can be learnt from stories, including of course the ones retold in the Bible, and that must have started way, way back before the different parts of the Bible started to be put together, i.e. before the Torah, and certainly before the written word.
posed
Couldn't agree more.
We don't need to repudiate parts of the Bible: just the notion of biblical authority, of giving special weight to words because of their source, instead of their merits. We should all be comfortable saying, "The Bible is wrong."
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As a Christian and therefore Marcionite and therefore Humanist, Amen.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I've been interested in Stevhep's and IngoB's comments here.
This by IngoB quoting the RC Catechism;
quote:
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
The one and only thing one needs to be aware of is that "literal" does not mean "literalistic". That is to say, "literal" concerns the intended direct meaning of the writer and that does depend on the chosen literary form. For example, poetry operates a lot with imagery and when the Song of Songs says "Ah, you are beautiful, my love; ah, you are beautiful; your eyes are doves." we do not imagine miniature doves stuck in eye sockets. That would be a literalistic interpretation, not the literal one. However, the literal meaning is indeed the foundation of RC bible interpretation. And this literal meaning cannot simply stand against a clear meaning of the text. One cannot for example simply declare the difficult parts of the OT as bronze age propaganda. That would not be about discovering what the writer really wanted to say (literal sense), but about saying that the writer is either lying or himself deceived.
And this by Stevhep;
quote:
Luther wrote “it is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine.”
The Catechism states
quote:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
Do you honestly not see any difference between these two approaches?
I've previously quoted this from Tyndale, which I am pretty sure Luther would have agreed with;
quote:
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
Although I don't think the word was used thus in Tyndale's time, I think most Protestant scholars would regard Tyndale's concept as including allowing for different 'genres' of writing, as Stevhep mentioned - poetry as opposed to more prosaic history, for example.
It seems to me that Luther was really originally intending simply to be a 'good Catholic' basing what he said on the 'historical/literal sense' similar to what Tyndale meant, and as IngoB points out, not (what I'd call 'dumb wooden-') 'literalism'. He and other reformers concluded that in the RC church of that time, unhelpful traditions had grown up which often sought justification in the 'spiritual ... (i.e.)... allegorical, moral and anagogical senses' but in a way that had perhaps forgotten that "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal". The Reformers tried to restore that primacy of the literal (in the sense I suggest, of both Tyndale and the RC Catechism).
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
@IngoB
Luther wrote “it is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine.” Do you honestly not see any difference between these two approaches?
I am pretty sure that Luther is arguing against allegorical interpretations (including the moral interpretations and anagogical interpretations). He is not arguing that the Bible should always be understood in what IngoB calls the literalistic sense.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
@IngoB
Luther wrote “it is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine.” Do you honestly not see any difference between these two approaches?
I am pretty sure that Luther is arguing against allegorical interpretations (including the moral interpretations and anagogical interpretations). He is not arguing that the Bible should always be understood in what IngoB calls the literalistic sense.
I think some examples would serve to show what is going on in this quandary or this difference of opinion.
One example is the sense in which the trials and tribulations of the Israelites reflect our own spiritual trials and tribulations.
Without in any way denying the literal reality of what happened to the Children of Israel, the miracles performed among them, and the obvious moral and spiritual lessons of the text, it is easy to see another level of meaning.
In this other level of meaning, which most people see intuitively, every person can be said to go through periods of spiritually "wandering in the wilderness" of "longing for the Promised Land" of being attacked by spiritual enemies, of being hungry and thirsty, of being miraculously defended or rescued, of "worshiping idols" etc.
Most people can also identify with the need to remove or destroy the stubborn and wicked inhabitants of our inner selves so that we can live peacefully and happily inside of own skin.
This in no way denies the literal sense, and is completely based on its teachings, as Jesus taught them. Nor does it justify the bad behavior of Israel or of its individual characters who clearly contradicted the universal biblical injunction to love our neighbor, dealing honestly and justly with everyone.
It is not clear to me that Luther would have disputed this approach.
What Luther would have disputed would be something like that when Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven He was referring only to the internal marriage of good and truth, not the marriage of men and women.
That is, Luther was referring to interpretations that contradict or deny the literal biblical statements.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Wouldn't the comprehension and adoption of that lens be the same thing as His coming?
I don't see how. It could coincide with His return, and/or in His return He could help us see it, but not the same thing as I understand the Second Coming, no.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Luther wrote “it is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine.”
The Catechism states
quote:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
Do you honestly not see any difference between these two approaches?
I have no idea what Luther himself wrote, or intended to say. I have no particular interest in that either. I was reacting to what you wrote about Luther, above. And my point was that what you attributed to Luther there is entirely compatible with RC principles on interpreting scripture. You said above "Luther's principle [is] that the literal meaning of the text is always the most important unless those texts themselves suggest otherwise." That is also the principle of the RCC.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Much as I like the above posts, and despite being a churchgoer and Bible owner, I still have to concur with the OP . There are indeed several statements and general assertions in the Bible that are inescapably dodgy, and rest uneasily with current sensitivities.
If, for example, statements were made on these boards which advocated genocide, rape or sexism then they would be rightly challenged, and possibly removed with action taken against the person making them.
OK, with the Bible we can do the 'it doesn't mean that, it means this' bit if we want . But given the way society has changed, is it even worth the effort of trying to bend incompatible scripture 180 degrees in order to get it to conform to present-day attitudes.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Who cares if scripture conforms to modern sensitivities?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I think erasure of the stories of oppressed people (even those God is apparently an oppressor of) is deeply troubling, and does more harm than good to the oppressed.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Dafyd;
quote:
I am pretty sure that Luther is arguing against allegorical interpretations (including the moral interpretations and anagogical interpretations). He is not arguing that the Bible should always be understood in what IngoB calls the literalistic sense.
Sorry, had an inexplicable loss of web access earlier and couldn't follow up my earlier comments. As I understand it, Luther and the other Reformers would not object to all allegorical and similar interpretations. They would not object when, so to speak, the 'literal sense' was also allegorical, that is the passage was clearly of the allegorical genre. And I think they would allow all kinds of other 'spiritualising' interpretation, but NOT when it appeared to support ideas contrary to plainer texts elsewhere. The reasoning behind this would be that the various 'non-literal' senses involve a degree of subjectivity, and if one is going to make an idea a key matter of faith, one should be able to demonstrate it from the clearer and plainer texts.
(As a personal comment I've seen some samples of 'spiritualised/allegorical/etc' by my namesake the onetime ABC, and, well, I don't think anyone would be taking them seriously nowadays!)
I originally intended to follow up with the idea that on the showing of Stevhep and IngoB earlier, it looks as if RC and Protestant interpretations are close enough in fact to be pretty similar for purposes of this thread. I'm thinking, and Stevhep at least seemed to say something similar, that the problematic Scriptures that others want to 'repudiate' should rather be accepted, but seen as early stages of a long education process by a God who sadly is not dealing with wonderful always rational and cooperative humans but with sinful rebels who don't learn easily and indeed don't want to. As a major example of this historical perspective, it would be anachronistic to expect things in the OT to proceed as if Jesus had already come and the 'New Covenant' were already fully known....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
If we are speaking of society in general and not only of Christians, then I think it is clear that some of the cultural standards of the Old Testament Jews have indeed been repudiated. Modern society does not approve of slavery, for instance, and would look askance at the temple as a slaughterhouse.
If you are asking whether modern Christians should repudiate parts of the Bible, then you also have to ask about the New Testament, which in some parts perpetuates the same standards. How large a can of worms do we want to open?
In practice, of course, if modern Christians were to repudiate any of it officially, we would look ridiculous in front of the rest of the world.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by HCH;
quote:
Modern society does not approve of slavery, for instance, and would look askance at the temple as a slaughterhouse.
Old style slavery still exists in far too many parts of the world,sadly; and I know left-wingers who would say that even the West just has more subtle forms of slavery than the infamous 'Southern USA' example.
Worth saying that in the very different culture of the ancient world, our modern style of 'employment' was not as easy to universally apply. Also worth saying that biblical slavery in Israel was a considerable improvement on slavery elsewhere, so long as the Israelites obeyed the OT laws on the subject, which of course reminded them to treat slaves decently in contrast to their own enslavement in Egypt.
"The temple as a slaughterhouse" concept still exists in many religions worldwide, I believe. The reason it was rejected in the Christian West is because Jesus' self-sacrifice was deemed to have rendered it redundant, while using the accounts of the OT rites to explain and illustrate Jesus' acts.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed, the fossil record doesn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think we have to understand that the can is already open.
An OT and NT example.
I think that we should be saying that in the OT, for example in 1 Sam 15:2-3, Deut 2:34, 3:6, 20:16-18 etc that the bible has it wrong. The people got it wrong, when they slaughtered everyone (and the animals) in the heat of battle and then wrote self-justifying versions. Just like we today don't really know what God wants because we don't get direct communication and two-way conversations. People have thought God approves of lots of things, and frequently they mistake their motives and goals for God's. We should always be suspicious when someone does something obviously wrong and then tries to justify it by saying God told me to do it. Biblical or not.
In the NT, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 where it says that women should be silent in church is obviously someone's idea at a time when churches are sorting out power struggles. It wasn't and isn't God's idea, it may not have even been Paul's. But it is clearly something to repudiate.
How's that?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry,Freddy; I was quoting your post but you had started with a quote from Dafyd and your 'avatars' are similar.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Perfect no prophet. Sane. Faithful. On the arc.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think erasure of the stories of oppressed people (even those God is apparently an oppressor of) is deeply troubling, and does more harm than good to the oppressed.
Having had the story of Jacob, Laban, and the two sisters read as the first lesson this morning, I can agree with this, insofar as women have been the victims of the patriarchy for, apparently, as long as history has been recorded.
It is unavoidable that history tells us about how bad things have been. It is absolutely necessary to learn from those bad things in order to make our present societies better for all who live in them.
Unfortunately, since most religions worship tradition, the religious groups tend to be the ones that perpetuate the bad things, not the good ones. Something about power corrupting, methinks.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Who cares if scripture conforms to modern sensitivities?
If we want the secular humanists to join our little club, we're going to have to convince them we find our religion just as distasteful as they find it.
Some of us are working harder than others at that.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jon in the Nati;
quote:
...we find our religion just as distasteful as they find it.
If we really found it that distasteful we'd be joining their little club, surely...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't see any point to repudiating stuff in the Bible. It's out there, it's public, and IMHO we look like arses if we try to deny our history. Plus looking holier-than-thou regarding our ancestors in the faith.
On the other hand, I have no problem with saying humbly, when a touchy biblical subject comes up, "I don't know how to account for this, it bothers me too."
It's the definite passing-of-judgement that bothers me. What if we don't get what that troublesome passage is all about? We could be wrong. I know I've had occasions where someone from a different culture has had insights into some troubling passage that made it a lot more palatable to me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think we have to understand that the can is already open.
An OT and NT example.
I think that we should be saying that in the OT, for example in 1 Sam 15:2-3, Deut 2:34, 3:6, 20:16-18 etc that the bible has it wrong. The people got it wrong, when they slaughtered everyone (and the animals) in the heat of battle and then wrote self-justifying versions. Just like we today don't really know what God wants because we don't get direct communication and two-way conversations. People have thought God approves of lots of things, and frequently they mistake their motives and goals for God's. We should always be suspicious when someone does something obviously wrong and then tries to justify it by saying God told me to do it. Biblical or not.
In the NT, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 where it says that women should be silent in church is obviously someone's idea at a time when churches are sorting out power struggles. It wasn't and isn't God's idea, it may not have even been Paul's. But it is clearly something to repudiate.
How's that?
I've already said why I'm uncomfortable with whitewashing the Bible of all the nasty bits, but the NT example you just used is hardly one of them - I am of the understanding that the author (Paul or otherwise but probably Paul in this case) was telling one particular woman (or a particular group of women) in the Corinthian church to be quiet in church and stop disrupting services. Given that the book is a letter to a specific group of people at a specific time, I don't think you can take it out of context and dismiss it as wrong.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
I think that we should be saying that in the OT, for example in 1 Sam 15:2-3, Deut 2:34, 3:6, 20:16-18 etc that the bible has it wrong. The people got it wrong, when they slaughtered everyone (and the animals) in the heat of battle and then wrote self-justifying versions.
I don't know that at all. One, I don't know how many of those stories are even historical. Why would I just assume that in the heat of battle
he Israelites went berserk and slaughtered people? Two, God may have told the Israelites to kill all of those people.
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
In the NT, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 where it says that women should be silent in church is obviously someone's idea at a time when churches are sorting out power struggles. It wasn't and isn't God's idea, it may not have even been Paul's. But it is clearly something to repudiate.
Again, I don't know that at all. God might have approved of Paul telling women in the context he was writing to be silent at church. Apparently, the goal isn't to read scripture through the lens of Jesus so much as to try and read Jesus and the rest of scripture through a Marxist lens (and I didn't say Communist lens).
I refuse to repudiate any portion of scripture simply because it offends modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean that I believe God would command Christians to participate in genocide. Doesn't mean that I believe women should be silent.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry,Freddy; I was quoting your post but you had started with a quote from Dafyd and your 'avatars' are similar.
Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with your post.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
In the NT, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 where it says that women should be silent in church is obviously someone's idea at a time when churches are sorting out power struggles. It wasn't and isn't God's idea, it may not have even been Paul's. But it is clearly something to repudiate.
Again, I don't know that at all. God might have approved of Paul telling women in the context he was writing to be silent at church. Apparently, the goal isn't to read scripture through the lens of Jesus so much as to try and read Jesus and the rest of scripture through a Marxist lens (and I didn't say Communist lens).
I refuse to repudiate any portion of scripture simply because it offends modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean that I believe God would command Christians to participate in genocide. Doesn't mean that I believe women should be silent.
Well said Beeswax. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton
If we really found it that distasteful we'd be joining their little club, surely...?
One would think. And yet, here we are.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
While Christians may insist that "every word of Scripture is true", the fact remains that most Christians do not read all of it. For the past few weeks I have been reading the Book of Joshua in my office readings. My office lectionary skips major chunks of the Book, particularly the violent bits, (the only battle I read last week was the Battle at Jericho).
And some parts of Scripture are truly dull: Leviticus and 1st and 2nd Chronicles, when was the last time you heard a sermon on either one of these books with the exception of the little snippet about Solomon praying at the completion of the First Temple in Chronicles.
So, the fact remains that even if we say "all of Scripture is true", we certainly don't read all of it.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So, the fact remains that even if we say "all of Scripture is true", we certainly don't read all of it.
It does not follow from asserting that "all Scripture is true" that "all Scripture is equally useful." No one seems to preach Haggai or Nehemiah unless the church is in a building program.
The boring bits are still Scripture, regardless of where they fall in the Lectionary.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
