Ponderings on Biblical Tyranny [Archive] - Soulforce Community Forums

View Full Version : Ponderings on Biblical Tyranny

Emproph

01-16-2006, 07:58 AM

Before I get lambasted online by those 'who know God better,’ I was wondering if anyone here has heard the following points raised before, or answers/explanations to them?

I’m always wondering how 'Bible believing bigots' get around these, or better yet and worse for that matter, how they do not attempt to or even desire to get around them. I’m not attempting to trounce the Bible here, Just those who would use it to trounce others, and yes the 'irony' of not considering the right-to-take-away-my-rights to be a legitmate right IS lost on me.. (:D now that's sarcasm)

So in regard to the use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to the claim of Biblical inerrancy in order to do so, I'm wondering what they say to things like:
-How is it possible for something absent malice to be evil?
-Is evil actually understood to be arbitrary and not exclusively the love of evil?
-If God is Love, how can it ever be evil to share?
-How is it possible to determine inerrancy without actually being inerrant?
-Where in the Bible does it even suggest that one’s interpretation of it should also be considered inerrant?

Most importantly and interesting to me, how can the Bible be assumed to be divinely inerrant when there’s a warning on the last page not to change it? :eek:
REV 22:18,19 (New KJV)
“A WARNING”
18 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;” 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” (Italics and bold mine)

Seems literal enough for me, but if the Bible, of which Revelations is a part, can ONLY be inerrant, then a warning not to cause error, would be an error. The only other explanation I can see is if the warning itself is an error, which of course, according to the concept of inerrancy, is impossible. Meaning that according to the Bible itself, it is impossible to consider the Bible free from the possibility of error. Am I missing something?

And isn’t it called the King James Version because he’s the one who edited it to avoid breaking papal law? Where does that fit in to the inerrancy debate?

I'm thinking the problem lies in not recognizing the difference between believing one knows, and actually knowing, and I have no doubt I’ll get a different ‘simple’ convoluted explanation from every Jerry, Pat, James and Joyce I ask, I’ve just never heard these particular questions raised before.

The purpose of mentioning all this comes from the understanding that the Bible needs to be removed from or at least properly confronted in the general public debate. Much if not most of the prejudice against gays originates from the assumption that it’s not possible to be born gay, understandable until one learns better. Continuing such a position ‘because the bible says so’ is arbitrary and therefore irrelevant, yet many continue to cling to this position because it is thought to be ‘inerrant.’

Justifying bigotry as being in defense of religious freedom solely based on an assumption of inerrancy is an attack on MY religious freedom to believe otherwise. So I guess my question is, why isn’t the simple truth of this argument being presented and discussed more in the mainstream debate?

Catt of the Garage

01-17-2006, 08:25 AM

Hmm.

Not that I wish to grasp the opportunity to volunteer myself as a "Bible-believing bigot", but I'll have a go at proposing a few answers. Some of these are my own opinions, and some are theories as to the way others think, particularly the very extreme literalists. I hope these help you in your debates:

1. It is perfectly possible to commit evil without malice; otherwise we would not have provisions in law for crimes such as negligence. Irresponsibility or selfishness can give rise to evil as easily as can malice. And if you are a Christian and have devoted your life to God, to act in a way that is unloving or disrespectful towards him, or to disobey him, is also an evil, whatever your motivation.

Some people think homosexuality is an act of disobedience, and therefore evil. The logic is understandable, and for someone like that to change their mind you have to convince them that God has not outright prohibited homosexuality (there are plenty of biblical arguments). If someone is foaming at the mouth and shouting "Abomination!", however, there isn't a whole lot of logic going on in there. You need to talk to these people about humility and about resounding gongs (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=13&verse=1&version=31&context=verse), but I'm afraid you may not get very far.

2. The vast majority of Christians believe in the objectivity of good and evil - evil in itself is bad, not just the love of it. But there are lots of different opinions on how evil is defined, and the Bible contains a great many rules which we do not understand the reason for and we have to be discerning. For example, murder is evil because it is unloving. End of story. But for an Israelite in Old Testament times, eating shellfish or lasagne would also have been evil, not because shellfish or lasagne themselves are inherently evil, but because God had commanded them not to, and obeying him was an act of love and faith in his goodness.

IMHO, where a lot of people get confused is in thinking that because there has been a prohibition against something at some point in Biblical history, that thing is itself evil, where in many cases it is not as simple as that - eg. homosexuality or shellfish. When it comes to biblical literalism, the prawn salad argument is very powerful. So is the Great Commandment (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=22&version=31) in Matthew 22v37, and Peter's vision (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=31) in Acts 10:9-23 - you are not impure, are you? God has made you clean.

3. Depends what you're sharing, doesn't it? Purely love? Great. A sandwich? Brilliant. Sex? Not so simple. For example, adultery is clearly wrong, because when you are married your body does not only belong to you but also to your spouse, so you are sharing something that is not yours to give away. What about casual sex? You are a free agent but it is still very complicated, because sex can harm as well as benefit, so if you are sharing something harmful then it is not loving.

A lot of Christians are speaking from a standpoint similar to a married person. They have devoted their lives, sexuality and all, to God, and so to them, to use sex in a way which he does not approve of is wrong. Again, if you want to have an intelligent conversation with someone like that you have to centre the argument around the question of whether God really does disapprove of homosexual practice or not. It's not a foregone conclusion. Check out the Bible study on truthsetsfree.net (http://www.truthsetsfree.net/).

4&5 - lol! I love your questions. The answer to the first one is that it isn't possible, and there are so many people in the world who need to be hit around the head with a rock with that carved upon it - yes, the Bible may be inerrant, but we are not, so each and every one of us has got something wrong in our interpretation of it. However, each and every one of us also has our head up our own backside to a greater or lesser extent, so people are apt to be very blind to this fact.

The answer to the second question is "nowhere". As far as I am aware most people's belief in the Bible's inerrancy is based upon the statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&version=31) about scripture being "God-breathed". People who believe that the Bible is so easy to understand that their interpretation is bound to be correct are up a tree, IMO. In places it is very difficult to understand.

As for your last point about the note at the end of Revelation, I think that's interesting too, but I've never thought about it before so I can't give you a smart answer to that one.

King James the Sixth and First was the one who authorised the first English translation of the Bible, hence why it bears his name.. I have heard various accusations regarding its accuracy but none of them centred on the fact that his name was on the cover, so that argument probably won't get very far. I certainly don't think it is the most accurate translation in the world but you'd have to do some research as to why and in what way.

Your thought about not recognising the difference between knowing and thinking you know is a very valid one; from some people you probably will get just a regurgitation of unexamined beliefs, but there are many others out there who are bible-believing but are not dyed-in-the-wool bigots. Keep arguing - centre your arguments around truth, justice, the need for humility and the fact that God is love - and some of these people might start to really think.

revtj

01-17-2006, 03:03 PM

I just relish the fact that King James was a 'mo! (YES, it's true!)

Catt of the Garage

01-18-2006, 02:39 AM

Where do you get that from? Never heard that theory.

Emproph

01-18-2006, 06:53 AM

Thanks Catt, that gives me some pause to reflect, or should I say ‘paws’ to reflect... :D -And thanks for the much needed encouragement to believe I might actually be able to get others to ‘think.’ -Don't worry though, it's hard succumb to the mires of expectation when one's original point revolves around the destructive nature of assumption.

there are many others out there who are bible-believing but are not dyed-in-the-wool bigots.
I think recognizing the necessity of that discernment in particular is one of the major challenges to effectively understanding what’s possible and what’s not in regard to the issue of ‘winning hearts and minds.’

And I looked up Carter Heyward too thanks to revtj. She’s right up my alley Catt, here's a link. (:D God I love playing with words)

The Carter Heyward quote with a couple other brief yet compelling excerpts from the same book.
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/quotes/innersol.html

pnggrad79

01-18-2006, 01:53 PM

King James was a 'mo? Really, where did you find that out? If he was, then why did he leave all those references to homosexuality in the Bible?:confused:

revtj

01-18-2006, 02:17 PM

Yes, I know it was a big surprise to me also. I first read about it in Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (the book). Then I did a little research. Seems he liked pretty young men around him in his court and was, uhm, well, what we gay men would call a top.

Why the KJV is the most homophobic translation is a puzzle. It could be that there were so many in the church who hated King James, especially clergy, who wanted more independence for the church. It could also be simply, as in Shakespeare, that a "sodomite" was the lowest insult to sling at a man. I assume you know the word 'faggot' also derives from this same period of history when gay men were regularly burned at the stake.

What insanity it is to elevate the pre-modern cultural norms of King James or Moses to an absolute social standard!

Legion

01-18-2006, 08:35 PM

I quote Emproph:
"Most importantly and interesting to me, how can the Bible be assumed to be divinely inerrant when there’s a warning on the last page not to change it? :eek:
REV 22:18,19 (New KJV)
“A WARNING”
18 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;” 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” (Italics and bold mine)

Seems literal enough for me, but if the Bible, of which Revelations is a part, can ONLY be inerrant, then a warning not to cause error, would be an error. The only other explanation I can see is if the warning itself is an error, which of course, according to the concept of inerrancy, is impossible. Meaning that according to the Bible itself, it is impossible to consider the Bible free from the possibility of error. Am I missing something?"

I would say you are missing at least one somethings, if not several. In this remarkable bit of literature you have attacked the doctrine of biblical innerrancy using a passage of Scripture, which is logically inconsistent and self-defeating.

SolInvictus

01-18-2006, 10:44 PM

Hello again Legion:

the Bible is a gathering of sacred texts officially sanctioned by Constantine the Great and later the Catholic Church. Many other texts circulated before and after known collectively under various titles: the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Texts, and the Apocrapha. Groups of men chose what would be "edited" to become the Bible, thus the concept of it being inerrant seems very unlikely.

Emproph

01-19-2006, 09:35 AM

In this remarkable bit of literature you have attacked the doctrine of biblical innerrancy using a passage of Scripture, which is logically inconsistent and self-defeating.
Precisely my point, “A passage of Scripture” that directly implies the possibility of error is “logically inconsistent” with the claim of Biblical inerrancy.

I would say you are missing at least one somethings, if not several.

Which is why I asked, to show I wasn’t just assuming I couldn’t be wrong.
-So I re-ask, what specifically is it that I’m missing?

-I'm not questioning "remarkable literature," I'm questioning what I perceive to be the absence of very unremarkable logic.

Legion

01-23-2006, 05:37 PM

To SolInvinctus
It only seems unlikely if you don't acknowledge God's sovereignty. Do you always draw the line at "unlikely"?

To Emproph
You misunderstand me. My point was that it is an inconsistent and invalid argument to use a passage of Scripture to support the potential falsity of the said passage. In other words, you are trying to prove that your evidence is potentially false.
I appreciate your concern over the absence of unremarkable logic in my arguments, though the reason my logic is unremarkable is that it is almost entirely self-evident and very, very basic.

NonLemming

01-23-2006, 05:47 PM

LOL, Oh Brother!

SolInvictus

01-23-2006, 06:48 PM

Legion:
Once again, you are using the ethos method. Unlikely suggests the possibility of error; I try to keep an open mind & unlike you, I do not state my view is the absolute truth. Consider the facts from history & then form an opinion.

You're in my Prayers,
In Christ's Love

Legion

01-23-2006, 07:36 PM

I meant it when I asked if you always draw the line at unlikely. Christ is unlikely. Life is unlikely. The resurrection of the dead is unlikely. Most of what transpires within the pages of the Scriptures is unlikely in human terms. At what point do you distinguish between truth and error? And on what basis? Do you base your Christian faith on a materialistic and rationalistic assessment of Scripture's likelihood?

SolInvictus

01-24-2006, 06:23 PM

Legion:
Like anyone, I follow my heart in relation to facts & logic to form a belief system. Like Nathan said in a previous post, I follow where the Spirit leads.
When I was in the fundamentalist mindset (yes, I was one long ago), life was broke down into: sin, unworthy, absolutes good/bad; however, I came soon to realize that life does not function in absolutes. The universal meanings & stories of sacred texts are found within each & the Bible, in my opinion, is not the sole source of positive spiritual guidance & teachings.

If you get the chance, read these other texts. Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita (Song of the Lord), Upanishads, and the Vedas. These are beautiful texts & describe a close personal relationship with God. The Dhammapada of Buddhism is similar to the New Testament in the Bible in that they share a common sharing of the message for universal compassion, tolerance, and love.

The problem therein develops how can they all be wrong/right? Why would God only have one source of texts to enlighten/teach others?

Legion

01-27-2006, 07:39 PM

Emproph

01-28-2006, 09:21 AM

Legion, what is your score?
How many are you, more importantly how many of them recognize how many there are?
Each of us is a Nation State.

Intelligence is the ability to ORDER importance.

What truth do you fear you will lose if the Bible is with error? That’s the only question.

Does it mean that the reality of Love is no longer true or does it mean your personal salvation is no longer true?

Or is it that you’re so afraid there just might not be life after death of any kind that you are unwilling to even question it?

Have you considered these questions. If you haven’t it would make great sense as to why those who insist upon Biblical inerrancy do so with such fervor. Worse even then being wrong for a supremacist mind would be the fear of eternal cessation after death. O my F—ing God, Biblical inerrancy equals life after death. The inerrancy of the Bible is the only thing that is separating you from the conviction that there is no life after death. Is that what I am to understand?

Biblical inerrancy is needed to avoid the fear of the intolerable fear of the uncertainty of death. Yea, Nay? :rainbow:

SolInvictus

01-28-2006, 04:40 PM

Legion: you didn't really answer my question. If anything, you avoided it.
By using a verse from a sacred text to support your claim is weak & lacks a reasonable response.

If you really want to get into semantics, that verse can be interpreted in many different contexts. If taken as fact literally, then Jesus could be interpreted as being Truth in context of not lying: by serving God in whatever incarnation, introduces the seeker to inner truth or common humanity. "Unto the father but by me" can be taken as we must ask him permission before going to our father or any father. The problem w/ taking the Bible literally is that it offers many interpretations & is devoid of being taken in the proper context from the cultural & historical perspective of the time.

When not taken literally, you can still believe God, and such the unity & diversity of God in the many sacred religions. If you are trying to prove myself & others wrong on this forum; its not working.

Besides, Jesus also says "may they all be One as I am in you and you in me."
We should be united in Christ, not divided. God's love is represented by the many religions, traditions, and many different individuals & cultures of the world. By denying the diversity of God, the individual may only see one side & miss the entire message.

In Christ's Love & Peace to You Legion.

Legion

01-28-2006, 11:02 PM

SolInvictus

01-29-2006, 11:57 AM

Ok Legion:
when speaking in the form of "us" and "we" designates more than one person. I apologize for any rudeness, but do you multiple personalities? If this is the case, please make an appointment w/ the psychiatrist.

Secondly, I live a very happy life, thank you. Do you? You haven't convinced me of anything, and I feel sorry for you. Exclusion, hatred, and discrimination always result in negative consequences. May God help you find peace.

In Christ's Love

Zerbie

01-29-2006, 12:10 PM

Don't feed them. ;)

Legion

02-15-2006, 04:07 PM

Exclusion, hatred and discrimination? Strong words. But I do not deny them. I exclude sin, hate foolishness and discriminate between right and wrong. I embrace those ideas as useful when maintained in wisdom. To foreswear all discrimination is logically inconsistent and self-defeating. Hurrah!

NathanATX

02-15-2006, 05:05 PM

Emproph:
If the Bible is in error I stand to lose everything. Yet I do not seek the "safety" that the World would try to sell me. He that seeks to save his life will lose it, said Jesu. The safety of this world is a lie and it leads only to death. There is a peril to walking the narrow path, yet a surety as well, because we do not make the journey in our own strength. To live the Christian life one must be willing to accept danger and to thrive on adventure. Life is not safe. Dragons and highwaymen lie in wait along the road. Tempests and fallen trees plague the way. Rather than hedging our bets and seeking comfort in dreary pluralism, the Christian must embrace the joyful arduousness of the One Way.

He who seeks to save his life will lose it. You seek to save "everything," so you gird yourself with primeival understandings and concepts, trying to validate them for our modern day world. Out of your hysteria, you have created and are worshipping a god who makes you feel safe in this scary world... regardless if your god is real or not.

If you see a dragon, call a zoo. If you see "highwaymen," call the police. Watch the Weather Channel to avoid tempests. Call the city road crews to clear the fallen trees.

To follow Christ means to live like Him, talk like Him... to become like Him. As he told the religious scholar what one has to do to have eternal life in Luke 10, He said, "That you love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and muscle and intelligence--and that you love your neighbor as well as you do yourself."

Hey SolInvictus:
Before continuing, it must be understood that I reject your nervous and shrill syncretism ENTIRELY. There are certainly many "sacred texts" in an anthropological sense, yet only one that is truly sacred, only one that is truely True, that being the Bible. There is no "diversity" of truth. There is one Way and one Truth. The Bible is extremely exclusive, clearly designating other religions (along with their various texts) as being false. Nor is Christianity unique in this regard. Most "sacred texts" are mutually exclusive. Christ does not compromise with idols and demons. The gospel of Christ is in essential conflict with any other religion. I am sorry to say that I cannot explain to you God's motives behind revealing Himself in the way that He has. I imagine it is not for mankind to understand the mysteries of God's eternal wisdom, or to plumb the depths of His counsel. It is our part to obey.

We hold the Bible sacred because that is how God has been revealed to us. The sacred texts of other religions are the ways that God has been revealed to them.

I'm glad you mentioned idolatry. Essentially what you are doing is making a graven image or an idol out of the Bible. Instead of using the Bible to point to God, you point to the Bible as God. And it isn't. It is the work of writers who were inspired by God, who shared how God was revealed to them, who shared the history of Judaism and who shared the story of the life of Christ. I'm sure you will recoil at this, but in one way the Bible is like a work of art... every person brings their unique perspective to understanding it, to perceiving it's beauty & wisdom. It's more important to us than any ordinary work of art because it points us to God.

I suppose you find this very droll, and all rather rustic and backwards. I have tried to explain things and wish I could do better. But the Gospel is foolishness to the gentiles unless the Holy Spirit precedes it. If you are content with your shallow semantics and feel-good pluralism, then please ignore me from now on. If, however, you feel that your worldview could stand to benefit from discussing with me/us/the ninja-elf, then carry on.

"The gospel is foolishness to the gentiles unless the holy spirit precedes it?"

I don't know if I've ever heard such a haughty & judgemental statement. In that one sentence you've said Sol is a fool, a "gentile"--by which I'm sure you mean heathen/not Christian, and that for some weird reason the Holy Spirit didn't precede the gospel when it was made known to him.

Your God-view is shallow and completely created out of your fear. If you could only have the courage to believe in a loving, compassionate God... instead of an ominous terrorist in the sky who is just waiting to smote you if you step out of line... If you could truly see God's love & compassion for yourself, you would be able to see it for other people.

Legion

02-21-2006, 05:49 PM

Stop attacking me and address my ideas. Perhaps true faith IS born out of hysteria, or accompanies it. When God reveals Himself to sinful men, their response is tpically one of intense fear and trembling, such that they cannot stand, let alone maintain control of their various faculties. When God reveals himself to the elect, the response is one of ecstasy and overwhelming, indescribable, almost painful, joy. This is hysteria. What else but proper recognition of unworthiness and sin will lead one to recognize the need for salvation? True wisdom is a result of the fear of The Holy (Ps 111:10).

Is God angry and judging and wrathful? Certainly. God's wrath towards sin is a common theme throughout the Holy Scripture (Rom 2:5). Justice is as much a part of God's nature as mercy.

To discriminate against what you call my shallow God-view is inconsistent with your philosophy, too. I do not claim to agree with your philosophy of pluralism, but it makes no sense for you to proclaim the diversity of God, and then proceed to criticize my perception of the Almighty. Perhaps some consider God to be more than merely "love and compassion". There are many kinds of wickedness that are not deserving of love. How then do we deal with such things if we cannot hate them with holy hatred (Heb 1:9)? In many situations, mercy is not even to be shown to the perpetrators of wickedness, as rulers are God's instruments of wrath against the wicked (Rom 13:4). God's compassion is free, but not universal. Some people have been created for mercy, some for wrath (9:21).

Not all people are saved, because not every religion is true, and saying so is NOT idolatry. Only Christ can bring humans to salvation (14:6). In fact, religions are mutually exclusive, by virtue of their sanctity. Saying that every religion is holy is as good as saying that none are, because it removes the absolute singular unique holy otherness of the god that that religion worships. Different religions preach very different gods. One of the many paradoxes of Christianity is God's diversity in unity; the Trinity; the Three in One. God's diversity does not manifest itself in a diversity of many faiths, but rather in the unity of one. This is apparently foolish and nonsensical, however, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those to whom He has sent His Holy Spirit: for the Gospel proves to be foolishness and a stumbling-block to those who have not been chosen by God. For the foolishness of the Lord is wiser than the wisdom of mankind. Arrogant? Haughty? Judgemental? [Not that it makes any sense to be judgemental of judgmentalism] 1 Corinthians 1 would indicate otherwise. The reasoning and false wisdom of men is worthless in comparison to the paradox of the True Gospel.

Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost writes this to the elect at Ephesus: "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

themattperry

02-21-2006, 09:44 PM

Hello everyone,

I think this is a very necessary, lively thread -- it has been fascinating to read its diverse and often heated posts. I think often about these things, and offer this post just as a doorway into some of my thoughts on the matter ...

What people discuss here is the hermeneutics that we each bring to scripture. In other words: who were the authors of the Bible's words, what were there intentions/identities/levels of authority, and what does this say about our attitude towards the text we proclaim as Holy? Taking this a bit further, we ask: to what extent does our relationship with the Holy and our ultimate destiny rely on our interaction with these texts? How, in the end, are we to read and value the Bible?

Several observations come to mind:

1. Many mainstream protestant denominations including my own (Lutheran) church are massively divided on the question of hermeneutics. The issue is becoming more and more divisive.

2. While it is true that the debate about gay and lesbian inclusion/ordination raging in many mainline denominations divides itself along approximately the same lines as that of the discussion about which hermeneutic is correct, I think that the two are not really related as a matter of logic, but rather (as some here have hinted) as a matter of CULTURE and PSYCHOLOGY. In other words -- I believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible and the exclusion of glbt flow from the same place, but the one is NOT usually the result of the other. (To see this, note that very very very few biblical literalists insist on the implementation of ALL mandates and laws recorded in the Bible and those that do are considered by most people to be extremely dangerous.)

3. It is my observation that what what those who insist on a literalist interpretation of the Bible AND those who demand gay and lesbian people be excluded from the life of the church seek above all else is the feeling of moral certainty.

4. Striving for this feeling of "moral certainty" is the means by which we all attempt to advance what I would call our own "cultural survival". In other words -- through our lust for certainty, we are crying out that: our way of living is the right way of living, we are justified in living in this particular way by power(s) larger than ourselves, God (the parent) approves of our way of living, we belong (in a tribal sense) to a collection of culturally alike people. Freud etc. would have related this to the drive to obtain parental approval or attention. Others would relate it to the instinct that a society (tribe) has toward survival and propagation. In a global world, these drives are increasingly vestigial, but still extremely powerful, and very much alive in all of us.

5. It is interesting to me how we Christians often refer to our church as a family (we are the children of God) and also as a tribe (Israel, the chosen people). Is it surprising then that our ancient instincts about belonging, authority and parentage apply powerfully to this body, and to the book which we all proclaim as the word of God?

6. Thinking about these issues in this way helps me: when someone insists on the "authority" of a text, or the "absolute" nature of a law, what they are seeking is essentially their own psychological survival, the survival of their family and the survival of their own way of life. They feel threatened. In a similar way, that is why many gay marriage opponents say that the institution of marriage itself is threatened by gay marriage. Like many assertions that seek to uphold certainty above all else, this is not a logical statement at all. Logic does not enter into it: it is not marriage itself that is truly in danger, but rather the self-image of the person advocating for certainty.

7. For me, this understanding leads to a kind of compassion. As a gay person, I'm very aware of what it feels like to not belong, to feel my identity shift beneath me, to want more than anything to be standing on some solid ground. So I can understand where these drives come from, and this helps me be in conversation and community with those who differ radically from me in these ways.

Anyway just a few thoughts, I have and could add many more ... any reactions?

NathanATX

02-22-2006, 08:40 AM

Excellent post, Matt. I'm going to come back and read it again.
Nathan

NonLemming

02-22-2006, 10:47 AM

Great Post, Matt. I think that you have a good mind. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and keep it up.

Legion

02-23-2006, 11:20 AM

Interesting. But certainly the Bible gives us some level of moral certainty? I hope so.

I think it somewhat unfair to designate anyone who endeavors to uphold the certainty of certain moral laws as insecure, though some certainly are.

Anybody read GK Chesterton here? Fascinating, fascinating stuff. If you have, you may be able to better understand me when I say that trying to be absolutely open-minded ultimately results in blindness and foolishness. Certainty results in clarity.

Is the institution of marriage in danger? It depends on what you think the institution of marriage represents.

I think it is ridiculous that people consciously exclude gay and lesbian folks from the life of the church. If they really believe that homosexual activity is a sin, than they should treat it as any other sin. Their actions speak louder than their words.

Nathan: could you give me some feedback on my earlier, longer post? I'm interested to see what you think. Thanks.

themattperry

02-23-2006, 02:05 PM

Legion,

You said:
"But certainly the Bible gives us some level of moral certainty? I hope so."

I think the Bible gives us a whole lot less moral certainty than most people think or would want. Way less. This is largely because when read literally, it contradicts itself over and over and over again. It transmits very few consistent moral directives even on matters such as homicide/infanticide, the use of prostitutes/concubines, the possession of wealth, ritual purity, marriage/divorce/polygamy, rape, war etc etc ... In addition to whatever else it might be, it is a collection of writings by people and cultures that have widely divergent and inconsistent views on these subjects and can therefore not be considered literally instructive on them, if taken as a whole.

For me, the living Christ revealed in the Gospel (lived, proclaimed, written) is the center of faith and of ethics. Christ is myth, living reality, and mystery. The Bible is but one of the means by which I know Christ. Its authority, inerrancy or anything else about it are of rather little concern to me.

How about you? Why is it so important to defend the consistency and inerrancy of the Bible? Or do I misread you? Are you in fact not a literalist? In that case Legion, how do you read the Bible?

Perhaps an answer to this question will enlighten us on the origin of many of the views you are expressing.

Also -- I can see your point to a certain degree on the question of whether insisting on the authority of a moral law indicates that one is insecure in some way. Perhaps not always. Your reference ot GK Chesterton is interesting. However, I do tend to believe that moral absolutes are extremely dangerous in most cases because they close us off from the reality of the world and of our own minds and hearts and the hearts of others. Whenever there is a conflict between the application of a moral maxim and the call of a real human soul, I know where my hope lies.

Legion

02-23-2006, 03:51 PM

Much of Christianity is paradox, as I think you would agree. If we are going to be Christians, we must learn to accept paradox, without necessarily understanding it. God is both mystery and manifest. Christ is both human and divine. Our modernist culture is reticent to accept the existence of unkowns, but our attempt to reclaim the mystery and the beauty of the Gospel should not require the sacrifice of some moral certainty. The basic moral laws are quite clear and evident in their dictation, but may be unclear in their application. Paradox again? Fortunately, God gives us grace and wisdom enough to apply His commands without being entirely lost and confused. Some issues are beyond our understanding, and will be so until we reach heaven. That does not mean that ignorance is an ideal. We should be perpetually striving for what understanding, wisdom and insight we can grasp.

Moral absolutes may be dangerous, but they need not be bad. Danger is inherent in Christianity. The Ten Commantments are pretty darn forthright and absolute. It is very hard to misconstrue Do Not Murder. The danger comes in the application. Should we flee from danger? Sometimes. We are sometimes told to flee and other times to stand fast and advance. God commands us to strive for integrity and moral excellence. Any task worth undertaking will involve certain elements of danger and arduousness.

The main thing is to be balanced.

Emphasis on either certainty or mystery, danger or safety, love or anger, to the detriment of the other is foolish. I believe that the Bible is both literal and figurative. I choose not to try to cram myself into one particular category at the expense of other categories, because not all passages are literal and not all passages are figurative (though I think many can be taken both ways).

themattperry

02-23-2006, 05:50 PM

Legion,

This is a very useful discussion for me ... the way you state your point of view is clear, and helps me sharpen my own. So thanks.

What you just posted brought up a few reactions in me ...

Much of Christianity is paradox, as I think you would agree. If we are going to be Christians, we must learn to accept paradox, without necessarily understanding it. God is both mystery and manifest. Christ is both human and divine. Our modernist culture is reticent to accept the existence of unknowns, but our attempt to reclaim the mystery and the beauty of the Gospel should not require the sacrifice of some moral certainty.

I would absolutely agree with all of this! Paradox is at the center of the Gospel. God's grace will always surpass our understanding. I would, however, add that the modern naturalistic mind (ie the scientific mind) is often MORE and not LESS comfortable with unknowns and the unknowable that many religious ways of thinking.

The basic moral laws are quite clear and evident in their dictation, but may be unclear in their application. Paradox again? Fortunately, God gives us grace and wisdom enough to apply His commands without being entirely lost and confused. Some issues are beyond our understanding, and will be so until we reach heaven. That does not mean that ignorance is an ideal. We should be perpetually striving for what understanding, wisdom and insight we can grasp.

I would differ with you here ... I don't think that moral laws are very clearly dictated, at least not by the Bible. As I stated before, the Bible contradicts its own moral dictates with regularity. Killing is forbidden in the commandments, but the Bible (particularly in the old testament histories) details and glorifies repeated God-sanctioned bloodbaths committed by the armies of the chosen. The sayings of the prophets and others routinely threaten death to the unfaithful, the foreigner or the transgressor. The only mechanism by which we can make moral sense of the Bible is by emphasizing some passages and downplaying others. (more on this below.)

Paradox should not be confused with contradiction. The Bible's moral message is contradictory, not paradoxical. Paradox implies a hidden order behind an apparent contradiction, or that the contradiction flows from accepted precepts, and therefore must be true in some way. There is little that is orderly about the Bible ... but then again, it all comes down to whether you believe the Bible is authoritative in every word, or not. It's really a very simple choice, and it determines how you approach what the Bible implies. By what you say in the following Legion, I realize that you think that this is not a choice you must make:

I believe that the Bible is both literal and figurative. I choose not to try to cram myself into one particular category at the expense of other categories, because not all passages are literal and not all passages are figurative (though I think many can be taken both ways).

Certainly, the Bible is what the Bible is. Sometimes history, sometimes fable, sometimes genealogy etc etc ... but the question I originally posed, (about hermeneutics) is what are we? How do we read the Bible? You choose to read it in some ways for some passages and in other ways for other passages ... but then I would simply ask how you determines which passages get which readings, and what is the driving force behind this decision? What parts of the Bible are authoritative? And if you or I are deciding that for ourselves, isn't it really our authority that is being exercised when we bless one part of scripture over another, rather than the authority of the scripture itself?

You appeal to balance, Legion. This sounds very attractive, but some appeals to moderation are essentially compromises with our own deep desire for safety. We are willing to subject some Biblical passages to interpretation and scrutiny, but not others. Why? Because we don't feel safe calling the origins of certain culturally important moral maxims into question.

I guess I just believe that we are all fully called into living in moral conversation with each other and with ourselves. That is the bottom line for me. The soul -- the indwelling Christ conscience -- along the communion of saints (the world) ... these are the ultimate sources of my morality (on good days.) The Bible is an important guide to thinking about these things, and is our record of Christ among us. For me, it is simply not, in whole or in part, an authoritative moral instruction manual.