What the Bible is really about

[Thats my opinion]

More than occasionally in “religion” there are references to some Biblical text or story which seeks to portray a miracle, paints God as a tyrant, and authorizes some horrible activity or prejudice. Take every word of the Bible literally and those are things you can certainly find.

Indeed, fundamentalists believe the Bible was handed down from God, and every word is God speaking. This Biblical notion is an easy target, and many posters here have taken some pretty good shots, even if a fundamentalist hardly ever appears in “religion.” Attacking a perspective which is not present, doesn’t advance anything very far.

Historically, this notion espoused by fundamentalists, is a late appearing doctrine. It developed in the US about a century ago. Ignored here is the Biblical scholarship which has been alive and well from long before the fundamentalists appeared. “Historic critical” Biblical research is at least 200 years old, and you can go back almost to the beginning of Christian history and find a very different notion than that assumed by the fundamentalists. Serious critics might well look at this scholarship instead of spending their energy making fun of the fundies. Any scientist or even non-professional ignoring everything science has developed in the last two centuries, would be laughed off he stage. And what is true of the scientific discipline is true of every other human intellectual activity—history, literature you name it. And yet there is an insistence that one can ignore all that Biblical scholarship has produced and be thought of as engaging in intelligent dialogue.

So what do we now know about the Bible? IT DID NOT FLOAT DOWN FROM HEAVEN, BUT WAS WRITTEN OVER MANY CENTURIES AND FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES, AND REFLECTS WHAT WAS GOING IN THOSE CULTURES. In its various parts it was always a product of the culture, not the absolute word of God from above. It therefore bears all the marks of the various cultures which produced it.
Out of primitive cultures came primitive readings of religion. A culture steeped in chauvinism and bigotry will produce a similar religion. No one can understand either the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament unless they understand the nature of the societies which produced them.

At the same time, these culturally condition documents were being developed, there were those with a different vision and ethical sensitivity who saw the limitations in culture-generated religious traditions. In the name of a very different notion of God, they stood in judgment on what they saw, and offered a radically wider, more inclusive, gracious ethic. We know them in the Hebrew Scriptures as the 8th century prophets. Amos condemned a society which made the rich richer and everybody else servants of their wealth. He condemned the popular religion which reflected that perspective. “I hate your religious rituals—but let justice flow down like a river!” Amos was told to go back home and shut up! Micah called a military nation to “beat swords into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks, and to study war no more.” Jonah is a tale about how God loves the foreigners that the religious Jonah hated. None of these prophets represented the vast majority of religionists of the day. But they did represent what they saw as God’s higher ethic. No secularist of the times made the case. If these religious prophets had not made it, it would not have been made.

In the New Testament, Jesus is the embodiment of this prophetic tradition. He began his ministry quoting Isaiah, “He has commissioned me to offer good news to the poor, freedom to the captives, sight to the blind, liberty to the oppressed…” When confronted with the legalisms of the majority religionists of his day he replied, “You have heard it said of old, but I say to you….” He said that all the negative commandments the religious kept spouting could be summed up in only two: honor God and love one another. His friends were all those the religious conservatives despised. His work was almost entirely with the left out.

Today most fundamentalists simply replicate in religious language the radical conservatism of their culture. And they are in the religious majority. But as has always been true, there is today a small minority of Christians who have a different view of what is good, and explicate this good news over against the majority. They honor the Bible, not as the words of God, but as the best ancient cultures tried to do, even as they reflect sometimes very awful societies. Their colleagues are people of other religions and of no religion. All those who share this higher ethic are their brothers and sisters.

Throughout Christian history these two traditions—one usually very large and the other very small have offered highly different notions of God’s will and purpose for the world. You find this minority in seminaries and universities, in liberal denominations, councils of churches, thousands of progressive congregations and now and then in otherwise conservative churches. They always take Biblical criticism as vital to rational discourse.

It is my hope that when posters in “religion” discuss the Bible and the meaning of religious faith, their attention might be given to this minority tradition, using the scholarship and insights which have been around for a long time. To ignore what this long-established tradition has known because the other makes an easier
target, would not be acceptable in any discussion of science or other important disciplines. No one is asking posters here to agree with me, but only to take seriously what is going in the religious world.

[cleanhippie]

1. The bible, Harry potter, twilight, etc.

To the nonbeliever, these all have the same amount of relevance to reality. If one wants to find meaning in these, or any other text, fine by me. The problem lies when those that do, attempt to legislate based in their beliefs in these texts, and their tendency to vilify those that do not.


So my question to you, TMO, is what separates your interpretation of your religious texts and your desire to see a society based on that, from those that differ from yours?

[cleanhippie]

6. I guess I do not rate a response.

No "gotcha" questions, no snark, no insult. Only straightforward and honest.
Come on, TMO, surprise me with an answer.

[LTX]

16. The bible; Harry Potter; Blackstone's Commentaries; the Justinian Code;

Last edited Tue May 22, 2012, 08:25 AM - Edit history (2)

the commentaries of Jeremy Bentham; Shakespeare; the philosophical fictions of Voltaire, Camus, Blanchot, Schopenhauer, Ayn Rand (blech), etc.; the philosophical works of Locke, Hume, Kierkegaard, etc.; Maimonides's Mishneh Torah; Plato's dialogs; the persistent use of fictionalization throughout common law treatises and case-law; etc., etc.

As you say: "If one wants to find meaning in these, or any other text, fine by me. The problem lies when those that do, attempt to legislate based in their beliefs in these texts, and their tendency to vilify those that do not."

So your point is -- Choose your texts carefully?

On edit: Oh, wait, I see your point now. It's -- Don't vilify those who disagree with your choice of text. Right? (Which kind of puts Paul Ryan beyond vilification. Well, maybe it's some other point.)

[cleanhippie]

26. If my point isn't already clear to you, nothing I say will change that.

But feel free to continue to reinterpret my post in any way you want.

[LTX]

27. Nice exit. n/t

[cleanhippie]

30. Wish the same could be said for your entrance.

[JoePhilly]

2. I like to point out a few problems with the "God wrote every word" interpretation.

These are easy to understand, even for those with little knowledge of how the bible came to be.

The first problem with the "God wrote it all" interpretation is that nothing in the bible actually says that God actually wrote every word. But we can skip that one. Its kind of a small detail.

The larger problem is that if God wrote it all, then the different books of the bible would not need to be titled as having being written by different people. Why would God attribute the various books of the bible to specific individuals like Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, unless God intended them to be recognized for their efforts? If anything, naming these individuals as "authors" indicates that God did not write every word.

Supporting that multi-author perspective are the inconsistencies which appear between these authors. Take the resurrection. The different authors describe similar, but disparate events. If these are all God's words, why are the named authors inconsistent in their accounts?

[Thats my opinion]

4. Right on.

it is not just different authors, but different cultures, different eras and different perspectives.
Until the fundamentalists, it was never "God wrote every word."

What do you make of the alternative I spelled out?

[JoePhilly]

18. A few thoughts ...

I don't know if you are familiar with the writings of Karen Armstrong, but in her book "A History of God", she lays out some very similar themes to what you describe. She's been a nun, but struggled with her faith. And so she tried to read and research as much as she could about the bible and God. Her book "A History of God" examines Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as the Old Testament, New Testament and the Koran, respectively.

She examines each within the context of the social, economic and political context in which it developed. While doing so, she also examines the competing interpretations and how those were positioned. She provides examples of specific texts in the bible and Korean which don't seem to fit, unless you examine them in the context of when the documents were actually written. And a key theme is how the documents change to reflect some social, economic, or political reality at the time. Its as if there was some social conflict, and these documents were being used to help provide guidance ... but that guidance was coming from one biblical interpretation or another.

So there was an interaction. In some cases, the documents were used to enforce a particular societal viewpoint, in other cases, the documents were changed, to support one groups societal viewpoint. So you could use the documents as they were, to enforce your view, or you could change the documents, so that they would now support your societal view.

She also devotes some time to discussing the competitive nature of the various interpretations, each claiming to be the "correct" interpretation. In some cases, the competition was between one faction who was staying "true to the original meaning" and another faction that was argued to be "drifting from the original meaning". Here too, the competition was often about imposing social mores, as a mechanism of overall control. The competition was also about increasing membership, and attracting the most powerful individuals of that period.

Anyway ... I think your description sounds very similar to what I've read in Armstrong's books. Thinking about it in present day, the same applies ... one can use the religious texts to support one's views and impose those on others ... and even if the documents don't say exactly what you need them to say, you just shift your interpretation, and then claim that you are one who understands the "original meaning". So basically, you change the text without actually changing it.

[daaron]

20. True this.

In your last paragraph, you hit the nail, IMO. If it was for an interpretive approach to scripture (and in my case, extra-biblical texts from the D.S.S. to alchemical commentary) I do believe my faith would have burned away years ago.

I think part of the problem that the OP identifies (RE biblical scholarship and religion) is that as one reads more, and takes a more rational approach to biblical and apocryphal texts, one can end up wondering if one isn't engaging in over-interpretation - essentially the pitfall of biblical scholarship lies in cherry-picking. What makes one interpretation (say, a liberation theology one) more valid than another (say, a fundamentalist one)?

I've never found a fully satisfying answer to this puzzle, for myself. What keeps me going is just how damn fascinating the history of Judaism and Christianity are. It get's even more interesting once one gives up thinking about the Bible as in any way a special or particularly legitimate collection of texts. Once I accepted that I would never know the whole factual, historical truth about Jesus Christ and his disciples, I felt free to pursue theological directions that are still considered heretical. I feel my faith has been enriched by this practice, and I credit it with saving my faith from the dustbin.

[JoePhilly]

22. At the end of the book I mentioned ...

Armstrong comes to a similar conclusion for herself. I can't do it justice, but basically she finds that she feels closest to God, not by knowing the answers as described in some specific text, but in the activity of reading and thinking about the many texts that actually exist, comparing them, researching the events of the times, so on.

I think she refers to herself as a "freelance deist".

[daaron]

24. "Freelance deist"... I like that.

It's tricky business, this minefield of information that history offers. And what of the innumerable untold stories? What of the bazillions of forgotten souls who have lived - drinking and pissing the same water that we do today, gazing at the same sun, the same faces, age after age after age? Maybe that's why I feel fine being a cherry-picker, but don't try to justify my picks - I just pick 'em and move on, and don't pretend my choices should even interest anyone else (chances are they won't), let alone that they should subscribe to them.

That's why I play it close to the chest - real close.

[Thats my opinion]

28. Karen Armstrong has done a marvelous job working with religious thought.

Her books are used world wide. She is one of the very few people TED (which is a marvelous resource) allows to bring a long lecture. Anyone who is interested in the Biblical narrative and history--as well as the broader understanding of religions, should spend time with her works.

[JoePhilly]

31. I had a suspicion you were familiar with her work.

My father in law is very Religious, keeps bibles all over the house, so a few years back I recommended he read some of her work about the history of the bible.

He said ... "Why would I want to read about the bible, when I can just read the bible."

Oh well.

[laconicsax]

3. "A culture steeped in chauvinism and bigotry will produce a similar religion"

How is this any different from when an atheist says that the Bible is full of bigotry or that a particular religion is?

When you say, "today most fundamentalists simply replicate in religious language the radical conservatism of their culture," what is inaccurate about saying, "today most progressive Christians simply replicate in religious language the liberalism of their culture?"

[Thats my opinion]

5. If you look at the examples, they were all profoudly "counter-cultural."

[laconicsax]

10. You can't have it both ways.

You can't say

Out of primitive cultures came primitive readings of religion. A culture steeped in chauvinism and bigotry will produce a similar religion. No one can understand either the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament unless they understand the nature of the societies which produced them.

And then wave your hands and dismiss the chauvinism and bigotry of the Bible by citing a few examples of non-bigoted passages. Not only is it disingenuous, but it relies on proof-texting, which I've been told that sophisticated theologians such as yourself detest.

Similarly, you can't say

Today most fundamentalists simply replicate in religious language the radical conservatism of their culture.

And then deny that you're doing the exact same, except with progressive ideals.

[xfundy]

7. "[no need to] agree with me, but only to take seriously what is going in the religious world."

I do, I take it very seriously. It's terrifying.

All the chatter, from all the sects, of how powerful their god is, yet they are the ones causing the damage, not their god.

[intaglio]

8. Your difficulty - The only source for your faith is the Bible

and that book is contradictory. To say, essentially, look only at the "nice" bits of the bible means you have to discard large parts of that text or indulge in magnificently convoluted "reinterpretations". You have to cherry pick the bits you want and that gives license to others to choose the pieces they prefer.

Begin with the Old Testament, I was talking with one man who opined that the story of Noah was a wonderful metaphor for how God forgives mankind and gives them the chance to start over once the old corruption has been removed. Obviously this distorts the text to breaking point and ignores other metaphorical interpretations. One would paint God a a genocidal maniac, unable to reform with an invisible hand and willing to kill beasts and the newborn for the sinfulness of adults humans - so humans had better be good. Another would be that God is a klutz who cannot create free willed humans who are good in the same way as angels are free willed and good - so why not ignore Him.

You choose the story of Jonah as displaying how forgiving God is to non-Jews but another interpretation would be that God is petty-minded, cannot choose a Prophet who will obey him and is unwilling to fulfill the prophecies He has inspired.

The New Testament is just as problematic. The stories of Jesus are, generally, more forgiving of "peace and love" God but again this require discarding whole segments of the books. The obvious examples are the epilogue to the Last Supper where Jesus commands his followers to buy weapons and the fate of the cursed fig tree. Then you move into the large part of the NT which has nothing to do with Jesus at all but with the prophecies and opinions of Jesus's followers - notably Paul.

Surely it is better to throw out the entire mish-mash of folklore and bad philosophy and start anew.

[LTX]

17. The only source for the faith

of some (a rather distinct minority) is the bible. Sources of faith reside, for many christians and for innumerable non-christians, in a plethora of other writings representing the collective thought of theologians, philosophers, and scientists. And it also resides in the universe around us -- you know, that thing we drift around in and keep trying to explain.

[intaglio]

19. Can of worms here

The OP was concerned with Christianity and that is what my post related to. Trying to shoehorn "other faiths" into this particular discussion is a distraction but what I will say here can apply to all faiths of which I am aware.

So in relation to belief in God you say:

Sources of faith reside, for many christians and for innumerable non-christians, in a plethora of other writings representing the collective thought of theologians, philosophers, and scientists

Theologians: if Christian they source their writings about God either directly from the words within the Bible or from the works of other theologians which are sourced from the Bible; if non-Christian their sources will be similarly appropriate to the faith they espouse; for example, Muslim theologians will use the Koran (and the Bible) and Hindu many texts such as the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Philosophers: when considering "God" in a Christian context are entirely reliant on the evidence for a God, which comes only from the Bible. A philosopher considering God without a theological context can arrive at an understanding that conflicts with faith; consider Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations", where no deity is required, or the purported beliefs of Socrates, which were atheist or agnostic.

Scientists: Science says nothing about any god, Christian or otherwise. There is no experiment that demonstrates a god, no observation of such a creature; indeed the absence of such evidence leads directly to the theological death spiral called "The God of the Gaps". Where scientists do make statements about god it is always from the context of their belief, theology and society not from direct observation or experiment.

Your final statement is meaningless.

And it also resides in the universe around us -- you know, that thing we drift around in and keep trying to explain.

If the evidence is in the universe no-one has ever found it. The universe is wondrous and we find much of it beautiful but those are self contained statements and do not provide evidence if anything other than our sense of wonder and our ability to see beauty.

[LTX]

23. Interesting that you discount entirely

"our sense of wonder and our ability to see beauty" (to use the two examples you provide). And that you seem to think that neither of those have anything to do with science.

Science is, for me and for many others, a direct source of faith. I cannot help but wonder at the magnitude of the universe and its relational parts, and I cannot stop myself from asking questions and exploring it through science and mathematics. Perhaps it will turn out that our persistent inclination to pursue both explanations and beauty (an evolutionary commonality between religion and science) is nothing more than an accidental property emerging from synaptic quantity, but I remain deeply perplexed by the reproductive advantage conferred by creation of, for example, the large hadron collider. It is magnificent. But why such an elaborate set of new reading-glasses, and ultimately, what are we are looking for (past the Higgs boson and the ancillary particle physics)?

Unlike some physicists (Stenger, for example, who even goes so far as to misstate the math in his zeal) who dismiss and argue against the concept that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, I cannot so easily discount the notion. Maybe I'm wrong (which probably explains why I try so hard to dis-prove it), but I keep finding myself back at the fundamental inexplicability of the immaterialities that govern us (and, from all apparent evidence, the universe itself). Rather like the physics at the bottom of a black hole, it won't resolve to anything other than infinity.

As for the bible, it is a frequent source for theological (and philosophical) extrapolation, but the notion that theological conceptualizations stopped with the first council of Nicaea is, well, myopic. You cannot stop the exploratory and explanatory process by proclamation, in either theology or science. It is ingrained in our computers. The bible has changed (by default evolutionary editing), and it will continue to change. Just as our views of other texts have and will.

[intaglio]

33. Point by point

I do not "discount entirely" our "sense of wonder and ability to see beauty," I just observe that they are self contained statements (i.e. they refer only to themselves) and do not provide evidence in any sense of the word "evidence". This sense and ability might be considered indicative by people who wish to see them that way; in the same way that the existence of the Grand Canyon is considered indicative of the Flood by certain young earth creationists; but there is nothing inherent in the sense, ability or that canyon that supports the ideas imposed on them. The ideas are only supported by the religious viewpoint of the sense, ability and canyon.

You say "Science is, for me ... , a direct source of faith" but nothing you describe comes directly from "science" any more than the act of discovery of the Grand Canyon directly informed the view of a worldwide flood. For belief to be directly informed by science there has to be direct evidence provided by science and there is none. There is no god needed to fuel the stars, not god throws the dice of the quantum world, a god does not bend space and time. No god is required to guide evolution or to bring the first breath to a new-born babe; a god does not ensure sparrows fall prey to cats nor forces the quorum sensing that converts Vibrio into deadly cholera.

You proceed to draw a false equivalence between science and religion by saying that they share an "evolutionary commonality" because both pursue "explanations and beauty." This is nonsense, religion already has an explanation, God, whilst science actually looks for reasons for what we do not understand. Science and mathematics do not look for beauty, although they may find what we perceive as beauty but that perception has nothing to do with science or math - except as a subject for neurologists. You might as well say that the chess player should see a beautiful chess game as evidence for god.

In respect of theology you are imposing your own, very limited view of what I said. At no point did I say or imply that theology "stopped with the first council of Nicea" but I did say that all Christian theology is based on the Bible in the sense that the Bible is foundational, but it is a foundation of sand. The Bible is a collection of folklore, legend, legal posturing and dubious history; on this Christian theologians have built their shanties, shoring up the structure with thefts from other faiths and philosophies then tacking on a shoddy, incomplete cladding stolen from modern science or math. This is not hyperbole, listen to William Lane Craig expounding the "Kalam Cosmological Hypothesis" and see how many infinities he discounts and how many he then accepts without demur

I have left your most pertinent question to last; you ask "What are we looking for?" to which my response is we are looking for the first step on a new journey, we are exploring because we do not know what we will find; why do there need to be any other reasons?

[LTX]

34. You are so full of it.

I will respond, but vocation calls. Seasonality tends to rule my life.

[Thats my opinion]

29. Some saint, whose name escapes me said,

"Those who ONLY know the Bible, do not know the Bible."

[intaglio]

36. However it is the only source

There must always be some biblical fragment to which you attach the additional information or enlightenment. Once you use only other sources you are following those sources and, in essence, claiming a new revelation.

[rrneck]

9. What I would like to see

someone using the Bible to inspire others. I know what it is. I know how it gets used. It would be refreshing if someone would use it for something other than a cudgel or a shield.

Its power is in inspiration.

[trotsky]

11. It's funny how everyone who gets up to say exactly "what the Bible is really about"...

ends up telling us what they themselves want it to be about.

[laconicsax]

12. It's almost like they're "replicating in religious language" their own opinions...

[trotsky]

13. I thought only conservative fundamentalists did that?

[JoePhilly]

32. No, but they are the only ones who will try to change the laws to force you to abide by their

interpretation. They are far more likely to use their interpretation to limit and control your personal behavior.

Its not that just that they have their own interpretation, its that they seek to impose it on everyone else.

[Thats my opinion]

14. I'm telling you what the best Biblical scholarship has been saying for along, long time.

If you want to snipe at it as only my prejudice, then go ahead. But you show your hide-bound prejudice, not the scholarly incite one might hope for from intelligent observers. Don't pull the same thing in science or any other academic discipline. They will laugh at you.

[trotsky]

15. And yet you're saying it in the same way the rigid fundamentalist does.

"Here's what the bible really says and I am right and you are wrong and yada yada yadda"

Quite creepy, if you ask me. Feel free to insult me more if it makes you feel better, but I was just making an observation.

[Goblinmonger]

21. So you want to hold the Bible up to the same scrutiny as science?

Deal.

[daaron]

25. "inciteful" nt :)

[skepticscott]

35. Except that you regularly discount "Biblical scholarship"

from a long, long time ago as a distorted, outdated view of god and the bible. According to you, it has been replaced by a glorious new wave of progressive theology which is sweeping over the churches and seminaries of the world, led of course, by you and your theologian cronies peddling their new agenda (and their books) from their ivory towers.