"Very rich interpretive strategies"

[Silent3]

Ah, that's the ticket!

This priest seems like a nice guy. What he's saying still sounds an awful lot like heavy-handed rationalization, however. If you're going to get this "very rich" with your "interpretive strategies", you can find almost anything you want in the Bible, or many other books. Since this priest is a nice guy, he finds a nice guy way to interpret the Bible. Big surprise.

As far as his complaints about "new atheists", I hardly think any of the "new atheists" are claiming that they've newly discovered the horrors of the Bible. They mention those horrors because they have to be mentioned to frame any case you're making about Bible, and especially in a world where a significant number of believers claim to be Biblical literalists.

Atheists such as myself aren't terribly impressed with the long history of rationalizing the Bible. That history has not "solved" the problem of why the God of the Bible so often comes across as a vain, sadistic, and petulant tyrant so very well that we should feel obligated to treat it as a settled matter that we shouldn't be so rude as to bring up again.

[hrmjustin]

1. I have to say I thought his explainations were very good.

[Silent3]

2. But there's no good reason to pick out a particular part of Revelations...

...interpret it poetically to mean "read things in the Bible the way a gentle, kind Jesus would" (which begs the question of what Jesus is really like, also subject to many interpretations), other than not liking how the Bible comes across unless you do that.

Besides, since the Book of Revelations was the one of the last parts of the Bible to be written, what the hell were people supposed to do with all of the preceding bile and violence until Revelations came along to guide them on their way?

[hrmjustin]

3. The idea is to read the bible in the context of the wisdom and values of the day.

It is the struggles of the people in that time and how they struggled with morality and the divine.

[Silent3]

4. Yes, that's "the idea" when you've predetermined that's the way you want your interpretation...

...to come out. Oddly, however, there seem to be a lot of competing versions of "the idea", and nothing but personal bias to recommend one over the other.

[hrmjustin]

5. Well everything is personal interpretation.

[Silent3]

7. If so very much is up to interpretation, what's special about the Bible at all?

Why call it "the word of God" when its more like a Rorschach test? You don't need to be a deity to come up with one of those.

[hrmjustin]

8. Well if you believe that God inspired some or all of it then itnis the Word of the Lord.

I believe it is the Word of the Lord but I add according to man.

I believe it is divinely inspired but not all is divine revelstion.

[skepticscott]

10. Which is just another way of saying the same thing

It's god's word when it suits you, and man's word when it doesn't. Everyone believes what they need to and choose to, and rejects the rest. Cherry-picking, with no actual need to invoke a supernatural sky-daddy, except for emotional security.

[hrmjustin]

12. I think of it as reading the struggles of the people of Israel and their devotion and disobedience

To their God. The rules were written in the light of their culture and what they wanted their culture to be.

God did not write any of it nor do I think that God told the writers whwt to say word for word. I do think they were divinely inspired.

[Brettongarcia]

15. So a good liberal "Christian" writes off the Old Testament & Revelation; and claims to follow "God"?

[hrmjustin]

19. My first response was a bit short. Sorry!

I am not the one to judge who makes a good Christian.

[skepticscott]

33. "Divinely inspired" to do what?

Make up whatever they wanted? They could have done that without any of Jehovah's help. Same thing again..cherry pick what makes you comfy and put the "god's word" label on that.

[hrmjustin]

35. Your opinion.

[skepticscott]

37. Which you support with every post

And every avoidance of simple direct questions.

[hrmjustin]

39. Again your opinion.

[struggle4progress]

9. The notion that one should grapple with these texts, rather than merely read and accept,

certainly predates the Christian era

In Genesis 18, there is a story of Abraham arguing with G-d; in Genesis 32, Jacob stays awake throughout the night wrestling with someone who simultaneously injures and blesses Jacob, giving him a new name on the grounds that he has struggled successfully with G-d and man, an event Jacob interprets as his seeing of G-d

Abraham is not criticized in Genesis 18 for arguing, nor Jacob in Genesis 32 for wrestling: these stories are apparently re-told in some laudatory sense

There is, also, a fact that might be regarded as archaeological indication of the existence of this arguing-tradition before even the final collection of the Hebrew scriptures: it lies in the fact that the Noah flood narrative in places very closely resembles the Gilgamesh flood narrative:

... he sent out a dove ... But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned ... He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove ... When the dove returned ... there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! ... He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him ...

... When a seventh day arrived, I sent forth a dove ... The dove went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a swallow and released it. The swallow went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off and saw the waters slither back. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me ...

Such similarities between the Noah narrative and the earlier Gilgamesh narrative strongly suggest a common origin for the stories and in particular a common purpose to the tales. Now, if reading Gilgamesh, you will find that it tells how the king (Gilgamesh) set out to discover the secret of immortality: in his travels, it is suggested he should go interview the immortal Utanapishtim, who was once a mortal like the king, but who was rewarded with immortality because (following advice from his gods) he built a great boat and saved life-on-earth from destruction in a great flood. So the Epic, Gilgamesh, seems something of a theological tract, teaching that one might win immortality by saving life from destruction. King Gilgamesh, however, continues his search for magic remedies

Of course, the Noah narrative considerably shortens and substantially modifies the Gilgamesh narrative, but it remains in the Hebrew texts precisely because the Noah story is intended to convey some theological ideas, though perhaps not exactly the ideas the Gilgamesh story was designed to convey. Noah, for example, is no immortal as Utanapishtim was; soon after in the narrative, he is lying around drunk and naked: this may support the rabbinical comment that the text "Noah was a righteous man, beyond reproach in his generation" means "He would not have been considered righteous in any other era." And the rabbis found in the text other criticisms of him as well: having survived the flood because he listened to some saving word, Noah was told "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives" but (in fact) "Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives" -- that is, he inappropriately gave his sons precedence over his wife, who had borne them and succored them in their childhoods

[Brettongarcia]

36. So the language of the Bible is very complex; and open to many readings. But is Barron's right?

Barron addresses the violent acts of God in the old testament: like the moment when our hero hacks a person to pieces with a sword. How does Barron and much of conventional Christianity justify that? He suggests it is just a metaphor. For spiritual contests.

There are a thousand ways to read the Bible; Barron's reading seems to be one of the most questionable. Arguably it is not even the Church's final reading, either.

It is true that generally, many Christians attempt to read the rather violent-seeming Old Testament, as an allegory for purely spiritual acts or thoughts, of a more spiritual, forgiving Christ. But 1) first, this is what historians call "anachronism."

While 2) indeed, even the New Testament itself, even its "new covenant," does not seem to fully authorize such a complete gnosticization/allegoricization of the texts, that physically hacking a person to pieces, is "only" an allegory of spiritual discussion, aggressive argument. In spite of Paul's assertion that his "swords" are only "arguments," finally there are too many times in the Bible and in church history, where swords are swords, after all. Finally even the Bible begins to note that physical, material/literal reality IS important enough. And not all physical acts are to be taken as only spiritual metaphors.

Finally for that matter 3) God is supposed to return to this physical, material "earth" and "flesh." He is "not a ghost" or "spirit."

That if anything is the real message of Revelation: God returning to the "world," "earth," and physicality.

By the way? There IS lots of evidence that OT texts came in part from various other ANE - Ancient Near East - cultures around the Jews; including Babylonians, and the Gilgamesh story. Recently I had a significant dialogue with one of the foremost scholars in this field; Dr. Tom Thompson.

Should we trust the smooth words of Fr. Barron? The Bible often warned about false things in priests, ministers, apostles, angels, churches, saints, prophets; even "the prophets of Israel." Even core Christian authorities like St. Peter (Mat. 16.23).

[struggle4progress]

38. There are multiple texts in the Judaic and Christian compilations; and as the texts come from

a time far removed from our own, the texts cannot necessarily be read with the presumptions we ordinarily bring to the reading of texts produced today

They cannot, for example, be read like modern newspapers, which arise from an entirely different cultural context, are produced by an entirely different technological process and by an entirely different organizational structure, and are written for an entirely different audience. Production of written material was extremely labor-intensive before printing, and paper was expensive until the industrial revolution

He will not judge according to the sight of his eyes, nor decide according to the hearing of his ears, but will judge the needy with righteousness, and will decide with justice for the poor of the earth. In ancient tradition, these texts are to be understood by grappling with them, one aim being to keep in mind that we may not understand what we think we see or what we think we hear

[Brettongarcia]

43. Being allowed to grapple or "wrestle" with God or an angel, seems to give us some authority.

Suppose we say that the Bible intends to give us some power, just as human beings; to either wrestle with God himself. Or to learn that learning about God, is a difficult process; in which we "wrestle" with issues. This would fit Barron's notion of OT fights, as allegories of wrestling with theological issues. However? See my many longer statements against allegorical, spiritual explications in general. And Barron's in particular. If we wrestle with Barron and the texts for a moment, we come up with a different conclusion than Barron envisions.

Suppose we grapple with Barron for a moment; and against the hugely-popular notion that religion, the Bible, is only about "spiritual" things. In particular, note that there is a Bible-based and practical argument that a religion - Christian or otherwise - that only claims to bring mental or "spiritual" results, but that does not take care of the physical needs of the physically poor, is a bad religion (James 2.14-26). (See Woodbridge Goodman, on the dangers of "Over-Spirituality&quot . The argument is that a priest or religion that gives us mostly kind words, sermons, spirits, but not physical food, leaves us physically poor, and even starving to death. So literal physicality turns out to be important.

Today, liberal Christians assume that their own, "spiritual" reading of God is the final and highest reading of it. But the Bible itself warned about some surprisingly bad things, even in spirituality itself; "false spirits" and so forth.

Barron's allegorical, spiritual reading is a very common one. And this kind of reading is massively popular today. But finally this kind of reading turns out to be even worse than the literalism it pretends to correct. When a religion becomes very spiritual, it neglects physical necessities. To the point that it leaves physically starving persons, to starve to death, for lack of the physical food they need.

Or to make this relevant to our own times: it fails to adequately "help the poor," in a physical way; giving them the medical care they need to stay physically alive.

So even if the Bible overall (even, incredibly, the OT?) means to encourage us to wrestle with religious ideas? Then what is the result of that wrestling? Finally it is the defeat of Robber Barron. Who disparages physical reality far too much. And gives us empty words, rather than the material things we need to live.

"Do I not fill all things," in heaven "and earth"? Physical reality and actions, turn out to be important. And are not all to be dissolved, read out, as mere spiritual allegories.

[longship]

6. Very shallow apologetics.

Like they all are.

Ho hum!

[Brettongarcia]

29. Yup. The Bible told us not to "whitewash" the sins of holy men; Fr. Barron is chief whitewasher

Summary of this particular bit of sophistry? Here Fr. Barron attempts to address one of the atheists' objection to Christianity: that its God seems unjust and violent, and kills lots of innocent people.

How does Fr. Barron attempt to answer this? He uses one of the most common apologetics arguments of all: he asserts that the Old Testament didn't really mean it. That OT things were just "poetic" metaphors, for spiritual things. When one of our OT figures hacks to death someone with a sword, that is just a metaphor. For spiritually addressing or intellectually attacking people who are spiritually wrong.

But as it turns out, this kind of liberal argument, is 1) not true to historical facts. The fact is that countless Jews and Christians, it appears, really did things like this: they really, physically killed enemies. While the second problem is this: 2) Fr. Barron therefore is not telling the truth; he is "whitewashing" past sins of Christians. Then too? Finally 3) this very common kind of metaphoricalization, spiritualization, while justified in parts of the New Testament especially, is finally exposed and rejected even by the Bible itself. As the Bible warns about false things, even in "spirits," ("false spirits&quot , etc.. See also James 2.14-26.

Fr. Barron tries to tell us that of course the Church has always known about these apparent problems in religion, in Christianity: the violent nature of God. Then he tells us smugly that however, the Church long ago addressed and solved these problems. With various strategies like what critical scholars now call "metaphoricalization" and/or "spiritualization." Telling us that such things are not literally true. And yet however? History tells us they were true enough, often enough.

Barron tries to tell us that we can interpret even the rather violent Book of Revelation, in light of a single, small motif: the "lamb that is slain." This he asserts, absolutely must be our pacifistic Christ. And of all the dozens, hundreds of surreal figures in Revelation, this is the one we must use to interpret the entire Bible; including the otherwise physically-violent seeming OT. Yet? All these assertions by Robber Barron are questioned by many scholars. Most of all, the "lamb" is by far not the only or even recognizably final figure in Revelation; finally "God" himself shows up, for instance. Looking rather Old Testamental; not like a lamb at all. So even if we take Revelation as metaphorical, allegorical? There are problems with the sustainability of Barron's allegorical reading. There are other allegorical readings. (Among others? Regarding "lambs," the Bible told us that there are often "wolves," "deceivers," hiding in "lamb" clothing).

So there are dozens of problems with the many generations of whitewashers, apologists like Father Barron. Clever as they appear. The Bible warned over and over about bad and "false" things even in the very figures that appeared most holy and good; the Bible warned dozens of times about "priests" specifically.

In fact, regarding metaphors? At times the NT appears to support them; "figures," "allegory," "symbols." Other times though, it warned about those who "twist" the meaning of words. While metaphoricalization twists them considerably. To turn a plain promise of actual bread, to a promise of mental and spiritual things only, flips something into its exact opposite, often.

I'm sure that many liberal, educated Christians will lecture me, that I just don't understand literality, vs. metaphors. Heck, what do I know about metaphors? I just wrote my PhD dissertation on them in part.

[longship]

31. The Bible as ventriloquist dummy.

It says what one wants it to say. One cherry picks the verse and the interpretation of the verse, either literal or metaphoric, as ones agenda dictates.

This is how it works (or doesn't):

[Brettongarcia]

34. Yup. And the chief ventriloquist behind it all? The power hierarchy.

Priests or clerics, were originally clerks for the kings and local authorities. Or "lord"s.

[Leontius]

40. So many words to essentially say nothing of importance.

I think you could have saved a lot of time by just stating your point which seems to be "I am the smart one here and only I have the real answer the rest of you are just ignorant peasants."

[skepticscott]

41. So few words

to say even less than nothing. You win the prize for economy of effort.

[Brettongarcia]

42. There's some important content here

The bottom line is that there really are some problems with the Bible or Christianity; that priests like Barron are trying to cover that up with dishonest arguments.

They are covering up the problems in traditional religion, the Church. In order to try to maintain their own prestige; and their authority and power over others.

Apologists, churches, priests, are trying to spin doctor real problems in traditional religion. To maintain their power, the power of the Church.

Which in turn, partially serves the state. Since the church teaches passivity, and obedience to "authority." Often including civil authority: "slaves, obey your masters"; "obey the governing authorities."

[rug]

11. He is solid. Thanks for posting it.

[Silent3]

13. We obviously have very different standards for solidity. n/t

[rug]

14. Obviously.

[Brettongarcia]

16. I think I've even talked to Fr. Barron himself. His standard sophistry, word-twisting apologetics.

Does anybody really think you can take a severe OT God ,who tells us that he and his laws are "everlasting" and "do not change"; and then just twist them around to their opposite, with a few semantic word games (metaphoricalization; spiritualization)?

I've been debating liberal apologists like Barron for decades. They're not hard to expose. Print one of his arguments here, and see what happens.

[cbayer]

17. I'm beginning to wonder if your issue is with liberal christians or liberals in general.

[Brettongarcia]

20. Liberal Christians; though there is a Marxist, Leftist criticism of Liberalism out there

[cbayer]

21. Are you then seeing yourself on the "marxist, leftist" side of this argument?

[Brettongarcia]

23. Left of liberalism; not quite Marxist

By the way? I think Liberal Christianity is vulnerable to two, albeit different kinds of criticism. First 1) Leftist; as still too privileged. Still cooperating with the status quo, repressive fundamentalism. Claiming "we are all Christians" who need to "hold hands." Who are we to judge a Fundamentalist, may say after all. We are all "brothers and sisters."

Then too though? 2) To the extent that Liberal Christians claim to fly under the same flag or label - "Christian" - as fundies? Then they can be criticized for hypocrisy. For not really believing what they claim - at times - to believe. For having many beliefs at odds with their roots and occasional ecumenism.

Here note this possible source of confusion: when I submit liberal Christianity to seemingly fundamentalist criticisms, I am not really saying that they SHOULD really follow conservative ideas. I am criticizing them for INCONSISTENCY and HYPOCRISY. I am just saying that any claim of solidarity with them, explicit or implied, is false, inconsistent. I criticize them therefore, not for failing to follow conservative notions; but for thinking they can cooperate with them.

And against your arguments, I continue to suggest that Liberals DO partially support Evangelicals. Holding hands across denominations. In ecumenist efforts and so forth. Especially in choosing to fly the same flag.

The only argument I see for defending Liberal Christianity, is perhaps that after all, their idea of "Christ" is likely the better one. But conservatives' idea of Christ is so wrong, as to be a substantially false Christ. For that reason? I think liberal Christians should get quite a bit more explicit about denouncing Evangelicals.

[cbayer]

24. Ah, I'm beginning to get a much better sense of where you are coming from.

You don't think the religious left is left enough. Is that it?

And your approach to (or criticism of) christians is that they are all hypocrites because they are not literalists.

I guess one could see it that way, or one could understand that Christianity is and should be open to examination and interpretation.

To "cherry pick" could be the sign of a wise and intelligent approach, or, if one wants to take a fundamentalist POV, it would be seen as inconsistent and hypocritical.

I'm going with the first approach.

The liberal/progressive christians that I listed in a previous post and the ones I know and have known personally do not in any way hold hands with the evangelicals who oppose civil rights and social justice. Should they find themselves on the same page with groups that support similar ideals, say environmental concerns, certainly they will hold hands.

That's not a problem, imo.

Articles are posted here all the time that denounce the religious right. Have you missed them.

And I would suggest you be careful about using the term evangelical. It is also a broad group with many different flavors. You are using it in the same way others have used christian and that's a mistake, imo.

[Brettongarcia]

26. Yes, I think that leftist/Liberal Christians are not Leftist enough

[cbayer]

27. I'm finally getting it Brettongarcia.

It's been nice talking to you, but I think your overall political position is going to prevent us from reaching any kind of consensus.

[Brettongarcia]

30. Hope you relent/forgive

My final position will be that there IS a final validity to the Bible. But finally it advances a very, very different Christ than embraced by either 1) Fundamentalists, or 2) Spiritualists too.

Finally my position will be that 3) Christ, God, finally support not miracles, or spirits; but science. That is true Christianity. Which embraces science.

[cbayer]

32. Your position is far to esoteric for me.

While I am interested in this topic, clearly not to the extent that you are.

[rug]

25. It sounds like you're the one defending literalism, not him.

[Brettongarcia]

28. Maybe in part

There IS some evidence that the Bible really was originally, intended to be taken rather literally; attempts to metaphoricalize and spiritualize it were disingenuous. Or were later interpolations.

In much of the Bible, especially the OT (Old Testament), it seemed that God really was making real, actual food or bread appear out of thin air; for the followers of Moses (manna), and even of the NT Jesus ("loaves&quot .

It seems likely though that historically, believers eventually discovered that those big material promises were not entirely reliable in our own time: we pray, but real, literal loaves do not appear. So? Apologists quickly began twisting the old words around: Jesus was "really" just promising us the salvational "bread" of his wonderful ideas, spirit.

This metaphoricalization appeared to rescue religion from being simply proven false, when its material promises failed. And yet however? As it turns out, there are lots of problems with this "new," more "spiritual" religion. One problem is this: 1) it appears that first of all, much of the Bible DID intend to be taken literally. But even if you don't accept that, then there is another more serious problem: 2) the new "spiritual" religion, had some internal problems of its own.

What could be wrong with modern spirituality? Among others: a spiritual religion, does not adequately take care of the physical, material side of life. And leaves us literally starving to death. For lack of the physical, material things we need. As James began to note in James 2.14-26. Liberals think that spiritual Christianity is the ultimate; the bee's knees. But God warned about false things even in spirits, spirituality: "false spirits." And practical empiricism indicates practical, even physically fatal problems, with spiritual Christianity too (James 2.14-26).

There are plenty of criticisms of other things in Fundamentalism. But I don't criticize their literality too much. I have several criticisms of modern, liberal, metaphorical/spiritual readings. Problems with 1) ahistoricality; deviation from original texts. But also 2) problems with spirituality itself. Which does not adequately address or take care of the physical, material side of life. To the point of leaving believers physically crippled, physically starving.

My views are a bit complicated, and take a lot of explanation and defense. But they're more fully explained in book-length explications, free, online. See Woodbridge Goodman, on "Overspirituality."

[rug]

44. You're an interesting poster.

[hrmjustin]

22. I agree!