Belief and interpretation

This has kind of been bugging me lately, and I would like to hear yall's opinions on it.

All too often I hear the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, some say it is and live their lives as such. But many interpret its teachings to fit better with their life, picking some things to follow and others to disregard. For example, my father's a Mormon. He LOVES beer. Has two kegs in an outside reefer. Of course, Mormons don't drink alcohol and consider it a sin, and I've confronted him with this and asked him what his justification is, and he explains that there's some loophole in the teachings that can be interpreted in different ways.

My point is, what is the point of having any faith at all if it can be modified and seen in any light one chooses? Doesn't that fundamentally defeat the purpose of believing, period? If you're not going to strictly adhere to a certain ethical, moral, spiritual code or whathaveyou, it essentially falls apart and breaks down, and while doing so also potentially invalidates or weakens all other tenants in that system as they are all dependant on one another to some extent.

We live in a world of laws, laid down by courts and society. These are not flexible nor open to interpretation (as much as can be helped), so why should faith be given a free pass? I heavily disagree with fundies, but I have to admit I admire their discipline and loyalty to what they believe, no matter how absurd it may be. In my eyes, you either believe in your faith entirely, or you don't. There is no agnosticism.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Rekunta

I have a few.

First thing that comes to mind is that "the word of God" normally seems to be the justification for morality, rather than the source of it. It's a big confidence booster to believe that the creator of the universe is on your side (or that you're on his) so theists will tend to dress their own moral opinions with scripture.

Prayer's a good example. A theist will meditate on a problem and mull it over in their heads while they pray. When an idea pops into their head they attribute it to God and bam, the almighty one validates something that they actually came up with. And what if someone disagrees? Well they're disagreeing with what God has decreed according to the believer. Good luck with that.

When it comes to interpretation there's a similar thing going on. The interpretation is the believer's own moral opinion worked into the words of scripture. Basically it says whatever the individual wants it to say and then they have God on their side.

You make a good point. A believer that forms his own unique interpretation or selectively ignores certain parts of scripture has defeated the idea of divine moral revelation. The basis by which they are interpreting / ignoring the text is their own, not God's.

The point that you made about fundies is a good one too. I am probably among only a few people who admire the westboro baptist church. The reason is simply that they take their Bible seriously and follow all of it, even the nasty bits. No bs interpretation, no inconsistencies with what is written, no ignoring verses, they take it exactly as it's written.

So I admire them for their honesty in sticking with what the Bible says. They're doing it wrong though, you're supposed to honestly look at the rubbish in the Bible and then decide that it's a terrible book that oughtn't be followed. You don't actually follow it WBC.... geez.

I believe the proper interpretation is the one the author of the scripture intends and so the best way to know what something means is to try to get into the author's mind.Genetic_Code

I do agree with this. To play devil's advocate though, what if the author was inspired by God and this God intended meanings that the author didn't necessarily have in mind but unconsciously expressed?

I think, for example, the Genesis creation myth was intentionally designed to be interpreted as historical, considering that without man's Fall, Jesus's sacrifice would be useless, since man would not be inherently sinful because of Adam, but because of chemical processes in the brain. That is why I do not believe you can simultaneously worship Jesus and accept evolution.

Genetic_Code

Again, I agree with your conclusion (that the Genesis account should be interpreted literally) but I don't quite agree with your reasoning. Did the author(s) of Genesis know about Jesus and how he would be sacrificed? I don't see how that's possible unless we think of God influencing the text.

What we can tell though is that the authors of the gospels and saint Paul were biblical literalists. They interpreted the Genesis account as a historical text. I think that's largely because it reads a lot like one. Who on earth would put pages and pages of genealogy into a non-literal account?

*Actually there are some pretty good ways to reconcile the genealogies of Genesis with a non-literal perspective, so I am sympathetic to Christians who read the text that way. Nevertheless non-literal perspectives are all too often about matching up dogma with what we see in reality so I see them while wearing cynical goggles.

I do agree with this. To play devil's advocate though, what if the author was inspired by God and this God intended meanings that the author didn't necessarily have in mind but unconsciously expressed?

domatron23

Well, in that case, the author's mind would be one with God's, so then you would have to try to get into God's mind, which from a religious perspective would happen only through lots of prayer.

Again, I agree with your conclusion (that the Genesis account should be interpreted literally) but I don't quite agree with your reasoning. Did the author(s) of Genesis know about Jesus and how he would be sacrificed? I don't see how that's possible unless we think of God influencing the text.domatron23

That's true. My reasoning is wrong. I was using the New Testament to interpret Genesis when the New Testament was written long after Genesis so it had no bearing as to how Genesis was written.

I believe the proper interpretation is the one the author of the scripture intends and so the best way to know what something means is to try to get into the author's mind.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I believe the proper interpretation is the one the author of the scripture intends and so the best way to know what something means is to try to get into the author's mind.foxhound_fox

I disagree. Many authors of religious texts remain purposefully vague, and try to prevent a single interpretation because religious writing is supposed to be artistic (i.e. different for everyone, and inspires different reactions) not scientifically metric and objective.

But then this begs the question: if the writings and not supposed to be objective but instead subjective, where's the standard? I mean, seriously....the is supposedly the word of God we're talking about, not some Rorschach ink blot test administered by a shrink. It strikes me as very inconsistent. People can base their entire lives around scripture, yet it means nothing if it's open to interpretation. If one person takes the Bible to mean one thing, and another takes it another way (and considering how extreme fundies are, it's can be a HUGE difference), I don't see how they can be lumped under the same banner of Christianity.

And if there's no standard, then on what grounds does God have the right to judge me? This is why I'm very black and white on this. God IS objective, and He is perfect. His book is purported to be the undisputed truth, and truth is not open to be seen in any way one chooses, so the way I see it if you're going to try to follow it, there should be an utmost attempt to adhere as closely as possible to what it preaches. Interpretation is the antithesis of belief.

EDIT: found a cartoon that hits what I'm getting at.

But then this begs the question: if the writings and not supposed to be objective but instead subjective, where's the standard? I mean, seriously....the is supposedly the word of God we're talking about, not some Rorschach ink blot test administered by a shrink.Rekunta

Religious literalism/objectivism is an invention of the post-Renaissance anti-science fundamentalist movements. "The Word of God" to people like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas isn't an objective, scientific truth that cannot be altered and must be held to a "standard" in order to carry value. It is something that "speaks" to the reader in a way they can understand. Allows them to adapt an idea to their own situation rather than try living life to a 2000 year-old standard (which is what true literalism would require). If a Jewish person isn't writing in the margins of their Torah (which were always made that way for the sole purpose of the reader adding their thoughts) then they aren't doing it right. What value does a literal interpretation of Genesis, or Jesus' miracles have? Wouldn't the lesson that they teach be more applicable to modern life? foxhound_fox

I can't understand why you ( as a religious scholar) would justify literalism to be a modern invention in all religion when it clearly is not.

I also can't figure that you can justify how people are meant to "right" religiously, by according to your own standards. Baffling!

After Ussher performed his critical genealogy on the bible and arrived at a young earth, margins in the King James bible kept his resulting dates in them; that were printed for hundreds of years.

I can't understand why you ( as a religious scholar) would justify literalism to be a modern invention in all religion when it clearly is not.RationalAtheist

I also can't figure that you can justify how people are meant to "right" religiously, by according to your own standards. Baffling! After Ussher performed his critical genealogy on the bible and arrived at a young earth, margins in the King James bible kept his resulting dates in them; that were printed for hundreds of years.RationalAtheist

As a religious scholar, I've read enough books from enough traditions to see that blind, intellectual assent to a set of beliefs, rather than finding out the meaning for oneself has dominated only literature from the past few hundreds years, and has only become extremely popular in the last 100 (50 for Muslims).

foxhound_fox

And you'd know this how? Books did not exist when many religions were founded and grew. Once again, I find it odd for someone who makes claims as to their own intellectualism to be so blind to the mechanisms behind belief, knowledge and religious faith. I certainly can't picture the early followers of Christianity thinking it was all allegorical, or thinking of the world in the same sophisticated terms (relatively) as we do now - and I'm a self-confessed idiot...

You also seem to assume that there is inherent and objective meaning to many religions, whereas I perceive religious meaning and context to be utterly relative and potentially non-existent.

When was the King James printed? 1611. On the cusp of the start of the Renaissance in Italy. The movement towards religious literalism started with the Protestant Reformation. Aquinas would have been abhorred to see people thinking God is a literally extant being, and the Bible was his literal law written on paper. Before Luther and his contemporaries... "mythos" actually had meaning in the Christian Church, and God was a paradox that inspired silence and contemplation.

There is a reason why my views are as they are... because history speaks for itself. You seem so adamant that your views on the development of religion are correct... hell, I thought I knew everything about the development of monotheism for the longest time. Then I started reading more books and learning more things. Things that defy what most people claim to "know" about religion in modern day society. God to the early Christians was not a literal "being" that existed inside or outside of existence... it was Being itself.foxhound_fox

I think your own view of how religious faith used to be organised and viewed seems to relate strongly to your own religious background. My own reading, life experience and background shows me that early medieval Christians throughout Europe lived in literal fear of God and the church - the supreme power for a millenia in Europe. Christianity is laxer now than ever. I also thought Islam was founded on military conquest, so can't quite associate that with any deep philosophical reasoning, silent contemplation, search for meaning, or whatever.

I'm not sure I have made any statements so-far, aside from -  "things are not as rigid as you seem to imply". I realise that we both live in the same world, but have quite different views (as I'm sure theists do). I'm not the one making claims to knowledge - you are. I'm the one raising concerns about your knowledge, since it does not seem to make sense to me. My interest in religion has uncovered all sorts of reasons for faith and perceptions about the dogma that comes with it. Who am I (or you) to tell them they're doing it wrong? Also, Ussher wasn't Italian, he was an Irish Catholic Bishop. Now that is history speaking for itself!

Religious literalism/objectivism is an invention of the post-Renaissance anti-science fundamentalist movements.  foxhound_fox

:?  In christinaity, there were attempts to objectively define the religion as early as 300 A.D.  There were numerous heresies amongst the church, even in its early days. I don't see how you could describe this as a post Renaissance problem because the idea that certain christian sects were wrong seems to stem from an attempt to asses the religious texts objectively.    

You seem to think that what you have experienced and learned is what is the truth, and anyone who doesn't share your opinions is wrong.

foxhound_fox

Quite the opposite. I repeat the only claim I've made is your absolute, universal models of both non-literal faith and doctrinal perfection are flawed, since religious practice itself has evolved and there are plenty of examples of early religious literalism in many faiths. I guess you're not interested in hearing coherent arguments though - what matters more to you is about being right(-on), isn't it?

 

Gotcha. I guess I figured out why I lost interest in posting here.

foxhound_fox

Oh, I thought that was because of the dearth of response to your verbose threads here - or more likely the new union you set up here this year to spread your own brand of mysticism and spirituality...

Aquinas would have been abhorred to see people thinking God is a literally extant being, and the Bible was his literal law written on paper.foxhound_fox

Oh c'mon now. I'm open to the idea that religious interpretation was done way differently back in the day and that we're looking at history with modern biases. This claim is just way too much though. What about the five ways? What about the divine law? Aquinas spends a lot of time in his work establishing the opposite of what you just said.

Either we're misunderstanding each other or one of us is super-duper wrong. If it's the latter then we really ought to set up a debate topic over the question "Does Thomas Aquinas claim that God is a literally extant being whose law is revealed in the Bible?"

@Dom & Frat

Steady on! I think he means business...

"I care about the future of both humanity and religion (a very creative art that should never die) and want to open my years of experience in the field to everyone."