Scriptural Interpretation

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed.

Now I actually need intentionally started this thread - it was split out from another thread.

But my initial point was that there are differing views on what constitutes Christianity, and that the notion that claiming others who have a different interpretation are somehow not really Christians is completely untenable and totally unprovable. And can there be a better set of posts to prove my point than those on this thread between different Christian posters.

Still confusing practical expurgation with arguing over interpretation I see.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Still confusing practical expurgation with arguing over interpretation I see.

The problem there of course being that one Christian's "practical expurgation" is another Christian's "interpretation", and vice versa.

How would you propose to sort one from the other?

[Sebastian Toe]

No....That's your IQ.

41 more than your's then.

[ProfessorDavey]

Still confusing practical expurgation with arguing over interpretation I see.

Explain yourself - what do you mean by 'practical expurgation' - a term I don't think you have used before and not clear in its meaning.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes.......and you eagerly accept them as Christian views because it suits your argument.
Would you welcome a group of insistent and convinced flat earthers as geophysicists.....I doubt it.

Well, ignoring the Westboro Baptists for a moment, on this thread we have had a convinced Orthodox believer, who claims the  unbroken ancestry of his Church goes back to Christ, and that therefore his beliefs are truly 'Christian', arguing that a fairly liberal Protestant is a 'heretic'. Do you want to refight the Reformation as well, or are you happy to embrace both to your magnanimous (and no doubt capacious) bosom?

[Dicky Underpants]

The new testament. They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising it in exactly the same way Flatearthers bowdlerise reference to curvature. Any one should have realised that.

Someone has already pointed out the usual meaning of "bowdlerise", and according to this it would suggest that you are doing that very thing yourself. I know several explanations of Jesus' words "Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and all his angels"* - what's your take on them, as a matter of interest?

*Matt 25:41

[Bubbles]

Well, ignoring the Westboro Baptists for a moment, on this thread we have had a convinced Orthodox believer, who claims the  unbroken ancestry of his Church goes back to Christ, and that therefore his beliefs are truly 'Christian', arguing that a fairly liberal Protestant is a 'heretic'. Do you want to refight the Reformation as well, or are you happy to embrace both to your magnanimous (and no doubt capacious) bosom?

He's got a magnanimous and capricious bosom?

I thought he was a fella?

 

[Dicky Underpants]

Explain yourself - what do you mean by 'practical expurgation' - a term I don't think you have used before and not clear in its meaning.

If he means the liberal Christian practice of suggesting that certain texts in the NT were probably not said by Jesus, then this would be a valid critical approach. However, judging from his use of the word 'bowdlerise' I get the impression that he thinks people like the Westboro Baptists are the ones who are excluding certain unpleasant texts - whereas it is obvious that they tend to dredge up all the 'nasty' ones and dwell on them, and place less emphasis on those that express compassion and universal love.
Who knows - I'm not optimistic about receiving a comprehensive explanation.

I personally don't think it is possible - nor has it ever been - to derive a coherent, internally consistent moral code, theology, philosophy or anything else from the NT. On the other hand 'sola scriptura' may indeed be a heresy, but then you are left with the equally contradictory vagaries and imaginative speculations of the Church fathers to deal with, let alone centuries of theo-babble on top of them.

[Dicky Underpants]

He's got a magnanimous and capricious bosom?

I thought he was a fella?

 

Ever heard of 'moobs'?

Need I point out that this was a metaphor?

[Dicky Underpants]

He's got a magnanimous and capricious bosom?

I thought he was a fella?

 

By the way, his bosom may indeed be capricious (he himself certainly is): however, the word I used was capacious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The problem there of course being that one Christian's "practical expurgation" is another Christian's "interpretation", and vice versa.

How would you propose to sort one from the other?

Get a dictionary for starters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

41 more than your's then.

Laugh? I couldn't start.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Get a dictionary for starters.

Now try reading the question again. Each opposing variety of Christian thinks the he's "practically expurgating" and that the other is "bowldlerising" or some such.

Each relies on his faith for his position.

Now what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Now try reading the question again. Each opposing variety of Christian thinks the he's "practically expurgating" and that the other is "bowldlerising" or some such.

Each relies on his faith for his position.

Now what?

Hillside

Learn the difference between expurgation and interpretation.

There is so much that can be stripped off something before it ceases to be that.

Any group of people who have hate as their leitmotif are not Christians. Even though it is the model New Atheists may like.In my opinion you have spent a lot of time shoehorning Christians into a cod caricature.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Learn the difference between expurgation and interpretation.

There is so much that can be stripped off something before it ceases to be that.

Any group of people who have hate as their leitmotif are not Christians. Even though it is the model New Atheists may like.In my opinion you have spent a lot of time shoehorning Christians into a cod caricature.

Learn to read a question. You’re just trying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here – Fred Phelps thinks he’s “practically expurgating” and you’re bowldlerising just as much as you think it’s the other way around.

Why should anyone think that either one of you is right and the other is wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Learn to read a question. You’re just trying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here – Fred Phelps thinks he’s “practically expurgating” and you’re bowldlerising just as much as you think it’s the other way around.

Why should anyone think that either one of you is right and the other is wrong?

No I'm saying that if a plane has ballast tanks and a conning tower it isn't a plane.

If you can make a proper case I will gladly found a Chapter of Christians for Dawkins spreading blessings of God through the message of atheism........or any self contradictory nonsense you care to mention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I'm saying that if a plane has ballast tanks and a conning tower it isn't a plane.

Which is exactly what Phelps would say about your stripe of Christianity, supported by the bits that help him and having "practically expurgated" the bits that don't.

You're really struggling with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy aren't you.

If you can make a proper case I will gladly found a Chapter of Christians for Dawkins spreading blessings of God through the message of atheism........or any self contradictory nonsense you care to mention.

I don't have a dog in the fight here. Phelps (or whoever) can make his "proper" case by quoting and expurgating, you can do the same. You both think you're right because you have "faith" that you're right.

Now what?

[Shaker]

There is so much that can be stripped off something before it ceases to be that.

Not as simple as that, old fruit - look up the Sorites Paradox, one of the oldest philosophical conundrums going.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Which is exactly what Phelps would say about your stripe of Christianity, supported by the bits that help him and having "practically expurgated" the bits that don't.

You're really struggling with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy aren't you.

I don't have a dog in the fight here. Phelps (or whoever) can make his "proper" case by quoting and expurgating, you can do the same. You both think you're right because you have "faith" that you're right.

Now what?

So let's see....if it self identifies as a duck, barks and lifts its hind legs at a lamppost......it must be a duck.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


I don't have a dog in the fight here. Phelps (or whoever) can make his "proper" case by quoting and expurgating, you can do the same. You both think you're right because you have "faith" that you're right.

Now what?

Non sequitur to the issue at hand.

Besides I don't say because I have faith I must be right. Like you I have faith that I am right.

The Faith as a virtue crock is a concoction brewed at Atheist Central and promulgated by Dawkins little wizards.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I'm saying that if a plane has ballast tanks and a conning tower it isn't a plane.

But that is because there is a clear and accepted definition of a plane.

There isn't a clear and accepted definition of a Christian - so both you and Phelps will both argue equally as cogently that they are a Christian as they live their lives and practice a religion in accordance with the teaching set out in the bible - meaning, of course, their interpretation of the bible and the teaching set out therein.

So both are equally worthy of being called Christians - no 'no true scotsman argument works'.

Sure I would accept that if someone self defined as a Christian but had no knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, not what is written in the bible, nor had any practical adherence to the Christian religion in any way, then it might be reasonable to say that they aren't a Christian, or more likely that they are simply a 'cultural Christian'. But that isn't the case with you and Phelps. So from a neutral's perspective while I might prefer your brand of Christianity to his brand of Christianity, you are both Christians, merely different flavours of Christian.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So let's see....if it self identifies as a duck, barks and lifts its hind legs at a lamppost......it must be a duck.

Oh dear. Phelps says that the Bible “self-identifies” as homophobic – look, it says so right there in Leviticus! – and “practically expurgates” the bits that contradict that. 

You on the other hand say that the Bible espouses love - look, it says so right there in a different part of the same book! – and “practically expurgate” the bits that Phelps references.

Whence then your “self-identifying” when the same book supports both positions?

Non sequitur to the issue at hand.

Besides I don't say because I have faith I must be right. Like you I have faith that I am right.

Actually I’m pretty sure that you have said that but, either way, there are plenty who do say it. They’re certain – really, really certain – about their assertion “God”, and they know that because that’s what their “faith” tells them. Alan Burns for example tells us that no amount of scientific evidence could ever shake his faith.

I notice too the sly introduction of “like you” there as if an approach that’s reason-based, probabilistic and uncertain is somehow equivalent to the “it’s true because I think it’s true” of religious faith. Very naughty. 

The Faith as a virtue crock is a concoction brewed at Atheist Central and promulgated by Dawkins little wizards.

You don’t think religious faith is a virtue then? Wow!

(Oh, congrats on finally managing to spell non sequitur correctly by the way. All you need to do now is to find out what it means – ie, that a conclusion does not follow from its premise. Presumably what you were reaching there was “irrelevant” or similar, albeit as it turned out wrongly.)

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlad,

Oh dear. Phelps says that the Bible “self-identifies” as homophobic – look, it says so right there in Leviticus! – and “practically expurgates” the bits that contradict that. 

You on the other hand say that the Bible espouses love - look, it says so right there in a different part of the same book! – and “practically expurgate” the bits that Phelps references.

Whence then your “self-identifying” when the same book supports both positions?

Still waiting for Vlad to explain what he means by 'practically expurgates' but not holding my breath. So I presume this to mean ignoring in any practical manner a section in the bible. So accepting that the text exists but that it is irrelevant and should be ignored.

Now the issue here seems to me that the bible is very long and very complicated and practical expurgation is inextricably linked to interpretation, often in completely different section of the book.

So let's take the old favourite of non Christians to imply inconsistency/hypocrisy on the part of Christians from Leviticus 19:19:

'You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.'

Now most Christians ignore this - they 'practically expurgate' the phrase - i.e. they know it is there, they aren't directly interpreting it as 'yup pull on that poly/cotton shirt - all is fine' but they ignore it. Why - because elsewhere they interpret other section as meaning that the rules of Leviticus 19:19 can be ignored or 'practically expurgated'.

So 'practically expurgation' and interpretation are inextricably linked. They aren't the same but interpretation of one section leads to practical expurgation of another section.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

Still waiting for Vlad to explain what he means by 'practically expurgates' but not holding my breath. So I presume this to mean ignoring in any practical manner a section in the bible. So accepting that the text exists but that it is irrelevant and should be ignored.

Now the issue here seems to me that the bible is very long and very complicated and practical expurgation is inextricably linked to interpretation, often in completely different section of the book.

So let's take the old favourite of non Christians to imply inconsistency/hypocrisy on the part of Christians from Leviticus 19:19:

'You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.'

Now most Christians ignore this - they 'practically expurgate' the phrase - i.e. they know it is there, they aren't directly interpreting it as 'yup pull on that poly/cotton shirt - all is fine' but they ignore it. Why - because elsewhere they interpret other section as meaning that the rules of Leviticus 19:19 can be ignored or 'practically expurgated'.

So 'practically expurgation' and interpretation are inextricably linked. They aren't the same but interpretation of one section leads to practical expurgation of another section.

I think that the point is that Christians themselves have to bring something to the party - they project. Thus if, say, you're a nasty piece of work Phelps type then you'll project that onto the text and expurgate the bits that don't suit. And vice versa. That way each of them ends up with a god that suits - loving, vengeful etc - made in his or her own image.

The only way out of that - to decide what the Bible actually "self-identifies" as rather than what you'd prefer it to self-identify as - is to find some logic or evidence outwith the text itself.

Incidentally, if you're really waiting for Vlad to explain something can I suggest you bring a lifetime supply of bacon sarnies and lots of coffee? You're in for a long wait!

[Dicky Underpants]

So let's take the old favourite of non Christians to imply inconsistency/hypocrisy on the part of Christians from Leviticus 19:19:

'You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.'

Now most Christians ignore this - they 'practically expurgate' the phrase - i.e. they know it is there, they aren't directly interpreting it as 'yup pull on that poly/cotton shirt - all is fine' but they ignore it. Why - because elsewhere they interpret other section as meaning that the rules of Leviticus 19:19 can be ignored or 'practically expurgated'.

So 'practically expurgation' and interpretation are inextricably linked. They aren't the same but interpretation of one section leads to practical expurgation of another section.

I don't find texts such as the above as much of a problem regarding 'practical expurgation' for Christians. I wouldn't hold it against them for choosing to ignore such passages, on the grounds that it's the Old Covenant, and they try to live according to the New. Saint Paul is a great help for such an attitude, since practically the whole of his version of the 'Good News' is based on his idea/revelation that Christians are not in any way bound by the Old Law, since what is now in force is "Justification by Faith (in Christ)". There is of course a certain problem that Jesus himself is recorded as saying that "Not one jot or tittle of the Law should pass away until...", but this is conveniently softened by referring to "I came not to abolish but to fulfill", and texts such as the occasion when Jesus apparently broke the Law by allowing his disciples to eat grains of wheat on the Sabbath.
There is of course Peter's revelation that he was apparently allowed to eat non-kosher food, so that would have done away with a host of Levitical laws about not eating shellfish and the like.

What I find a more serious matter (which I've already alluded to earlier) is how Christians like Vlad manage to interpret texts that portray Jesus as not so meek and mild. Vlad has said that the important criterion in these matters is 'love' - that is what marks out true Christians. However, I don't know if he would use this as a yardstick to exclude certain texts from the NT itself, where love certainly doesn't seem to be the guiding principle. I quoted "Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and all his angels", which is an example, but certainly not the only one of this kind. As has been noted, we haven't heard Vlad justifiy himself on a number of things, and I'd certainly like to know how he deals with the fire-breathing Jesus: whether he just gets out his scissors and says "not authentic Jesus", or whether he has a convenient 'interpretation'.