Where are all the one-eyed christians?

[Dubium]

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:28-30)

If this is correct - never mind cutting off or gouging out body parts - I think all christians should have their brains removed, to avoid sinning. Obviously the only way to avoid sin is to live in a vegetative state. Although that probably wouldn't be good enough for god either because then you couldn't praise him. Sigh.

 

[jjramsey]

From the thread Literalist Atheists:

It seems to me some atheists prefer a literalist interpretation of the Bible and even claim that this is the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, it seems quite obvious to me that any literalist interpretation is grossly misleading about the real intentions of the writers of the Bible. It sometimes borders on the strawman fallacy — if the only interpretation of the Bible you can argue against is the literalist one, I pity your debating skills.

Now I know that there are Christians who misuse the term "literal" as a synonym for "inerrant" and then claim to take the Bible "literally" even though they know a figure of speech when they see one. I also realize that pretending to be tone-deaf to figurative language--in this case, hyperbole--in order to make fun of such Christians can be kind of fun. The joke gets old after a while, though.

 

[Mercutio]

Ok, so it's not eye-gouging, but don't say there aren't people willing to go that extra <s>mile</s> few inches for their beliefs.

Waugh AC: Autocastration and biblical delusions in schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry 149:656-659, 1986

Kushner AW: Two cases of autocastration due to religious delusions. British Journal of Medical Psychology 40:293-298, 1967




In case this post offends...it is made ironically, rather than seriously trying to poke fun at individuals whose schizophrenia has so gravely affected their lives...

 

[c4ts]

You think Grandpa might be one of them?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1054/1054_01.asp

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

jjramsey said:
Now I know that there are Christians who misuse the term "literal" as a synonym for "inerrant" and then claim to take the Bible "literally" even though they know a figure of speech when they see one. I also realize that pretending to be tone-deaf to figurative language--in this case, hyperbole--in order to make fun of such Christians can be kind of fun. The joke gets old after a while, though.

But if we're not supposed to take that sort of stuff literally, then the entire Bible is open to personal interpretation. Fair enough, but then it's really not all that exciting, is it? It's like, I don't know, a work of fiction or something.

~~ Paul

 

[Dubium]

Yes - I'd say Grandpa has plucked out his eye. He apparently talks in an unusually high voice too. But at least he's safe around kids these days.

 

[jjramsey]

But if we're not supposed to take that sort of stuff literally, then the entire Bible is open to personal interpretation.

If by "open to personal interpretation," you mean that the Bible can mean anything one wants it to mean, then that is nonsense. People can and do mix literal and figurative language, and those listening or reading can indeed tell the difference between the two, even without explicit cues. In theory, having the Bible be from much different cultures than ours can make the process of figuring out what is literal and what is figurative a bit tricky, but in practice, common sense is usually enough to figure out which is which, at least if you've got a decent Bible translation. (The NRSV or NIV work out pretty well.)

I see a pretty crude double standard here. Any other works may be allowed to be a mix of the literal and the figurative, without it being assumed that one has license to interpret any part of it figuratively without regard for the intent of the author(s). Yet with the Bible, there is this idea that if one part is figurative, then any and every bit of it can be figurative, and to prevent the chaos such willy-nilly interpretation, the Bible must be taken literally. I realize that this is an idea borrowed from the fundies, but just because they preach a stupid way of interpreting the Bible doesn't mean you have to do likewise. The fundies usually don't even practice what they preach, because most of them have at least a little sense.

 

[RandFan]

If by "open to personal interpretation," you mean that the Bible can mean anything one wants it to mean, then that is nonsense. People can and do mix literal and figurative language, and those listening or reading can indeed tell the difference between the two, even without explicit cues. In theory, having the Bible be from much different cultures than ours can make the process of figuring out what is literal and what is figurative a bit tricky, but in practice, common sense is usually enough to figure out which is which, at least if you've got a decent Bible translation. (The NRSV or NIV work out pretty well.)

I see a pretty crude double standard here. Any other works may be allowed to be a mix of the literal and the figurative, without it being assumed that one has license to interpret any part of it figuratively without regard for the intent of the author(s). Yet with the Bible, there is this idea that if one part is figurative, then any and every bit of it can be figurative, and to prevent the chaos such willy-nilly interpretation, the Bible must be taken literally. I realize that this is an idea borrowed from the fundies, but just because they preach a stupid way of interpreting the Bible doesn't mean you have to do likewise. The fundies usually don't even practice what they preach, because most of them have at least a little sense.

Trust me, there are explanations. Lots of them. There is a bible show on Saturday morning called "amazing facts" that deal with a number of these double standards. It seems that just about anything can be explained away given enough text one can find enough verse to explain why one should be literal in some parts and figurative in others.

 

[Beleth]

Now I know that there are Christians who misuse the term "literal" as a synonym for "inerrant" and then claim to take the Bible "literally"

I think my favorite section of the Index to Creationist Claims is in Section CH101:

Ultimately, there is no authority for inerrancy except oneself:

* God cannot be the authority because God has not said anything on the subject directly. The whole point of inerrancy is to attribute God's authority to an indirect vehicle.
* The Bible cannot be an authority to its own authoritativeness; that would be circular reasoning.
* The church cannot be an authority for inerrancy because there is no one church. There are over 10,000 different Christian denominations, all with different ideas about the Bible. In fact, there are at least three significantly different Bibles (the Catholic, Protestant, and Ethiopian Orthodox versions).
* For the same reason, historical tradition cannot be the authority for inerrancy. Views about the Bible have changed over history.

[...] To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

jjramsey said:
I see a pretty crude double standard here. Any other works may be allowed to be a mix of the literal and the figurative, without it being assumed that one has license to interpret any part of it figuratively without regard for the intent of the author(s). Yet with the Bible, there is this idea that if one part is figurative, then any and every bit of it can be figurative, and to prevent the chaos such willy-nilly interpretation, the Bible must be taken literally. I realize that this is an idea borrowed from the fundies, but just because they preach a stupid way of interpreting the Bible doesn't mean you have to do likewise. The fundies usually don't even practice what they preach, because most of them have at least a little sense.

Those other works that are a mix of literal and figurative have precisely the same problem as the Bible. There are books and movies like that, notorious for disclaimers such as "Based on a true story." No one has the slightest idea how to determine which parts are true and which are embellished, unless there is independent evidence. There is not much independent evidence for the Bible.

I agree that some parts of the Bible may be literal and others figurative. Now who's the authority that determines which is which?

~~ Paul

 

[jjramsey]

It seems that just about anything can be explained away given enough text one can find enough verse to explain why one should be literal in some parts and figurative in others.

True, but just because people abuse the literal/figurative distinction to explain away difficulties does not mean that there is no genuinely figurative text in the Bible. Try reading the Song of Solomon literally, for example.

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Those other works that are a mix of literal and figurative have precisely the same problem as the Bible. There are books and movies like that, notorious for disclaimers such as "Based on a true story." No one has the slightest idea how to determine which parts are true and which are embellished, unless there is independent evidence. There is not much independent evidence for the Bible.

You are confusing the literal vs. figurative distinction with the true vs. false distinction. The two dichotomies have nothing to do with each other, and the true vs. false distinction has nothing to do with this discussion.

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I agree that some parts of the Bible may be literal and others figurative. Now who's the authority that determines which is which?

Who's the authority that tells me that if a guy said "A pretty woman caught my eye," he did not mean that a pretty woman dug her nails into his face and ripped out his eyeball? Who's the authority that tells me that if someone says "I told you a million times not to do that," said someone was intentionally exaggerating to make a point? Who's the authority that tells me that if someone says that people who let their cell phones ring during a movie should be dragged out into the street and shot, said someone doesn't really mean it?

 

[Atlas]

Well, Adam and Eve sure sounds figurative... Does that mean that sin is figurative. Or is sin a real thing but there is no such thing as original sin. Is the need for a savior figurative? It sounds like it is, but that would eliminate Jesus as the son of God.

Is the Virgin birth figurative, is resurrection from the dead - two fantastic claims - surely they are figurative and contain deep mythical meaning but no literal reality.

Why have a savior, born of a virgin, killed by the evil state, dying for all of our sins, and resurrected bodily and taken to the spirit realm where his body is a useless anchor. John said the Son was with God at the beginning and didn't have a body - suddenly it's important for God to have one in heaven. That's probably figurative too, huh.

Actually, I think the only way to understand the Bible it to make the whole thing part of mythology - gods, angels, demons, sin. The whole supernatural reality - and any reference to it - all figurative.

 

[jjramsey]

Well, Adam and Eve sure sounds figurative...

You are doing the same thing as Paul C., confusing "literal" for "true" and "figurative" for false.

Taking the Adam and Eve story by itself, severing it from the rest of Genesis, I can take it about four different ways:

• Figurative and true: If I see Adam and Eve as symbolic stand-ins for humanity and their actions meant to convey truths about the human condition, that is a figurative interpretation. If I accept that what is being implied about the human condition is true, then I accept the account of Adam and Eve as figurative and true.
  
• Figurative and false: Again, I can see Adam and Eve as symbolic stand-ins for humanity and their actions meant to convey truths about the human condition, but if I do not accept that what is being implied about the human condition is true, then I accept the account of Adam and Eve as figurative and false.
  
• Literal and true: If I read the story of Adam and Eve as an account of things that happened, then I am reading it literally. If I accept this account as historical, then I accept the account as literal and true.
  
• Literal and false: If I read the story of Adam and Eve as an account of things that happened, but I do not accept this account as historical, then I accept the account as literal and false.

If I take the Adam and Eve story in the context of Genesis, the purely figurative interpretations drop out because through the genealogies in Genesis, Adam and Eve are portrayed as ancestors of those who are portrayed more like actual people. (This would suggest that the story of Adam and Eve was originally free-standing, possibly an oral tradition, and later made a part of the text of Genesis.) That leaves open the options "literal and true" and "literal and false."

Is the Virgin birth figurative, is resurrection from the dead - two fantastic claims - surely they are figurative and contain deep mythical meaning but no literal reality.

I'd say there's no room for a figurative interpretation of either of these purported events. The cues for interpreting them as symbolic stand-ins are lacking. We are back to taking them as "literal and true" and "literal and false."

 

[c4ts]

So in what senses is God supposed to be true?

 

[Atlas]

You are doing the same thing as Paul C., confusing "literal" for "true" and "figurative" for false. ...

I'd say there's no room for a figurative interpretation of either of these purported events. The cues for interpreting them as symbolic stand-ins are lacking. We are back to taking them as "literal and true" and "literal and false."

When I use figurative when talking of the Bible, I generaly mean mythic. I happen to have a deep respect for myth and believe the Bible is one culture's reach for answers concerning the human condition utilizing mythical constructs. Myth gets at some real deep human realities. Life and death, good and evil trouble the human mind. Sin is a singular concept introduced in Genesis to explain the harsh realities. It too then is mythic.

Not only did it help explain those issues but it had some explanatory power concerning a family's wealth and health. We have subtracted those meaning to a large extent from the notions of how sin affects us (even to the 10th generation.)

Because I treat sin as mythic the idea of the need for a savior from sin is much less powerful.

The virgin birth, and the notions that the Gods do impregnate Earth girls to produce God-Men does exist in other cultures and we recognize in those cultures that the tales are mythic.

Likewise the resurrection. A deeply comforting explanation of mankind's ultimate destiny is supported by mythic cycles of seasons and the moon and of course, the sun which dies and is reborn every day bringing light into the world.

The fulcrum of the human experience in Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought though is Sin. It is the central intangible on which the relationships of God and Man, Jesus and the Devil, Good and Evil teeter.

If you buy the concept of Sin as a basic ingredient with the dust and spit of God used in the creation of Man then the Bible can be treated literally with some figurative sections. Otherwise it is as Mythic as Norse, Roman, Egyptian and Greek mythologies. The personification of God the Father with his flawed personality characteristics similar to Zeus and Poseidon indicates to the modern reader that the Jewish history is truly mythic.

 

[Iacchus]

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:28-30)

Hmm ... Sounds like something you would do in the case of gangrene. Indeed, if part of the body has been corrupted (impaired) beyond repair, it is probably better that it be cut off.

 

[Hardenbergh]

I found a bible commentary about this passage that might be helpful:

http://www.learnthebible.org/questions_and_answers_commentary.htm (Scroll down to Matthew 5-7 - Is It for Today? and click on it)


Here's another place:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2831

 

[Iacchus]

Am getting an error saying the first page cannot be found.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

jjramsey said:
You are confusing the literal vs. figurative distinction with the true vs. false distinction. The two dichotomies have nothing to do with each other, and the true vs. false distinction has nothing to do with this discussion.

So you're saying that figures of speech have no truth value?

Who's the authority that tells me that if a guy said "A pretty woman caught my eye," he did not mean that a pretty woman dug her nails into his face and ripped out his eyeball?

"Caught my eye" is a known figure of speech. Is "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away."?

Who's the authority that tells me that if someone says "I told you a million times not to do that," said someone was intentionally exaggerating to make a point?

"A million times" is a known figure of speech. Is "God created the heaven and earth in six days."?

Who's the authority that tells me that if someone says that people who let their cell phones ring during a movie should be dragged out into the street and shot, said someone doesn't really mean it?

"Dragged out ... and shot" is a known figure of speech. Is "It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."? Hell, is "hell" a figure of speech?

I'll accept your argument if you give me a copy of Figures of Speech in the Bible. Who was it who wrote the definitive edition?

~~ Paul

 

[c4ts]

Re: Re: Where are all the one-eyed christians?

Hmm ... Sounds like something you would do in the case of gangrene. Indeed, if part of the body has been corrupted (impaired) beyond repair, it is probably better that it be cut off.

Are you suggesting that gangrene is the cause of sin?