Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The flaws of NT-based morality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Skeptics like to start with the obviously absurd premise that every proposed interpretation is on equal footing and that there is no reliable method for determining which is probably the correct one, and that when faced with competing ideas, we should throw our hands up in despair.
    Hmm, there is enough truth to this to be worth commenting on, even if you've got the wrong end of the stick.

    1. In studying the history of Christian theology I have very often been struck by how often Christians of a particular time would take a particular, idiosyncratic, interpretation of a biblical verse for granted. They would assume it was "obvious" that verse X meant Y generally without considering other possible interpretations. And they would often do so unaware that no other Christians in history had held that interpretation. As a result, I became very very convinced of the importance of always knowing all the possible interpretations when trying to ascertain the correct one. Anyone who starts out assuming they definitely know the correct interpretation is going methodologically wrong immediately. So it is very important to "start with... every proposed interpretation... on equal footing" as you put it.

    2. There are many, many, things that can be taken into consideration when one moves on to evaluating the likelihood of different possible interpretations being correct (i.e. the intent of the original author). Again, I have been consistently struck when studying the history of Christian biblical interpretation, how easy it is for Christian theologians to only take some things into consideration and not others and thus arrive at an interpretation of a verse that they prefer. It's very easy to say "I've thought up an argument for why my interpretation is best", but very very hard to reach a position where you've exhaustively analyzed all possible arguments for all possible interpretations and judged one interpretation to be superior. It requires an immense deal of historical and socio-cultural background knowledge to make accurate judgments about how the culture of the time might have impacted the meaning of the words and the references being made. Rather than "there is no reliable method for determining which is probably the correct one" as you put it, I would phrase it as "Christians almost always underestimate the difficulties and complexities involved in determining the correct interpretation, and tend to heavily rely on both their English translations and the theological teachings of their local church".

    3. It is not always possible to determine the correct interpretation (i.e. the intent of the original author). In cases where it really isn't possible to make a definitive judgment as to the correct interpretation, the methodologically correct thing to do is to "throw our hands up in despair" as you put it. I've noticed that conservative Christians are strongly resistant to doing this even where the evidence seems to clearly warrant it.

    I have strong opinions about the correct interpretations of many parts of the bible because I spent years researching the topic. In my opinion, the average conservative evangelical Christian is substantially wrong (unbiblical) on nearly all major points of theology and is interpreting nearly all theologically important parts of the NT wrongly (correct interpretations IMO can be found in a combination of modern socio-cultural commentaries, New Perspective on Paul scholarship, and the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition). For the most part the average conservative evangelical Christian would have never once in their lives ever heard of or thought of the interpretations that I think are the correct ones.

    I would guess that you and I, MM, probably agree very little on the correct interpretation of virtually any important biblical passage. I would guess that you probably had never heard of or thought of the interpretations I would hold for the most part. But we both believe we have good reasons for thinking our interpretations are correct.

    As such, I think critical thinkers and skeptics are right to emphasize the sheer difficulty of reaching the correct interpretations of biblical passages, since to this day informed experts have massive disagreements on the interpretations of all important passages.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Hey MM, here are some questions/points you can pose to Starlight since he has me on ignore.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Hmm, there is enough truth to this to be worth commenting on, even if you've got the wrong end of the stick.

      1. In studying the history of Christian theology I have very often been struck by how often Christians of a particular time would take a particular, idiosyncratic, interpretation of a biblical verse for granted. They would assume it was "obvious" that verse X meant Y generally without considering other possible interpretations. And they would often do so unaware that no other Christians in history had held that interpretation. As a result, I became very very convinced of the importance of always knowing all the possible interpretations when trying to ascertain the correct one. Anyone who starts out assuming they definitely know the correct interpretation is going methodologically wrong immediately. So it is very important to "start with... every proposed interpretation... on equal footing" as you put it.
      I wonder if Starlight could give us, say, 10 examples of prominent Christian theologians who were completely unaware of any other previous or contemporary interpretation of a passage other their own idiosyncratic interpretation.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      2. There are many, many, things that can be taken into consideration when one moves on to evaluating the likelihood of different possible interpretations being correct (i.e. the intent of the original author). Again, I have been consistently struck when studying the history of Christian biblical interpretation, how easy it is for Christian theologians to only take some things into consideration and not others and thus arrive at an interpretation of a verse that they prefer. It's very easy to say "I've thought up an argument for why my interpretation is best", but very very hard to reach a position where you've exhaustively analyzed all possible arguments for all possible interpretations and judged one interpretation to be superior. It requires an immense deal of historical and socio-cultural background knowledge to make accurate judgments about how the culture of the time might have impacted the meaning of the words and the references being made. Rather than "there is no reliable method for determining which is probably the correct one" as you put it, I would phrase it as "Christians almost always underestimate the difficulties and complexities involved in determining the correct interpretation, and tend to heavily rely on both their English translations and the theological teachings of their local church".
      This could be said for just about any area of literary study, whether it be the Annals of Tacitus or 19th century poetry. One can always keep digging. Can always come up with new novel interpretations. And certainly socio-scientific analysis of texts is bringing fresh things to light, but generally speaking we have a relatively good insight into what the Biblical authors were trying to say and impart to their readers. It hasn't been a hopeless endeavor.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      3. It is not always possible to determine the correct interpretation (i.e. the intent of the original author). In cases where it really isn't possible to make a definitive judgment as to the correct interpretation, the methodologically correct thing to do is to "throw our hands up in despair" as you put it. I've noticed that conservative Christians are strongly resistant to doing this even where the evidence seems to clearly warrant it.
      I seriously doubt any historian worth their salt would agree that the correct methodology when it comes to indeterminate interpretation is to throw their hands up in despair. You gotta wonder where Starlight got that idea. The historians I'm familiar with typically are in the business of building a case for the interpretation they think is more likely than another. Or they'll suggest that multiple interpretations are feasible. On very rare occasions they'll inform the reader that modern scholarship has a difficult time exegeting a passage, though even here some theories will often be offered. I've never ever read a historian who wrote something like, "we don't know what this passage means, and we will likely never know what this passage means, so we've given up on it."

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      I have strong opinions about the correct interpretations of many parts of the bible because I spent years researching the topic. In my opinion, the average conservative evangelical Christian is substantially wrong (unbiblical) on nearly all major points of theology and is interpreting nearly all theologically important parts of the NT wrongly (correct interpretations IMO can be found in a combination of modern socio-cultural commentaries, New Perspective on Paul scholarship, and the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition). For the most part the average conservative evangelical Christian would have never once in their lives ever heard of or thought of the interpretations that I think are the correct ones.
      Starlight forgets (or simply doesn't know) that some of Biblical scholarship's greatest contributions to socio-cultural studies and the New Perspectives on Paul come from those self-same pesky evangelical Christians: NT Wright is one of the top 3 most prominent voices in New Perspective studies, but Starlight can't stand the fact that he's an evangelical, so pretends that he doesn't exist. Likewise, scholars like Craig Keener, David deSilva, and Ben Worthington III have all made important contributions to socio-cultural studies. And while John H. Elliott, the founder of the Context Group, may not be an evangelical himself (he's a Lutheran pastor), his works (and personal correspondences) have never struck me as particularly anti-evangelical. But more to the point, if Starlight was as familiar with so-called evangelical commentators as he lets on, then surely he knows that most don't outright reject the work of their non-evangelical contemporaries, or even left-leaning exegetes. Plenty of conservative scholars will piggyback or cite contemporaries like Sanders, Brown, Vermes, Malina, Levine, Bruggeman, Meier, and the like. This idea that evangelical Christian scholars, or even students and amatuer/lay theologians avoid, or are unfamiliar with dissenting points of view is simply nonsense. You get the impression reading Starlight that he sheltered himself from dissenting points of view, so seems to think that everyone else must have as well. Heck, even on this forum, you'll find plenty of lay Christians who've read and are familiar with the work of a diverse number of Biblical scholars that don't fit into a neat little box.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      I would guess that you and I, MM, probably agree very little on the correct interpretation of virtually any important biblical passage. I would guess that you probably had never heard of or thought of the interpretations I would hold for the most part.
      Yeah, no. I'm betting there's not much that Starlight could plunk down that you're not familiar with, at least in passing.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      As such, I think critical thinkers and skeptics are right to emphasize the sheer difficulty of reaching the correct interpretations of biblical passages, since to this day informed experts have massive disagreements on the interpretations of all important passages.
      And yet, while a diversity of views exist, the broad strokes are generally agreed upon, and there are plenty of areas that see majority and even consensus agreement than Starlight would have us believe.

      Comment


      • Most conservative evangelical Christians would take issue with at most 1 or 2 points in the Nicene Creed; to say that "the average conservative evangelical Christian is substantially wrong (unbiblical) on nearly all major points of theology and is interpreting nearly all theologically important parts of the NT wrongly" is so far off base that one suspects that Starlight is doing his usual "I know I'm wrong, so I'll ramp up the rhetoric in hopes people won't notice."
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Most conservative evangelical Christians would take issue with at most 1 or 2 points in the Nicene Creed; to say that "the average conservative evangelical Christian is substantially wrong (unbiblical) on nearly all major points of theology and is interpreting nearly all theologically important parts of the NT wrongly" is so far off base that one suspects that Starlight is doing his usual "I know I'm wrong, so I'll ramp up the rhetoric in hopes people won't notice."
          But we have it on good authority, Starlight himself, that "It's pretty rare I'm actually wrong about something, since I don't tend to make statements unless I've got good reason to think they're true."

          He reminds me of the old joke about the guy saying that the only time he's wrong is when he thinks he might have made a mistake. Except Starlight is serious.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Wow.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Hmm, there is enough truth to this to be worth commenting on, even if you've got the wrong end of the stick.

              1. ... As a result, I became very very convinced of the importance of always knowing all the possible interpretations when trying to ascertain the correct one. Anyone who starts out assuming they definitely know the correct interpretation is going methodologically wrong immediately. So it is very important to "start with... every proposed interpretation... on equal footing" as you put it.
              You are setting up a false dichotomy. It is obviously wrong to start out (in any field) by assuming that one already knows the correct interpretation. But trying to know all possible interpretations and to put them all on an equal footing is ridiculous. Some possible interpretations will be very unlikely for various reasons, and this should be recognized early.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              2. ... Rather than "there is no reliable method for determining which is probably the correct one" as you put it, I would phrase it as "Christians almost always underestimate the difficulties and complexities involved in determining the correct interpretation, and tend to heavily rely on both their English translations and the theological teachings of their local church".
              While this is often true of lay Christians, it is not true of the trained exegetes and theologians. They are well aware of the difficulties that you mention.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              3. It is not always possible to determine the correct interpretation (i.e. the intent of the original author). In cases where it really isn't possible to make a definitive judgment as to the correct interpretation, the methodologically correct thing to do is to "throw our hands up in despair" as you put it. I've noticed that conservative Christians are strongly resistant to doing this even where the evidence seems to clearly warrant it.
              Nonsense! Is this what we do in science when we can't be sure of the correct interpretation of data? No! We try to judge which interpretation is more likely, we hold it tentatively and are up-front about the alternative interpretations, and we try to gather more data. It's the same in theology.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              ... In my opinion, the average conservative evangelical Christian is substantially wrong (unbiblical) on nearly all major points of theology and is interpreting nearly all theologically important parts of the NT wrongly (correct interpretations IMO can be found in a combination of modern socio-cultural commentaries, New Perspective on Paul scholarship, and the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition).
              ...

              I would guess that you and I, MM, probably agree very little on the correct interpretation of virtually any important biblical passage. ...
              You are entitled to your opinion, but it is quite extreme (and untenable)! Wrong on "nearly all major points of theology"? Disagreement on "virtually any important biblical passage"? No, the basic message of Scripture is straightforward. There is wide agreement on the "major points of theology".

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              As such, I think critical thinkers and skeptics are right to emphasize the sheer difficulty of reaching the correct interpretations of biblical passages, since to this day informed experts have massive disagreements on the interpretations of all important passages.
              And I think you are grossly overstating your case, and really do not understand the principles of proper biblical interpretation.
              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                Are you sure that you are looking at the reasoning of "careful exegetes", rather than off-the-cuff comments by those who are careless or untrained?
                I'm looking at the reasoning of everyone who attempts to tell me how the Bible should be interpreted. I'm not judging whether they are careful or otherwise according to which conclusions they reach. I'm judging them by the reasoning they employ to reach those conclusions.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  I agree that the premise is obviously absurd, but many skeptics argue from it nonetheless.
                  I have never seen a skeptic say that every proposed interpretation is on an equal footing. Can you quote one who does?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I've seen the argument presented often enough to know it's common among skeptics.
                    Can you name one such skeptic, and identify the publication in which the argument appears?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      While this is often true of lay Christians, it is not true of the trained exegetes and theologians. They are well aware of the difficulties that you mention.
                      The better ones are well aware of the numerous difficulties. However there are plenty of trained exegetes and theologians though who think "the basic message of Scripture is straightforward" as you put it .

                      Is this what we do in science when we can't be sure of the correct interpretation of data? No! We try to judge which interpretation is more likely, we hold it tentatively and are up-front about the alternative interpretations, and we try to gather more data. It's the same in theology.
                      The better theologians do follow a scientific-like interpretation procedure similar to what you describe. I wish it were more commonly used.

                      And I think you are grossly overstating your case, and really do not understand the principles of proper biblical interpretation.
                      I think you are speaking in complete ignorance about me.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        A lot of people seem to take for granted that the moral teachings of the NT are great, or that the NT serves as a useful guide to modern morality. However, it seems to me that in addition to some of its good teachings, the NT has a great many failings and shortcomings. I'm reposting here for a more general audience & discussion something I just posted deep in an obscure thread on the Philosophy forum:

                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Moral issues the NT is morally wrong on:
                        Slavery, homosexuality, divorce, the subordination of women, marital rape, eternal punishment, obedience to authoritarian governments.

                        Moral issues the NT is a bit unclear about:
                        Non-violence, polygamy, sex before marriage, racial discrimination (as evidenced by the long history of racial discrimination in the Christian countries of USA and South Africa), interracial marriage

                        Moral issues the NT fails to speak to:
                        Torture, genocide, war crimes, human rights, animal rights, women's rights, abortion, contraceptives.

                        I've probably left out several important moral failings of the NT in this off-the-top-of-my-head listing. It's worth noting that while the NT can claim great moral teachings like the Golden Rule, that it's known as the Golden Rule precisely because it has been found in all sorts of societies and philosophies and religious teachings throughout history. I don't dispute that the NT has plenty of good moral teachings. But it also has plenty of bad ones. And, also importantly for anyone trying to base their entire morality on the NT: There are a vast number of moral topics that the NT simply doesn't touch on at all, or on which the NT references only very obscurely and unclearly.
                        You are arguing numerous issues here. Not just the one of the topic/title of this thread. Yes, it is understandable, in your list of sub topics that they would fall under the main topic as you see it.

                        Pick one of the issues. The one which you think best proves your point.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          You are arguing numerous issues here. Not just the one of the topic/title of this thread. Yes, it is understandable, in your list of sub topics that they would fall under the main topic as you see it.

                          Pick one of the issues. The one which you think best proves your point.
                          The bible is wrong on a huge variety of moral issues. I'm sure it would be convenient for you if you only had to defend one of those, and could pretend to yourself and others that the bible as a whole could be successfully defended by the quality of your defense of whatever I felt personally to be the 'most' serious issue. But actually, if the bible were only wrong on one moral issue we would be having quite a different conversation. I would be saying "well the bible is overall an extremely good guide to morality, but I have this one quibble where I have a difference of opinion with what the bible teaches..."

                          But that's not the issue at all. The issue is that overall the bible is a bad guide to morality. It's consistently wrong, on numerous issues. I listed 20 major moral issues where the bible is wrong on, unclear on, or fails to address. And the point is thus that overall the bible is not a particularly useful or good source of morality for us.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            But that's not the issue at all. The issue is that overall the bible is a bad guide to morality. It's consistently wrong, on numerous issues. I listed 20 major moral issues where the bible is wrong on, unclear on, or fails to address. And the point is thus that overall the bible is not a particularly useful or good source of morality for us.
                            Are you just dense or deluded Star? The only critique you could bring against scripture would find its foundation in your relative cultural mores. Which as a launching pad for moral condemnation is meaningless.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Are you just dense or deluded Star? The only critique you could bring against scripture would find its foundation in your relative cultural mores. Which as a launching pad for moral condemnation is meaningless.
                              I think you're both dense and deluded. As I have explained to you repeated and in great detail, I think objective morality exists in the same sort of way that 2+2=4 exists, as a self-evident truism. Obviously cultural mores differ from time to time and some are more moral than others, just as some cultures are better at math than others.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                Can you name one such skeptic, and identify the publication in which the argument appears?
                                My prediction is.... NO!
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                31 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                420 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X