Conversation about the Bible

What follows is a thread copied from a lovely Mastodon conversation across the past two days between my account @acbilson, @corbden, and @Shobeck).

Visit the start of the thread here to read in full.

@acbilson

One rejection of the #bible I’ve witnessed is that it contains horrendous evil, even evil in which God’s actions get enmeshed.

Case in point: Abraham’s nephew, Lot, offers his virgin daughters to be gang raped by his neighbors to protect his male guests.

This is horrific. Unconscionable. But you’ll have to keep reading if you are to discover that the authors are not painting Lot as a hero, nor the LORD in approval of his actions.

@acbilson

We consider great literature those books which honor the ambiguously complex nature of life on earth and give room in our hearts to learn from their wisdom. Why should we afford the #Bible any less honor, though we must read with patience a book written by authors from a time and culture distant to our own, writing to an audience distinct from us.

@Shobeck

@acbilson I think much of the difference when critiquing the bible is that some people think it comes from the creator of the entire universe and seek to govern others by its contents. This adds significance and requires more critical assessment of the text.

Secular bible study is possible and explores the poetic and beautiful sections. As soon as someone claims the book is a sufficient explanation of earths origin, then epistemology needs a stronger focus.

@acbilson

@Shobeck hey, thanks!

Those who “seek to govern others by its contents” repel me as much as anyone. There’s as many who read the same set of books and come to the opposite conclusion, so I don’t think other-domination is self-evident in the text.

I agree that a dogmatic interpretation of the first couple chapters doesn’t do the whole justice - as though earth’s origins is what the story is about.

@corbden has a better meditation on those chapters: https://defcon.social/@corbden/111116603922874258

@Shobeck

@acbilson @corbden thanks for you reply. my point was not just those specific verses but more the principal that if someone claims a book comes from a divine being, then it attracts a higher level of scrutiny - one can admire poetry or literary flourish but questions about authorship remain. The Koran has some nice sections with some nuanced understanding of life on earth. That doesn’t make it true, or give credence to the whole thing being divine.

@acbilson

@Shobeck @corbden that makes so much sense, thanks for explaining.

I can’t speak for the Quran, but the claims for the Bible’s authorship are actually more nuanced. It’s actually a collection of works written by numerous human authors and edited by teams of human experts into a cohesive whole. The claim that it’s from God are by way of inspiration through humans, not in spite of them.

(continued 1/2)

@acbilson

@Shobeck @corbden

In anticipation of an objection-maybe it’s just my own-it doesn’t bother me that my reasoning depends on the Bible itself. Some would call it circular reasoning to use the Bible’s own story in one’s conviction about its authorship. I am familiar with logic and its fallacies.

Informed trust is what the Bible expects, and my trust grows with every encounter through its pages with the human authors that penned and edited it and the God who inspired them. That’s enough for me.

@acbilson

@Shobeck @corbden okay, I promise I’ll stop here. This is a passion of mine and it’s easy for me to keep going on and on and on.

For me, the #Bible is like a letter written by my closest friend and mentor. I love sharing it with others, not to demand that they believe and comply, but because I love my best friend and enjoy introducing them to others. It makes my joy complete to share it.

@Shobeck

@acbilson @corbden

I appreciate your interest and passion.

I’m curious at your comments of acknowledging the cognitive bias, yet skipping over that.

If you were speaking with a muslim or a mormon and they said similar - “I know its circular reasoning but it works for me”.

Would that make you more likely to believe the central tenets of their faith are true, or would you think its more likely they have mistakenly accepted something as true when its not .

@acbilson

@Shobeck @corbden I haven’t actually met any person of faith who has made that claim so it’s hard to say… 😆

I think it’s fascinating how people come to believe what they do. “Blind” trust isn’t limited to people with holy books after all. But if I did encounter a Muslim or a Mormon who made such a claim, I’d take a page from @corbden and stir their curiosity. Also on common ground - not divine authorship but the person of King Jesus.

@corbden

@acbilson @Shobeck I’d imagine that any approach is up to the reader, assuming god* isn’t an authoritarian who punishes people who get it “wrong.” If there is no wrong interpretation in the sense that it will rouse god’s anger. If, like all other forms of literature, we are expected to each take our own impressions from it. As a writer myself, I might intend a certain meaning or prefer an interpretation of my work, but I’d be a huge jerk if I lost it at anyone who took away something else. (Unless they used it to justify or perpetuate harm… then I’d be reasonably upset.) Humans seem designed for subjective interpretation of both art & reality. The Bible is unclear and full of flexible meaning and metaphor. If an all-powerful God didn’t intend that, then I have to wonder why I should take him seriously.

*A note on god/God: I use god when I want to leave what that means open to the broadest possibilities, and God when I’m referring to the personal Father God described by Christianity.

@acbilson

@corbden @Shobeck One discovery I’ve made in the last few months is that the first time God is described in the #bible as angry is with Moses. One insight I glean from this is that God’s anger isn’t authoritarian, which would be pathetic for an all-powerful being, but stems from the constraints of relationship.

And what does God do with Moses? He grants a concession, not a punishment.

Thanks for the clarifying note about god/God. I’ll try to abide by the same parameters in this convo.

@corbden

@acbilson @Shobeck Yes, that more Jewish view of God as someone who takes feedback, I find interesting and less problematic.

Do you think god or God needs everyone to come away with a specific interpretation of the Bible? Or that it’s meant to flex, as other literature does, to the individual mind?

@acbilson

@corbden @Shobeck my thoughts on interpretation are not fully resolved.

I’ve been memorizing the Hebrews scroll this year and the ways that the author quotes other texts is sometimes too mysterious for me to understand. So I try to read sympathetically, trying to see the quoted texts as the author did.

One line in Hebrews that’s been helpful is “it was written somewhere.” It’s funny to me that the author didn’t even cite his quote. (bah, character limits 1/2)

@acbilson

@corbden @Shobeck (2/2)

That line in Hebrews reminds me that for most of world history people have trusted in God with much less information than we possess today. Authors of New Testament letters likely didn’t even have access to all the Hebrew texts on hand but cited them from memory or translation.

I try to get as close to a sympathetic reading as I can because that’s what I see Jesus and his early followers doing and I want to become more like them. Becoming > Correctness IMO.

@corbden

@acbilson

Thanks for answering. Yes, for most of history, even that which is literally written in stone is physically inaccessible to a majority of people, and when it is available, it’s in an incomprehensible language, and when the language is known, the historical context isn’t, and when that is known, two individuals don’t agree on the meaning.

While I was adrift shortly after my loss of faith in God, Thomas Paine’s words on scripture in Age of Reason really resonated with me. Too tired to look them up now, but he basically said that written words of god stand no chance of being properly understood and are subject to malicious tampering. But creation itself, that is unalterable, and can be read the same by everyone.

Then I shifted even more subjective than that, that if created, all of this must be confusing for a reason. Not as a cruel test of faith, but because that diversity in outlook itself is the point.

@Shobeck