4 comments:

flobi said...

Alright Mike. We need a new topic. One I know you want to discuss, but don't have a volunteer, and one I don't want to discuss, but must (I really don't have a choice in the matter). We must answer the two questions:

Why is it that the detestable sexual union of two men and the holy marriage of man and women are equitable?

From whence dost morality spawn?

In all honesty, there's really only one question, the second. I will start quick with saying that without reading Genesis as is, there really is no basis for morality. You can continue from there.

The reason that it comes down to the second is this, the first question could have been any of these: Why is it wrong to harm another person? Why is it okay to destroy, mutilate, suffocate, disseminate, dissect, defile, perturb, etc. some lifeforms which are utterly indistinguishable from your own save size and ability to self-sustain? Are humans and preying mantis's the same, minus tiny genetic differences? Any question of morality could replace the first there, but the second is the only of importance as it does determine the answer of the first.

You claim that it's up to one's interpretation what the Bible means, but why? Why doesn't it just mean what it says? Does it lie when it says that a child can understand it, or is it true when I read it (verbatim) to my 7 year old daughter that there were 6 days in which God created the earth, and that people lived for almost a thousand years, or that death was introduced because of sin?

5:30 AM

Mike L. said...

Flobi,

I've been having a spirited conversation on my recent post about gay marriage (which is likely why the conversation hasn't happened in this particular post). I think the conversation there answers all your points, so please read them and let me know if you still have questions about my position...

http://www.faithprogression.com/2008/12/better-case-for-gay-marriage.html

Please also read, my post this morning...
http://www.faithprogression.com/2008/12/case-against-civil-unions.html

You did make one new point that I'll address here since it misrepresents my views.

You said about me:"You claim that it's up to one's interpretation what the Bible means, but why?"

That isn't at all like anything I've said here or in conversation with you elsewhere. By wording the statement as you have there, it sounds as if you think I mean there is no way to know anything about the original intent of the author and that EVERY possible interpretation is a productive interpretation. I don't mean anything like that at all.

Instead what I mean when I talk to you about biblical interpretation is that every interpretation brings with it some personal baggage. We read scripture through our particular lens. Good exegesis attempts to (though never perfectly) read the texts through the lens of the original author. This is never a perfect science because we don't have access to the original authors. In most cases we don't even have a definitive identity of the author. So we undertake the process of textual criticism to examine the cultural norms, political climate, and geographical influences of the approximate environment of the author and their community. By doing that, our goal is to learn what the author meant rather than reading our own desires into the texts.

My goal in all reading of scripture is to understand the author's intention. I'm never intentionally trying to read my views into it. However, that goal is unreachable. We must remain humble enough to realize our flawed attempts. Our humility must cause us to consistently question our interpretation as it is OUR interpretation. Where you suppose I am questioning the texts themselves, what you should realize is that I'm questioning our (and my) previous interpretations. When you over simplify the process by suggesting the texts have ONLY the surface plain meanings, you are belittling the authors by suggesting they were not smart enough to add depth and complexity in the form of metaphor, symbolism, and allegory. You are selling the authors short. I suggest you are valuing a particular (I'd add simplistic) interpretation rather than honoring the full depth of texts.

For example, I am 100% positive that I saw you place a fag in your mouth behind the office building last week. Do you want to take that statement at face value within the culture of those reading the statement or do some exegesis and look for possible alternate meanings for the word fag? Do you want to consider the most obvious use of "fag" in our culture to mean "homosexual" or do you want to consider that in some cultures, the word fag is slang for cigarette? To truly understand both my statement and the object of my statement (you), a person would need to do more research about both of us to avoid a misunderstanding about your daily habits behind the office.

1:10 PM

flobi said...

I have decided through much contemplation (and some yelling from my wife) that posting arguementative remarks on my boss's website in irrelevant places in the wee hours of the morning while sloppy drunk is not one of the better desicions to make, especially with performance reviews looming. Besides being totally hipocrital, it was generally stupid. I will read the topics you posted, and put relevant replies where they should be. In fact, should you want to just wipe this conversation so this post can have comments on it's actual content, I would be ok with that.

7:41 PM

Mike L. said...

Flobi,

I love you Josh. You are a fascinating human being. If you are going to get sloppy drunk and discuss theological views, you should really invite me. The world's best theology has been created over a few (cough cough) pints of beer.

I wouldn't have a blog like this if I expected to only have positive responses. I learn more from dissenting views anyway. I'm delighted by the theological and political diversity that we have in our office. I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm also very proud of the open environment for discussion that we've created. I've been in organizations that stifled those conversations, so I make a point of encouraging them. I view open discourse (dis-course)
as a sign of a healthy organization.

8:31 PM

Post a Comment