Verses Freebirds ignore or misunderstand when reading their Bibles.

[subllibrm]

Threads like this one and the original reminded me of this blog post I came across last week. The writer speaks primarily of fundamentalists but I think it really speaks to beliefs of most if not all stripes.

We all have a hermeneutic. We are all interpreting the text to some degree. We are all privileging--deferring to--certain values, doctrines, creedal commitments, traditions, or biblical texts. Something somewhere is trumping something else. In a document as multivocal as the Old and New Testament this is unavoidable.

So we all have a hermeneutic. The only question is whether you are consciously vs. unconsciously using a hermeneutic. Fundamentalists are interpreting the text unconsciously. Fundamentalists are interpreting the text right and left, they are just unaware that they are doing so. This lack of awareness is what produces the sorts of statements described above.

When your hermeneutic is operating unconsciously it causes you to say things like "this is the clear teaching of Scripture."

Which brings me to my point.

What is interesting to me in this phenomenon is not that we are all engaging in hermeneutics, acts of interpretation. That is a given. What is interesting to me is how self-awareness, or the lack thereof, is implicated in all this.

Basically, fundamentalism--denying that you are engaged in hermeneutics--betrays a shocking lack of self-awareness, an inability to notice the way your mind and emotions are working in the background and beneath the surface.

I think statements like "this is the clear teaching of Scripture" are psychologically diagnostic. Statements like these reveal something about yourself. Namely, that you lack a certain degree of self-awareness.

For example, saying something like "this is the clear teaching of Scripture" is similar to saying "I'm not a racist." Self-aware people would never say either one of those things.

Self-aware people would say things like "I don't want to be a racist" or "I try not to be racist" or "I condemn racism." But they would never say "I'm not a racist" because self-aware people know that they have blind spots. Self-aware people know they have unconscious baggage that is hard to notice or overcome.

And it's the same with how self-aware people approach reading the bible. Self-aware people know that they are trying to read the bible in an unbiased fashion. Self-aware people work hard to let the bible speak clearly and it its own voice. But self-aware people know they have blind spots. They know that there is unconscious baggage affecting how they are reading the bible, baggage that they know must be biasing their readings and conclusions. Consequently, self-aware people would never, ever say "this is the clear teaching of Scripture." Just like they'd never claim to be unbiased in any other area of life, racism being just one example.

What I am saying is that when we approach the issue of sola scriptura--using "the bible alone"--there is more to this than pointing out the ubiquity and necessity of hermeneutics. There is also the issue of emotional intelligence, the degree to which you are reading the bible with a degree of self-awareness.

Not impressed. He is basically saying "I am so self aware, I know that what I think might not be true and anyone who is sure of himself is so lacking in self awareness that he doesn't know that his solid conclusion isn't as good as my open ended lack of a conclusion". Navel gazing at its best.

Read through the comment section and see what you get from people who are aware that they are "using a hermeneutic" and see their conclusions. The only thing in scripture that they seem to agree with is Pilate asking "what is truth?"

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Threads like this one and the original reminded me of this blog post I came across last week. The writer speaks primarily of fundamentalists but I think it really speaks to beliefs of most if not all stripes.

We all have a hermeneutic. We are all interpreting the text to some degree. We are all privileging--deferring to--certain values, doctrines, creedal commitments, traditions, or biblical texts. Something somewhere is trumping something else. In a document as multivocal as the Old and New Testament this is unavoidable.

So we all have a hermeneutic. The only question is whether you are consciously vs. unconsciously using a hermeneutic. Fundamentalists are interpreting the text unconsciously. Fundamentalists are interpreting the text right and left, they are just unaware that they are doing so. This lack of awareness is what produces the sorts of statements described above.

When your hermeneutic is operating unconsciously it causes you to say things like "this is the clear teaching of Scripture."

Which brings me to my point.

What is interesting to me in this phenomenon is not that we are all engaging in hermeneutics, acts of interpretation. That is a given. What is interesting to me is how self-awareness, or the lack thereof, is implicated in all this.

Basically, fundamentalism--denying that you are engaged in hermeneutics--betrays a shocking lack of self-awareness, an inability to notice the way your mind and emotions are working in the background and beneath the surface.

I think statements like "this is the clear teaching of Scripture" are psychologically diagnostic. Statements like these reveal something about yourself. Namely, that you lack a certain degree of self-awareness.

For example, saying something like "this is the clear teaching of Scripture" is similar to saying "I'm not a racist." Self-aware people would never say either one of those things.

Self-aware people would say things like "I don't want to be a racist" or "I try not to be racist" or "I condemn racism." But they would never say "I'm not a racist" because self-aware people know that they have blind spots. Self-aware people know they have unconscious baggage that is hard to notice or overcome.

And it's the same with how self-aware people approach reading the bible. Self-aware people know that they are trying to read the bible in an unbiased fashion. Self-aware people work hard to let the bible speak clearly and it its own voice. But self-aware people know they have blind spots. They know that there is unconscious baggage affecting how they are reading the bible, baggage that they know must be biasing their readings and conclusions. Consequently, self-aware people would never, ever say "this is the clear teaching of Scripture." Just like they'd never claim to be unbiased in any other area of life, racism being just one example.

What I am saying is that when we approach the issue of sola scriptura--using "the bible alone"--there is more to this than pointing out the ubiquity and necessity of hermeneutics. There is also the issue of emotional intelligence, the degree to which you are reading the bible with a degree of self-awareness.

Not impressed. He is basically saying "I am so self aware, I know that what I think might not be true and anyone who is sure of himself is so lacking in self awareness that he doesn't know that his solid conclusion isn't as good as my open ended lack of a conclusion". Navel gazing at its best.

Read through the comment section and see what you get from people who are aware that they are "using a hermeneutic" and see their conclusions. The only thing in scripture that they seem to agree with is Pilate asking "what is truth?"

Which all points to a singular statement: people's perception of truth and the hermeneutic to come to those conclusions is relative.

 

[subllibrm]

Which all points to a singular statement: people's perception of truth and the hermeneutic to come to those conclusions is relative.

And Jesus' claim to be the way, truth and life does not leave room for a "relative" interpretation. Are there debatable thing? Absolutely but admitting that does not render everything in scripture debatable. His argument is that a "self aware" (whatever that is supposed to mean) person should never should never use a phrase like "scripture is clear". I will gladly take my good old unaware self an hitch it to the Jesus is God train.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Maybe because you have missed the point of the other thread?

Enlighten me of what I think about that, since I haven't said what I think about the other thread.  What point do I think the other thread is making?

And just for fun, give me some examples of the good/evil, light/dark, sweet/bitter problem that is prevalent in a "freebird" mentality. Since I don't consider myself a freebird, I need your guidance to understand how this verse is ignored or misunderstood.

Just one example, to throw chum in the water for the free raptors, is the fact that "the ends justifies the means" pragmatic mentality will allow for ANY genre of music as a means to worship.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think that down of the points...

???


This is your brain.  This is your brain on Freebirdism.



put the bong down, it's not legal in Illinois.....yet.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Folk, folks, folks, let's not get bogged down in misdirection and tedium.  Get with the spirit of the thread!.....


They strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none does return from his wickedness.? (Jer. 23:14). 

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Just one example, to throw chum in the water for the free raptors, is the fact that "the ends justifies the means" pragmatic mentality will allow for ANY genre of music as a means to worship.

Another poster already answered this one very well:

There is a huge difference between some genuinely being harmed in what another person does and someone that refuses to "grow up" and realize that not everyone is going to be just like him.

I refuse to have my liberty in a thing.... questioned... because some hard-nosed fundamentalist wants to whine about it. 

There is a reason Paul used the word "weak" to describe those so easily offended in another man's liberty.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Just one example, to throw chum in the water for the free raptors, is the fact that "the ends justifies the means" pragmatic mentality will allow for ANY genre of music as a means to worship.

Another poster already answered this one very well:

There is a huge difference between some genuinely being harmed in what another person does and someone that refuses to "grow up" and realize that not everyone is going to be just like him.

I refuse to have my liberty in a thing.... questioned... because some hard-nosed fundamentalist wants to whine about it. 

There is a reason Paul used the word "weak" to describe those so easily offended in another man's liberty.

"Liberty" does not mean that a person can do whatever they feel they are entitled to do, and for that matter, it doesn't even mean that they can do things that are questionable without any consideration to the overall context of their surroundings either.  The very gentleman who spoke of that exact liberty you reference said he would forego it for the sake of the gospel and his own weaker brethren.  He didn't say of his liberty "flaunt it if ya got it"......
1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.  24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.


Now, enough of this trifling and obfuscation, but get on with the spirit of the thread!....


the devils also believe, and tremble- (James 2:19).

 

[subllibrm]

Just one example, to throw chum in the water for the free raptors, is the fact that "the ends justifies the means" pragmatic mentality will allow for ANY genre of music as a means to worship.

Maybe you would get more bites on your "chum" if there were someone here who held that philosophy. I haven't seen any invites to a death metal worship service. I suppose that they could exist in more than just your imagination but would still be a rare event.

But since we are talking about pragmatism ... a thought just occurred to me for a thread topic.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Just one example, to throw chum in the water for the free raptors, is the fact that "the ends justifies the means" pragmatic mentality will allow for ANY genre of music as a means to worship.

Maybe you would get more bites on your "chum" if there were someone here who held that philosophy. I haven't seen any invites to a death metal worship service. I suppose that they could exist in more than just your imagination but would still be a rare event.

But since we are talking about pragmatism ... a thought just occurred to me for a thread topic.

I'm sure that the people who are adding their two cents to the other thread have at some point experienced or heard of some of the things they are talking about, but that's irrelevant to the point of my thread, since there is a reality in  Christendom of Antinomianism, and I'm just asking for a reciprocal spirit in my thread, which obviously ain't near as exhuberant (for a reason too, and a reason that my thread is highlighting about the nature of this forum as it has changed over the last several years).  And speaking of points to the thread, you said I missed the point of the other one, and when I asked you what you thought that I had misappreneded, well, you ignored that.  Care to tell me what I thought the point of the other thread was?

 

[Bruh]

Where oh where did I put my popcorn GIF?

Been a while since we have had a good display of Aman and the rodent talking past each other.  8)

PWWWAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!!   

Takes breath

PWAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA!!!

Takes breath

PWAHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!

That's good stuff!!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Which all points to a singular statement: people's perception of truth and the hermeneutic to come to those conclusions is relative.

And Jesus' claim to be the way, truth and life does not leave room for a "relative" interpretation. Are there debatable thing? Absolutely but admitting that does not render everything in scripture debatable. His argument is that a "self aware" (whatever that is supposed to mean) person should never should never use a phrase like "scripture is clear". I will gladly take my good old unaware self an hitch it to the Jesus is God train.

Jesus' claim is absolutely up for debate. Not in what He said (at least for me) but in the context in which He meant it. The context isn't a simple "Jesus is the only way to heaven" view that is traditionally understood. Context of 'where are we to go?' starts in the previous chapter and bleeds into chapter 14.

Though I disagree with quite a bit of his theology, I found Brian McLaren recognizes the context and words it more succinctly than I:

Stretch your imagination and put yourself in the disciples? situation. Jesus just told you he is going away and you can?t come with him. Then he says you know how to get where he is going. You don?t understand what he?s talking about. You have no idea where he is going, so how can you know the way to get there? Maybe you assume that since he?s going, you need detailed information on how to meet up with him later on. So you want the missing information so you can get yourself to wherever it is you?re supposed to go. But he tells you to trust him, because he will work everything out. He?ll get you to where you need to be. What a far cry from asking about the eternal destiny of people from other religions or periods in history who had no access to belief in Jesus!

To repeat, putting John 14:6 in context, Jesus? meaning becomes clear: ?Guys,? he?s saying, ?it?s not about knowing information, techniques, directions, or instructions: it?s about knowing me, trusting me! Stay in relationship with me, abide in me, and I?ll get you to the place where you belong ? the kingdom of God, knowing God, living in dynamic interactive relationship with God ? the place that I?ve been telling you about from the beginning!? In this way, ?I am the way ... there?s no other way apart from me? is a restatement of reassurance: ?Trust in God, trust also in me. Don?t let your hearts be troubled ? trust me!?

This reading takes seriously the play on the word ?know.? Thomas is saying, ?How can we have intellectual clarity on where you?re going or the route or technique to get there?? Jesus replies, ?You don?t need intellectual clarity: you need personal knowledge. It?s not a matter of ?knowing about,? but rather, ?knowing.?? Remember, this
theme of personal knowing as interactive relationship is strong through all of John?s gospel ? and in just two chapters, Jesus will say, ?And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.? ?I am the life? in John 14, then, has a powerful resonance in John 17 with ?Eternal life
is to know God and to know me.?

A Reading of John 14:6

So in taking Jesus' words in the context of modern Christianity rather than the perceived, limited understanding to the original audience (in this case, the disciples), it is a matter of hermenutical perception, not a simplistic 'black-and-white' interpretation.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I think that down of the points...

???


This is your brain.  This is your brain on Freebirdism.



put the bong down, it's not legal in Illinois.....yet.

Sorry Chrissy, I have fat fingers and poor eyesight, but patience from you, especially for "free birds", is not available for typos, eh?

 

[Recovering IFB]

My point being that fundies take a first century writings to a first century people in a middle eastern civilization and try to apply it with a 1950 American idealism to fit in a 21st century culture.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My point being that fundies take a first century writings to a first century people in a middle eastern civilization and try to apply it with a 1950 American idealism to fit in a 21st century culture.

Which again comes back to one's hermeneutic. When one places himself as an original audience member of the original writing (which is very hard to do considering the generational and cultural differences), one can come away with an entirely different perspective and perhaps even definition of a verse, passage, chapter or book of the Bible. So to say that modern day, Protestant interpretation (even though there are several of them) is the only way to interpret meaning, it is a flawed pursuit as much as any other interpretation.

Besides, if everything was based on black-and-white fact as a viewpoint, faith goes out the window and in its place, a rigid, mandated accepting of textual interpretation. I think Jesus kinda put the kabosh on this ideal with the Scribes and Pharisees in His day.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

lol, why doesn't there seem to be the same cooperative participation in this thread as its' sister? 

Because your thread is based on interpreting Christian liberty as "I am going to sin freely because the law no longer applies to me".

 

[ALAYMAN]

lol, why doesn't there seem to be the same cooperative participation in this thread as its' sister? 

Because your thread is based on interpreting Christian liberty as "I am going to sin freely because the law no longer applies to me".

umm, no, that's not true, simply.not.true.  I don't think that most Freebirds intend to sin freely because they think "the law no longer applies".  I think many of them are ignorant of the concept of restraining their liberty for the sake of their brethren, and still others really don't ultimately care what the Scriptures  say when it conflicts with their daily practices.

 

[ALAYMAN]

My point being that fundies take a first century writings to a first century people in a middle eastern civilization and try to apply it with a 1950 American idealism to fit in a 21st century culture.

Paul said he wouldn't drink wine if it made his brother to stumble.  What is so difficult about extrapolating an application from that to modern day 21st century?

 

[Bo]

lol, why doesn't there seem to be the same cooperative participation in this thread as its' sister? 

Because your thread is based on interpreting Christian liberty as "I am going to sin freely because the law no longer applies to me".

umm, no, that's not true, simply.not.true.  I don't think that most Freebirds intend to sin freely because they think "the law no longer applies".  I think many of them are ignorant of the concept of restraining their liberty for the sake of their brethren, and still others really don't ultimately care what the Scriptures  say when it conflicts with their daily practices.

I believe that's the issue with a lot of "anti-fundies".  Twisting scripture to make it fit their desires.  Some concepts might require a little thinking...but God lets us know how He feels about stuff.  We just gotta be willing to accept that we might not always agree with Him.

 

[rsc2a]

My point being that fundies take a first century writings to a first century people in a middle eastern civilization and try to apply it with a 1950 American idealism to fit in a 21st century culture.

Paul said he wouldn't drink wine if it made his brother to stumble.  What is so difficult about extrapolating an application from that to modern day 21st century?

Again, you need to define "stumble".