Show Notes::Beyond the Trailer Park 1/18/2016

For those that listened to BTTP Monday night 1/18/2015 we hit some heady stuff.  While as you can see by the following, I did script out what I wanted to speak to, I sometimes don't stay on point very well or we just plain ran out of time.  Below you will find basically what we talk on concerning hermeneutics with the examples I used of such, if you are so interested.

As many are aware, I am a former Bible and theology student.  I spent 3 yrs in college studying for the ministry.  Although I had a precursory interest in the "proper techniques" of studying the Bible, it wasn't until the issue of my being a lesbian, that it took on a new meaning.

Although I left that career path for psychology and did not graduate from 4 yr college I was exposed to some very excellent instructors and speakers.  I know what I am going to say is going to sound odd coming from an atheist, but think of it as "know thine enemies".  They taught me well, or at least I think they did as I still use what I was taught to this day although for opposite reasons.

I am no scholar nor an expert (although some say that after 25+ yrs on one topic, I could claim that title).  Yes, I have had schooling but I am also self "taught" and my "library" would prolly scare most atheists or at least have them scratching their heads - I have more religious themed or theology books and Bibles (74 different versions) than I do books concerning atheism. 

While my personal interest lays with homosexuality and the bile and surrounding subjects, ie Paulianity, the study principles are universal. Actually hermeneutics is a theory and/or methodology of textual interpretation and now-a-days is used primarily in the interpretation of biblical texts.  But it does have a strong foundation in philosophy as a theory of human understanding (Heidegger and Derrida being 2 names some may be familiar with).  BUT that is way beyond the scope of tonight's topic and falls into the Dave Foda realm of discussion

Along with hermeneutics you will some times hear the word exegesis, for some they are used interchangeably but in my day, hermeneutics was taught as a wider discipline which includes written, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Exegesis focuses primarily on texts or in some cases words.  Hermeneutics looks at the whole picture starting with a word or verse and building out to include paragraph, chapter, book, writer audience and genre.  It builds on archaeology, sociology, history etc..  There is a little bit of exegesis in hermeneutics and a little bit of hermeneutics in exegesis.

So y'all may be sitting there scratching your heads wondering WTF is Dune babbling on about now especially since we are an atheist show.  As many know Deb and I are gluttons for punishment, we like to go into these crazy atheist v theist debate groups and test our mettle along with trying to counter the BS.

For me personally I do have an agenda, besides seeing how many religionists I can piss off, and it does surround the alleged biblical condemnation of homosexuality.  Unlike Matthew Vines who is attempting to change the church from within with his "doctrine" of love, tolerance and acceptance.  I on the other hand want to show that what some interpret as condemnation, is not what they think it is.  If I can get people to "see" what they have been taught MAY be in error,,,, wishful thinking, I know.

My second piece of agendadizing is twofold,

1] noting how when a verse or narrative is put into its complete context, a whole different interpretation emerges.  (Usually the polar opposite of what those in the Reich would like you to believe)

• Deborah and Barak - Judges 4
• For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat - 2 Thessalonians 3:10

To me that deceit is intentional and very damaging, while I may not change the mind of the individual I am debating, it is the audience I am going for.

2] While this deceit may be intentional, it highlights what is so very wrong with the Bile and Christianity as a whole.  Two or three people may look at the same verse and come to different conclusions as to its meaning.  In other words, one can make the Bile say what ever you want it to say if you ignore the overall context, the hermeneutics.

A good example for me concerns,  the Nephilim - the Gen 6 giants.  while from an outsiders POV we may dismiss their existence, from a wholly biblical POV their prior existence can be substantiated (and no need to go outside the Bible - ie Book of Enoch - to do so).  One does not have to make up the elaborate mind games that goes with the Nephilim Scripted ideology.

And finally, and with this point I know I have hit my mark when I get the remark "you're an atheist, what do you know" or "you lack the holy spirit".  This sort of piggy-backs off #2.  Deb can attest to this as I know she has heard it as well, "we" have hit a sore spot.  In other words, we know more than them and the fact that we can support our positions drives them insane.  Rather than rethink their positions, they stick fingers in their ears.

That "lalala" attitude tells me one thing, BLIND FAITH.  They do not worship god, they idolize the men that teach to their dogmatic views because THEY do not want to change.  Like I have said before concerning the creation narrative, remove it, and the house of cards come tumbling down.  "They" are no longer "special creations" and "they" don't like that idea.  [ie Kim Davis]

For those of us raised in religion, we have all heard the adage, "the Bible, so easy a child could understand it".  Well guess what, telling me I need the discernment of the HS to study and understand the book tells me it is not as "easy" as you make it out to be.  Telling me "my" understanding of the text is incorrect because it doesn't match what you have been taught, tells me that it is not as "easy" as you make it out to be.  In other words, the Bile is bunk, and "god works in mysterious ways" just don't cut it.  (I have always said the best places to look for a counter argument to contentious passages, is other "christian" websites,,, the in fighting is brutal at times.)

If two people cant even agree on what the message of the Bible is, then why bother even having such a book.  This, dissension tells me that it is no better than Hesiod's Theogeny or Homer's Illiad and Odessy.  Or want to go further back, how about The Instructions of Shuruppak.

Before delving into exactly what hermeneutics is, there is one point I would like to make if it is not obvious.  I abhor cherry-picking!!  And yes, even though I dislike it, I am just as guilty as the next person.  It does have its uses when supported by sound hermeneutics, the best example concerns divination,,, just as many verses support its use as don't, which supports the contention the Bible contradicts itself, because it does.

So, two things,,,, WTH is hermeneutics? And why do you keep citing the KJV of the Bible?

First my overall approach to reading and studying the Bible.  And yes, as I mention on the show this is going to sound bizarre coming from an atheist but old habits die hard.  (The following statements are based on the presupposition that the "mainstream" Christian God exists and the Bible is His inspired, inerrant, infallible word.)

1]  I do not believe that God would embed secret knowledge in the Bible, using obscure techniques is totally foreign to the Bible’s plain teachings and precepts.

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2]  All that God wanted us to know, is recorded plainly in the Bible which is to be read and pondered, not manipulated by those claiming to possess secret knowledge.  This goes back to my point of, "so easy a child could read it".

Daniel 2:27:: Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king;

3]  When studying scripture and one comes across an interpretive problem in the biblical text, one must allow the text to speak and must accept the testimony of the text with a presumption of accuracy.

Now add to that two pieces of instruction I hold to this day.  One I mentioned last week

I was taught that there were two prominent, overall thought processes in regards to biblical interpretation.  The "literal view" asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context; its meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors.  The second process is what my professor referred to as the "letteral view" of interpretation.  In essence it is a strict almost legalistic point of view.  A good example, that illustrates both views, Christ versus the Pharisees.   Within the Bible, the Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (cf. Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6).

(The reference above can delve in to the whole moral vs civil vs ceremonial law BS.)

A second piece of instruction that I hold fast to, even as an atheist, is a 5-step process espoused by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981).  In Virkler's view this is the best method for attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s).

• Lexical-syntactical analysis :: The how and why of the words used focusing on sentence ordering, punctuation, tense of the verse, and other non-grammatical, lexical and syntactical issues. (Example::Elohim is NOT plural)
• Historical/cultural analysis is self-explanatory.  Know your history, understand the culture the text was influenced by.  (Example::Cultic temple prostitution Ahsteroth in the OT /Cybele in the NT)
• Context, context, context. (Example::2 Thessalonians 3:10)
• Theological analysis ::  A single verse usually doesn't make a theology. To take a verse from one book without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
• Literary Analysis :: There are several literary aspects that must be taken into account with each genre having a different set of rules.  In the Bible, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language.

And remember there is a difference between someone like Steven Anderson and my college professor (who was also ordained).  But there is also a difference between Matt Slick and someone like Bart Erhman or Mike Heiser.

So that's hermeneutics in a nutshell.  If one takes into consideration all 5 points, you can see how the interpretation and meanings of passages do change.  It also showcases why I use it so much, hermeneutics in and of itself is the best means to show that idolatry of the Bile is bunk.  One cannot force Bronze Age or 1st century moral or ethical guidelines on 21st century society.

Using the OT, specifically the Holiness code (18-27) in Leviticus as an example, it relates primarily to the Levites and priests and their services. Also known as the "Law of the Priests" as it contains the system of laws administered by the Levitical priesthood under which the HEBREW nation lived.

What many "letteralist" like Swanson, Klingenschmitt, Anderson, Manning, Rafeal Cruz, Huckabee yada yada are guilty of here biblical hyperliteralism; it is a false way of biblical interpretation which leads to bigoted statements.  The Bible (whether you accept it as the word of God or as I do as a history of the Jewish people with no authority in how I lead my life) must be read in the context in which it was given. All scripture is given in a cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context; to ignore context is disingenuous at best, deceitful and malicious at worst.

Our discussion concerning the KJVOnly movement will be a separate posting as I am still finalizing some notes and resources.

No homos in my church (pt 4)

  The law sends us to the gospel that we may be justified; and the gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified....The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.
Samuel Boltin (1606 – 1654), The True Bounds of Christian Freedom

__

(Please note:  For this discussion the words civil and ritual can be used interchangeably with the words judicial and ceremonial.)

Before I delve into this morass any further, there is a small issue that needs some clarifying: what do I mean by the word "Law."  I wish there was an easy way to explain it, one or two sentences that would summarize the issue, but this issue has deep roots back to the Reformers and early church fathers.  It is for this reason I rely on the work of Samuel Boltin, a 1600's era English clergyman and scholar.

If I could sum up Boltin's view in a few sentences, it would be this:  "The ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ. The sacrifices no longer need to be made as Christ has offered himself on the cross in our place. The civil [judicial] laws of Israel [the laws that set the Israelites apart from their Pagan/Gentile neighbors] are not necessarily binding on people and nations today. But the moral law has not been done away with. It is still in force and binding on everyone whether a believer or unbeliever." (p. 6)  [Brackets mine]  But it is not quite that simple.

As Boltin point's out, ",,,for the purpose of answering the query, lest we should beat the air and spend ourselves to no purpose, it will be necessary to make two inquiries: (1) what is meant by the word 'law'? (2) in what sense is the word used in Scripture? When this has been done there will be a way opened for the clearing of the truth and for the answering of the queries."  These two "queries" are still being asked and answered in a very similar way.

There are several questions we can ask to help distinguish between the laws, such as, “Does this law symbolize the separation of Jews and Gentiles in the Old Testament?” or “Does it point forward to Christ’s atonement on the Cross?” If so, then God reveals in the New Testament that it is not binding on us (Galatians 3:24–25, 4:9–11, Colossians 2:16–17).  However, if the law is moral in nature and is nowhere rescinded in Scripture, then to disobey it would be sin (1 John 3:4, Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 5:18–19).

In other words, Lisle is asking, is this a civil/judicial law? Or is it a moral law?

For our purposes, I want to focus on how Boltin defines "law."  Or more aptly how Boltin details the Bible's use of the word "law."

• It is sometimes taken for the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets 
• The term 'law' is sometimes used as meaning the whole Word of God, its promises and precepts
• 'Law' is sometimes taken for the five books of Moses
• 'Law' is used for the pedagogy of Moses
• Sometimes 'law' is used for the moral law alone, the Decalogue
• Sometimes 'law' refers to the ceremonial law, as in Luke 16.16.
• Sometimes 'law' refers to all the laws, moral, ceremonial, and judicial

Just as today, "the controversy lies in the last-mentioned, where the word 'law' signifies the moral, civil/judicial, and ritual/ceremonial law."

According to Boltin, the ritual/ceremonial law "was an ordinance containing precepts of worship for the Jews when they were in their infancy, and was intended to keep them under hope, to preserve them from will-worship, and to be a wall of separation between them and the Gentiles. This law, all agree, is abrogated both in truth and in fact."

As for the civil/judicial law, "it was an ordinance containing precepts concerning the government of the people in things civil, and it served three purposes: it gave the people a rule of common and public equity, it distinguished them from other peoples, and it gave them a type of the government of Christ. That part of the judicial law which was typical of Christ's government has ceased, but that part which is of common and general equity remains still in force. It is a common maxim: those judgments which are common and natural are moral and perpetual." [Notice in Boltin's view there is a bit of cross-over in regards to the separation of the Israelites.]

"And so we come to speak of the moral law which is scattered throughout the whole Bible, and summed up in the Decalogue. For substance, it contains such things as are good and holy, and agreeable to the will of God, being the image of the divine will, a beam of His holiness, the sum of which is love to God and love to man."

Boltin then continues on to talk of whether "believers [are] freed from obedience to the moral law, that is, from the moral law as a rule of obedience?"  Although it is important to keep in mind his discussion concerning the moral law, it is not imperative to our current concern of which laws are what.

What is important to note, Lev 20:13 is not a part of moral law.  As hard as modern day, anti-gay apologists try and force it into that pigeon hole, the passage deals with ritual uncleanness, to'-ebah (I will be expounding on this point in a later posting) and the separation of Jews and Gentiles in the Old Testament.  A point made abundantly clear further along in chapter 20:22-26.

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

This aside concerning "which laws are what" may seem trivial. But, for a preacher-man like Anderson (Westboro Baptist Church, Kevin Swanson, Gordon Klingenschmitt also come to mind) who feeds off instilling fear of God's wrath, it is a window into his vile hatred.  That he ignores this delineation explains his reliance on the OT; he can't condemn it, if Christ fulfilled it.

No homos in my church (pt 3)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Matt 5:17

__

In my first post I briefly outlined the hermeneutical principles I was taught and still follow to this day.  The second post discussed one view in resolving the apparent OT God vs NT God discrepancy, briefly highlighting what Anderson ignores, context and the concept that one verse does not make a theology.  While I like the first view, I feel it doesn't go far enough in completely resolving the issue or addressing Anderson's poor hermeneutics of "God said, I believe it that settles it."  It is not that simple as you will see.

Taking into consideration the examples in my previous post, let's take this one step further and throw another wrinkle not considered by Anderson's "one verse theology."  Jesus is God too! (John 1:1, 14; 8:57-59 [cf. Exodus 3:14]; 10:30; 20:28)

[Bare in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical concept.  It was first put forth by Tertullian, in the early 3rd century.  It wasn't until the Council of Nicea (325 CE) set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius.]

You see by Anderson focusing on just one passage, he misses the opportunity of bringing the message of the Levitical passage full circle; the synthesis of the OT and NT through Christ.  "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.." (John 1:14 )  No matter how much we would like to simply dismiss the OT, we can't. Without the OT there is no NT, there is no Christ. Everything in the NT is built on the foundation of the Old Testament. 

Anderson is a fire and brimstone type preacher who feeds off instilling fear of God's wrath in manipulating his congregation.  He teaches his listeners (just as he was taught) about the horrors of hell, the dangers of sin and the terrors of being lost.  Very rare, if at all (I have listened to 5 or 6 of his "sermons"), do you hear him preach of redemption through Christ; of "life everlasting."   Because of this loathing, this self-hatred, he misses this, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."  Matt 5:17

Like any Christian, I struggled with this conundrum - how to be Christ-like but yet follow the OT.  From an apologetic standpoint there is a way to rectify this situation but in the end, I always seem(ed) to be banging a silent drum.  Many within the Church who rely on this passage (Lev 20:13) can't (or couldn't) see through the lenses of their rose-colored glasses.  Eventually after years of trying I gave up even though I had the likes of Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr, Rev. Dr. Mel White and (now) Bishop Gene Robinson forging the way.  As I wrote recently in regards to the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So,

The devastating effects of religion are very evident.  So I struggle.  I struggle with my hatred of religion and any individual or group that use it as a weapon.  I struggle with my hatred of the Bible, used as a sword to lop off the heads of undesirables.  I struggle with compassion,,,

What I no longer struggle with is my homosexuality!

But I digress,,,

No homos in my church (pt 2)

 A single verse usually doesn't make a theology.

__

I lay this basic foundation for two reasons.  First I am not some hack atheist "just" bashing the Bible for shits and giggles.  I spent 26 years in the church struggling with this very issue - how to be gay and Christian.  When I left the church for good, it was not because of this issue.  I had come to the conclusion that being gay was not scripturally condemned and I knew that I could support that view.  Although my over-all conclusion has not changed in 20+ years, my defense has become more nuanced.

Second, the education I received as a college student has been invaluable.  I was taught by some of the best in the business, whether it was from direct classroom instruction, visiting lecturers, conferences or conventions.  I can't unlearn that which was learned, although I use it for different purposes. 

Returning to the God of the OT/God of NT dilemma and why it is important in the deconstruction of Anderson's OT based message, we will have to touch on the unchanging or immutability of God. It is an issue that many both inside and outside the confines of the Church have questioned with numerous authors, going back to Marcion, attempting to answer said question.  For our purposes, there are 2 related views that help us "debunk"  Anderson's simplistic screed, "It was right there in the Bible all along,,,"

The first view tends toward a progressive revelation about the nature of God through the events recorded in the OT and NT; God is not different from one testament to another .  Some examples often used to support this view:

• In the OT God is declared to be  - compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness  (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5, 15; 108:4; 145:8; Joel 2:13). Compare to John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
• Within the OT, we have expectations for individual behavior; the Ten Commandments being the most obvious (Exodus 20:1-17). In the NT,  Matthew 5 - the Sermon on the Mount -  also gives several expectations for individuals.
• There where consequences to those who disobeyed in both the OT and NT:  Joshua 7 - Achan killed; 2 Samuel 12:15-23 - took David's son in response to David's adultery ;  Numbers 20:24; Deuteronomy 34:4 - kept Moses and Aaron from entering the Holy Land after their disobedience.  In the NT:  Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were struck down after lying about their offering; Mark 8:31-33 - Jesus rebuked Peter when Peter denied Jesus' purpose.

What is important to take away from these examples is this.  Even though the Bible is 66 books, by more than 40 authors, it remains one (some say, unified) book from beginning to end.  In other words, this is the context that Anderson ignores. 

“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1 John 4:10) In the OT, atonement for "sin" was made via sacrifice; a precursor to the idea of vicarious redemption through Christ.  The Savior who was promised in the OT is revealed in the NT   Both the OT and the NT were given “to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15). This is the theology Anderson ignores.  To take a verse from one book without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic or relate to the topic.

I like this view, BUT it doesn't go quite far enough. 

__

And this apologetic mumbo-jumbo I just spent the past few hours typing up, THIS is why I left the church.  Let that sink in a bit as you contemplate the wise words of Christopher Hitchens in regards to vicarious redemption:

“I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There's no moral value in the vicarious gesture anyway. As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a another man's debt, or even to take his place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you did not commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility. So the whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out the ethical principles for ourselves.” ― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

No homos in my church (pt 1)

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matt 15:11

Please note::All scriptural references are from the KJV unless otherwise noted.  (Anderson is of the 1611KJV Only camp although I will be using the 1789 edition.)   All commentary references are taken from e-Sword, version 10.4.0.  I will provide URLs when possible.

Although I am well aware that many, much learned, individuals have presented the same information as I will, they are still within the fold of the church.  They are arguing for inclusion of LGBTI persons as well as ending the hatred being preached from the pulpit.  While I applaud their efforts,  I do not agree with their ultimate, end-game.  While we reach the same conclusions, my purpose is to show that Anderson, et al are preaching a political agenda and very bad religion to the detriment of many.