Nice link, but I'm sure you are aware that it was Satan that made them make those wild claims.

Perspective matters, and I'm not confident that it can be changed by facts.

As a non-religious person, I agree, but I do believe it is worth delving into. My silly comment to OrP is only somewhat tongue in cheek as it is difficult to argue against.

If I were just slightly more naïve, I'd think that you could just set a Bible and an archeology textbook and a geology textbook in front of someone and they'd sort it out on their own.

I also find it interesting, in the same vein, that the Dali Lama basically stated that he'd change the whole Buddhism thing to conform to the findings of researchers that would advance it. Obviously somewhat different than "Man’s primary purpose is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever."

Again, the early Christian writers were late to the game. I like history.

We are probably copacetic on the history of Christianity. The Abrahamic creation stories predates the early Christians by at least a few years, from what I've learned. We should probably get some Jews and Muslims to chime in on their views, since something or other.

I'll admit that I am embarrassed to learn that you aren't Christian. I thought you were for some reason. I'm not entirely sure what that reason was.

I'm aware of their views. I'm just not quite sure which is the most reasonable view, or if they can be reconciled, or if there is much of a point in trying.

I was raised in the typical Presbyterian, "it ain't all literal" view. Was also presented with other viewpoints (even the ****ing Gnostics, who were ****ing awesome! Well, unless you wanted to hang out at the bar and chill, I guess). However, none of it stuck with me (rejected it all) since I'm me. Kind of like Aaron, but a little bit self-aware and a bit less yelly.

The reason you thought so is probably that I used to be, including when I first started posting in this forum. I should have said something like "since I'm no longer a Christian". My version of Christianity was always pretty idiosyncratic, but in the last couple of years I decided it was so much so that it was probably silly to hold onto the label.

This reduced my embarrassment. Thanks.

I've always been interested in the premise that this reduces their value. It's a premise that already accepts a certain idea of what Christianity is and what it is not, but that premise itself is rather late to the game. Very early Christianity was more, rather than less, diverse than later Christianity.

Basically I'm not an "originalist" (so to speak) about what is "properly" Christian belief. For a lot of Christian history it was taken for granted that theologians could be innovators and not just exegetes of the Bible. Otherwise the trinitarian doctrine would never have happened. The exegetes got ahold of it later and turned it into a work of exegesis but at the time the reasoning for it was only pretty loosely concerned with interpreting the text.

It should be noted, for history's sake, that the earliest Christians where a renegade Jewish Sect. St. Paul and the subsequent theologians changed the game.

Looking back, I regret leaving Christianity as quickly as I did when I was a teenager. I had a fairly narrow view of Christianity at the time and so wasn't very interested in less traditional versions. At the time, I thought the ritual, community, and intellectual tradition of Christianity would be empty and meaningless without the substance of true belief in the core doctrines of Christianity. That might be true. But I do wish that I had moved more gradually towards secularism, at least seeing if the versions of Christianity that have made peace with modernity were still satisfying.

My view is that the "originalist" position, although commonly accepted by non-Christians, only makes sense if you are a Christian. In law, originalism claims that we should take as legally binding the interpretation of the relevant legal texts that most closely matches what was meant by the law's legislators or how it was understood at the time it became law. In religion, the equivalent claim would be that when reading Scripture the interpretation we should take as being the inspired word of god is the closest to what the authors of the Scripture meant when it was written.

This makes sense if you are within a religious tradition and are trying to decide what intrerpretations of its holy texts are truly authoritative. However, for non-Christians, this is an irrelevant question. We can be primarily interested in understanding the religious texts as they were originally meant, or think the original meaning is important for understanding a particular religion. But there is no deciding what interpretation is binding on us, because we have no prior commitment which would bind us to that interpretation.

Essentially, theological originalism should be understood as a theological doctrine and based on assumptions and commitments which people who aren't members of that religion reject or don't have. You can disagree with Christians about what the authors originally meant, but there is no arguing, except on general principles, about whether that interpretation should be viewed as the right way to understand a text.

I'm not sure I've ever really gotten to attempt this. I've lived my entire adult life in rural areas where there aren't a lot of options. Finding eastern orthodoxy in Montana was interesting and probably prolonged my interest by a decade? So I guess there's that. But I was always a bit more interested in reading long-dead orthodox theologians than talking with members of the congregation. I do suspect that if I had found a group I really enjoyed it would have made a difference.

I was very skeptical of ritual when I was younger, and became more appreciative of its value over time. There are certain aesthetic, symbolic, and moral strands (well, some of them) of Christianity that I still find to be valuable, at least as I understand them.

But, I do think that lacking the "substance of true belief in the core doctrines" is a problem that's hard to grapple with, even if you find a religious group which de-emphasizes them or interprets them very symbolically. The "scandal of particularity" regarding Jesus (I'm using it to stand in pretty broadly for maybe a number of issues) is hard to rationalize away. In a way, I think Paul was probably right when he wrote that Christian faith is suspect if Christ was not raised.

There's a lot of theological or soteriological issues you can find more sophisticated solutions for, but the core problem is still there, I think. Or else you adopt a stance something like the perennial philosophy, or reduce Jesus to something less than the Son of God, at which point it's not a "Christianity" that many Christians would recognize. What I realized is that my appreciation of Christianity is more like an anthropologist's admiration than the faith of a real believer. It just took me a while (and a few intervening life events) to accept that.

Agreed on both. When I said "interesting" what I really meant was I get a bit frustrated when atheists insist that only fundamentalist readings are honest or authentically Christian. But I was trying to be careful to claim only that non-fundamentalist readings are possible (and authentic) rather than that they correct.

Although I think the point remains valid -- even for Christians -- that extra-biblical considerations (i.e. empirical evidence) can change how one prefers to read the text.

Picking this one to reply to for no reason other than it is the last one.

I don't think it is difficult to imagine that non-fundamentalist readings are possible, given that clearly exist to the point that they are mainstream. The concept of "a living religion" isn't really that hard to get one's head around either. It is just difficult to square the circle of a belief system that allows for those things and holds itself as being true.*

I've found Roman Catholic rituals to be beautiful and moving. After some time away from the Presbyterian Church, I can find many of its rituals to be beautiful and moving.

I'm a bit less sold on the community aspect. I should say, I'm completely sold on the concept. I'm also completely sold on the value. I'm just not sure how I (also you and OrP) would fit into such a community. Just hang around with the other non-believers in the corner? Help out in the kitchen? Sing in the choir and not speak up if the preacher said something we found more than slightly disagreeable?

I tried, in attempt to recapture the ritualism and community by going to a Unitarian Universalist Church. I actually tried quite a few of them. It didn't work for me as I didn't feel much of a connection to the other participants. It might be a reasonable thing for you two to try out. I was mostly unscathed by the experience, and it was nice to do something different several times and meet with people who had widely varying belief systems.

*leading to inevitable "gotcha" moments that don't speak well for our humanity.

While I agree with the bolded, I don't think that is compatible with the start or end of your post. A theist and an atheist can both argue that the "right" way to interpret the bible as a theist is from an originalist perspective. Indeed, the atheist can argue suppositionally. They can say 'for a christian, the "right" way to interpret the bible is [arguments]', where the arguments used are identical to that of the theist. I could say 'if the Christian god existed, and the revealed word God recorded in the Bible, then the originalist perspective is the appropriate way to interpret how we should live our lives' or whatever else. Sure it isn't binding on them personally, as they reject the supposition, but that makes their ability to argue the original perspective no stronger or weaker than the theist.

Perhaps you can give an example of an argument that isn't just "general principles" that a theist could make about how other theists should interpret the bible that an atheist could not make?

Sure, here's an argument I've often heard from liberal Christians. I reject the doctrine of inerrancy, because some parts of the Bible, taken literally, depict a God that is not consistent with the loving God of my own personal experience and morality. I'm not really sure how a non-Christian could make this argument, but it actually seems like a fairly strong one given the liberal Christian priors.

Also, while I think it is common for evangelical scholars to adopt something close to an originalist theory of interpretation, I think evangelical pastors and laypeople more typically adopt a hermeneutic that emphasizes that finding the true meaning of a passage requires a Holy Spirit-infused reading that is simply not available to many non-Christians. That is, you will read a passage in the Bible, and the Holy Spirit will impress on you the truth or meaning of it in (what I as a non-Christian would describe as) a flash of insight or intuition. Thus, non-Christians can read the Bible and make their best guesses about what it means based on natural evidence, but ultimately the Spirit-infused reading of believing Christians is the desideratum. For instance, Paul in 1 Corinthians says:

EDIT: To finish my thought, in a certain sense, these evangelical Christians believe that they can speak with and listen to the actual author of the texts they are reading, and so of course that author can help them understand a difficult passage. This kind of "evidence" for a particular interpretation can't be utilized by non-Christians, but you will hear it used by people in prayer meetings and Bible Studies all the time. Obviously, if you can communicate with this author, it can tell you to accept a non-originalist interpretation.

This is trivially easy for an atheist to advance the nearly identical argument: "Christians should reject the doctrine of inerrancy, because some parts of the Bible, taken literally, depict a God that is not consistent with the loving God of their personal experience and morality."

Generally atheists can make the same kinds of arguments that christians can, they can be literalists or originalists or advocate for inerrancy or whatever else, it is just they are arguing suppostionally, as if they supported various views (like a loving God). Think about it from the perspective of a formal argument, where an atheist can make the same valid arguments a Christian can even if they reject assumptions and don't believe their argument is sound.



Sure. But I don't think this is particularly close to originalism. Originalism is that your textual analysis should consider what the original authors meant. Being divinely inspired as to what a passage means is rather separate from this. I don't even know I would call that "hermeneutial" in the way we use it to describe, say, an allegorical reading of the bible.

I agree the atheist can't use "God told me" as an argument - but then that isn't really an 'argument' when used by a Christian either. If a Christian advances some rationale, the athest can in principle use that rationale as well, even if they reject underlying premises like that God exists.

Is this really true? I think you are meaning the specific human authors, not "God" when you say author? I certainly agree people speaking about being in communication with God, and using that as inspiration, but I don't have much exposure to people saying they are in direct communication of like Isaiah, or the random jewish babylonian authors that also wrote Isaiah. Perhaps in the new testament people feel more like they are communicating with Mark and Mathew or most prevalently I suppose would be Paul. I think people think they are communicating first and foremost with God, not the individual authors.

Okay. Here's my response as an inerrantist Christian. They are consistent with my experience of a loving God. Sounds like Satan has clouded the minds of those other Christians and pseudo-Christians you've been talking to or reading.

Now what do you say? That they actually aren't consistent with my own experience of God? You don't even think my experience is veridical in the first place, so you have very low credibility to tell me what is or isn't consistent with my genuine (in my eyes) experience of God.

Non-Christians can of course mimic the arguments made by liberal Christians against traditional Christians. What they can't do without making theological commitments to Christianity is claim that either the traditional or the liberal Christian's interpretative method is the divinely inspired meaning of the Bible. They can try to rule out some interpretative methods by showing contradictions, but good luck with that - Christian theology has many explicit (non-verifiable of course) methods of resolving seeming contradictions, including faith.

What I mean by originalism in this context is the claim that the divinely inspired meaning of the Bible is the meaning meant by the original writers when it was written down. So I agree that these pastors and laypeople aren't being originalists when they interpret the Bible in the way I described. I'm not sure how a non-Christian can plausibly claim to have a Holy-Spirit infused reading of the Bible since presumably they don't believe in a Holy Spirit.

Uh, seems about as convincing an argument as it is possible to have if you genuinely believe it is true. Christians are talking to other Christians here, and saying that God told you something is a really strong argument if you think that person has a close relationship with God.

No, I mean the Holy Spirit or Jesus or God, who is the author of the Bible.

The exact same response a 'errantist' Christian might give? Both an atheist and a Christian can be accused of having Satan cloud their minds. And both can respond by....however they like. Laughing, perhaps. Or trying to dig further on what those experiences are, and the specific claims in the bible, and seeing if they match up. Have a discussion about it. There is nothing unique to being a Christian or an atheist here.



You seem to have an extremely negative view of Christian theology. There is a long tradition of having different hermeneutical approaches to understanding the Bible, with rich debate between these. There are arguments for and against that are more than just "God told me". While it is obviously true that an atheist won't claim one approach is divinely inspired, they absolutely can partake in there arguments, and find some of them more or less reasonable, just as I can construct valid arguments I don't think are sound.

Your original claim was that atheists are making a mistake to accept a originalist viewpoint. I've demonstrated that indeed there is no problem with this. Then you switched gears to a completely different situation of someone who doesn't take an originalist view, but instead believes their interpretations are divinely inspired. Sure, I agree an atheist can't claim their views are divinely inspired. But they can certainly advance arguments for why Christians ought to adopt an originalist perspective based on common viewpoints that Christians hold, just as a Christian can.


So what? Yes, I can't use an appeal to my own authority as someone with a deep spiritual connection to persuade Christians. But that doesn't remotely speak against the original point: that an atheist can meaningful adopt hermeneutical viewpoints like literalism or whatever. That some people won't immediately agree with me because I'm not an influence Christian, or might dismiss me as being influenced by Satan, or not give a **** about contradictions, but that doesn't prevent me from advancing valid arguments that may well still be persuasive to some. Nor does is prevent me from identifying with particular approaches as more reasonable given typical, widespread Christian assumptions.

Okay, I agree my argument is wrong here. I was thinking of theological originalism as the claim that the divinely sanctioned interpretation of the Biblical text is the interpretation closing to the originally intended meaning. Obviously non-Christians reject this (usually at least) because they don't believe any interpretation of the Biblical text is divinely sanctioned. However, it doesn't follow from this rejection that theological originalism more generally is wrong, just that the necessary conditions for a text to be divinely sanctioned were not met in this instance. You could still accept the hypothetical that if a text is divinely sanctioned, then the original meaning etc.

I still reject theological originalism, but I can see reasonable enough arguments for limited versions of it even from a non-Christian perspective.

Thank you for more succinctly stating one of my thoughts that I entirely failed to state succinctly in my posts in this particular.

Extra points for finding a thought of mine in this thread that met all the requirements for having the potential to be being succinctly put.

Quakerism FTW in my experience.

Of course there's also a tremendous amount of evidence against the proposition that the Gospels of the New Testament are historical....

I would argue that if you understand religion as the cultural phenomenon that it actually is (rather than as the revealing of truth by an interventionist deity), this is exactly what you would expect. In the beginning there are few authorities, arguments over the interpretation of ambiguous events and statements, power struggles, etc. That effectively results in an open canon of sorts. Later on, power gets consolidated, dissenters get expelled or marginalized, and interpretations are settled upon. At that point, the canon is either closed or left open only to those who are in power.

This has happened in Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.

Fixed your post.

So, what is it that you do believe then? You shroud it in so much mystery. Seems to me like the greatest trick you people ever pulled was getting intelligent people on this forum to engage you in conversation.

Once and for all - if you are a creationist:

- Do you believe in a pixie in the sky, or, if not, who made it all?

Easy question for a creationist?

Name still checks out.

Hey, why don't you share your theories again about evolution. As I recall, it was that it was impossible for random inputs to converge to non-random outcomes. Rather ironic for a poker forum really; but please, do tell more.

For the record, I most emphatically DO NOT believe in a pixie in the sky. Not only that, but I don't know anybody who DOES believe in a pixie in the sky. People who make references to "a pixie in the sky" are not interested in a meaningful discussion.

As to the follow up question, I believe God made it all.

Sorry it took me over a year to respond, but I didn't want to just blurt something out and regret it later.

You can go back to your bottle now.