xenophon41:
Personally I don’t care to. You made it quite clear on this and the previous thread that you are immune to outside influence regardless of how sound or rational the argument. Thus until you want to defend any specifics or get Polycarp here to defend what he has already stated, I’m content just to mock.
Mmmm… “sound”, “rational” arguments…
Yum yum, gimme some.
The type we’d like to consume in this thread would be those which dispute the validity of the “childish system” you mocked in the other thread. I’ve defended that specific system. As a first course of rational soundness, you could challenge my description of “contextual analysis”. Or you could skip to the entree by dealing with my response to the “strongest argument” in the other thread (as presented by Truth Seeker), or by presenting a new one…
I’m all for arguing the specifics of methods of scriptural analysis. (It’s what the thread is about.)
xenophon41:
Is that anything like arguing the specifics of methods of fairy tale analysis?
I don’t mean to shatter your ego xeno but I still find the above a yawner. First as IzzyR stated, the original thread I posted was not a condemnation of “contextual analysis” at all but only of people who pretend to do so in efforts to explain away parts of Jesus’ teaching they find unpalatable, and this was only minor point in my critique of Polycarp’s philosophy. Regarding the pit thread, Barry answered all your major objections quite satisfactorily as I recall, and IMO your continued issues is due to an intellectual defect on your part not his. Based on your responses to the above two guys I don’t think anything I say will make a dent and have better things to do with my time. Now if you could bet Polycarp over here to defend his version of contextual analysis that would be different. But as it stands I don’t think you can read his mind well enough to defend where his analysis comes from.
Had Polycarp called his belief system a “philosophy” instead of a “religion”, it would be so much easier for the rest of us to come to terms with, as philosophy is what each and every human being develops throughout their lifetimes. When you feel the need to call it a religion, you are expected to follow the rules and regs of that religion (or start your own religion). It is painfully clear to many of the participants of these threads that Poly and most of the believers around here cherry pick Christianity to make it fit the personal philosophy they’ve built over the years.
Maybe the analysis should extend to what Jesus actually was…a philosopher – and not the son of an imaginary being. Just a philosopher who put a pretty good, though grossly flawed (and sometimes mean-spirited), philosophy together. For one thing, no one has ever been expected to follow every word of a philosopher. I mean, you don’t see many “Platoists” out there, do you? You’re encouraged to cherry pick philosophy. Sort out those pieces that aren’t useful to your view of the world and the human condition.
Exactly. So it boils down to a question of the specific interpretations at hand, rather than the general concept of contextual analysis. At the same time, if one is to make a case that the motivation is the desire to conform to one’s own beliefs rather than a random error in judgment you need a pattern, so more than one example is needed. And the difficulty of objectively deciding which interpretation is “manifestly better” renders the judgment a subjective one.
That they are not consensually better is obvious - we wouldn’t be here otherwise. But the fact that they are not objectively better is not determinative. As I mentioned earlier, there are many many things out there that cannot be objectively proved one way or the other. This does not mean that one side or the other is not correct. (This may be along the lines of Captain Amazing’s subsequent post).
Actually, I’ve never heard of a “tu qoque” fallacy - not big on these Latin terms (or Greek - what do I know), but I can google as much as the next guy, and I assume you mean a “tu quoque” fallacy. 
I’m losing track of all these 4a & 4b stuff here. But the important point is that while it is true that if you invalidate “LC interpretations on the basis of” the general presumption of “prejudiced conclusions, one must accept that contention 4b is true for any class of contextual analysts who are predisposed to look favorably on a particular conclusion” etc. etc. But if one merely says that on the basis of an analysis of the specific analysis done by this particular group they seem to be biased by prejudiced conclusions, it says nothing at all about general concept of contextual analysis.
Not possible, but thanks for the consideration.
Into which category you include all Christians whose interpretations differ from your unsoftened reading of particular verses, which makes it a general condemnation of such analysis as a tool for liberal Christians. Makes one wonder why any contextual interpretations from biased groups (such as, say, the rabidly antireligious) should be trusted.
Which is kinda the point of the thread. I’m defending the tool as valid for all groups regardless of bias.
First, please make up your mind whether you is or you isn’t attacking a liberal Christian version of contextual analysis. Earlier you said it was particular interpretations, now it’s the process itself (which is the point of this thread, ‘member?). Second, no one has to read Poly’s mind to defend “where his analysis comes from”; he’s outlined the process in the post I linked to on page 1. Here’s the link again: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4185275#post4185275
You must remember this; it’s the “childish system” you so kindly attempted to correct for him.
Thank you, Kalhoun; that’s a fair statement of why it’s so inane for those hostile to Christianity to dictate what Christians are “obligated” to believe.
Many have tried to drive home the point that they worship Christ, NOT the book his publicists produced! Your legalistic view of the bible is just flat wrong, and it’s why an interpretation based on a reading of scripture as if it were a book of municipal codes is senseless.
Such a reading is irrelevant to faith. We interpret scripture so as to understand the ethical structure implied by the morality we ourselves produce when guided by our faith. Poly’s process outlined in the link above is not only the least inconsistent approach for believers interpreting scripture, it’s also the least inconsistent approach for interpretations of any block of ethical or philosophical writings.
One would have to be either ethically childlike or willfully contrary to interpret such writings as “rules and regs”.
And your objection to this is… what? That it produces an understanding of Christian ethics that isn’t as easy to revile or deride? Gosh, on behalf of all newly realized liberal Christians everywhere, so sorry about that.
Yeah, that’s the one. So was I correct that this was your objection?
But it says that general concept is not valid for the particular group. So it’s probably a good thing that this thread is defending contextual analysis as a tool for the group being generally presumed to be less capable of using that tool than other groups (such as the rabidly antireligious, for instance).
BTW, welcome back to the thread Izzy; hope your weekend was good. I’ll leave Tinker Grey to respond to the portions of your post dealing with the 4a’s and b’s and stuff.
Poly said (per the link Xeno posted), "I offer no justification for this – it’s personal preference and my own sense of what works best for me – "
That’s fine, but don’t cloak it in Christianity!
from Kalhoun:
But he hasn’t said how he decides the really wigged out, bizarre shit is drama and the other stuff (which is equally wigged out, in my opinion) is the “truth”.
And why is his opinion of the truth better than Phelps’ opinion of the truth? They READ THE SAME BOOK!!! Who’s to say which is truth? Wouldn’t it be much more sensible to take pieces of Christ’s philosophy (and CALL it philosophy…not supernatural religion) and live your life as a good person without all the hocus pocus? Then you don’t look like a hypocrite by tacking on the “Christianity” thing, which ain’t all that loving…I don’t care what Poly or any of you say. The bible says different.
Xenophon: As others have said repeatedly, the original thread wasn’t about critiquing scriptural analysis in general. And as I said in that thread, I fully admit to being ignorant when it comes to the exact methods employed by those who claim to do such analysis (not to mention the fact that I do not read ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin or Aramaic). For this reason, I simply cannot offer an informed opionion as to whether such analysis is even possible in the first place, nor how reliable it is.
I quoted polycarp at length to show instances where it seemed clear (to me and others) that he was guilty of circular reasoning and letting his biases determine his analysis. You found those examples unconvincing, which is your right (although it would have been nice had you bothered to explain why you found them unconvincing instead of just making snide remarks like “I’ll be buggered if I can see how you can get from the posts you’ve quoted to this conclusion”). The point is, though, that it matter not one whit to me whether it is possible for somebody to figure out what Jesus “really” said and meant, based on a detailed analysis of the ancient texts and the historical context. The point was, and is, that poly was using circular reasoning and letting his biases guide his analysis (instead of the other way around). That’s it, plain and simple. Again, you’re free to disagree with that assertion, but you might as well do it in the original thread instead of creating a non-issue and then complaining when people don’t deign to address it.
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, however, let me just ask… How does one justify the type of detailed scriptural analysis poly refers to, in light of the fact that we’re talking about something written thousands of years ago, by multiple authors, in “dead” languages, long after the events recorded are alleged to have happened, with the absence of any original source material to which one can refer? How much of the 'historical context" from 2000 years ago do we really know for sure, and how much is mere conjecture? And why is it that different Biblical scholars come up with very different interpretations (often suspiciously matching the societal norms of their day)?
Again, I am not an expert (far from it), but to me your entire analogy to the works of Ghandi seems completely inapplicable and specifically designed to produce the outcome for which you are arguing. Even if the method you described in your analogy is valid for analyzing the works of somebody who lived less than 100 years ago and for which we have the original writings, how can you apply that to something like the Bible?
Barry
As I said I am unfamiliar with many of these logical terms, and don’t think in terms of them. From looking up what this particular term meant, it appears to be some sort of “well you’re the same” response, but it’s unclear if this is merely a crude attempt to deflect criticism or a more sophisticated argument such as the one that you made.
OK, I guess. But then you have to address the specific issues about this group, as opposed to the general concept.
It’s worthwhile to note, in this context, that to the extent that this group is considered “less capable of using that tool”, it is not due to any inherent mental deficiency in this group. It just happens that they happen to be a group of people who have found themselves torn between their desire to cling to as much of the Bible and traditional religious dogma as they possibly can and their liberal ideals. The bias is forced on them in this particular instance. The other groups (atheists & fundamentalists) might be identical - or worse - from the standpoints of intelligence and psychological makeup, but because they are not troubled by the rejection of the Bible or secular humanist values, they are freer to approach it unbiased.
Further, with regard to xenophon’s Ghandi analogy, we know for a fact that Ghandi was a real person who said and did the things he is alleged to have said and done. How that can be compared to the alleged sayings and deeds of a person for whom there exists scant historical evidence of his existence in the first place, boggles my mind (not too hard on a Monday morning, I grant). Not to mention the very real possibility that the entire New Testament is a work of fiction, dreamed up years after the alleged events took place by a group of politically motivated individuals.
In other words, if we can’t even be sure that Jesus existed in the first place as a historical figure, how on earth can we analyze the Bible to determine what he “really” said and meant? It’s like reading Homer’s description of Atlantis to determine where it was “really” located and what “really” happened to it.
Barry
And yet, you continue to assert that such analyses must be flawed if they produce interpretations which differ from those you’re familiar with from literalists. I mean no offense by the term, but ignorance of a process is no position from which to make a valid argument regarding the uses of that process.
Honestly, how would one justify an undetailed analysis in such a situation? You’ve given reasons why one must look deeper than the surface meaning, not the reverse!
Actually, it’s not an absence, it’s a relative paucity. All the more reason why one must review the lesser known details in the light of more solidly established details.
“Historical context” is fairly well established for this period, mainly due to the importance of the preceding and subsequent 100 year periods to Roman history (fall of Republic, beginning of Empire, etc.)
Why did Biblical scholars of different periods prefer different interpretations? Excellent and perceptive question. It’s because of cultural biases, I’ve no doubt. Perhaps another valid question would be “why would biblical scholarship of one thousand years ago be considered either definitive or superior to biblical scholarship of 20 years ago?” Another valid question (which I will continue to ask) is “why would disinterested biblical scholarship be superior to researched and nuanced biblical scholarship?”
Asking the right questions, I think, is the key to accurate information.
Again, you’ve nailed the thesis of the other thread. (You keep putting yourself down as inarticulate; I think you’ve got a knack for conveying your meaning without the obfuscating bullshit of others.)
Your position, and badchad’s and godzillatemple’s, is that Poly is wrong because the bible says what you say it says, from a position of acknowledged and intentional ignorance and antipathy. Hardly a recommendation for your argument.
Quite so. You’re invalidating the tool upon suspicion of bias among one group who use the tool, without an evidentiary basis for that suspicion (although you’ve asserted that there’s a “pattern”, you’ve merely identified a pattern of unexpected interpretations without establishing that those interpretations are incorrect). At the same time you are validating the tool when it is commonly shunned (due to disinterest in the outcome) by another group you feel is less likely to be biased, again with no evidentiary support for that group’s objectivity.
And we’re back to the question “why would we presume an analysis which fails to resolve inconsistencies in a belief system not held by the analyst to be more valid than one which succeeds, but is conducted by one who ascribes to that belief system?”
Or is it more like reading Plato’s dialogues concerning the place and determining through context the point he was getting across, in terms of the society conceived in his Republic? Even if I wear tin hats and believe with all my being that Atlantis was a real place, why would that automatically call into question my contextual analysis of the Republic? Particularly if I support my interpretation with verifiable citations?
I know you keep saying this is what I am asserting, but I’ll be buggered if I can see how you can get from the posts I’ve actually made. Did you even bother to read the paragraph following what you just quoted from me? You know, the part that states, “The point is, though, that it matter not one whit to me whether it is possible for somebody to figure out what Jesus “really” said and meant, based on a detailed analysis of the ancient texts and the historical context. The point was, and is, that poly was using circular reasoning and letting his biases guide his analysis (instead of the other way around). That’s it, plain and simple.”
No, apparently it is an absence. I wasn’t completely sure, so I asked.
Quite. And yet, you seem to object to my allegations that Poly’s scriptural analysis is just as culturally biased. In his case, the “culture” in question is Liberal Christianity of the “God is Love” stripe.
Yes. And actually answering them instead of sidestepping the issue is pretty darn important as well. An additional question, though, would be why you feel that “disinterested” scholarship is somehow incompatible with “researched and nuanced” scholarship. Why would “disinterested” scholarship be any less researched and nuanced than culturally biased scholarshhip?
Obfuscating bullshit? I thought this was Great Debates, not The Pit. But if it’s any comfort, I love you, too!
No, that’s what you keep telling us is our position. Does the phrase “Straw Man Argument” ring any bells with you?
Er, no. It isn’t. Nice try at coming up with another self-serving analogy that is unrelated to the topic at hand, though.
Barry
Xeno said, "And yet, you continue to assert that such analyses must be flawed if they produce interpretations which differ from those you’re familiar with from literalists. "
Yeah…but they differ from other Christians as well. Where do you draw the line between true scholarly analysis and a theological blow job?
Xeno said, “Your position, and badchad’s and godzillatemple’s, is that Poly is wrong because the bible says what you say it says, from a position of acknowledged and intentional ignorance and antipathy. Hardly a recommendation for your argument.”
I don’t say the bible says what I say it says… I say what the bible actually says. In black and white. In my opinion, there’s no need to over-analyze the text. It’s plain English. And what is written is not what Poly and the others say is written. It’s a classic case of The Emperor’s Clothes (or lack thereof).
Golly, that put me in my place. So I take it you’re just rarin’ to go ahead and respond to my refutation of that “strongest argument” from the other thread. (That’s the “circular reasoning” deconstruction that you attempted in the Pit, and that Truth Seeker cited here.) My answer is still sitting there waiting for you to address.
Sigh. Nice exhaustive search, there, fella. And why do I even bother posting means of ignorance assuagement for you to ignore? (Another rhetorical question; don’t answer.) Here’s the link I recommended to the Mailbag series again:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
It wouldn’t. And if you actually attempted scholarship, instead of sticking to your acknowledged ignorance, you could perhaps thrill us all with your learned interpretations. How wonderful that might be.
Ah, shoe fitting, is it? But thank you for the love! I wish it were fully out of love for you that I continue to try and help you, but I am flawed, and my motivations are base. However, if through my love of argument I can open some avenues for you to explore, I’ll have done something good. I hope so.
As I said, I addressed your fallacious Pit argument on page 1.
Heh. Are BA’s in philosophy that cheaply earned, now?
If you can refute the scholarship, that’s a good start. However, you must also understand the theology. You don’t have to believe it; just understand it.
:smack:
Gee, you sure got me there, “pardner.” I guess there’s just nothing left to say.
:wally
Xeno said, “However, you must also understand the theology.”
Or if you don’t like the sound of it, make it up as you go along.
And there’s no need for the snotty :smack: . Poly has admitted that he cannot justify his method…it just works for him. He knows as well as you do that he and other “scholars” are fishing for the for something that isn’t there. The words are there. Any ten-year-old can understand what those words mean.
If you want to hang on to something you really don’t believe because you’re not ready to leave the club, have at it. All I can say is that it isn’t christianity you’re following. I can see you’re all desperate for that to be so, but you’re wrong. The fact that you can’t unite on the simple meaning of words weakens your case that any of it is worthy of worship.
So I take it you won’t be responding to the refutation of your “circular reasoning” argument? That is a pity.
Are you upset that I’ve questioned your philosophical expertise? That I’ve returned your snarkiness? It’s just so very hard to resist, and I do apologize. May I attempt to make up for it?
Here’s the basis for my puzzlement concerning your reference. I expected you to know that Homer has nothing whatsoever to do with Atlantis. It is a creation of Plato, who has Critias relate the “true story” of Atlantis in the dialogues Timaeus and Critias, as a way to sort of flesh out his ideal social structure of The Republic. These dialogues are “set” after The Republic, and are used to further Plato’s exploration of reason, theory and social order.
So, to put it in a nutshell, Plato intends Atlantis to be a way by which the ideas he explored in the Republic may be placed in the context of a working society. Which is the relevance Atlantis has to contextual analysis, and why your analogy of using Homer (for whom we’ll replace Plato to make this work) to find Atlantis geographically instead of conceptually is a less apt analogy than you had intended.
Painless?
To Kalhoun: Although I appreciate the brevity your posts have occasionally brought to the main point of contention in this thread, I regret that I see very little utility in constantly renewing the answers I’ve provided to you before. If you can find something different to say than “Christians don’t get to define their own religion” and “Christians don’t get to interpret scripture, because I can tell them what it says”, I’ll give you as much of my attention as I can muster. Until then, please know I mean no insult if I ignore your posts.
IzzyR,
It sounds actually like we basically agree.
That is, that to dismiss one group’s contextual analysis (CA) on the basis that it is CA requires that all group’s CA must be dismissed.
To accept CA does not imply that all who do it have equally valid conclusions.
(This, I think, was from xeno)
To demonstrate that one conclusion is better than the other would require demonstration that one fits the evidence better than the other.
That is, I think, the gist of this thread.
Beyond that, I think we degenerate into “nuh uh” “yuh huh” WRT the case that spawned this thread.
Tinker
Darn it, Tinker, you nailed it. (That’s Kalhoun’s job, btw. You may owe him money.) I had hoped to work at least one opponent around to a position that refutation of an analysis requires more than suspicion of bias, but I fear I’ve budged no one. (I don’t include Izzy in this, btw; I think he understands the nature of analysis quite well without my help.)
I hope either godzillatemple or Truth Seeker returns to defend or renounce the “circular reasoning” argument, but if not, I think your post is a good summation.