Many good points. I especially agree with the point that there isn't a "Bible", but rather many different bibles, especially when we recognize the different Canons. Yes, the Catholic bible does have 7 more books, and that's radically different, but the Ethiopian bible has over 100 books, and there are many other canons, like the Armenian, Syriac, and others - the most recent time a major change was made - when the Catholic bible removed a whole book - was 1979. The books that make up a bible (the canon) have never been agreed upon, ever in history, and certainly aren't agreed upon by Christians now.
At the same time, we have to recognize that words have meanings, and that one Christian's bible has to be given many special favors to make it all right and good - and that all Christians do this as you point out. And it's often not just Christians (as you also point out).
The upshot here is that due to Christian privilege, everyone has to kiss the bibles' butt, no matter how much they have to change the text of their bible to do so, and this recent event is another example of this.
I see this over and over too, where everyone - including progressives (and plenty of Atheists like yourself) - bends over backwards to fawn over a human book that threatened literal human torture and taught authoritarianism, and clutch their pearls if anyone doesn't join in the emperor's new clothes by failing to be a butt kisser of the bibles. It’s all about social acceptance – it’s socially required to kiss the bible's butt, no matter how much one has to lie and dishonestly “creatively reinterpret” the bibles – which clearly show that the bibles are all about human torture, and also supports slavery, religious bigotry, and so many other horrible things.
I think it's an expected part of Christian privilege. Christian privilege has taught us all , and insisted over and over, that we must praise the bibles above all else, no matter what. We can be whatever political party, etc, but holding the authoritarian leader innocent no matter what is the first rule of authoritarian Christian privilege - and most Americans have learned that well. And the bibles' message of torture and absolute rule is much worse than, say, stealing top secret documents (where again we see that the authoritiarian leader is never held accountable by his followers).
Words have meanings. That's why we use written words. Imagine if it was as socially acceptable to treat any other text the way we are taught to treat the bibles - no laws could ever be applied, because everyone would just make up completely different meanings for whatever they wanted them to say, and everyone could love "Mein Kampf" because it's all about including everyone and loving everyone, right? But with the bibles, because we were taught Christian privilege, all that is OK - not just OK, but socially required in public discussion.
Good info on the various Canons and selective identification of various "books" as being legitimate or not. I could have gone into a lot more of this, but the point of the article isn't a historical expose on the translation methodologies used by various groups. Frankly I find most of it to be boring, but that's purely personal, and unhelpful if the point is to undermine Christian epistemic absolutism. Once the believer has acknowledged the vagaries of and non-perfect literary continuance of their holy book, the point has already been made. Unfortunately, "the Bible" is just a stand-in for "faith" as the ultimate epistemic tool, hence why so many believers are perfectly fine noting that their holy book isn't perfect but the "central message" is still solid or some vague allusions to a perfect word being up in their Heaven. The point here wasn't to undermine Christian epistemology so much as to note why there's no unifying message anywhere and why people can pick and choose, as there's literally all sorts of picking and choosing having already been done.
Here's where I don't agree, concerning the Bible butt-kissing (I realize is a metaphor but rather amusingly consider where the rest of the anatomy is). I don't think that it's socially required to bible-kiss so much as it's often socially required to give allegiance to a power greater than oneself. That such so often, in western society, resides in the Judeo-Christian structures would take multiple articles to explore and frankly has been better done already by others. Regardless of the multi-variate historical reasons for Judeo-Christian ideological supremacy, the point still is that it isn't "the Bible" so much that matters as what it represents: i.e. being on the same page as a deity and having that unapproachable authority for support.
As to the various interpretive points you make, you're merely highlighting my central point, that people believe their particular interpretation is accurate and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, lying, or engaging in, to use your words, "creative interpretation." It is of course convenient for you to believe your interpretation is accurate as it then supports your judgment. History is replete with examples of Christians standing up against slavery, bigotry, and other horrible things, and using the same "bible" to somehow buttress their behavior. Which is why I ended the article where I did, pointing out that adherence to a deity doesn't make you a good person, any more than being against an imagine deity would make you a good person.
What utilizing a holy text does is remove the whole ethical enterprise from social dialogue and debate by placing it morality apart from humanity. That removal from humanity is the problem, not the ability to interpret verbiage in various ways. Words change meaning quite regularly in history and depending on context. Nothing wrong with it. By remembering that such is occurring within the human capacity for developing meaning and purpose, we keep dialogue open.
Many good points. I especially agree with the point that there isn't a "Bible", but rather many different bibles, especially when we recognize the different Canons. Yes, the Catholic bible does have 7 more books, and that's radically different, but the Ethiopian bible has over 100 books, and there are many other canons, like the Armenian, Syriac, and others - the most recent time a major change was made - when the Catholic bible removed a whole book - was 1979. The books that make up a bible (the canon) have never been agreed upon, ever in history, and certainly aren't agreed upon by Christians now.
At the same time, we have to recognize that words have meanings, and that one Christian's bible has to be given many special favors to make it all right and good - and that all Christians do this as you point out. And it's often not just Christians (as you also point out).
The upshot here is that due to Christian privilege, everyone has to kiss the bibles' butt, no matter how much they have to change the text of their bible to do so, and this recent event is another example of this.
I see this over and over too, where everyone - including progressives (and plenty of Atheists like yourself) - bends over backwards to fawn over a human book that threatened literal human torture and taught authoritarianism, and clutch their pearls if anyone doesn't join in the emperor's new clothes by failing to be a butt kisser of the bibles. It’s all about social acceptance – it’s socially required to kiss the bible's butt, no matter how much one has to lie and dishonestly “creatively reinterpret” the bibles – which clearly show that the bibles are all about human torture, and also supports slavery, religious bigotry, and so many other horrible things.
I think it's an expected part of Christian privilege. Christian privilege has taught us all , and insisted over and over, that we must praise the bibles above all else, no matter what. We can be whatever political party, etc, but holding the authoritarian leader innocent no matter what is the first rule of authoritarian Christian privilege - and most Americans have learned that well. And the bibles' message of torture and absolute rule is much worse than, say, stealing top secret documents (where again we see that the authoritiarian leader is never held accountable by his followers).
Words have meanings. That's why we use written words. Imagine if it was as socially acceptable to treat any other text the way we are taught to treat the bibles - no laws could ever be applied, because everyone would just make up completely different meanings for whatever they wanted them to say, and everyone could love "Mein Kampf" because it's all about including everyone and loving everyone, right? But with the bibles, because we were taught Christian privilege, all that is OK - not just OK, but socially required in public discussion.
Good info on the various Canons and selective identification of various "books" as being legitimate or not. I could have gone into a lot more of this, but the point of the article isn't a historical expose on the translation methodologies used by various groups. Frankly I find most of it to be boring, but that's purely personal, and unhelpful if the point is to undermine Christian epistemic absolutism. Once the believer has acknowledged the vagaries of and non-perfect literary continuance of their holy book, the point has already been made. Unfortunately, "the Bible" is just a stand-in for "faith" as the ultimate epistemic tool, hence why so many believers are perfectly fine noting that their holy book isn't perfect but the "central message" is still solid or some vague allusions to a perfect word being up in their Heaven. The point here wasn't to undermine Christian epistemology so much as to note why there's no unifying message anywhere and why people can pick and choose, as there's literally all sorts of picking and choosing having already been done.
Here's where I don't agree, concerning the Bible butt-kissing (I realize is a metaphor but rather amusingly consider where the rest of the anatomy is). I don't think that it's socially required to bible-kiss so much as it's often socially required to give allegiance to a power greater than oneself. That such so often, in western society, resides in the Judeo-Christian structures would take multiple articles to explore and frankly has been better done already by others. Regardless of the multi-variate historical reasons for Judeo-Christian ideological supremacy, the point still is that it isn't "the Bible" so much that matters as what it represents: i.e. being on the same page as a deity and having that unapproachable authority for support.
As to the various interpretive points you make, you're merely highlighting my central point, that people believe their particular interpretation is accurate and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, lying, or engaging in, to use your words, "creative interpretation." It is of course convenient for you to believe your interpretation is accurate as it then supports your judgment. History is replete with examples of Christians standing up against slavery, bigotry, and other horrible things, and using the same "bible" to somehow buttress their behavior. Which is why I ended the article where I did, pointing out that adherence to a deity doesn't make you a good person, any more than being against an imagine deity would make you a good person.
What utilizing a holy text does is remove the whole ethical enterprise from social dialogue and debate by placing it morality apart from humanity. That removal from humanity is the problem, not the ability to interpret verbiage in various ways. Words change meaning quite regularly in history and depending on context. Nothing wrong with it. By remembering that such is occurring within the human capacity for developing meaning and purpose, we keep dialogue open.