njhartsh

I've found an interesting editorial about Biblical criticism in the latest issue of UU World, the magazine of the Unitarian Universalist Association. An excerpt:

The author of the article, Rev. John Buehrens, has written a book defending his very liberal take on the Bible.

A few facts I should note: First, only about 20% of American Unitarian Universalists consider themselves to be Christians, though Rev. Buehrens is one of that number. The other 80% (which includes yours truly) consider ourselves Humanists, atheists, "Earth spirituality" believers, Buddhists, Deists, uncommitted theists or some combination of the above and more. Second, I'm not a big fan of Rev. Buehrens's work.

So--what do you think about the article?

- Nathan

CX

Since this doesn't appear to specifically deal with biblical criticism or historical issues, I'm going to move it to GRD

emotional

Let's also give the Odyssey a liberal interpretation, otherwise adherents of Hellenismos (Greek paganism) would use it for oppressive ends.

Damn it, people! Can't you recognise a book of mythology when you see one?

Peter Kirby

Hey! I like mythology. You got something against the Odyssey?

best,
Peter Kirby

emotional

I have nothing against mythology, so long as it is regarded as such. The Bible isn't, by many people.

njhartsh

Okay, but John Buehrens (like many liberal Christians) is, by and large, innocent of treating Biblical mythology as something other than mythology.

He's arguing, "Sure, it's mythology. But it's wonderful mythology that we should find vastly meaningful, beautiful, liberating and encouraging." He has little patience for skeptics who dismiss the Bible.

What do you think?

- Nathan

Doctor X

Yeah!! It is just a rehash of James' Ulysses. . . .

Seriously, people can find whatever they want in a text. I recall stating this to my sister many years ago whilst we traveled on a plane. She challenged me to prove it. I told her that the biology I was reading was "revealed" in the book she was reading. She was reading Madam Bovary--I had a section on DNA.

I chose a page at random . . . fortunately it had a spiral staircase!

I know a professor who can preach a sermon based on the phonebook.

What people are realizing is that the text does not always support what they want. For that, they quote "the spirit" of the text. This reminds me of Schweitzer who decimates the "religious" Jesus in his The Quest for the Historical Jesus only to state that he was "an immeasurably great man."

Thus as always, when scripture supports you argue literal truth, when it does not, argue allegory.

--J.D.

emotional

Agreeable. But once you think of the Bible as mythology, it is no different from the Odyssey. The only thing that sets the Bible apart from the Odyssey is that there are still literal believers in the Bible. Or people who search for symbolic metaphysical truths in the Bible. I don't know of people who do numerology according to the Odyssey or find prophecies in the "Odyssey Code".

Biff the unclean

I think that "cherry picking" in general is a stupid idea. And that after all is what the author of the article is claiming you should do with the bible.

Let's take tigers as a subject and cherry pick them.

Tigers are undeniably beautiful. They are large and graceful. Their sleek fur has beautiful colors and patterns. They are powerful and elegant and exude an enticing musky odor.

That sounds very nice, and everything I said about them is true. However the overall picture I left behind is a lie, even thought it is made up of all true parts. It is a lie because I purposely left out the facts that tigers are dangerous as hell and will eat you alive!

It does not speak well of me to have left this fact out. I am not a wonderful nice person because I saw only beauty in the tigers. It makes me a misleading, evil person because I purposely left out facts that you needed to be warned about for your safety's sake.

The author states, "The oppressive uses of the Bible are real, but unless you learn to understand that there are other readings possible, the Bible will continue to be a source of oppression for you, and not a source of inspiration, liberation, creation, and even exultation as you understand it anew for yourself, at a deeper and less literal level."
In other words he is saying, 'look at how the tyger is shining bright in the forests of the night--but ignore all those fangs and the claws.'
If you simply ignore all the hateful oppressive aspects of the bible then what you call the bible is a lie even though all the parts you accept are true. And while you are patting yourself on your back for being a good person you'll be eaten alive.

Pyrrho

No, it is largely boring, poorly written drivel, though I will admit that there are a few portions that are decent. The Bible is not liberating, nor is it especially meaningful (indeed, it is partly incoherent), much of it is ugly, and it is mostly discouraging. The Odyssey, on the other hand, is good mythology. It is a coherent, though fanciful, narrative.

Furthermore, John Buehrens makes claims that are obviously false:

Buehrens evidently believes that murdering your "innocent" son, because you are angry with others, is becoming grown up and mellow. What could be more insane than that? Buehrens is just unwilling to give up on old garbage.