• In total there are 11 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 11 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 8: The "New" Testament Exceeds the Evil of the

#64: Mar. - May 2009 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

Grim wrote:What exactly is arbitrary about following, in fear, the voice of a god who demands sacrifice?
Abraham is a bit like Joseph Smith of the Mormons with his "God told me" line to justify his own arguments. Arbitrariness enters decision-making when the decision is not based on evidence. There is no evidence that God actually made a demand to Abraham.
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
Grim wrote:What exactly is arbitrary about following, in fear, the voice of a god who demands sacrifice?
Abraham is a bit like Joseph Smith of the Mormons with his "God told me" line to justify his own arguments. Arbitrariness enters decision-making when the decision is not based on evidence. There is no evidence that God actually made a demand to Abraham.
Is there any evidence that Abraham even existed for that matter? Other than the presence of the stars I suppose, and we are after all his supposed descendants, we can also notice an early biblical reference to the idea of gods children owning the earth stemming from his god given patriarchy. If taken as a parable the situation seems to be expressed quite explicitly, a style that I am sure is common to most of the book. Am I to understand you made a simple taxonomic error, everyone does, it's just that the implications are...suggestive.

Image

:book:
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

What is the taxonomic error?
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Dissident Heart wrote: I don't think a devotional or reverential approach to scripture requires a slavish submission to the authority of the text. And, I think it is clear, your preconceived notions of what is devotion and reverence have influenced your approach to the text...exhibiting the inescapable fact that none of us can read the text "simply and straightforwardly". Your conclusion that there is no role for irony or subversion in devotion or reverence closes the door on a number of possible interpretations.
You're right about preconceived notions, and I would never claim not to have them. My notion about the bible is that it has, like all texts, a provenance, which places it in a historical context that should guide us in judging its meaning. I'm not a sophisticate when it comes to postmodern approaches to a text, and you could also say I don't believe in them. When I say, though, that the Abraham/Isaac story is simple or straightforward (on a relative scale), I am not making a "how to read" declaration. I am just stating an opinion about the presentation of this particular story. Now it is also true that in general, my opinion is that the historical and social contexts of the Bible determine its nature as largely instructive or didactic, which really does not give large room to interpretation. There are going to be important, numerous, exceptions to this statement for a diverse compilation like the Bible. My opinion on Abraham/Isaac, though, is that your interpretations to some degree avoid the reality of why this story is so important in the biblical context and why it is so representative of the society at that time.
who do you love more Abraham- Isaac or God? Which, at its best, forces the faithful to come to terms with what is non-negotiable about faith: where God is primary and premiere there is life...where God is surpassed or relegated or diminished there is death. If Abraham loves Isaac more than God, he gets neither Issac or God, or life at all. Whereas, if he loves God first: all else is provided. Isaac serves as the greatest threat for idolatry in Abraham's life. Idolatry is worshipping false gods...Isaac could become a false god to Abraham...perhaps was on the way to becoming precisely that.
Not to say I could not be limtied in my ability to understand a dimension of "love,", but in Abraham's submission to the command I don't see love at work but rather fear. I know this is part of the difficulty of the OT relationship with God, that he must be both loved and feared. Hitchens doesn't mention this as one of the impossible expectations of religion, but I wonder if it might be another. At any rate, I have difficulty seeing in this "love" the same love enjoined on us by the "great command" of the NT.

I would also point out that in the first interpretation you offered of Abraham/Isaac, God was indeed acting monstrously. Yet in the above he is acting justly. This can be the problem with interpretations--disruption of coherence.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Hitchens does actually call for an ironic rather than a literal reading of scripture when he describes the religious mind as "literal and limited" and the atheistic mind as "ironic and inquiring." He also exhibits a set of scientific ideological biases. This emerges in the Abraham reading. I have been debating with Interbane about the basis of an astrotheological reading of scripture, an approach Hitchens seems to reject as linked to astrology.
Thank you, Robert, very much, for quoting from the text. I think we need to have more specific reference to what CH is actually saying. Note, though, that CH is not making a pitch for an ironic reading of the Bible when he says that atheists are given to irony. For him, I believe, and for me as well, there is rather a shortage of ironic possibility in the Bible. There is not often enough that sublety that lets irony in.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:Hitchens does actually call for an ironic rather than a literal reading of scripture when he describes the religious mind as "literal and limited" and the atheistic mind as "ironic and inquiring." He also exhibits a set of scientific ideological biases. This emerges in the Abraham reading. I have been debating with Interbane about the basis of an astrotheological reading of scripture, an approach Hitchens seems to reject as linked to astrology.
Thank you, Robert, very much, for quoting from the text. I think we need to have more specific reference to what CH is actually saying. Note, though, that CH is not making a pitch for an ironic reading of the Bible when he says that atheists are given to irony. For him, I believe, and for me as well, there is rather a shortage of ironic possibility in the Bible. There is not often enough that sublety that lets irony in.
Biblical symbolism is intrinsically ironic. Irony is incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. The biggest irony is that the messiah is expected to be a king but turns out to be a slave.

A deep level of irony arises from the method of biblical compilation, where oral stories were documented to combine various traditions. Hitchens notes in Chapter Seven that "the Pentateuch contains two discrepant accounts of the creation, two different genealogies of the seed of Adam, and two narratives of the Flood." The ironic incongruity arises as these competing memetic traditions mutate within the text, with a further deep irony that they disprove the inerrancy theory of fundamentalism.

Another irony noted with some wither by Hitchens is between the claim that God is good and the way "rabbis solemly debate ... whether the demand to exterminate the Amalekites is a coded commandment to do away with the Palestinians." And Feuerbach notes a deep irony that the Bible claims man is made in God's image but analysis suggests God is made in man's image.

The astrotheological reading is intrinsically ironic, with symbols placed throughout the text to reveal a deeper truth, giving a sense that this was done intentionally in the knowledge that these coded messages would not be understood. Jesus' mention of the Aquarian man with the water jug on the way to find the colt on Palm Sunday is a prime example.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Unread post

DWill: I'm not a sophisticate when it comes to postmodern approaches to a text, and you could also say I don't believe in them.

Can you point out how my approach is Postmodern?

DWill: When I say, though, that the Abraham/Isaac story is simple or straightforward (on a relative scale), I am not making a "how to read" declaration. I am just stating an opinion about the presentation of this particular story.

Your opinion of the presentation of the story surely influences your notion of how best to read it. In other words, how you define the intention of the author determines your method for reading his text. Even if you claim a relatively simple and straightforward didactic intention- that does not mean the author intends the reader to simply read and repeat in his own life what was read. In other words, the didactic intention may be something more complex: the behaviors of the characters are NOT simply to be emulated, but rather serve as a vivid example of alternatives and options...Abraham chooses x, but what do you choose, and why?

And, what about the silent spaces in the text? For instance, perhaps one part of the didactic intention involves filling in those spaces with what you imagine the character to say...so, retell the Abraham/Isaac narrative- but give voice to Isaac- what is he thinking, does he try to reason with his father, does he pray out to God, how does he struggle or submit: the text is silent, but that doesnt mean you the reader must remain so. Imagine Abraham explaining to Isaac the reasoning behind his terrible deed: justifying and rationalizing the act, begging for forgiveness, tearfully dreading and hating himself for it....

And, if the reading of this text is NOT something done simply alone and for academic 'brushing up'...but in community and in dialogue and in interaction with others, and as a way to define who you are and the destiny and purpose of your life and community: then it becomes a far more fascinating and engaging and dynamic reading of the text....the didactic is not about blind emulation at all: but creative, critical, imaginative and interactive dialogue with those who share your home and make up your community.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Dissident Heart wrote: Can you point out how my approach is Postmodern?
Juggling conflicting interpretations, not seeming to think historical context mattered...I just wondered.

Your other points are well made, but at the risk of appearing to avoid them, I think it would be a good idea to fall back to Hitchens, the subject of this forum. You may be blaming him for some things I've said about interpreting, but I think if you read the book you'll see that he has nothing
(can you think of anything, Robert?) to say about this. He doesn't deal with minority reports--how could he have time?--but he must be aware that there are other ways, besides the traditional, to read the Bible. Surely some of the religious friends he speaks of talk to him about just that. There is no sign from him that he means to interfere with or denigrate the satisfactions that people find in their religion (you have to get past his overly provocative title). As long as they don't attempt to force it on those who aren't interested, he's fine, and so am I.

His subject is those common, traditional understandings of religion that have generally held for hundreds of years and are still held by many today. Some of these are related to abuses. Again, he never states that relgion has exhausted its possibilities for individuals. His statement is that religion is not necessary, as it was in previous ages. It has become optional and private, however important those adhering to it might experience it as.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

DWill wrote:
Dissident Heart wrote:Can you point out how my approach is Postmodern?
Juggling conflicting interpretations, not seeming to think historical context mattered...I just wondered. Your other points are well made, but at the risk of appearing to avoid them, I think it would be a good idea to fall back to Hitchens, the subject of this forum. You may be blaming him for some things I've said about interpreting, but I think if you read the book you'll see that he has nothing (can you think of anything, Robert?) to say about this. He doesn't deal with minority reports--how could he have time?--but he must be aware that there are other ways, besides the traditional, to read the Bible. Surely some of the religious friends he speaks of talk to him about just that. There is no sign from him that he means to interfere with or denigrate the satisfactions that people find in their religion (you have to get past his overly provocative title). As long as they don't attempt to force it on those who aren't interested, he's fine, and so am I. His subject is those common, traditional understandings of religion that have generally held for hundreds of years and are still held by many today. Some of these are related to abuses. Again, he never states that relgion has exhausted its possibilities for individuals. His statement is that religion is not necessary, as it was in previous ages. It has become optional and private, however important those adhering to it might experience it as.
Hitchens defends a mainstream modern rationality derived from Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Bertrand Russell. He is therefore hostile to postmodernism with its relativist approaches to diversity. I don’t have the impression Hitchens shows high respect for the worldviews of those non-European cultures which assume a sanctity built into the natural order, as he seems to want to do without sanctity.

Using Hobbes, Hume and Russell as a prism on to the universe is no bad thing, and highly instructive. However, it is culturally determined. Hitchens’ hero George Orwell had a nuanced outlook, but still within the Anglosphere, with its empirical temperament. British empiricism suited the British Empire, and still has an arrogant tendency detectable in Hitchens.

I have the impression Hitchens would invoke Aristotle to reject postmodernism as illogical, rejecting the mysticism inherent in saying that contradictory propositions can both be true. Hitchens’ categorical logic leads him to describe myths as false, ignoring the dimensions of meaning held within mythic thought. True and false can become slightly blurred when interpreting the mythic meaning of symbolic archetypes.

Hitchens continues the dichotomous logic of Christianity in his distinction between truth and myth, a distinction which in bygone days was used to say Biblical stories were true and pagan myths were false. Now we look at both sides as mythic. His rejecting of all mythic thought as false is a big underlying assumption which actually cuts Hitchens off from the symbolic meaning inherent in myth.
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Using Hobbes, Hume and Russell as a prism on to the universe is no bad thing, and highly instructive.

I have the impression Hitchens would invoke Aristotle to reject postmodernism as illogical, rejecting the mysticism inherent in saying that contradictory propositions can both be true.
"One belief more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the alters of great historical ideals - justice or progress or the happiness of future generations, or the sacred mission or the emancipation of a nation or race or class, or even liberty its self, which demands the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society. This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution." Isaiah Berlin

This supposed affirmation in the blurring of true and false does not change the nature of the symbol as a physical representation of truth. How could it be an archetype if it were not? Hitchens rejection of myth is mirrored by the inability of myth to prove its truth. Weather you are talking about Mother Goose or the bible is now irrelevant. The frame of reference in regard to the bible has been shrewdly replaced by a philosophical argument discussing the merits and nature of the symbol and mythical representation of reality which is just as much a sociological or anthropological study as anything else.

DH: "the behaviors of the characters are NOT simply to be emulated, but rather serve as a vivid example of alternatives and options...Abraham chooses x, but what do you choose, and why?"

Why, why, why not just read Shakespeare?

:book:
Post Reply

Return to “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - by Christopher Hitchens”