Want to interpret the bible literally? History is not on your side. It's turtles all the way down
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- Literal interpretation is a last resort - what we do when we can't do better.
Dr. Johnson teaches philosophy at Georgia Tech. He is the author of Paradox at Play: Metaphor in Meister Eckhart's Sermons by Catholic University of America Press. It includes many sermons never before translated into English.
Meister Eckhart, Paradox at Play
amzn.to/3y6HV9W
All Amazon links are affiliate links, which means I do get a commission on them. That doesn't change the price for you - it just helps to support the channel and get more ideas out there!
Check out my store for t-shirts and more:
good-to-think-with.printify.m...
Special thanks to my Patreon supporters!
If you want to support the channel directly and get more involved with the process of making videos and interacting with me, please consider supporting the channel on Patreon:
/ goodtothinkwith
I hope you found these ideas good to think with!
I enjoy very much a symbolic view of scripture. The problem is, most believing Christians I know believe that they will literally live forever. This is quite an important belief for these Christians, which means if it's not literally true, then it breaks the belief system.
The same goes for Christ's resurrection - if it's not literally true, then it loses a lot of its attraction. Meister Eckhart speaks about 3 means of attraction to the cross, which is lovely to contemplate aesthetically, but for most Christians what really matters is whether it literally happened or not, because it guarantees their belief in literal immortality.
Thank you so much for this video - it has really made me examine my own belief structure. Although the last 5 minutes were especially meaningful to me, the idea that I should not rely on applying too much logic but instead ask, 'What does it mean to me?', is so powerful - and so liberating. It kinda reminds me of a quote from D T Suzuki (the younger one), who said that in the West there was far too much 'thinking mind'.
Additionally to add on to what you said at the start, pretty much all forms of learning are based on some form of analogous transfer. Even most individuals who claim to be pro a literal perspective usually claim to do so in order to learn. That ultimately means that you have to go beyond a literal perspective at least at some point
That’s an interesting point. I would agree since learning itself is in part nonconceptual and ineffable
I really appreciate this video, man. I just got a bit of advice. You seem to be getting pretty close to Jonathan Pageau’s and his brother ideas, you should check out his video on the illusion of metaphorical and literal thought. Maybe the one on Santa’s existence. I think you’re pretty close to something, but materialism is kind of hindering you, as it does all of us. Keep on, good luck with your videos man.
I only get literal when it comes to Metanoia
I can’t help but notice the regression of English speech among contemporary American intellectuals over the course of my life in higher education. Despite this condescending approach to reading comprehension it proceeds from the presumption that the gods are real and humans are sheep. It is his thinking that is childish.
Maybe. But still, when I need my car* fixed, I want the auto mechanic to fix the literal problem, and not to give me a long analysis of the metaphorical meaning of the clutch not working.
* I don't own a car, though. So feel free to interpret this as a non literal example
One needs to develop discernment.
this is awesome ... am talking to the "algorithm" ...
ok that's really funny - I appreciate it :)
A lot of what you discuss here is covered in St Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine". For example, the rules for literal reading @15:00 and the point about values being culturally based. St Augustine, however, does argue for the primacy of literal interpretation over the other modes, making it the basis for moral, allegorical and anagogical readings. So literal interpretation is part of the tradition going all the way back to at least the 4th century, not to speak of the Antiochian school. Still, to St Augustine's credit, he does in Book 4 advise that the teacher of scripture pray before teaching since he rightly understood, as you do, that one is trying to bring the listener to a direct experience of God, and not merely communicate some distant intellectual understanding.
Given that you argue near the beginning of the video that the demands of approaching a mystical experience of God means that the literal is not sufficient, what do you think about St Augustine's position? I suspect that the Sola Scriptura folks of the Reformation were picking this up from him.
The ancient and medieval literal is not our literal. We are too concerned with asking if the events described really happened as described.
When you read a novel, for instance, you interperet the story literally without asking if the characters really existed or if the events described really happened.
@@byrondickens If you do not admit a literal reading of the crucifixion and resurrection, then you simply cannot have Catholicism --- "literal" here in the Augustinian sense. Consequently you don't have the Medieval mystics or Eckhart, etc. I am very much a fan of Medieval reading of scripture, and being a Carmelite, the founders of my order were mystics (St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross). They both had very wild interpretations to expound their spirituality --- wild by Modern standards. But they both believe in the *literal* crucifixion and resurrection of Christ and could not be the mystics they were without that belief. My point in brief is that there is more at stake here than you think. And not something you can easily communicate via a CZcams comment.
Our great North African preacher never knew Greek, but his Latin was perfect (he taught it). His theology would appear to owe much to the North African politics and polemics among Christians than it doest to the Bible
the math tangent is a bit misguided in that there is no area where "infinite complexity" arises. I understand why one may think that but its more, in my view at least, a complete failure of acidemia. there is a concerted but largely unintentional effort to make things like quantum physics and astronomy overly complicated so that professors can act intelligent. in my experience, those professors just don't understand the subject matter in any real capacity and often spout nonsense.
I work with these people quite often and their selfish desire to be viewed as intelligent is a massive harm. quantum, gravity, calc, etc. are not complex or difficult to understand if you have a teacher who understands the subject matter and is humble enough to care for his/her students more than their own social standing.
vanity, jealousy, pompousness, and selfish greed are the cardinal sins which academia is largely built upon and has only gotten worse as academia storeys further away from God and the very culture which birthed the sciences in the first place.
The bible is not just some book. It is gods very words, gods plan for our lives, the rules of the game and the consequences for failure are spelled out. The fact that hundreds of interpretations of the bible have led to confusion. New religions appearing, wars being fought over, torture and burning at the stake over who is right and whois a heetic tells me that the current method of truth finding is not working. This is just y feeling and interretation of what you might have been talking about allowing fr cultural differences etc.
How do you know the Bible is actually gods word? And if that is the case, how could his perfect word be so vague as to be interpreted in thousands of different ways that all contradict and compete with each other?
It is God word and you will find our by next year
The thing is, everyone thinks THEIR interpretation is Gods word. And who is to be judge?
What a remarkably shallow understanding....
👍🏿👍🏿
So far this has been the dumbest thing I’ve heard in my entire life. Which is a high bar.
There’s no point to telling a story and explaining the world in a book if it’s not literal.
This comment is a perfect example of perhaps the greatest drawback of the our modern worldview given courtesy of the scientific revolution: it tends to render a pedantic mindset in people and leave them unable to think symbolically.
@@richardlaiche8303 You are laboring under the same presupposition that there IS "one true" interpretation when it comes to spiritual/ religious matters and nothing you said about language has anything to do with thinking symbolically.
@@byrondickens If you tell me the world was created in 7 days. I expect it to mean the world was created in 7 days. There’s no alternative interpretation that makes sense.
You must hate reading fiction then. It often conveys more about the human experience than non fiction ever could.
@@Dialogos1989 I don’t read fiction. Life is too short for me to spend it living in fantasy. Mostly out of these books a creation story would need to be somewhat clear. Otherwise it becomes less useful and flimsy.
Your rock bottom is also called foundational.
Interesting, though 'foundational' has a very different meaning. For communication with any richness, literal interpretation is just missing the point. Picasso in particular wasn't fond of people asking what his paintings meant, to put it mildly
@goodtothinkwith and in this case literal interpretation is the correct method.