- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
“Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy” http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/biblical-literalism This dismantles things more than I was ready for, but he rebuilds and gives me a lot to think about.
For nibbler’s information: run time is 51:35.
🙂 I recently listened to this podcast, and I think it is wonderful! Yep, the Jews didn’t take their scriptures literally, and neither did the early Christians. It wasn’t until Rome needed a literal justification to unify the kingdom that the multiple religious/spiritual views were melded into one structure that was viewed literally, and the literal view began to dominate. Thanks for the suggestion Ann. I look forward to listening to this! I have recently shed entirely my belief in literal scripture and am trying to still find value when my viewpoint has changed so drastically from how I was raised. To this end, I am also expanding and broadening what I can consider scripture beyond the LDS canon.
So this may be a topic for a separate post, but what is scripture? How do you define it if not in the traditional LDS way?
The LDS Bible Dictionaey defines it as anything spoken (or written) by inspiration from God. I like that expansive definition, especially since it includes lots of non-LDS statements and writings.
Old Timer wrote:
The LDS Bible Dictionaey defines it as anything spoken (or written) by inspiration from God.I like that expansive definition, especially since it includes lots of non-LDS statements and writings.
Beautiful! I didn’t realize we had such an expansive definition within our own community. However, I think many Mormons would balk if we started calling non-canonical works “scripture.” But I love it!
The trouble is knowing what is inspired from God and I guess that can come down to a personal decision.
Just listened and I have to say I loved it! Even if you don’t agree entirely with his quite liberalized non-literal approach, he shares a “testimony” towards the end about his idea of God and the divine that is just beautiful. I highly recommend listening and if you don’t have the time, just listen to the last 10 or 15 minutes as he shares his concept of God. I found it so deeply inspirational and beautiful.
I finished Spong’s book in the past few weeks. GT, you were right in the sense that he really dismantles a lot of religious ideas regarding biblical literalism! His treatment of the gospels as they relate to the liturgical year of Judaism is absolutely fascinating. I found a lot of correlations. It seems to me that the gospels seem more like midrash/interpretive text than anything else at this point! It seems like he even has a different belief in a physical resurrection. I have been pondering it myself lately, but it was so interesting to read about his work. Very uplifting. Thanks for sharing, GT! I recently interviewed Sandra Tanner (yes, THAT Sandra Tanner) regarding how they thought the Salamander Letter was a forgery. I was impressed that Jerald was so astute to figure that out, yet most of the books of the Bible were not written by their purported authors. Many scholars believe this, and I even mentioned Spong’s book about biblical literalism. Yet Sandra Tanner still believes in the Bible, and while she does allow that evolution is compatible with the bible, yet she is a literalist when it comes to New Testament authorship. It seemed like quite a paradox to me.
I really like Spong’s interview.
Literalism is a post-modernist plague, and it’s not just the fundamentalists at it, but a lot of the atheists. There are an increasing number out there who seem to be unable to understand nuance, metaphor, literary forms, allegory etc. And not just in the religious sense, such people struggle with art, music, secular literature and more sophisticated forms of satire.
gospeltangents wrote:
I recently interviewed Sandra Tanner (yes, THAT Sandra Tanner) regarding how they thought the Salamander Letter was a forgery.I was impressed that Jerald was so astute to figure that out, yet most of the books of the Bible were not written by their purported authors. Many scholars believe this, and I even mentioned Spong’s book about biblical literalism. Yet Sandra Tanner still believes in the Bible, and while she does allow that evolution is compatible with the bible, yet she is a literalist when it comes to New Testament authorship. It seemed like quite a paradox to me.
I really like Spong’s interview.
The Tanners do have a certain amount of integrity – to be fair I know they ripped into Ed Decker for completely misrepresenting and lying about temple ceremonies.
Yes, we talked about that in our interview. Jerald really took Ed Decker to town after the screening. They were a bit perplexed! gospeltangents wrote:
Yes, we talked about that in our interview. Jerald really took Ed Decker to town after the screening. They were a bit perplexed!
I admire and respect them for that… An unusual thing for an active TR-holding LDS member to say that about the Tanners, but yes, that is how I feel.about them on the issue.
Decker accused them of being possessed, but his stories about the temple and his role in the LDS do not hold up. Wrist slitting and satanic rituals in the temple? All I can say is if that ever does happen then, >99.9% of the membership including most of the leadership never take part! Decker has lied about Freemasonry too but given the diversity of that movement, it is harder to prove.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.