I just checked my Good Reader and lo and behold there is a post from Henry Neufeld bashing The American Patriot’s Bible. I found this bit a little ironic; Henry says: “The first rule of interpretation should be to actually read the words of the text you’re interpreting, even if only in translation.” Why is that ironic? Well, his first paragraph says:
Thomas Nelson has release [sic] The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America
*, which is a Bible so lousy in concept that one can dislike it without even bothering to read it. (HT: Christ my righteousness.) You’ve probably heard the cliche, “It’s a really bad book, that’s why I never read it?” OK. I’m caught. But I’m still not going to read it. (bold mine)
Go figure…
Oh, and I don’t know how I missed Celucien’s post; probably because once I saw “Greg Boyd,” I marked it as read; but I suppose that’s one of the places where the flack has been coming from (Boyd, not Celucien).
B”H
I don’t find it ironic that he would dismiss the concept of a Bible without reading it. We can tell something is not worth reading without looking into what it says. If I saw a book about how to be a good Christian Nazi I would easily dismiss the concept of the book without ever reading it and I don’t think it would be at all incompatible with the idea that you should read the words of a text you are interpreting. Apparently Henry didn’t feel that particular text was worthy of even interpreting but I’m sure if he had he would have tried his best to read the text to make sure he was interpeting it correctly.
Besides, you dismissed Lou’s post because it was about Greg Boyd yet you didn’t read what Greg Boyd had to say. Just the fact that it had to do with Boyd was enough to cause you to skip over it. In fact you’ve dismissed the whole body of Boyd’s work and his ministry based on one blog post that didn’t sit well with you. You didn’t need feel the need to read those other books before writing him off. Are you doing anything different than what you see Henry doing? ; )
Bryan L
Bryan: I didn’t comment on Lou’s post though, did I? How could I when I didn’t read it? (I’ve since read it but that’s beside the point). And yes, I’m doing something different than what Henry is doing since I’ve never commented on any of Boyd’s books. I’ve not told anyone that his work isn’t worth reading because I don’t know whether it is or it isn’t. He writes on concepts that I personally find lousy, like pacifism, but I can’t say that his books aren’t any good on that subject. I simply don’t know.
Nick:
“I didn’t comment on Lou’s post though, did I? How could I when I didn’t read it? (I’ve since read it but that’s beside the point).”
I didn’t say you read it. I said you dismissed it. You dismissed Lou’s post by not even bothering to read it. You dismissed it as not worth your time reading because it had to do with someone who you’ve refused to read because he tied his beliefs in pacifism to his vegetarianism.
Henry said
“so lousy in concept that one can dislike it without even bothering to read it.”
Do you really have a problem with him not bothering to read something because the concept is lousy. Do you think that’s something you don’t do? Do you really think his belief that if you are going to read something that you should take care to interpret it rightly is really at odds with his deeming something not worthy to even read because the concept is so distasteful?
I find it ironic that your calling Henry out on this.
Bryan L
Bryan: You asked if what I did was different than what Henry did and I answered, yes! I can try to restate how it was different but I don’t think I can be any clearer. I didn’t say that Lou’s post was “bad” or his concept “lousy” or anything of the sort. Why? Because I didn’t read it! How do I comment on something that I have no knowledge of?
No, I don’t have a problem with him not bothering to read something. I just find it ironic that he’d in one sentence say that he won’t read something because it’s “bad” or conceptually “lousy” but in the next say that one should actually read the words of something they want to interpret. The bottom line is that Henry or you or me for that matter has no idea how lousy or bad (or good) this Bible actually is, none of us has read it! Can you really dispute that?
Yes I can dispute it because it’s not the same thing. Saying something is not worth reading because the concept is lousy has nothing to do with good practices of interpretation. If the concept is lousy, maybe even contradictory, then it means the book will be bad (or you will judge it as being bad) no matter how good someone tries to make an argument in support of the concept. Do you really think a book can be good if it’s making an argument about a lousy concept that seems preposterous? Are you really willing to entertain the idea that a book like “The Guide to Being a Good Christians Racist” may in fact be a good book? Or are you willing to say that’s a stupid or bad book?
Bryan L
Bryan: I’m willing to say that a book is good or bad after and only after I’ve actually read it. How do I know that “The Guide to Being a Good Christian Racist” doesn’t offer the argument that will convert me to that line of thinking (right or wrong)? It might be the best book ever. Who knows? But you can’t dispute that neither me, you, nor Henry has read this Bible and has no clue whether or not it’s any good (which is of course what I said “can you really dispute that” in reference to).
Nick who decides whether something is good or bad?
Either you beleive (1) that some things are in fact good or bad whether we think so or not; or (2) you believe it is up to us to decide whether something is good or bad, and that it is purely a value judgment.
Is there another option?
Bryan L
Bryan: How are you using the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’? For example, Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus was both good and bad. It was good because it was well written, clear, and captivating. It was bad because his conclusions were so far off in so many respects. (Oh, and I can render that judgment because I’ve actually read the book. ;-)
I’m asking whether you beleive it is up to us to decide what is good or bad about something (as in it’s purely subjective) or whether some things are objectively good or bad regardless of what we think? Now maybe on certain things you beleive the former, while on other things you believe the latter. Is that the case?
Bryan L
Bryan: I believe in both, i.e., that certain things are objectively good or bad (evil) and that other things are good or bad because we say so. For example, I believe that rape is objectively bad (evil) regardless of what anyone thinks, but chocolate ice cream is subjectively good depending on the taste of the individual. So to apply that to this discussion, someone can write a (subjectively) good book on an (objectively) bad subject. Make sense?
If you believe that some thing are objectively good or bad regardless of whether we think so or not then you can concede that if a book is supporting a subject that is objectively bad then the book will be bad, regardless of whether it is written well or not. The arguments can never be good because that would mean the conclusions are good as well and we’ve already established that they are objectively bad.
Now if you believe that something are subjectively good or bad, that certain value judgments are up to us to make and have no basis in objective facts, then I can judge something as being bad without reading it because it’s my subjective opinion. I can judge a book that I’ve never read to be bad because my opinion doesn’t need to be justified by any objective facts.
Either way that seems to support the conclusion that you ca judge a book to be bad without reading it. : )
Bryan L
Bryan: No, not at all. I can concede that the book will have been written in support of an objectively bad topic. I can’t make any judgments about the book (at least not any informed judgments or any judgments that I’d expect to be taken seriously) without knowing what it says. Perhaps it will be a book that convinces me that my idea of objective good/bad is all wrong. Who knows?
But you’re really moving away from the content of what Henry said. He wasn’t using “lousy” or “bad” in reference to moral evils. He’s making subjective statements. If the claim here is that patriotism is objectively bad then fine, claim it, but argue it as well.
I love you both:Bryan and Nick.
:)
Pingback: Rumsfeld, Bible Verses, and War « kata ta biblia