R.E. Slater - Unhealthy Ways to Read the Bible

The Magic Bible

Unhealthy Ways to Read the Bible

by R.E. Slater

November 29, 2023

Question. Is the bible a book about everything?

Answer: No.

The bible is limited by the generational experiences of those temporal communities which contributed to the bible's messages for good or for ill to those around them.

Most bible readers today believe God wrote the bible through various men and women and their observed experiences ... ideas and concepts which were to become timeless through the eras to come.

However true this mantra may be amongst the faithful the reality is that only in principle might we be able to say that the bible is timeless. In reality, those words and ideas were fixed in time, place, era, and culture as immediately as they were written down.

God as Believed

Hence, to read the bible is to read it's Spirit-inspired narrations as an admixture of people's beliefs about God with God's own communique's as best as they could be communicated within their writer's cultural beliefs and understandings.

And rather than the words of the bible become authoritative for time immemorial it's older words were for an older day or cultural era which were pertinent then as time-stamped expressions of how people thought about God in relation to their lives and those communities and nation-states around them.

That is, the more God spoke, and the more God's "words" were written down in the narratives of Israel, the more we can read in the bible how those words were influenced by the events of their day, the hour, the amanuensis' experiences, backgrounds, knowledge, community, era, and traditions.

Philosophically, words are as timeless as they are timeful. Our writings and expressions, beliefs about God and history's "appointments" to come are marked by our own dated beliefs and ideas. One might say that the words and beliefs of man were not meant to be lasting but to be a growing approximation to our amassing understanding of God.

Thus and thus, what morality, and ethics, and salvation, might have meant then  in the biblical eras which spanned thousands of years have necessitated re-contextualization today in the present tense if we our to discern the growing legacy of the God then and this same God now.

This is where preaching requires study, learning, and recontextualization. As this is done God by his Spirit speaks today to us through our own experiences and observations. Such interpretations may be true, in error, fantastical, or common-sensed, but they all will require the communities of readers and listeners to judge whether true or accurate such acclaimed inspirations might be.... One might say one thing while another say something else. We can only perceive the wisdom of the statements according to the perceived relevance of the contextualized speech.

God in Advent in Jesus

Thus, I write here, at this site, to speak a new language... not that of a Westernized Jesus but of a processual God whose love comes first and foremost to all that this God is... as demonstrated by his incarnation in Jesus who was not only Israel's long awaited Messiah but the world's new definition of God despite all "inspired" documents written to the contrary.

When God did, we quickly find that Israel's templed teachers of the Law and conductors of it's holy institutes discovered their distance from God as comprehended in their Torahitic traditions and beliefs.

That this God they believed and followed spoke by grace and mercy, forgiveness and healing, and not by enforced institutionalized contritions nor by harsh sentencing and religious separations of legality, rite, and custom.

Jesus' words and deeds unnerved the Rabbi's, Priests, and Scribes of his day even as they do today in the Church's institutionalized beliefs, mantras, creeds, and conductions of its actions within the laity and society.

To therefore read the bible as an authoritative document is to remember to read it contextually, historically, morally, meaningfully, and theologically through God's love. When we read it through God's holiness we do a deep disservice to the God of the heavens and earth.

What is the Bible's Main Message?

Firstly, to know that the bible is fixed to its older cultural contexts where people and institutions thought differently of God then as we do now. As time and experienced has moved past ancient Israel's times and the times of Jesus and the Apostles so too has the hoary history of man needed to temper its beliefs and sayings about the God we think we know, understand, preach about, and apprehend in our daily walk in the Spirit.

Secondly, that the God of the bible has been misunderstood, misused, and misapplied through the eras of faith... and sadly, has mostly been used to harm and oppress Christians and non-Christians alike in the Church's slipping contexts of holiness and love.

On the upside, the Church has within its many traditions other contexts which have given precedent to God's love over God's holiness. And so, this portion of the Church when teaching the Scriptures having placed God's love first and not last into the older biblical structures and narratives can be read as God ascribing mercy and forgiveness to one another rather than this same God speaking always by judgment, damnation and hell.

Thirdly, when read the bible through eyes of love and applied aright by the administration of God's love, the Church speaks best when it speaks love to its congregants, followers, and society by its conduct of loving word, deed, act, and policy. In this fashion, the bible is always pertinent to a society's cultural evolution.

Be Love

Be love as God is love. Worship a God of loving act, word and deed. Not a God who is not....

Any God to which church covenant, creed, or belief ascribes by its own set of rules and idolatries is a false God when perceived as divine holiness over divine love. The measure of God is Love to which God's divine attributes all find their meaning and definition.

Said another way, God is holy because is loving. God is not holy when God is not loving. Love gives shape and definition to God's holiness. To be without sin and evil is to be unbound in love and giving.

When placing divine holiness over-and-above divine love we preach a false God.

And when we place divine holiness on the same plane as divine love so that each of God's attributes are on equal standing with one another we misperceive God.

This synthetic act of adjusting God in all God's divineness on equal ground may seem eclectically logical but it then allows for all institutions of man to pick-and-chose which divine aspect of God to uplift over all other of God's qualities. This then can lead to a faith institute and its creeds to say something about God and our response to be in "holy" disequilibrium within the ordinances of God.

Better it is to teach divine love as the foundation upon which God is than not; to always lead out as a faith institute in its creeds by love first; than to acquiesce to speak and act of a God who is unloving when disconnected - or imbalanced - to God's remaining attributes, character, or quality of God's essential Self.

A loving theism then, places God's love above all other qualities of God's attributes and character as the defining ascription to all that God is. When God is apprehended in this way than God's holiness, divine judgment, and retribution, must always be defined in terms of God's love - rather than set apart from themselves to be re-defined and re-enacted by Church liturgy devoid of love.

Reading the bible can be tricky. But holding to a few basic principles will force the bible reader to re-examine the church and it's traditional teachings even as Jesus did when teaching the Rabbi's at the Temple in his youth.

Even as Jesus would later demonstrate to the wicked priests who brought a whore to him to be judged... forcing Jesus to be a God of judgment over a God of love... so too Jesus responded by drawing out in the sand the sins of the whore's accusers. As he did they shut their mouths and drew away from their charade leaving Jesus and bedraggled woman alone in the moment. A moment in which Jesus judged her to worthy of God's forgiving and atoning love that she might find spiritual healing and solace in the moments of her lost life. She did, preaching of a God of love, as she left Jesus renewed in heart and hope.

This same Jesus came to the Jewish temples bespeaking this same God of love on their holy days of separation and devotion. That God's love is the definer and foundation to all other (impertinent) ideas about God taught by a holy establishment.

Conclusion

Consequently, we may aver that all other bible teachings are but religious in nature, appealing to man's sinful nature, and should not be considered authoritative, if not uplifted, bathed, washed, and redeemed in God's love.

That God is LOVE before God is anything else. And consequently the bible we read is meant to convey God's love though it is bound by human interpretation, speech, and narrative apprehension of the divine Spirit-word-and-event.

When neglecting the Spirit of Love we attend to unloving words and actions. We have lost our saltiness and become as the weeds and hard soils of the earth where nothing may grow or be nourished.

And like Abram in Genesis, no Covenant may be "cut with God" except that this God of Love cut the halves of the sacrifices and walks through them alone as worthy keeper of his loving promise to stay and abide with us all our days.

Covenants which are laid first-and-foremost in God's grace and mercy; forgiveness and presence; hope and enduring works of love. As versus man's covenants presented in religious pride, legalism, and works-oriented rags unworthy of life, soul, penitence, equality, or justice.

Be at Peace,

Walk in the Love of the Lord our God,

R.E. Slater

November 29, 2023

updated December 2, 2023

Jesus mocks the 'kingdoms of man' by using the same word, basilou, in its genitive form to declare all may become possessors of the kingdom of God when filling God's kingdom with loving content. That this kingdom is not for religiously heartless demeaning the quality or worthy of those yearning God's love except they follow the Temple's rules, rites, and traditions. To this Jesus said "Tace" in which is meant "anathema" to such horrid teachings by the religiously astute of his day. God's kingdom is easily obtainable by faith in a loving God and then bound to share God's love in deed, word, and by constitution, to those everywhere around us. Its light cannot be contained by darkness and its new wine will surely burst the old wineskins once considered good.

by R.E. Slater

Basileia (Greek translated kingdom) has morphed into royalty and authoritarianism, power and patriarchy, even theocracy in today's Christianity. But the basileia of Jesus is the exact opposite, where offense is met with forgiveness, the first are last and the last are first, the poor are privileged and the rich have a very narrow needle to thread, and we are asked to love our enemies.

by Wayne Boyd

"All the expected effects of power, authority, and hierarchical rule are reversed, resulting in the rule of the unruly, the reign of the unroyal, a hier-unarchy, a “sacred anarchy,” as I like to say. This kingdom of ill-born and powerless people (1 Cor. 1:26) looks mad to the “world,” to Aristotle’s man of practical wisdom, a good-looking and well-educated aristocratic chap, and nothing like a real man to a heartless Roman warrior. This is a “kingdom” in an ironic sense, actually mocking the authoritarianism and patriarchy. The possibility of the impossible is neither theological (omnipotence) nor logical (a contradiction in terms) but theopoetic, a kind of theopoetic cardiology, the heart of a heartless world."

by Philosophic Catholic Theologian, John Caputo

  ~  The Table below will be necessary to the chat I had with ChatGPT 3.5  ~~  

βασιλεία

Word

βασιλεία, -ας, ἡ (basileia)

Gloss

• kingdom
• royal rule
• kingship
• sovereignty

Part of Speech

Noun

Word Frequency

• Byzantine NT: 162
• kjtr: 162
• Nestle 1904: 162
• sr: 162

Syllables

βα·σι·λεί·α ba·si·lei·a

Strongs Number

• 932

Noun Forms

Singular
ἡ	βασιλεία
τῆς	βασιλείας
τῇ	βασιλείᾳ
τήν	βασιλείαν

Plural
αἱ	βασιλεῖαι
τῶν	βασιλειῶν
ταῖς	βασιλείαις
τάς	βασιλείας

Usage in new testament bible - click link here

parsed usage of basileia in GNT and LXX  - click link here

The genitive form of basileia refers to one's possession of God's kingdom... 

Or, said otherwise:

(i) we are possessed of God and thereby adopted into God's kingdom, and,

(ii) we possess the kingdom both now and forevermore when sealed by the Spirit of God in acceptance and belief in Jesus' atoning work on the Cross. That is, we ourselves are held by, and actively hold, our kingdom rights to distribute to others around us.

* * * * * * *

ChatGPT and I Discuss Healthy Ways

to Read the Bible and Bible Eschatology

Hi

ChatGPT

Hello! How can I assist you today?

Please parse "baseilou"

ChatGPT

It seems like "baseilou" might be a typo or a combination of letters without a clear meaning. Could you provide more context or clarify your request?

Yes a typo. Should be "basilou". A Greek word meaning "Kingdom" = "Basileia"

ChatGPT

Ah, I see. "Baseilou" appears to be the genitive form of the Greek word "Βασιλεία" (Basileia), which translates to "kingdom." If you have any more questions or if there's anything specific you'd like to know, feel free to ask!

Remind me what the genitive form of the word is...

ChatGPT

The genitive form of a word typically indicates possession or a relationship similar to "of" in English. For example, in Greek, "Basileia" (kingdom) can become "Basilou" when expressing possession or association.

Ah. So might I say the kingdom of God (KOG) is mine? Or, that I belong to the KOG in the genitive form?

ChatGPT

Yes, that's correct! You could say "the kingdom of God" using the genitive form, like "the kingdom of God is mine" or "I belong to the kingdom of God."

The genitive form indicates possession or association, allowing you to express a relationship with the kingdom.

Is basilou the correct Attic spelling of basileia or more a later derivative of the Koine form of the Greek language? (I had used koinonia in place of Koine)

ChatGPT

The form "basilou" is a transliteration of the genitive singular form of the Attic Greek word "Βασιλεία" (Basileia), which means "kingdom." In Attic Greek, the genitive singular form is used to indicate possession or association.

The term "Attic" refers to the dialect of Ancient Greek that was spoken in the region of Attica, including Athens, and is associated with classical literature and philosophy. So, "basilou" is in line with the Attic Greek form rather than being a later derivative of Koine Greek of Jesus' day.

As opposed to the language of Koine Greek the term "koinonia" typically refers to a different concept, not one of language but one of "fellowship" or "community," and is not directly related to the genitive form of "Basileia."

Apologies... what form of Greek was spoken in the first century AD?

ChatGPT

In the first century AD, during the time of the New Testament and the events surrounding the life of Jesus, the common form of Greek spoken was Koine Greek. Koine Greek emerged as a simplified and more universal form of the Greek language, evolving from Classical Attic Greek.

Koine Greek became the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean (The Levant's coastal regions) and was widely used for trade, communication, and literature during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, including the time of the New Testament writings.

Is basilou in line with Koine Greek in its meaning despite its relative "youth"?

ChatGPT

Yes, "basilou" is in line with Koine Greek. In Koine Greek, the genitive form of "Βασιλεία" (Basileia), meaning "kingdom," could indeed be rendered as "basilou." The genitive form is used to indicate possession or association, and this structure is consistent with the characteristics of Koine Greek during the first century AD.

OK. So in the passage of time between ancient attic greek and later koine greek basilou (sic, basileia) remained the same linguistically in spelling?

ChatGPT

The spelling "basilou" (or "βασιλεία" in Greek script) is more representative of Koine Greek rather than Ancient Attic Greek. Over time, linguistic changes and developments occurred between the Attic Greek of classical antiquity and the Koine Greek spoken in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

While there are some similarities, Koine Greek is generally considered a later form of the language and exhibits simplifications in grammar and vocabulary compared to Classical Attic Greek. The specific form "basilou" aligns more closely with Koine Greek as it was [more prominently] used in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, including the time of the New Testament.

How would the attic form of the gentive parsing be spelled?

ChatGPT

In Ancient Attic Greek, the genitive form of "Βασιλεία" (Basileia), meaning "kingdom," would be spelled differently. The genitive singular form in the Attic dialect might be "βασιλείας" (basileías). The spelling can vary slightly due to linguistic nuances and specific grammatical rules, but this form more closely represents the genitive in Ancient Attic Greek.

So the addition of the letter "s" gives the noun base its genitive spelling in Attic Greek?

ChatGPT

The addition of "s" is a common way to form the genitive singular in Ancient Greek. In the case of "βασιλεία" (Basileia), adding "s" to the stem results in "βασιλείας" (basileías) in the genitive singular. This is a general rule in the inflection of Greek nouns to indicate possession or association.

However, it's important to note that linguistic rules can have exceptions, and the genitive form may vary based on the specific noun stem and its declension pattern in Greek.

What would the genitive plural look like in Attic vs. Koine spelling?

ChatGPT

In Ancient Attic Greek, the genitive plural of "Βασιλεία" (Basileia) would be formed by adding "-ων" (-ōn) to the stem. So, the genitive plural might look like "βασιλείων" (basileíōn).

In Koine Greek, the genitive plural often follows a similar pattern. So, the genitive plural of "Βασιλεία" in Koine might also be "βασιλείων" (basileíōn).

The spelling is quite similar in this case between Attic and Koine Greek for the genitive plural.

Culturally, did the term kingdom change in meaning or nuance over time?

ChatGPT

The concept of a "kingdom" has evolved over time and can carry different cultural, political, and religious nuances. In ancient cultures, including those of Ancient Greece and Rome, the term often referred to a political entity ruled by a king or monarch.

In a religious context, such as in Christianity, the term "kingdom" has a specific theological significance. In the New Testament, particularly in the teachings of Jesus, the "kingdom of God" or the "kingdom of heaven" is often used to convey a spiritual or divine realm rather than a purely political one. The nuanced meaning can involve concepts of divine rule, righteousness, and salvation.

Culturally and linguistically, the term "kingdom" has adapted to various contexts and belief systems over the centuries, reflecting the evolving perspectives and values of societies.

Extending this cultural linguistic metaphor I might say Jesus was mocking the temple teachings of kingdom in their stress of power and holiness when applying it to his kingdom built on mercy, grace, and forgiveness.

ChatGPT

That interpretation aligns with certain aspects of Jesus' teachings as portrayed in the New Testament. Jesus often challenged conventional religious interpretations and emphasized concepts like mercy, grace, and forgiveness over a rigid emphasis on power and holiness. His teachings often presented a transformation of traditional expectations, redirecting focus toward compassion and spiritual values.

By emphasizing a kingdom built on mercy and forgiveness, Jesus sought to convey a different understanding of divine rule—one rooted in love and compassion rather than solely in the exercise of authority and adherence to religious rituals. This interpretation reflects the cultural and linguistic nuances within the religious context of his time.

And yet, the new testament book of Revelation goes out of its way to speak of divine power and retribution as versus Jesus' kingdom of love...

ChatGPT

Indeed, the New Testament book of Revelation contrasts with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Revelation is a highly symbolic and apocalyptic work that explores themes of divine judgment, cosmic conflict, and the ultimate triumph of God's justice. It employs vivid imagery to convey a message of God's sovereignty, righteousness, and the eventual resolution of good overcoming evil.

While the Gospels focus on Jesus' message of love, mercy, and forgiveness, Revelation takes a different literary and theological approach. It is important to note that different books within the New Testament serve different purposes and were written in diverse contexts, often addressing specific concerns or audiences.

Interpreting these texts involves considering their literary genres, historical contexts, and the theological perspectives they represent. The tension between themes of love and mercy in the Gospels and more apocalyptic elements in Revelation reflects the complexity of the biblical narrative and the diversity of theological ideas within the Christian tradition.

It would seem a Christian hope built on a loving God is in direct conflict with a God of war... that Jesus' disciple John, known for his love, wrote a book which is wholly unloving...

ChatGPT

The apparent tension between a God of love and a God associated with themes of war and judgment, as depicted in various parts of the Bible, has been a subject of theological reflection and debate within Christianity. Different Christian traditions and scholars may interpret these themes in diverse ways.

Some theologians emphasize the overarching message of love, mercy, and grace found in the teachings of Jesus, considering this to be the central theme of Christianity.

Others acknowledge the presence of diverse theological motifs in the Bible, including those of justice, judgment, and divine authority.

In reconciling these apparent contradictions, some Christians interpret the more judgment-oriented passages in the context of the cultural and historical circumstances in which they were written. They might view these passages as metaphorical or symbolic expressions rather than literal descriptions of God's nature.

Ultimately, the understanding of God's character and the resolution of these tensions vary among individuals and Christian denominations, reflecting the diversity of theological perspectives within the broader Christian tradition.

Any Christian theology not founded on a God of love but on a God of holiness would seem a devolution of this same God in dipolar terms...

ChatGPT

Many Christian theologians and denominations emphasize the idea that God is both loving and holy. The concept of God's holiness is often understood as a divine attribute associated with purity, righteousness, and moral perfection. In this perspective, holiness is not seen as conflicting with love but rather as complementing it.

Theologians who highlight God's holiness often see it as the foundation for moral order and justice. The idea is that God's holiness sets the standard for what is good and right, and love, in this context, is an expression of that holiness.

While there may be variations in theological emphasis among different Christian traditions, the majority aim to integrate the qualities of love and holiness into a coherent understanding of God's nature. Theologians often explore the relationship between these attributes, seeking a balanced perspective that reflects the multifaceted nature of the divine, as presented in the Bible and interpreted through theological traditions.

To which I would disagree. All of God's attributes and character must first be founded upon God's love. If not, divine holiness digresses towards a God of vindicating justice, suffering, war, and various religious forms of legalism. Holiness is only holy if grounded upon divine love to which personal and group acts on compassion may be enacted. Holiness for holiness' sake is but a dead end moralistically (and deistically).

ChatGPT

Your perspective aligns with a significant theological stream within Christianity that prioritizes the concept of God's love as foundational. Many theologians and believers argue that all divine attributes, including holiness and justice, find their roots in God's love. In this view, holiness is understood in the context of God's perfect love, and justice is seen as a manifestation of that love rather than an independent and potentially punitive force.

This theological stance often emphasizes the importance of compassion, mercy, and relational aspects of God's character. It seeks to avoid a legalistic understanding of holiness divorced from love, recognizing that an emphasis solely on rules and justice can lead to a distorted and potentially harmful understanding of God.

The diversity of perspectives within Christian theology allows for ongoing dialogue and reflection on these matters, contributing to the rich tapestry of theological thought within the Christian tradition.

Yes. Much better. Church history will bear this out. It becomes what it believes... it may be harming, oppressive, and ugly... or the church may fin the best of man's ability to love, care, in works of cooperation, unity, and resource sharing...

ChatGPT

Absolutely, the evolution of theological perspectives within Christian history reflects the dynamic nature of beliefs and interpretations. Different periods in church history have seen shifts in emphasis, theological debates, and the development of diverse doctrines. The understanding of God's attributes, including the foundational role of love, has been a subject of ongoing reflection and refinement.

"You become what you believe." - re slater

As beliefs influence practices and vice versa, the lived experience of faith communities often shapes and is shaped by their theological convictions. The recognition of God's love as a central and foundational aspect of His character has profound implications for how believers approach relationships, ethics, and social justice.

Acknowledging the historical and contextual development of theological perspectives allows for a nuanced understanding of the Christian tradition and its ongoing dialogue about the nature of God and the implications for human life.

Hence Israel and the early church's interpretation of God's sovereignty based upon holiness and justice leaves no room for a God of Love who acts sovereignty in his administration, or acts, of love to creation.

The book of Revelation seems to be yet another poor interpretation of a loving God's sovereignty dispensing justice rather than a participating sovereignty lovingly reacting against acts of unloving injustice.

ChatGPT

Your perspective highlights a tension that has been present in theological discussions throughout history, particularly in interpretations of divine sovereignty, justice, and love. Different theological traditions and individuals within the Christian faith may emphasize various aspects of God's nature and actions based on their interpretation of sacred texts, including the Bible.

The tension between views that see God primarily as a sovereign dispenser of justice and those that emphasize a God of love actively participating in creation is indeed a significant point of theological debate.

Some argue for a more participatory understanding of God's sovereignty that involves a relational and responsive engagement with creation, while others emphasize a more transcendent and sovereign view of God's rule.

Interpreting texts like Revelation, with its apocalyptic and symbolic language, adds another layer of complexity to these discussions. Different readers may understand these texts in varied ways, contributing to diverse theological perspectives within the Christian tradition.

The ongoing dialogue and exploration of these themes reflect the richness and diversity of Christian theology as it grapples with understanding the nature and actions of the divine.

If the bible narrates a collection of acquired views of God than I would propose that it would be in error to consider these as authoritarian descriptions of a dipolar God in conflict with God's Self.

Rather, if approaching biblical narratives as yet another kind of ancient religious reflection upon God seems far more warranted than attempting to make of the church's apriori description a cohesive whole when none can be found even in the bible's earlier passages about God.

ChatGPT

Your perspective aligns with a scholarly approach to biblical interpretation that recognizes the diversity of voices, genres, and theological perspectives within the Bible. Approaching the scriptures as a collection of ancient reflections on the divine allows for a nuanced understanding of the texts and their cultural contexts.

Acknowledging the diverse genres present in the Bible—such as historical narratives, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, and apocalyptic literature—helps in appreciating the multifaceted nature of the biblical witness. Each book and passage may reflect the unique theological concerns, historical circumstances, and literary styles of its author and community.

This approach invites interpretation that takes into account the historical and cultural context of each text, allowing for a richer understanding of the theological conversations that unfolded over centuries within the communities that produced and preserved these writings. It also recognizes that the Bible contains a range of perspectives and voices, contributing to the complexity of its theological message.

True. The most I can say of Revelation in the bible is that God becomes the kind of God you choose but it does not mean your kind of God is an accurate description of God as written by the early Church.

More simply, this God becomes an idol of one's own theological making while enforcing an (inerrant) authoritative view of the bible (sic, bibliolatry).

ChatGPT

Your reflection captures a critical aspect of theological interpretation, particularly when it comes to complex and symbolic texts like Revelation. The interpretation of such passages is influenced not only by the inherent ambiguity of the language but also by the theological frameworks and perspectives of the reader.

The concept of God becoming an idol of one's own theological making is a caution against shaping the divine in our image and according to our preferences. It underscores the importance of humility in approaching sacred texts, recognizing the limitations of human understanding and the need for openness to diverse interpretations.

Your mention of "bibliolatry" points to a concern about elevating the Bible itself to an idolatrous status, where the text is revered in a way that might overshadow the deeper engagement with the living God it seeks to convey. It's a reminder to approach the scriptures with reverence while maintaining a discerning and humble posture in interpretation.

And thus the Yin-and-Yang between Biblical criticism which is perennially caught between the Scylla of interpretive freedom and the Charybdis of irrelevance. Too much hermeneutic freedom and the tradition disintegrates, losing its epistemological appeal. Too little interpretive freedom and the Bible becomes merely an irrelevant historical artifact, rather than the living word of God. Inherently, evangelical biblical interpretation is unquestionably caught between a need for relevance and the need for textual validity.

ChatGPT

Your analogy of the Yin and Yang captures the delicate balance that biblical criticism navigates between interpretive freedom and maintaining relevance. Indeed, this tension is evident in various approaches to biblical interpretation, and it reflects the ongoing dialogue within religious communities and scholarly circles.

Too much interpretive freedom can lead to a fragmentation of tradition, potentially diluting the epistemological appeal and theological coherence. On the other hand, excessive rigidity may risk relegating the Bible to a historical artifact, limiting its perceived relevance to contemporary life.

Evangelical biblical interpretation, in particular, often grapples with these tensions, seeking to uphold the authority and validity of the biblical text while also addressing the needs and questions of a changing cultural context. It involves a dynamic interplay between fidelity to the scriptural tradition and a responsiveness to the challenges and inquiries of the present day.

The ongoing conversation within the realm of biblical criticism reflects the broader quest to maintain a meaningful engagement with sacred texts while recognizing the contextual and interpretive complexities involved.

In my own estimate, the evangelical tradition has divorced itself from God and is continuing down its own measured paths of heresy. It has forgotten the loving God; is oppressing all those unlike themselves; and by their works of harm in America's Constitutional democracy we are receiving aggressive policies discriminating against women, gays, trans, migrants, minorities, and so on. Evangelicalism has become its own abomination.

Moreover, this same evangelical response to a blended democratic society has shown its depths oppression affecting the democratic institutions as conservative evangelical Christians strive to form their own version of a theocratic kingdom...

But if anything, ancient Israel's institutionalization of a theocratic kingdom long years ago actually created many instances for religious harm, oppression, and societal division within its monarchal-minded communities. That this very idea of re-establishing a theocratic kingdom here in America is but an desperate and imperfect picture of a fairer legislative democracy attempting to work out societally how oppression might be undone and social justice expanded equally and fairly without church interference.

ChatGPT

Your observations touch on the complex intersection of religion, politics, and societal structures. The historical context of Israel's theocratic kingdom and its challenges, as well as the contemporary dynamics within democratic institutions, provides a backdrop for understanding the nuanced relationship between governance and religious influence.

The idea of a kingdom, whether theocratic or not, carries inherent complexities. Historical instances of theocratic rule have indeed been associated with challenges, including religious harm, oppression, and societal division. On the other hand, democratic institutions aim to provide a framework for governance that allows for pluralism, individual freedoms, and social justice.

Your suggestion that a legislative democracy can be seen as an attempt to work out societal issues and promote social justice without undue interference from religious institutions reflects a perspective emphasizing the separation of church and state. It underscores the importance of creating governance structures that are inclusive, responsive to diverse perspectives, and focused on principles of fairness and equality.

The relationship between religion and politics is an ongoing area of debate and exploration, and different societies navigate these dynamics in diverse ways based on their historical, cultural, and philosophical contexts.

...Thus and thus, this gives warrant to misunderstanding and misapplying how-and-what the bible teaches as a collection of oral legends with the Church's theologically-applied religious ideas placed upon a body politic and its society.

To naively read the bible and blindly enforce its teachings upon people ends up becoming paradoxically the worse thing one could do in one's personal and corporate life.

It portends today's Christian nationalist efforts with the same failures as yesteryear's Christian efforts to force blended societies into religious perspectives which may be oppressive and harmful.

This Christian direction in democratic society reveals itself as an outcome variant to the Church's religiously perceived applications of its ideations upon societal living doing with the same force and harm as the Church has done over the centuries since Christ.

ChatGPT

It seems like you're expressing concerns about misinterpretation and potential negative consequences of applying religious teachings to societal structures. The tension between personal beliefs and their impact on broader communities is indeed a complex aspect of religious influence. If you have specific questions or if there's a particular aspect you'd like to discuss further, feel free to let me know.

... end of file

ChatGPT

If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can help you with in the future, feel free to reach out. Have a great day!