Here is the context:
http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum/topics/when-morality-becomes-literary?groupUrl=unbelievable&xg_source=msg_com_gr_forum&id=2060181%3ATopic%3A852292&groupId=2060181%3AGroup%3A1121&page=1#comments

My response:

It is a good thing that our society does not live on the basis of literary criticism. Surely there are not fixed text that says what is right and wrong driving, or business interaction, or payment of taxes. Nope, there sure is no standard of written down right and wrong. Anyone can just drive as they so please and everyone will be safe on the road. Anyone will conduct their business and their will always be honest interactions.
Please excuse the sarcasm, but I was using it to point out the fundamental fact that the writer opposing literary criticism has over looked the fact that our society have laws written down and lawyers are paid to argue over it. I think most democratic countries have a constitution of some kind (or is that just the US?) and judges are to rule from the "teaching" found in it (rather than making rules up from the bench).
The problem I found with the interaction was the Bible was not really handled rightly. The book dealing with the elders in the church (1-2Tim and Titus) was not even opened. Sure, a simplistic opening of the Bible to get what the Bible says about the matter is foolish, just as a superficial looking at the constitution would result in people think that the constitution was not clear on a given issue, when there may have been an entire section on the subject but was not pointed out or not taken into consideration. The instruction of the elder of the church is to be a husband of one wife.  (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) How is a female to be a husband of one wife? Where is the instruction for the female as an elder of the church? No where. It is they who hold to the ordination of females as elders, who need to present the positive case for it, when the Bible gives no provision for such a role.
To depart from the instruction given as ordination of Elders results in who wants what to happen rather than what does the Bible teach on the matter. The issue of the family and creation of male and female surely is a part of it, and related, but the instruction for the church is given in the verses above. It is to be a male. This does not say that males are better or smarter, but that the role is to be filled by a male. The issue of how one feels about or approves of a female elder is incidental. There are many-things that a sinner may not like about what the holy God has to say about on all kinds of subjects, but it is us who need to conform to God's standard rather than conforming the Bible to the sinners. The Bible says it is to be a man, who is a husband of one wife and so on. The church is not to distort the standard of God's word based on popular opinion. If the shifting sand is mere opinions, then there is no foundation. The foundation for the church is the Bible, and if one depart from it, they are being inconsistent to their faith. So, the issues it not literary study of God's word, but the negation or the overlooking of God's word. Justin did try to stick to the text of the Bible, but sadly it did not go into analyzing the text, the back ground, and so on, and it resorted to mere opinions.
The assumption of absolute egalitarianism is a false assumption that was being made, but yet not pointed out as the undermining humanity as God made them. For God did make humanity as male and female. They are one, united in Christ, but they do not loose their femaleness, or maleness. Their genders remain. Paul nowhere abolishes the male and female distinction. This false assumption may also be said to be at the roots of the problem with homosexuality (the lost of identity.. the first law of logic).
However, I even think that an atheist or other form of outsiders can appreciate this honest truthfulness, "That is what the Bible says, and those who claim to be honest Christians are committed to their Bible." They would say, "I don't agree with it, but I can respect that that is the foundation of their faith and they are seeking to keep to that foundation."

James,
Where you aware that there are written laws in your land? That law needs to be examined and applied? How is not your statement undermining all laws and contradicts?
There is no such thing as a single correct interpretation of a complex, multi-faceted, multi-authored and contradictory text like the bible.
Given your claim, then no text can be understood rightly, then why did you write what you just did? Note the problem. You are writing words to say that text has no single correct interpretation. You are either contradiction yourself by writing or you are wrong in writing the above statement. Deconstructionism is a false and foolish approach any text because it is self refuting.
Yes, there are right and wrong understandings of the Bible. The Bible stands as the standard from which one may be said to be falsely interpreting it. Take the text:

The Bible says that the Elder is to be "the husband of one wife", how would one distort that to mean that the elder is to be a female? IF you think the text can be distorted to mean that, then you would have to prove it from the text.
When the text is analyzed, your statement above is just too simplistic and self contradicting.

James,
I think even you know that I have read what you wrote and have soundly rejected it (though writing from work, resulting it being poorly written.) You are shifting to a less weak position which makes your statement inconsequential.

Your strong claim was:
Now your weak claim is that:

If your strong case was true (your claim that there is "NO such thing as a single correct interpretation.."), then your weak claim (there are some ambiguous in some text, and not in others) is false, and vise-verse. If you take the weak claim, as you just have, then your point is inconsequential, for who would object that there are wording and written works that have ambiguous meanings? Your current claim is inconsequential.

Given that weak claim, one would just work out/find-out where there are ambiguities. And try to understand it. Again, that is old fashion literary criticism in the sense of going back to the text to make out what it says.

Given also that you have not taken up the challenge on this subject from 1 Timothy 3, am I right to conclude that you agree that 1 Timothy 3 is not ambiguous on the subject of elders being males?
Let me summarize the problem with Deconstructionism:
    •    The problem is the universal claim that ALL text is ambiguous. This results in self destruction, as I have said.
    •    The other side is if one were to say that SOME text is ambiguous. This results in the claim being inconsequential, as I have said here.
Those are the options. (If you can think of anyway out of that. Please let me know.)

Charles Coryn wrote:



Hi Charles Coryn,

If that is who you really are. For the fact is, all I see is a little image of a older gentleman, and the text on my screen. I am assuming that you intend the 26 letters to form words and those words are supposed to communicate your thoughts or ideas. The letters I see are physical dots on my computer screen. You are using the means of letter and words to communicate the idea that you have. However, your ideas are not physical are they? For what atomic mass do ideas have? What ontology are thoughts? Or in your words, what "cells" or "fluids" do ideas have?

Then surely it follows that your idea that God is just a "reification" (or what have you) is itself a "reification". IF what you are saying is true, then your own words and thoughts are not being, not essences, not core, but are abstract/nonphysical "ideas" communicated to me by your use of words formed by letters.

If what you are saying is true, then maybe God does not exist, but then your very idea claiming that God does not exist, is an abstraction and itself does not exist; therefore I should not agree with your nonexistent idea. I was right to hold that God exist in the first place.

You asked: Can one of you kind folks please tell me what God is made of?

Jesus said, "God is spirit." John 4:24

Thanks for such a thought provoking post.