When a priest does it.

Like when the NRA explains the second amendment.

It is an example of eisegesis applied to the US Constitution. It is a biased interpretation of the words of the 2nd Amendment, based on faulty logic and a desire to make firearms ownership universal.

However, the words are generally used to describe two very different approaches to hermeneutics, the general term that describes Bible interpretation.

Often, amateur Bible "experts" switch back and forth between the two methods, depending on which one suits their immediate needs.

For example, attempting to apply current knowledge of cosmology to the Genesis creation story to somehow align the ancient words with modern information is eisegesis in action. It's an attempt to bend the actual words of an ancient mythological explanation to fit actual information. In reality, the story is what it is - an attempt to answer unanswerable questions of the long past, using language that made sense to the people who heard it. Trying to make that old myth fit in with modern discoveries requires the use of false logic - sophistry.

However, your priest example is not quite on point. It all depends on the denomination of the minister. The Catholic Church historically has interpreted scripture through exegisis. Other denominations may weave various amounts of eisegesis into their interpretations. There's a wide range of methods.

You're just making up your own.

Personally, I think it's entertaining to watch people try to force ancient scriptures to align with actual knowledge. The antics they get up to in doing that are often good for at least a chuckle or two.

Eisegetics is a relatively new thing, created because we keep getting more and more actual information that must somehow, be reconciled with the old mythological stories. Even today, however, a large group of fundamentalist Christians try to insist that the Bible is the only truth - every last damned word of it. Others, of course, recognizing the conflict between mythology and factual information, use varying degrees of sophistry to try to make them work together. Eventually, the Bible will be recognized by most educated people as the collection of myths and legends that it is.

Hasten the day.

The New Testament eisegetically interprets Old Testament quotes to make it look like it's pointing to Jesus. Ancient Jewish writings do the same thing. They claimed they were finding "hidden" meanings that were very different from the plain meaning of the text.

point back at those Old Testament prophesies. It may also have been edited by the Romans to make it fit those as well as lean toward a Roman perception of things.

It's all sold to followers that the Bible is "god-given truth." If people can believe that, the religion is successful. If not, it will ultimately fail.

But it doesn't hurt to actually be clear that when it happens it's a new religion rather than a continuation of the old one.

Religions allows eisegesis as a legitimate interpretation method. They've always done it. It's only when the eisegesis strays out of certain bounds that it becomes a new religion. The bounds are set by the leaders of the group. Religious splits are more about splits in authority than in practice or beliefs.

the LDS church is a good example, as is Christian Science. Both added scriptural equivalents to the Bible, which sometimes take precedence. There are other examples, but those are the most familiar.

I lived for about a year just about a mile from the Krotona Institue of Theosophy, near Ojai, California. It had a wonderful library which lent its books to pretty much anyone. That library was a fascinating place to visit, and had an array of books that couldn't be found easily anywhere else, some quite ancient and covering all manner of religious beliefs and occultism. I was a frequent patron.

http://www.krotonainstitute.org/

Mormons claim to be Christians, but many Christians claim they are not. Certainly creating a new scripture represents a sharp break.

accept people's statements about their religion at face value.

If someone claims to be a Christian, who am I to dispute that? On the other hand, if a person makes that claim, then I'll look at their behavior to see how well he or she follows the basic precepts of that religion.

Most don't do very well with that assessment, I've found. A very few people I have met, however, are very loyal to those precepts.

But I find it odd that so many of them want to make that decision for other people. Say what you will about the folks headquartered in Rome, they're the oldest and the biggest group in the club. I am not aware of a set of club rules which allows the founding members to be thrown out when they're an absolute majority.

is that there are so many different flavors of Christianity that there really are no "basic precepts" to compare with. Each denomination has its own interpretations and rules and guidelines. It doesn't help that the Bible has Jesus saying a lot of contradictory things, so people behaving in all kinds of different ways can correctly claim to be obeying his instructions.

But the followers will pick and choose what they like, decide on certain things being inviolable and form organizations around those while living with each other's differences. There are certainly some very notable examples suggesting authority is the central factor (Hello, Reformation! Say hello to Henry VIII!) but the trend line has very much been toward individuals making that call.

For example, if an individual decides he really doesn't like his group's stance on, say, gay marriage, he'll either head for a splinter sect of his own group, or switch to an entirely different congregation in search of like-minded believers. Most of two centuries ago, we'd have come up with some examples involving slavery. I'd also point out that the overwhelming majority of atheists split with a group over a refusal to hold those beliefs in the first place, and that's a pretty big chunk by itself.

Quite a history of that sort of thing, unfortunately.

Atheists are in danger of execution in some places, as well. Some Hindu sects, too, have been known to murder heretics.

In our own society, Muslims and Jews are the targets of some, and many have died.

Religion kills.

Murdering heretics, blasphemers, and infidels. It's just such a lot to sort out.

I'm a lumper; he's a lumper; she's a lumper, they are lumpers; wouldn't you like to be a lumper too?

The former is an honest academic pursuit, the latter is just bullshit.

He wrote in a style that was intentionally vague and people inferred clairvoyance from the inevitable consequences. When you are predisposed to believe in something without evidence, the mind will naturally seek evidence where none exists.

After something occurs lets you selectively read them to match events.