Well, I'm not a Christian (whatever that is) but I think that it's because people have different assumptions and pressupositions that color their interpretations of the world.
This would include those people who wrote the Bible. Maybe this is why the Bible contains contradictions in it. Different people saw things differently and those who try to interpret what they wrote carry assumptions and pressupositions that color their interpretations of the Bible.
It's the same reason why God's existence and the ressurrection of Christ can't be demonstrated. Reason is not neutral. It does not stand without without bias and prejudgement overlooking the evidence. It is not bias free (at least on matters of fundamental human concern.) Believing is very often seeing. We cannot get the view from nowhere and check our beliefs against the facts independent of our beliefs. We are stuck both within ourselves and the world as it presents itelf to us. We cannot stand outside ourselves to compare our beliefs to the reality we suppose they tell us about. We cannot get the view from nowhere. Especialy with respect to gods. We are finite and limited creatures who cannot transcend finite human limitations and completely grasp the Divine reality. I guess I could be wrong about this.
This question really bothered me for a long time. I finally acquiesced to the reality that only one of a few options exists.
1) Many Christians argue that the reason man is incapable of understanding is sin. God wants to save him but his mind is "darkened" by the effects of his corrupted nature. This argument cannot be the sufficient condition for our lack of clarity and precision in interpreting "sacred" text. How could you possibly know the interpretation that you have chosen is the correct interpretation. There is no possible way any christian could have any assurance of salvation.
2) Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards were right. Man is hopelessly fallen and God chooses whom he will save and draws them irresistibly. The only problem with this schema is that it ultimately makes God unworthy of our worship and affection. He become a tyrant who punishes retarded children because they were born retarded.
3) It's a human book and a compilation of many religions morphed into one. It is no more sacred than National Geographic. People read into the text what they want to read into the text. This results in an evolution of doctrines and sacraments that will continue to fracture and fragment with ever increasing numbers of denominations arising and being formed. Today you can't find a consensus in a church over much of anything from Christology to eschatology. If there is a God and He was and is responsible for superintending the revelation of His attributes and character and will for man, he is incompetent.
The whole Biblical record was continually evolving. Lets just take the New Testament. Jesus is the supreme “sinless” example for ALL Christians. This assumes that EXACTLY and ONLY the life Jesus lived in the Gospels was sinless. Thus, any deviation form that SET life as lived only by Jesus would incur sin, especially on major points of the God given Jewish law that Jesus kept.
Here are a couple of major points already changed in the book of Acts.:
Jesus ONLY ate Kosher Jewish foods. Yet, soon after Jesus’ death, Peter has a vision on the roof top (Acts 10: 9 - 16) telling him to disregard Jesus’ sinless example and “kill and eat” non Kosher food. As such, Christians can eat a ham sandwich and feel very holy; this despite the anti pig stories Jesus used to illustrate the unholy life in the Gospels.
Jesus worshiped on the Sabbath Day (Saturday), but the book of Acts has this changed to Sunday.
What we find already in Acts is a Jewish (sinless) Jesus whose life was an example is soon out dated and in many places his “sinless life” is flat out later rejected.
God's grace allows for various understandings - When Jesus stood in a crowd and asked who they thought He was, He didn't take offense or rush to correct their responses. However, when one responded with insight, Jesus acknowledged him as a rock on which the church would be built.
Sadly, many Christians would disagree with this statement. Indeed, I would guess that MMM would also disagree, if I used it to illustrate a simple point:
My understanding is that the bible is false and/or mythology, with a dash of legend, and very little in the way of historical fact.
It's a good thing god's grace allows for my understanding.
Of course, there are plenty of unrelenting Christians who insist that only one interpretation is accurate (the one they hold), and that all others are "false converts", or possibly something even more sinister.
The point of the question, and the truth in the inability to answer the question without rendering the bible as unnecessary, is that no one can say. Since no one can say which interpretation is correct, without relying on personal revelation, then we are left to decide for ourselves. With no direct interaction on god's part (except the personal kind, if we allow it as a possibility), there is no standard against which different interpretations can be measured.
Tell you what -- we can settle it Elijah-style. I'll put some meat on my Weber barbeque, but I won't light it. Whichever Christian's interpretation of the bible is correct will succeed in getting god to magically light the charcoal. I'll provide the beer.
My comment on Living In Reply inspired a blog entry there and now here on one of my favorite blogs! Woo hoo!
Ok, I'm calm now. ;)
To be honest I asked the question because it was one of the questions that led to my deconversion. If God is not the author of chaos then how do you explain the multiple denominations all based on the supposed word of God? They all claim to be led by the holy spirit.
Mmm, Y’shua loves us all and we will all be in Heaven just as Origen (185 - 254) believed. Even Satan and all the demons will be there.
So why should we NOT debunk Christianity and have some fun with the belief system since all creation will be returned to God? This includes all atheist along with all Christian sects and denomination will be universally “saved”.
This is why you can hurt someone’s faith…destroy it…crush it since we are all loved and universally saved by Y’shua.
If salvation was based feelings, and understanding, we would all be in eternal trouble. So sit back and have some fun with the auto pilot salvation ystem at other peoples expense.
Remember, Y’shua universally will save everything.
Lee, great comment. It was extremely articulate and well-written. I especially loved the line, "If there is a God and He was and is responsible for superintending the revelation of His attributes and character and will for man, he is incompetent." Ha! That is a perferct description.
Hi Stan and Harry - Stan, Jesus is the one that said that both weeds and wheat are allowed to mature. I didn't make that up.
Harry, you're right-God does love all,but not all love Him and connect with Him in return. Pretty wild,eh? He doesn't condemn,but people seem to get caught up in that. I had a hard time believing the non-condemnation clause because of the example of people in my life.
As far as multiple denominations, I think it is a sign of graciousness and creativity - I'm not threatened by it but I know some who try to use denominational diversity to express something other than love. They're really missing out and hurting themselves and others.
Either understanding the bible is necessary or it is not. If it is, then it has been a complete failure and is indicative of an imperfect god.
If it is not necessary then why bother with it?
Anybody who says there is only one true interpretation of the bible is not asking you to have faith in god but in the person who supposedly knows what that one true interpretation is.
jazzycat, the problem is that a lot of Christians claim they are right and they claim that because they are True Christians and they have the Holy Spirit who leads them to the correct understanding. Those other so called Christians that disagree with them aren't True Christians so they don't have the Holy Spirit.
Why doesn't the Holy Spirit correct them?
Few Christians would disagree that the 66 books in our current Bible are the perfect word of God. The Holy Spirit made a slam dunk with that one as far as they are concerned, but then they can't even agree on something as simple as baptism or communion.
So yes, the problem is imperfect men who are supposedly guided by a perfect God.
An interesting passage I found today regarding this...
"The point is that Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible to be inspired, but their reasons for so believing are inadequate. In reality this conviction can be based only on an authority established by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church.
And this is where a more serious problem comes to light. It seems to some that it makes little difference why one believes in the Bible’s inspiration, just so long as one believes in it. But the basis for one’s belief in its inspiration directly affects how one proceeds to interpret the Bible. The Catholic believes in inspiration because, to put it bluntly, the Church tells him so and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text. Fundamentalists believe in inspiration, though on weak grounds, but they have no interpreting authority other than themselves. "
Unfortunately, a lot of people will see 'catholic' and outright be put on the defensive rather than being objective and trying to understand what is being said. Due to where history has led us, most people are scared of 'authority' and going to someone else for help. 'Me first' has become the light of the day, the emphasis being on what ONE person see's them self rather that what is truly there which many people see.
13 comments:
Well, I'm not a Christian (whatever that is) but I think that it's because people have different assumptions and pressupositions that color their interpretations of the world.
This would include those people who wrote the Bible. Maybe this is why the Bible contains contradictions in it. Different people saw things differently and those who try to interpret what they wrote carry assumptions and pressupositions that color their interpretations of the Bible.
It's the same reason why God's existence and the ressurrection of Christ can't be demonstrated. Reason is not neutral. It does not stand without without bias and prejudgement overlooking the evidence. It is not bias free (at least on matters of fundamental human concern.) Believing is very often seeing. We cannot get the view from nowhere and check our beliefs against the facts independent of our beliefs. We are stuck both within ourselves and the world as it presents itelf to us. We cannot stand outside ourselves to compare our beliefs to the reality we suppose they tell us about. We cannot get the view from nowhere. Especialy with respect to gods. We are finite and limited creatures who cannot transcend finite human limitations and completely grasp the Divine reality.
I guess I could be wrong about this.
This question really bothered me for a long time. I finally acquiesced to the reality that only one of a few options exists.
1) Many Christians argue that the reason man is incapable of understanding is sin. God wants to save him but his mind is "darkened" by the effects of his corrupted nature. This argument cannot be the sufficient condition for our lack of clarity and precision in interpreting "sacred" text. How could you possibly know the interpretation that you have chosen is the correct interpretation. There is no possible way any christian could have any assurance of salvation.
2) Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards were right. Man is hopelessly fallen and God chooses whom he will save and draws them irresistibly. The only problem with this schema is that it ultimately makes God unworthy of our worship and affection. He become a tyrant who punishes retarded children because they were born retarded.
3) It's a human book and a compilation of many religions morphed into one. It is no more sacred than National Geographic. People read into the text what they want to read into the text. This results in an evolution of doctrines and sacraments that will continue to fracture and fragment with ever increasing numbers of denominations arising and being formed. Today you can't find a consensus in a church over much of anything from Christology to eschatology.
If there is a God and He was and is responsible for superintending the revelation of His attributes and character and will for man, he is incompetent.
The whole Biblical record was continually evolving. Lets just take the New Testament. Jesus is the supreme “sinless” example for ALL Christians. This assumes that EXACTLY and ONLY the life Jesus lived in the Gospels was sinless. Thus, any deviation form that SET life as lived only by Jesus would incur sin, especially on major points of the God given Jewish law that Jesus kept.
Here are a couple of major points already changed in the book of Acts.:
Jesus ONLY ate Kosher Jewish foods. Yet, soon after Jesus’ death, Peter has a vision on the roof top (Acts 10: 9 - 16) telling him to disregard Jesus’ sinless example and “kill and eat” non Kosher food. As such, Christians can eat a ham sandwich and feel very holy; this despite the anti pig stories Jesus used to illustrate the unholy life in the Gospels.
Jesus worshiped on the Sabbath Day (Saturday), but the book of Acts has this changed to Sunday.
What we find already in Acts is a Jewish (sinless) Jesus whose life was an example is soon out dated and in many places his “sinless life” is flat out later rejected.
God's grace allows for various understandings - When Jesus stood in a crowd and asked who they thought He was, He didn't take offense or rush to correct their responses. However, when one responded with insight, Jesus acknowledged him as a rock on which the church would be built.
God's grace allows for various understandings
Sadly, many Christians would disagree with this statement. Indeed, I would guess that MMM would also disagree, if I used it to illustrate a simple point:
My understanding is that the bible is false and/or mythology, with a dash of legend, and very little in the way of historical fact.
It's a good thing god's grace allows for my understanding.
Of course, there are plenty of unrelenting Christians who insist that only one interpretation is accurate (the one they hold), and that all others are "false converts", or possibly something even more sinister.
The point of the question, and the truth in the inability to answer the question without rendering the bible as unnecessary, is that no one can say. Since no one can say which interpretation is correct, without relying on personal revelation, then we are left to decide for ourselves. With no direct interaction on god's part (except the personal kind, if we allow it as a possibility), there is no standard against which different interpretations can be measured.
Tell you what -- we can settle it Elijah-style. I'll put some meat on my Weber barbeque, but I won't light it. Whichever Christian's interpretation of the bible is correct will succeed in getting god to magically light the charcoal. I'll provide the beer.
--
Stan
Well...now I've died and gone to...
My comment on Living In Reply inspired a blog entry there and now here on one of my favorite blogs! Woo hoo!
Ok, I'm calm now. ;)
To be honest I asked the question because it was one of the questions that led to my deconversion. If God is not the author of chaos then how do you explain the multiple denominations all based on the supposed word of God? They all claim to be led by the holy spirit.
Mmm, Y’shua loves us all and we will all be in Heaven just as Origen (185 - 254) believed. Even Satan and all the demons will be there.
So why should we NOT debunk Christianity and have some fun with the belief system since all creation will be returned to God? This includes all atheist along with all Christian sects and denomination will be universally “saved”.
This is why you can hurt someone’s faith…destroy it…crush it since we are all loved and universally saved by Y’shua.
If salvation was based feelings, and understanding, we would all be in eternal trouble. So sit back and have some fun with the auto pilot salvation ystem at other peoples expense.
Remember, Y’shua universally will save everything.
Isn't God wonderful?
Peace!
Lee, great comment. It was extremely articulate and well-written. I especially loved the line, "If there is a God and He was and is responsible for superintending the revelation of His attributes and character and will for man, he is incompetent." Ha! That is a perferct description.
Hi Stan and Harry - Stan, Jesus is the one that said that both weeds and wheat are allowed to mature. I didn't make that up.
Harry, you're right-God does love all,but not all love Him and connect with Him in return. Pretty wild,eh? He doesn't condemn,but people seem to get caught up in that. I had a hard time believing the non-condemnation clause because of the example of people in my life.
As far as multiple denominations, I think it is a sign of graciousness and creativity - I'm not threatened by it but I know some who try to use denominational diversity to express something other than love. They're really missing out and hurting themselves and others.
At any rate,the best to you.
3M
Either understanding the bible is necessary or it is not. If it is, then it has been a complete failure and is indicative of an imperfect god.
If it is not necessary then why bother with it?
Anybody who says there is only one true interpretation of the bible is not asking you to have faith in god but in the person who supposedly knows what that one true interpretation is.
Could the problem possibly be with imperfect men and not with a perfect God?
jazzycat, the problem is that a lot of Christians claim they are right and they claim that because they are True Christians and they have the Holy Spirit who leads them to the correct understanding. Those other so called Christians that disagree with them aren't True Christians so they don't have the Holy Spirit.
Why doesn't the Holy Spirit correct them?
Few Christians would disagree that the 66 books in our current Bible are the perfect word of God. The Holy Spirit made a slam dunk with that one as far as they are concerned, but then they can't even agree on something as simple as baptism or communion.
So yes, the problem is imperfect men who are supposedly guided by a perfect God.
An interesting passage I found today regarding this...
"The point is that Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible to be inspired, but their reasons for so believing are inadequate. In reality this conviction can be based only on an authority established by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church.
And this is where a more serious problem comes to light. It seems to some that it makes little difference why one believes in the Bible’s inspiration, just so long as one believes in it. But the basis for one’s belief in its inspiration directly affects how one proceeds to interpret the Bible. The Catholic believes in inspiration because, to put it bluntly, the Church tells him so and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text. Fundamentalists believe in inspiration, though on weak grounds, but they have no interpreting authority other than themselves. "
http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
Unfortunately, a lot of people will see 'catholic' and outright be put on the defensive rather than being objective and trying to understand what is being said. Due to where history has led us, most people are scared of 'authority' and going to someone else for help. 'Me first' has become the light of the day, the emphasis being on what ONE person see's them self rather that what is truly there which many people see.
Post a Comment