Superiority Complex.

[sentipente]

Lets say Bob and Joe read the verse that says "Love your neighbour as yourself". Lets say Bob takes that to mean "Love everyone on Earth because we are all neighbours in the global community". Joe, on the other hand, INTERPRETS it as "Love the person that owns property beside you."

Who is correct? The words themselves do not hold the answer as to who is correct. Its ambiguous. It requires interpretation. And no doubt you think your interpretation is correct. And no doubt I think my interpretation is correct. And no doubt Bob thinks his is correct, and Joe thinks his is correct.

Joe would be wrong because the person who owns property next to you could live in another state or continent, and the person who lives next to you may not own the property.

 

[Josiah14]

So... which one is it?

Are only those who are demonstrably "Christ-like" by means of the Holy Spirit Real Christians - or is there no discernible difference between the Saved and the Unsaved except for their beliefs concerning deity?

The parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew seems to contradict this idea.

Well, I can only speak on the Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective.

For the true Christian, all of life is a struggle in which, if you are acting in cooperation with the Grace of God, one is continually being sanctified. In other words, there is no line in the sand in this life where one can say 'at this point, I was not saved, and at this point, I am saved.' All of life, one is continually being saved through detaching the nous (the spiritual intellect) from all but God, who is Love.

So, the discernable difference between those being sanctified and those not is that those who are being sanctified are living a life of continual repentance. The true Christian must do everything he can in order to see within himself the potential for every evil, and then repent of it with all his might by relying totally on the Grace of God to keep him from falling into sin.

This is where the parable of the sheep and goats comes in. Those who truly see within themselves the potential for any and every sin, and who rely totally on God to be rescued from these things, they will consider themselves unworthy of Heaven, being so aware of their sins. These sheep will be recognized by their humility.

The goats, however, who think that correct theology, or great wisdom, or feats of asceticism, or hyper-religiosity, or some heartfelt confession of faith, etc. etc. etc., will save them, their arrogance and pride in thinking some endeaver of their own working could act as a means of justification to get them into heaven, these will be exposed as the goats. To take this further, anyone who tries to justify himself in any manner so as to not have to deal with his own defects and sinful tendancies is a victim of pride, and, thus, a goat, even if this means denying the existance of good and evil all-together.

 

[Josiah14]

Those being saved will experience growth in the fruits of the Spirit, which are:

Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.

Also, a decrease in the passions will be experienced. Major passions are:

Vainglory, avarice, gluttony, lust, anger, sorrow (as in, dwelling on the past in an uhealthy, sorrowful manner), despondency, pride.

 

[Josiah14]

Actually, I find that some of the worst interpretations of Scripture come from Christians who have NO grounding whatsoever in history, cultural studies or scriptural exegesis whatsoever, yet feel that having been "born again from above" somehow turns them into uber-scholars by default.
The theological stances they take are usually akin to what we find in that "Jesus loves you"-thread. It gets worse when they belong to the "King James only"-crowd, while simultaneously reading Early Modern English as if the language hadn't changed at all between the 17th and 21st century.

Most theology students I've met so far, on the other hand, have always been quite engaging discussion partners, on account of being supplied with sufficient background knowledge to *really* make sense of the texts.

Scholasticism is a problematic way to go about understandig the Scriptures, and Chrsitianity in general. That is the downfall of most of Western Christianity.

If you really want to understand the Scriptures, you will have to put some time and effort into it. You need to do your very best to keep the commandments and follow the teachings of Christ in the Gospels. Forsake idolatry, avarice, lust, pride, resentment, etc. and acquire Love, Peace, and Humility. Resist the passions, rely on God, love God, love every person you meet, and then you will begin to understand the Scriptures.

 

[JohnCR]

I'd feel better about entertaining a non-believers grasp on scripture if they did not constantly toss out hackneyed interpretations, which is why citing scripture to them is equally so a futile endeavor.

Citing scripture is a futile endeavor with NCs because non-Christians don't see any authority in the Bible. You might as well be quoting Shakespeare.

 

[JohnCR]

Scholasticism is a problematic way to go about understandig the Scriptures, and Chrsitianity in general. That is the downfall of most of Western Christianity.

If you really want to understand the Scriptures, you will have to put some time and effort into it. You need to do your very best to keep the commandments and follow the teachings of Christ in the Gospels. Forsake idolatry, avarice, lust, pride, resentment, etc. and acquire Love, Peace, and Humility. Resist the passions, rely on God, love God, love every person you meet, and then you will begin to understand the Scriptures.

I disagree. It would certainly help people to better understand the scriptures if they knew the context with which they were written. Have you ever watched an old political Saturday Night Live skit? A lot of times it is referring to something that has passed and would have very little meaning to us. If in 20 years a rerun of SNL has a skit about the BP oil spill, then any watcher who didn't know about the spill would be lost.

Knowing the history better would certainly help someone understand the Bible.

 

[Josiah14]

I disagree. It would certainly help people to better understand the scriptures if they knew the context with which they were written. Have you ever watched an old political Saturday Night Live skit? A lot of times it is referring to something that has passed and would have very little meaning to us. If in 20 years a rerun of SNL has a skit about the BP oil spill, then any watcher who didn't know about the spill would be lost.

Knowing the history better would certainly help someone understand the Bible.

Well, to a certain degree, I agree with that. I still hold to my statement, though, that interpreting the Scriptures within the context of struggling against your sinful desires is the best way to understand them.

However, I do not deny that gaining a knowledge of history, the writings of the Early Church Fathers and Desert Ascetics, and learning about the environment and context in which the Scriptures were written can be a fruitful endeaver.

However, it would be difficult for one to come to the conclusion that, where the Psalmist says "blessed is he who dashes his infants against the rock", he means 'give up your first innocent thoughts, which lead to sin, to God and banish them from your mind', if the interpreter of the verse has never tried to control his thoughts.

Further, the Early Fathers of the Church came to the conclusions they did (some of which are recorded in writings) not through extensive study of history and theology, but through sincerely and earnestly repenting of their sins.

 

[b&wpac4]

However, it would be difficult for one to come to the conclusion that, where the Psalmist says "blessed is he who dashes his infants against the rock", he means 'give up your first innocent thoughts, which lead to sin, to God and banish them from your mind', if the interpreter of the verse has never tried to control his thoughts.

But that's not what the verse is talking about at all. It doesn't mean what you are suggesting at all. Where would you even get that from the text? This is discussing the fall of Babylon and what those who destroy Babylon will do.

 

[Josiah14]

But that's not what the verse is talking about at all. It doesn't mean what you are suggesting at all. Where would you even get that from the text? This is discussing the fall of Babylon and what those who destroy Babylon will do.

It means both. The correlation is in the tearing down of the Babylon within your soul.

The demons and passions lay waste to the soul. Weeping by the waters of Babylon is weeping for your sins, weeping over the destruction of your soul and over your separation from God. If your soul has become a 'strange land', how can you sing the Lord's song? This Psalm, Psalm 136 (137 MT), is about who who has become corrupted by sin, remembers the presence of God he once enjoyed, and begins to desire repentence.

This, at least, the interpretation I gathered from my Church's teachings. Someone wiser than I culd probably go much deeper than that, but, I think, will suffice for now.

 

[b&wpac4]

It means both. The correlation is in the tearing down of the Babylon within your soul.

Ah, this is one of those "it means 2/5/10/1000" things.

I'll just stop commenting.

 

[Josiah14]

Ah, this is one of those "it means 2/5/10/1000" things.

I'll just stop commenting.

Oh no, please dont stop commenting on my account:o.

The thing about, at least Orthodox Christianity, is that the Scriptures, particularly in the OT, tend to have a historical meaning for the Jews, as well as a spiritual meaning that often relies heavily on symbolism. For us, God's whole plan for salvation, from God's promise to Abraham, to Christ's resurrection and ascention into heaven, to the restoration of mens' souls today, is all intimately interconnected and complimentary (as in, each aspect of salvation complements the others).

 

[b&wpac4]

Oh no, please dont stop commenting on my account:o.

I just know from experience once we enter the multiple meaning talks, I just have nothing to say. You want to believe it means other things, that's fine.

 

[Josiah14]

I just know from experience once we enter the multiple meaning talks, I just have nothing to say. You want to believe it means other things, that's fine.

Want? No, I'd rather believe life is easy, and repentance is a nice theory that doesnt need practiced, lol. It's not a matter of want, but more a matter of my personal experience. I struggled against my sinful tendancies in college not so much because I had so much faith in God, but because in order to function in society, I had to struggle. That struggling lead me to Orthodox Christianity, because, quite bluntly, it works. I follow the praxis of the Church, and my passions are conquered. That is the evidence, for me, that Jesus is the God of the Orthodox Church.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Oh no, please dont stop commenting on my account:o.

The thing about, at least Orthodox Christianity, is that the Scriptures, particularly in the OT, tend to have a historical meaning for the Jews, as well as a spiritual meaning that often relies heavily on symbolism. For us, God's whole plan for salvation, from God's promise to Abraham, to Christ's resurrection and ascention into heaven, to the restoration of mens' souls today, is all intimately interconnected and complimentary (as in, each aspect of salvation complements the others).

In other words:

"ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS." (II Timothy 3:16)

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

Doesn't everyone "twist" the Bible to some degree though? I mean, it requires interpretation for a lot of things hence why half the sections on this website consist of Christians debating and pondering the meaning of certain verses.

Lets say Bob and Joe read the verse that says "Love your neighbour as yourself". Lets say Bob takes that to mean "Love everyone on Earth because we are all neighbours in the global community". Joe, on the other hand, INTERPRETS it as "Love the person that owns property beside you."

Who is correct? The words themselves do not hold the answer as to who is correct. Its ambiguous. It requires interpretation. And no doubt you think your interpretation is correct. And no doubt I think my interpretation is correct. And no doubt Bob thinks his is correct, and Joe thinks his is correct.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

That person is correct in his interpretation of Scripture who agrees with His Lord, God, and Savior's interpretation of the Scripture--i.e. as illustrated by the Parable of the God Samaritan--Luke 10:29-37.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Glass*Soul]

Citing scripture is a futile endeavor with NCs because non-Christians don't see any authority in the Bible. You might as well be quoting Shakespeare.

Sorry to take so long to address this, but I think there's an important point to be made here.

Authority can accrue in (at least) two fashions. It can be imputed or discerned. A skeptic is unlikely to bow to an imputed authority. If you say to a skeptic that this and such scripture must be followed because it was inspired by God and therefore is authoritative, then you are right in thinking that you aren't going to get too far. However, if you can show that the scripture at hand has a discernible authority to it, in that it has proven itself true in practical application or rings true according to the human experience or has been demonstrated to be true by the study of history, etc., then you're going to get somewhere.

Interestingly, if the former is correct, you shouldn't have any trouble with the latter. What this means, if you intend to quote scripture, is that you're going to have to go to a little more trouble than merely doing a copy and paste, dusting your hands off and walking away. You have to explain to your reader how s/he can discern that it is authoritative.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I'd feel better about entertaining a non-believers grasp on scripture if they did not constantly toss out hackneyed interpretations, which is why citing scripture to them is equally so a futile endeavor.

MY FRIEND,

Without the Holy Spirit to guide and interpret, the Bible is pretty much written in a foreign language--especially for those with an agenda of debunking God by attempting to twist His written Word to their own ends.

It is a tragedy that Abba's Love Letter to His children should be ridiculed and defiled in this way.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

See, this is what I was saying from the beginning. When I quote a scripture I often get rapped on the knuckles no matter what interpretation I'm attaching to it or what practical use I've put it to. There are those who take one look at my avatar and want to grab my bible right out of my hands.

I try to take what little scholarship I have to my study, and I will admit that my scholarship is not what I wish it would be. I went to a fundamentalist Bible College and got a second rate education. Bad decision on my part and one that I am trying to correct by self study and hope to correct more formally some day. What I constantly try not to take along are hackneyed interpretations from either side of the debate. But it's difficult. The interpretations I was taught in my youth hem the scriptures around with obscurity and a sense of taboo.

I don't accept that you are always right because you are a Christian nor that I am always wrong because I am not. Nor do I assume the opposite. At the very least, when I quote scriptures I am expressing an openness to dialogue about it, but there are those who can only express pique that I have presumed to do so.

And, by the way, it was written in a foreign language but I know what you mean.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Well, I can only speak on the Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective.

For the true Christian, all of life is a struggle in which, if you are acting in cooperation with the Grace of God, one is continually being sanctified. In other words, there is no line in the sand in this life where one can say 'at this point, I was not saved, and at this point, I am saved.' All of life, one is continually being saved through detaching the nous (the spiritual intellect) from all but God, who is Love.

So, the discernable difference between those being sanctified and those not is that those who are being sanctified are living a life of continual repentance. The true Christian must do everything he can in order to see within himself the potential for every evil, and then repent of it with all his might by relying totally on the Grace of God to keep him from falling into sin.

This is where the parable of the sheep and goats comes in. Those who truly see within themselves the potential for any and every sin, and who rely totally on God to be rescued from these things, they will consider themselves unworthy of Heaven, being so aware of their sins. These sheep will be recognized by their humility.

The goats, however, who think that correct theology, or great wisdom, or feats of asceticism, or hyper-religiosity, or some heartfelt confession of faith, etc. etc. etc., will save them, their arrogance and pride in thinking some endeaver of their own working could act as a means of justification to get them into heaven, these will be exposed as the goats. To take this further, anyone who tries to justify himself in any manner so as to not have to deal with his own defects and sinful tendancies is a victim of pride, and, thus, a goat, even if this means denying the existance of good and evil all-together.

Thank you for your reply. I'm woefully under-informed as to the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox church, so I value this information. The awareness of one's potential for sin is not a concept I normally would take away from this story. What has impressed me the most about the parable of late is the unknowingness with which the sheep have done the things they have done. They had no idea whom they were serving. The service was done in complete innocence. Apparently it was not impediment to them entering the kingdom that they failed to grasp the mystery that those whom they served were Christ.

(I also find it fascinating that to serve is Christ and to be in need is Christ.)

 

[JohnCR]

See, this is what I was saying from the beginning. When I quote a scripture I often get rapped on the knuckles no matter what interpretation I'm attaching to it or what practical use I've put it to. There are those who take one look at my avatar and want to grab my bible right out of my hands.

I try to take what little scholarship I have to my study, and I will admit that my scholarship is not what I wish it would be. I went to a fundamentalist Bible College and got a second rate education. Bad decision on my part and one that I am trying to correct by self study and hope to correct more formally some day. What I constantly try not to take along are hackneyed interpretations from either side of the debate. But it's difficult. The interpretations I was taught in my youth hem the scriptures around with obscurity and a sense of taboo.

I don't accept that you are always right because you are a Christian nor that I am always wrong because I am not. Nor do I assume the opposite. At the very least, when I quote scriptures I am expressing an openness to dialogue about it, but there are those who can only express pique that I have presumed to do so.

And, by the way, it was written in a foreign language but I know what you mean.

Basically, if you are not Christian, Christians will always assume you are misunderstanding and misusing scripture. I mean, clearly anyone who takes issue with what the Bible says is just confused. Is that the gist of what you're saying? Granted, I will admit that I think most people who disagree with Evolution are just ill-informed or confused. Hypocritical? You betcha.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Basically, if you are not Christian, Christians will always assume you are misunderstanding and misusing scripture. I mean, clearly anyone who takes issue with what the Bible says is just confused. Is that the gist of what you're saying? Granted, I will admit that I think most people who disagree with Evolution are just ill-informed or confused. Hypocritical? You betcha.

I believe the assumption is that they possess a faculty for understanding it that I constitutionally lack. Conversely, the evidence that I do not possess this faculty is that my conclusions differ.

Quite tidy.

Luckily, not all Christians take this stance and many good dialogues have ensued. It's just frustrating when someone does.

I'm trying to make a resolution to pay more attention to those who are willing to engage me in dialogue even when they think I am in error, while disregarding the objections those who wish to exclude me from the discussion. Why should I let a vocal few color my entire outlook on a body of believers? It's neither fair to them nor to myself. The thing that's red and waving madly in front of me is not necessarily the most important thing to focus on.