Theology Discussions

[dark-in-the-whale]

Just thought I should point out that if Scripture may be interpreted merely as the individual decides it should be, in a completely subjective fashion, then Scripture quickly becomes meaningless; for when a thing may mean anything it ultimately means nothing. Take for example a traffic stop sign. If each driver may interpret the meaning of the sign any way they please, the sign can no longer be said to mean any particular thing. It may mean "stop" but it could just as likely, and legitimately, mean "don't forget to eat your vegetables" - it all depends upon the individual. As you can imagine, the results of interpreting a stop sign in such a subjective manner could be quite disastrous. In the same way, approaching Scripture with the idea that the verses that constitute it have no single, established, objective meaning, ultimately renders Scripture meaningless. And when Scripture has been contorted to mean what it doesn't, the results have been devastating. A brief look at the various cults that have borrowed from the Bible provide examples of what I mean.

It is not "progressive" and it is certainly not logical to approach Scripture with the idea that the reader holds the key to its meaning. Such thinking is simply deluded and destructive.

(I posted this before I saw that Van had written more or less what I've written above. Let's just say this is my way of agreeing with him.)

Peace.

I'm not interpreting in a subjective fashion. I'm studying recent scholarship and I'm a member of a Lectio Divina group led by an ordained minister. I am aware that certain people impose allegories on scripture that were not intended. Augustine was terrible at this (ref. his interpretation of the Good Samaritan).

My concern is that certain literalists do the same thing by imposing allegories which they claim are the real version but which in fact serve their own agendas.

Speaking of allegories, Augustine did a really deadly job on the parable of the Good Samaritan.

By insisting that scripture is multileveled I'm arguing that on one level it is literature and its conventions need to be respected as intentional. I believe that stories and parables were told not for their literal meaning but for a secondary meaning. This is how Christ, as well as the OT Rabbis, encouraged fresh insights. These are not misinterpretations.

See Rev. Klyne Snodgrass "Stories with Intent."

 

[wayseer]

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something?

In a word - Yes.

While you point what you see as 'inconsistencies' within theological debate you apparently fail to acknowledge the same 'inconsistencies' occur within science. While science allows for such 'inconsistencies' it appears you won't allow theology the same prerogative.

 

[ebia]

Reminder to all - this is Exploring Christianity.

Christian posters should confine themselves to the Opening Poster's questions and must not engage in discussion with other Christians.

 

[Paul G West Sr]

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in becoming a Christian, but am honestly interested in the answer to this question in order to better understand my fellow man. (including a rather cute literalist-Christian I know... but I'm going off-topic).

Anyway, there can be no discussion on the fact that different Christians hold different opinions on pretty core principles of Christianity. Browsing the Theology forum, you see discussions on who exactly will be saved, what kind of after life is reserved for those who are not saved, how/why evil/sin happens, etc.

Now, I've noticed that many of these discussions involve one party posting a Bible verse supporting their own stance, followed by the other party posting a different Bible verse that supports their stance (and thus, often claiming the exact opposite).

Just as an example, Matthew 25: 41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[g] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”

Now, the straightforward way to interpret this is that refraining from performing good deeds (feeding the poor etc) is going to get you send to eternal torment.

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

(ofcourse, more 'liberal' Christians won't have a problem since they can just chalk up the inconsistencies to human error or something)

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

 

[Paul G West Sr]

Mystman, It is good to hear from one who is not determined to refuse inconsistencies, in the Bible. I have just finished a book and am looking for a publisher, that I may entitle Rebel Theologian. I too find many inconsistencies in the Bible, and while most Theologians whom I have listened to over the years invariably will not admit that there are any inconsistencies, I find no reason to deny them, nor have they diminished my love for Triune God, or my faith been dimished in the slightest! In fact, I believe the inconsistencies are there on purpose to increase one's faith! I'll leave that for some of other readers to ponder for now.

I do not want to give away the entire premise(s) of my book, but wouldn't you (or anyone) be more interested in the Bible if inconsistencies did not cause the Bible to lose it's credibility? I have no need for absolute perfection in the Word of God, especially if I know the reason for the inconsistencies

Paul G. West, Sr.

 

[aiki]

This is a long-dead thread. It's from 2009!

 

[Paul G West Sr]

Aiki: Can a important discussion really die? I read it for the first time two days ago.

 

[Paul G West Sr]

Reminder to all - this is Exploring Christianity.

Christian posters should confine themselves to the Opening Poster's questions and must not engage in discussion with other Christians.

Ebia,

I'm sorry if I have posted something inappropriate. I definitely need some training in forum etiquette, and how it all works. I can't figure out how to get around and what all the nomenclature means?

 

[FatalFantasy]

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in becoming a Christian, but am honestly interested in the answer to this question in order to better understand my fellow man. (including a rather cute literalist-Christian I know... but I'm going off-topic).

Anyway, there can be no discussion on the fact that different Christians hold different opinions on pretty core principles of Christianity. Browsing the Theology forum, you see discussions on who exactly will be saved, what kind of after life is reserved for those who are not saved, how/why evil/sin happens, etc.

Now, I've noticed that many of these discussions involve one party posting a Bible verse supporting their own stance, followed by the other party posting a different Bible verse that supports their stance (and thus, often claiming the exact opposite).

Just as an example, Matthew 25: 41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[g] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”

Now, the straightforward way to interpret this is that refraining from performing good deeds (feeding the poor etc) is going to get you send to eternal torment.

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

(ofcourse, more 'liberal' Christians won't have a problem since they can just chalk up the inconsistencies to human error or something)

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

Christianity is known as the way, not some hypocritical, shallow, meaningless talk. It's a way for us to connect to the spiritual essence that is our creator.

Obviously you didn't create yourself, your parents didn't build you atom by atom. No one made anything or anyone, it's all made for us by something else. We should at least keep our minds open for a meaning & purpose of existence, because you just can't take your Xbox with you when you die.

 

[Paul G West Sr]

Christianity is known as the way, not some hypocritical, shallow, meaningless talk. It's a way for us to connect to the spiritual essence that is our creator.

Obviously you didn't create yourself, your parents didn't build you atom by atom. No one made anything or anyone, it's all made for us by something else. We should at least keep our minds open for a meaning & purpose of existence, because you just can't take your Xbox with you when you die.

Fatal Fantasy:

I received an e-mail about your post, so I'm assuming that you are replying to something I wrote, but I can't make a connection between what you wrote with what I wrote? Am I wrong? Were you responding to/about someone else's post?

 

[FatalFantasy]

Fatal Fantasy:

I received an e-mail about your post, so I'm assuming that you are replying to something I wrote, but I can't make a connection between what you wrote with what I wrote? Am I wrong? Were you responding to/about someone else's post?

It was to the OP. Should been too the OP.

 

[Paul G West Sr]

It was to the OP. Should been too the OP.

OK, I'm sure making my share of mistakes.

 

[Radagast]

Anyway, there can be no discussion on the fact that different Christians hold different opinions on pretty core principles of Christianity.

Well, on core issues we mostly agree, although you might not realise it from browsing CF. Have a read of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, which explains the "core."

Browsing the Theology forum, you see discussions on who exactly will be saved, what kind of after life is reserved for those who are not saved, how/why evil/sin happens, etc.

People on CF are not always well-informed on theological issues, nor do they always express themselves well. In many cases you'd be better reading a book than chatting on an Internet group.

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

The two main sides of the "faith vs works" debate are:

• Faith and works. I must have love, shown by works, in order to be saved. Faith alone is not sufficient. Catholics tend to take this view.
• Faith producing works. True faith produces works of love (as per James 2:17-18). "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." Faith without works is dead: the lack of works shows that it isn't true faith. This is the view of the Protestant Reformation.

Now these two views are different, but they are not wildly different. Both views are the result of reconciling what James says with what Paul says.

Edit: I now see that this is thread necromancy. So annoying!

 

[Paul G West Sr]

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in becoming a Christian, but am honestly interested in the answer to this question in order to better understand my fellow man. (including a rather cute literalist-Christian I know... but I'm going off-topic).

Anyway, there can be no discussion on the fact that different Christians hold different opinions on pretty core principles of Christianity. Browsing the Theology forum, you see discussions on who exactly will be saved, what kind of after life is reserved for those who are not saved, how/why evil/sin happens, etc.

Now, I've noticed that many of these discussions involve one party posting a Bible verse supporting their own stance, followed by the other party posting a different Bible verse that supports their stance (and thus, often claiming the exact opposite).

Just as an example, Matthew 25: 41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[g] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”

Now, the straightforward way to interpret this is that refraining from performing good deeds (feeding the poor etc) is going to get you send to eternal torment.

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

(ofcourse, more 'liberal' Christians won't have a problem since they can just chalk up the inconsistencies to human error or something)

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

Mystman,

I became a Christian, at around 7-8 yrs old, due to my Maternal Grandmother's influence. Then we moved away from her and I "fell away" from any interest in spiritual matters (especially so-called "Christian" spirituality) for 26-30 years, because there was no one in my immediate family who had any interest or knowledge about Christ or His church. My college career was especially influential in turning me away from Christianity. I actually forgot 20+ years that I was a Christian!

Jumping forward to today (70 yrs from my conversion), not wanting to bore you with how & why I returned to Jesus Christ, let me say that I have worked diligently in getting to know Jesus Christ, His (and our) Father and the Holy Spirit, individually and combined in The Trinity.

I have no formal education in Christianity, but I have spent thousands of hours of reading books, Bible Study, in church, in Prayer & meditation. I cannot imagine living without Him today, It is the very best thing that has ever happened to me.

But, to your point, as powerful as my relationship is to Him/Them, I still find inconsistencies in The Word of God!

The most immediate question is, how could there be inconsistencies, and I will answer that last. If God is Omnicient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, and there are indeed inconsistencies in His Word, how could that be? He could certainly stop any writer from creating inconsistencies in His Word, so why didn't he?

Well, I believe He allowed inconsistencies for the same reason He spoke in parables in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. The Disciples got a little upset with for speaking in parables, as they weren't getting His messages any better than the crowds that followed Him.

Here is my belief about why He spoke in parables and also why there are inconsistencies in His Word.

Jesus only had three years to accomplish dozens of Prophesies about Him in the Old Testament. He was very, very focused on doing everything that the Old Testament said the Jewish Messiah would do when He came to earth. He only had three years! He walked everywhere he went. He called ignorant men (for the most part) to help Him during those three years and then to carry-on His plan when He was gone, etc.

In addition to speaking in parables, He told nearly everyone He healed & helped, including the Disci-ples, to keep what He was doing & saying quiet. He would have been killed in the first few months of His ministry, if the Sadducees and Pharisees learned too soon! Many did not keep His miracles quiet, so He had to move around a lot, and to disappear a few times when things got too hot, and He was about to be caught!

In the early days when I decided that there were inconsistencies in The Word, I couldn't figure out why my zealousness did not wane ? Being partly raised as a Baptist, It had always been my understanding that everything in the Bible had to be without error or inconsistency, That's what every Pastor I have ever sat under taught! So, if anyone ever found a inconsistency, it would shatter the faith of all Christ-ians, and the movement would fall away into obscurity.

Why is it still the most wonderful and powerful movement of all time? It comes down to the exchange between Jesus and Peter. When many of the people following Him were moving away due to some difficult things He said, Jesus asked His Disciples, directed mainly at Peter, "...would you leave me too? Peter replied "Where can we go Lord, you have the words of life..."

I too found myself in that same place, and Jesus asked me (in my heart) "Would you leave me too? I could only reply the same thing that Peter replied. I have studied every other possibility about man and the universe, and I can only say, as preposterous as God and Christianity is, it is "The least preposter-ous possibility!" There is nowhere else to go, He has the words of life!

So, instead of weakening my faith, I believe The Word in spite of any inconsistency. My faith is strengthened mightily by it/them, because I have nowhere else to go! I know that any discrepancies in The Word are there on purpose, to allow non-Believers more ammunition to go on claiming unbelief, and to strengthen the Believer's faith!

 

[Uber Genius]

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium

Yes you are missing something that many Christians miss as well...namely "exegesis and hermeneutics."

The collection of books that make up the Old and New Testaments are ancient near eastern texts from a 2000-3500 year old ancient near eastern culture. Written in a language that has been dead for around 1700 years. Most Christian take passages out of the context of the paragraph, the topic, the main theme of the author, etc.

So the hard work of understanding the meaning of texts and then putting all the data about a topic across multiple authors together so one can abductively describe which view best accounts for all those data is even more rare.

We haven't even gotten to the foundation nature of scripture which is a controversial view in and of itself. Is scripture a divine/human synergy where humans have free will to express their limited knowledge about cosmology, history, medicine from their own cultural perspective all the while recording their rich supernatural experience of God and some revelations that are supernatural. Or is scripture just scribed by humans while God dictates so every verse has God's truth about slavery, and medicine, and history, and science?

But no need for an atheist to bother with these vagaries. It is not germane to a non-Christian. What might be germane is the larger question of whether God exists or not. That question would have to be answered largely by discussions in Natural theology that have no premises that are tied to the Bible since that would be question-begging. (Good luck with your cute literalist-Christian friend BTW. Maybe spitting back some of my response will fool them into thinking you are taking this stuff seriously)

 

[Paul G West Sr]

OK, I'm sure making my share of mistakes.

What is, and who is the OP?