Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, that's a problem we encounter whenever we debate large religions with numerous different interpretations, Christianity in particular.This is what some Christians believe, but by no means all.
Indeed, and such claims are perfectly reasonable. Are you prepared to challenge the following argument:No matter what particular scenario we discuss at any given point, somebody will turn up and proclaim: "Well, that's clearly not TRUE Christianity at all! Of course it's preposterous, because TRUE Christianity teaches that [insert other version here]."
Indeed. And I think a reasonable person armed with appropriate background knowledge, would reject that view. However, that does not mean other interpretations of the Biblical narrative are not otherwise plausibly true.Some Christians believe that God deliberately creates and pre-destines people to suffer eternally, "to His Greater Glory", as if the stench of burnt flesh and the wailing of tormented beings (figurative or literal) could exalt anyone.
Of course, I never suggested otherwise. However, when someone suggests that the Bible presents the view that "God pre-destines people to eternal suffering" I can indeed legitimately claim "that's not true Christianity" as long as I can back it up with an argument. I suspect, but only suspect mind you, that you are of the mind that just because all "interpretations" of the Biblical material are, yes, interpretations, that we therefore cannot judge between them. I think such a line of thinking is incorrect. And perhaps this is not your view anyway.And so on and so forth. You get the idea.
In light of this, it makes sense to debate one of these concepts at a time, and to ignore any cries of "but that's not TRUE Christianity!"
It would be reasonable if we could settle on one particular interpretation, or at least delegate some of these readings to a minority position. As it is, it doesn't matter which one we debate: there will always be those who seek to move the goalposts by declaring their particular reading to be the One True Version.Indeed, and such claims are perfectly reasonable.
Correct. I'd even go one step further and say that the Scriptures (notice the plural) present a number of mutually incompatible theological perspectives, reflecting the point of view of their various authors.1. The Scriptures present a "narrative" that can be interpreted many ways, some of which are mutually incompatible;
I think only Christians will agree on this point. Personally, I don't think any interpretation (or the Bible as such) accurately describes reality, given that its understanding of human behaviour and the cause of suffering leaves much to be desired.2. It is possible that at least of the interpretation (X) actually describes the way the world is; if so, any interpretations that are inconsistent with X cannot describe the way the world is.
Indeed. And I think a reasonable person armed with appropriate background knowledge, would reject that view. However, that does not mean other interpretations of the Biblical narrative are not otherwise plausibly true.
True, in any discussion of any issue this behavior will be seen; it does not mean that there is not one particular interpretation that, in fact, describes reality correctly.It would be reasonable if we could settle on one particular interpretation, or at least delegate some of these readings to a minority position. As it is, it doesn't matter which one we debate: there will always be those who seek to move the goalposts by declaring their particular reading to be the One True Version.
I doubt you will be able to actually defend this claim. More specifically, I doubt you will be able to rule out the possibility that a single "interpretation" does not exist that coherently accounts for all the various books of the Bible, and is otherwise not ruled out by other things we know about the world.Correct. I'd even go one step further and say that the Scriptures (notice the plural) present a number of mutually incompatible theological perspectives, reflecting the point of view of their various authors.
Well, now we talking about conclusions. I don't think my point can be disputed as an "a priori" That is, before we actually look at the texts and all the evidence we have from the world, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Scriptures present one interpretation that (1) makes sense of all the Biblical texts; and (2) is otherwise consistent with what we know about the world.I think only Christians will agree on this point. Personally, I don't think any interpretation (or the Bible as such) accurately describes reality, given that its understanding of human behaviour and the cause of suffering leaves much to be desired.
Of course. But the popularity of a particular view is an exceedingly unreliable indicator of its correctness.It's one of the most influential and far-spread interpretations within the larger body of Protestantism, namely the Reformed/Calvinist angle that reigns supreme in anglophone nations.
This, we can agree on.Of course. But the popularity of a particular view is an exceedingly unreliable indicator of its correctness.
It would be reasonable if we could settle on one particular interpretation, or at least delegate some of these readings to a minority position.
Fair enough, but I think this only creates a confusing diversion since we are, I think, talking about whether any particular position is "plausibly true" and, as I have already stated, the popularity of a position tells us very little about its "correctness".In a way we can. The majority position would be the Catholic position, other positions like a Calvinist belief in Predestination is a minority position.
Indeed. And I think a reasonable person armed with appropriate background knowledge, would reject that view. However, that does not mean other interpretations of the Biblical narrative are not otherwise plausibly true.
Are you prepared to defend that view? Any of us - including me of course - can make a statement. But to support that statement with an actual argument is another matter altogether.It's a pretty scripturally sound view.
The only ones that I think come closest to reality correctly are the Mystics.True, in any discussion of any issue this behavior will be seen; it does not mean that there is not one particular interpretation that, in fact, describes reality correctly.
The ever pressing question of what IS true interpretation of scripture, even among Christian Believers. Thus the OP continues to be un-answered, or at the very least, very "confusing" from the variety of answers given.Are you prepared to defend that view?
"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)I think the Bible even speaks of the Son being
pleasing to Him as the sacrifice.
It can fit with how if you truly forgive someone, you are giving your life to the person . . . your blood. With true forgiveness we give the lifeblood of our love"logic" behind blood sacrifices
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?