What we do about the problem of human opinion?

[superlativecritic]

I'll begin this thread with the genesis of this thread. I've read in a few places about Mother Theresa: I've heard that she didn't preach the Gospel, but when people died and asked "who to pray to", she asked them to pray to whomever.

In this article for instance:
www dot challies dot com/articles/the-myth-of-mother-teresa

It talks about how Mother Theresa didn't preach the gospel, merely performed "good works".

Which leads me to my question. I am thinking that either Mother Theresa was a freak of nature (likely), who through her upbringing or some unique combination of experiences led her to develop an unusually extreme desire to sacrificially help people; or she was someone who believed that what she was doing was what God wanted her to do (possibly). I will want to examine the latter scenario.

Participation in atheist forums and Christian forums has taught me one thing: we all interpret things so differently from each other. We all have our unique perspectives and view-points, and biases. Mother Theresa wanted to do God's will, but she thought God's will for her was merely good works and completely missed "The Great Commission" part. Given how humans have an absolute tendency to have different opinions and interpretations, how then are humans judged on their actions? If a person is earnestly trying to please God, has faith in the Lord, and yet misinterprets the Bible - how will this person be judged?

There are so many complicating factors to this: a person's education level, the friends he grew up with, the parents he grew up with, the secular teachers who taught him, the pastors who taught him: all these things affect how he views scripture. One pastor will say Malachi 3 tells us we have to tithe otherwise we will be cursed; another pastor will say that Malachi 3 was a curse on the priests because they were stealing food from the Levites - the tithe is food and Christians are supposed to give gifts and offerings and not "the tithe".

Another example are those street preachers. I happen to think that such a tactic is not only ineffective, it's also counter-productive to the result. However, one cannot fault the street preacher for his earnestness and effort: he's only reading the Bible and using a tactic that is mentioned in the Bible (even though it may not be the right tactic for today). Which is better: to street preach with no result and possibly an opposite effect, or to not publicly preach at all (at least that isn't achieving an opposite effect)?

Given a verse in the Bible and two people with two different interpretations of the verse and who follow their interpretations with equal zeal: will God reward both equally, or will God reward the one who had the "correct" interpretation? That is the confusing question for me, given all the disagreements on certain verses.

 

[ittarter]

Zeal is not a Christian virtue. Wisdom is.

I'd say, if your interpretation is so skewed that your actions themselves so are corrupted (e.g. a reconstructionist interpretation of the Old Testament) that they operate against the basic trajectory of the Bible, it no longer matters what your intentions are.

As far as the rest goes, well, the ideal is to have BOTH righteous motives AND righteous actions. If one or the other is missing, we have a big problem on our hands.

 

[ebia]

So long as people are involved there will be misunderstandings, mistakes, incomplete pictures etc. None of us will get everything right and none of us is remotely capable of holding the whole picture in view at once anyway.

But are we willing to get our heads around the big picture of God's plan and become an (imperfect) agent and participant in that plan or not?

 

[wayseer]

Given a verse in the Bible and two people with two different interpretations of the verse and who follow their interpretations with equal zeal: will God reward both equally, or will God reward the one who had the "correct" interpretation? That is the confusing question for me, given all the disagreements on certain verses.

We are all sinners in that we will try but inevitable get it wrong. So long as you let 'love' be your guide you will not stray far. So relax and join the rest of us Christians. Remember, Christians are not perfect - we just recognize the fact that we are not perfect.

 

[superlativecritic]

We are all sinners in that we will try but inevitable get it wrong. So long as you let 'love' be your guide you will not stray far. So relax and join the rest of us Christians. Remember, Christians are not perfect - we just recognize the fact that we are not perfect.

The problem is everyone's definition of "love" is so different.

I've read in a few places what secular humanists think of Christians. They think that people who believe in God are actually the source of immorality in the world. By the secular standard, stopping women from having abortions for example is evil. Their examples of "perfect" society would be some secularized Scandinavian country that has all but rejected God, and they would point out how such countries have low crime and social strife compared with say the USA, where more than 70% believe in God.

There are many Christians with secularized thinking, and so their understanding of "love thy neighbor as yourself" will differ from an orthodox Christian. For example, loving someone else as yourself to them may be related to "rights and freedoms" - which can be very secularized in scope.

I guess what I'm alluding to is "principle-based" legalism. In the OT, legalism related to specific religious acts which without the right motive and result, led to a meaningless ritual. Whereas NT legalism is perhaps trying to obey a NT principle to the extreme: for example, literally hating your mother and father.

If you were at judgment day and God asked you "why did you reject your mother and father?" and you said "well your word tells me to!" - how much of that is an acceptable excuse?

If we were to follow the letter of the NT without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we can easily misinterpret the NT in earnestness. But the problem is this: even people who are supposedly very close to God differ in opinion on many issues. How much can we then really depend on our "gut feel" to determine if our interpretation of scripture is correct?

For me a solace would be the parable of the talents. At least our reward is commensurate with the fruit of our effort. So even if we were misguided in our interpretation of scripture, perhaps bearing fruit is the sign of true obedience? Then again I've heard of a pastor who did not "bear fruit" for decades only to learn much later that one of his flock ended up becoming a world famous evangelist (forget who, Billy Graham?) - although fruit doesn't need to be visually affirming, how does one know then whether one is on the right path?

 

[ittarter]

The problem is everyone's definition of "love" is so different.

I've read in a few places what secular humanists think of Christians. They think that people who believe in God are actually the source of immorality in the world. By the secular standard, stopping women from having abortions for example is evil. Their examples of "perfect" society would be some secularized Scandinavian country that has all but rejected God, and they would point out how such countries have low crime and social strife compared with say the USA, where more than 70% believe in God.

And why as Christians should we care a priori what the secular humanists think?

There are many Christians with secularized thinking, and so their understanding of "love thy neighbor as yourself" will differ from an orthodox Christian. For example, loving someone else as yourself to them may be related to "rights and freedoms" - which can be very secularized in scope.

True. Different Christians understand love, or whatever word they use to define their central responsibilities to mankind, differently. I'm not sure if rights and freedoms are so secular, though.

I guess what I'm alluding to is "principle-based" legalism. In the OT, legalism related to specific religious acts which without the right motive and result, led to a meaningless ritual. Whereas NT legalism is perhaps trying to obey a NT principle to the extreme: for example, literally hating your mother and father.

Yes, this is definitely a problem when it arises, and it arises far too often.

If we were to follow the letter of the NT without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we can easily misinterpret the NT in earnestness. But the problem is this: even people who are supposedly very close to God differ in opinion on many issues. How much can we then really depend on our "gut feel" to determine if our interpretation of scripture is correct?

We can't. Hence the inherent conundrum that faces any Protestant's attempt to find The Truth (TM) at every turn. It sucks!

For me a solace would be the parable of the talents. At least our reward is commensurate with the fruit of our effort. So even if we were misguided in our interpretation of scripture, perhaps bearing fruit is the sign of true obedience? Then again I've heard of a pastor who did not "bear fruit" for decades only to learn much later that one of his flock ended up becoming a world famous evangelist (forget who, Billy Graham?) - although fruit doesn't need to be visually affirming, how does one know then whether one is on the right path?

Bearing fruit is certainly a sign of true obedience. But we've only pushed back the problem another step. Who says, prior to the judgment of all humankind, what constitutes healthy fruit?

This epistemological dilemma, I believe, has no universally appealing answer. However, I suspect that it is absolutely crippling to the Protestant theological enterprise. It is only when you've accepted that the Christian faith is passed down and inherited rather than made up on the spot that you have any hope of finding peace with respect to the search for truth.

Either that, or you believe you have a direct line to God. That's typically how Protestants solve the problem. Still, as you point out, one wonders why everyone is hearing such different things if they're all so reliably connected to the Glory of Israel

 

[wayseer]

The problem is everyone's definition of "love" is so different.

Different to what?

I've read in a few places what secular humanists think of Christians. They think that people who believe in God are actually the source of immorality in the world. By the secular standard, stopping women from having abortions for example is evil. Their examples of "perfect" society would be some secularized Scandinavian country that has all but rejected God, and they would point out how such countries have low crime and social strife compared with say the USA, where more than 70% believe in God.

You are looking for a 'works' based theology. Again, I suggest you will disappointed.

There are many Christians with secularized thinking, and so their understanding of "love thy neighbor as yourself" will differ from an orthodox Christian. For example, loving someone else as yourself to them may be related to "rights and freedoms" - which can be very secularized in scope.

Liberation theology, along with feminist and ecotheology are legitimate ways of looking at Christianity.

I guess what I'm alluding to is "principle-based" legalism. In the OT, legalism related to specific religious acts which without the right motive and result, led to a meaningless ritual. Whereas NT legalism is perhaps trying to obey a NT principle to the extreme: for example, literally hating your mother and father.

We are not taught to hate anyone. Jesus was not teaching anyone to hate their mother and father. He was teaching that one must hate what conformity to world thinking leads to - as evidenced by your post.

If you were at judgment day and God asked you "why did you reject your mother and father?" and you said "well your word tells me to!" - how much of that is an acceptable excuse?

It' not my excuse. Is it yours?

If we were to follow the letter of the NT without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we can easily misinterpret the NT in earnestness. But the problem is this: even people who are supposedly very close to God differ in opinion on many issues. How much can we then really depend on our "gut feel" to determine if our interpretation of scripture is correct?

It seems you are dependent on 'gut feeling' with your views as stated here.

... how does one know then whether one is on the right path?

Which is a reason why you need to be in church.

But tell me, what makes you think you are not on the right path?

 

[superlativecritic]

And why as Christians should we care a priori what the secular humanists think?

True. Different Christians understand love, or whatever word they use to define their central responsibilities to mankind, differently. I'm not sure if rights and freedoms are so secular, though.

Yes, this is definitely a problem when it arises, and it arises far too often.

We can't. Hence the inherent conundrum that faces any Protestant's attempt to find The Truth (TM) at every turn. It sucks!

Bearing fruit is certainly a sign of true obedience. But we've only pushed back the problem another step. Who says, prior to the judgment of all humankind, what constitutes healthy fruit?

This epistemological dilemma, I believe, has no universally appealing answer. However, I suspect that it is absolutely crippling to the Protestant theological enterprise. It is only when you've accepted that the Christian faith is passed down and inherited rather than made up on the spot that you have any hope of finding peace with respect to the search for truth.

Either that, or you believe you have a direct line to God. That's typically how Protestants solve the problem. Still, as you point out, one wonders why everyone is hearing such different things if they're all so reliably connected to the Glory of Israel

Awesome thoughts! Thanks for sharing.

 

[superlativecritic]

Different to what?

You are looking for a 'works' based theology. Again, I suggest you will disappointed.

Liberation theology, along with feminist and ecotheology are legitimate ways of looking at Christianity.

We are not taught to hate anyone. Jesus was not teaching anyone to hate their mother and father. He was teaching that one must hate what conformity to world thinking leads to - as evidenced by your post.

I am referring to Luke 14:26

Now obviously the wise thing to do would be to understand that verse in context. I understand what it means, but the point is that it's conceivable that people may take this verse literally and could you really blame them at judgment day? How can someone be blamed for our human failures? Sometimes our minds just don't "get it". Can we be blamed if we didn't "get it"?

It' not my excuse. Is it yours?

It seems you are dependent on 'gut feeling' with your views as stated here.

Which is a reason why you need to be in church.

But tell me, what makes you think you are not on the right path?

I think I am on the right path. My question is "philosophical". It just occurred to me after thinking about people like Mother Theresa. For myself, I expose myself to be corrected because I freely share my thoughts, right or wrong, on forums. It's a good way to find out if I am on the right track.

Professionally I mitigate risk through collaborative facilitation - I don't make decisions myself - sorta. My thought processes are geared toward "shared risk" and so none of my Christian beliefs are unique - I select an accepted belief that appeals to my intellect. So I sink or float with the rest of you, so to speak.

Nevertheless, I don't agree with everyone. I, like everyone else still pick and choose which group's belief that makes the most sense. I sorta think I'm right, but I can't guarantee it. I'd be a hypocrite if I don't think I'm on the right path.

So it just intrigues me to think about the dilemma of the human opinion in all of this. You program a robot and it will react according to how you programmed it to respond to certain inputs. But humans will give different outputs from the same inputs. If that input happens to be the Word of God, we can't guarantee the same interpretation from everyone - that's a paradox.

Here's an analogy: two businessman start their own business ventures, and both business ventures are failing. Both businessmen persevere but only one ends up being a success. The successful businessman goes and gives a talk about "persevering will lead to success", the failed businessman goes and gives a talk about "cut your losses before you lose everything".

It's the same with Christians. Depending on the outcome of a circumstance, two Christians would believe they were being taught two different lessons by God, and they will use the Bible to support their point of view. Their experience would have shaped how they respond to every other thing that happened in their lives, and it will affect their interpretation of verses from the Bible. If both Christians were before God, how will their actions be judged given they both followed the Bible but in two very different ways?

A real-life Christian example is Christian's belief about God's provision: one pastor says you should be prosperous because prosperity draws people in, and God doesn't want you to be a burden to others and wants you to have abundant life; another pastor lives in poverty and says that he praises God for somehow supporting his needs with an unexpected gift from an anonymous donor at the very last minute; Both pastors will use scripture to support their point of view and yet their lifestyles are in complete contradiction.

Sometimes it's good to stop and reflect to see if you're still on the right track; but I don't know whether it's really possible to know whether you're on the right track in certain matters. In a sense the breadth of Christian denominations shows the strength of Christianity and the various parts of "the body of Christ"; but in another sense I wonder whether a denomination is merely a group of Christians living in a comfort bubble of beliefs that they can cling to because it suits their lifestyle.

 

[wayseer]

I am referring to Luke 14:26

I am conversant with the reference.

Now obviously the wise thing to do would be to understand that verse in context. I understand what it means, but the point is that it's conceivable that people may take this verse literally and could you really blame them at judgment day? How can someone be blamed for our human failures? Sometimes our minds just don't "get it". Can we be blamed if we didn't "get it"?

That is not your call to make, neither is it mine. We will be all answerable to God, not personal opinion - thank's be to God.

I think I am on the right path. My question is "philosophical". It just occurred to me after thinking about people like Mother Theresa. For myself, I expose myself to be corrected because I freely share my thoughts, right or wrong, on forums. It's a good way to find out if I am on the right track.

Excellent.

Professionally I mitigate risk through collaborative facilitation - I don't make decisions myself - sorta. My thought processes are geared toward "shared risk" and so none of my Christian beliefs are unique - I select an accepted belief that appeals to my intellect. So I sink or float with the rest of you, so to speak.

Not really. If you are solely appealing to you 'own intellect' then I, for one, am not with you - count me out.

Nevertheless, I don't agree with everyone. I, like everyone else still pick and choose which group's belief that makes the most sense. I sorta think I'm right, but I can't guarantee it. I'd be a hypocrite if I don't think I'm on the right path.

It is not about being 'right'. It is about faith.

It's the same with Christians.

Not al all. Sounds more like your personal intellect working here.

Depending on the outcome of a circumstance, two Christians would believe they were being taught two different lessons by God, and they will use the Bible to support their point of view. Their experience would have shaped how they respond to every other thing that happened in their lives, and it will affect their interpretation of verses from the Bible. If both Christians were before God, how will their actions be judged given they both followed the Bible but in two very different ways?

As I have said, that is not your call to make.

You are actually looking to others to inform your decisions - which is a 'works' based theology.

Sometimes it's good to stop and reflect to see if you're still on the right track; but I don't know whether it's really possible to know whether you're on the right track in certain matters. In a sense the breadth of Christian denominations shows the strength of Christianity and the various parts of "the body of Christ"; but in another sense I wonder whether a denomination is merely a group of Christians living in a comfort bubble of beliefs that they can cling to because it suits their lifestyle.

So what? You need to focus rather than worrying about others and what they might be up to.

And, what, if anything, has any of this to do with your OP which centered on leaving one's family?

The problem is we can think about a whole lot of stuff and philosophize until the end of our days but none of that will be much good in the end. Sometimes we need to make decisions rather than procrastinating and wondering what others are up to.

 

[superlativecritic]

I am conversant with the reference.

So what? You need to focus rather than worrying about others and what they might be up to.

And, what, if anything, has any of this to do with your OP which centered on leaving one's family?

The problem is we can think about a whole lot of stuff and philosophize until the end of our days but none of that will be much good in the end. Sometimes we need to make decisions rather than procrastinating and wondering what others are up to.

Please refrain from being argumentative. No where in the OP does it center on leaving one's family. In fact the OP doesn't even mention it (your obsession with it is puzzling). I find it highly argumentative when you focus on the "hating mother and father" part when I clearly used that as an example of how the NT can be used for extremism. That's the point of this thread: to discuss how opinion can affect how the Bible is followed. So please stop talking as if I hate my mother and father or I'm telling others to - it's annoying and wrong and not the point of this thread.

If you want to lecture me on whether I should be worrying what others think, then this is not the place to do it. This is a discussion forum for sharing thoughts, not for you to chastise others for discussing ideas. Perhaps if you don't understand what is being discussed you can ask questions before pontificating. Everyone else who has participated in this thread has understood the topic.

 

[wayseer]

That's the point of this thread: to discuss how opinion can affect how the Bible is followed.

Is It? Or is it more about you feeling you 'are on the right track' as you put it?

Public opinion does not effect the biblical texts. Public opinion effects other people. The biblical texts are unaffected by what you or I, or the public, might think of them.

As I have said, you can philosophize about such but it will amount to very little.

If, on the other hand, you are concerned with how one might interpret the biblical texts, then please ask that question.

Or, if you wish, you can simply ignore anything I say.