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.
You are actually agreeing with me, that is (from your point of view), if believers would stop empty-headedly ignoring the 'objective evidence' of the 'reality' all around them they would be able to think more rationally.
The answer is largely, "You know it when you know it," and I realize that is a completely unsatisfactory answer.
But it's the same situation when your friend sits down and asks, "How do I know he/she loves me?" How many songs have been written about that situation? It is what it is. But the uncertainty doesn't mean no one ever loves.
Likewise, the uncertainty doesn't negate the Bible.
Rather than focusing on the uncertainty, though, I think it's better to ask yourself, "How does God overcome that undertainty?"
I would agree with you to an extent, but at some point, I think that uncertainty does become a problem. People have different ways of being sure that they're being guided by the Holy Spirit, but a lot of those have real problems.
... If two people reach two different conclusions and both believe that they were guided by God, an outside opinion isn't going to break the stalemate ...
There's always the option of turning to an organization that claims to be divinely guided, but there are quite a few of those.
The conclusion that the only times when you can know that you're right about the Biblical text are times when it's clear in itself is kind of unsatisfying. There are quite a few times like that, but the parts of the Bible that are at the heart of controversies in Christianity (including some major ones like the doctrine of the Trinity) really don't fall into that category.
Sure. Several things have been discussed in this thread, so I need to clarify a few of them. The certainty - the "you know it when you know it" - that I referred to was a certainty that spiritual beings exist and more specifically that God (the maximal spiritual being) exists.
It gives me certainity as an individual that those things exist. It doesn't somehow make me certain that all my opinions equate to truth. So that doesn't specifically address Biblical ambiguity, but it is an important first step, because I have an authority I can turn to through prayer.
Right, but this is the equivalent of the peer review process in the scientific world. So, just as the peer review process is held up as a good way to vet science, the church is a good way to vet religion. There isn't one unified science organization that vets all science and there isn't one church (little 'c') that vets all religion. There is, however, in Christianity the idea of the Church (big 'C'), the idea that there is one God and one Truth, and so there should be one Church. Jesus prays for this in John 17. It is something we don't expect to realize until the new earth (Rev 21), but that's no excuse to not try.
So, just as science tries to get better, the Christian denominations strive.
But again, God overcomes this. In my previous post I posed it as a question. I guess this time I'll make it more a statement - that we are imperfect doesn't matter. The reason Jesus came was to save us in spite of our imperfection, in spite of how nasty we are, not because we're really cool people to hang out with.
I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.
John 16:33
The conclusion that the only times when you can know that you're right about the Biblical text are times when it's clear in itself is kind of unsatisfying. There are quite a few times like that, but the parts of the Bible that are at the heart of controversies in Christianity (including some major ones like the doctrine of the Trinity) really don't fall into that category.
Do you really equate the church vetting religion, with peer review in science?
I would think, the church would not be as capable of being objective, as the peer review process, IMO. To me, that would be the equivalent of having tobacco company scientists, determine if smoking is bad for you.
It's an example. People seem more familiar with the scientific method than the offices of the Church, so I'm trying to relate it to something familiar. I'm not "equating" them.
But, yes, it is a vetting process (1 John 4:1).
I understand your disdain for religion, but I don't see why scientists reviewing scientists is objective whereas a church holding it's congregation accountable (and vice-versa) is the kid guarding the cookie jar.
There are examples of peer review gone bad just as much as church governance problems. No human institution is perfect - not religions and not scientific associations.
The point is that in addition to Christianity recognizing the imperfection of humanity, it also recognizes that the opinion of one person is highly subjective and needs some grounding - despite the American love of individualism.
Sure. Several things have been discussed in this thread, so I need to clarify a few of them. The certainty - the "you know it when you know it" - that I referred to was a certainty that spiritual beings exist and more specifically that God (the maximal spiritual being) exists.
It gives me certainity as an individual that those things exist. It doesn't somehow make me certain that all my opinions equate to truth. So that doesn't specifically address Biblical ambiguity, but it is an important first step, because I have an authority I can turn to through prayer.
I know that it's just an analogy, but I don't think that the peer review process is really similar to what you're talking about. In peer review, scientists look at a paper. They determine whether its methodology is sound, and whether the conclusions reached can logically be drawn from the data using objective standards. Something passing peer review means that it's more likely to be correct than to not based on current understanding of the subject matter, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. Several papers that have passed peer review haven't survived replication attempts, and a conclusion drawn from a particular experiment may be proven wrong by the discovery of new information. Peer reviewed papers even conflict with each other sometimes. When that happens, a consensus usually emerges gradually over time.Right, but this is the equivalent of the peer review process in the scientific world. So, just as the peer review process is held up as a good way to vet science, the church is a good way to vet religion. There isn't one unified science organization that vets all science and there isn't one church (little 'c') that vets all religion. There is, however, in Christianity the idea of the Church (big 'C'), the idea that there is one God and one Truth, and so there should be one Church. Jesus prays for this in John 17. It is something we don't expect to realize until the new earth (Rev 21), but that's no excuse to not try.
That's really the point that I'm discussing here. I understand that you believe that some (obviously not all) of your Biblical interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit, but looking from the outside in, why would I choose your interpretation over that of John Calvin, John Wesley, or Soren Kierkegaard? Those individuals all believed themselves to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, and would have believed that Spirit was guiding them to their religious conclusions.But again, God overcomes this. In my previous post I posed it as a question. I guess this time I'll make it more a statement - that we are imperfect doesn't matter. The reason Jesus came was to save us in spite of our imperfection, in spite of how nasty we are, not because we're really cool people to hang out with.
I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.
John 16:33
I went to church with a friend on Easter, first time I have been for a couple of years and since I have studied the NT from a historical and scholarly standpoint.
The pastor made claims about the validity of scripture in his sermon, that many historians and scholars would refute and was on very shaky ground. I sat and wondered, how many people in here know the background of what this guy is preaching?
I'm glad to hear that.
How many people understand history? You keep making statements about religion as if it is somehow more beset by frailty than other human endeavors, and I just don't see it.
I don't know what the pastor said, so maybe he was wrong. Again, no one's perfect. But you also know I (and other historians) disagree with you (and the historians you cite).
I think that we may be talking about two different subjects, then. The "you know it when you know it" I was referring to was a knowledge that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in Biblical interpretation.
I think that questions regarding the existence of spiritual problems could have similar issues (how do you know for certain that you're not just detecting agency where it isn't there?), but that's an entirely different issue.
I know that it's just an analogy, but I don't think that the peer review process is really similar to what you're talking about. In peer review, scientists look at a paper. They determine whether its methodology is sound, and whether the conclusions reached can logically be drawn from the data using objective standards. Something passing peer review means that it's more likely to be correct than to not based on current understanding of the subject matter, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. Several papers that have passed peer review haven't survived replication attempts, and a conclusion drawn from a particular experiment may be proven wrong by the discovery of new information. Peer reviewed papers even conflict with each other sometimes. When that happens, a consensus usually emerges gradually over time.
The idea that the Church can vet ideas sounds good, until you consider that it still suffers from the same problems that I mentioned earlier. It's hard to determine who belongs to the Church ...
That's really the point that I'm discussing here. I understand that you believe that some (obviously not all) of your Biblical interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit, but looking from the outside in, why would I choose your interpretation over that of John Calvin, John Wesley, or Soren Kierkegaard? Those individuals all believed themselves to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, and would have believed that Spirit was guiding them to their religious conclusions.
That's kind of my point. A book that is held in high regard, is not well understood by many. The claims are taken as credible, with no search for where these claims came from, who wrote them, when they were written, have they been changed over the centuries and how do they stand up to the historical method and relate to the reality of the world we live in.
My point is this; the bible is such a highly regarded book and some people drive their entire life's faith around it, but they know very little about the background behind it. In a way, I understand, why explore opinions that would cause turmoil to beliefs that have been deeply invested in and this is why the belief requires faith and an internal rationalization of that faith.
That's kind of my point. A book that is held in high regard, is not well understood by many. The claims are taken as credible, with no search for where these claims came from, who wrote them, when they were written, have they been changed over the centuries and how do they stand up to the historical method and relate to the reality of the world we live in.
That's why I clarified. But again, knowing God exists is important to understanding the Bible. Lutheran theology claims it won't work the other way round - to study the "evidence" first and expect belief in God to follow.
And I'm saying that from the direction you're coming, I can't know that. In the end, I may just be the Expert Fool. I'm willing to take that chance because my experiences are strong enough to say otherwise - they are of a nature I've never experienced anywhere else.
Of course there are differences. But there are also similarities - more than I think you realize.
I purposely omitted the part where you started to define the Church. It's not the place of an unbeliever to do that just as someone outside a scientific organization can't declare who its members will be.
But the differences are not so large as you say. This idea that scientific organizations are formed "objectively" is nonsense. That might be the intent, but it is not the practice (I know both from studying the history of science and from personal experience). Similarly, churches have a noble intent that doesn't always come to pass.
And just as there are multiple scientific organizations with membership requirements and member roles that explictly define who can review a paper, there are multiple churches with membership requirements and member roles that explicitly define who can perform certain offices.
I understand that seeing the Church's dirt laundry frightens some people, frustrates some, and disgusts others. But honestly, if there were a church claiming 100% agreement among all its members would you believe it? Would you take that as a sign it was the "true" church? I doubt it.
It's better to just get it out in the open and deal with it.
And I'll repeat my point. This is the most important point of the post: it doesn't matter. You must start and end with Christ.
I went to church with a friend on Easter, first time I have been for a couple of years and since I have studied the NT from a historical and scholarly standpoint. The pastor made claims about the validity of scripture in his sermon, that many historians and scholars would refute and was on very shaky ground. I sat and wondered, how many people in here know the background of what this guy is preaching?
You have it backwards. If someone has the capability of thinking more rationally, then they are much less likely to not accept a mountain of objective evidence that points a certain direction.
With some, deeply held beliefs, don't allow them to accept anything that may threaten their belief.
Most serious Christians know that Easter was installed to replace Passover in order to further eliminate 'Judaizing' from the new covenant church.
I would be pretty weirded out by a group that claimed 100% agreement. I'm not going to lie, I would think that it was a cult.
This goes back to my initial point. Belief preceding evidence is difficult to reach and impossible to validate. In grasping for belief, you're likely to default to whatever you grew up with, or to side with a particularly charismatic evangelist (or the religion of your spouse/significant other). Because of that, it doesn't seem like a very good way for God to reach out to humanity with the only means of salvation.
This claim of yours betrays ignorance of the subject matter: There are CENTURIES of biblical textual and historical criticism.
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?