As I said. And why it did not occur to me that it would be either insulting or “disingenuous” to outline a space here for it.
-
Features
Christians: can you talk about which one of you has the theology right?
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
As I said. And why it did not occur to me that it would be either insulting or “disingenuous” to outline a space here for it.
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
Since one of our conversations apparently was at least part of the reason you started this thread, I guess you would like for me to participate in this discussion you requested. There are a couple of reasons that I don’t think this would work the way you anticipate.
First, I am not a skilled debater. I have no training in it and quite honestly debate for the sake of debate does not interest me at all. If I am asked for my reasoning on particular issues, I do my best to provide that – but I don’t make it a point to bring up a subject just so I can convince the other party that I am right and they are wrong.
Second, you will find that most Christians are very willing to admit that they may be wrong about specific theological viewpoints. Of course, this does not include the adherents to the far right who are convinced that they are infallible at interpreting the Bible which they read literally. As for myself I have stated previously that I do not read the Bible literally but accept it as the author’s attempt to explain the existence of God and man’s role in this world. To understand it correctly in my opinion requires some knowledge of how the Jews typically wrote and used the scripture in the times it was written. But this is just my viewpoint, and I am not infallible so I could be wrong on some things.
I don’t know how useful it would actually be for a non-believer to try to determine the truth of Christianity from a discussion/debate between different believers. The fundamentals of Christian faith are detailed in Jesus’ words in Mark 12:30-31: “30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” All else is window dressing and it is entirely possible that no one has it exactly right.
There have been several discussions on this board between believers who disagreed on certain theological stances and I honestly don’t remember any of those discussions changing someone’s mind. If you are wanting a single Christian viewpoint to be so persuasive that all others are dismissed – that will never happen. We are all imperfect humans just like you and each one has their own viewpoint of God and scripture.
Do keep in mind that even Jesus did not convince everyone that was around Him when He was incarnate – so how do you expect a typical fallible current human to be able to do that? Humans were created with free will to make our own decisions, not unthinking automatons only able to do as they are told. And every person approaches their faith journey with their own experiences, preconceptions, and thought process which will impact how they view God.
Ruth
First, I am not a skilled debater. I have no training in it and quite honestly debate for the sake of debate does not interest me at all. If I am asked for my reasoning on particular issues, I do my best to provide that – but I don’t make it a point to bring up a subject just so I can convince the other party that I am right and they are wrong.
Second, you will find that most Christians are very willing to admit that they may be wrong about specific theological viewpoints. Of course, this does not include the adherents to the far right who are convinced that they are infallible at interpreting the Bible which they read literally. As for myself I have stated previously that I do not read the Bible literally but accept it as the author’s attempt to explain the existence of God and man’s role in this world. To understand it correctly in my opinion requires some knowledge of how the Jews typically wrote and used the scripture in the times it was written. But this is just my viewpoint, and I am not infallible so I could be wrong on some things.
I don’t know how useful it would actually be for a non-believer to try to determine the truth of Christianity from a discussion/debate between different believers. The fundamentals of Christian faith are detailed in Jesus’ words in Mark 12:30-31: “30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” All else is window dressing and it is entirely possible that no one has it exactly right.
There have been several discussions on this board between believers who disagreed on certain theological stances and I honestly don’t remember any of those discussions changing someone’s mind. If you are wanting a single Christian viewpoint to be so persuasive that all others are dismissed – that will never happen. We are all imperfect humans just like you and each one has their own viewpoint of God and scripture.
Do keep in mind that even Jesus did not convince everyone that was around Him when He was incarnate – so how do you expect a typical fallible current human to be able to do that? Humans were created with free will to make our own decisions, not unthinking automatons only able to do as they are told. And every person approaches their faith journey with their own experiences, preconceptions, and thought process which will impact how they view God.
Ruth
Learner
Veteran Member
I like your post Ruth
1 rep
1 rep
No request. You just sparked a question. Though I welcome all input.
Aahh, no that’s a misunderstanding. I don’t want or need to “determine the truth.” I said I was looking to understand HOW believers determine truth. My curiosity is not about WHAT you believe, but HOW you believe it. So watching theists trying to discuss their beliefs would help to illuminate that.
For example, if you were to have a discussion with another believer about HOW you decided that the bible was not to be taken literally, and HOW they decided you were not accurate. If I understood what made you each decide what you believed, I would be better able to understand your beliefs. It’s a gap that I do not understand and I feel Christians do not usually understand this question (they assume I want to know WHAT they believe, despite me saying otherwise), so I was interested in learning it by observation, not questioning.
Sometimes we get into discussions of the “what,” but often, for an atheist, the genuine question is the “how,” and the questions of “what” are only to try to get that answer by iteration.
At any rate, thank you for the response. Perhaps none of the christians here think the bible is literal and have no argument with your statements. They don’t agree with what Atheos used to believe. How would you talk to him about that? Especially if he wanted to pass laws forcing everyone, believer or not, to hew to a law based on the literal interpretation that he outlined?
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 16,510
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
This is exceptionally well-stated, thank you!
ideologyhunter
Contributor
So God couldn't establish a church with one orthodoxy (let alone a dependable set of scriptures?) It's possible to have a Catholic uncle who, say, ate cheeseburgers in the pre-1984 era of Meatless Fridays, and thereby committed a mortal sin and went to hell, and his widow, your Aunt Ida, let's say, who waited 'til after 1984 and ate a gigantic Friday night pot roast and sits in heaven remembering her dumb-ass sinner husband.
Well said. Thank you.
I always address that literal meme with...... I take it literally where it was meant to be taken literally.
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
Well, typically I would not involve myself in a debate with someone who was so convinced they were “rightly dividing the word of truth” as Atheos stated. This is particularly true when you are talking with a person who spent many years of their life earning degrees in theological related fields – and held a pastorate too. My experience has been that there is no point spending time and effort to try to convince someone like that to actually listen to what I am saying and give it thoughtful consideration. I have stated my viewpoints when asked by pastors. As you can probably guess, it does not make me very popular with many of them
The difference in scriptural interpretation between someone like Atheos (in his prior life) and me is that I start from the viewpoint that the Bible was written by men – not dictated by God to scribes. Let me make my viewpoint very clear – inspired, yes; dictated, NO. As such, when reading it I think it is imperative to keep in mind the worldview of the people who wrote those words. Unless we spend some time trying to understand their typical writing style and the expressions used at that time, we cannot hope to understand what is meant in the scriptures they wrote.
For the most part, the authors of the New Testament were Jewish with the exception of Luke (who authored the books of Luke and Acts and was heavily influenced by Paul) and it is not known who wrote the book of Hebrews but I suspect a Jewish author for it.
Paul, in particular, claimed apostolic authority for his words. Others did to some degree but not as firmly as Paul did. What needs to be kept in mind when reading the many books attributed to Paul is that he was a very highly educated man and was not at all shy to mention that. His attitude towards others was overwhelmingly authoritarian as he apparently felt that he was more than qualified to set down rules and regulations for the new churches which should not be questioned. The difficulty with this, of course, is that he was still a fallible human and as such not always correct. Typically any book authored by Paul is interpreted to be part cultural admonition and part divine mandate. The problem lies with separating the two – and if you read his scriptures through the viewpoint of understanding how Paul saw things, you can see that he was simply being true to his nature of believing he alone was qualified to mandate what was acceptable and what wasn’t. Given this understanding, I believe it is more likely than not that the vast majority of his writings were strictly culture related and not a divine mandate for all times.
The other difficulty in properly interpreting scripture is the change in language over the centuries. Not only the many translations made into different languages, but also the use of idioms in each time. Biblical translators have disagreed many times over what was intended by the original author. This is usually caused by each translator wanting to use terminology favored by their particular denomination or translation financier. Since the original manuscripts are no longer in existence much less anyone who actually lived in those times, this can be a real problem. In my opinion, our best source for reliable information on how to translate those scriptures is the nationality that originally wrote them – the Jewish people. They are most familiar with the words, phrasing and context used by the authors. Unfortunately it is rare for translators to be Jewish, particularly when the New Testament is being translated.
As far as wanting laws to be enacted in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Bible, my view is that it would be unbiblical to do that. Jesus never involved Himself in the politics of the day. His only concern was with the souls of people. He never addressed the Roman laws at all; only the leaders of the Jewish faith and their interpretations of scripture. He did advocate following the laws of the land even when they were unfair. Given that, I don't see how anyone could claim that legislating their version of morality in a country is biblical.
Ruth
Well, typically I would not involve myself in a debate with someone who was so convinced they were “rightly dividing the word of truth” as Atheos stated. This is particularly true when you are talking with a person who spent many years of their life earning degrees in theological related fields – and held a pastorate too. My experience has been that there is no point spending time and effort to try to convince someone like that to actually listen to what I am saying and give it thoughtful consideration. I have stated my viewpoints when asked by pastors. As you can probably guess, it does not make me very popular with many of them
The difference in scriptural interpretation between someone like Atheos (in his prior life) and me is that I start from the viewpoint that the Bible was written by men – not dictated by God to scribes. Let me make my viewpoint very clear – inspired, yes; dictated, NO. As such, when reading it I think it is imperative to keep in mind the worldview of the people who wrote those words. Unless we spend some time trying to understand their typical writing style and the expressions used at that time, we cannot hope to understand what is meant in the scriptures they wrote.
For the most part, the authors of the New Testament were Jewish with the exception of Luke (who authored the books of Luke and Acts and was heavily influenced by Paul) and it is not known who wrote the book of Hebrews but I suspect a Jewish author for it.
Paul, in particular, claimed apostolic authority for his words. Others did to some degree but not as firmly as Paul did. What needs to be kept in mind when reading the many books attributed to Paul is that he was a very highly educated man and was not at all shy to mention that. His attitude towards others was overwhelmingly authoritarian as he apparently felt that he was more than qualified to set down rules and regulations for the new churches which should not be questioned. The difficulty with this, of course, is that he was still a fallible human and as such not always correct. Typically any book authored by Paul is interpreted to be part cultural admonition and part divine mandate. The problem lies with separating the two – and if you read his scriptures through the viewpoint of understanding how Paul saw things, you can see that he was simply being true to his nature of believing he alone was qualified to mandate what was acceptable and what wasn’t. Given this understanding, I believe it is more likely than not that the vast majority of his writings were strictly culture related and not a divine mandate for all times.
The other difficulty in properly interpreting scripture is the change in language over the centuries. Not only the many translations made into different languages, but also the use of idioms in each time. Biblical translators have disagreed many times over what was intended by the original author. This is usually caused by each translator wanting to use terminology favored by their particular denomination or translation financier. Since the original manuscripts are no longer in existence much less anyone who actually lived in those times, this can be a real problem. In my opinion, our best source for reliable information on how to translate those scriptures is the nationality that originally wrote them – the Jewish people. They are most familiar with the words, phrasing and context used by the authors. Unfortunately it is rare for translators to be Jewish, particularly when the New Testament is being translated.
As far as wanting laws to be enacted in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Bible, my view is that it would be unbiblical to do that. Jesus never involved Himself in the politics of the day. His only concern was with the souls of people. He never addressed the Roman laws at all; only the leaders of the Jewish faith and their interpretations of scripture. He did advocate following the laws of the land even when they were unfair. Given that, I don't see how anyone could claim that legislating their version of morality in a country is biblical.
Ruth
Again nicely done.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Well, "biblical" does not need to be "Christian", but leaving that aside, would you say that it is unbiblical to attempt to make the law more just, as one of the means of having a more just society?Ruth said:
If your answer is "no", then it seems that if the Bible were a good guide to moral truth - as much of the Bible claims -, it would not be unbiblical to use the Bible as a source, in order to pass laws.
If your answer is "yes", then would you say that Christians should refrain from attempting to make the law more just? Or do you think it's permissible for Christians to act unbiblically and try to make the law more just?
Of course, I hold the Bible is not remotely a good guide to moral truth, but that's another issue. The above would explain why someone might think it is at least not unbiblical to do what you described (but if you want more information and you actually want to understand how someone could say that, I suggest you ask the people who say that - in particular, the most informed you can find.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The OT does indicate the ancient Hebrews set up a civil court system. The problem with Christians is they literally interpret scripture unaware of all the Jewish side teachings that go with the Torah.
In NYC Jews can resort to binding arbitration for anything other than criminal offenses or issues related to the city.
If two Jewish business owners have a legal dispute they can submit to a Jewish court, rabbis of course.
In NYC Jews can resort to binding arbitration for anything other than criminal offenses or issues related to the city.
If two Jewish business owners have a legal dispute they can submit to a Jewish court, rabbis of course.
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
Let’s clarify something first – what Rhea and I were discussing was attempts by those who read the Bible literally to enact laws which are driven solely by their interpretation of the scripture, and not necessarily something that would be considered a “just” law.
As an example, here in Missouri the legislature recently passed HB 267, which allows the offering of elective social studies courses on the Bible in public schools. You can read the actual bill here: https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills191/hlrbillspdf/0740H.01I.pdf
I find this appalling. I don’t want scripture taught according to governmental mandate under any circumstances. This is not the purview of public schools. I cannot imagine how bad this could get, but I want no part of it. And I have made that very clear to anyone who asked me. Yes, in the past the Bible has been used in school but typically it was for reading/literature purposes. There was no attempt to teach the principles of scripture involved. This law, if passed, would be very different from that.
Now, if someone uses a Biblical principle to propose a law which is intended to make things more just for members of society, I don’t think there is any problem with that. Every law has a source of one kind or another; we don’t always know how someone got the idea for each law, but it is entirely possible that many of our laws came into existence based on the proposing party’s view of some scripture. However, if a law is proposed and enacted solely based on their interpretation of certain scriptures and does nothing to make our society more just – that, in my opinion, crosses the line and is unbiblical. An example of this that comes to mind is the old “blue laws” which prohibited stores from opening on Sundays. These laws were enacted simply because certain churches and their members believed this was taught in the scripture.
I have discussed this with other Christians. Most of them agree with me, but there is always the extreme fringe who are convinced it is their duty is to turn this country into a theocratic society based on their interpretation of scripture and I reject that completely.
Ruth
And that is the basis for this thread. Two Christians, using the same book to promote opposite ideas. It feels like another Christian should be easier to reach than an atheist, since you both believe many same things, including the ultimate authority of a particular god. So when you discuss this with other Christians, and tell them they are Christianing wrong, how do you set out to convince them?
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Of course, it's not something that would be, in general, a just law. But the point is that the people supporting that tend to believe that those laws would indeed be just.Ruth said:
I click on the link but get nothing. Maybe it's a problem with my browser. But it's not the point. The point is that the people proposing it believe it is a just law. You were asking for an explanation as to how someone can say it's "biblical". Well, I don't know whether they use that term, but if they do, they tend to think that enacting such laws is just, and moreover, they believe that the Bible is a good guide to moral truth.Ruth said:
Well, of course I agree that that would not make your society more just. But that is not my point. The person who does believe it would make your society more just - a person who also believes that the Bible is a good guide to moral truth, and moreover, the word of a morally perfect omniscient creator - will see things very differently. I'm addressing your comment "I don't see how anyone could claim that legislating their version of morality in a country is biblical."Ruth said:
Across the world, such laws are often supported by Catholics, who do not believe scripture is the sole source of dogma.Ruth said:
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
I don't agree that another Christian is necessarily easier to reach. You could also say that you think you could more easily reach another atheist - but look at the arguments on this board alone about atheist ideology! Sharing some basic ideology is no guarantee that one person can have a more persuasive conversation with another in that group than someone completely outside it.
I can't give you a generic "this is how I try to convince them" conversation. It depends on what is being discussed, how they are forming their arguments for their position, and what scripture they are using as the basis for their belief.
Ruth
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
We are kind of veering off track from the original subject here, but I don't want you to think that I ignored your post. Just to be clear on what I am trying to explain here - I have no doubt that the person who proposed the laws believe that they will make society more just. But we do not live in a theocracy, and in fact this country is based on the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm someone else. The Bible is very clear that Christians are to obey the laws of their country and Jesus never made any attempt to influence the existing legal authorities even when they acted in a manner that was not based on a biblical foundation. Sure, we can vote for or against a particular piece of legislation based on our beliefs - but we do not have the right to force others to live by those beliefs when they are not aimed at preventing or correcting injustice in society as that would be violating the principles that Jesus taught.
Ruth
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Well, in general, I disagree with Jesus's principles, but that's not really the point, either. You asked a psychological question about people who say that their actions are biblical. I gave one part of a reply, which applies to many, probably most of them. For a better reply, you should ask them, as I mentioned before.Ruth said:
That aside, you say
But that is the point. The people who intend to change the law in that manner do intend (usually) to make the laws and society more just. They are mistaken about morality, but that is not the point. You are suggesting it would be "unbiblical" because Jesus did not do that. My question remains, then: would it be unbiblical to actually intend to pass just laws, in your view? If not, then that's part of your answer: people who want to pass laws that they believe are just will similarly not see their attempt as unbiblical. What if Jesus did not try? Well, did Jesus try to pass just laws? If he did not, then would an attempt to pass just laws be unbiblical? If not, then why not, if Jesus did not try? But regardless of why not, the point remains the same: if it's not unbiblical to try to pass just laws (even though Jesus did not try to do that), then a person who believes that the Bible-based laws they support are just may similarly (and psychologically similarly) not see anything unbiblical in an attempt to pass such laws.Ruth said:
Learner
Veteran Member
I think It is shown as according to Jesus. Of course there are tons of denominations but it really doesn't matter as long as someone in each of the varieties of congregations points it out ... WITHOUT ever needing to know everything of the OT especially if you're not in for debating and so on etc..
Its simplle to follow / understand if unsure: Like Jesus's Two Greatest Commandments ... the most important common denominator if you will , contained IN most, if not all, denominations scripture that should be brought to-the-fore "above" everything else taught of the bible which would also clear up any false doctrines or preachings if it isn't "Through Christ Alone". There can be much Less confusion I'd say.
Good topic BTW Rhea .
Last edited:
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
You missed the main point - we are not to base our idea of "just laws" on strictly the foundation that the Bible, when read literally, would make them seem to be just. The primary foundation of our country is personal freedom. Given that a very large part of this country does not read the Bible literally, this would have the effect of reducing their freedom. For instance, most people who read the Bible literally firmly believe that the practice of homosexuality should be outlawed. They base this on Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and also Romans 1:26-27. There is no injustice that would be corrected by enacting such laws, and in fact a law like this would cause injustice in a country where personal freedom is paramount.
Jesus made no attempt to influence or change secular laws. Does this mean that we should not try to change them either? No, not necessarily. We are told to live in accordance with the existing law and in our country, that means living in accordance with the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm others. There will be times when new laws are desirable to protect the individual from harm or injustice. This was not the case in New Testament times, when Roman rule was absolute and there was no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, nor were common people ever consulted on their view of the law.
I do understand that you are saying Bible literalists would believe that they are wanting "just laws", but given the founding criteria of our country they would be incorrect. We do not live in a theocracy and attempts to enact laws which reduce personal freedoms to meet their interpretation of the scripture are not in accordance with the law we live under now - so these attempts are unbiblical.
Ruth
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
No, you missed the main point. That reply does not engage it.Ruth Harris said:
Indeed. Of course, there are people who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, to the point that it would be just to punish it with imprisonment or similar. They are mistaken, but that is still not the point.Ruth Harris said:
So, is it unbiblical to try to change the existing law and make it more just?Ruth Harris said:
Would it have been against Jesus's mandate to try to influence Roman law, and make it more just, because there was no expectation that the laws would protect individual freedoms?
Would it be against Jesus's mandate for people who live under totalitarian regimes (say, the USSR, China, communist regimes in Eastern Europe) to try to influence their laws, improve them, decriminalize homosexual behavior where it is outlawed, etc.?
First, attempting to enact pro-democracy laws would be not in accordance with the law of many countries (from the Roman Empire to China to the USSR, or Saudi Arabia, or any in a long list). Would then attempts to change it be unbiblical?Ruth Harris said:
Second, actually reducing personal freedoms by legal means (including, if needed, a Constitutional Amendment) would be in accordance to the law you live under now.