Board index ‹ God

[The Bagel Man]

I read your whole post with care.

Honestly you could be an abused woman telling me you don't know what he's really like and he loves you really.

I'm telling you that is genuinely how what you are saying to me is coming across to me. And that's not up for debate.

[jimwalton]

Well, I understand (or I have to accept) that's how you're seeing what I'm saying. Herein lies the problem. Many people deride God for stooping to such a poor form of communication as the written word, but frankly, all communication, no matter how clear (and even perfect) has to go through the filter of the listener/reader, and there is always the possibility of misunderstanding. I hear you when you say it's "not up for debate" that that's how this is all coming across to you, but I can also guarantee you you aren't seeing it right, and despite several attempts to communicate clearly, it's like you have scales over your eyes and various closets in your brain. Scandal follows Hillary Clinton with every step she takes, but many people vote for her like she's the messiah. Donald Trump is a brash, uncouth bully, just as corrupt as Hillary (they seem to be having a contest as to who is the most corrupt to the core), and yet people gush over the Donald as if he's the hope of America to make us great again. People aren't seeing straight, and they aren't thinking straight, despite of overwhelming and rather obvious evidence.

Let me try to be as clear as possible: Your impressions that God is bigoted and egotistical are very far from the truth. I can't say it any more clearly.

I don't know you, but maybe you're just reading the words and not trying to understand the depth of what the Bible is saying. Maybe you've skimmed some Internet links and think you understand. More likely you've had some conversations with Christians who don't know what they're talking about, your gut has responded with therefore "appropriate" revulsion, and now you're filled with some kind of disgust combined with rage that anyone could fall for this rubbish. For you to even make the analogy of followers of God/God :: abused woman/abusive husband reveals how far off the beaten bath you have been led and somehow been convinced. You are basing your position on false information—that's as clear as I can say it. Maybe you want to discuss a specific example so I don't have to speak in such generalities that obviously aren't getting us anywhere.

[Skating the Waltz]

We've all sinned. Speak for yourself. How could you possibly know that? Many of us do not even recognise 'sin' as a valid concept, so how can christians make such unspecified accusations?

[jimwalton]

The veracity of the concept of sin isn't subject to popular opinion any more than that of gravity or justice. We all know what it is. You say "speak for yourself," as if, say, you yourself have never ever told a lie, been wrongfully angry or selfish. You must have enough understanding of human nature (without having to interview every human) that we all show self-centeredness, anger, pride, envy, jealousy, deceit, greed. It's, I may venture, common knowledge that all human share these traits. When I said "we've all sinned," I wasn't speaking out of some kind of religious bias, but out of common knowledge of human nature.

You say that "many of us do not even recognize 'sin' as a valid concept," and that may be true, but "sin" is just the terminology for the depravity of human nature that shows itself in the traits I listed above. You must recognize the reality of sin; I would guess what you reject is the religious connotation attached to it, that it's an expression of missing the mark of the excellence that God had in mind for us and for which he designed us.

[Millionaire]

If you were talking to a strong Catholic or Protestant or Mormon (all of which I'm not) you would have a tough time trying to convince them of your point of view(s). So remember... I'm a non-believer.

See my point? Your understanding of the OT is wonderful. However you must realize that they're other educated "Christians" out there who read the exact same text you do and disagree with you. Don't you find that kind of strange?

Unless... Let me guess... Your "interpretation" is the right one. Ok.

[jimwalton]

Oh, I didn't forget you're an unbeliever. You certainly know that all communication, including writing, is subject to interpretation. I don't find it "kind of strange" that people disagree with me. The material is interpretable. There are many of us who work very hard to do everything possible, turning over every rock, to understand the text properly. Many people do that and come to different conclusions, and we have that in common with physicists, biologists, lawyers, specialists in literature, musicians, politicians, and philosophers. The varying perspectives create debate and sometimes heated argument, but all in all the diversity and variances enrich our understandings, hopefully challenging us all to think deeper and investigate further. I can't guarantee you that my interpretation is the right one, though I don't subscribe to things about which I'm not convinced of the truth. I have investigated the data, weighed the claims, and come to what I believe to be reasonable and truthful conclusions, though any student should always be open to correction, reassessment, and revision. I have changed my positions and perspectives many times through the years as new information and new viewpoints come to light. That's the value of the diversity of perspectives and exigent arguments. Otherwise we'd all be ignorant lemmings, with no one ever challenging another. We often advance only because there is a challenge at hand. So saying, the thoughts of Catholics, Mormons, and non-believers is all worth weighing. Without it, we'd be closed-minded imbeciles who never learn a thing.

[Skating the Waltz]

No. You are making unfounded allegations. You cannot possibly know what everyone has done. Furthermore many perfectly healthy and natural human behaviours are called 'sin' by the religious. 'Sin' is not a reality. It is just a word used by religious people for things they disapprove of.

[jimwalton]

My allegations are founded on the common knowledge we all have of human nature and behavior. In contrast, if you can find a human who has never been self-centered, unreasonably angry, inappropriately proud, envious, jealous, deceitful, or greedy, I'd love to meet him or her. But you and I both know that no such person exists. It's on that basis that my allegations are grounded.

You say that religious people have identified as sin "many perfectly healthy and natural human behaviors." Surely you realize that our definition of sin doesn't come from our own preferences and biases, but from the revelation of God about such things. And you're absolutely right that many of them are natural human behaviors. That's quite to the point. What we are naturally is problematic. We tend to be self-centered, violent, proud, greedy, angry people by nature. That's why we need to be saved from our sin and from ourselves. We come by these behaviors all too easily and all too naturally.

You make it sound as if sin is merely a manipulative weapon-word religious people use to control others. That shows you have a rather mundane and natural perspective of religion. You're in the school of people who think religion was self-created as a power strategy to dominate others. But if that were the case, Christianity wouldn't teach that all of us are sinners by nature, equally susceptible and equally deficient. If what you are claiming were the case, Christianity would have invented a system like the "blue blood" of royals, to separate between the worthy (viz., those in power) and the commoners (those to be suppressed for the personal gain of the worthy). But Christianity has no such walls of distinction, giving evidence that your assessment is more bitter bias than objective analysis. As we consider the holy character of God, humans by comparison, by everyone's experiences, don't approach any even low level of perfection. Sin is not a social construct of political exploitation, but a description of humanity as we all see it, without exception.

[Millionaire]

So what I've learned is this. There is no bible expert. There is no right denomination. Didn't Jesus pray that his followers be as one? Just like him and his father? Well? Are they? Jesus said (someone other than him wrote that he said) that FEW will enter through the gates. If I believed anything... I might believe that. Because if heaven is full of 98% of the Christians I've met over the years, I wouldn't want to be there. I think Jesus would be extremely disappointed with his followers. Well... 98% of them anyway.

[jimwalton]

There are Bible experts, excellent ones. There are scholars, pastors, and rabbis who really have studied deeply and well and who are experts in the book.

There are right denominations, but all are a blend. I couldn't say there is one that has absolutely everything right, but many are probably 95% or better.

Let's talk about Christianity, denominations, and unity.

1. All major religions have schisms, as do politics, educational theorists, and scientists.
- Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) don't have standardized creeds, so the issues of truth faced by Christians don't exist for them.
- Schisms in Judaism are not generally doctrinally-based, but focus on the extent to which law and traditions are followed. Variations in practice exist.
- Schisms in Islam resulted from power (political and military) struggles, while variations in practice exist.

Everybody's got 'em. Should we talk about democrats & republicans, scientists' debates over how to interpret data, statisticians' debates over how to interpret data, historians' debates over how to interpret data? But didn't Jesus pray that his followers be as one, as you asked?

Yes he did. There are reasons for disagreements.

1. We care about truth. Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists can disagree without causing any real disruption because they all take a flexible view of the truth. For Christians, however, truth matters.

2. Truth is inextricably tied to faith. Matt. 13.11-13 and 1 Cor. 1.18-25 say that the truth of God can really only be understood by insiders, meaning those who are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is more than a collection of words, and the Holy Spirit is necessary for understanding.

3. We are fallible interpreters. All communication needs to be interpreted, and the Bible is no different. Disagreements are inevitable, because truth, again, is so vitally important. The Bible is not a Systematic Theology textbook. He didn't spell out a creed, but God revealing himself as he connected with human life in real history. Interpretation is always necessary.

4. Humans are sinners, and even though Christians have the Holy Spirit in them, we are still not flawless interpreters of the Bible. While Catholics claim that the pope is, this theology has led to disaster across the centuries with tremendous abuses of power.

5. There are differences in practice, but this is ubiquitous across all strata of life and all disciplines. Christians, however, get upbraided for it.

6. There are variations based on ethnic preferences, but diversity is a strength.

One might actually argue that God has used denominational divisions for good. They have allowed the Gospel to reach wider segments of the human population, as different people are attracted to different church bodies. They have also raised questions that have deepened people’s understanding of the Word of God through the study requires to address those questions. One could therefore also affirm that denominations are part of God’s will for His Church so that diversity in secondary matters could exist within the overall unity of the faith. As I said to you yesterday, the varying perspectives create debate and sometimes heated argument, but all in all the diversity and variances enrich our understandings, hopefully challenging us all to think deeper and investigate further.

Note that the unity Scripture advocates is spiritual rather than organizational. Paul’s letters were addressed to individual congregations that were struggling with dissent, and he is encouraging them to live at peace with one another. The NT also teaches that those who engage in false teaching or ungodly living are to be excluded from the church and not recognized as fellow believers. To those outside the church, however, we are all grouped together as "Christians in disunity." Separation can sometimes be legitimate.

Another important point to make here is that denominations arose as an alternative to persecution and religious warfare. \While disunity in the Church is not a desirable thing, one must ask what is the best way to deal with the differences that are bound to occur in a sinful world in which no one has a completely accurate understanding of God’s Word. Surely one could at least admit that denominations, while not ideal by any means, allow for differences without violence and in the spirit of mutual toleration within the context of the Body of Christ.

There are truths that all Christians are unified in their belief over: the existence of God, creation by God, the deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, to name some.