[Philosophy] Christian Dilemmas

[jimkatalanos]

Author: Ragabash
Original Thread: Christian Dilemmas

Christian Dilemmas

So where to begin? I have always been quite critical towards religious institutions and their teachings, but it's only recently when I have started to go deeper into the matter. Most of my thoughts are theological more than philosphical, and while it might seem so, I'm not a lost soul, neither I seek such answers or advices. I merely seek better understandment what makes Christian a Christian and their theological views on the matter. This is not an attack against any believer while it might contain questions and certain points that are indeed quite critical towards these beliefs.


Let us take a look at the message that the Bible sends to us. It's a clear fact that this book has been written by people, and not the God by himself. It's a collection of "divine messages" that have been written down, and altered by the very same people who we see as its author but also after. Luke the Evangelist is great person to look at. He adds his own spice to the gospels, explaining them from his perspective and not from the one of God's instructions. The big question is, what parts can we take as an absolutely divine truth and what not? What are to be taken literally, as a direct message from the God itself and personal alterations and views, how they as human saw the teachings of Jesus. One can argue that they were divinely inspired, and while from theological view this is perfectly acceptable, it does open some more questions. Who are the people that can be considered as divinely inspired, and who are merely meant to read the message laid in front of them? This is a huge issue as this opens up a a question for divinity of the Bible. If it's divine indeed, is there a clear divination between divinely inspired men, their writings and regular folk. This might seem like an obvious answer but is it?

Should we assume that some people are simply more divine than others, who are we to choose who are those people. Clearly, if I were to write additions to the Bible they would not be seen as divine but utter nonsense. Why is this so? What makes you put your faith on Biblical messages of the far past more trust than to modern prophest and divine inspired men? And are these people able also to make errors in to the bible or are they infallible? Is their message meant to be taken as literal truth, since indeed they are divinely inspired, or is the divinity in the prefences and beliefs of each man?

If it's in the eyes of each man, the divine message that is, what is the message? Is a person who kills in the name of the Bible anymore wrong than a pacifist? Is he less divine in his interpretation than the fellow Christian, and more importantly, why? If the divinity is indeed in the interpretation of the text, instead of being in the literal form, which interpretation is correct should they go against each other in some theological issues, major or minor. What is this divinity of the Bible in the first place, and where does it stem from?

There are also some texts that were left outside the Bible, canonisation. Were these people who chose to leave certain parts of the teachings outside the Bible also divinely inspired or could they have made errors in their choices? If the Bible could be indeed incomplete, does that mean its message is also incomplete? If this men were divinely inspired, who are we to deny that from more modern prophests such as Muhamad or the Pope, or many of the people who claim the title today. If it's in our own acceptance that decides who are divine and who are not, what teachings are indeed divine?

As we ponder this complex question, lets go a bit deeper. Now what makes some people more divine in our eyes, as in looking general aspects with real objectivity. First of all, it's good to be dead, or at least have past dead prophests on your side. That makes the prophet out of our reach, we are not able to see he is just flesh and blood but an icon from the past. He is no longer fallible but becomes infallible by the stories, that now hold much more as they are no longer recent events but can be seen as allegories. Their message is no longer in the text but in the imagination of the man itself. He is able to see more than just the text, and the more dramatic this text is, the more important allegory it becomes. The death of the Christ is perfect example.

As this is in our minds, let us ponder the real essence of faith as it's only then when we are able to think these matters deep enough.

Where does faith stems in the first place? Is it restricted to certain divine inspired messages or is it natural human behaviour? I'm quite frank with and claim it's natural human attribute. It appears in every culture, in every location at some level. And the more complex the society is, the more organized the institutions and theological aspects becomes. From simple shamanism to polytheism, to monotheism and universal religions, they all share same attribute, they all require faith. Since this faith is common to all cultures, it's quite easy to make an conclusion that it stems from human spirituality and cannot be divinely restricted to certain religions. Religion can be now seen as a measurement for in how complex, and what culture we live on. Humans just have spiritual side in them, it's something we need to fullfill or we feel incomlete, some search it in the form of religion, some more, some less, some elsewhere, it really doean't matter. I'm an atheist myself, but I also admit the spirituality in me, and urge to fullfill it, I just seek it outside religion.

Now, is this faith any different for you from others? You feel the God, its existance and presence, but so do many others. Do you deny that others cannot feel faith towards their religions, the same feeling that you do? Either they believe in Islam or gods of Ancient Greek. And where does this put your faith, if everyone is spiritually able to feel love, presence, et cetra of gods, regadless of their believes. Can you anymore put your faith solely on this feeling? If it's indeed in the reach of every single man and his personal preferences?

I'm not sure did I get it all as I wanted. Just try to be patient and actually think about these questions outside box, as I know you all can. I'm not native speaker of english so just bare with me and try to read between the lines when necessary.