The key to theological disputes between believers and non-believers

[Darth Wong]

There's something I've been meaning to point out for a while, and I see it over and over on this forum. Believers interpret the Bible differently than non-believers do, and there's one key reason for this. Typically, if a non-believer points out an embarrassing or disgusting portion of the Bible, a believer points out a positive one, to contradict what the non-believer said.

However, this technique relies on a singular assumption, shared by most believers and even many non-believers who have been conditioned to think this way: that assumption is that the Bible was written by one mind.

Of course, believers think the Bible came from God, so it's not surprising that they think this. And non-believers may not have ever given the matter much thought. But historically, we KNOW that the Bible came from many different authors, writing at many different times. It is therefore perfectly logical that it will contain many contradictory points of view.

So when a believer finds a "good" passage to contradict a "bad" one, what exactly does he think he's accomplishing? He believes that it proves the bad passage is being incorrectly interpreted, but that does not follow. The far more logical explanation is that the Bible is not a coherent story or idea at all, but rather, a collection of different peoples' opinions and beliefs. You have some pacifists, some militarists, some bigots, etc. all thrown together into the mix.

Can any believer explain why a "good" passage is supposed to contradict or refute a "bad" one, when we know that the Bible was written by so many different people? Or why we're supposed to believe that it's one coherent idea despite that known fact?

[Turbo]

Everyone is guilty of what you are describing - taking a single verse and magnifying it into a theological statement. There may not be an argument on the verse itself but instead on the theological statement that it is based on the verse. That is when other verses are brought up as a counter to the theological statement.

[Turbo]

But isn't the very existence of a unified theology a groundless assumption? Given the large number of contributing authors, is it not more reasonable to say that people all had different opinions on what Christianity was back then, just as they do today? So the Bible is actually a composite of many different competing opinions about God?

If you take the bible by itself as the only basis of theological truth - absolutely there are different opinions by those that read the bible. Tradition is essential and is a copartner with the bible in understanding Christianity.

There are many essential truths in the bible but the bible is not a theological roadmap. You have only to look at the multitude of the protestant fundamentalist churches to understand this. Although all writings were inspired, some parts were written to address specific issue in the Churches of that time and span different time frames. No two people interpret the bible the same way which is why doctrine is so important. Doctrine and Dogma is really a way of directing the faithful back on the path of the Work of God.

That is why the Church is the body of Christ and why Christ works his will through the Church. To provide interpretation and guidance.

We've been debating the theological concept of the Trinity on the other threads. Truth is however that the Thief on the Cross only had to accept Christ as his savior and nothing else.

[Darth Wong]

If you take the bible by itself as the only basis of theological truth - absolutely there are different opinions by those that read the bible.

Agreed, but what I'm saying is that there were also different opinions by those who WROTE the Bible.

[Turbo]

Agreed, but what I'm saying is that there were also different opinions by those who WROTE the Bible.

Please elaborate. I'd be interested in learning more on this.

I hate when people lend scriptural significance to the Church. The Church ain't even mentioned in the scriptures.

I am sorry that my post upset you. There are plenty of references to the Church in scriptures. Perhaps you can get someone else to waste their time posting them. I 'hate' sarcastic remarks.

Well, God wasn't holding a pen while he wrote it... no... no one believes that. but 99% of Christians believe that God was invariably 'there', guiding the disciples, when they told or dictated the Gospels. Which means that most Christians believe that the Bible is infallible, which doesn't make logical sense, because the Bible contradicts itself. Then some might suppose that part of the Bible is divine, but another part is humanized.

When the simple truth might simply be that the disciples were not divinely inspired, but were just telling, in different ways, what they had witnessed about the life of an ordinary man who happened to be extraordinary in character, so extraordinary in fact that he believed himself to be the son of God, a claim that had an extraordinary effect on other people, people that either believed him or crucified him.

I tend to accept that Christ inspired the writers and they penned in their words the writings. This is different than the giving of the Commandments to Moses which we know came directly from God and in his words. You don't see any debate on what the Commandments say. An atheist that reads the bible will read it for academic content whereas a believer will read it for spiritual guidance. Both will walk away with different messages.

We had a lively debate in one of my theology classes and we had to essay these questions:
Do you need to be spirtually inspired to truly understand the bible?
Is the bible a source of spiritual inspiration to non believers?
What is the relationship between the bible and the Church?
Why is the NT composed of only ancient writings and nothing more current?

The class was composed of my fellow prelate members and everyone had a different opinion.

[Darth Wong]

Agreed, but what I'm saying is that there were also different opinions by those who WROTE the Bible.

Please elaborate. I'd be interested in learning more on this.

What's there to explain? We know that different human beings wrote the various gospels, and different human being obviously have distinct minds and personalities and prejudices and perspectives. The reason I mention Rashomon is that it's a good example of how two people who witness the same event can come away with different interpretations of it.

And that's assuming that everyone is being totally honest, not to mention ignoring the huge timeframe between the actual events in question and the authorship of the gospels: many decades.

[David Deas]

It's fairly clear that major segments of the Bible, namely the New Testament, have a singular source.

[Darth Wong]

It's fairly clear that major segments of the Bible, namely the New Testament, have a singular source.

That is not clear at all. The Gospels contradict each other in many ways, and each one has its own "flavour" on the Jesus story. One of them stresses the idea of good works and charity, another one stresses his divine kingship and bloodline from the Jewish royalty of old, another one stresses militarism and aggressive expansion. They don't even agree on his last words on the cross.

It would be like getting a Southern Baptist, a Catholic priest, and a United Church minister together today and having them write three books in a new Gospel. Each book would look different and have a different angle on what Christianity is. The idea that they're all one ideal just does not follow from this situation.

Everyone is guilty of what you are describing - taking a single verse and magnifying it into a theological statement. There may not be an argument on the verse itself but instead on the theological statement that it is based on the verse. That is when other verses are brought up as a counter to the theological statement.

But isn't the very existence of a unified theology a groundless assumption? Given the large number of contributing authors, is it not more reasonable to say that people all had different opinions on what Christianity was back then, just as they do today? So the Bible is actually a composite of many different competing opinions about God?

Scorch says remember the edit button.

[David Deas]

That is not clear at all. The Gospels contradict each other in many ways, and each one has its own "flavour" on the Jesus story. One of them stresses the idea of good works and charity, another one stresses his divine kingship and bloodline from the Jewish royalty of old, another one stresses militarism and aggressive expansion. They don't even agree on his last words on the cross.

It would be like getting a Southern Baptist, a Catholic priest, and a United Church minister together today and having them write three books in a new Gospel. Each book would look different and have a different angle on what Christianity is. The idea that they're all one ideal just does not follow from this situation.

I'm typing from my cell (phone) so I can't be too winded here.

The only thing I was trying to say was even though the gospels do not always agree, it is clear they are at least attempting to tell the same story, which implies a singular source in some form. Now, its possible that these different authors from different times all just thought up these remarkable, incredibly similar stories about a man called Jesus on their own, but its highly unlikely. The likelihood of an original source, whatever it may be, introduces some possibility for objectivity here. No matter how remote that possibility may be.

[Darth Wong]

I'm typing from my cell so I can't be too winded here.

The only thing I was trying to say was even though the gospels do not always agree, it is clear they are at least attempting to tell the same story, which implies a singular source in some form. Now, its possible that these different authors from different times all just thought up these remarkable, incredibly similar stories about a man called Jesus on their own, but its highly unlikely. The likleyhood of an original source, whatever it may be, introduces some possibility for objectivity here. No matter how remote it may be.

Did you ever watch the movie Rashomon, about how different people witnessing the same events can have totally different interpretations of it? If that's the case with the Bible, even if we assume the original "event" was actually a physical event rather than a story, then you have no way of knowing how much of the story is based on the event and how much is based on the author.

[Siblesz]

Did you ever watch the movie Rashomon, about how different people witnessing the same events can have totally different interpretations of it? If that's the case with the Bible, even if we assume the original "event" was actually a physical event rather than a story, then you have no way of knowing how much of the story is based on the event and how much is based on the author.

Great movie. Classic.

Darth Wong makes a great point. I have no idea how a person can form a set of beliefs from a source that contradicts itself time and again. It's like declaring yourself a peaceful man whilst carrying a dagger in your hand. But as all things related to dogma, it boils down to faith... and unfortunately, most believers lack the will to question the premises of that faith.

[Blau&Gruen]

Can any believer explain why a "good" passage is supposed to contradict or refute a "bad" one, when we know that the Bible was written by so many different people? Or why we're supposed to believe that it's one coherent idea despite that known fact?

Because the "authors" or sources and redactions that were merged together already create an invisible dialogue of words, sentences, arguments, tales and so on. A dialogue that goes over into an exegesis apparently without end until now, the Talmud, the Christian Dogmatics. Coherence comes as an exgetical ideal. It is a trick, that keeps conversation on and interpretation open. (my try, free after the french poet Edmond Jabès)

[David Deas]

Thats true. You can never know. Not unless you lived back then. But what you can do is agree on a logic that separates likelihood, or likely level of authenticity though comparison. It's no longer just willy nilly. The person calculating the unknown using more sound logic is likely closer to the truth than the one who isn't. When its all said and done, you just have to do the best you can.

[David Deas]

Well. Though the Bible does contradict itself in significant quantity, few would disagree that it has more in common with itself than it doesn't. I think it's possible to form a set of beliefs from common themes in the Bible.

[Siblesz]

Well. Though the Bible does contradict itself in significant quantity, few would disagree that it has more in common with itself than it doesn't. I think it's possible to form a set of beliefs from common themes in the Bible.

You can form a set of beliefs, but you can also form a set of beliefs from the Simpsons. What I'm trying to get at is that you have to hand-pick your beliefs from the Bible, you have to grab what is consistent, and throw out what is inconsistent. There is no clear consistency in what the Bible preaches, and therefore, logically-speaking, the Bible should not be used for dogma, but for practical use in life. If used for dogma, then the Bible will be turned against itself (as it already has many times), and create trouble where there should be none. If the Bible were a person, it'd be a bipolar, highly unstable one. Take the Bible literally as the words of God, and you become that. It's that delusional aspect that gives birth to the evangelical. Take the Bible as a book of different messages that were written by different people, and you will understand that it makes sense, logical sense, and that faith will no longer be needed.

[David Deas]

You can form a set of beliefs, but you can also form a set of beliefs from the Simpsons. What I'm trying to get at is that you have to hand-pick your beliefs from the Bible, you have to grab what is consistent, and throw out what is inconsistent. There is no clear consistency in what the Bible preaches, and therefore, logically-speaking, the Bible should not be used for dogma, but for practical use in life. If used for dogma, then the Bible will be turned against itself (as it already has many times), and create trouble where there should be none. If the Bible were a person, it'd be a bipolar, highly unstable one. Take the Bible literally as the words of God, and you become that. It's that delusional aspect that gives birth to the evangelical. Take the Bible as a book of different messages that were written by different people, and you will understand that it makes sense, logical sense, and that faith will no longer be needed.

I don't disagree. I can't disagree. To accept that there is contradiction in the Bible is also to accept that there is falsehood in the Bible since no two contradictory things can be simultaneously true. However, I don't think the levels of inconsistency in the Bible is so astronomically high that the text is useless to anyone wanting to draw inspiration, or ground an actual set of beliefs, which I think you're referring to here as dogma. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As differing as the perspectives of the New Testament's authors are on Jesus, they still tell the same damned story. You've got this guy named Jesus, born of a virgin. He goes around talking noise about righteousness, works some miracles, he disputes with the leaders of the day, he walks on a little water in the meantime, then he gets crucified. Depending on the nature and the magnitude of the contradiction, we might be quibbling over details that really don't have a tremendous impact. It's an unreasonable request to ask each individual to recall, or perceive the exact same story in exactly the same way since, psychologically, thats next to impossible. Not to mention the other practical challenges such an ambitious request would end up presenting, likely foiling that ideal even further.

Thats the only thing I'm trying to say.

I mean, I hear fundamentalists claim the Bible was written by God and all. But do they honestly deny that it was authored by different human authors with different personalities, and thus perspectives? Even a fanatic like Turbo would have to concede at least that. I've not seen many if I've seen any at all. I had thought the entire point of having different authors tell the same story was to get multiple perspectives on the same story?

[Siblesz]

I don't disagree. I can't disagree. To accept that there is contradiction in the Bible is also to accept that there is falsehood in the Bible since no two contradictory things can be simultaneously true. However, I don't think the levels of inconsistency in the Bible is so astronomically high that the text is useless to anyone wanting to draw inspiration, or ground an actual set of beliefs, which I think you're referring to here as dogma. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As differing as the perspectives of the New Testament's authors are on Jesus, they still tell the same damned story. You've got this guy named Jesus, born of a virgin. He goes around talking noise about righteousness, works some miracles, he disputes with the leaders of the day, he walks on a little water in the meantime, then he gets crucified. Depending on the nature and the magnitude of the contradiction, we might be quibbling over details that really don't have a tremendous impact. It's an unreasonable request to ask each individual to recall, or perceive the exact same story in exactly the same way since, psychologically, thats next to impossible. Not to mention the other practical challenges such an ambitious request would end up presenting, likely foiling that ideal even further.

Thats the only thing I'm trying to say.

I mean, I hear fundamentalists claim the Bible was written by God and all. But do they honestly deny that it was authored by different human authors with different personalities, and thus perspectives? Even a fanatic like Turbo would have to concede at least that. I've not seen many if I've seen any at all. I had thought the entire point of having different authors tell the same story was to get multiple perspectives on the same story?

Or it could just mean that the Bible was not really written by God, but by a few people who witnessed the life of an incredible man, a man who considered himself divine at a time of scientific ignorance, and of disciples who told his story in different ways, each according to how the saw him.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

They way it typically goes is:
Non-believer: Quote old testament
Believer: Quote new testament

The new testament is what matters, the old testament is the old law and holds no real value as I understood the whole thing.

[Darth Wong]

They way it typically goes is:
Non-believer: Quote old testament
Believer: Quote new testament

The new testament is what matters, the old testament is the old law and holds no real value as I understood the whole thing.

That's an oversimplification. Paul quotes the Old Testament heavily in his epistles, citing its authority as moral law. But there we go again, assuming that the New Testament has one view of Jesus when it has many. Paul's interpretation, Luke's interpretation, Matthew's interpretation etc are different. Try reading the gospels and examining them carefully. It really is a lot like Rashomon.

[Chaigidel]

as far as Im aware as well the torah has remained largely unchanged for over 3000 years--- and likely had a single author -- likely of course because we dont know :O-- the nt i would think has many many authors considering the number of churches and books written in various places where christianity sprang up --lots of authors etc would just be natural I think and on the original point --- yes people have a very hard time seperating themselves from the belief (which i believe is necessary to understanding what you believe)-- the bible is nothing to make and arguement with because it is a special book in my mind and its purpose is interpretation... hope that made sense.