Is the Bible confusing?

[amortalman]

Dan Barker, atheist activist, and author asked the question: "Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?"

The topic for debate:

1) Is the Bible confusing to the average person?

2) If Biblical scholars disagree on many theological points how can we know what the truth is?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 36 by amortalman]

And I'm saying is that concrete objects, by nature, are incredibly complex things. That complexity intensifies when limited concrete objects are trying to think about other concrete objects. Abstract objects, like pure mathematics, are pretty straightforward (if still quite difficult). I'm saying the nature of concrete objects as concrete objects leave room for misunderstanding. Power cannot overcome that. That would seem to me to be like saying a being with enough power could create a square circle. Verses like Matthew 19:26/Mark 10:27 aren't saying those kinds of things are possible for God because those things aren't things at all; they are nonsense.

Maybe a specific example would help us challenge each other better? What is an example of a teaching from the Bible that you think lends itself to multiple (I doubt you really meant thousands like you said to OnceConvinced) interpretations?

[The Tanager]

I re-read your post 5 and it does not address the illogic of purposefully creating a book with a message for everyone, but then not allowing them to understand it without guidence from theologians that don't even agree with each other.
Sorry...

Those posts disagree that your statement is a proper representation of the situation. I think the average person can understand the important points. That doesn't mean all understand it the same way, but the fault often lies more in the person then the text. We find truth there the same way we do in any matter (except maybe pure mathematics), looking at the primary source, study what others have said, seek truth and don't abandon or deride things at the first sign of confusion.

Depends on who you ask. Some will read the words for what they are. Others will try to put their own spin on it to try to save face or to hold on to some preconceived idea.

This also disagrees that your statement is a proper representation of the situation. Some people read the words for what they clearly are. Others try to spin it to save face or hold onto some preconceived idea. If this is true, then you don't need a theologian to tell you what the Bible says.

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 643#941643]

To remain consistent, once your soul gets to heaven, it would be best for that god to remain hidden, right?

I do think there will still be some hiddenness.

More proof that the Luke scripture I posted is a falsehood. Once again you are incapable of answering a very specific question posed to you. Obviously there is no god providing you with words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. Take solace in the fact that you are not alone as this seems to be consistant with all Christian believers. Therefore, the verse seems either false or it is unclear. Matters not which one IMO.[/quote]

You said that, to remain consistent, divine hiddenness would have to continue in heaven. I agreed and said it did.

[Clownboat]

I re-read your post 5 and it does not address the illogic of purposefully creating a book with a message for everyone, but then not allowing them to understand it without guidence from theologians that don't even agree with each other.
Sorry...

Those posts disagree that your statement is a proper representation of the situation. I think the average person can understand the important points. That doesn't mean all understand it the same way, but the fault often lies more in the person then the text. We find truth there the same way we do in any matter (except maybe pure mathematics), looking at the primary source, study what others have said, seek truth and don't abandon or deride things at the first sign of confusion.

Once again you failed to address what I asked you. It's not logical for a god to create a book with a message for everyone, when the end result is people either invent their own interpretation or they go to church/temple and have theologians that disagree with each other tell you what it all means.
If you disagree, please explain how such a mechanism is logical.

Depends on who you ask. Some will read the words for what they are. Others will try to put their own spin on it to try to save face or to hold on to some preconceived idea.

This also disagrees that your statement is a proper representation of the situation. Some people read the words for what they clearly are. Others try to spin it to save face or hold onto some preconceived idea. If this is true, then you don't need a theologian to tell you what the Bible says.

Correct, those that make up their own interpretations don't need Theologians. This should be obvious. Anyone that doesn't invent their own ideas and even some that do probably attend church where pastors, preachers, theologians and the like are informing them. Pastors, preachers and theologians are not in agreement on what the Bible says and thus we have all sorts of differing denominations. This mechanism of delivery is illogical for an all powerful creator. If you disagree, please explain how it is logical. For example, the current Pope claims atheists can go to heaven. You agree with him? Is our eternal soul and where it goes not important?

More proof that the Luke scripture I posted is a falsehood. Once again you are incapable of answering a very specific question posed to you. Obviously there is no god providing you with words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. Take solace in the fact that you are not alone as this seems to be consistant with all Christian believers. Therefore, the verse seems either false or it is unclear. Matters not which one IMO.

You said that, to remain consistent, divine hiddenness would have to continue in heaven. I agreed and said it did.

Actually, you said you think there will be some hiddenness.
Either way, my actual point about how you lack a god providing you with words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict still stands.

I'm not sure what I could possibly learn from you when you duck and dodge points being made.

Example:
Me: You don't seem to have a god behind your words like claimed in Luke...
You: I talked about divine hiddenness and how I said it would be in heaven even though I said I think it might be in heaven.
Me: Why the dodge about Luke?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 36 by amortalman]

And I'm saying is that concrete objects, by nature, are incredibly complex things. That complexity intensifies when limited concrete objects are trying to think about other concrete objects. Abstract objects, like pure mathematics, are pretty straightforward (if still quite difficult). I'm saying the nature of concrete objects as concrete objects leave room for misunderstanding. Power cannot overcome that. That would seem to me to be like saying a being with enough power could create a square circle. Verses like Matthew 19:26/Mark 10:27 aren't saying those kinds of things are possible for God because those things aren't things at all; they are nonsense.

I didn't day God should have the ability to make square circles, but I suppose even that could be heavily debated.

Writing something that can be understood is a far cry from trying to make a square circle. Most man-made textbooks, instruction manuals, legal codes, wills, and other documents do a pretty good job of eliminating confusion. Surely a deity who declared, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9), and said, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) can do a much better job than man.

Maybe a specific example would help us challenge each other better? What is an example of a teaching from the Bible that you think lends itself to multiple (I doubt you really meant thousands like you said to OnceConvinced) interpretations?

Yes, I meant thousands but I wasn't talking about one specific teaching. I was talking about the Bible as a whole containing many doctrines, precepts, laws, etc.

Two examples readily come to mind. One is the Calvinist sect of the Protestant faith. They are known by their Five Points which make up the acronym T.U.L.I.P. which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

Various other Protestant denominations have rejected one or more of these points. Even among Calvinists, there is dissension. Everyone can point to scripture to back up their view and make a good case for it.

Another example is the doctrine of Hell and eternal punishment. Some believe there is no Hell and everybody goes to heaven in the end. Some believe that the damned are thrown into the lake of fire and eliminated. Others claim that the fiery punishment of Hell continues forever. There are many other beliefs concerning Hell. Each belief system can point to scripture to back up their view and make a good case for it.

I read somewhere concerning clear writing that if there is confusion it's not the reader's fault, it's the writer's fault. It is the writer's responsibility to communicate clearly and understandably. Now either God could not do that or he purposefully did that. Neither one is very pleasant to think about. For unbelievers, there is another option. Man wrote the Bible with no help from a higher power. This seems to be the logical answer.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is not logical for an all powerful god to create books with a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret and explain the said books.

Why do you presume his message is for everyone?

[The Tanager]

Once again you failed to address what I asked you. It's not logical for a god to create a book with a message for everyone, when the end result is people either invent their own interpretation or they go to church/temple and have theologians that disagree with each other tell you what it all means.
If you disagree, please explain how such a mechanism is logical.

I was responding to a claim you made, not a question. You said it was illogical for God to create a book with a message for everyone that they could only understand with guidance from theologians who don't agree with each other. I contested the bolded part by saying the average person can understand the important points.

As to the further clarification of your critique, you seem to be asking God to do away with free will. You seem to be wanting God to take away the freedom of people to believe what they want to believe. Whether that is being taken away directly or indirectly.

Correct, those that make up their own interpretations don't need Theologians. This should be obvious. Anyone that doesn't invent their own ideas and even some that do probably attend church where pastors, preachers, theologians and the like are informing them. Pastors, preachers and theologians are not in agreement on what the Bible says and thus we have all sorts of differing denominations.

First, I think people can understand what the important texts mean without a theologian. If they are wise people, they would surely seek the counsel of others in theology just like we do in other disciplines because humans are limited beings. Humility is a virtue. We should always listen to others because maybe we aren't being as rational as we often think we are.

Second, you missed the point I was making there. Perhaps, if you were me, you'd call it "ducking" or "dodging," but I don't think you were doing that. How you have treated Luke 21:15 directly contradicts what you are saying about the Bible being confusing. You say it is confusing and then quote a verse, provide no explanation and say that it's meaning is not lost on anyone. Pick a lane. Otherwise, you are probably going to move back and forth on both sides of this issue as it suits you. I'm not interested in that kind of conversation. If you think Luke 21:15 is clear, then let's stop talking about how the Bible is so unclear. If you want to continue to maintain the Bible is so confusing, then provide the reasons for your interpretation of Luke 21:15 and I will respond.

For example, the current Pope claims atheists can go to heaven. You agree with him? Is our eternal soul and where it goes not important?

I'm not sure what you mean by the second question. I think everyone is important. I do think you need to trust in God for salvation (and that God accomlished salvation through the historical Person of Jesus). If you believe there is no God (or lack a belief in God), then it doesn't seem like you could trust in God for salvation.

[The Tanager]

I didn't day God should have the ability to make square circles, but I suppose even that could be heavily debated.

Writing something that can be understood is a far cry from trying to make a square circle. Most man-made textbooks, instruction manuals, legal codes, wills, and other documents do a pretty good job of eliminating confusion. Surely a deity who declared, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9), and said, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) can do a much better job than man.

I didn't say that you did say that. As to your point here, this is what I was trying to get at when I re-worded that question of yours in multiple ways. If you are saying that the message of the Bible is unclear on important points, I disagree that it is confusing. I agree with what Clownboat said (he said it about Luke 21:15), that people are able to read the words for what they are, while others try to put their own spin on it to try to save face or to hold onto some preconceived idea.

If you are saying that the claims the Bible makes are not 100% provable to others, and that God should not have allowed this kind of confusion, then I don't see a problem with this kind of confusion.

Two examples readily come to mind. One is the Calvinist sect of the Protestant faith....Another example is the doctrine of Hell and eternal punishment....

Sometimes both sides of the argument fit into the framework of the verse, but are not directly stated by the verse. Sometimes people twist scripture to hold onto their preconceived idea. Sometimes people falsely think there is a contradiction that would follow if the other side was true, so that can't be what the verse is saying. We see the same thing taking place in literary criticism all over the place. People read stories through their own lenses and sometimes read their lenses into the stories, because some things fit and the others are brushed away.

I read somewhere concerning clear writing that if there is confusion it's not the reader's fault, it's the writer's fault. It is the writer's responsibility to communicate clearly and understandably. Now either God could not do that or he purposefully did that. Neither one is very pleasant to think about. For unbelievers, there is another option. Man wrote the Bible with no help from a higher power. This seems to be the logical answer.

I find no reason to think this is true. Both the writer and the reader bring their own plethora of experiences and cultures and meanings into the encounter. At times the writer could be more clear. At times the reader could read more clearly. That's just the nature of us concrete beings called humans. So, even if a being could write something perfectly clear, we could muck it up.

[Clownboat]

It is not logical for an all powerful god to create books with a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret and explain the said books.

Why do you presume his message is for everyone?

Due to his love and him being love.

For starters.
John 3:16 For god so loved the world...

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 John 4:8

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16

If the message is not for everyone, then this god concept cannot be said to love the world, much less be 'love'.

[Clownboat]

Once again you failed to address what I asked you. It's not logical for a god to create a book with a message for everyone, when the end result is people either invent their own interpretation or they go to church/temple and have theologians that disagree with each other tell you what it all means.
If you disagree, please explain how such a mechanism is logical.

I was responding to a claim you made, not a question.

I see, so you are just ignoring my questions and responding to claims as a distraction.
Luke comes to mind... Luke 21:15 - For I wll give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

You said it was illogical for God to create a book with a message for everyone that they could only understand with guidance from theologians who don't agree with each other. I contested the bolded part by saying the average person can understand the important points.

Demonstrably false.
See getting to heaven, trinity, hell concepts. You know, important stuff that involves our eternal souls.

As to the further clarification of your critique, you seem to be asking God to do away with free will.

I have not asked such a thing. Besides, that would be like you going to the mall to sit on Santa's lap to ask for something for Christmas. A person that believes Santa to be a human invention would never do such a thing.

You seem to be wanting God to take away the freedom of people to believe what they want to believe. Whether that is being taken away directly or indirectly.

You seem unable to ask direct questions posed to you. Notice how nothing you have quoted from me suggests what you think it might.
As far as me wanting things from a god, see Santa analogy above.

Correct, those that make up their own interpretations don't need Theologians. This should be obvious. Anyone that doesn't invent their own ideas and even some that do probably attend church where pastors, preachers, theologians and the like are informing them. Pastors, preachers and theologians are not in agreement on what the Bible says and thus we have all sorts of differing denominations.

First, I think people can understand what the important texts mean without a theologian.

Demonstrably false by acknowlodging all the different flavors of Christianity. The current Pope understands the Bible to say that even atheists can go to heaven. Why do you not have the same understanding? I would think or eternal souls is pretty important.

If they are wise people, they would surely seek the counsel of others in theology just like we do in other disciplines because humans are limited beings.

If the Bible was clear, we would all have the same understanding and counsel would not be needed. Any coucel needed in order for you to play Monopoly, or are you able to read the instructions like anyone else and come to the same rules? Your favorite holy book is not like this. Is it logical for it to be confusing and controdictory?

Humility is a virtue.

So is patience and kindness and not picking your friends nose.

We should always listen to others because maybe we aren't being as rational as we often think we are.

This is terrible advise. At least with the broad brush you are using.

Second, you missed the point I was making there. Perhaps, if you were me, you'd call it "ducking" or "dodging," but I don't think you were doing that. How you have treated Luke 21:15 directly contradicts what you are saying about the Bible being confusing. You say it is confusing and then quote a verse, provide no explanation and say that it's meaning is not lost on anyone. Pick a lane. Otherwise, you are probably going to move back and forth on both sides of this issue as it suits you.

I picked that verse to demonstrate to the readers that you don't have a god directing your words here.
As far as going back and forth, yes I will! That is because there are parts of the Bible that are clear. What you are refusing to address is how the Bible as a whole and considering important things like our eternal soul, there it is confusing. Enough to allow all sorts of ways to get to heaven and such.

You can address this or how you don't seem to have a god guiding your words here. Both would be preferred though. Please note that I have not argued one way or the other about the clarity of Luke 21:15. I'm just pointing out that in regards to your replies here, it does not seem like a god is guiding your [strike]dodges[/strike] words.

I'm not interested in that kind of conversation. If you think Luke 21:15 is clear, then let's stop talking about how the Bible is so unclear. If you want to continue to maintain the Bible is so confusing, then provide the reasons for your interpretation of Luke 21:15 and I will respond.

You have yet to begin to respond to what I'm actually saying to you though. Some parts of a book being clear does not make an entire book clear. You must agree with this. So why is it that you don't seem to have a god guiding your words here?

For example, the current Pope claims atheists can go to heaven. You agree with him? Is our eternal soul and where it goes not important?

I'm not sure what you mean by the second question. I think everyone is important. I do think you need to trust in God for salvation (and that God accomlished salvation through the historical Person of Jesus). If you believe there is no God (or lack a belief in God), then it doesn't seem like you could trust in God for salvation.

Notice your dodge and once again a lack of being able to address specific questions posed to you (I bolded it above for you and will also paste it below).

TheTanager, the current Pope claims atheists can go to heaven. Do you agree with him? Is the Bible clear on the issue?

[The Tanager]

Demonstrably false. See getting to heaven, trinity, hell concepts. You know, important stuff that involves our eternal souls.

Then demonstrate it. Naming what you think requires guidance from theologians is not demonstrating that it is true that these things require guidance from theologians. If you are claiming that the observation that people come to different beliefs on what the Bible says about "heaven, trinity, hell concepts" shows the Bible is unclear, then you just aren't being rational. Disagreement (or drawing different conclusions) does not mean there cannot be a clear truth of the matter. Some people still believe the earth is flat. Using your logic (if this is the critique you are making), we'd have to conclude that the truth about the shape of the earth isn't clear then.

As to the further clarification of your critique, you seem to be asking God to do away with free will.

I have not asked such a thing. Besides, that would be like you going to the mall to sit on Santa's lap to ask for something for Christmas. A person that believes Santa to be a human invention would never do such a thing.

You said "It's not logical for a god to create a book with a message for everyone, when the end result is people either invent their own interpretation or they go to church/temple and have theologians that disagree with each other tell you what it all means." I'm saying it is logical if one takes into account human free will. God creates a book for humans, but since they have free will they are free to invent their own interpretation or blindly listen to theologians (a very loose term in many instances) on what its supposed to mean.

I picked that verse to demonstrate to the readers that you don't have a god directing your words here.
As far as going back and forth, yes I will! That is because there are parts of the Bible that are clear. What you are refusing to address is how the Bible as a whole and considering important things like our eternal soul, there it is confusing. Enough to allow all sorts of ways to get to heaven and such.

You can address this or how you don't seem to have a god guiding your words here. Both would be preferred though. Please note that I have not argued one way or the other about the clarity of Luke 21:15. I'm just pointing out that in regards to your replies here, it does not seem like a god is guiding your dodges words.

And it shows that because...? Stop just claiming things. Explain and support your claims more so that you can actually challenge my views. Otherwise, I'm working off assumptions and providing my own challenge and might be missing the challenge as you see it. Since you are forcing me to do that, however, please no claims about me arguing against a straw man or purposefully distorting your view or that I'm just obviously spinning it to hold on to some preconcieved idea and not reading the words for what they are or some other kind of nonsense response. Feel free to show it if you think I'm doing one of those, but don't just claim it.

Let's look at the context of Luke 21:15. I'm consulting no theologian for my thoughts here. In verse 8, Jesus says the disciples are to see that they are not led astray by false people coming in His name. In verse 9, Jesus tells them to not lose hope because of coming wars. There will be natural disasters (11) and His disciples will be persecuted (12). Jesus wants His disciples to use that as an opportunity to witness (13). The adversaries will not be able to withstand or contradict (15) what Jesus tells the disciples (14). But some of them will still die at their adversaries' hands (16).

If Jesus is saying that people won't be able to withstand or contradict what the disciples say (like you (or others) disagree with me, which is what I think your point has been), then why would they still be put to death? It makes more sense to view Jesus as saying that the adversaries will not be able to overcome the truth of the disciples. Not that the disciples will just be stubborn because of confirmation bias, but that the adversaries' arguments won't be sound. The adversary may think they are overcoming the reasoning of the disciple or stubbornly or emotionally hold onto their previous view, but they aren't. Jesus is telling His disciples to hold onto what they know and see is true. That's why verse 19 talks about them gaining their lives by their endurance. [*Note that I'm not saying this proves what Jesus claims is true, I'm just talking about what Jesus means by His claim.]

So, I don't see how Luke 21:15 demonstrates to the readers that I don't have a god directing my words.

Notice your dodge and once again a lack of being able to address specific questions posed to you (I bolded it above for you and will also paste it below).

TheTanager, the current Pope claims atheists can go to heaven. Do you agree with him? Is the Bible clear on the issue?

I thought the implication was straightforward. If one does not believe there is a Santa Claus, then they are not going to go sit in his lap and ask for presents. If one lacks the belief that God exists, then they are not going to trust in that God for salvation. Since I think we must trust God for salvation to "go to heaven," I do not think atheists will "go to heaven." I think the Bible is clear on this issue.

As to whether I agree with the Pope's comments, I'd need to look at them in context to see exactly what he meant. It may not be what you seem to think he meant; it may be. When some Catholics say something like that, what they really mean is that atheists can do good and that through doing good things they will progress towards a knowledge of God as the source of that goodness.