Whom to trust..

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:29 pm

I have been brought up Roman Catholic. Formerly, this meant I shouldn't read the bible, and instead rely on priests to interpret it for me. My question is;

Do you think its best that laymen have so much access to the bible, instead of relying on professionals to interpret it?

The reason I feel that laymen shouldn't have access to the bible is because they're more likely to misinterpret the meaning of the words, or pay more attention to the wrong parts that have since become antiquated. Where a biblical scholar might understand the historical significance of a passage, a laymen won't.

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:53 am

Do you think its best that laymen have so much access to the bible, instead of relying on professionals to interpret it?

I have to laugh as I don't trust the professionals either, it all gets taken with a grain of salt. I know I don't always understand it, and when it comes to the "pros" well it depends on what sect of Christianity your asking, so I guess we are all lost puppies. For me organized religion (all of it) is based on the culture and the region it originates. Kind of like there are basic truths and for this group of people they will understand it best in this fashion. Ok now this group needs a savior...this one needs a leader...I am not making light of any one particular faith I see the greater scheme of all faiths equally important to Gods plan.

Quarkhead · Post by **Quarkhead** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:11 am

I don't think it really matters whether laymen, or only 'professionals' read the Bible. Even when laymen read the Bible, their particular take on it almost always reflects the slant of their denomination. Quakers will read the Bible, and because they are Quakers, find that the Bible is mainly about love, kindness, and justice. Southern Baptists read the Bible and usually end up finding that the Bible is about exclusion, sin, and obedience.

But whether it matters or not in the real world, of course everyone should be able to read the Bible for themselves. This can help prevent cults of personality for one thing. People should read the Bible, and question it, whether they are believers or not. As in any other realm of life, the ones who lose out on any real discovery are those who merely accept other people's word that something is so, or means x.

In a way, Corvus is asking one of the central questions which formed the entire Reformation! Namely, is my relationship with God a personal one, or must it be only through a designated conduit?

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:36 am

Quarkhead wrote:I don't think it really matters whether laymen, or only 'professionals' read the Bible. Even when laymen read the Bible, their particular take on it almost always reflects the slant of their denomination. Quakers will read the Bible, and because they are Quakers, find that the Bible is mainly about love, kindness, and justice. Southern Baptists read the Bible and usually end up finding that the Bible is about exclusion, sin, and obedience.

But whether it matters or not in the real world, of course everyone should be able to read the Bible for themselves. This can help prevent cults of personality for one thing. People should read the Bible, and question it, whether they are believers or not. As in any other realm of life, the ones who lose out on any real discovery are those who merely accept other people's word that something is so, or means x.

Unfortunately, most people aren't usually so inquisitive. They throw out the stuff that they don't care for - like the passages of the bible that forbid seafood, pork, trimming beards, etc - and focus on ones that might suit their agenda, like the abomination of homosexuality. Unfortunately, the same thing happens with priests and denominations.

What I was thinking of is that we have officials elected to represent our needs - both of the majority and the minority. We don't dare to be a full democracy because ultimate power will lie in the majority, possibly to the detriment of the minority. In a way, I'm comparing having a priesthood with having a government. The bible is currently available to the majority to the detriment of... perhaps the truth. If it weren't, I would suppose we would have better guidance.

Post by **otseng** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:42 am

Corvus wrote:
What I was thinking of is that we have officials elected to represent our needs - both of the majority and the minority. We don't dare to be a full democracy because ultimate power will lie in the majority, possibly to the detriment of the minority. In a way, I'm comparing having a priesthood with having a government.

I think there needs to be a balance. There is a role for clergy, pastors, teachers, whatever to present their interpretations. And also for them to have sort of limited authority on the matter. On the other hand, layman should have a place to formulate their own beliefs from the Bible.

I believe the target audience of the Bible was for everyone, not just the clergy. When Jesus came and taught, he taught to the masses. He didn't teach to the religious learned. The Bible was written in a way anybody can read it. It doesn't take a MDiv degree to read and understand the Bible. Though understanding certain portions might be difficult, the real difficultly is actually doing the things taught in it.

The bible is currently available to the majority to the detriment of... perhaps the truth.

I would say the opposite. Having the Bible accessible and interpretable by layman fosters discovery of truth. Of course, people can have weird interpretations, but that doesn't nullify people having good interpretations.

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:37 am

My greatest problem with the Bible is that it is all interpretation. I refer mostly to the New Testament. Fact does not exist even in the earliest interpretations. It is all mans perception and interpretation of other mens perceptions and interpretations. For me it is a great leap of Faith to reference it at all. I believe (Have Faith in) many occurences told of in the Bible though I cannot resolve myself to any interpretation as fact. I have struggled with this my whole life. I have taken a path of agnosticism to atheism, on to exploration of almost every religion. This afforded me the variety of experience to realistically evaluate my own life and has brought me back to a God whom is very personal to me.

Corvus wrote:

What I was thinking of is that we have officials elected to represent our needs - both of the majority and the minority. We don't dare to be a full democracy because ultimate power will lie in the majority, possibly to the detriment of the minority. In a way, I'm comparing having a priesthood with having a government.

This is why I feel there is no place for religion in government, religion is too personal to the believer and even within the majority (Christianity) there is a minority (Me) I do not always agree with the religion that best represents me. A lawmakers hightest priority must be to preserve liberty and freedom and individual rights, only in the instance where liberty, freedom and rights are denied to others by individual actions are laws necessary to restrict such actions.

Post by **otseng** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:17 pm

Piper Plexed wrote:My greatest problem with the Bible is that it is all interpretation. I refer mostly to the New Testament.

Isn't practically everything based on interpretation? Probably the only exception I can think of is the hard sciences. And even that has levels of interpretation. And what's wrong with interpretation anyways?

This is why I feel there is no place for religion in government, religion is too personal to the believer and even within the majority (Christianity) there is a minority (Me) I do not always agree with the religion that best represents me. A lawmakers hightest priority must be to preserve liberty and freedom and individual rights, only in the instance where liberty, freedom and rights are denied to others by individual actions are laws necessary to restrict such actions.

I'd encourage you to start a thread on this, something along the lines of the role of religion in government.

BTW, I keep on encouraging people to start topics cause people keep on raising interesting topics. And I'd like to have a place to fully develop and debate those topics. I don't want to be too restrictive and say you can't wander at all, but I also want to keep things in a little bit of order.

juber3 · Post by **juber3** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:45 am

My interpretation is to forget

laymen and professionals

and to interpret yourselves. Now i know some things in the bible that i don't understand and i do rely on my pastor to help me, but most things in the bible is common sense.

søgende · Post by **søgende** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:54 pm

you find God with your heart, not with you mind.
so reading with love gives you access to the gosbel.

I am not a follower of the Pope

Timeaisis · Post by **Timeaisis** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:31 pm

But who is to say they truly haved interpreted the Bible, anyway? Is it not simply one's own personal interpretation? We all could be wrong about it, for one, as it's the only thing that links us with our faith. We could, possibly, be totally off base. But that is another argument for another time.

I'm not for people interpreting anything for you, but at the same time I find that there are many conceited people out there that will be totally off base. Although I don't find this horribly wrong, there are things that can be actually proved as what is actually meant in the bible. As for those that are paradoxial, they are up for interpretation. The problem being, these are the most important aspects of the Bible. If one does not understand the Bible, one may ask someone of greater knowledge, but in the long run it truly relies on their own interpretation.

I've noticed today that people preach about Christianity without including the bible, even though they believe they do. They speak a verse, and then tell you what it talks about, without having you interpret it yourself. I believe this is extremelly wrong. Being raised Catholic, I'm used to Priests reading you the word of God. But at least they do not force their own meaning down your throat, as I see in some other sects of Christianity. Althoug somethings can be interpreted without argument, others are best left to the reader. Who really is to say they understand the Word of God, being the indirect words of a 'God'. But here lies faith, being able to accept a text that may be false, ignoring all the doubters and agnostics, and believe, with a lack of interpretation, in the Christian faith. This is why I believe the best form of religion is one you create for yourself, by believing what ever it is you relate to the most. Faith, in my opinion, is simply ignorance of proof.