The Bible. You're doing it wrong.

[historia]

John Barton, professor at Oxford University, has this to say in his recent book, The History of the Bible (2019):

The Bible does not 'map' directly onto religious faith and practice, whether Jewish or Christian . . . The Bible is very unlike a creed or a 'Confession' . . . It is a mele of materials, few of which directly address the question of what is to be believed . . . .

There are versions of Christianity that claim to be simply 'biblical' (no versions of Judaism do so), but the reality is that the structures and content of Christian belief, even among Christians who believe their faith to be wholly grounded in the Bible, are organized and articulated differently from the contents of the Bible . . . [The Bible] is not and cannot be the whole foundation of either Judaism or Christianity . . . .

The Bible is centrally important to both Judaism and Christianity, but not as a holy text out of which entire religious systems can somehow be read. Its contents illuminate the origins of Christianity and Judaism, and provide spiritual classics on which both faiths can draw; but they do not constrain subsequent generations in the way that a written constitution would. They are simply not that kind of thing. They are a repository of writings, both shaping and shaped by the two religions at various stages in their development, to which later generations of believers are committed to responding in positive, but also critical, ways . . . .

Judaism thus has a holy book, and a set of religious beliefs and practices, but the two are known not to correlate exactly, despite being congruent; and this may be a better model for understanding Christianity too than the common Protestant perception of doctrine and practice as straightforwardly derived from the Bible.

Questions for debate:

1. Is Barton's analysis accurate?

2. If so, are Protestant views on the Bible mostly an idealized conception of the nature and authority of the text?

3. If so, are atheist criticisms of the Bible largely critiques of this idealized conception of the Bible rather than how the Bible actually functions within Christianity?

[VVilliam]

What of two Christians, both of whom have "meld[ed] all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding", yet whose understandings have theological positions that are antithetical to each other?

Is that a realistic scenario? I would think in order to see if that were the case one would at least have to give a good example.

There is good reason why we are requested not to judge one another...Generally Christians who are antithetical to each other are also judging one another, so they haven't melded all...

[VVilliam]

HOW, exactly, is 'set aside doubt' not an instruction to believe without question?

Why should it be? If one doubts one exists within a creation of a creator, one can set aside that doubt and investigate and question without believing everything there is to offer on the subject.

Some drank deeply the Kool Aid. However, many who read these threads are not so thoroughly indoctrinated as to ignore and deny opposing ideas.

Opposing ideas are fine if they can stand up to that which they oppose. Otherwise they are feathers against swords.
Many who read these threads are not distracted by twisted words either. They know I am not speaking of 'kool-aid' and see through the drudgery of non-contextual replies.

Perhaps some day the 'strong' will present verifiable evidence to show that their claims of knowledge are anything more than exaggerated self-opinion.

Ah the old fallacy of 'show me the science and I will believe'. If one cannot see the creation, one is hardly likely to see the creator. The evidence therein is sufficient but cannot be expected to be empirical - something scientists can poke and prod.

The call for "verifiable evidence" is a silly one which has no place in serious discussion/argument. Worse when it does not say what the demand is. What evidence is one asking for?

Perhaps those who are thoroughly indoctrinated will continue to claim they have special knowledge. However, they are losing ground in educated / advanced / technological areas (while advancing in under-developed nations). As older generations of fervent believers dies out, younger generations are increasingly characterized as “No religious preference”.

If only theism was simply a case of being religious. But it isn't, so your Argumentum ad populum has no merit or usefulness in a debate setting.

[WeSee]

What of two Christians, both of whom have "meld[ed] all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding", yet whose understandings have theological positions that are antithetical to each other?

Is that a realistic scenario? I would think in order to see if that were the case one would at least have to give a good example.

There is good reason why we are requested not to judge one another...Generally Christians who are antithetical to each other are also judging one another, so they haven't melded all...

Surely you are not unaware of divisions within Christianity throughout its history.
Something recent: United Methodist Church on same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination
Something historical: Slavery in the US

In both cases, with each side convinced that they have a correct understanding of the Bible.

[WeSee]

What of two Christians, both of whom have "meld[ed] all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding", yet whose understandings have theological positions that are antithetical to each other?

Is that a realistic scenario? I would think in order to see if that were the case one would at least have to give a good example.

There is good reason why we are requested not to judge one another...Generally Christians who are antithetical to each other are also judging one another, so they haven't melded all...

Surely you are not unaware of divisions within Christianity throughout its history.
Something recent: United Methodist Church on same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination
Something historical: Slavery in the US

In both cases, with each side convinced that they have the correct understanding of the Bible on those issues.

[William]

What of two Christians, both of whom have "meld[ed] all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding", yet whose understandings have theological positions that are antithetical to each other?

Is that a realistic scenario? I would think in order to see if that were the case one would at least have to give a good example.

There is good reason why we are requested not to judge one another...Generally Christians who are antithetical to each other are also judging one another, so they haven't melded all...

Surely you are not unaware of divisions within Christianity throughout its history.
Something recent: United Methodist Church on same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination
Something historical: Slavery in the US

In both cases, with each side convinced that they have the correct understanding of the Bible on those issues.

Sure I am aware of those things. What I am not understanding is how come it appears that you are conflating that with whatever you think "the correct understanding of the Bible" should be.

There are always more than two sides to every story, as far as I can tell.

What you are not conveying is how it actually matters. Is it a case of one group of folk calling themselves Christians and another group of folk calling themselves Christians and both groups calling each other non-Christians?

Is there something in the bible which explains this type of behavior? I think that there is, and mentioned one such thing.

It is not for me to go about persistently calling myself a Christian or claiming others calling themselves Christians are not.

If you have any idea as to what a real/true Christian is, that would be helpful in appreciating what it is you are trying to point out.

For me, as I wrote re my approach;

The bible as it is, can be all of these things and still not be a problem insurmountable. There is no doubt a problem, but does it stem from what we discover externally or is the problem really sourced internally and therefore a product of the individual?

I think it is the latter. As a Christian I have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding. I accept all equally.

Biblically speaking, we have major hints that there is more to the picture than first meets the eye and the invitation to get involved at deeper levels is not for the faint of heart.

If anything therein grabs your interest, then let me know. The problematic stuff you see with different groups of peoples calling themselves Christian, is not a problem for me because of my approach...

[WeSee]

What of two Christians, both of whom have "meld[ed] all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding", yet whose understandings have theological positions that are antithetical to each other?

Is that a realistic scenario? I would think in order to see if that were the case one would at least have to give a good example.

There is good reason why we are requested not to judge one another...Generally Christians who are antithetical to each other are also judging one another, so they haven't melded all...

Surely you are not unaware of divisions within Christianity throughout its history.
Something recent: United Methodist Church on same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination
Something historical: Slavery in the US

In both cases, with each side convinced that they have the correct understanding of the Bible on those issues.

Sure I am aware of those things. What I am not understanding is how come it appears that you are conflating that with whatever you think "the correct understanding of the Bible" should be.

There are always more than two sides to every story, as far as I can tell.

What you are not conveying is how it actually matters. Is it a case of one group of folk calling themselves Christians and another group of folk calling themselves Christians and both groups calling each other non-Christians?

Is there something in the bible which explains this type of behavior? I think that there is, and mentioned one such thing.

It is not for me to go about persistently calling myself a Christian or claiming others calling themselves Christians are not.

If you have any idea as to what a real/true Christian is, that would be helpful in appreciating what it is you are trying to point out.

For me, as I wrote re my approach;

The bible as it is, can be all of these things and still not be a problem insurmountable. There is no doubt a problem, but does it stem from what we discover externally or is the problem really sourced internally and therefore a product of the individual?

I think it is the latter. As a Christian I have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding. I accept all equally.

Biblically speaking, we have major hints that there is more to the picture than first meets the eye and the invitation to get involved at deeper levels is not for the faint of heart.

If anything therein grabs your interest, then let me know. The problematic stuff you see with different groups of peoples calling themselves Christian, is not a problem for me because of my approach...

My previous post was in response to what you had written earlier:

Is that a realistic scenario? I would think in order to see if that were the case one would at least have to give a good example.

So, "Yes", it's a realistic scenario. I gave you two of which there are a myriad choices. Did you lose track of this?

Bigger picture, the point is that there are no doubt countless Christians who similarly "have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding." Many of whom have "coherent understandings" of theological positions that are antithetical to each other. This is the result of what I wrote earlier:

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. Those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their 'literal' interpretation, etc.

As such, if you are for slavery, you can pick and choose your way to support it.
As such, if you are against slavery, you can pick and choose your way to oppose it.
The Bible being what it is, it can be used to support or oppose any number of theological positions that are antithetical to each other.

[emilynghiem]

RE: "Surely you are not unaware of divisions within Christianity throughout its history.
Something recent: United Methodist Church on same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination
Something historical: Slavery in the US

In both cases, with each side convinced that they have the correct understanding of the Bible on those issues."
=====================================================================

Dear @WeSee and @VVilliiam and @William

The truth on these issues would satisfy ALL sides and resolve ANY conflict.
So if two sides are stuck on irreconcileable positions, that means they
BOTH impose a "manmade bias" and NEITHER has the full truth of God
which would otherwise include them both equally without conflict.

(a) for the LGBTQ and marriage issues,
the SECULAR civil unions that the govt has jurisdiction over
are SEPARATE from the "spiritual marriages" that people can
choose churches to recognize and support. By the time we
reach agreement to have only the secular civil unions and
domestic partnerships governed by the state, and address
spiritual beliefs about marriage OUTSIDE Govt and public policy,
all such issues can be resolved.

One key to resolving issues concerning LGBTQ is to understand
the process of Spiritual Healing, and the difference between
sexual orientation that is determined "in the womb" or
affected by "manmade" factors such as sexual abuse.
If we make sure any unnatural factors contributing to LGBTQ orientation
are resolved, and people are fully healed of any conditions caused by abuse,
then we will not have these disagreements, but all the cases of UNNATURAL
orientation and attractions can be resolved, and any that cannot be changed,
we will agree on as "made by God" and can be addressed accordingly.

(b) for Slavery issues, Christians are called to obey both
Scriptural and Civil Laws and Authority. By the time
secular laws on Human Rights are consistent on this
issue of Slavery, we will all be in agreement anyway.
Then God's universal truth will be established on this issue.
That is what proves what is correct -- God's truth sets
us free from error and conflict.

If we keep working out conflicts and objections until we reach
consensus on God's truth, then there is nothing that cannot be resolved.

Only if people "give up" on trying to establish agreement on God's truth in Christ
does that show "lack of faith" on the side that refuses to reconcile,
but insists "their side is right" and condemns the other as wrong.
Any believers that have a rebuke for other neighbors are called to
resolve these according to Matthew 18:15-20. So if people in conflict
"still believe the others are teaching the Bible wrong", if they are both
BELIEVERS they should continue to follow the rebuke process until
common understanding of God's truth is establish to resolve all conflicts.

[William]

So, "Yes", it's a realistic scenario. I gave you two of which there are a myriad choices. Did you lose track of this?

No. I was on track. As I asked, I wanted clarity in relation to the problem you have with this. I asked, and You gave an example. Now I am asking exactly why you think of that as a problem.

Bigger picture, the point is that there are no doubt countless Christians who similarly "have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding." Many of whom have "coherent understandings" of theological positions that are antithetical to each other. This is the result of what I wrote earlier:

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. Those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their 'literal' interpretation, etc.

As such, if you are for slavery, you can pick and choose your way to support it.
As such, if you are against slavery, you can pick and choose your way to oppose it.
The Bible being what it is, it can be used to support or oppose any number of theological positions that are antithetical to each other.

As far as I know, there are no modern popular teachings to do with general Christian congregations and their support or condemnation of slavery.

The book - The Bible - is best taken contextually. I agree that there are Christian Groups who have different ideas as to what the bible is and isn't telling them.

I don't see it that way myself. It is a book of stories which one can take or leave. Stepping back I see a bigger picture which relates to the story-line and I see no problem with the Christians who are antithetical to each other, in relation to that.

What I do see is that when we are too close to any part of the picture, we tend not to see the other parts, and this is most likely the common reason why the antithetical arises...Stepping back to view the world and not just the Christian aspect of the world, I see the same thing arises in most - if not all - the various branches of human society.
I once - not too long ago - tended toward seeing it all as a problem. I have shifted my awareness in that regard, as I came to the conclusion that I could not justify my point of view on that. It is what it is, but a problem?

As far as problems go, they are in part at least identified as being problems, when solutions accompany the process.

Since I have no solution, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to it as a problem any more.

In regard to Christians specifically, most tend to steer away from the fray as they learn not to judge others. Perhaps that is the best solution to adopt.

I tend to see the Bible stories pointing toward that attribute as perhaps the best solution to adopt. These give the dirty details of the human state [the problem] and the possible solution isn't so much a world-changing event as it is a personal journey into self reflection.

So yes - I can agree with anyone who says the Bible is full of contradictions which can prove to be problematic. But I don't agree that it is the fault of a storybook/group of stories. If there is any fault to point to, it is most likely our self - our individual resistance to acceptance of what is, without judgment.

The source of the problem is also the source of the solution.

Of course, these are just sprinklings of words which only hint at the bigger picture - a picture so vast that to describe it would take all the computing power in the world, and still there would be more to tell.

So I understand you and many others see a problem. I do not see what the problem is, although - as I mentioned - I used to think that what I was seeing was the problem.

I suppose now the best question to ask You is ... since You see a problem..."What is the solution?" Do you have one?

[emilynghiem]

Dear @WeSee and @William

1. I agree that any contradictions can be resolved per person per context.
What I have found is the INABILITY to resolve issues is tied to the Person's ability to forgive.
As long as we can forgive differences, we can work things out, even if it is bypassing the conflict and agreeing on a solution not depending on one side being right or wrong.

2. SOME questions may not be ours to know, and is based on faith and perspective looking at life and the spiritual process.

One example: People do not agree that if God's will is so perfect and unchanging,
did he already know and plan for Jesus to die on the Cross, for man to fall out of grace and REQUIRE such a sacrifice?

Some people argue that God planned for humanity to follow an IDEAL WILL,
but that Satan's selfish influence skewed this, and God's intervention through Jesus fixed it.

So that God does not WILL or WANT the negative things to happen.
And some people believe there is "flexibility" or that some things could change
if one person doesn't follow God's will, and it takes someone else stepping in to do that.

Not all people AGREE does God KNOW AND WILL EVERY TINY DETAIL IN ADVANCE?
Or just SOME of the basic storyline, while there is room for people to "improvise"
where some things MIGHT change if we take slightly different options in life.

We cannot "prove" which way it is!
So some people may NEVER AGREE, is it ALL perfectly planned or ordained?
Is it ALL random and up to man's will and free choice?
Is it a MIX of God's will being predominant and supreme, where God
"Planned" for slight variations that man's will could choose in between the two?

3. Again, @WeSee and @William if people FORGIVE these differences, we can still work things out
without relying on agreement on everything.

A. the people who FORGIVE are not thrown off by these things we cannot know.
If we are taking it on faith, then either side could be right or wrong or a little of both.
We cannot depend on something we cannot prove, so we have to learn to live UNCONDITIONALLY without knowing which way it is.

B. the people who CANNOT forgive some conflict or issue
will project that problem onto whatever they are arguing about.

My understanding of differences is the FORGIVENESS FACTOR
is what determines the degree to which people can resolve issues
or live with different ways of looking at it. While UNFORGIVENESS
is what causes problems with conflicts not being reconciliable.

So, "Yes", it's a realistic scenario. I gave you two of which there are a myriad choices. Did you lose track of this?

No. I was on track. As I asked, I wanted clarity in relation to the problem you have with this. I asked, and You gave an example. Now I am asking exactly why you think of that as a problem.

Bigger picture, the point is that there are no doubt countless Christians who similarly "have no problem melding all the apparent contradictions into one versatile coherent understanding." Many of whom have "coherent understandings" of theological positions that are antithetical to each other. This is the result of what I wrote earlier:

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is heavily steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. Those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their 'literal' interpretation, etc.

As such, if you are for slavery, you can pick and choose your way to support it.
As such, if you are against slavery, you can pick and choose your way to oppose it.
The Bible being what it is, it can be used to support or oppose any number of theological positions that are antithetical to each other.

As far as I know, there are no modern popular teachings to do with general Christian congregations and their support or condemnation of slavery.

The book - The Bible - is best taken contextually. I agree that there are Christian Groups who have different ideas as to what the bible is and isn't telling them.

I don't see it that way myself. It is a book of stories which one can take or leave. Stepping back I see a bigger picture which relates to the story-line and I see no problem with the Christians who are antithetical to each other, in relation to that.

What I do see is that when we are too close to any part of the picture, we tend not to see the other parts, and this is most likely the common reason why the antithetical arises...Stepping back to view the world and not just the Christian aspect of the world, I see the same thing arises in most - if not all - the various branches of human society.
I once - not too long ago - tended toward seeing it all as a problem. I have shifted my awareness in that regard, as I came to the conclusion that I could not justify my point of view on that. It is what it is, but a problem?

As far as problems go, they are in part at least identified as being problems, when solutions accompany the process.

Since I have no solution, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to it as a problem any more.

In regard to Christians specifically, most tend to steer away from the fray as they learn not to judge others. Perhaps that is the best solution to adopt.

I tend to see the Bible stories pointing toward that attribute as perhaps the best solution to adopt. These give the dirty details of the human state [the problem] and the possible solution isn't so much a world-changing event as it is a personal journey into self reflection.

So yes - I can agree with anyone who says the Bible is full of contradictions which can prove to be problematic. But I don't agree that it is the fault of a storybook/group of stories. If there is any fault to point to, it is most likely our self - our individual resistance to acceptance of what is, without judgment.

The source of the problem is also the source of the solution.

Of course, these are just sprinklings of words which only hint at the bigger picture - a picture so vast that to describe it would take all the computing power in the world, and still there would be more to tell.

So I understand you and many others see a problem. I do not see what the problem is, although - as I mentioned - I used to think that what I was seeing was the problem.

I suppose now the best question to ask You is ... since You see a problem..."What is the solution?" Do you have one?