Why do these Doctrinal Disagreements Persist?

[Tcg]

.
There are three disagreements concerning Christian/Biblical doctrine that seem to be a perpetual issue amongst those who study the Bible.

1. The divinity of Jesus - A quick review of the threads created in TD&D reveal this is certainly a hot topic in that sub-forum. The issue quite simply is whether or not Jesus is God.

2. The nature of heaven - This refers to the final abode of those deemed worthy of eternal life. Some say it is a spriritual dwelling place where God and the saints will live. Others say the final destiny will be in "a new heaven and a new earth" as described in Revelation 21 and that God and the saints will live there together. One group claims it will involve a version of both of these. A spiritual realm where God and a chosen few will live and a restored (not new) earth where others will live.

3. The means to attain heaven - The disagreement here involves what is sometimes referred to as faith versus works. Do humans attain heaven by faith alone or are good works needed. Some teach a combination of the two. These aren't the only two, but rather just a presentation of two popular teachings. Other approaches would include baptism, good standing in the church, having no unconfessed sins, etc.

The questions for debate are not designed to generate further debate in an attempt to resolve these disagreements, but rather to discuss the nature and persistence of these disagreements.

If the Bible is in some way the result of God's activity, why do these disagreements persist even after perhaps almost two millennia of study and debate?

Some who consider the Bible authoritative, yet not without error or conflict, suggest that no major doctrine is affected by these errors and/or conflicts. Should the doctrines these disagreements involve be considered major?


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

In what way would practicing "disinformation, manipulation and misinterpretation" result in power? Can you provide any verifiable evidence that it would?

The most basic example I can think of is that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre grants the yeller the power to cause a stampede.

There's even a modern conflict about Google possibly causing Biden to win the election by manipulating search results.

The most relevant example I can think of is the Crusades, or the burning of witches. You convince people that God wants them to do something and they do it.

There are also examples in the Bible (pre-Christian, I admit) where God actually does tell people to kill others.

Yes, but within modern Christianity, the few remaining undisputed doctrines that exist reject the use of those pre-Christian scriptures as a justification to kill others. Of course, it is still possible that someone could arrive at such an extreme interpretation anyway. However, my recommended Theological Diversity & Inclusion approach is not intended to persuade the very small minority of extremists because there will always be a minority of extremists who won't be reasoned with.

No, you can't reason with them. I'm concerned that some people only using modern Christianity might say you can't judge them either.

In one way this is fine. If it's just that I don't get to say whether this murdering necrophile rapist is going to Hell, fine, I don't know how the clock works. But if it means we can't fight back or punish, I take issue with that, and some New Age Christians seem to think it means this.

[bluegreenearth]

No, you can't reason with them. I'm concerned that some people only using modern Christianity might say you can't judge them either.

In one way this is fine. If it's just that I don't get to say whether this murdering necrophile rapist is going to Hell, fine, I don't know how the clock works. But if it means we can't fight back or punish, I take issue with that, and some New Age Christians seem to think it means this.

Those "New Age" Christians you are describing seem to be on the other end of the extreme minority and not the intended target of the Theological Diversity & Inclusion approach I'm recommending.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Tcg in post #15]

This creates an interesting paradox, since one of the core beliefs of Evangelicals is that “Jesus is considered perfectly man and perfectly God.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_theology

According to the article you cited, this trend in Evangelicalism suggests a drifting away the “standard in Scripture.”

To put it plainly: These are people who say “Jesus is not God,” and then by calling themselves Evangelicals are declaring, “Jesus is God.”

[1213]

.
There are three disagreements concerning Christian/Biblical doctrine that seem to be a perpetual issue amongst those who study the Bible.

1. The divinity of Jesus - A quick review of the threads created in TD&D reveal this is certainly a hot topic in that sub-forum. The issue quite simply is whether or not Jesus is God.
...
If the Bible is in some way the result of God's activity, why do these disagreements persist even after perhaps almost two millennia of study and debate?
...

That is a good question. We probably will not get an agreement on this. But, if we take for example the divinity of Jesus, Bible says simply and straight:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Should not be unclear that. Still, somehow people get the opposite doctrine. I can only guess the reason is that some people just don't like the truth.

[Tcg]

That is a good question. We probably will not get an agreement on this. But, if we take for example the divinity of Jesus, Bible says simply and straight:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Should not be unclear that. Still, somehow people get the opposite doctrine. I can only guess the reason is that some people just don't like the truth.

What I see is folks debating in good faith in an attempt to resolve these persistent doctrinal disagreements. What gives you the impression that some "just don't like the truth?"


Tcg

[1213]

...For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Should not be unclear that. Still, somehow people get the opposite doctrine. I can only guess the reason is that some people just don't like the truth.

What I see is folks debating in good faith in an attempt to resolve these persistent doctrinal disagreements. What gives you the impression that some "just don't like the truth?"...

When something is said clearly and other people reject it and replace it with their own doctrine, I don't know what else could be the reason than that the people don't like that truth. But, maybe I am wrong and they have some other reason to reject direct words. I don't see any good reason for it. Do you know some good reason, why people reject direct words?

[bluegreenearth]

Do you know some good reason, why people reject direct words?

Disclaimer: I am not providing the following explanation to refute your direct interpretation of any particular Biblical passage but as an answer to your more general question quoted above.

Just because someone authored a statement doesn't necessarily require that this author was sufficiently skilled at accurately communicating an intended idea. An author could fail to consider how the direct interpretation of a particular statement will convey a different meaning than what was intended. The context in which a particular statement is found may sometimes but not always provide reliable clues about the author's intended meaning. Consider the following example:

After rotting in the basement for a few days, Harry brought up an apple.

Did the author of this statement intend for the reader to understand that Harry or the apple was rotting in the basement for a few days?

The direct interpretation is that Harry was rotting in the basement and then subsequently brought up an apple. Is the direct interpretation the most reasonable? If this statement was situated in the context of a quirky story about a zombie named Harry, the direct interpretation might be the most reasonable. However, if the statement was situated in the context of a story about a man named Harry who was alive and looking for the source of a strong odor in his home, then the direct interpretation would not be the most reasonable.

[Tcg]

...For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Should not be unclear that. Still, somehow people get the opposite doctrine. I can only guess the reason is that some people just don't like the truth.

What I see is folks debating in good faith in an attempt to resolve these persistent doctrinal disagreements. What gives you the impression that some "just don't like the truth?"...

When something is said clearly and other people reject it and replace it with their own doctrine, I don't know what else could be the reason than that the people don't like that truth. But, maybe I am wrong and they have some other reason to reject direct words. I don't see any good reason for it. Do you know some good reason, why people reject direct words?

Sure. Other direct words that contradict them.

You've yet to explain why you think some people "don't like the truth." Your answer is supported by nothing other than an inability to think of any other possibilities.


Tcg

[historia]

A Third of American Evangelicals Don’t Believe Jesus Was God

This reminds me of the Pew Religious Landscape Study, which found that 7% of American atheists say they believe in God, with 2% saying they strongly believe in God.

I'm not sure either of these surveys reveals a lively "debate" in these respective communities, so much as just people with idiosyncratic beliefs, and maybe some who are a bit confused.

[brunumb]

When something is said clearly and other people reject it and replace it with their own doctrine, I don't know what else could be the reason than that the people don't like that truth. But, maybe I am wrong and they have some other reason to reject direct words. I don't see any good reason for it. Do you know some good reason, why people reject direct words?

It isn't a matter of not liking the truth. What they see may be quite clear to them but still not the same as what someone else sees in them. They are not necessarily rejecting the truth because they believe that what they understand is the actual truth. You need to ask yourself why you might reject what they regard as the truth. Is it just hubris and merely because they are in disagreement with you? It seems that each side is going to doggedly cling to the notion that they are the ones who are right.