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

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

A while back, I had also referred to something similar regarding the inherent subjectivity of hermeneutics and offered doxastically open Christians a compassionate if not logical approach to resolving at least some of those internal disputes. I referred to my recommended approach as "Theological Diversity & Inclusion" because it was based on the Classically Liberal concept of Thought Diversity.

For example, consider how cultivating diversity of thought in the workplace contributes to increased employee satisfaction, improved productivity, and above average employee retention. If two diverse groups of employees each submit an equally viable proposal for achieving a shared goal, their creativity is rewarded when the leadership permits each proposal to proceed rather than arbitrarily demanding the implementation of just one of the proposals. In other words, the leadership assumes an agnostic position towards each viable proposal since they have no way to justify choosing one over the other. As a result, employees from both groups are willing to contribute more innovative ideas when their diversity of thought is not discouraged in the workplace. More importantly, inclusive workplaces that welcome diverse perspectives exceed their competition in recruiting the most qualified and talented employees which leads to even more innovation.

It seems to me that Christianity would equally benefit from the cultivation of thought diversity by openly disclosing where contested scriptures have multiple plausible interpretations and allowing for the inclusion of various theological perspectives. Adopting a Theological Diversity & Inclusion approach in this way could facilitate compromise by allowing Christians to remain agnostic in situations where Biblical guidance is ambiguous rather than forcing them to arbitrarily accept and endorse a single interpretation while rejecting all others as heretical.

[JoeyKnothead]

.
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.

A being that can't be shown to exist can't be shown to be him a different entity that can't be shown to exist either.

Among the professional literature, this's called as goofy an argument as trying to figure out how come the womenfolk like to all gather round, and, well, we don't know us much beyond that.

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.

The nature of Heaven is purely the nature of humans' fretting on it.

In my Heaven, broken ribs don't hurt. In my reality, pile you up a couple of em and you'll smoke heroin with the Pope.

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.

Ya get to Heaven by seeing a pretty thing nekkid. Then letting her know through various and sometimes sundry means how proud ya are ya done did. There's no data that can reliably refute this argument.

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.

Heck, some folks think it's sinful to watch a girl get undressed. I'm here to tell it, I'll do me it quicker'n she can, if she'll just let me watch her do it.

Our desires're our Heaven. Some folks desire to sit up there and fuss on all them went to Hell. Others of us, we're atrying to get us a pretty thing drunk, so's she'll set to off-clothing herself.

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?

But it ain't. The Bible's nothing more'n a bunch of ancient old folks trying to do em their best thinking, on stuff it is, they don't know em nothing about.

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?

Naw.

The belief in God's the thing. Errors and contradictions is just the Devil doing him all that doubt sowing. Not unlike the Republicans who keep on about a "stolen" election.

[nobspeople]

.
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

Independent of rather or not god is real and rather or not the bible is the word of god and thus, perfect, I've noticed any time humanity gets their hands on something, they screw it up. Critical thinking and independent thought isn't something this belief system fosters and when that happens, you have disagreements.
Therefore, I can only conclude a few things:
1) God doesn't care about humanity any more
2) God doesn't have the ability to correct the issues or
3) God doesn't exist outside the hopeful and needy minds of the believers.

[Purple Knight]

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?

The only logical answer if you accept the canon is that it's intended. I can think of one good reason, and it involves the Plan with a capital P. God might need person A to believe X and person B to believe Y, so they'll act in a way that serves that Plan.

Now, if you're talking about a reality that does not involve Biblical canon being true, it's pretty much inevitable that people will reinterpret to serve their own ends and that language isn't perfect to begin with. It's frankly not possible to know what someone who lived 2000 years ago meant when he wrote something down in another language that may not be identical to ours in that every word has an exact translation. It's hardly possible to know what the person on the other side of the computer means, on this very day, in a language that's been standardised, discussing this same topic.

[Tcg]

It seems to me that Christianity would equally benefit from the cultivation of thought diversity by openly disclosing where contested scriptures have multiple plausible interpretations and allowing for the inclusion of various theological perspectives. Adopting a Theological Diversity & Inclusion approach in this way could facilitate compromise by allowing Christians to remain agnostic in situations where Biblical guidance is ambiguous rather than forcing them to arbitrarily accept and endorse a single interpretation while rejecting all others as heretical.

This is a very interesting idea and it would be enlightening to see how many would be willing to implement it. It reminds me to some degree of the Quaker's approach to Christianity although theirs is perhaps even broader. They have no set doctrine or dogma which one must agree with in order to be considered a Quaker and instead rely on what they call the "Inner Light."

I wonder how evangelicals or fundamentalists would react, however, given that the idea of how to attain heaven is such a big part of their approach to Christianity and their own mission. I would guess they would consider their conclusions considering: "3. The means to attain heaven", a very important doctrine and may not be willing to leave it open-ended.


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

The only logical answer if you accept the canon is that it's intended. I can think of one good reason, and it involves the Plan with a capital P. God might need person A to believe X and person B to believe Y, so they'll act in a way that serves that Plan.

I've previously offered some Christians that identical perspective for their consideration. As you've implied, if someone accepts the Bible as the word of God, it would necessarily follow that various scriptures were written to be deliberately ambiguous in order to provide people the necessary flexibility to carry-out the "Plan" as designed. A counter-argument I received was that this approach could function as a justification for some people to commit horrible atrocities because they would claim their actions were in accordance with God's uniquely customized plan for them. However, this objection is easily resolved by the retention of the remaining undisputed Christian doctrines which established prohibitions against such behaviors.

[Tcg]

Now, if you're talking about a reality that does not involve Biblical canon being true, it's pretty much inevitable that people will reinterpret to serve their own ends and that language isn't perfect to begin with.

I don't disagree with this completely, but I don't think the purpose is always to "serve their own ends." It seems to me that the Bible can be very confusing because of it's inconsistencies. Sometimes those who argue that Jesus is God can present passages that seem to clearly support their assertion. Those who disagree can also present passages that convincingly argue against Jesus' divinity. This disagreement is the result of the Bible not being clear or consistent at least in some cases. My own opinion is that this disagreement persists because the Bible quite simply doesn't resolve the issue.

Language, and especially when dealing with it's translation, can indeed amplify the problem as well. It is far from an objective game. Sometimes when I read my own posts I conclude the text doesn't capture my meaning properly, but it's as close as I can get. Multiply that with various authors all writing from different perspectives and it gets real messy real fast.


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

I wonder how evangelicals or fundamentalists would react, however, given that the idea of how to attain heaven is such a big part of their approach to Christianity and their own mission. I would guess they would consider their conclusions considering: "3. The means to attain heaven", a very important doctrine and may not be willing to leave it open-ended.

The Theological Diversity & Inclusion approach would advise that the path to heaven is unique for each person and only revealed through customized guidance by the "Holy Spirit" but, of course, must also exist within the boundaries of the few Christian doctrines which remain mostly undisputed. For instance, it would still be unacceptable for any Christians to claim that the Holy Spirit was guiding them towards suicide or mass murder as their customized path to heaven.

[Purple Knight]

The only logical answer if you accept the canon is that it's intended. I can think of one good reason, and it involves the Plan with a capital P. God might need person A to believe X and person B to believe Y, so they'll act in a way that serves that Plan.

I've previously offered some Christians that identical perspective for their consideration. As you've implied, if someone accepts the Bible as the word of God, it would necessarily follow that various scriptures were written to be deliberately ambiguous in order to provide people the necessary flexibility to carry-out the "Plan" as designed. A counter-argument I received was that this approach could function as a justification for some people to commit horrible atrocities because they would claim their actions were in accordance with God's uniquely customized plan for them. However, this objection is easily resolved by the retention of the remaining undisputed Christian doctrines which established prohibitions against such behaviors.

I'm not so sure. The Bible also says don't judge and be humble. It's a bit I just can't swallow, because it seems to me that it means I have to look at a murderer or rapist and go, "What a nice fellow. I have no authority to question what he does. He must have a good reason. He's certainly better than I am. God bless his probably pristine soul."

So even if it's pretty darn obvious that you can't just go murder people, if a murderer says that God told him to murder, you still have to trust him, even though.. there's no possible way... Well you see what I mean.