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]

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.

Yes, I understand the expressed concern. However, as I previously indicated, there remains a few Christian doctrines which are mostly undisputed which place limits on what will be considered an acceptable interpretation. So, if a murderer says that God told him to murder, those undisputed doctrines would provide Christians with a sufficient justification to reject his claim.

[Purple Knight]

I don't disagree with this completely, but I don't think the purpose is always to "serve their own ends."

No I don't think so either. But it's very easy to do this even not meaning to. One passage that comes to mind is "the children of blasphemers, to the third and fourth generation" are going to be punished. Now, I say this means children who themselves are not blasphemers, but JW has a pretty good argument that this means the children are also blasphemers. Both interpretations make perfect sense, so when I choose between them, I can't help using my own biases. I have literally nothing else to draw upon but my own life and experience. So I'm serving my own ends, even if I don't want to. What else to do? Choose the one my life and experience says is wrong?

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.

I do this too. I also sometimes think about things that don't have words or descriptions, particularly dynamics that occur in certain systems. Sometimes there simply is no word, which upsets me greatly since we have dozens of words that are redundant, and do nothing but describe something already described by another word.

Yes, I understand the expressed concern. However, as I previously indicated, there remains a few Christian doctrines which are mostly undisputed which place limits on what will be considered an acceptable interpretation. So, if a murderer says that God told him to murder, those undisputed doctrines would provide Christians with a sufficient justification to reject his claim.

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

[Miles]

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.

Perhaps, but I believe such a unified approach would eventually rob denominations of their power to attract and hold parishioners. Part of denominational power to stay on top, as it were, or to improve membership is to imply "the other guy is wrong and we're right. Come drop your shekels in our basket." Of course no one is saying this out loud, but I believe it sits there as an unspoken tenet of denominational survival.


.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

How big of a disagreement does there need to be to consider it a legitimate disagreement?

Take the first example: The Divinity of Christ. Virtually all self-described Christians subscribe to the Divinity of Christ. Obviously I can’t speak to idiosyncratic beliefs, but if we go by denominational affiliation then more than 99% of Christians say that Jesus is God in the flesh. By far the largest group to disagree with this doctrine are Jehovah’s Witnesses, which make up less than ½ of 1% of all Christians.

Imagine that you spoke with 100 doctors. 99 doctors said that you should definitely be vaccinated against COVID-19, and that the benefits vastly outweighed any risks. One doctor said that the risks of the vaccine are too great and you should not get vaccinated. In that case, would it be right to say there is a disagreement in the medical field about the safety the vaccines? Or can we rightly discount that one doctor and be honest when we say, “Doctors recommended getting vaccinated”?

Doe the fact that roughly 1% of Christians disagree with the divinity of Christ qualify as a disagreement among Christians? Or can we rightly discount that small group of decenters and honestly says, “Christians believe in the Divinity of Christ”?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

How big of a disagreement does there need to be to consider it a legitimate disagreement?

Take the first example: The Divinity of Christ. Virtually all self-described Christians subscribe to the Divinity of Christ. Obviously I can’t speak to idiosyncratic beliefs, but if we go by denominational affiliation then more than 99% of Christians say that Jesus is God in the flesh. By far the largest group to disagree with this doctrine are Jehovah’s Witnesses, which make up less than ½ of 1% of all Christians.

Imagine that you spoke with 100 doctors. 99 doctors said that you should definitely be vaccinated against COVID-19, and that the benefits vastly outweighed any risks. One doctor said that the risks of the vaccine are too great and you should not get vaccinated. In that case, would it be right to say there is a disagreement in the medical field about the safety the vaccines? Or can we rightly discount that one doctor and be honest when we say, “Doctors recommended getting vaccinated”?

Doe the fact that roughly 1% of Christians disagree with the divinity of Christ qualify as a disagreement among Christians? Or can we rightly discount that small group of decenters and honestly says, “Christians believe in the Divinity of Christ”?

I'm not sure where you got your figures from given that you didn't provide any sources to support them. On the other hand I'm glad to reference this source which clearly contradicts yours:

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

A new study from Ligonier Ministries conducted by LifeWay Research found that a little over half of all Americans say that Jesus was a good teacher but don’t believe that he’s God. That’s not terribly surprising and more or less holds with the general downward trend of Christian belief in the U.S. over the last few decades. More surprising is that the same study found that about a third of self-identified evangelicals hold that belief as well. Only 66 percent of evangelicals disagree with the statement “Jesus was a ‘good teacher, but he was not God.'”

https://www.relevantmagazine.com/faith/ ... was-god-1/

So, yes, the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is clearly a source of doctrinal disagreement amongst Christians.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

.

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?

In my opinion because of disinformation, manipulation and misinterpretaion. They persist because knowledge is power and humans have always been hungry for power and willing to compromise good principle to get it.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



RELATED POSTS

Does the teaching of "The Great apostasy" contradict Jesus statement at Matthew 16:18?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p996209

When did "The Great Apostacy" take place?
viewtopic.php?p=1044471#p1044471

If Christianity presents truth, WHY are there so many very different versions... ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 49#p981549

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS

* bible interpretation

[Tcg]

.

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?

In my opinion because of disinformation, manipulation and misinterpretaion. They persist because knowledge is power and humans have always been hungry for power and willing to compromise good principle to get it.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

How is your claim concerning knowledge related to your unsupported opinion about "disinformation, manipulation and misinterpretaion [sic]?" In what way would practicing "disinformation, manipulation and misinterpretaion [sic]" result in power? Can you provide any verifiable evidence that it would?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

How is your claim concerning knowledge related to your unsupported opinion about "disinformation, manipulation and misinterpretaion [sic]?"

Knowledge affords a person with the means to act based on the reality that exists around them. Without knowledge they would not have the power (ie the ability) to do this. Far from being unsupported opinion, this is not only a logical inevitability it is an observable reality verified by every human experience.

In what way would practicing "disinformation, manipulation and misinterpretaion [sic]" result in power?

Disinformation (and misinterpretaion) by definition denies the target accurate knowledge resulting in the disseminator or at least the originator of such misinformation (If it were a deliberate ploy) with the power intrinsic knowing such misinformation has been presented. Manipulation by definition implies the use of power.



My opinion is based on the dictionary definition of the words and an acceptance that the concepts have a basis in the reality of the human experience.

[bluegreenearth]

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.

[bluegreenearth]

Perhaps, but I believe such a unified approach would eventually rob denominations of their power to attract and hold parishioners. Part of denominational power to stay on top, as it were, or to improve membership is to imply "the other guy is wrong and we're right. Come drop your shekels in our basket." Of course no one is saying this out loud, but I believe it sits there as an unspoken tenet of denominational survival.

Yes, but the Theological Diversity & Inclusion approach I've recommended is supposed to operate under the presumption that Christians actually care about resolving their internal disputes in an effort to create a more unified and compassionate culture. If the truth is as you suggest, then Christians will probably reject the Theological Diversity & Inclusion approach for that reason.