FIDO95 said:
I haven't been able to figure out if your being contentious or are genuinely curious? Just in case it is the later, I'll offer you my 2 cents.
This country was founded on the premise that "all people were created equal". It doesn't seem like a massively ambiguous statement yet "all people" has meant different things during different times in our nations history. The problem isn't the statement, rather it is the interpretation of fallible humans of the statement. Those fallible humans read the statement through the prism of their day which undoubtedly shaped their conclusion for better or worse. Our nation, as did many other nations including African, exploited Africans. Were the early Americans stupid? How did they arrive at a different conclusion of "all people" than we do today? I don't believe them to be stupid. They were limited by the prism of their day. It is fallible humans' improper interpretation that leads to problems, not the original message in and of itself.
Likewise, the Bible is a set of divine teaching that I believe to be infallible. It is not infallible as a history text. It is not infallible as a Science textbook. It is infallible as a description on how I as an individual should be in relationship with my God. I understand that my Bible, which has been translated to English from its original languages, may create some "ambiguity" as a result. This is why I as a Catholic do not except the idea of Solo Scriptura. Or rather, I cannot read my Bible in a vacuum without an understanding of the audience intended, the time period, and the historical interpretations each individual book. Additionally, I need to account for the historical applications (i.e see church fathers due to the fact the Christian church is hundreds of years older than the Bible). I have learned a lot but the more I learn the more I realize I little I truly know and understand.
At the end of day, it comes down to this: I believe in the founding principles of this nation despite the shortcomings of some of its citizens and certain aspects of our own history. I believe in the principles of the Bible despite the actions of some of its followers and some of its churches (even the Catholic Church). I do this because I understand that at the end of my days, I will be judged on my relationship with God, my decisions, and my actions regardless of the actions of anyone that has come before me. Therefore, I refuse to be distracted by the sins of others and choose to spend my energy and time on strengthening my relationship with Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior and God willing as a result, expanding His kingdom through the sharing of the Good News.
That is all excellent and well stated and I appreciate this!
I think maybe we've deviated for the original topic of the utility of the Bible in promoting stable society. . . and I'm sure that I am at least partly to blame. Nevertheless, I think what you've written above is well put together and concise. And in the interest of continuing the thread, I want to challenge a few items. I think that what I write comes off more contentious then I mean it to sometimes.
The example of "All men were created equal" is an interesting one. In your last sentence of the first paragraph you say that it is the fault of improper interpretation rather than the original message. This statement was attributed to Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin in the Declaration of Independence. When they included these words, do you think they mean for it to be extended to Africans? What do you think their original message was and why is extending the definition of "men" to black people the proper interpretation? Our founding fathers certainly didn't see them as equal.
There is an analogy here with the founding principles of this country and the Bible in that we see that both are subject to interpretation. I am sure that I am reading too deeply into the analogy, but I would object to a comparison of the source of our founding principles to the proposed infallible source of the Bible. We accept the necessity of ambiguity in a legal document or founding principles that originate from flawed human beings. That is why legal and political systems have built in mechanisms to update and clarify laws. Why do we, just as easily, accept the necessity of ambiguity in the message from an
infallible God?
The heartburn that I have related to ambiguity around God's message is this: Christianity proposes that God created us with a purpose, that we are called to believe and act in accordance with that purpose, and that we will be judged based on our beliefs / actions. There is nothing more important in all of existence than God's message and our eternal souls depend on how we respond to it. I cannot reconcile this with the black and white text that I've read in the Bible. And I cannot reconcile it with the changing views of Christians as they view the world and their texts through changing cultural prisms. And I cannot reconcile it with tens of thousands of denominations. And I cannot reconcile it with 2000 years without a refresh. I cannot reconcile it with the fact that virtually everything in the Bible is debated and contested between even Christians.
The proposition that we are to understand scripture not by ourselves, but through the traditions and teachings and historical context and through history does not bring me closer to your view. As I stated before, why should God require all of His people to become experts in ancient civilizations, anthropology, ancient languages, Greek, Hebrew, history, archeology, on and on. . . . just to be able to understand the message properly? Is God's message only accessible to those wealthy and privileged enough to be be able to dedicate themselves to that study? Or is God's message accessible to anyone? And for those that cannot dedicate 10 lifetimes toward studying those subjects, why should they be required to have a flawed human intermediaries in the form of the clergy to explain to them these things?
It makes all the sense in the world to me that God's message should be so simple that a 3 year old can perfectly understand it. Obviously I'm not God and its not my place to say what ought to be. All I can tell is that what I do see is 2.5 billion Christians with about as many versions of God. And that tells me that the message is either not simple, or Christians are missing the point.
Most people who have ever lived live according to the moral philosophy that they are born into. We all view the world and morality through the lens of our upbringing and our experience. And if the Christian God is real, then his message has become so muddled and confused and splintered and impossible to discern correctly.
Booboo hasn't posted in forever, but he used to tell me that I made it all too complicated. The only thing I needed to know was that God called us to love. And I don't think I need God to do that. I'm told that God will not punish Muslims for being of the wrong faith or Hindus or atheists. If we are to be judged by our intentions, then I feel good about the path I've chosen.
