Culture Rise of Atheism and the Folly of Letting Commoners Interpret the Bible

[The Name of Love]

Well, if you're willing to reject that Christ removed any need for intermediaries between God and man, and thus reject one of the core doctrines of Christianity, I guess there's no point in trying to argue what failures within Christianity enabled the cultural rise of atheism in the West.

"Reject one of the core doctrines of Christianity" that only Protestants have ever believed.

Meanwhile, at the early Christians...

[The Shepherd said:] "But those who are weak and slothful in prayer hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do you not ask understanding of the Lord, and receive it from him?" [Hermas of Rome, The Shepherd 3:5:4 (A.D. 80)].

In this way is [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer] [St. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 7:12 (c. A.D. 207)].

[During the Eucharistic Prayer] we commemorate those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that in their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23:9 (c. A.D. 350)].

For the souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom of Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking of the body of Christ, nor would it do any good in danger to run to baptism, that we might not pass from this life without it; nor to reconciliation, if by penitence or a bad conscience anyone may be severed from his body [St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God 20:9 (c. A.D. 419)].

These can be multiplied manifold, but I think you get the point.

 

[ParadiseLost]

1 Peter 2, in which Peter is writing to the Church in Asia Minor:

1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,

2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

I could quote plenty of other passages about the Priesthood of all believers.

Revelation 5:9-10

9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

Note that the description there states that God used his blood to ransom people and made them priests. Also, its notable that you're quoting Theological texts and not the Bible.

 

[The Name of Love]

1 Peter 2, in which Peter is writing to the Church in Asia Minor:



I could quote plenty of other passages about the Priesthood of all believers.

Revelation 5:9-10



Note that the description there states that God used his blood to ransom people and made them priests. Also, its notable that you're quoting Theological texts and not the Bible.

You don't seem to understand how it works. Bible alone doesn't trump the official interpretations of the texts. Why should believe that your interpretation is authoritative?

 

[Yinko]

You don't seem to understand how it works. Bible alone doesn't trump the official interpretations of the texts. Why should believe that your interpretation is authoritative?

It runs completely counter to Protestant thought, but it is rather factual that a great many important passages have a wide variety of interpretations, and of course those one happens to dissagree with are always guilty of "picking-and-choosing". So it's not unfair to say that, in an organized religion, the official interpretations of the text is roughly as important as the text itself, as a means of preventing organizations dissolution.

 

[The Name of Love]

It runs completely counter to Protestant thought, but it is rather factual that a great many important passages have a wide variety of interpretations, and of course those one happens to dissagree with are always guilty of "picking-and-choosing". So it's not unfair to say that, in an organized religion, the official interpretations of the text is roughly as important as the text itself, as a means of preventing organizations dissolution.

Indeed. Using the text to undermine the organization of a Church is like putting the cart before the horse. And it isn't like we don't have good explanations for why these passages don't eliminate the need for a specific priesthood (that all Christians ought to be like priests to the world doesn't mean that the Church doesn't need leaders with special privileges).

 

[ParadiseLost]

You don't seem to understand how it works. Bible alone doesn't trump the official interpretations of the texts. Why should believe that your interpretation is authoritative?

Ok.

Freedom is good.

My interpretation of the above text is "Freedom is bad."

What any "official interpretation" is is irrelevant. Words mean things.

If you place the "official interpretation" of the text above the Bible, you're basically saying that the fallible decisions of humans are more valuable than the infallible statements of God.

Which is the irony of Catholicism - its essentially Authoritarian Humanism masking itself as theocracy.

 

[The Name of Love]

My interpretation of the above text is "Freedom is bad."

What any "official interpretation" is is irrelevant. Words mean things.

I'm sure you've heard of the concept of semantic indeterminacy? This was a concept well known to Christian theologians like St. Augustine as well as modern day twentieth-century philosophers like W. V. O. Quine and Saul Kripke. The words themselves have their meaning derived from the thoughts of the people speaking them. In order to know the meaning of the words, we need to have knowledge of what the speaker or writer meant by these words.

Think about it this way: if we want to know what a writer meant by a certain text, we have to have an idea of what the author could've meant by the text. For example, if I am an ignorant layman, and I read a text written by Ayn Rand that condemns altruism, I might assume she's condemning any charitable act rather than a specific ideology. You need to know what her philosophy was so you don't read something into the text she wrote.

This is especially true with Scripture. You can't just read Scripture blind; you need to have some idea of what the original author meant. Catholicism says a) that God is the original author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired the writers of the different books in Sacred Scripture through the Holy Spirit and b) that God entrusted the person of the Church to be His official representative on Earth, so c) the Church has the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Anyone who doesn't take into consideration what God actually meant when he wrote those passages is inevitably going to read their own beliefs into the work.

If you place the "official interpretation" of the text above the Bible, you're basically saying that the fallible decisions of humans are more valuable than the infallible statements of God.

Which is the irony of Catholicism - its essentially Authoritarian Humanism masking itself as theocracy.

I don't believe that the Catholic Church's Magesterium is fallible. Cardinal John Henry Newman describes the process by which the Church over the course of her history weeds out error. Think of it like the workings of the free market, only instead of the invisible hand of capitalism weeding out bad businesses, it is the invisible hand of God weeding out theological error. The Catholic Church is an infallible institution that employs fallible human beings.

 

[ParadiseLost]

I don't believe that the Catholic Church's Magesterium is fallible.

You didn't have to say anything else. If you actually believe this, our ideologies, philosophies, and theologies are far too different for any meaningful discussion to be had.

 

[The Name of Love]

You didn't have to say anything else. If you actually believe this, our ideologies, philosophies, and theologies are far too different for any meaningful discussion to be had.

Well, yes. Because you are such a dogmatist that you can't have a meaningful conversation with people who disagree with you substantially.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Well, yes. Because you are such a dogmatist that you can't have a meaningful conversation with people who disagree with you substantially.

I'm not the person who believes an entire organization is infallible. Also, I am not a dogmatist. That isn't even possible for me. I don't have a firm belief in anything specifically.

Also, if you think a dogmatist is an insult in regards to Christianity, I don't think you actually understand what a dogmatist means.

Quite frankly, I can have a meaningful conversation with anyone; but I'm not convincing you (I think you'll agree with that) and you're not convincing me, so there's no reason for debate; I don't care a jot about Catholicism or Catholic beliefs, so there's no educational value to me; and as this thread isn't really meant for anything else, there really is no meaningful conversation to be had heard.

This sort of scenario is exactly what Nietzsche had in mind when he said, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

 

[Yinko]

Well, yes. Because you are such a dogmatist that you can't have a meaningful conversation with people who disagree with you substantially.

I think there are two main hang ups a lot of Protestants will have.

First, the notion of comparing "mortal interpretation" with "divine will". The problem with this complaint is that all reading of the Bible is a mortal interpretation anyway. Having an official interpretation doesn't make that any different from all the other interpretations on a fundamental level.

Second, the issue of organization and authority. This might go over better if you used the argument of the Apostolic Succession, though that seems unlikely since most people have never heard of it.
My own point on this was less that we should let a specific group interpret the Bible than that the average reader is unqualified to interpret it. Not only because of the fact of the different translations, but also because of the change in culture, assumed knowledge and the use of mysticism to convey information. All of which make, what once may have been a rather straightforward document, increasingly opaque. This is why there are dedicated biblical scholars, why concordances are written, why new translations are always available.
Perhaps some of the problem comes from the modern translations themselves, if people are given to think that the meaning is quite clear then they will be less prone to looking up alternate interpretations. If they were forced to read it in an archaic form then they would be encouraged to doubt their understanding.

 

[The Name of Love]

I'm not the person who believes an entire organization is infallible. Also, I am not a dogmatist. That isn't even possible for me. I don't have a firm belief in anything specifically.

Also, if you think a dogmatist is an insult in regards to Christianity, I don't think you actually understand what a dogmatist means.

Dogmatism can be vice if done to excess. Certainly, you should hold to beliefs that are actual dogmas and respect them as such, but you shouldn't turn non-dogmas into dogmas or let dogma interfere with rational dialogue. Quite frankly, your admitted inability to talk to someone who disagrees with you on the issue shows that you are not capable of talking to an orthodox Christian about their beliefs. Which is kind of disappointing to me, but not entirely unexpected given your philosophy (all of the Objectivists I've talked to tend to have the same intellectual problems that you do).

Quite frankly, I can have a meaningful conversation with anyone; but I'm not convincing you (I think you'll agree with that) and you're not convincing me, so there's no reason for debate; I don't care a jot about Catholicism or Catholic beliefs, so there's no educational value to me; and as this thread isn't really meant for anything else, there really is no meaningful conversation to be had heard.

I don't believe that you convince someone to change religions just by talking to them. That takes a movement of the soul. No, what I see the purpose of a debate is to understand the opposite side's opinions, and for the opposite side to learn of your opinions. To get to the root of the disagreement, the underlying principle that marks your disagreement. Are you capable of this?

This sort of scenario is exactly what Nietzsche had in mind when he said, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

Well, that's another thing he was wrong about then. All facts require interpretation to make sense of them. You too interpret things, you simply think that your interpretation is authoritative for whatever reason.

 

[ParadiseLost]

I think there are two main hang ups a lot of Protestants will have.

First, the notion of comparing "mortal interpretation" with "divine will". The problem with this complaint is that all reading of the Bible is a mortal interpretation anyway. Having an official interpretation doesn't make that any different from all the other interpretations on a fundamental level.

An "official interpretation" (in truth none exists) is merely another mortal interpretation.

Second, the issue of organization and authority. This might go over better if you used the argument of the Apostolic Succession, though that seems unlikely since most people have never heard of it.

Which has no Biblical basis and also Peter was never in Rome.

My own point on this was less that we should let a specific group interpret the Bible than that the average reader is unqualified to interpret it. Not only because of the fact of the different translations, but also because of the change in culture, assumed knowledge and the use of mysticism to convey information. All of which make, what once may have been a rather straightforward document, increasingly opaque. This is why there are dedicated biblical scholars, why concordances are written, why new translations are always available.
Perhaps some of the problem comes from the modern translations themselves, if people are given to think that the meaning is quite clear then they will be less prone to looking up alternate interpretations. If they were forced to read it in an archaic form then they would be encouraged to doubt their understanding.

The Bible is not the Necronomicon, and God is not Cthulhu, much as people have the tendency to treat Him as though He is.

Dogmatism can be vice if done to excess. Certainly, you should hold to beliefs that are actual dogmas and respect them as such, but you shouldn't turn non-dogmas into dogmas or let dogma interfere with rational dialogue. Quite frankly, your admitted inability to talk to someone who disagrees with you on the issue shows that you are not capable of talking to an orthodox Christian about their beliefs. Which is kind of disappointing to me, but not entirely unexpected given your philosophy (all of the Objectivists I've talked to tend to have the same intellectual problems that you do).

You continue to fail reading comprehension. I do not like the ability to talk to you or anyone else; I merely see no point in talking to someone who I already know I will never, in any way, ever see eye to eye with.

Also, I have very few dogmas. Additionally, you further demonstrate that you don't actually know what dogma means.

I also find it funny that you couldn't parse Nietzsche's quote and yet accuse me of having intellectual problems.

 

[The Name of Love]

An "official interpretation" (in truth none exists) is merely another mortal interpretation.

Which has no Biblical basis and also Peter was never in Rome.

The Bible is not the Necronomicon, and God is not Cthulhu, much as people have the tendency to treat Him as though He is.

Assertion after assertion. No arguments given. Why ought we believe there is no official interpretation? Why ought we believe that there is no Biblical basis for apostolic succession? Why ought we believe that the average layperson with little knowledge of philosophy, theology, or history would be able to come to the correct interpretation of Scripture? There's no reasons you've given us!

Also, your assertions contradict each other. If there is no official interpretation, then there is no reason to accept your belief that apostolic succession isn't Biblical as the official interpretation either. It's just "one among many."

You continue to fail reading comprehension. I do not like the ability to talk to you or anyone else; I merely see no point in talking to someone who I already know I will never, in any way, ever see eye to eye with.

Also, I have very few dogmas. Additionally, you further demonstrate that you don't actually know what dogma means.

I also find it funny that you couldn't parse Nietzsche's quote and yet accuse me of having intellectual problems.

More assertions and further dogmatism. I could also parse how you were trying to use it, though I'm unsure if that is what Nietzsche meant by it. He didn't strike me as the anti-elitist type.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Why ought we believe there is no official interpretation?

Self-apparent: because there isn't.

Why ought we believe that there is no Biblical basis for apostolic succession?

Because - again - there isn't. Which you would know if you actually read the Bible.

Again, if I claim that the Bible says, "After eating cake, always play Hopscotch," it is an objective fact as to whether or not its true.

It can be proven, yes or no, on the basis of the text.

Why ought we believe that the average layperson with little knowledge of philosophy, theology, or history would be able to come to the correct interpretation of Scripture? There's no reasons you've given us!

Also, your assertions contradict each other. If there is no official interpretation, then there is no reason to accept your belief that apostolic succession isn't Biblical as the official interpretation either. It's just "one among many."

Well, again, there's what the Bible actually says, which is a collection of facts. Either Apostolic Succession is there or it isn't. Its true or its false.

That's the problem with this whole "official interpretation" nonsense.

More assertions and further dogmatism. I could also parse how you were trying to use it, though I'm unsure if that is what Nietzsche meant by it. He didn't strike me as the anti-elitist type.

Dogmatism.

Also, Nietzsche is complicated. What Nietzsche essentially meant is we merely collect information through our own interpretation of what we see outside of us. Therefore, our interpretations are known to exist, and they certainly do. The facts that we are seeing through the window of interpretation are not as assuredly actually existing, however.

 

[The Name of Love]

Paradise, you didn't provide any arguments for why I should even consider your position. "Because there isn't" isn't an argument.

However, you did say something very interesting that I believe lies at the heart of our disagreement.

Also, Nietzsche is complicated. What Nietzsche essentially meant is we merely collect information through our own interpretation of what we see outside of us. Therefore, our interpretations are known to exist, and they certainly do. The facts that we are seeing through the window of interpretation are not as assuredly actually existing, however.

This is a solid philosophical position... that I reject wholeheartedly. Because what you're describing is exactly what makes Protestantism incoherent. This Nietzschean position on truth holds that our interpretations of facts are more basic than the facts themselves. This is incorrect. The fact and the interpretation of the fact are actually abstracted parts of the truth. You can't really separate them like this. Similarly, the Protestant effort to separate Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is similarly incoherent, as they are both abstracted parts of the truth of the Christian faith. You can't understand a fact without an authoritative interpretation of the fact in question (authoritative in the sense that the interpreter is, in fact, competent enough to do the interpreting). Similarly, you can't make sense of Sacred Scripture without an authoritative interpreter of the texts in question. It's no wonder you hold a Protestant view of Scripture: it parallels nicely with the Nietzschean view of facts.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Paradise, you didn't provide any arguments for why I should even consider your position. "Because there isn't" isn't an argument.

Yes it is.

If I claim that "Moby Dick says Kanye West is an immortal demigod," and you say, "No, Moby Dick doesn't say that," your response is a completely valid argument, because its true.

This is a solid philosophical position... that I reject wholeheartedly. Because what you're describing is exactly what makes Protestantism incoherent. This Nietzschean position on truth holds that our interpretations of facts are more basic than the facts themselves. This is incorrect. The fact and the interpretation of the fact are actually abstracted parts of the truth. You can't really separate them like this. Similarly, the Protestant effort to separate Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is similarly incoherent, as they are both abstracted parts of the truth of the Christian faith. You can't understand a fact without an authoritative interpretation of the fact in question (authoritative in the sense that the interpreter is, in fact, competent enough to do the interpreting). Similarly, you can't make sense of Sacred Scripture without an authoritative interpreter of the texts in question. It's no wonder you hold a Protestant view of Scripture: it parallels nicely with the Nietzschean view of facts.

You're assuming that I (1) I believe in a Nietzschean view of facts and that (2) I believe that people can make sense of Scripture without being competent enough to interpret it themselves.*

I hold neither of those beliefs.

Also, facts aren't abstract. The idea that you think they are reveals the postmodern basis of your thinking and philosophy.

Try again.



*Rejecting an idea that there is an "official interpretation" of Scripture =/= rejecting that competence is required to interpret Scripture.

 

[The Name of Love]

Yes it is.

If I claim that "Moby Dick says Kanye West is an immortal demigod," and you say, "No, Moby Dick doesn't say that," your response is a completely valid argument, because its true.

This is dishonest, and you know it's dishonest. It just is. See, I can "argue" like you do too.

When you are ready to admit your dishonesty, I'll talk to you. Until then, it's clear that you aren't willing to talk to people who disagree with you.

 

[ParadiseLost]

This is dishonest, and you know it's dishonest. It just is. See, I can "argue" like you do too.

When you are ready to admit your dishonesty, I'll talk to you. Until then, it's clear that you aren't willing to talk to people who disagree with you.

Sigh. Yeah, I'm not debating with a reality-denying ultra-post-modernist.

 

[The Name of Love]

Sigh. Yeah, I'm not debating with a reality-denying ultra-post-modernist.

And I'm not debating someone who thinks begging the question isn't fallacious. Understand, if the argument is literally about whether apostolic succession is Biblical, and you say "it's not Biblical because it just isn't," then that doesn't actually advance your argument.

Also, mischaracterizing my position as post-modern? Very typical Randian tactic. You just embody those stereotypes, don't you?