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

[Deleted member 88]

I’m a Protestant but as someone who has and is seriously considering becoming catholic(and this has been over the years), I’m sympathetic to the argument that the Bible must have a foundation in which to be interpreted.

Else you get people quoting verses and developing their own hermeneutics to get the results they want.

This doesn’t do anything but lead to never ending circles. Where people come to wildly different interpretations as to what passages mean.

So you have someone interpret it for you. The problem Protestants will respond is...what if the magisterium is wrong? Of what if tradition is wrong? It’s a fair question. Obviously if it was wrong then Christians for 1400 years weren’t actually Christian or had a wrong understanding of their own religion. And given there are people who argue the church went off the rails circa 200 AD, this is a frightening thought.

And regarding the above-it’s very easy to come to wildly different interpretations, then get frustrated and say “you know what this must not be divinely inspired because we’re disagreeing and thus maybe well it’s all not true.”

Protestantism does lead to atheism in that sense. Protest the church, and eventually you will protest the Bible.

 

[Rocinante]

Every atheist I've ever met in real life has issues with their protestant father. Every strawman argument they trot out is some smoothbrain protestant literalist drool.
It was literally a mistake to let the peasants read the bible. They started doing shit like denying evolution because "That werent hin no bye bull" and completely missing the point of onanism.

To jump in weeks later: my dad is an atheist himself, and my mom is a very light, non practicing christian. (She believes, but I don't think she's been inside of a church during my lifetime, and she never really preached it to me as a kid.)

I turned out an atheist myself. I just don't believe in it. I do, however, respect your beliefs, and recognize the value in them. So I don't really wish to debate it. We can live and let live, but I thought I'd give you an anecdote that doesn't line up with your anecdote because I'm an exception to your claim.

 

[ParadiseLost]

So you have someone interpret it for you. The problem Protestants will respond is...what if the magisterium is wrong? Of what if tradition is wrong? It’s a fair question. Obviously if it was wrong then Christians for 1400 years weren’t actually Christian or had a wrong understanding of their own religion. And given there are people who argue the church went off the rails circa 200 AD, this is a frightening thought.

And regarding the above-it’s very easy to come to wildly different interpretations, then get frustrated and say “you know what this must not be divinely inspired because we’re disagreeing and thus maybe well it’s all not true.”

Protestantism does lead to atheism in that sense. Protest the church, and eventually you will protest the Bible.

If tradition and age were the main basis for a religion, we'd all be converting to Judaism, not Catholicism.

Also, the Catholic Church's official theological positions changed a lot over the years.

A good example of this is the Veneration of Mary, which went from:

1) She was a like a second Eve to Jesus's second Adam (an idea that originated very early on), which stressed her importance.
2) In the 500s they came up with the idea that she remained a virgin her whole life despite Jesus explicitly having siblings.
3) The Doctrine of Immaculate Conception - i.e. May was perfect and without sin, which was very controversial throughout the Middle Ages and wasn't explicitly recognized and formally declared by the Pope until 1854.

Catholic dogma is largely a collection of Biblical fanfiction (So are the Gnostic books and traditions as well - which are just as old as the Catholic ones). The Protestant Reformation was basically a movement to dump the headcanon and move back to the original canon.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

To jump in weeks later: my dad is an atheist himself, and my mom is a very light, non practicing christian. (She believes, but I don't think she's been inside of a church during my lifetime, and she never really preached it to me as a kid.)

I turned out an atheist myself. I just don't believe in it. I do, however, respect your beliefs, and recognize the value in them. So I don't really wish to debate it. We can live and let live, but I thought I'd give you an anecdote that doesn't line up with your anecdote because I'm an exception to your claim.

I haven't met you.

 

[The Name of Love]

Catholic dogma is largely a collection of Biblical fanfiction (So are the Gnostic books and traditions as well - which are just as old as the Catholic ones). The Protestant Reformation was basically a movement to dump the headcanon and move back to the original canon.

That is the Protestant view of things. The Catholic view of things is that these "later additions" are a natural evolution of doctrine, and that the Protestant theology was an incoherent mess used by secular princes as an excuse to seize Church property for their own ends. I'll also add that Protestants will often invent their own headcanons and ignore the original canons of the early Church.

 

[Scottty]

Is this a troll thread?
Because all this talk of "Commoners" or "peasants"? Seriously, this isn't the Middle Ages anymore. All of us taking part in this discussion are Clerics, in the literal, technical sense.

Some of you Papists... I think that if Mr Morden from Babylon 5 showed up at your door with his "What do you want?", your heartfelt wish would be that you could wake up and find that the last 500 or so years were all a bad dream, or something.
But that's not going to happen. It's not within his "associates" power to grant.

Guénon argued exactly this, in fact, that Protestantism removed the mystical experience of higher knowledge from religion and in doing so reduced Christianity to essentially a state of atheism--and enabled actual atheism to follow it.

(scratches head)
Such statements bear such little relation to any form of Protestant Christianity that I know of, that I can only conclude that he was really talking about something totally different.
Maybe an argument could be made that the Lutheran "state church" setup of some northern European kingdoms lead to a hollowed-out form of religion that was all "believe this, because the king says so" - and therefore if the king stops saying so, they all stop pretending. But that's as much a problem with any form of government-based religion, I think. It really ends up being about following an organization, rather than having any personal faith in God.
There are also tons of Roman Catholics and Muslims who are pretty much just going through the motions because it's expected of everyone in their culture, and it wouldn't matter much to them whether the God they're supposed to believe in was really there or not.
Calvinism, on the other hand? Hardcore theocentric, and theonomic. But in a way that results in there being lots of atheism around, not as a development of it, but in reaction against it.

But I'm not a Calvinist either. I don't think people like me exist at all in the worldview of someone like Guénon.

So you have someone interpret it for you. The problem Protestants will respond is...what if the magisterium is wrong? Of what if tradition is wrong? It’s a fair question. Obviously if it was wrong then Christians for 1400 years weren’t actually Christian or had a wrong understanding of their own religion. And given there are people who argue the church went off the rails circa 200 AD, this is a frightening thought.

I think that's a bit too much of an "all-or-nothing" approach. People can be right about some things, while also being flat wrong about other things. The question is whether the things they are wrong about are preventing them from having saving faith in Christ. I prefer to think that lots of people in the Middle Ages had a real walk with Jesus, despite having quite a bit of nonsense in their heads.

For example, does it matter, in terms of your eternal salvation, whether you think that Mary the mother of Jesus had other children after Him or not? Roman Catholicism claims that it does, but they are wrong. And in adding to the Gospel like that, they fall under the Pauline anathema against anyone who preaches a different message than he did.
(Not in claiming that Mary was forever a virgin, but in declaring it an essential tenet of their faith.)

There are questions that different groups of Christians can seriously disagree over, while still regarding each other as genuine believers - because there is a core set of beliefs on which we are all agreed.
"Either you believe exactly like we do about everything or else you are totally wrong" is cult-mindset thinking.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

hate to be that guy given that my interest in this crapshow is minimal at most, but has anyone maybe thought about looking back at the original 3rd century manuscripts and the language they were written in? Not saying it's easy but sometimes the best way to find the truth is to either go to the source or as close to it as possible.

Right now this whole conversation seems to be going into the "My (Version of) God is bigger than your (version of) God." my authority is more official than your authority." territory.

 

[Scottty]

hate to be that guy given that my interest in this crapshow is minimal at most, but has anyone maybe thought about looking back at the original 3rd century manuscripts and the language they were written in? Not saying it's easy but sometimes the best way to find the truth is to either go to the source or as close to it as possible.

Well, we don't have the original copies of the New Testament, but yes, we do look at the Greek text. That's what all modern Bible translations work from - the original Greek and Hebrew. We aren't playing a game of broken telephones with translations of translations, as some people seem to think.
When a friend of mine was studying at the Baptist Theological College to become a pastor, learning Biblical Greek started in first year. (Hebrew in 3rd year).

But this "crapshow" as you call it, is pretty much between the people who say "Well, let's look at what it actually says here" and people who go "Noooo, you mustn't do that! Listen to us instead!"

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Well, we don't have the original copies of the New Testament, but yes, we do look at the Greek text. That's what all modern Bible translations work from - the original Greek and Hebrew. We aren't playing a game of broken telephones with translations of translations, as some people seem to think.
When a friend of mine was studying at the Baptist Theological College to become a pastor, learning Biblical Greek started in first year. (Hebrew in 3rd year).

not sure which "We" side your refering. Cause there are at least two sides arguing here that I can tell. Catholic and Protestant.

But this "crapshow" as you call it, is pretty much between the people who say "Well, let's look at what it actually says here" and people who go "Noooo, you mustn't do that! Listen to us instead!"

and those were the people I was talking to. (at least trying.)

 

[The Name of Love]

But this "crapshow" as you call it, is pretty much between the people who say "Well, let's look at what it actually says here" and people who go "Noooo, you mustn't do that! Listen to us instead!"

Probably the biggest misrepresentation of the Catholic position. The idea that the Protestants just went back to the Bible and didn’t add in any of their own idiosyncrasies is kind of what we’d deny. What we would say is that the kind of textual anarchy caused by saying “nobody’s interpretation is authoritative or infallible” leads to theological anarchy.

 

[Crow gotta eat]

So I have a quick question for all of ya.

How does the Orthodox Catholic Church, otherwise known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, fit into all of this? Since they are the other very big religious that the Roman Catholic Church, otherwise known as the Catholic Church, will claim that split from them, or they in return will argue that the Catholics split from them.

Especially since I don't think I noticed any big protestant equivalent movement form out the Orthodox unless they were crushed fairly early on and/or a combination of Bibles not being readily available Orthodox majority areas for a protestant-equivalent movement to form their own interpretations and beliefs.

Note: I am not Orthodox, just curious if this factors in anywhere.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Probably the biggest misrepresentation of the Catholic position. The idea that the Protestants just went back to the Bible and didn’t add in any of their own idiosyncrasies is kind of what we’d deny. What we would say is that the kind of textual anarchy caused by saying “nobody’s interpretation is authoritative or infallible” leads to theological anarchy.

I'm still trying to figure out the point of this conversation beyond just essentially trying to troll each other and make each other mad. Ultimately it's going to go down like this:

Side A: What if your wrong?

Side B: Well what if your wrong?

Side A: Well I don't accept the legitimacy of your beliefs.

Side B: Well I don't accept yours.

I don't see any one's mind's being changed or even wanting to be changed so who actually gains from this conversation?

 

[The Name of Love]

I'm still trying to figure out the point of this conversation beyond just essentially trying to troll each other and make each other mad. Ultimately it's going to go down like this:

Side A: What if your wrong?

Side B: Well what if your wrong?

Side A: Well I don't accept the legitimacy of your beliefs.

Side B: Well I don't accept yours.

I don't see any one's mind's being changed or even wanting to be changed so who actually gains from this conversation?

Well, I don't believe that people actually do change their minds by debating, even under the best circumstances.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Well, I don't believe that people actually do change their minds by debating, even under the best circumstances.

then what is the purpose of bickering? IMO life is too short for this.

 

[The Name of Love]

then what is the purpose of bickering? IMO life is too short for this.

The purpose of a lot of political bickering is to satisfy egos, to be the "winner" of a debate. If you change your mind in the midst of a debate, then you didn't really believe in that position to begin with. A person's political beliefs are downstream from their ethical values, their sense of what's right and wrong. Changing those requires a Road to Damascus-type moment.

No, ideally, the point of dialectic is to learn. By the end of it, you ought to know your opponent's position as well as you know your own, and vice versa, so that you can use that going forward. This serves two purposes: 1) to strengthen your mind and your arguments, and 2) to help come to an understanding that allows both sides to agree to disagree. Does that make sense?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The purpose of a lot of political bickering is to satisfy egos, to be the "winner" of a debate. If you change your mind in the midst of a debate, then you didn't really believe in that position to begin with. A person's political beliefs are downstream from their ethical values, their sense of what's right and wrong. Changing those requires a Road to Damascus-type moment.

No, ideally, the point of dialectic is to learn. By the end of it, you ought to know your opponent's position as well as you know your own, and vice versa, so that you can use that going forward. This serves two purposes: 1) to strengthen your mind and your arguments, and 2) to help come to an understanding that allows both sides to agree to disagree. Does that make sense?

I mean yes, but your sort of admitting your a troll just trying to satisfy your own ego and thicken your own skin. You'd do just as well arguing to a chat bot. your getting hotblooded for the sake of being hotblooded and I almost guarantee nothing new or beneficial will come of it. you seriously mean to tell me your ego wasn't already puffed up and you didn't already assume you were the winner by default, because given your respones I doubt that. On top of that if the above really is your attitude, you've got no right to justify yourself or go on a pity party as a self-proclaimed martyr should people decide to not listen to you or straight up block you. Granted it's not like it matters as nobody is going to stop you from doing so.

 

[The Name of Love]

I mean yes, but your sort of admitting your a troll just trying to satisfy your own ego and thicken your own skin. You'd do just as well arguing to a chat bot. your getting hotblooded for the sake of being hotblooded and I almost guarantee nothing new or beneficial will come of it. you seriously mean to tell me your ego wasn't already puffed up and you didn't already assume you were the winner by default, because given your respones I doubt that. On top of that if the above really is your attitude, you've got no right to justify yourself or go on a pity party as a self-proclaimed martyr should people decide to not listen to you or straight up block you. Granted it's not like it matters as nobody is going to stop you from doing so.

I'm an egotistical troll... for wanting to learn about other people's ideas? You aren't making much sense.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'm an egotistical troll... for wanting to learn about other people's ideas? You aren't making much sense.

people have already told you their ideas and their positions, and yet it seems like for the last 2 pages what this has turned into is "My views are more legitimate than yours. In fact that's what SEVERAL of these threads have turned into. If you've not gotten someone's position after the umpteenth time chances are slim to none your never going to. I called it bickering and rather than say your not bickering, you just simply explained what the point of bickering is.

 

[The Name of Love]

people have already told you their ideas and their positions, and yet it seems like for the last 2 pages what this has turned into is "My views are more legitimate than yours. In fact that's what SEVERAL of these threads have turned into. If you've not gotten someone's position after the umpteenth time chances are slim to none your never going to. I called it bickering and rather than say your not bickering, you just simply explained what the point of bickering is.

Here's the deal: the understanding is a two-way street. It's a dialectic. If they are able to post things like this:

Ok.



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.

Or this:

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.



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.

Then they clearly don't want to understand what I believe in. They just want to score cheap gotchas. And I don't abide by that.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Here's the deal: the understanding is a two-way street. It's a dialectic. If they are able to post things like this:



Or this:




Then they clearly don't want to understand what I believe in. They just want to score cheap gotchas. And I don't abide by that.

so why are you obliging them?