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

[The Name of Love]

so why are you obliging them?

Other than this post, I haven't talked to Paradise Lost since we came to our understanding. Not everyone here is so closed-minded. Or at least, I hope not.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Other than this post, I haven't talked to Paradise Lost since we came to our understanding. Not everyone here is so closed-minded. Or at least, I hope not.

that's fair, though I don't think everyone is as close minded as you may think, probably more battle-hardened or even straight up battle weary.

 

[Scottty]

Probably the biggest misrepresentation of the Catholic position.

Are you serious?
When one side is saying "Look, we can show from the plain text of the Bible that..." and the other side is flatly refusing to debate on those terms, since they know full well that their traditions contain stuff that can't be defended from Scripture...
"Oh but the Protestants do that too!" isn't a convincing defense.

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.

I'd deny that too, actually.

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.

And "theological anarchy" is bad because?
Anyway, I rather disagree with that thesis. Knowing that we are fallible makes us careful. We cross-check with each other. If someone wants to tell me that he's proven something from the Bible, I'm going to ask him to show his work.
It's the people who think they're infallible who are the problem. The people who go "Whatever I decide to believe is true, and you're all evil for not agreeing!"

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?

Sitting in their own corner, mostly.

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.

The split between the two was a long time coming, but it became official in 1054.
Before that time the claim by the bishops of Rome to be the rightful rulers of all of Christendom - and the Eastern bishops' rejection of that claim - wasn't aggressive enough to schism over.

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.

Martin Luther attempted to dialogue with the Orths, actually. But they didn't seem that interested in talking to him.

 

[The Name of Love]

Are you serious?
When one side is saying "Look, we can show from the plain text of the Bible that..." and the other side is flatly refusing to debate on those terms, since they know full well that their traditions contain stuff that can't be defended from Scripture...
"Oh but the Protestants do that too!" isn't a convincing defense.

Yes, they can't be defended from Scripture if you come at the Scripture with Protestant assumptions. Which is sort of the problem with arguing with Protestants, since they can't follow their own rule consistently since it's impossible to follow such a rule consistently.

Protestants cannot tell from the Bible alone which books are canonical. This is because the different books of Scripture was compiled together by a Church that Protestants don't believe in.

Protestants cannot tell from the Bible alone what interpretation of Scripture we should use. This is because one could only have the correct interpretation of the text if they know the mind of God or are appointed as God's official interpreter.

Protestants cannot tell from the Bible alone how to apply the lessons of Scripture to modern day circumstances for much of the same reasons as the first one.

And don't get me started on how un-Biblical Protestant tradition is. Do you have an explanation for Acts 8:26-39?

And "theological anarchy" is bad because?
Anyway, I rather disagree with that thesis. Knowing that we are fallible makes us careful. We cross-check with each other. If someone wants to tell me that he's proven something from the Bible, I'm going to ask him to show his work.
It's the people who think they're infallible who are the problem. The people who go "Whatever I decide to believe is true, and you're all evil for not agreeing!"

Theological anarchy means "every individual gets to make up what is biblical and what isn't." If you have two Sola Scriptura believers with different views arguing, you have no way of actually resolving the issue of semantic indeterminacy (which is something that both Catholics and modern analytic philosophers believe in). The only alternative to an infallible interpreter is a fallible one. So unless you claim that the Holy Spirit beaming into your brain the right answers (which is a power not even the Pope has!), how can we be sure of the correct interpretation of Scripture?

Martin Luther attempted to dialogue with the Orths, actually. But they didn't seem that interested in talking to him.

This Orthodox Christian blog gives a good indication of how they probably felt.

 

[ATP]

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.

That not main problem.
Main problem is fact, that Luter initially agreed that people could interpret Bible, but when peasants start not only killing priest,but also gentry,ge decided to become super-pope without any limits to his power.Later he gave that power to german rulers, that is how protestants in Europe remained relatively united.
But in USA Republic refused to be super-pope - and,as a result, we had maybe 10.000 churches there.

That is problem - we do not taking about Jesus, but about how prewent religion from dissolving into million sects.
There are only two ways :
1.Catholic - pope.
2.Luter - religion part of state.

If you do not want situation when everybody is pastor of his own church,then you must pick one of those.
Even if i do not belived in anything, i would still choose pope over state - becouse pope had no army and police to supress poor me,when state has./Well,except Andorra and Vanuatu/

 

[Scottty]

Yes, they can't be defended from Scripture if you come at the Scripture with Protestant assumptions. Which is sort of the problem with arguing with Protestants, since they can't follow their own rule consistently since it's impossible to follow such a rule consistently.

Protestants cannot tell from the Bible alone which books are canonical. This is because the different books of Scripture was compiled together by a Church that Protestants don't believe in.

Protestants cannot tell from the Bible alone what interpretation of Scripture we should use. This is because one could only have the correct interpretation of the text if they know the mind of God or are appointed as God's official interpreter.

Protestants cannot tell from the Bible alone how to apply the lessons of Scripture to modern day circumstances for much of the same reasons as the first one.

That sounds like an all-or-nothing fallacy. Plus a bit of strawmanning. To go further on the subject I'd be trying to get you to understand some logical distinctions that your ideology requires you to not understand.

And don't get me started on how un-Biblical Protestant tradition is. Do you have an explanation for Acts 8:26-39?

Sure, no problem. What is it about that passage that you need explained?
Philip being directed by an angel, and then by the Holy Spirit, to go and teach the Gospel to a specific person? (Peter having nothing to do with it. Philip got his instructions direct! )
As a Charismatic Christian I have zero trouble with any of that. It's an example of what John Wimber called a "Divine appointment". Still happens today.
Oh - you must mean the Ethiopian man having questions about the meaning of that passage from Isaiah? And needing Philip to explain how it's a prophecy about Jesus?
Well of course he couldn't know about how Isaiah 53 had already come true without someone telling him! Is that supposed to prove that nobody can understand anything in the Bible by themselves? Seriously?
If your teachers have lead you to believe that passage to be some unanswerable problem for a Protestant, then they have instructed you... poorly.

I also think it worth pointing out that you expected me to be able to understand the passage by myself. (Which of course I do.) Were you saying something earlier about rules not being followed consistently?

Oh yeah, and Mr Ethiopian went home with his new-found faith in Christ, as the Spirit teleported Philip away to go and preach in Samaria. But how could he be a good Roman Catholic without any priests to serve him the Eucharist, or to absolve his sins, back home in Abyssinia?
Maybe those things aren't really part of what it means to be a Christian?

Theological anarchy means "every individual gets to make up what is biblical and what isn't." If you have two Sola Scriptura believers with different views arguing, you have no way of actually resolving the issue of semantic indeterminacy (which is something that both Catholics and modern analytic philosophers believe in). The only alternative to an infallible interpreter is a fallible one. So unless you claim that the Holy Spirit beaming into your brain the right answers (which is a power not even the Pope has!), how can we be sure of the correct interpretation of Scripture?

Do you claim to be an "infallible interpreter" yourself? Or are you relying on your own fallible powers of interpretation in order to understand what the people you treat as infallible are teaching you? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

And believe it or not, when two people disagree about something, it actually is possible for them to reach agreement without needing someone in a special hat to declare one option "True, because Muh Authority!"
Sometimes one person actually realizes that the other one has it right. I've seen it happen.

 

[ParadiseLost]

But in USA republic refused to be super-pope - and,as a result, we had maybe 10.000 churches there.

Not really true, though.

Around 134 million Americans attend Church weekly.

The top 25 largest Denominations in America (including the Catholic church) had 141 million members as of 2012.

The reality is that the vast majority of Americans attend churches of one of 2-3 dozen denominations which all maintain their own councils, doctrinal positions, organizations, etc.

This idea that America is some land of tens of thousands of different independent churches falls flat on its face.

 

[Scottty]

There are only two ways :
1.Catholic - pope.
2.Luter - religion part of state.

If you do not want situation when everybody is pastor of his own church,then you must pick one of those.

Funny how I can reject both of those, and not be in a situation where everyone is "pastor of his own church".

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'm starting to think the real question that needs to be asked is is there any Supernatural importance value or merit to religion or is it essentially a means of building a civilization. In short is there a God does he have a will that trumps all else even the stability of society itself and is their a heaven and hell for which people will spend eternity based on whether they fallow said will or rebel against it, OR is all just a metaphorical figure head designed to push mankind towards a certain preferred point of stability? As potentially blasphemous as this question sounds, whatever we think the answer is will largely determine how we view and handle religion as a concept.

I'm looking at this board and it seems like people have different priorities when it comes to religion. It's going to be hard having a productive conversation when honestly we aren't even asking the same question.

 

[The Name of Love]

That sounds like an all-or-nothing fallacy. Plus a bit of strawmanning. To go further on the subject I'd be trying to get you to understand some logical distinctions that your ideology requires you to not understand.

I wasn't even mischaracterizing the Protestant position, first off. I was talking about the logical consequences of "Bible Alone." The Bible alone cannot tell you which books are in the Bible or how to interpret the Bible or how to apply the interpretations in modern circumstances.

Sure, no problem. What is it about that passage that you need explained?
Philip being directed by an angel, and then by the Holy Spirit, to go and teach the Gospel to a specific person? (Peter having nothing to do with it. Philip got his instructions direct! )
As a Charismatic Christian I have zero trouble with any of that. It's an example of what John Wimber called a "Divine appointment". Still happens today.
Oh - you must mean the Ethiopian man having questions about the meaning of that passage from Isaiah? And needing Philip to explain how it's a prophecy about Jesus?
Well of course he couldn't know about how Isaiah 53 had already come true without someone telling him! Is that supposed to prove that nobody can understand anything in the Bible by themselves? Seriously?
If your teachers have lead you to believe that passage to be some unanswerable problem for a Protestant, then they have instructed you... poorly.

I also think it worth pointing out that you expected me to be able to understand the passage by myself. (Which of course I do.) Were you saying something earlier about rules not being followed consistently?

Oh yeah, and Mr Ethiopian went home with his new-found faith in Christ, as the Spirit teleported Philip away to go and preach in Samaria. But how could he be a good Roman Catholic without any priests to serve him the Eucharist, or to absolve his sins, back home in Abyssinia?
Maybe those things aren't really part of what it means to be a Christian?

If Sola Scriptura were true, then the eunuch wouldn't need instruction to be taught. That's clearly the plain interpretation. Furthermore, the plain interpretation of John 20:21-23 is proof of confession being a power of the early Church. That you don't accept the plain interpretation laid out before you proves that you don't follow your own rule.

I also find it amusing how you are a part of Charismatic Christianity, a religion invented in the 1960s by some guy in California, yet have the chutzpah of claiming to know what Christianity "originally" was. Where do you get this insight?

Do you claim to be an "infallible interpreter" yourself? Or are you relying on your own fallible powers of interpretation in order to understand what the people you treat as infallible are teaching you? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

And believe it or not, when two people disagree about something, it actually is possible for them to reach agreement without needing someone in a special hat to declare one option "True, because Muh Authority!"
Sometimes one person actually realizes that the other one has it right. I've seen it happen.

The infallible interpreter is the person of the Catholic Church. My interpretation is simply in line with the traditional teaching going back to the Early Church Fathers.

You seem not to understand how this works. Semantic indeterminacy only applies if it is just the semantics without any access to the thoughts behind the semantics. I could always go consult the the Catholic Church's various commentaries on Scripture that the Church herself has endorsed, and if I don't understand those, I can go to the priests for correction. Protestants don't have this system. It's only them, their (very fallible) preachers, and (if they are correct) the Holy Spirit.

 

[ATP]

I'm starting to think the real question that needs to be asked is is there any Supernatural importance value or merit to religion or is it essentially a means of building a civilization. In short is there a God does he have a will that trumps all else even the stability of society itself and is their a heaven and hell for which people will spend eternity based on whether they fallow said will or rebel against it, OR is all just a metaphorical figure head designed to push mankind towards a certain preferred point of stability? As potentially blasphemous as this question sounds, whatever we think the answer is will largely determine how you view and handle religion as a concept.

I'm looking at this board and it seems like people have different priorities when it comes to religion. It's going to be hard having a productive conversation when honestly we aren't even asking the same question.

What kind of religion ?
becouse all societes was founded on religions - but there are 2 categories of religions:
1."Hard" - we have God/gods with priests and dogma
2."Soft" - we have Traditions about what id good,but no priests or even gods.In such case, not only confucianism is religion,but marxist,too.

 

[Scottty]

Now for those unfamiliar with the Book of Acts, this is the passage that TNoL expected me to have no "explanation" for...

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

Somehow that was supposed to prove that the Bible cannot be understood except by a pope, or something.

 

[Scottty]

I'm starting to think the real question that needs to be asked is is there any Supernatural importance value or merit to religion or is it essentially a means of building a civilization. In short is there a God does he have a will that trumps all else even the stability of society itself and is their a heaven and hell for which people will spend eternity based on whether they fallow said will or rebel against it, OR is all just a metaphorical figure head designed to push mankind towards a certain preferred point of stability? As potentially blasphemous as this question sounds, whatever we think the answer is will largely determine how you view and handle religion as a concept.

I'm looking at this board and it seems like people have different priorities when it comes to religion. It's going to be hard having a productive conversation when honestly we aren't even asking the same question.

Insightful. I'm getting the same feeling myself.

 

[The Name of Love]

Somehow that was supposed to prove that the Bible cannot be understood except by a pope, or something.

"Do you understand what you are reading?"
"How can I, unless someone explains it to me?"

How could we not see the implication? The eunuch, being unable to know the true meaning of Scripture on his own, requires Philip, a man blessed by God to teach him. When he has been taught and baptized by Philip, the eunuch goes off, having been made a Christian. The plain reading of the text should be obvious, no?

I'm starting to think the real question that needs to be asked is is there any Supernatural importance value or merit to religion or is it essentially a means of building a civilization. In short is there a God does he have a will that trumps all else even the stability of society itself and is their a heaven and hell for which people will spend eternity based on whether they fallow said will or rebel against it, OR is all just a metaphorical figure head designed to push mankind towards a certain preferred point of stability? As potentially blasphemous as this question sounds, whatever we think the answer is will largely determine how you view and handle religion as a concept.

I'm looking at this board and it seems like people have different priorities when it comes to religion. It's going to be hard having a productive conversation when honestly we aren't even asking the same question.

Civilization needs to be pointed towards the Transcendent in order to be fulfilling to the people living in it. When a civilization turns inward, marred by indulgence and nostalgia, we rightfully acknowledge that such a civilization is "decadent" and in decline.

 

[Scottty]

"Do you understand what you are reading?"
"How can I, unless someone explains it to me?"

How could we not see the implication? The eunuch, being unable to know the true meaning of Scripture on his own, requires Philip, a man blessed by God to teach him. When he has been taught and baptized by Philip, the eunuch goes off, having been made a Christian. The plain reading of the text should be obvious, no?e.

I have already answered you. Refusing to listen and just repeating yourself over and over proves nothing.
Everyone else reading this discussion probably has no trouble understanding that what the eunuch could not know from reading the Book of Isaiah, was about how Jesus had fulfilled those prophecies. Because he did not yet know about Jesus.
Is that really so hard?

Are you really going to base your argument on Biblical interpretation on a statement made by a man who, at the time he said that, was not even yet a Christian?

 

[The Name of Love]

I have already answered you. Refusing to listen and just repeating yourself over and over proves nothing.

How is your interpretation the plain interpretation and mine wasn't? Is there some methodology for determining it?

 

[Scottty]

How is your interpretation the plain interpretation and mine wasn't? Is there some methodology for determining it?

Are you asking me how reading comprehension works?
It's a narrative passage - it describes a sequence of events. People doing things and saying things. We can discuss what the eunuch meant by what he said, but that's all it was: what that guy said. The conversation was recorded by Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, because it happened.

For those interested in the greater context, the Gospel was being preached first to the Jews in Jerusalem, then to offshoots of Judaism such as the Ethiopian Jews and the Samaritans, and then to non-Jews.
That is why Cornelius the Centurion is considered the first "gentile" Christian, despite the Ethiopian eunuch having been converted before him - because said eunuch was actually part of the Jewish diaspora.

Now... looking at the little paragraph above, if one person said "Scottty was talking about the early spread of Christianity" and another person said "No, Scottty was posting a recipe for making pancakes!"... what methodology would one use to determine who was right?
Would you need someone in robes and a special hat to tell you?

TNoL, have you ever just sat down and read the Book of Acts? Not in the context of a Protestant vs Roman Catholic debate, not in the context of any debate, but just... read through what Luke records of the early church.

 

[almostinsane]

Are you asking me how reading comprehension works?
It's a narrative passage - it describes a sequence of events. People doing things and saying things. We can discuss what the eunuch meant by what he said, but that's all it was: what that guy said. The conversation was recorded by Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, because it happened.

For those interested in the greater context, the Gospel was being preached first to the Jews in Jerusalem, then to offshoots of Judaism such as the Ethiopian Jews and the Samaritans, and then to non-Jews.
That is why Cornelius the Centurion is considered the first "gentile" Christian, despite the Ethiopian eunuch having been converted before him - because said eunuch was actually part of the Jewish diaspora.

Now... looking at the little paragraph above, if one person said "Scottty was talking about the early spread of Christianity" and another person said "No, Scottty was posting a recipe for making pancakes!"... what methodology would one use to determine who was right?
Would you need someone in robes and a special hat to tell you?

TNoL, have you ever just sat down and read the Book of Acts? Not in the context of a Protestant vs Roman Catholic debate, not in the context of any debate, but just... read through what Luke records of the early church.

I did. There was a clear hierarchy with Peter as the leader of the apostles. There was also the Apostolic Council on Gentiles and the mosaic law instead of each apostle making a decision based on their own interpretation.

 

[Scottty]

I did. There was a clear hierarchy with Peter as the leader of the apostles. There was also the Apostolic Council on Gentiles and the mosaic law instead of each apostle making a decision based on their own interpretation.

Peter was the leader of the Jerusalem church, yes. But he never behaved as if he believed himself to have the sort of authority that the Roman Catholics claim for their popes. Peter had to justify his actions to the other apostles. But yes, they decided some things in councils - not with one "infallible" leader.

 

[The Name of Love]

TNoL, have you ever just sat down and read the Book of Acts? Not in the context of a Protestant vs Roman Catholic debate, not in the context of any debate, but just... read through what Luke records of the early church.

Yes. It's a good book.

Are you asking me how reading comprehension works?

We both read the same passage, but we got different meanings out of it, Scottty. Either one of us is right, or neither of us is right. How is "reading comprehension" going to magically get us to the correct passage? Unless you mean something different by that phrase.