The two biggest challenges the Bible brings to anyone caring to take it seriously are no mystery: the Good Book is extraordinarily (if not, let’s face it, miraculously) complex, and so vague that one or more of its passages can be used as “proof” for just about any imaginable assertion. I could claim that Bozo was God come to earth to show the world what all men would look like in the future, and find Bible quotes to support it. “The Church of the Future Bozo” would be up and running in a week. I’d make a fortune on huge floppy shoes alone.
That the Bible is as complex and, shall we say, non-linear as it is presents a massive problem for Christians and their system of belief. Because if there’s one thing people like it’s being extremely, perfect clear about whatever it is they believe. Organically, we’re a dogmatic race. We like black and white, yes and no, on and off, right and wrong. We’re big on the binary.
And it’s totally natural we’d have such a predilection for clear opposites. Our physical lives are absolutely dominated by them. Day and night. Man and woman. Up and down. Dead or alive.
How can we not be instinctively drawn toward definites, when our entire existence is defined by them?
The problem is that while our external lives are wholly determined by clear and tangible opposites, our internal lives are a churning miasma of conflicting imperatives. More than they’re anything else—and way more than people are generally comfortable admitting—humans are emotional beings. We are our emotions. And emotions fit into binary categories like Bozo fits into a confessional booth.
So we take our overriding, external paradigm of static, well-defined opposites, mix it with our dynamic, ever-changing yin-and-yang emotional desires, and then bring all of that to the Bible, which, because of its complex density, stands ever ready to accommodate and support whatever combination of heart and mind accesses it.
And voila: today, as yesterday and surely as tomorrow, we have just about as many kinds of Christianity as we do kinds of individual people. And every Christian is dead positive that their version of Christianity is the one, true Christianity. From “God Hates Fags” to “All Dogs Go To Heaven,” there’s a theology for every Christian. And every Christian is confident that their take on God is the sublimely correct one, if for no other reason than (whether they admit it or not) it perfectly suits them personally.
And then people who are intrinsically drawn to believe in the same sort of God group together into denominations and sects and so forth, and we get the kind of internecine Christian tribalism that, at the very least, serves as conclusive proof to so many non-Christians that all Christians are bonkers, since they can’t even agree on what exactly it is they believe.
Fascinating, no? And surely anticipated by God.
Now, why would he want that, do you think?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }
Newer Comments →
Thank you John. I've actually never had a satisfactory answer to it either. The closest anyone has come has been "when God kills, it's just"…which sounds to my ear like "When the President does it, it's not illegal."
But even were I to accept that answer, then I would have to accept the deaths of innocents as just. Which, I'm sorry, isn't going to happen.
It's beyond my level of motivation, actually. Funny, but I am not all that concerned with answering anyone's questions about faith most of the time. Especially not in an electronic forum with folks I have no face-to-face relationship with.
I just know what I know. And I'm not all that concerned about convincing, or even conveying to others, actually. That's probably a result of how I came to faith. Nobody could tell me a THING, until God started talking. He was the only one I'd listen to, so I figure why waste my breath. If He wants Morse to know, I assume he'll make sure it happens.
I just like to read, think about what's said, and make the occasional off-topic comment
I don't know, man. I think Morse asked an extremely valid question. I don't think it's fair to say, "The reason we can't answer that very reasonable question is because you don't have enough faith to understand that there's a great answer to that question." How does that NOT help him think we're hiding behind what we know is irrational?
Ooops. Just blew it on the staying on topic, didn't I. Bummer.
Jason wrote:
"Morsec0de … If you cared to try, you would find that your issues with Scripture could be resolved."
This reminded me of a G.K. Chesterton quote:
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."
In my agnostic/atheist days, I would have claimed (indeed, DID claim) I had tried Christianity. But I had not. Not honestly and whole-heartedly.
For the record, Paul, I did not find the Bhagavad-Gita boring…I recall being fascinated by it when I read it 20 years ago (though, obviously, I disagree with its theology). The book on the hermeneutics, however, was painfully dense and bordered on unintelligible. Ironic, huh?
As for the statements of Hindu and Christian theology, I think that discussion is best left to another forum so as not to clog John's post with a lot of off topic banter (see, I'm trying to stay on topic here, John).
John,
OK I see where you were coming from.
I, too, get disgusted with the contentious attitudes that we as Christians too often display.
John: I’m too new to your blog to know your view for sure, but I’m definitely curious as to your own response to mcoville’s comment, “I do not believe that you can be a practicing muslim, hindu or worship any other god and still go to heaven. There is only one name by which man will be saved, Jesus who is the Christ.”
Is your belief system consistent with this and if not, where do you diverge?
~Shannon (http://whatsgodgottodowithit.wordpress.com/)
[Incidentally, my name links to my crafting blog, so I included the link to the blog that is more germane to this discussion. Hope that's not a problem!]
I am curious about anyone’s answer to my question, for sure. I was just saying that I wasn’t frustrated. It really is just a question.
MC,
Thanks for clarifying. I understand where you’re coming from.
Morsec0de,
I think you are a nice guy, but you, my friend, are beating a dead horse. If you cared to try, you would find that your issues with Scripture could be resolved.
John,
In the end, while it was a descriptive post, it ended asking why God would want division. The question begged for an answer
It's funny this conversation came up. Someone asked what books were on my bedstand table. One of them is David Sedaris' "Holidays on Ice," and the other is thePrabhavananda/Isherwood translation of "The Bhagavad-Gita, which I've had on my bedstand table for at least 30 years.
I think there is a poem/story about blind men describing different parts of an elephant.
So as I read through these comments, I see a connection in what John and MC are trying to convey. We are all blind men trying to understand the truth but we have our limited understanding of the truth based on the ‘view’ we have. However, that being said, we should come together and try to see the whole truth of the matter. I do believe there is a underlying message of the bible and that is Christ. And from there, we start moving out to the other bits of truth which we need as we grow in Christ. I am oversimplifying, I know. Just trying to find the connecting points in the conversation.
Maybe we all have a bit of the truth – but we argue so damn much about all kinds of stuff that we never realize the truth that is w/in each of us – Sometimes I wonder if Gods view of us from the heavens are each individual as a puzzle piece and the big picture that not only God wants to see but we need to see is that we get more things acomplished by working together instead of working against each other. I like to put it like this (and again this is all my opinion) we are all in the S^#T boat so why are you trying to kick me out – meaning we all have crap so why is mine worse than yours – God doesnt measure sin, sin is sin. And to quote the bible "a house divided cannot stand". Instead of us focusing on the things that separate us maybe we should start searching and focusing on the things that unite us.
Bhagavad-gita is clear, concise, and profound, just as one would expect of God's speech — quite different from the Bible. I was raised with the Bible, and it made me an atheist for a while, just as it's turned many millions of others into atheists. Only through Bhagavad-gita As It Is was I able to not only realize but directly see the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna.
Since then the Christian doctrines about Jesus being God appear as blasphemy. God has no need to become a man to save anyone, nor does He ever suffer. These notions contradict His omnipotence, and they're false.
Krishna's form is purely spiritual, and He does whatever He wants, with no limit.
The Christian idea about Jesus has a rule about God needing to suffer as a man and die to save us, and this rule is apparently more powerful than God, in their estimation. Krishna doesn't need to follow any rules. Whatever He desires is the rule, which others must follow.
You wrote this just to bait me didn't you John? I'm not biting…yet!
Hmmm…where to begin.
First
"the Good Book is extraordinarily (if not, let’s face it, miraculously) complex, and so vague that one or more of its passages can be used as “proof” for just about any imaginable assertion."
John, you've hit on perhaps the biggest problem in biblical interpretation. "Proof-texting" is a very dangerous practice from which very little good ever comes. Interestingly, it is used both by Christians trying to support a weak doctrine (or lazily trying to support a stronger doctrine), and non-Christians in an attempt to discredit some facet of Christianity (e.g., Thou shalt not kill…but would you mind destroying the Midianites for me? — still funny, though, Morsecode). What fascinates me is that we do this very little with anything else. I've never heard anyone use William Rowe's explanation of the deductive problem of evil to conclude that Rowe is a theist or the trial passage in "To Kill A Mockingbird" to conclude that it is OK to convict a minority for a crime he or she did not commit. Yet, we use selected passages in the Bible to support all kinds of ridiculous ideas or even to support good ideas badly. That said, Mc is onto something in the area of hermeneutics, a discipline not simply reserved for Christian writings (undoubtedly the most boring book I ever read was on a hermeneutical approach to the Bhagavad Gita). While there are certainly areas of honest disagreement over many points of interpretation (which, sadly, deeply and unnecessarily divides Christians and often degenerates into childish name calling), a thorough, holistic approach to reading the scriptures does reveal an underlying bedrock of beliefs without which Christianity would not be Christianity — things that simply aren't debatable such as the deity of Jesus (I'll expect the Arian reponse soon). So, while I appreciate and acknowledge the issues you raise and agree that they have led to a divisive denominationalism, John, I wonder if these issues are not more our problem (at least with regard to the core tenets of the faith) than that of the Bible. [I'll completely forego the issue of illumination because there simply isn't enought space at Wordpress for the responses that is likely to illicit]
As for the question "Why would he want that, do you think?"–who knows? I suppose we could delve into the philosophical questions that would inevitably be a part of answering the question, but I think we would end up chasing a lot of different rabbits and never catch one.
But I'm not disgusted at all. I just … don't care. I'm just curious to see what other people think.
here's something I posted a little bit back about this:
http://johnshore.com/2008/10/06/sorry-i-cant-care…
"Why would he want that, do you think?"
Personally, I think it's that way because otherwise we'd have no motivation.
To stir the pot of controversy:
It seems clear that all of the denominations can’t be correct, only because many of the denominations specifically claim things that are the exact opposite of what other denominations claim.
Are you suggesting that they are all correct, or that God doesn’t care which you choose as long as you’ve picked one of the Christianities?
And I don’t think you’re bonkers. I just hold to that old chestnut…you can’t all be right, but you can all be wrong.
[/controversy]
The day is coming when every knee shall bow, dude. But it will be the point of no return for the unfortunate, pride ridden eternally damned fools. Men who think they’ll live forever will see the light a day late and a dollar short. Research Pascale’s Wager for some credible philosophical insight about choices to be made in this significant and essential realm of existence.
Pascale’s Wager only applies if we, by reason and logic, cannot determine whether or not God exists. I find Occam's Razor to be a better test of God's existence: the simplest explanation is usually true, and the simplest explanation is that there is no God. If we tread into territory where we claim God exists, we suddenly have complexity. If we reject God, things are far more simple and logical.
I don't know whether i would agree that the conclusion that there is no God would be a simpler conclusion. When the nonexistence of God is presupposed there comes into play scientific and philosophical problems of universal origins and things of that manner that are circumvented by the presupposition of God's existence. Im not denying that the allegation that there is no God may hold some weight from certain perspectives, just that it has many difficulties of logic and decision much like the idea that God does exist has many problems of logic.
If you want logic, go to Vulcan. Religion… ANY religion… has nothing at all to do with logic. It is, and always has been, about FAITH, which is the belief in a thing without proof.
That’s about the most ILLOGICAL thing we humans have ever come up with.
Odd how you'd say that. I've heard it repeatedly over the past several weeks, and it's kind of annoying to me that Christians are giving off that impression (blind faith).
The bedrock of Christianity is a specific event in history: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, we don't have direct evidence of his resurrection. But we have eyewitness testimony of his life and of his death. Those two facts are better attested by documentary evidence than any other facts in history (I encourage you to look that up).
And then we have documentary evidence of eyewitness accounts, with the same level of credibility, that Jesus was encountered alive some time after his death. Encountered by people who knew him well. Encountered repeatedly, by varying people, 11 here, 500 there, over a period of a few weeks. This was claimed in writing by eyewitnesses during a period in which you could track down other eyewitnesses to ask them for confirmation.
And besides these facts, the eyewitnesses attest that Jesus made certain claims about the meaning of his death and his coming back to life. And that he predicted his death and resurrection before it happened.
That's the bedrock of Christianity. Evidence for a specific historical event. Everything else is our attempts to figure out the implications of this fact.
Ahem. That's a load of poo. The man died. Period. No one comes back. No one. Not even a man named Jesus.
Where do you think he went, such that he couldn't have come back? Have you thought about what it really means when you say "the man died"? So, what becomes of the flesh in the end? Moreover, what becomes of the spirit?
I'm not frustrated at all. What I've written is descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm only saying how things are; I've said nothing whatsoever about how I think they should be, or anything like that.
John, I don't understand your frustration.
Wow, I really want to comment, but no time…late for work. I did want to say…
"churning miasma of conflicting imperatives"
that's an impressive piece of wordsmithing.
Its not about where you worship..but who you worship (See St. John 4: 20-24)
Yep. It's really not even about HOW you worship. Sorry, but I can't really believe that GOD is that picky and petty.
Well, there's the old standby:
Thou shalt not kill…but would you mind destroying the Midianites for me?
"Thou shalt not murder"; there's provision for both self-defense and warfare.
As for the specific case of the Midianites: There's plenty of stuff written to counter "discrepancies" like this. It saddens me that these simplifications show up so much, not as conversation-openers but as conversation-closers.
I mean, I don't want to sound as harsh as C. S. Lewis here (paraphrase: "If you can't understand a book written for grown-ups, you've little right to talk about it"), but it does remind me of the stereotype that a Country song played backwards means you get your job back, your wife back, your dog back, and your mom gets out of prison. People who make that joke are clearly quoting others and have never listened to Country themselves for any length of time.
Sigh.
Anyone? I just don't have the time today.
Let me start by apologizing for the tone of my post. I do not consider myself more intelligent than any other on this blog. I hope there are no hard feelings.
I was agitated by the fact that John keeps stating that the Bible is "so vague that one or more of its passages can be used as “proof” for just about any imaginable assertion." This post is not the only one he has made this, or similar, statements.
Like you John I came to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ at a later date then a lot, not quite as later as you but close. But it was through discipleship, prayer and studying the Bible that I found out more and more about God. After several years of study now, and countless hours spent with several different theologians, I can tell you for certainty that the Bible has one message and one message only.
If you know of any contradictions in the bible I would love to hear about it so I can research it, I enjoy growing my knowledge of the Bible.
pastoralmusings: I have no disagreement with your post. I agree that brothers and sisters in Christ from different denominations will share heaven one day. We have different ways of going about worship, some more formal than others, but as long as we worship the one true God, Jesus Christ, then that is all that matters.
Now for a bit of non politically correct opinion…. I do not believe that you can be a practicing muslim, hindu or worship any other god and still go to heaven. There is only one name by which man will be saved, Jesus who is the Christ.
Here's one–is celibacy for the "officers" of Christ's army and marriage for the "footsoldiers"? I'm quoting the Roman Catholic founder of Opus Dei. I say yes. The Roman Catholic church has plenty of scripture backing this up. St. Paul: it is better not to marry. Jesus on the different kinds of eunuchs. (Sorry I can't come up with chapter and verse–I'm only a Roman Catholic! LOL But you probably know what I'm referring to.) I was raised Roman Catholic, then journeyed among some Protestant evangelicals who loved to preach against what they called "Rome" and its many theological errors. Investigating these "errors," I read a book by a Catholic (Roman) theologian, Hans Kung, called On Being a Christian and decided to go back to "Rome." He doesn't think there are any big differences between the RCs and the Ps. One behavioral difference I observed–only in my NARROW EXPERIENCE–the RCs don't waste much time dumping on the Ps. Been there, done that, I guess.
I'm wondering, but not sure, if MC's comment about hermeneutics was directed to me, John, or both of us.
That being said, I believe that it has been the consensus of about 2,000 years of Christian understanding that Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17 does include the verses I gave as a petition for the unity of His people.
This prayer will not see its total realization until the eschaton, but God's people shall be one. It is not His plan that they be divided. In the end, they are not as divided as they seem to be. The antagonism is not as great as it appears to be. Love for Jesus crossed denominational barriers, though we might quibble and fuss about church polity.
Jason (The Pastor @ PastoralMusings.wordpress.com)
Luke Chapter 9, Jesus totally addresses the point…
v.46 Then a dispute arose among them as to which of them would be greatest. 47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a little child and set him by Him, 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this little child in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great.” 49 Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”
Personally, there are a lot of different "kinds" of Christian churches b/c God (in this example, God as our perfect Heavenly Father) has a lot of different kinds of kids. God the Father doesn't change His nature, who He is or the "house rules" for any of His kids, but like any dad, He talks to each of us in a way that personalizes His love for us.
Anyone with more than one child can attest to the fact that you love one child as much as the other, but you love them each differently in action, based on their nuances, personalities, processes, hearts, sensitivities & level of understanding. But you wouldn't want them all bickering about "Dad loves me most." Nor would you want one of them saying, "I know Dad wouldn't let YOU crash the car and come in past curfew, drunk, but he'd let me because he loves me."
Jesus said, "if you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Col 2:9 is awesome- For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form, giving complete expression of the divine nature.
Sounds like to me, as long as what a church teaches & stands on is the Truth as Jesus lived it, taught it and died for it, most would be hard pressed to argue, personal preferences aside.
Mc: I don't think you mean to be, but … I'm thinking maybe you don't realize how condescending your tone is? You can't write things like "Hermeneutics, say it with me class…" and expect anyone to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about what you're about to presume to teach them. (And you sure can't write something like that, and then punctuate it as terribly as you did this bit.) I'm not simply raggin on you, and I'm certainly not saying you don't have interesting things to say. I'm just suggesting you think about the possibility of adjusting your tone just a bit, so that it doesn't come off so smug.
Hermeneutics, say it with me class, Her-men-neu-tics. It is the study of the Bible. All though we can make the Bible say what we want when we pick out one verse, the Bible only says one thing when we study it as a whole.
morescode: This is a first, I agree with you. Ok once morsecode gets his breath back I will continue…. When it comes to denominations most are separated by what is called 'Adiaphora' or non-essentials. I may not believe everything my Catholic brother does, or my Presbyterian brother does but as long as we are agreed on the essentials then we will see each other in heaven.
For those that do not know the essentials of Christianity are:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548387…
mcoville,
I took that link to see what the "essentials of Christianity" really are. And all these years I've thought I was a Christian. I don't believe some of the "essentials" and doubt many others so — oops, guess not. On the other hand, I try to behave as I think Jesus would want so — hey, maybe I am after all.
To me the essentials are to love God, to love our neighbors, and to try to do good in the world. What am I missing, I wonder. Do you think Jesus would approve???
That link's broken, so I can't see what was presented. But the message of Jesus as given in the Bible (the only evidence we have of what Jesus wants us to do) is definitely not merely "love God, love our neighbors, do good in the world." Or, I suppose, you could expand them a bit (by "love God" I mean "study and learn what he wants you to do (accept his son's sacrifice on the cross) and do it").
Jesus said there would be many people who go around doing good things, even in his name, and yet at the end he'll say "Not enough." Because the real issue isn't some outward act. It's a problem within us that needs to be solved, and he solved it the only way he could. And he holds out his hands to us, saying "I took that burden upon myself; come to me and be cleansed."
A lot of people these days take Jesus to be a really neat guy – singular, astoundingly wise, the most loving person in history. And then they completely overlook the antidote he's holding out to them. They'd prefer him to be a doctor who comes to comfort the dying with happy thoughts but forgets to bring the medicine.
He didn't want it like that, but allows us to act foolishly.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Jn 17:20-23). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Ultimately this shall come to pass. Today it seems almost impossible. God shall bring us all together in the end, though.
If you are referring to universalism, you have an incorrect interpretation of this passage.
Newer Comments →
{ 1 trackback }