Fallen and Flawed

Sigh. If only I had this back in AP Human Geography. Then again it might not of worked anyway. Since he believed you could figure out someones religion and beliefs by how they looked.

I had a long post, but I think a quick analogy works better:
Imagine you told me that the way you know whether a song is good is by whether you can dance to it. I retort that some people can’t dance to the music that you like, but they dance quite happily to their own favoured music (which you in turn can’t stand, or dance to) so this can’t be a very good test for good music, only for what _you_ consider to be good music. You then say that I am denying the existence of objective truth, which reduces to nihilism. Does this seem to be a good argument to you?

Fropome: Are you saying that all music is good?

No – I’m saying that the relative ‘goodness’ of music cannot be assessed objectively. It is by definition a subjective judgement. Telling me that by saying your choice of music is subjective I am making it impossible to prove _anything_ is, I hope, obviously laughable.

IOW I’m saying that it’s no good claiming that because some things are objective, that everything is objective.

You said:
“Why believe ANYTHING if it’s just perspective? [We can never prove anything since "interpretation" becomes a circular argument.]”
This only applies if I’m claiming that _everything_ is interpretive… which I’m not, and which I’ve seen virtually no-one ever do (on a practical level at least). But there’s a difference between the subjective and the objective.

Your arguments are only relevant if you can show that the bible, and specifically your reading of it, is objectively true. It is exactly my assertion that you cannot.
This is why I keep bringing up all the different churches – the fact that there are so many strongly indicates that how the bible is interpreted varies from person to person. i.e. it’s subjective.

(btw, it’d be really useful if the site listed threads with recent activity – it’s very difficult to tell whether someone has responded in a thread I’m interested in)

I’m with frompome. Obviously it’s not a matter of interpretation that, say, this mug of tea is sat on my desk. But some things lack objective proof.

I don’t want to put thoughts in Demain’s head and I hope he corrects and clarifies what I type here. But I think what he’s referring to specifically in this context is theology. When two churches disagree on they way a piece of scripture is to be interpreted they both can’t be correct. So when a Catholic interprets Mt. 16:18 to mean that Peter was the first Pope and the church has as much authority as scripture and a protestant disagrees they both can’t be equally valid interpretations.

Aw heck the more I thought about this the more I confused myself. Hey Demian help a brother out here and set me straight.

Rob:
If we restrict ourselves to theology then you might try to claim an objective truth. I think there are two difficulties with this:
1) How do you know you have the objective truth when so many other Christians disagree? They all base their beliefs on the bible too.
2) Why do I keep getting told that I need to ‘open my heart’ to the spirit of God in order to understand your arguments, if they are objectively evidenced? Why won’t an academic discussion help if you have the evidence?

) 1. How do you know you have the objective truth when so many other Christians disagree? They all base their beliefs on the bible too.
2) Why do I keep getting told that I need to ‘open my heart’ to the spirit of God in order to understand your arguments, if they are objectively evidenced? Why won’t an academic discussion help if you have the evidence?

For #1, I’m not saying that I have THE truth according to scripture just that there is one truth, not 100’s of interpretations. When the author wrote what he wrote he had a specific audience in mind and meant one thing. So one interpretation but there can be many applications from that.

For #2, Take a look at Demian’s series on such: http://www.fallenandflawed.com/born-again-hard-truths/ specifically the one on Hard hearted ignorance and spiritual blindness. If sin is real (and admittedly that might seem like a big if) then our faculties might be fallen and flawed and not always lead us to truth. I’ve said elsewhere on here I think you run into the same problem of not being able to trust your reason and intellect if they are just the product of time and chance.

I’m hope to come back and offer a little more because that question deserves it.

I want to respond, clarify, answer…but got a few pressing things this morning so be back in six. Haven’t forgotten about you.

“For #1…”
This discussion started (as far as I’m concerned) when Demian described a test for orthodoxy. But you can’t know what the orthodoxy is unless you have THE truth. Otherwise, it is no more likely that your attempt at getting to the truth is more accurate than the attempts of any other church.

“For #2…”
I’ve read a number of Demian’s posts, and if you believe that scriptural orthodoxy is an objective judgement then I think that makes them special pleading. If believe if God is due to divine intervention, then a requirement to ‘open your heart’ etc makes some sense (though, unsurprisingly, I still don’t agree with the idea), however if belief in God is due to reasoning from objective fact, then this is more awkward. Why is god, specifically, what we are impaired from reasoning towards? Why is this the one area which allowing the spirit into us affects? If our reasoning is ‘fixed’ by being born again, where are the born again scientists making discoveries that un-saved people are incapable of comprehending? Or is our reasoning only ‘fixed’ in the area of god? – which, as I say, strikes me very strongly of special pleading.

re: #1 I think that’s the point he’s making is we can be more likely to get the truth depending on what sources we use and how we interpret them. i.e. I’m not going to read Dora’s bedtime adventure to determine Christian orthodoxy or claim that when Jesus says he’s “the way…” he means he is a road.

re: #2 I think I know what you’re saying but can you clarify a bit?

Apologies – busy couple of days ahead. I’ll have to catch up at the weekend sorry…

fropome, rob, Stoo, what I’m NOT claiming claiming is “that because some things are objective, that everything is objective.”

Obviously your taste in music is going to be different from my taste in music.

But what can’t be disputed is that their is GOOD music and then there’s BAD music.

Just ask any composer or music teacher.

Furthermore, when we look at the Canadian Rockies we don’t give the range it’s majesty, beauty and awe by looking at it. Those things are native to it’s being.

Better yet, if you are married tell your wife that she’s beautiful…and then tell her it’s not because of anything native to her being…it’s just your subjective preference.

I understand that we will disagree on which is MORE beautiful my wife or yours [sorry but I win this one hands down!], the Rockies or Himilayans, Bach or Kieth Urban.

That’s up for debate, no doubt.

Having said all that, multiple denominations simply means people disagree on non-essential doctrines.

What’s wrong with that?

I think you’d agree that NOT all atheists believe in the same thing–there are varying beliefs–but they hold to a core. I’ve seen that plenty of times here on this blog.

Naturally, what you’re after is core Christianity. [Trust me, we all are.] More importantly, who defines that.

So we got to start with some objective truths. For instance, Jesus lived. Then, he died. Next, he rose from the dead. And finally, ascended.

Let’s for sake of argument accept those things are true.

If that’s the case, we then could look at the things Jesus said. Next examine the things his followers said. Maybe explore the transmission of those sayings after that.

Do you see where I’m going? My tea cup on my desk, to use Stoo’s phrase, is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Thus, on a very basic level, how you respond to those historical facts will decide whether you are orthodox or not.

And you work up from there. It’s a winnowing process.

Granted, every single Christian on earth could be interpreting those facts wrong [including me]…but it doesn’t change their reality.

They still exist.

Let me know if that makes sense.

fropome, by the way, If you click that little box at the bottom of comments that says something like “Subscribe to comments” you will get an email any time someone replies to a post.

“Having said all that, multiple denominations simply means people disagree on non-essential doctrines.”
So you’re happy that the differences between your beliefs and that of the Catholics and the Anglicans are ‘non-essential’ doctrines?

I can’t speak for Anglicans because I honestly don’t know much about them, but as for the Catholics, I’d say our differences are “non-essentials,” namely our understanding on justification by faith.

Sorry: I meant “our differences are NOT “non-essentials”…justification by faith is a biggie.

So how do you reconcile that with:
“Having said all that, multiple denominations simply means people disagree on non-essential doctrines.”
Are Catholic’s non-Christian?

This is exactly my point… so far you haven’t provided a test which all Christians would accept as orthodox; in other words, your choice of test is defined by your choice of beliefs, rather than the other way around.

Which is fine, except that it means your test is essentially ‘this is the stuff I think is right’. i.e. it’s your interpretation…

btw, I saw the email tick-box but don’t really want my mail filling up with automatic notifications… particularly if I’ve stopped following a thread or if it’s very busy. nm.

fropome, Catholics certainly aren’t evangelical Protestants. Even they would tell you that. And I would never say all Catholics are not Christians.

It’s case by case.

But you seem to be missing my point: The Bible is the orthodox test.

Granted, the task of interpreting can be skewed with the baggage we bring to it and there exists difficult texts, but for the most part Scripture is clear: God redeemed mankind through Jesus Christ.

I’m not making this stuff. And like I’ve said before, we know this: Jesus lived and died. We then work from there.

Listen, you seem to have some objective way to test religious perspectives–help a brother out and let me know what that is. Because until you do your comments simply amount to your interpretation.

“Catholics certainly aren’t evangelical Protestants. Even they would tell you that. And I would never say all Catholics are not Christians. ”
So they are Christians who disagree with you to an ‘essential’ degree. This was my point! Refer to the argument up-river, but bare in mind non-protestants when we talk about other denominations.

“But you seem to be missing my point: The Bible is the orthodox test.”
For the Bible to be “the orthodox test”, it must be unambiguous. My claim is that it is sufficiently ambiguous that various denominations of Christianity have arisen… which differ (in your words) to an ‘essential’ degree.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that people were building a religion on Lord of the Rings, and they read the description of the Balrog. Most people say that because the text incldes the words (from memory) “spread its wings”. A smaller group claim that the Balrog does not have wings – after all, it’s a creature of flame and fell from the bridge… how could it fall if it really had wings? As such, they think that ‘wings’ is probably just a descriptive metaphor.
Both groups claim that their description of the Balrog is based on the text and can be tested by the text… but is this really a good or useful test in the circumstances? Wouldn’t both groups apply the same test and get different results depending on what they thought to begin with?

“Listen, you seem to have some objective way to test religious perspectives–help a brother out and let me know what that is.”
I don’t have one – my claim is simply that you don’t either, and that…
“…until you do your comments simply amount to your interpretation.”

fropome,

Your Lord of the Rings example is a GREAT one, but your conclusion poor: we both know that the author had a specific meaning.

It’s not what those different groups believe it said…it’s what the author meant.

That’s what they should be trying to figure out.

Of course it’s not always easy to find out. But it’s not impossible. We have ways of finding that out.

The same is true for any ancient text–including the Bible.

And that–the author’s original intent–is the standard by which we can determine if denominations and cults are interpreting the text correctly.

That’s the objective test.

The only way you can continue to suggest that this is “my interpretation” is to deny that authorial intent exists…and if you do that with the Bible, then you have to do that with all ancient and modern texts.

In fact, you’d have to do that with all written communication–including this comment thread–which is absurd because we both are doing an okay job of understanding what the other person is writing.

Listen, the Bible is not ambiguous on the essentials. Any straight-forward reading would make that clear, as well as the author’s original intent.

If you’re interested read F. F. Bruce’s Hard Sayings of the Bible to see what I mean.