Comment on Do Not Compromise These by PoppyCorn99
I don't believe all of the Bible to be literal either. There is plenty of content that is clearly meant to be poetic and/or symbolic. However, just because something can be interpreted in multiple ways it doesn't mean it should be. It's like that annoying English teacher that reads in the book, "The curtains were blue." The author was only describing the color of the curtains, but the English teacher babbles on and on about the possible implications and hidden meanings in the sentence while there aren't any there. Anyone can find any interpretation of anything they want, and people use that excuse to say we shouldn't listen to any of the Bible. Let's not forget how even secular music can have multiple interpretations of their own, yet I don't see anyone discarding them for that reason, do you?
I don't know about you, but if everyone in the world suddenly believed that the moon was made of cheese I wouldn't compromise my knowledge to go with their idea for the sake of unity. It's been proven that it's not cheese, so why would I be ignorant enough to throw away all the facts to accept a new belief based on faulty assumptions?
Discarding truth for the sake of unity is edging towards the Utilitarian point of view, which according to multiple sociologists over the decades, does not work in a functioning society.
Consider this scenario:
Me: I'm tired of Kansas; let's move to California! We'll head east.
You: Umm, east? That's the opposite direction of where we need to go.
Me: It doesn't matter what you say, I believe if I go east I will end up in California!
You: But just look at this map! If we go east we'll arrive in Ne---
Me: I DON'T CARE what the map says! My parents said California is east, my grandparents said California is east, so it doesn't matter what the map tells me. I believe that California is east, so that's where I will go.
If I go by that logic will I end up in California, going east from Kansas? No, it doesn't matter how hard I believe it, if it's the wrong direction the country's geography won't change to suit my beliefs. Same goes with Christian doctrines. It doesn't matter what a Baptist, Catholic, or Lutheran believes. If it's true, it's true, and if it's wrong, it's wrong. Just because you don't know what truth is, is that motivation for you to not pursue it?
It doesn't matter how much people disagree about doctrine. Would you rather be happy with a lie or sad with the truth? I personally wouldn't be able to stand the fact that someone told me a lie that I believed for years. Going along with a lie for the sake of getting along is herd mentality, and even the apostle Paul praises individuals that seek the truth, "...they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
I don't know about you, but if everyone in the world suddenly believed that the moon was made of cheese I wouldn't compromise my knowledge to go with their idea for the sake of unity. It's been proven that it's not cheese, so why would I be ignorant enough to throw away all the facts to accept a new belief based on faulty assumptions?
Discarding truth for the sake of unity is edging towards the Utilitarian point of view, which according to multiple sociologists over the decades, does not work in a functioning society.
Consider this scenario:
Me: I'm tired of Kansas; let's move to California! We'll head east.
You: Umm, east? That's the opposite direction of where we need to go.
Me: It doesn't matter what you say, I believe if I go east I will end up in California!
You: But just look at this map! If we go east we'll arrive in Ne---
Me: I DON'T CARE what the map says! My parents said California is east, my grandparents said California is east, so it doesn't matter what the map tells me. I believe that California is east, so that's where I will go.
If I go by that logic will I end up in California, going east from Kansas? No, it doesn't matter how hard I believe it, if it's the wrong direction the country's geography won't change to suit my beliefs. Same goes with Christian doctrines. It doesn't matter what a Baptist, Catholic, or Lutheran believes. If it's true, it's true, and if it's wrong, it's wrong. Just because you don't know what truth is, is that motivation for you to not pursue it?
It doesn't matter how much people disagree about doctrine. Would you rather be happy with a lie or sad with the truth? I personally wouldn't be able to stand the fact that someone told me a lie that I believed for years. Going along with a lie for the sake of getting along is herd mentality, and even the apostle Paul praises individuals that seek the truth, "...they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
Clearly? It's pretty "clear" to me that Genesis 1 is poetic, but try saying that to the folks at the Creation Museum and the other 30-40% of this nation's population that believes this world is ridiculously young.
There's still the danger of taking things at face value. There was this one chick on here who made this stamp "the Bible isn't trail mix for you to pick and choose from!". I snarkily responded "I assume that your congregation or group doesn't allow you to speak while they're in session" (alluding to 1 Cor 14:34). Then she went on a rant about historical context and how women used to shout at their husbunds from across the room during sermons or something (and then she blocked me *facepalm*). It might've been complete baloney as far as I know, but even if it's true, how the heck are we supposed to know that outside of the "historical context" that we may or may not have access to? (Also, consider the possible incompatiblity of extrabiblical context with the sola scriptura philosophy.) Say there's a global nuclear war, 99% of accumulated human knowledge of science and history disappears. Luckily, some survivors come across some Bibles and read them. However, when they come to that dreaded sexist verse, they'll probably take it at face value because Paul (and perhaps the Holy Spirit) didn't bother explaining why women needed to shut up in church. And that's just one of many examples of parts of the Bible whose interpretation rely heavily on some sort of extrabiblical context. Catch my drift? (I'll get back to you on the truth thing.)
There's still the danger of taking things at face value. There was this one chick on here who made this stamp "the Bible isn't trail mix for you to pick and choose from!". I snarkily responded "I assume that your congregation or group doesn't allow you to speak while they're in session" (alluding to 1 Cor 14:34). Then she went on a rant about historical context and how women used to shout at their husbunds from across the room during sermons or something (and then she blocked me *facepalm*). It might've been complete baloney as far as I know, but even if it's true, how the heck are we supposed to know that outside of the "historical context" that we may or may not have access to? (Also, consider the possible incompatiblity of extrabiblical context with the sola scriptura philosophy.) Say there's a global nuclear war, 99% of accumulated human knowledge of science and history disappears. Luckily, some survivors come across some Bibles and read them. However, when they come to that dreaded sexist verse, they'll probably take it at face value because Paul (and perhaps the Holy Spirit) didn't bother explaining why women needed to shut up in church. And that's just one of many examples of parts of the Bible whose interpretation rely heavily on some sort of extrabiblical context. Catch my drift? (I'll get back to you on the truth thing.)
If you don't want to believe the Bible that's fine, I can't force you to see my point of view any more than you can force me to see your point of view.
That verse in 1 Corinthians had its own context; it's not saying women don't have authority to speak. Corinth was a city full of travelers, and many foreigners visited the church. Men and women sat in different sections of the building, and since the majority of women at the time were illiterate they obviously would want to socialize with other women they could communicate with instead of trying to listen to the Scripture readings in a language they didn't know. Since anyone would know that a room full of talking would distract from the main message, Paul wrote this letter asking the women to be respectful and keep their voices down. Like a "please silence your cell phones" before a movie.
If 99% of information were destroyed, would it really be wise to base a doctrine on one verse without even ever seeing the rest of the book? Would it really be right for me to read a single sentence of a Charles Dickens novel and from that single sentence judge his entire novel? It's totally illogical. Anyone who would do that shouldn't have the opportunity to influence the masses because it will only lead to chaos and fanaticism.
Writing styles were different in that time period. The scientific method didn't even exist until maybe the 10th century. People were not so skeptic and didn't demand a "who, what, where, when, and why" of every detail that spewed from someone's mouth, not to say people were totally gullible and ignorant, but they didn't have a "liar until proven honest" mentality like we have today. Paul was so deeply loved and admired by those churches that they didn't demand explanations to every word he wrote to them. He and his comrades were the one that started those churches, why would they suddenly stop trusting them so easily?
The fact that parts of the Bible can be explained with extra-biblical contexts makes it more believable because it shows that it's not exclusive to itself. Secular history and archaeology not only explain but also support the Bible's credibility.
If you want to continue the conversation, can we please do it by note? Thanks. ^^
That verse in 1 Corinthians had its own context; it's not saying women don't have authority to speak. Corinth was a city full of travelers, and many foreigners visited the church. Men and women sat in different sections of the building, and since the majority of women at the time were illiterate they obviously would want to socialize with other women they could communicate with instead of trying to listen to the Scripture readings in a language they didn't know. Since anyone would know that a room full of talking would distract from the main message, Paul wrote this letter asking the women to be respectful and keep their voices down. Like a "please silence your cell phones" before a movie.
If 99% of information were destroyed, would it really be wise to base a doctrine on one verse without even ever seeing the rest of the book? Would it really be right for me to read a single sentence of a Charles Dickens novel and from that single sentence judge his entire novel? It's totally illogical. Anyone who would do that shouldn't have the opportunity to influence the masses because it will only lead to chaos and fanaticism.
Writing styles were different in that time period. The scientific method didn't even exist until maybe the 10th century. People were not so skeptic and didn't demand a "who, what, where, when, and why" of every detail that spewed from someone's mouth, not to say people were totally gullible and ignorant, but they didn't have a "liar until proven honest" mentality like we have today. Paul was so deeply loved and admired by those churches that they didn't demand explanations to every word he wrote to them. He and his comrades were the one that started those churches, why would they suddenly stop trusting them so easily?
The fact that parts of the Bible can be explained with extra-biblical contexts makes it more believable because it shows that it's not exclusive to itself. Secular history and archaeology not only explain but also support the Bible's credibility.
If you want to continue the conversation, can we please do it by note? Thanks. ^^