criticizing Christianity

[Scuba Pete]

I think it would be better for everyone to interpret the bible for themselves.

It is far preferable, though prayer and application, that we let the Spirit interpret the scriptures for us. It was always designed to be this way.

 

[Ðanisty]

It is far preferable, though prayer and application, that we let the Spirit interpret the scriptures for us. It was always designed to be this way.

And who is "the spirit"? If you read the bible and you understand it to mean something in particular, that is your interpretation...unless, of course, you're just using someone else's interpretation by letting them tell you what things mean. Perhaps you feel that a spirit has guided you in your interpretation? What do you suggest for people who don't feel any such guidance but still want to know what's in the bible? Surely, if they want to know what's there, they ought to read it.

I'm also kind of getting the impression that you feel a spiritually guided interpretation of the bible will consistently lead to very similar beliefs. What if the guiding spirit is not the same spirit that guided you? Does that make the interpretation invalid in your eyes? If someone is not a Christian, how are they supposed to get a spirit to tell them what the bible means and why should they have to? I don't think a Christian interpretation of the bible is any more valuable or valid than any other interpretation of the bible.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Luke 11:11 "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" NIV

II Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. NIV

John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." NIV

Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." NIV

I could write something, but the scriptures have said it perfectly.

 

[Ðanisty]

Luke 11:11 "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" NIV

II Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. NIV

John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." NIV

Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." NIV

I could write something, but the scriptures have said it perfectly.

No they haven't. None of what you have quoted here makes any difference to people who aren't Christian. Since this is a thread about criticizing Christianity, then it's pretty obvious that the people we're talking about aren't Christian. How do you propose those people learn about the bible? I'm not even addressing the religion here...just the book.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The Spirit moves both Christians and non-Christians. Just like the sun has an effect on diurnal and nocturnal creatures alike. The truth is out there!

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think a Christian interpretation of the bible is any more valuable or valid than any other interpretation of the bible.

I disagree with you here Danisty. The Bible is a Christian tradition and reading it outside of the context of that tradition will cripple it just as much as taking single passages out of context to make them mean whatever you want them too. This does not mean that you can't get something meaningful out of the Bible from a totally outside view, but if you are trying to relate that meaning to Christianity it will not be as valid.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Is it necessary to have actually read the bible before one can criticize Christianity? I think it is. Cover to cover. Would anybody listen to me complain about some movie that I haven't seen? of course not. So why does anybody listen to people who argue against Christianity when they haven't actually read the Bible?

I see your point, and I do agree that it's best to research something before criticizing. But in terms of argument, I think claims that are made by Christians can be argued against without reading the Bible.

It's also good to keep in mind that since religions evolve beyond their holy book, researching beyond their holy book would be advisable. Essentially, if a person is immersed long enough in a modern Christian culture, they will have a better sense of Christianity then they would by reading the Bible.

 

[Ðanisty]

I disagree with you here Danisty. The Bible is a Christian tradition and reading it outside of the context of that tradition will cripple it just as much as taking single passages out of context to make them mean whatever you want them too. This does not mean that you can't get something meaningful out of the Bible from a totally outside view, but if you are trying to relate that meaning to Christianity it will not be as valid.

I'm not a Christian, yet my religion is based off of the same mythology as yours. It may not be the same, but it is still valid. In fact, I don't believe that there is a belief that's invalid. I'm having a hard time seeing your opinion on this as being more than a bias. Afterall, the bible does have historical value outside of Christianity. Nothing is crippled...it's just a different point of view and it just happens to irritate Christians that someone can read the bible and gain an entirely different insight from what Christianity teaches.

 

[Fluffy]

I disagree with you here Danisty. The Bible is a Christian tradition and reading it outside of the context of that tradition will cripple it just as much as taking single passages out of context to make them mean whatever you want them too. This does not mean that you can't get something meaningful out of the Bible from a totally outside view, but if you are trying to relate that meaning to Christianity it will not be as valid.

Many feel that way when they see a Christian interpreting the OT in the Christian tradition.

Is a Muslim or Baha'i providing lesser interpretations because theirs are outside the Christian tradition?

Edit: Or as Danisty points out, a Luciferian?

 

[James the Persian]

Many feel that way when they see a Christian interpreting the OT in the Christian tradition.

Is a Muslim or Baha'i providing lesser interpretations because theirs are outside the Christian tradition?

Edit: Or as Danisty points out, a Luciferian?

I think you misunderstood what lunamoth said. It's not that other traditions can't interpret the Bible meaningfully - of course they can. It's just that if you interpret the Bible according to some other tradition you can't really use your interpretation as a basis for criticising Christianity can you? I mean you can argue opinions but you certainly can't say that the Christian interpretation is wrong, only that it disagrees with yours.

James

 

[Fluffy]

I think you misunderstood what lunamoth said. It's not that other traditions can't interpret the Bible meaningfully - of course they can. It's just that if you interpret the Bible according to some other tradition you can't really use your interpretation as a basis for criticising Christianity can you? I mean you can argue opinions but you certainly can't say that the Christian interpretation is wrong, only that it disagrees with yours.

Surely if your interpretation is right, and this rightness is part of the interpretation then it necessarily disagrees with the Christian interpretation because that interpretation is wrong? It can't be a matter of opinion if you are arguing over something more substantial than relative terms.

 

[darkpenguin]

Is it necessary to have actually read the bible before one can criticize Christianity? I think it is. Cover to cover. Would anybody listen to me complain about some movie that I haven't seen? of course not. So why does anybody listen to people who argue against Christianity when they haven't actually read the Bible?

It's quite easy to criticize a religion that stole alot from the pagan beliefs!

 

[James the Persian]

Surely if your interpretation is right, and this rightness is part of the interpretation then it necessarily disagrees with the Christian interpretation because that interpretation is wrong? It can't be a matter of opinion if you are arguing over something more substantial than relative terms.

Christian interpretations disagree too. Interpretations are, necessarily, always matters of opinion because they are personal. Now I do believe in a particular interpretation being correct and others will believe that others are correct, that is true, but any criticism which is predicated on the idea that my interpretation is incorrect is necessarily going to be a matter of opinion only - you're rather unlikely to find scientific evidence for most of theology.

Texts do not have objective meanings but depend on various external factors affecting both author and audience (which is why sola scriptura is utter nonsense). In other words, what I'm saying is that you can't make a critricism of Christianity which goes something like 'Well you don't do what the Bible says you should because it says X' without bearing in mind that it only says X according to your own tradition of interpretation. This reminds me of some of the rather naive attempts at evangelism made by certain Muslims when they criticise us for not accepting Mohammed because he's predicted in the Bible. No, he's predicted if the Bible is read through the lens of Muslim tradition, but only if that is the case. Ultimately, if I (and my community) believe that the Bible says one thing and you believe it says another, you may criticise my faith for not upholding our beliefs but you cannot criticise it for rejecting yours, because yours are, intrinsically, aliebn to my faith.

James

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I disagree with you here Danisty. The Bible is a Christian tradition and reading it outside of the context of that tradition will cripple it just as much as taking single passages out of context to make them mean whatever you want them too. This does not mean that you can't get something meaningful out of the Bible from a totally outside view, but if you are trying to relate that meaning to Christianity it will not be as valid.

Isn't that a little bit arrogant? To say that only Christians can interpret the Bible correctly? I mean, I disagree with people who interpret the Bible "however they feel like", but only because the Bible was written with an actual meaning behind it and the meaning is implicit in the language. As I understand it, understanding the manner in which Greek is translated into Latin and English is the biggest step toward an honest and accurate interpretation of Christian scripture.

 

[James the Persian]

Isn't that a little bit arrogant? To say that only Christians can interpret the Bible correctly? I mean, I disagree with people who interpret the Bible "however they feel like", but only because the Bible was written with an actual meaning behind it and the meaning is implicit in the language. As I understand it, understanding the manner in which Greek is translated into Latin and English is the biggest step toward an honest and accurate interpretation of Christian scripture.

I see that others are misunderstanding what lunamoth wrote. This thread is about criticising Christianity and not who may or may not interpret the Bible. Lunamoth is correct to suggest that to criticise Christianity based on a non-Christian interpretation of the text is invalid, as I attempted to explain in my last two posts. That is not arrogance, in fact it ought to be pretty obvious.

James

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I see that others are misunderstanding what lunamoth wrote. This thread is about criticising Christianity and not who may or may not interpret the Bible. Lunamoth is correct to suggest that to criticise Christianity based on a non-Christian interpretation of the text is invalid, as I attempted to explain in my last two posts. That is not arrogance, in fact it ought to be pretty obvious.

James

I understand your point, but Christian or not, an accurate interpretation of the Bible requires us to understand the meaning of the original texts and the contexts within which they were written. Thus, this could very well mean a Jewish interpretation of the Bible is necessary, not Christian one. Luke is the only non-Jew to write a Gospel. Paul, while being a Roman citizen, was entirely more immersed in Jewish culture than Luke.

 

[James the Persian]

I understand your point, but Christian or not, an accurate interpretation of the Bible requires us to understand the meaning of the original texts and the contexts within which they were written. Thus, this could very well mean a Jewish interpretation of the Bible is necessary, not Christian one. Luke is the only non-Jew to write a Gospel. Paul, while being a Roman citizen, was entirely more immersed in Jewish culture than Luke.

No, if you're talking of the New Testament, you'd need to take an early Christian interpretation, not a Jewish one. Even if you're talking Old Testament, for the Christian Bible, you'd want to take the interpretation of a Hellenised Jew, because that is the milieu in which the Septuagint was translated. Taking a Masoretic Jewish interpretation would potentially be highly inaccurate as that is post-Christian. The fact is, though, that texts do not (as you seem willing to admit) have entirely objective meanings. In the context of criticising a faith (which is what the OP is about) it is clear, therefore, that any criticism which relies on a tradition alien to the faith being criticised is automatically going to have less validity than one made within the tradition of the faith criticised.

James

 

[Radio Frequency X]

No, if you're talking of the New Testament, you'd need to take an early Christian interpretation, not a Jewish one. Even if you're talking Old Testament, for the Christian Bible, you'd want to take the interpretation of a Hellenised Jew, because that is the milieu in which the Septuagint was translated. Taking a Masoretic Jewish interpretation would potentially be highly inaccurate as that is post-Christian. The fact is, though, that texts do not (as you seem willing to admit) have entirely objective meanings. In the context of criticising a faith (which is what the OP is about) it is clear, therefore, that any criticism which relies on a tradition alien to the faith being criticised is automatically going to have less validity than one made within the tradition of the faith criticised.

James

More validity to whom though? I don't mean to argue with you over an issue this trivial, because I believe that what you are saying has a certain validity to it, but what I am trying to express is that I cannot see any justification for saying that it must be interpreted in a Christian context in order to be understood correctly.

Modern Christian interpretations were not developed in the early church (which was incredibly diverse, muddled, and unsure of itself), but in the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. Now, it seems perfectly reasonable from a purely agnostic point of view, to question the validity of Christian Dogma, using scripture from as objective approach as is possible. Christians themselves do not agree on interpretation. So, just because (and this is my main point) a person is not interpreting the Bible in a Christian context, doesn't mean that they are unable to objectively extract true meaning from the text - given linguistic, anthropological, and historical methods. I am not advocating "take whatever you want from the Bible - all opinions are equally valid".

Therefore, when you say that, "that any criticism which relies on a tradition alien to the faith being criticized is automatically going to have less validity than one made within the tradition of the faith criticized", what you are saying is that the tradition determines the interpretation, based on subjectivity. However, if the interpretation is subjective, how does it retain any special validity in any case for anyone? It's subjective.

 

[James the Persian]

More validity to whom though? I don't mean to argue with you over an issue this trivial, because I believe that what you are saying has a certain validity to it, but what I am trying to express is that I cannot see any justification for saying that it must be interpreted in a Christian context in order to be understood correctly.

Modern Christian interpretations were not developed in the early church (which was incredibly diverse, muddled, and unsure of itself), but in the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. Now, it seems perfectly reasonable from a purely agnostic point of view, to question the validity of Christian Dogma, using scripture from as objective approach as is possible. Christians themselves do not agree on interpretation. So, just because (and this is my main point) a person is not interpreting the Bible in a Christian context, doesn't mean that they are unable to objectively extract true meaning from the text - given linguistic, anthropological, and historical methods. I am not advocating "take whatever you want from the Bible - all opinions are equally valid".

Therefore, when you say that, "that any criticism which relies on a tradition alien to the faith being criticized is automatically going to have less validity than one made within the tradition of the faith criticized", what you are saying is that the tradition determines the interpretation, based on subjectivity. However, if the interpretation is subjective, how does it retain any special validity in any case for anyone? It's subjective.

What I'm saying, to put it in ridiculously plain terms is that a criticism of Christianity such as 'You simply don't turn the other cheek', coming from within the Christian tradition, will automatically have far more validity (if true) than one, such as that I raised earlier regarding Mohammed, which comes from an alien tradition. And that is all I am saying.

James

 

[Pah]

What I'm saying, to put it in ridiculously plain terms is that a criticism of Christianity such as 'You simply don't turn the other cheek', coming from within the Christian tradition, will automatically have far more validity (if true) than one, such as that I raised earlier regarding Mohammed, which comes from an alien tradition. And that is all I am saying.

James

I don't belive it is a question of which has more validity. What I read is the recognition of the weight or power of the criticism. The specification or operative "if true" is applicable to any who say it.

What does change is how it is received, as if truth is not truth if uttered by a non-Christian.