The root of a character's faith

Discussion in 'Character Development' started by Feo Takahari, Jan 18, 2016.

  1. BrianIff

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    432
    Location:
    Canada
    I fail to comprehend both the supposed entitlement and implication. Feel free to elaborate.
     
  2. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I don't see why that has to be true. That suggests that all of your motivations are something like:

    "I won't steal candy from that baby because that would make God unhappy."

    rather than

    "I won't steal candy from that baby because it's wrong to be cruel to babies. God helps me to understand what's right and what's wrong."

    In the second example, if you stop believing in God, then the source that you thought was informing you of what's right and wrong may be gone, but that doesn't mean that you no longer see it as right and wrong, or that you no longer care.

    The idea that in the first case it's all about God, JUST about God, and nothing else, and that without God it all collapses, worries me. It suggests that God has completely replaced empathy, judgement, everything.
     
  3. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Location:
    London
    I kinda thought that was the point, to be honest. As I understand it (and I'm not religious, so maybe I don't have this right), God doesn't like things because they're good. Things are good because God likes them.

    So when you take God away, the whole definition of 'good' you've used for your whole life doesn't make sense any more. That's not to say you can't work out your own moral code eventually, but it's going to be a bit of an emotional rollercoaster getting there.
     
    Mckk likes this.
  4. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    I am always impressed by @Mckk's ability to look at her faith in a neutral way, making sense of it and explaining it to others without losing a smidgen of it herself. I don't think she meant to say that if a believer loses their faith that they abandon their principles and start running amok. It's just that they will need another basis for them. They'll need to start from scratch, won't they? Find another way to justify them, or formulate new ones based on a different criteria. (Or abandon them.)

    My own principles are nearly always based on what makes sense to me. I am not religious and never have been. But getting along with our fellow humans, animals and plants that share our planet makes sense to me in my daily life, most of the time, so I try to be reasonably caring. However, I can understand that always getting along, sharing and helping each other is not sustainable either. If resources are limited enough and we all 'share' ...sooner or later we die out. If living things don't eat each other (plants and/or other animals) we also die out. If we don't reproduce, we die out. If we reproduce too quickly and eat up all the air and other resources, we die out. No two people can occupy the same space at the same time. And how can we get along with people or animals or plants that are bent on destroying us? Selfishness kicks in, sooner or later. Or we die.

    I feel that life is very very complicated—or maybe very simple. Moral dilemmas versus survival of the fittest. I'm not bothered by not understanding all of it, nor am I comfortable with adopting a 'faith' to explain what I don't understand. I guess I just muddle through, try to learn, try to change when it seems the sensible thing to do, try to hold on to my principles as much as I can. And leave the door open for elements of life I don't understand, like where love comes from ...and why it can comfort, hurt, destroy, sustain, invigorate, subdue, grow, fade, even die.

    I'm not sure what my 'moral' bottom line is. I've not reached it yet. I'm not really afraid of being dead either. I'm afraid of the act of dying, if it's uncomfortable, or prolonged, or painful—or comes too soon. But death comes to everything on earth, and I'm no different, am I? I can also see that an afterlife might be complicated as well. What if the people you love don't go to 'heaven?' What if the people you don't much like or don't want to see again turn up smiling to welcome you? What's the point of an afterlife if it's just like this one? We meet again on that beautiful shore. Including my hypothetical 3 husbands who all died before me? What? So we'll be all one happy family, then? And if we've changed so much that our relationships here on earth aren't the same up there, then what's the point? Hey, we won't know, till it's too late. I can live with that.
     
    Mckk likes this.
  5. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I find that so very, very alarming.
     
  6. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    A whole host of them isn't every single one of them :p For example, going back to the Corrie ten Boom story I told, about how she forgave the Nazi officer who took part in tormenting her while she was at the concentration camp - why should she forgive? Why did she choose to forgive? For her, it was because Jesus Christ first forgave her sins (if I remember what she wrote correctly). Perhaps a non-believer would be able to find different reasons that would make forgiveness here rational and even reasonable, I wouldn't know, but all I mean is that there are indeed things - sometimes quite big things, strong moral beliefs - that are built upon the belief that God is who He is, that God did what He said He did, etc.

    Anyway the examples that you gave re making God unhappy vs God helps me to realise what's right and wrong - they're both true. At the core of Christianity is the concept of "pleasing God" - so the idea of making God happy is actually a real factor here. I'd say the two examples would be the difference between a young, immature faith vs a more mature, stronger faith. We're supposed to become more and more Christ-like as Christians, so at its heart is to become as good and pure as God Himself. And God does good because it is good, not in order to please anyone.
     
  7. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    @jannert - you know what my husband told me one day? I found out how he imagines heaven. He imagines that children and babies who have died on this earth would be playing in heaven, and it would be his role to play with them and teach them new things. There's something about that image that I love. But to think of children in heaven makes me think of my own little girl, and I'd hate for her to wait for me in heaven while I'm stuck down here... Worse would be if it were the other way around.
     
    jannert likes this.
  8. Commandante Lemming

    Commandante Lemming Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Location:
    Washington, DC, USA
    I haven't seen the rest of the thread but I'll take a quick shot at the base question...No, I don't think it's too cold, and I really think you should write it that way. It certainly mirrors the way I think about faith, and that's shared by a lot of the people I know who are both religious and highly educated/intelligent (because of it's location my congregation has a high concentration of people who work for research institutions or have other high-level qualifications). Of course we have our moments of doubt. Of course we're familiar with the arguments against what we do, and because we're trained in processing information, we've actually mentally engaged with all of those arguments and decided for one reason or another that we still believe. That puts us at odds with our irreligious colleagues, who lecture us about supposedly rejecting rationality. However, it also puts us at odds with many of our religious friends who engage with faith on a more emotional level and object to the "cold" or "intellectual" reasons that faith is important to us (and frankly they can be real killjoys if, for instance, they want more worship music because it makes them feel more connected, and the resident intellectual gets angry because he/she tends to engage more with the traditional liturgy and doesn't want it cut down.)

    That brings me to my other point which is that intellectuals in religion (and by this I mean people with non-clerical intellectual backgrounds), tend to engage with different aspects. The example at the end of the last paragraph isn't pulled out of the ether - that happens. A lot of the people I know in that vein (self included) tend to engage a lot more with the aspects of faith and religion that feed their intellectual curiosity rather than their emotional needs - whether that's training in liturgy, high involvement in controversial internal theological debates, research into religious history and tradition, etc. That's not to say they don't like worship music, but the emotional aspects aren't always as far to the forefront. This I think is also why a lot of people in that vein gravitate toward more traditional and liturgical expressions as opposed to contemporary ones - even if they were raised in contemporary expressions. That could be Evangelicals moving toward Messianic Judaism (me), Protestants gravitating toward Anglican or Catholic expressions, or Catholics who enjoy the Tridentine Mass or move toward Eastern Rite expressions of Catholicism. That sometimes gets people like me branded as legalistic for focussing on practice or "rules" instead of the raw connection with God - but we feel connection with God by studying those things, and more traditional expressions give us more historical grounding to chew on and a sense of connection to the people who've gone on the same path before us.

    Lastly - regarding Shannon's interpretation of science as worship - that's spot on. Many religious scientists, from the ancient times until today, view the natural world as a sort of living Bible. If God created the world and the laws of physics, then the study of that creation is actually the study of the nature of the creator - we learn about God from looking at what he made in the same way one can learn about a novelist by looking at their body of work.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2016
    Feo Takahari likes this.
  9. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Well, the below certainly sounded like you meant "everything", because, well, you said "everything". :) So can you clarify?

     
  10. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    Funny how you run across stuff that's pertinent to a thread discussion. I just ran across this article, posted on my Facebook home page. I think it's really interesting. It's written by a devout Christian, about the Bible and what the Bible means to this person. It makes total sense to me:

    http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/01/18/1o-things-this-christian-doesnt-believe-about-the-bible/
     
    Feo Takahari likes this.
  11. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Ah, I stand corrected. Well, believing in God isn't just about making sense of my world - belonging to God has become part of my identity. I don't know how I can separate God from how I've lived my life, how I've made sense of my life and my choices, how I've constructed myself in my mind. It's like if tomorrow you find out you're not really your mother's child - it'll throw your entire world off balance, make you question quite a number of things.

    I'm not sure if this is a good example, but when I finally saw how some churches and Christians use the Bible to justify their hatred against gay people, use the Bible to condone the silencing of victims of sexual harrassment/rape - I questioned the institution that has taught me what I know about God, how I've made sense of this God whom I follow, how I've been led to interpret the Bible. The way I saw it was as if I was a small child who's only just realised her parent is not perfect and isn't a super hero haha. This has forever changed the way I navigate myself through the Christian culture I still live in - it has led me to avoid Bible study groups, which I haven't quite found the motivation to return to, because I don't want to hear, "Yeah God ordered the slaughter of thousands and gave Jews this piece of land - how good is our God!" I don't want to hear the same "logic" Christians proudly spout to debunk atheists' arguments because while I get where they're coming from, I also find them a little blind.

    All this - a whole host of things that's had to change, regrow, for me to rediscover some kind of sense and balance, certain things to abandon... I guess I don't know if I really meant "everything" - maybe I do, maybe I don't - I think I'd have to delve way deeper into my current state of faith to answer that properly and I really haven't analysed it to that depth yet. But your world gets thrown off balance and I still believe in God. Now imagine if I'd gone from believing to not believing, how much greater would it shake me.
     
    jannert and BrianIff like this.
  12. BrianIff

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    432
    Location:
    Canada
    Sometimes there's no limit to how far people will go with their new interpretations: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/atheist-minister-fighting-united-churchs-effort-to-fire-her/article25849312/ As for the article you have, I think it deserves to be gone through carefully by mainstream thought in response, even though I disagree with most of it, but it's really unfortunate he makes so many sweeping proclamations so casually, and then tops it off by saying we shouldn't bring Biblical quotes into the discussion. I'd like to know what is clear in his view, as little as that may be.
     
    jannert likes this.
  13. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    I did think it was quite interesting. Basically he's a devout Christian who treats the Bible as a book written by people of faith about their faith. It was written aeons ago, in a different language—by people of a different faith—which required later translation by yet more people of faith who may well have added THEIR interpretations to events as well. He does not believe the Bible should be worshipped as a book sent directly and intact from God. He recognises that there are contradictions within the book, and can see the dangers of taking words out of context and applying literal meaning to them, as if they came directly from God.

    I don't think he meant you can't quote the Bible, but that you can't use quotes from the Bible to prove where the Bible came from. I think that's an example of the logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning ...but I might be wrong about what it's called. I'm not much of a philosopher!

    That quote of yours is also interesting. I'm in your camp, by the way. I think this woman has gone too far.

    It's not that I don't agree with what she believes herself—in fact, I actually do—but it's not right that she's co-opted a congregation that believes differently in order to promote her viewpoint. She's welcome to start a 'church' of her own, but she's pushing things too far in this setting, and taking advantage of (and presumably getting paid by) by an organisation she's not really part of any more. I think her congregation has been very very tolerant up to now, but this kind of leadership isn't fair to them. They need a leader who will work within their faith to guide them. Not somebody who simply wants to dump most tenets of their faith and start again.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  14. Feo Takahari

    Feo Takahari Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    282
    Location:
    Just above the treetops
    This actually connects to why I keep coming back to Christianity in my fiction. I'm a devoted Utilitarian--the greatest good for the greatest number and all that--and in a lot of ways, the moral aspects of Christianity remind me of Utilitarianism. Forgive your enemies, but recognize that what they're doing is wrong. The letter of the law keeps order, but the spirit of the law can be more important than order. Always strive to become a better person, but recognize that no human can ever be perfect. In a lot of ways, Christianity is an easier and more crowd-pleasing vehicle for promoting Utilitarianism than Utilitarianism itself. (A higher-utility one, you might say.)

    At the same time, I have to recognize that some people do convince themselves they've reached righteousness and those who disagree with them haven't. Some people do use the letter of the law as a bludgeon and forget everything about the spirit. Some people forget everything about forgiveness and mercy and take judgment upon themselves, and other people suffer for it.

    My last successful attempt at a Christian character was one of my most chilling villains. From the starting point of the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," I portrayed everything that can turn warped and twisted in Christian thought. This time around, I want to do something that might be more presumptuous. I, an outsider, think I might have a way to show what Christianity should be, what it is when humanity's worst tendencies don't get in the way.
     
    Mckk likes this.
  15. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi Jannert,

    Your guy makes complete sense within the history of biblical exegesis.To give just one example - and a pretty big one which Christians have been smashed over the head with for years - take the concept of Hell. Hell is a mistranslation from four Hebrew and Greek words.

    The words mistranslated as hell are: Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus. Of the four only Tartarus could be vaguely described as being like the hell we know and don't love. (If you remember your Greek mythology Tartarus is the lowest level of Hades where the sinners were punished. It's where Prometheus had his lever pecked out every day by birds for bringing mankind fire.) It occurs only once in the bible Peter 2:4. The others aren't hell at all as we understand it.

    Gehenna mentioned perhaps a dozen times was actually a rubbish dump / valley where ancient Jews used to dispose of bodies, and which regularly burnt. It was probably a pretty horrible place.

    Sheol used maybe sixty or seventy times is a Hebrew word more correctly translated as the grave. It's the word most commonly mistranslated as hell.

    And Hades used perhaps a dozen times is either the direct Greek translation of Sheol - ie the grave, or it could be an underworld - but not one where punishment etc occurs - save that that's pagan mythology which shouldn't be in the bible.

    Around 400 AD Jerome embraced the pagan belief of hell and eternal damnation and Christianised the belief.

    So yeah, there's plenty of evidence that people have stuffed up in writing down what was said and done.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
    Mckk and jannert like this.
  16. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    Having read this and @Commandante Lemming 's response, I think I'd personally buy into her treating science as a form of worship. I've always wondered how people of science reconcile the clash between empirical knowledge and belief in their daily lives. I've wondered if they simply ignore it and don't think about it much: their work and faith are seperate. I think my brother is that way. Very science-oriented, being a physics and maths teacher, but also believes in god. While for me there'd be a clear dissonance, he doesn't seem to think about it much. Science is science. God is someone he talks to.

    I mean, there are many ways to feel, not just practice, faith. @Mckk said she felt a lot of things fundamentally changed about her world view when she began questioning some of the teachings. When I stopped believing in God, it was like not believing in Santa Claus anymore. Nothing changed. I had not built my life around faith and church. If I had, losing (or getting rid of?) your belief in an omnipotent creator, would've been a bigger shock. Furthermore, most of my friends, as well as my dad, were/are irreligious, so I had nothing to lose on other than spiritual level (and I can't say there was much spiritual fulfillment. It was just a habit).

    Anyway, I still think a scientist can be a devout believer and can live the Christian lifestyle to the fullest. Science could very well be her way of worship. Then again, religion can also lead you astray, like if you decide evolution is not a thing because the Bible. But it's worth remembering that many religious, non-secular countries (Muslim countries in particular) aren't devoid of universities or scientific discoveries.

    This sounds like she actually isn't a believer, bringing it, in a way, back to Pascal's wager. Whether or not you write her that way depends on what kind of character she's meant to be. There must be Christians who live the lifestyle just because, instead of actually believing in god. In a way, "act", as you put it, because a life without god is scary, so even if they don't truly believe he's real, they still continue being part of the community and following their teachings. I mean, despite my being irreligious, I still sort of follow some of Jesus' teachings that I learned as a kid 'cause he gave good advice -- like a life coach.
     
  17. BrianIff

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    432
    Location:
    Canada
    What I wish I had said from the outset is that people who genuinely believe they've experienced God in their lives have no reason to doubt the Bible as it is God's intention for it to be as it is. And why the Bible? A person who has come to know God has likely said all kinds of prayers for the lottery and other miracles before approaching God as instructed by the Gospel. After the perceptible revelation, people see the Bible in a whole new light and usually become very wary of any alteration to it. My issue with the article is that it seems to be motivated from a desire to be palatable and 'with the times,' which, would be great, in a sense, to be all things to all people and not have our intentions so often misconstrued, but it's not in the cards -- that would make the Bible a house of cards.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  18. Commandante Lemming

    Commandante Lemming Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Location:
    Washington, DC, USA
    I wouldn't say she's not a believer. I think the same things sometimes and I believe God exists. But I also know that if I'm wrong and God doesn't exist, I'd still rather go to my grave knowing that I lived a good life and passed on a moral system that's gradually made the world a better place for the last 4,000 years.

    Also regarding rational reasons people believe, we do have varying reasons. Mine isn't Pascal's Wager but I do follow the belief system I think most likely to be true, not just one I connect with. My personal reasoning goes like this:

    1) Is it more likely than not that God exists, based on the available evidence? Based on history and specifically the unexplainable and unnatural survival of the Jews as a people, I say yes.
    2) Assuming there is a God, whose god is He? Based on my conclusion in point 1, God can only be the Biblical God of the Jews.
    3) Assuming that the Jewish God is God, that leaves two options. The remaining question is to determine whether or not I think Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah or not. Based on the available historical evidence, I think it probable that he is.

    Therefore, I worship the God of the Jews and respect Jesus as the Messiah sent by said God. The fact that I use this reasoning is also why I practice my faith in a Messianic Jewish expression rather than a mainline Christian expression. That creates plenty of difficulty as it makes me a member of a pretty small faith community, but it's the expression that for me is the most real - and for me that also makes it the one I connect with emotionally.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2016
    KaTrian and jannert like this.
  19. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Interestingly, I'd agree with - I think - everything in the link @jannert posted (this one, just for reference: http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/01/18/1o-things-this-christian-doesnt-believe-about-the-bible/)

    It's true the Bible should not be used to defend the Bible. That's one of the many mistakes Christians make when they evangelise.

    Christian: Jesus is the Son of God.
    Unbeliever: Says who?
    Christian: Right here in the Bible. *thumps chest as if that ends the argument*
    Unbeliever: But I don't believe in the Bible. It's a historical document.
    Christian: The Bible is the Word of God. God says it's trustworthy.
    Unbeliever: Where does it say that? What evidence do you have?
    Christian: Right here in the Bible!
    Unbeliever: But I already said, I don't believe in the Bible.

    I find the mistake Christians tend to make is this: they don't engage the non-Christian's questions. They don't really dignify it with a proper answer because if they did, they'd find there's no easy answer.

    Recently I watched a video from some Christian equivalent of a Youtube site, and in it, a barber tells his customer that he does not believe in God because if there's God, why is there suffering? The barber said, "If there's a good God, then there would be no suffering."

    The Christian in the video comes back with this argument, "Barbers don't exist! If barbers existed, then there wouldn't be anyone with bad hair!"

    The barber replies, "That's only because they don't come to me."

    Christian says, "Exactly!"

    And I watched it and I can only shake my head, because that's not the point of the question, "Why is there suffering?" It's as if on a rational level, the Christian has somehow "won" the argument but the heart of the matter remains: what do you do when a mother weeps over her son's dead body? What do you say to the mother who is cradling her stillborn baby? How do you explain why this young man's father had to die? At the question's heart is much pain - and by our flippant answers we trample on the person who asked the question and deepen their hurt.

    Therefore, I hated the Christian video's smugness, its self-confidence, its Aha Gotcha! attitude. Because I think Jesus would have wept. I think if someone asked Him about suffering, He would have knelt down with them and wept with them for a hurting world.

    Anyway, I've gone slightly off-tangent. But I think when Christians quote Bible verses in discussions, too often they do it with a: "Here's the verse and that's the end of the discussion and if you're still not satisfied then you're just stubborn in your unbelief! If you don't change your mind at once to agree with how I've interpreted this verse in the Bible, then clearly you're weak in faith or - gasp horror - perhaps you're not a Christian at all?" That's how a lot of people quote the Bible - I think the guy in the article is saying we shouldn't do that, don't use the Scriptures to judge one another - throw stones, as he says.

    Anyway I'm gonna be late collecting my baby so see y'all! :brb:

    @psychotick - that was a really interesting read! I'm not sure what I think of hell. But that hell should be originally a pagan belief - now that's quite interesting indeed.
     
    jannert likes this.
  20. BrianIff

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    432
    Location:
    Canada
    We are on the same page when it comes to how a Christian should regard inquiries from the outside, so I usually preface any explanation by saying that it makes better sense to people who are in communion with God. I'd go so far to say that most of the Bible does appear to be nonsense without the Holy Spirit's help.

    To be more precise, this point makes me wonder what the author has left to be the truth:

    9) I don’t believe the Bible can be objectively interpreted or evaluated. Not only did the Bible’s numerous authors bring some of themselves to its passages, we too bring ourselves to them as we read, study, and interpret them. All of our biases and desires and histories and personalities shape the lens by which we view them, and they shape those who write and preach and teach us as well. Any objective truth they contain is therefore all but impossible to claim sole ownership of and practically speaking, beyond grasping. [emphasis mine]

    I don't think I'm being uncharitable in my interpretation to think that by him claiming this, he has, in effect, put everything up for debate and recklessly casted doubt on God's communication.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  21. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    But then, do you really think one could interpret the Bible accurately without keeping all of the above in mind? Without being painfully aware of the very human aspects of the document we're analysing? For example, are we really to view the Cretes as unashamedly debased? No one quotes that verse lol for obvious reasons - clearly that was Paul's opinion, but it is recorded in the Bible. Why do we not demand all women have long hair, wear only dresses, stay silent in church? Well, that's taking things "out of context", we say. What context? Well, the context of when it was written, to whom it was written, and why it was written.

    But if we were to interpret the Bible without considering the human aspects that dwell within, then the context of when, to whom and why no longer matter. It only matters that it is written.

    None of us follow the Bible literally either. Why? Because to some extent we all must interpret it. We are humans with fallible minds, with limited wisdom, limited knowledge, with prejudices and selfish intents, framed within the culture we were brought up in - can we claim that we can truly interpret the Word without any biases? That's what the guy meant that we bring ourselves to the Bible, I think.

    I once read a Christian author who wrote that we shouldn't be afraid to evolve - shouldn't be afraid of new interpretations of the Bible as we grow and discover new things and our moral and cultural mindsets change. Once upon a time, the concept of the trinity was blasphemy - now it is accepted as canon. Once upon a time, slavery was thought to be sanctioned by the Bible - now it is universally accepted that that's not the case. Once upon a time women were worthless in the church's eye - I believe Martin Luther was quite sexist and said that women are worthless except for childbearing, and if she should die then she shall not be missed. Now it is unsurprising to see a female leader of the church (though there're still too few, in my opinion). The Catholic church was the mainstream church - Protestantism is deviant - yet now it's accepted as Christianity all the same.

    Church teachings of the Bible have changed before - we shouldn't be so surprised. I just take it to mean we're always learning - that there's still more to discover in God's Word, that we haven't understood all that there is to understand yet, and why should that be such a surprise? This is a book about God and heaven and spiritual mysteries the likes of we've never seen - it would be foolish to think we understand all that there is to understand with today's church teachings. It doesn't mean we've got nothing right - I'm sure we've got some things right - but it means there might be things we've got wrong, and it is good to correct those. That inevitably means leaving current mainstream teachings in some aspects. The trick is knowing which aspects, to what extent etc - for that we need wisdom.

    So I think we're all just muddling along, getting a clearer and clearer picture as we progress - but there are things we think we've got sorted out when we haven't, when we've got the wrong end of the stick perhaps and just don't see it. By being aware of the human and fallible elements that exist in the Bible when we read it, we can be alert to these things, and we can better gain a more accurate picture of what God may have meant when He said this, that or the other.

    It also makes us just slightly less judgemental, I think. That while absolutely convinced I'm right, I am also absolutely convinced I haven't got everything right. We follow God, in any case, not the Bible. The Bible guides, but it is not God Himself. It was scary to realise the church doesn't have it "all sorted out" because then I'm like, "Well how do I know I've interpreted this correctly?" And then I realised - hey, actually, I follow Jesus, not the church. It is true that majority opinion does have the ability to guide and correct, but just because it's the majority opinion doesn't always make it the correct view. I must interpret and learn according to what I think I know of Jesus Christ's character in the end, and not according to what any church says - as much as that's possible, anyway.

    And the above - how do I know I have interpreted this correctly - that lies at the core of what it means to be a Christian in mainstream churches today. Do you believe in the "correct" things? But salvation, going by the black and white letters of the Bible now anyway, has only ever hinged upon whether you believe in Jesus Christ and entrust your spirit to Him - all the rest of it, all that theology and philosophy, none of that was in the condition.

    There were only a few very simple commendments - love God and neighbour, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. That's all God ever required of us. The one who does not love does not know God, the Bible says - and we'd be quick to say people who claim they're Christians yet go around shouting hatred are not being Christ-like and may not be Christians. So what about the Hindu who has shown that he loves his neighbour, like the Indian man whose video I saw, who gave up his restaurant business and decided to feed and dress the homeless of his city every single day? Does he know God? Mainstream Bible teaching would say no. I prefer not to judge, because with my eyes and ears I see that he loves, he loves better than we who claim to know God, and I don't know how to make sense of that with what I know the Bible says. With this, I only say, God is judge and I know He is loving and merciful - He will come to a decision that is good and gracious, and it is not for me to worry about. We were never asked to judge who belonged in heaven or hell anyway, that decision of each individual's soul rests with God and is not revealed to us. As Jesus said, we should just worry about following Him ourselves.

    Now I do believe there's a spectrum within which to interpret the Bible in order to say we still follow the same God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but at the same time our confidence in our salvation seem to sometimes be overly dependent on believing the "right" things, as the list of "the right things" changes and grows according to each culture, generation, and church.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
    jannert likes this.
  22. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    Beautifully said. Your kind of religious feeling impresses me. I don't share it, but I sure as heck respect it totally. I'm glad it has enriched your life to the extent it obviously has. I don't see how you could possibly be more thoughtful or sensible or open-minded.

    I like what you said, that the decision of who belongs to heaven or hell is not for 'us' to judge. That's what I've banged on about before. What annoys me so much about some religious people is their insistance that everybody shares their own beliefs OR ELSE. It's what starts wars and perpetrates bigotry and hatred—even among people who claim the same basic religion. If everybody had your attitude, and simply tried to make sense of life and give it purpose ...then we'd be so much better off. You keep talking. I reckon the world needs to hear what you're saying.
     
    Mckk likes this.
  23. BrianIff

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    432
    Location:
    Canada
    I appreciate the thorough response even though I don't share this view. I'll take the time, though, to clarify my own statements that I worry about being misinterpreted. When I say the Bible can appear to be nonsense, one must bear in mind that Paul, the main figure of the New Testament besides Jesus, once persecuted Christians, condemning them to death. After he experienced conversion, he changed in a profound way. It's this phenomenon that makes the logic of God unappreciable to so many without having experienced it. And that's where I was coming from.
     
    Mckk likes this.
  24. Euthymius

    Euthymius New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Kentucky
    I'll just go ahead and give OP one more response.
    As a Christian myself, and one who converted from being what could most closely be described as a Deist, I would say that your character sounds fine. As others have mentioned, she is very young, and it would not devalue her faith or character at all if she questioned her beliefs throughout the story. What many people who are not Christians, or religious in general, do not understand about my faith is that doubt is accepted. It seems that many American Christians are uncomfortable with doubt in my experience, but doubting and examining your faith is actually integral to growing in faith. If you simply go your whole life riding the waves of good feeling from one Sunday to the next, you have not actually believed in anything; you have just accepted your parents faith instead of making it your own.

    While in college, I began having extreme doubts about my faith and worldview. I pulled a Descartes, and worked my way up from the bottom (in regards to morals, philosophy, etc.). Working only with logic, disregarding emotions or sentimental attachment I attempted to rebuild my worldview based only on what I could personally know. Ultimately, I reached the end of this process, and I was a firm Deist. I realized however, that I did not like being a Deist. :meh:

    Belief and faith are what they are because they do not rely on logic or the mind. Simply using logic and reason, the closest any intelligent person will ever be to Theism or Christianity is Deism. If you notice, in practically all debates between Christians and Atheists, what is actually being debated is intelligent design, not the validity of Christianity as a faith. Christianity is what it is because it demands that you take a step into the unknown, into the mystery. As another poster mentioned earlier, becoming a Christian means that you accept the fact that you do not, and will never, fully understand the universe you live in. You submit yourself to the mystery, and accept it.

    To quote a good book,
    "In everyday English, the word "mystery" implies a puzzle to be solved, a conundrum to be unraveled. The idea is that if you think about a problem long enough, you will find a solution. In [Christianity], on the other hand, a mystery is an area where the human mind cannot go, where the heart alone makes sense - not by knowing, but by being. The Greek word mysterion leads you into a sense of "not-knowing" or "not-understanding" and leaves you there. Having arrived, all you can do is gaze in wonder; there is nothing to solve."

    With logic and reason, you stay firmly seated on the ship named Acceptable and Safe. Christ tells you step off the side. This is the whole point of Christianity, it is illogical.

    The point I'm trying to make is this, your character's faith should be rooted in just that, faith. If it is based on rationality or scholasticism (i.e. "I am a Christian because science."), then she will ultimately come across as just another one of the caricatures you mentioned in the beginning of your post.

    I apologize for the wall of text, but you had a very good question, and deserved a thorough answer.:D
     
    Mckk and psychotick like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice