Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[The Grand Nudger]

Christianity -is- diverse.  There are tens of thousands of self declared modifiers.  These modifiers often exist as expressions of religious plurality -within- a shared culture.  

"Intellectually rigorous atheism" is not for you to define, so tough luck there.  

There's no need to disprove any portion of a christian claim in order to refute christianity - you should know this......it's in your book.  Besides, it's easier to refute (lol, what a fun word) christianity by assuming that the claims are true.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

There's a slightly larger issue influencing many of the smaller issues we're discussing, and I appreciate you thinking hard about this, because your reflections are worth reading.

The larger issue I'll call the "hyperdiversity fallacy". People given to this fallacy believe that Christianity, unqualified, is enormously diverse and variegated. Like totally, so diverse, bro!

This is usually the result of defining Christianity via contemporary cultural Christian Americana. The focus here is not on the claims of religion, but on the cultural expressions of religion. I think that's a mistake.  It's a mistake because the diversity of Christian religious (cultural) expression doesn't rule out the uniformity (or truth) of Christian theology.

So I think this is what intellectually rigorous atheism needs to aim for: An analysis and critique of Christian claims, not the cultures that Christians are a part of. If you can disprove Christian claims, you've refuted Christianity.

And I'm glad you're going that route by questioning the moral character of God in creating hell. I mean, I think you're wrong there, but at least you're not trying to judge the truth of a claim by the behavior of its proponents. 

I can't imagine judging the field of medicine by the actions of Mengele or Gosnell.

I concur. The questions of Christian theology and Christian culture are unrelated, and one does not reflect upon the other except in the sense that it's trivial to demonstrate that the latter rarely has much to do with the former.

The reason we deal primarily with the latter is because we don't honestly care what you believe in, on any serious level, except where your beliefs begin to influence our cultures, and thereby our lives. In other cases, the bigotry (culture) of Christians impacts us much more directly and personally. Small surprise that we tend to focus upon it.

This issue of like diversity, dude emerges because you are not the only Christian with whom we debate, dude, and the next one will likely make different claims about anything other than the "core claims" you meantion. It's also worth pointing out that those "core claims" are actually the result of an internal conflict between Orthodoxy (as it's now called), which came to dominate the religion utterly (often by force), and the other theologies within the groups of people who thought that Jesus was the Annointed One.

You tend to ignore these factors; we do not, and cannot. You prefer to speak of your settled theology as if it is the only point that was ever made, and your particular denomination's view as if it is settled theology. It is not, in either case.

If you wish to set such parameters, it is as simple as saying, "For the purposes of this debate, here are my positions on theology (followed by a list thereof), and I would appreciate it if we stay within these parameters during the debate, rather than dealing with unrelated versions of Christianity, which are not under examination in this particular debate." Most of us would be okay with that.

Except that, almost without fail, a debate about a specific brand of Christian theology tends to venture into the realm of, "And that's why it's unquestionably Not Okay According to God, for you to ________", at which point the fact that many others disagree with you on what God's claims on that subject (especially others within your own religion) may become relevant, as a way of showing that your claim to unequivocal knowledge of the Will of God is contestable, from the point of view of anyone not in your particular faith (including other Christians, other religions, and deniers of both... us).

In other words, we are not claiming the fault in the field medicine lies with Mengele, but the moment you repeat one of Mengele's claims, or you claim that doctors never did something like that, we are likely to point out to you that not only is it within the realm of medicine for such things to occur, we know historically that they did occur, as in the example of Mengele. A related point would be to show how Communism twisted the ideas of naturalism/materialism into a system which caused untold suffering, if atheists claimed in a debate that only Secular Humanist ideas were valid views of atheists (I am a S.H., so I used my own philosophy as an example, here). If I were to claim that only Humanism was a valid atheist point of view, you would be quite right to point out that others have disagreed strongly with the meaning of materialist outlooks, and that in historically-known examples, we have atheism leading to terrible outcomes completely different from the ones I am presenting. Of course, that's when I'd counter by pointing out that it was his demi-religious views on Communism, not his atheism, that led to those abuses, but the point about "all atheists believe ____" would have been debunked successfully.

As long as Christians continue to disagree about what, exactly, constitutes your theology, we're going to point to differences when you claim you have the right one. If you think we are presenting a version of your theology that is inaccurate, say so and say why, specifically, that you think it is so, and you will find us more amenable to your suggestions of inaccuracy.

Simply saying "you atheists don't get it" is just being an asshole, as far as we can tell, a blanket form of bigotry that accomplishes nothing other than telling us that you're dismissing our arguments without serious consideration, simply because you feel they do not agree with your (still hidden to me) exact ideas about theology.

[Athene]

A common claim about Christianity is "There are so many interpretations of the Bible! How can you know if any of it is true!"

What people who make this claim don't realize is that the differences over interpretation account for a minuscule fraction of what the Bible really says. So, while the Bible's stance on certain issues might not be wholly precise, the main claims are pretty clear. 

For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus. The Bible is pretty clear about most of his claims, and the basic facts of his life, etc.

The problem with people who make this claim is the overly broad and inaccurate generalizations.

The vast majority of discovered Biblical texts are for the most part identical to each other, and the minor discrepancies that do exist are over things like grammar and prepositions (like "on" versus "upon").

What knowledgeable atheists can rationally affirm is that only certain parts of the Bible might be ambiguous. The others are more or less clear.

If you wanted to engage in a robust debate over the so-called Biblical truths that are common to all Christian denominations, why on earth did you generate almost an entire post around the issue that you precisely wish to avoid? The bold portion alone was enough to detract from your overall theme, because it's a completely dishonest statement. Did you think it wouldn't be addressed? 

Then you had the audacity to accuse the respondents of your thread of not being up to task. What you don't seem to realize is that the existence of Christ as a historical figure, the Resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the nature of Sin and so forth, are all topics that have been and are frequently discussed on these forums on a regular basis.

You created this problem, all by your lonesome. If you quit blaming others and choose your words more carefully, you may be able to avoid this problem in the future.




*font change to bold mine, for emphasis*

[Losty]

People given to this fallacy believe that Christianity, unqualified, is enormously diverse and variegated.

Christianity is enormously diverse and variegated. Not only in the same denomination but even in the same church you will find two different people reading the same bible with different opinions about what it means.

[abaris]

The book is the same, or at least one of the several editions on the market. What everyone makes of it, is up to their personal flavor or their particular brand of christianity. That they all read it differently can be observed on this forum. One and the same passage has seen numerous interpretations, even in the one year I've been here. And everyone doing so claims to have the one true key to the usual ambigous texts and verses.

[Delicate]

There's a slightly larger issue influencing many of the smaller issues we're discussing, and I appreciate you thinking hard about this, because your reflections are worth reading.

The larger issue I'll call the "hyperdiversity fallacy". People given to this fallacy believe that Christianity, unqualified, is enormously diverse and variegated. Like totally, so diverse, bro!

This is usually the result of defining Christianity via contemporary cultural Christian Americana. The focus here is not on the claims of religion, but on the cultural expressions of religion. I think that's a mistake.  It's a mistake because the diversity of Christian religious (cultural) expression doesn't rule out the uniformity (or truth) of Christian theology.

So I think this is what intellectually rigorous atheism needs to aim for: An analysis and critique of Christian claims, not the cultures that Christians are a part of. If you can disprove Christian claims, you've refuted Christianity.

And I'm glad you're going that route by questioning the moral character of God in creating hell. I mean, I think you're wrong there, but at least you're not trying to judge the truth of a claim by the behavior of its proponents. 

I can't imagine judging the field of medicine by the actions of Mengele or Gosnell.

I concur. The questions of Christian theology and Christian culture are unrelated, and one does not reflect upon the other except in the sense that it's trivial to demonstrate that the latter rarely has much to do with the former.

The reason we deal primarily with the latter is because we don't honestly care what you believe in, on any serious level, except where your beliefs begin to influence our cultures, and thereby our lives. In other cases, the bigotry (culture) of Christians impacts us much more directly and personally. Small surprise that we tend to focus upon it.

This issue of like diversity, dude emerges because you are not the only Christian with whom we debate, dude, and the next one will likely make different claims about anything other than the "core claims" you meantion. It's also worth pointing out that those "core claims" are actually the result of an internal conflict between Orthodoxy (as it's now called), which came to dominate the religion utterly (often by force), and the other theologies within the groups of people who thought that Jesus was the Annointed One.

You tend to ignore these factors; we do not, and cannot. You prefer to speak of your settled theology as if it is the only point that was ever made, and your particular denomination's view as if it is settled theology. It is not, in either case.

If you wish to set such parameters, it is as simple as saying, "For the purposes of this debate, here are my positions on theology (followed by a list thereof), and I would appreciate it if we stay within these parameters during the debate, rather than dealing with unrelated versions of Christianity, which are not under examination in this particular debate." Most of us would be okay with that.

Except that, almost without fail, a debate about a specific brand of Christian theology tends to venture into the realm of, "And that's why it's unquestionably Not Okay According to God, for you to ________", at which point the fact that many others disagree with you on what God's claims on that subject (especially others within your own religion) may become relevant, as a way of showing that your claim to unequivocal knowledge of the Will of God is contestable, from the point of view of anyone not in your particular faith (including other Christians, other religions, and deniers of both... us).

In other words, we are not claiming the fault in the field medicine lies with Mengele, but the moment you repeat one of Mengele's claims, or you claim that doctors never did something like that, we are likely to point out to you that not only is it within the realm of medicine for such things to occur, we know historically that they did occur, as in the example of Mengele. A related point would be to show how Communism twisted the ideas of naturalism/materialism into a system which caused untold suffering, if atheists claimed in a debate that only Secular Humanist ideas were valid views of atheists (I am a S.H., so I used my own philosophy as an example, here). If I were to claim that only Humanism was a valid atheist point of view, you would be quite right to point out that others have disagreed strongly with the meaning of materialist outlooks, and that in historically-known examples, we have atheism leading to terrible outcomes completely different from the ones I am presenting. Of course, that's when I'd counter by pointing out that it was his demi-religious views on Communism, not his atheism, that led to those abuses, but the point about "all atheists believe ____" would have been debunked successfully.

As long as Christians continue to disagree about what, exactly, constitutes your theology, we're going to point to differences when you claim you have the right one. If you think we are presenting a version of your theology that is inaccurate, say so and say why, specifically, that you think it is so, and you will find us more amenable to your suggestions of inaccuracy.

Simply saying "you atheists don't get it" is just being an asshole, as far as we can tell, a blanket form of bigotry that accomplishes nothing other than telling us that you're dismissing our arguments without serious consideration, simply because you feel they do not agree with your (still hidden to me) exact ideas about theology.

What exactly in your post is supposed to be a problem for me, and why?

I'm not very impressed with "we honestly don't care what you believe except when you influence our cultures." It doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether if Christianity is true, it ought to influence culture or not. Same for the question of whether one cares about what Christians believe.

You claim other Christians make different claims other than "core claims". But this is exactly my point, and that non-core diversity is not problematic. As for your claim that Orthodoxy came to dominate the religion by force, so what? Isn't what matters in the end the question of whether this orthodoxy is true or not, rather than that it took over? Likewise with the view of settled theology. Sure there are different views, but so what? As long as this view is meritorious, who cares?

I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric here, but no real arguments. What is your argument?

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you resolve a simple, "non-core" example of christian diversity for me (and for all christians currently burdened with this, souls and lives and wallets in the balance)?  The issue of Peter's authority?  Perhaps you could ease the mind of Jehovahs Witnesses, who at present seem to be spending a great deal of resources in outreach to catholics on what must be a non-issue?  Maybe, pursuant to the very same issue, you could clear up any confusion about the use of condoms and christianity?  Catholics may want to know, for example....that suiting up does not dirty their immortal souls.  What say you?

[abaris]

It doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether if Christianity is true, it ought to influence culture or not. Same for the question of whether one cares about what Christians believe.

And why should it? I've decided for myself that it isn't true. Wholesale and to a more or less disgusting degree the gazillons of different interpretations and sects. So the only reasonable approach is the wish for your pet peeves to stay out of public life. Which is even more important when it comes to legislation.

What you do behind closed church doors is entirely up to you.

If you're looking for a discussion about truth, look up the various threads already discussing that kind of topic. For me, since I don't assume to speak for everybody else, it can't be, since a 13 billion years old universe, a 4,5 billion years old earth and the chicken fart like existence of humanity in comparison make a very strong case against it. Not to speak of our proven common ancestry with great apes. And no, the jury's not out on that. Only if you plug your ears and go lalala, I can't hear you, it is.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

I concur. The questions of Christian theology and Christian culture are unrelated, and one does not reflect upon the other except in the sense that it's trivial to demonstrate that the latter rarely has much to do with the former.

The reason we deal primarily with the latter is because we don't honestly care what you believe in, on any serious level, except where your beliefs begin to influence our cultures, and thereby our lives. In other cases, the bigotry (culture) of Christians impacts us much more directly and personally. Small surprise that we tend to focus upon it.

This issue of like diversity, dude emerges because you are not the only Christian with whom we debate, dude, and the next one will likely make different claims about anything other than the "core claims" you meantion. It's also worth pointing out that those "core claims" are actually the result of an internal conflict between Orthodoxy (as it's now called), which came to dominate the religion utterly (often by force), and the other theologies within the groups of people who thought that Jesus was the Annointed One.

You tend to ignore these factors; we do not, and cannot. You prefer to speak of your settled theology as if it is the only point that was ever made, and your particular denomination's view as if it is settled theology. It is not, in either case.

If you wish to set such parameters, it is as simple as saying, "For the purposes of this debate, here are my positions on theology (followed by a list thereof), and I would appreciate it if we stay within these parameters during the debate, rather than dealing with unrelated versions of Christianity, which are not under examination in this particular debate." Most of us would be okay with that.

Except that, almost without fail, a debate about a specific brand of Christian theology tends to venture into the realm of, "And that's why it's unquestionably Not Okay According to God, for you to ________", at which point the fact that many others disagree with you on what God's claims on that subject (especially others within your own religion) may become relevant, as a way of showing that your claim to unequivocal knowledge of the Will of God is contestable, from the point of view of anyone not in your particular faith (including other Christians, other religions, and deniers of both... us).

In other words, we are not claiming the fault in the field medicine lies with Mengele, but the moment you repeat one of Mengele's claims, or you claim that doctors never did something like that, we are likely to point out to you that not only is it within the realm of medicine for such things to occur, we know historically that they did occur, as in the example of Mengele. A related point would be to show how Communism twisted the ideas of naturalism/materialism into a system which caused untold suffering, if atheists claimed in a debate that only Secular Humanist ideas were valid views of atheists (I am a S.H., so I used my own philosophy as an example, here). If I were to claim that only Humanism was a valid atheist point of view, you would be quite right to point out that others have disagreed strongly with the meaning of materialist outlooks, and that in historically-known examples, we have atheism leading to terrible outcomes completely different from the ones I am presenting. Of course, that's when I'd counter by pointing out that it was his demi-religious views on Communism, not his atheism, that led to those abuses, but the point about "all atheists believe ____" would have been debunked successfully.

As long as Christians continue to disagree about what, exactly, constitutes your theology, we're going to point to differences when you claim you have the right one. If you think we are presenting a version of your theology that is inaccurate, say so and say why, specifically, that you think it is so, and you will find us more amenable to your suggestions of inaccuracy.

Simply saying "you atheists don't get it" is just being an asshole, as far as we can tell, a blanket form of bigotry that accomplishes nothing other than telling us that you're dismissing our arguments without serious consideration, simply because you feel they do not agree with your (still hidden to me) exact ideas about theology.

---

What exactly in your post is supposed to be a problem for me, and why?

I'm not very impressed with "we honestly don't care what you believe except when you influence our cultures." It doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether if Christianity is true, it ought to influence culture or not. Same for the question of whether one cares about what Christians believe.

You claim other Christians make different claims other than "core claims". But this is exactly my point, and that non-core diversity is not problematic. As for your claim that Orthodoxy came to dominate the religion by force, so what? Isn't what matters in the end the question of whether this orthodoxy is true or not, rather than that it took over? Likewise with the view of settled theology. Sure there are different views, but so what? As long as this view is meritorious, who cares?

I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric here, but no real arguments. What is your argument?

I thought it was obvious; my apologies. I was saying that I, too, think that non-core diversity is non-problematic, except when speaking about particular issues that arise from Christian culture's influence on individuals or in our society, a topic which frequently arises here because it's the part we're forced to care about most. If Christians were content to practice their religious beliefs in absolute privacy and "better" only their own lives as a result, I'm sure most of us would be content to never discuss it, and it's quite possible that boards like ours would be unnecessary. Meanwhile, here in the real world, such definitions do influence us, so they do matter, and we will discuss them. Learn to cope with this basic fact.

If Christianity is true, then it still should not influence culture, as this is a secular nation. However, I'd like to see more people acting as if the teachings of Jesus, not Paul or the Old Testament, mattered most... but again, that's just a matter of practical living.

That said, the above is a huge "IF". Many of us are quite happy to discuss issues we see in your core doctrines, such as what Abaris just raised about problems fitting the literalist version of your faith into a billions-of-years-old planet, in which we humans feature as a mere moment of that history, of the problem of "free gift" salvation that is effectively at gunpoint, the issues of things the "eternal" God-as-moral-lawgiver supposedly wants from us (according to the faithful) which seem so obviously to be the prejudices of the Bronze Age which we find to be immoral by modern standards, or the issues in general with the moral concept of vicarious salvation. We do talk about all of that, so your contentions here about "core" beliefs seem to be somewhat lacking.

In fact, name a "core" belief, and we'll show you a group that disagrees with it, all within your own faith (especially if we include the heretics who have been wiped out throughout history, which is why I pointed to the issue of Orthodoxy's violent and suppressive rise to the top), likely in a discussion we've had right here on this board. I know you think they are simply wrong, but the point is that they hold those views of the "true core of the faith" as strongly as you hold your own views, and you cannot all be right. If you would like to make a case for why your particular version is right, we'd love to have that conversation...

...but as I said, just sitting back and saying "none of you atheists get it" is disingenuous and contemptible.

[Delicate]

What exactly in your post is supposed to be a problem for me, and why?

I'm not very impressed with "we honestly don't care what you believe except when you influence our cultures." It doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether if Christianity is true, it ought to influence culture or not. Same for the question of whether one cares about what Christians believe.

You claim other Christians make different claims other than "core claims". But this is exactly my point, and that non-core diversity is not problematic. As for your claim that Orthodoxy came to dominate the religion by force, so what? Isn't what matters in the end the question of whether this orthodoxy is true or not, rather than that it took over? Likewise with the view of settled theology. Sure there are different views, but so what? As long as this view is meritorious, who cares?

I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric here, but no real arguments. What is your argument?

I thought it was obvious; my apologies. I was saying that I, too, think that non-core diversity is non-problematic, except when speaking about particular issues that arise from Christian culture's influence on individuals or in our society, a topic which frequently arises here because it's the part we're forced to care about most. If Christians were content to practice their religious beliefs in absolute privacy and "better" only their own lives as a result, I'm sure most of us would be content to never discuss it, and it's quite possible that boards like ours would be unnecessary. Meanwhile, here in the real world, such definitions do influence us, so they do matter, and we will discuss them. Learn to cope with this basic fact.

If Christianity is true, then it still should not influence culture, as this is a secular nation. However, I'd like to see more people acting as if the teachings of Jesus, not Paul or the Old Testament, mattered most... but again, that's just a matter of practical living.

That said, the above is a huge "IF". Many of us are quite happy to discuss issues we see in your core doctrines, such as what Abaris just raised about problems fitting the literalist version of your faith into a billions-of-years-old planet, in which we humans feature as a mere moment of that history, of the problem of "free gift" salvation that is effectively at gunpoint, the issues of things the "eternal" God-as-moral-lawgiver supposedly wants from us (according to the faithful) which seem so obviously to be the prejudices of the Bronze Age which we find to be immoral by modern standards, or the issues in general with the moral concept of vicarious salvation. We do talk about all of that, so your contentions here about "core" beliefs seem to be somewhat lacking.

In fact, name a "core" belief, and we'll show you a group that disagrees with it, all within your own faith (especially if we include the heretics who have been wiped out throughout history, which is why I pointed to the issue of Orthodoxy's violent and suppressive rise to the top), likely in a discussion we've had right here on this board. I know you think they are simply wrong, but the point is that they hold those views of the "true core of the faith" as strongly as you hold your own views, and you cannot all be right. If you would like to make a case for why your particular version is right, we'd love to have that conversation...

...but as I said, just sitting back and saying "none of you atheists get it" is disingenuous and contemptible.

Your response creates an interesting set of conundrums for atheists.

Firstly, your view that "If Christianity is true, then it still should not influence culture, as this is a secular nation." This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what secularism is, and its status in the light of the truth of Christianity. Secularism does not entail that religion should have no influence on culture. Rather, strictly speaking, secularism entails that religion should have no influence on the state. This means governance should not be influenced by religion. It says nothing of culture in general, and secularism of the state is perfectly compatible with a highly religious, and highly-religiously-expressive citizenry. So you're operating under an idiosyncratic definition of secularism.

Second, if Christianity is true, then it must be true that there is an afterlife, so to speak. And one's well-being in the afterlife and relationship with God is of utmost importance. Someone who concedes that Christianity is true (even for the sake of argument), will have to concede (once again, for the sake of argument) that the latter two theological notions follow. In fact, one might make the claim that it is an ethical obligation to care for one's afterlife and relationship with God. Thus for an atheist to hold that Christianity is true AND Christianity ought not to have any influence on society is unethical and irresponsible towards one's citizenry, to the same extent that preventing people from access to healthcare and freedom, and the pursuit of happiness would be unethical and irresponsible in our current system.

So there are two big problems for your view: Secularism doesn't entail what you believe it does, and you are endorsing an unethical and irresponsible position that harms the citizenry. What can you do to resolve these two problems? Here are what seems to be your two options:

1) You either affirm the view that religion should have no influence on culture (perhaps you can call this view hypersecularism, as it is much stronger than conventional secularism), or you can reject the view that religion should have no influence on culture, and endorse ordinary secularism.

2) You have to either reject ethics (in which case you are permitted to harm the citizenry by constraining Christian cultural influence even if it is true), or you can affirm ethics and allow a cultural place for Christianity, given its truth.

There are more questions to raise, obviously. One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true. Another is the question of the reason and evidence motivating secularism in the real world. Yet another is the question of what normative standards are being assumed without argument when one says Christianity ought not x, culture and society ought to y, etc. 

But I like to keep the conversation short and snappy, so I'll end it here.