The Spiritual Crisis in America

[ceecee]

Hmm... it seems like maybe the Spiritual Crisis in America is using Religion as a stick to beat people on the head with...

Religious extremist are in competition with all the other extremists. They're busy trying to out extreme each other and the rest of just wish they'd all fuck off.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Love me some history.

The Enlightenment would've come much later if not for Colonialism. Very interesting.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

So, I did a little more googling on the subject of my earlier sub-rant about "Sola Scriptura atheism," and sho-nuff this is a topic tackled by those above me.

The Catholics:
What Protestantism and the New Atheism Have in Common | Catholic Answers

and The Orthodox:
Using the Bible Against Christians: Sola Scriptura Atheism – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

What struck me about all this is that these atheists and various other assorted anti-Christians were reading the Bible essentially as sola scriptura fundamentalists. In essence, they presume to claim that their own reading of the Bible is the only possible one, that their reading is also quite obvious (perspicuity), and that the Bible is the sole basis for Christian doctrine, life and legitimacy. If the Bible can be made unpalatable even to Christians, then it just shows that the whole Christian enterprise is bunk.

Now, of course, I don’t expect an atheist or any other non-Christian to believe what the Bible says to be true, even in the non-theological stuff. It’s not their book. They don’t care. They may well hate the Christian message of repentance, humility, conquest over death and the union of God with man in the resurrected Christ. Fine. But why should they then presume to make pronouncements about what the Bible “says”?

Even the laws of our lands, written in the most banal and soporific language possible, somehow still need to have an authoritative community (with people in charge, no less!) to render interpretations in particular cases. We entrust the interpretation of our laws to the judiciary and, secondarily, to juries and law enforcement. Yes, we can all read the laws and comment on them, but in the end, it’s a particular interpretive community who have authority to apply them.

^At this point, I had an "ah-ha" moment: Why does the secular world require "professionals" of a particular field to interpret say... (secular) Law? The Supreme Court would be rendered useless if the people were allowed to apply "Sola Scriptura" to the law, interpreting the law in any way they saw fit. Sound ridiculous? You bet. It would be chaotic, yet these same unqualified people would apply that chaotic method to interpret scripture.

It’s actually quite interesting how many of the comments on this post have been exactly what the post is talking about—sola scriptura fundamentalist atheism. It underscores how embedded sola scriptura really is in our cultural psyche. We really seem to believe that texts can only mean exactly what we think they mean and that anyone who interprets them differently must be stupid, evil or uneducated. It seems that most hermeneutics are really almost entirely unexamined by those using them. I’m not really sure how to word this all more clearly, though, so I hope perhaps someone else might put together something better than this to make the point more obvious.

Very interesting, and very Protestant.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Paul Harvey's 1965 rant:

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

 

[Coriolis]

^At this point, I had an "ah-ha" moment: Why does the secular world require "professionals" of a particular field to interpret say... (secular) Law? The Supreme Court would be rendered useless if the people were allowed to apply "Sola Scriptura" to the law, interpreting the law in any way they saw fit. Sound ridiculous? You bet. It would be chaotic, yet these same unqualified people would apply that chaotic method to interpret scripture.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone gets to interpret the Bible as they see fit. It means rather that the Bible is the only ("sole") source on matters of spiritual belief and practice. Sure, this does mean that if atheists can debunk the Bible, they have essentially debunked all of Christianity, or at least those denominations that accept sola scriptura (not all do e.g. the Methodists).

As for secular law, that is objective, meant to be interpreted literally and uniformly, and far more voluminous than the Bible, which is a large reason for the need to seek out experts. Spiritual matters are inherently subjective, which allows much more leeway for individual interpretation. It is similar to the difference between a math problem and a essay question on poetry: the first will have one correct answer, the second will have many.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone gets to interpret the Bible as they see fit. It means rather that the Bible is the only ("sole") source on matters of spiritual belief and practice. Sure, this does mean that if atheists can debunk the Bible, they have essentially debunked all of Christianity, or at least those denominations that accept sola scriptura (not all do e.g. the Methodists).

As for secular law, that is objective, meant to be interpreted literally and uniformly, and far more voluminous than the Bible, which is a large reason for the need to seek out experts. Spiritual matters are inherently subjective, which allows much more leeway for individual interpretation. It is similar to the difference between a math problem and a essay question on poetry: the first will have one correct answer, the second will have many.

Not sure what you’re arguing with regarding Sola Scriptura. Sounds like we’re in agreement regarding that Protestant dogma. My point is that if the Bible is solely used, Pastor Jim’s reading is as valid as Betti Jo Phelp’s misinterpretation.

There’s a correct way to read the scriptures, and (many) wrong ways. The Orthodox Study Bible would be a good place to start if one wanted the historic, untainted by the West and its modernity, hermeneutics of the Fathers; the meaning of their epistles and gospels; not the modern interpretation of Pastor Jim and his rock-n-roll church in Podunk, KY. After that, The Orthodox Way to better grasp the God we worship.

Climb that tree, Zacchaeus.

 

[Lark]

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone gets to interpret the Bible as they see fit. It means rather that the Bible is the only ("sole") source on matters of spiritual belief and practice. Sure, this does mean that if atheists can debunk the Bible, they have essentially debunked all of Christianity, or at least those denominations that accept sola scriptura (not all do e.g. the Methodists).

As for secular law, that is objective, meant to be interpreted literally and uniformly, and far more voluminous than the Bible, which is a large reason for the need to seek out experts. Spiritual matters are inherently subjective, which allows much more leeway for individual interpretation. It is similar to the difference between a math problem and a essay question on poetry: the first will have one correct answer, the second will have many.

Solo scripture may not mean that but what about the "universal priesthood of all men"? I see the two ideas as corresponding with one another to be honest, no saints and scholars anymore.

I also dont know how what you are describing would have prevented the "higher criticism" phase and victorian "bible hunters" phase from happening, both those things were more significant than Darwin and the rise of atheism to the end of reformed Christianity as a mass movement.

 

[Lark]

Not sure what you’re arguing with regarding Sola Scriptura. Sounds like we’re in agreement regarding that Protestant dogma. My point is that if the Bible is solely used, Pastor Jim’s reading is as valid as Betti Jo Phelp’s misinterpretation.

There’s a correct way to read the scriptures, and (many) wrong ways. The Orthodox Study Bible would be a good place to start if one wanted the historic, untainted by the West and its modernity, hermeneutics of the Fathers; the meaning of their epistles and gospels; not the modern interpretation of Pastor Jim and his rock-n-roll church in Podunk, KY. After that, The Orthodox Way to better grasp the God we worship.

Climb that tree, Zacchaeus.

Pretty sure God cares not for the writings of mere mortals.

Burn any supposedly sacred book and see for yourself.

Edit: Why is your username an abbreviation for I Suck Stark? Is it a game of thrones reference?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Pretty sure God cares not for the writings of mere mortals.

Burn any supposedly sacred book and see for yourself.

Edit: Why is your username an abbreviation for I Suck Stark? Is it a game of thrones reference?

Mortals communicate through writing. See? You read this.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Love me some history.

The Enlightenment would've come much later if not for Colonialism. Very interesting.

Coffee importation was key for the enlightenment. So yes, true regarding colonialism and the enlightenment.

 

[Lark]

Mortals communicate through writing. See? You read this.

And it matters to mortals.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

And it matters to mortals.

Yes. The writings are for us. Apologia is for us. Traditions are for us.

 

[anticlimatic]

Spiritual matters are inherently subjective

But are they really? I think the belief that they are is why we all collectively stopped caring about them.

 

[Coriolis]

Not sure what you’re arguing with regarding Sola Scriptura. Sounds like we’re in agreement regarding that Protestant dogma. My point is that if the Bible is solely used, Pastor Jim’s reading is as valid as Betti Jo Phelp’s misinterpretation.

This doesn't follow. What makes Betti Jo's view a misinterpretation, and Pastor Jim's presumably correct? As I mentioned, this view is not universal among Protestants either.

There’s a correct way to read the scriptures, and (many) wrong ways.

And who is the arbiter of which is which?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

This doesn't follow. What makes Betti Jo's view a misinterpretation, and Pastor Jim's presumably correct? As I mentioned, this view is not universal among Protestants either.

And who is the arbiter of which is which?

EDIT:
Conflicts within the Church are resolved by councils, and the dogmas have been arbitrated long ago.

I believe the Ecumenical Councils are well passed discussing hermeneutics and exegeses these days, and are more concerned with reuniting the East and West.

In other words, thanks to freedom of religion in America, Betti Jo and Pastor Jim could interpret and disseminate the scriptures however they wish, but it doesn't mean they're doctrinally correct. The times certainly change, but the heresies do not.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Ecumenical councils, of which Betti Jo and Jim aren’t members of.

Who watches the watchers?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Wikipedia

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Who watches the watchers?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Wikipedia

The Lord.

 

[Lark]

Still wondering about that username.

 

[Coriolis]

But are they really? I think the belief that they are is why we all collectively stopped caring about them.

Do you think they are objective? If so, in what way? Who do you see no longer caring about them on account of their subjectivity?

EDIT:
Conflicts within the Church are resolved by councils, and the dogmas have been arbitrated long ago.

I believe the Ecumenical Councils are well passed discussing hermeneutics and exegeses these days, and are more concerned with reuniting the East and West.

In other words, thanks to freedom of religion in America, Betti Jo and Pastor Jim could interpret and disseminate the scriptures however they wish, but it doesn't mean they're doctrinally correct. The times certainly change, but the heresies do not.

Councils comprised of eminently fallible humans? Using what standard to determine "doctrinal correctness"? Either the Bible is their only standard, in which the entire exercise is hopelessly circular; or they are calling on some other source of knowledge, access to which should not be limited to them.

The Lord.

In what form does he exercise his oversight?