This is a valid point, but to go to the level of detail and rigor required for a careful interpretation is beyond the discussion of an online forum.
For example John's Gospel uses the term "eternal life" or simply "life" many times, and if you read the passages carefully you will detect layers of meanings to this word, i.e. multiple meanings at once. To see this clearly one needs to study the whole Gospel and identify the main themes, and then study in detail the relevant passages in John. Instead of overanalyzing one passage, the context of the whole writing should be taken into account.
I'm not sure why you are going here, since my point was the opposite.
It's easier if I just move straight to my bottom-line stance: Truly understanding and experiencing God cannot be dependent upon a meticulous text study because such a thing is not accessible to everyone.... and is in fact only accessible to a small percentage of people.
Whatever truth there is of God needs to be able to be perceived, fathomed, understood, and lived without understanding meticulous nuance. It has to be livable by a five-year-old.
And furthermore John is much easier on the ears than Paul is. People often find John enjoyable to read just for aesthetic of the poetry. This is not true of Paul. Paul can be difficult to grasp in a variety of passages.
John is more aesthetic, certainly, although I tend to still very much enjoy Paul because of the clear arguments he pushes (you can see how his logic works) and he still has an eloquence about him (whether we're talking Phillipians 2 or 1 Cor 13... or Romans 8:38-39... which has to be one of my favorite passages in the Bible
). The language in the Bible in general is moving in many spots; while the KJV is a weaker translation than most, the language itself is more beautiful than many modern translations and worth reading.
So for someone who isn't familiar with the text, it's usually easier and more effective to give a person a single verse. The main message of the new testament is essentially summed up in John 3:16. So instead of having people understand every part of the new testament they say, "here memorize John 3:16". It's a simplification, but it's effective and not meant to be misleading. (The bad part is when other people come in using the same tactic and they are trying to be misleading.
)
That's not really what I was referring to, so I'm confused over your point. After having been through that phase of my life, I came to the conclusion that finding God and becoming perfected wasn't going to happen through more extensive Bible study than I was already doing.
(It tends to be detached from the reality and rigor of actual life and also often interferes with the need for one to make actual moral choices rather than complying with whatever scriptural status quo that is accepted in the day and age.)
Overall, having been there myself and having seen the impact of others who do it, I don't think that the intellectualization of the faith is a good thing.
I too grapple with this concept. What confuses me and is the crux of my doubt on the topic of "God" is that if he is indeed a loving, benevolent force and has us, his creation in his best interest, how can he expect us in our limited knowledge and ability to understand the complexities of this universe, to understand this issue? We have the ability to think, analyze and doubt and I find myself doing this a lot. God encourages/forces/prods us to "live by faith" and just accept that there's a way we can't understand but to be ok with that.
How can I be expected to blindly accept that or be damned if I don't? For me, it's not a choice, it's an inability to understand. From what I've always been told and from all I can gather is that that isn't good enough and hell still awaits me and my heresy. If there is a god, I'm angry at him for that. That "system", if you will, isn't one of a humane beholder of justice.
That is a pretty honest appraisal.
I don't know how I would answer that. Sigh.
When I was younger I really thought I understood truth and had answers that worked; but the older I got and the more things I had to work through in life, and the more things I saw OTHER people dealing with, the more ambiguous it all became, and the more I realized I was just trying to live out answers that were ultimately unsatisfying, without real conviction or certainty my assertions were true.
Coming along with that, I do not know how we "have faith." We can't just choose to have faith, we either have it or we don't, so it's almost like a gift... and so how could a god hold us accountable if we don't have it? I do not know the answer.
I guess in my life for a long time I had faith. Or thought I did. And maybe on one level I did, but my intellectual needs were not satisfied; once I was forced to confront the reality that belief is based on faith, not knowledge, I really really crashed. I realized any faith I had had been built on the assumption that I could prove what I believed... and when I realized I couldn't, I no longer knew what I believed. (So my faith actually had built on rationality.)
I went through various cycles feeling that God either didn't exist or that he had abandoned me, and eventually I came to a point where I realized the question of God didn't even matter in terms of what I was going to do with my life and what convictions I held about all that was good and right. For me it became walking through the eye of paradox between belief and unbelief, realizing that regardless of whatever intellectual discordance I ran across, I still was going live as if it were all true -- and I did know the values were true. Because it was what mattered to me and embodied life as I knew it. (I don't know if this aligns with what Reason said above, as far as practical value goes, but maybe... And what more can a limited human being do?)
I am saying this simply to say that one can still believe, still not understand, and still wonder if it's all true. I also think the value is in the seeking, not necessarily the understanding. And you can't always find everything right away, if ever. But seeking shows a desire to find, and I have to believe that is honored, and that there is not a time limit on the finding.
sorry, it's late, I probably sound preachy.
The best believers are no doubt going to be the ones with reasons for why they believe that lie outside of personal testimony, i was raised on it or "it just feels right".
Where I see that sort of faith breaking down: It's okay to think that way, but where the rubber meets the road is receptivity to OTHERS thinking that way.
IOW, the people who accept an authority, or have a personal testimony, or a cultural upbringing, or an "it just feels right" mindset are morally stilted if they have the hubris to suggest that OTHERS who follow the exact same patterns but come to different conclusions must be wrong.
Because they're right, obviously.
People are allowed to have convictions stemming from many sources. The pride and faultiness comes in how they place themselves over others (or not) and think they have more of a handle on truth.
People who are humble actually will listen to other viewpoints and consider them. They won't slander the character of those they disagreement, based solely on the fact they disagree. THey understand they don't know everything, that they only know what they know, and that there is much that is beyond them.
Does that make sense?
The traditional ideas on knowledge DO apply. yes I agree that justificationism has no place in theology. We cant 100% prove the God of the bible does or doesnt exist, but surely there are arguments that CAN be evaluated both for their utility in describing the world and the historical evidence they stand on (example being lack of proof for Exodus...).
You can do all that, and certainly it is useful... but salvation itself is not to be found in it. In the end it's just knowledge and argument, not conviction and belief.
.... big breath ...
I think if more people understood that the idea of eternal suffering is not Biblical, then they would have a more positive outlook on God and life in general.
