Divine Right

[Mountain Man]

Different and contradictory interpretations have been the norm throughout Christian history; hence the very large number of denominations. And there can be no way to reach agreement when members of competing denominations hold beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

First of all, the "large number of denominations" -- and here I assume you're referring to the "30,000+ denominations" canard -- can be generally broken down into "6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs" of the which the largest bloc is Protestant. The source from which that 30,000+ number is derived had an odd definition of "denomination" where, for example, a Baptist church in Africa was counted as a different denomination than a Baptist church in America, or even a Baptist church in America that catered to the Filipino population was counted as a different denomination than a Baptist church just down the road with a largely white congregation.

Secondly, there is, in fact, broad agreement about the central tenets of Christianity among those 6 major groups. The majority of disagreements relate to secondary issues, things like grape juice versus wine, or if baptisms should be performed in the name of Jesus only or in the name of "the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit".

[firstfloor]

The Bible seems to suggest that earthly rulers have been appointed by God and it is wrong to disobey them. See Romans 13:1-6

[stfoskey15]

I feel this article makes some interesting points.

Interesting. Still, it makes the Bible seem incredibly human, with no divine influence.

[Tassman]

First of all, the "large number of denominations" -- and here I assume you're referring to the "30,000+ denominations" canard -- can be generally broken down into "6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs" of the which the largest bloc is Protestant. The source from which that 30,000+ number is derived had an odd definition of "denomination" where, for example, a Baptist church in Africa was counted as a different denomination than a Baptist church in America, or even a Baptist church in America that catered to the Filipino population was counted as a different denomination than a Baptist church just down the road with a largely white congregation.

There are still a lot of denominations nevertheless and they exist because of contrary interpretations of scripture, which is my point.

Secondly, there is, in fact, broad agreement about the central tenets of Christianity among those 6 major groups. The majority of disagreements relate to secondary issues, things like grape juice versus wine, or if baptisms should be performed in the name of Jesus only or in the name of "the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit".

Apart from the theological concerns there have been major differences on many moral issues such as slavery (E.g. the Southern Baptist Convention was founded to support it and only recently there was chaos over a resolution condemning white supremacy). As well there have been major differences re the role of women, abortion and LGBT rights. The Church is unable to speak with one voice on these important issues which affect millions.

[tabibito]

There are still a lot of denominations nevertheless and they exist because of contrary interpretations of scripture, which is my point.
The Church is unable to speak with one voice on these important issues which affect millions.

Valid points.
A large number of the contradictory interpretations of scripture arise from circumstances that I outlined in post# 44: repeating

Simple examples of divorcing point from exposition:
Acts 2:8 "And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" Look up some commentaries, and you'll find it claimed (in words to the effect) that "God made it possible for the listeners to hear the disciples' speech in their (the listener's) own tongues. God did not confer the gift of speaking in other tongues upon the disciples (on this occasion)" My answer to that claim: "What do Acts 2:6 and 11 say? - "heard them speak in their own tongues" do they not?" Look up some translations and you'll find "them speak" interpolated into Acts 2:8 ... not in the original texts, just necessary because some commentators simply don't employ basic reading comprehension skills.

More closely resembling the circumstances of comment regarding Romans 13:1

You'll find commentators saying that Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." shows the people who were listening were all born Jews ... and again the question needs asking, "what does verse 10 say? "Jews and proselytes," does it not."

Put 5 theologians in a room together and ask for an opinion on a given text, and it would come as no surprise to get as many as 7 interpretations. (I once read a few pieces by a particular theologian who managed to give three completely different interpretations for the self same verse - the first and second were more or less compatible, though different in meaning. The third was diametrically opposed to both. The three were in different paragraphs in the same monologue.

[shunyadragon]

First of all, the "large number of denominations" -- and here I assume you're referring to the "30,000+ denominations" canard -- can be generally broken down into "6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs" of the which the largest bloc is Protestant. The source from which that 30,000+ number is derived had an odd definition of "denomination" where, for example, a Baptist church in Africa was counted as a different denomination than a Baptist church in America, or even a Baptist church in America that catered to the Filipino population was counted as a different denomination than a Baptist church just down the road with a largely white congregation.

Secondly, there is, in fact, broad agreement about the central tenets of Christianity among those 6 major groups. The majority of disagreements relate to secondary issues, things like grape juice versus wine, or if baptisms should be performed in the name of Jesus only or in the name of "the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit".

The bogus claim of 30,000+ denominations is indeed a canard, but does not address the problem of significant differences and disagreements between denominations, and the fact that some believe it is their way or the highway.

The problem of the belief in Theocracy in the Bible text and history cannot be easily dismissed with a 'hand wave.' Yes, there are different interpretations, but the problem persists in the role of religion in government, and the separation of religion and state.

[Mountain Man]

There are still a lot of denominations nevertheless and they exist because of contrary interpretations of scripture, which is my point.


Apart from the theological concerns there have been major differences on many moral issues such as slavery (E.g. the Southern Baptist Convention was founded to support it and only recently there was chaos over a resolution condemning white supremacy). As well there have been major differences re the role of women, abortion and LGBT rights. The Church is unable to speak with one voice on these important issues which affect millions.

Again, there is broad agreement on the central tenets, so I don't really see the issue. The Bible never promises that all believers will be unified in their thoughts. Furthermore, I reject the implied argument that since there is a variety of proposed interpretations that no single interpretation is correct, or that the correct interpretation can never be known. Funny how skeptics never propose that sort of thinking when it comes to issues of science. Instead, they will claim that through additional research and study, we can get closer to or even arrive at the truth. Well guess what? The same thing is true for theological studies.

[Mountain Man]

I once read a few pieces by a particular theologian who managed to give three completely different interpretations for the self same verse - the first and second were more or less compatible, though different in meaning. The third was diametrically opposed to both. The three were in different paragraphs in the same monologue.

It depends on how the argument is being presented. I've seen theologians offer multiple mutually exclusive solutions to a scriptural difficulty, but they're not proposing that all are correct, and usually by the end of the argument, they have presented one of them as the most likely correct solution.

[Charles]

It depends on how the argument is being presented. I've seen theologians offer multiple mutually exclusive solutions to a scriptural difficulty, but they're not proposing that all are correct, and usually by the end of the argument, they have presented one of them as the most likely correct solution.

And, as time goes by, another interpretation turns out to be the most likely correct one. When science taught us the world was more than 6000 years old, theologians were good at finding most likely correct solutions to "scriptual difficulties" in Genesis. Just to mention one out of a seemingly never ending line of interpretation and reinterpretation.

[Charles]

There is nothing in the Bible to prevent even the plainest passage of scripture from being misinterpreted, nor does the Bible itself promise that such misinterpretations are impossible and repeatedly warns us to beware of false teachers.

And perhaps you misinterpreted who the false teachers were? It is possible to misinterpret, and even the Bible does not promise it is impossible. So maybe that is what you did...

[Charles]

They may seem to be with a plain reading lacking nuance, but a deeper contextual analysis, such as what I've described, shows that there's no contradiction. The Bible makes it clear we are to obey God first, man second, always and without exception in that order, and that man's commands can never supersede the commands of God.

But still the Romans does not mention any exception at all. It may be that you think that inventing one is adding "nuance" to the text. But it seems it is rather the case that your pointing to the context contradicts what the text actually says. If that is "nuance" I think there is something about textual analysis that you have completely missed.

[Mountain Man]

"But you could be wrong!" is such an intellectually lazy argument.

[Charles]

"But you could be wrong!" is such an intellectually lazy argument.

You are contradicting what the Romans actually say if you read the words. So I would rather say you are lazy by pointing to some "context" in which the words suddenly have another meaning without giving any satisfying acount as to how and why. And you were actually the one who started to hold it very open that interpretations could be wrong. The knife cuts both ways, Mr. Mountain Man. Refusing to show how you are right is a lazy aproach.

[Sparko]

"the Romans?"

Charles if you don't even know what who the Author of Romans is you should educate yourself a bit more before pontificating on what it means.

[Charles]

"the Romans?"

Charles if you don't even know what who the Author of Romans is you should educate yourself a bit more before pontificating on what it means.

Wow... I already pointed to who wrote it. But anyway where I live it is quite usual to call the books by the name they have got in the Bible. Now, let's get back on topic. I am tired of you always attacking me on all other aspects than the subject matter.