I agree with your observation that there may be a thousand interpretations of the Bible. However, I do not accept your unspoken premises or the conclusions you draw from this phenomenon. I’m sure you know that not all opinions (on any subject) are equal. So why should the same not be true of the various interpretations of scripture?

It all comes down to the hermeneutic one uses. Using the old grammatical interpretation –, which we all generally use when we interpret literature or even oral communication — people will generally come to the same interpretation of a given written or spoken word. This is not to say that there is never confusion or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. For example, you correct judged that I had misunderstood your earlier post, and you gave me additional information so that I would better know where you are coming from. In my international travels and ministry I have seen this normal method of interpretation well work cross culturally. There are certainly many things in a culture that do not communicate well to another culture. However, it is amazing how much does, even deep abstract or philosophical concepts.

I also reject what I think is your assumption, that the thousands of Biblical interpretations means we can not know which, if any of them, are correct. To say this about any other piece of literature (a letter from you parents, for example), would be absurd. So why should we assume that the Bible is any less understandable? After all, the authors of scripture — like the writers of other literature — were attempting to communicate with their readers, not confuse them. Most of the time they wrote in plain prose, sometimes in poetry or some other literary genre. But when we make allowance for poetic, figurative or even apocalyptic language — as we do in our normal reading and talking — we can generally figure out what they were trying to say to their original readers.

While I understand postmodernism, I think that saying the intent of the author can never be discerned from a given text is to cast questions on our ability to communicate verbally with one another at all. If so then we are both wasting our time trying to communicate with each other in this exchange of posts.

I also think there is merit in what you say about religion, generally speaking. But I don’t see Biblical Christianity as a religion in the sense of a man made social construct. The main reason is that Christianity’s truth claims are not based on a body of passed down teaching, but on an historical event (the resurrection) which can be examined using tools such as the legal/historical method to either validate or discredit its claims. In this Christianity is unlike other religious or philosophical systems. Thus, I like the 19th century distinction between man made and revealed religion.

Moving on, let me explain the purpose of this particular series of posts (Christian Epistemology). I began (but did not complete) this series because of my conviction that the gospel confronts the world at an epistemological level and purposes another way of knowing truth which challenges the validity of the world’s epistemology. So I began, not with those things we know because people have taught them to us, but on those things that we know intuitively. Theologians call this “natural revelation,” and philosophers speak of the moral aspect of this intuitive knowledge as “natural law theory.” I am , but what do we know that no one taught us, what J. Budziszewski refers to as, “What we can’t not know.”

Let me spend a few sentences on your observations about religion, and why people turn to to. I agree with much you have said. For example, I appreciated your “fashion statement” observation. Very well said. I may use it myself sometime. It really creates a wonderful word picture that perfectly describes many peoples’ religious faith, including the faith of many peoples’ Christianity.

However, I think you have committed a logical fallacy. You stated what you see as the reasons many people turn to religion. I agree. But this does not prove that their religion is therefore invalid. To say this is to commit the Genetic Fallacy. The GF is a form of the Reductive fallacy. This fallacy is committed when a person claims that something is nothing more than its origins. Freud committed this fallacy in his argument — similar to yours — that religion merely is a crutch. This may be true. But it does not follow that a person’s need for a crutch means that crutches do not exist.

Finally, I appreciate you last paragraph. We share a common interest. I am fascinated with the human animal, and I would not be blogging were I not, like you, interested in other’s beliefs. Also, I am always seeking to expand my basis of knowledge. Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion.

Matt, there may very well be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the God concept. But I do not think the theory that it is a social construct fits the facts. What we believe about God or a particular god might be socially constructed. I think such particulars generally are. But the particulars seem to be nothing more than an attempt to given definition to a preexisting concept.

Finally, I’m troubled by your concept of God. The God I worship is a God who, “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” and who is so concerned that people no be punished with eternal hell-fire that he sent His son into the world to save them from it. As Jesus said, “God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” So I nothing of this god of yours.

In reading your description of God I am remined of the title of a very good book, “Your God is too Small.” Matt, the God of the Bible has many attributes other than love. It is one of these other attributes — His justice — that causes us to fear Him. This was what Thomas Jefferson was speaking of when he said, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”

Matt, were God as you describe Him — only a God of love — then no one would need to fear Him. But the creator and sustainer of the Universe is also just. The scriptures teach, and it is reasonable to assume, that our sense of justice — a sense of justice that you yourself appeal to in your post — is shared by the God who created us. So let me suggest that our fear of God comes from our own sense justice — and the guilt we feel because we know we fall short of it (I’m sure that even as one who rejects God you feel guilt from time to time). Thanks for your contribution.

Believe in God and He exists: Eternal life in Heaven
Believe in God and He does not: Rot in the ground

Do not believe in God and He exists: Hell for all time
Do not believe in God and He does not exist: Rot in the ground

The best you can attain with no belief is the worst you can get with faith, so again, its common sense to believe in God, along with all your fantastic observations of we as a people.

So thank you very much and if you happen to know the name of that concept I would be very happy if you could refresh my memory.

You may also wish to note 2 Scriptural arguments for the existence of God:

1 That knowledge of God is inborn in all humans:

‘ For the truth about God is known to them instinctively.God has put this knowledge in their hearts.’ Romans 1:19.

2 That nature itself is enough evidence of the existence of God:

‘ From the time the world was created,people have seen the earth and sky and all that God has made.They can clearly see the invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature.So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God’. Romans 1:20.

The Bible is the specific Christian revelation of God’s existence,will,plans and purposes.

Tunji

I would suggest starting with some of the articles on his website.

http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/Papersbyplantinga.html