Why Can't Christians Agree on Doctrine?

Michael Patton tries to answer this question here. My comment below his post offers a better explanation for why they disagree, and there's even more to it than what I said...

Michael, the real reason why other Christians don’t agree with you is because of the nature of a history itself along with the fact that God purportedly revealed himself in the ancient past. My argument is that if God did reveal himself, he chose a poor medium (history) and a poor era (the ancient past) to do so, and that makes an omniscient God look stupid (sorry).

We have a hard enough time understanding one another living in today’s world. We disagree about everything and we are constantly correcting misunderstandings about what we have said. So it stands to reason that this is compounded when we try to understand the literature of the ancient past. This is just obvious to me.

Of course, if God wanted to communicate more clearly and he could foresee that Southern slavery and witch hunts would result because he wasn’t clear, he could’ve said “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, trade or beat slaves of any kind,” and said it often enough that believers could not misunderstand. He could’ve done the same with witch hunts and avoided the Galileo debacle as well. Genesis 1 could’ve started out by stating more clearly the nature of creation too. [If you’d like, I could show you how an omniscient God could’ve communicated better, and I only have an IQ of 160, again, sorry].

What’s the alternative? For God to reveal himself today on the great issues that divide the church. How could he do this? Through miracles and the church’s recognition of a 14th Apostle “like unto Paul.” In the meantime the disunity of the church speaks against the existence of the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit who has not done his job down through the centuries, and therefore provides evidence the Christian faith is a delusion, again, sorry.

29 comments:

liniasmax said...

That was fun - I read and read and read all this "well maybe this" or "No, it's actually" this. Seemed like it went on for miles and miles and then "Boom!" yours hit like a ton of lead out of nowhere. Right after, someone named Aaron labeled you an apostate so everyone else can say "Oh - OK" and move one. He said that your weak, etc. arguments are basically worthless. Funny, those are the same kind of arguments that lead me away from the faith - and I was a strong Calvinist until I met up with all those "weak" arguments... Nice work!

liniasmax said...

Sorry for the mispells - I'm being summoned to put the girls to bed...

praskal said...

Love is the answer, but while you're waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty interesting questions.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting to me that the most reasonable suggestions for why there are doctrinal disagreements, mine, are not even entertained by Christians. The best alternative suggestion is that God wants doctrinal diversity, but that suggestion raises other problems: One) There's the problem of some Bible passages where God indicated he wanted unity so that the church would be more effective (especially John 17:21 and I Cor. 1:10); Two) Doctrinal disagreements have caused Christians to kill other Christians in the Inquisition and through war, so why would God desire doctrinal diversity, especially since it has maligned his good name among non-believers?

zilch said...

john- I'm not surprised that you find doctrinal diversity to be the "best alternative", but it shouldn't be surprising that Christians reject this. Tolerance of diverse viewpoints is a rational and liberal position; religions are weakened as unified movements from within and without (as you said) if they don't at least pay lip service to absolute truth.

Naturally, in practice, there are as many doctrines as there are believers: there is no way to decide, even if one wants unity, on exactly what constitutes doctrinally pure behavior. Of course, this is just as true for secular systems of morality. That's why it's important to recognize that absolute morals are a chimera, and the attempt to adhere to rigid systems is likely to be unpleasant.

bpr said...

John,
People have killed each other over much less than religion.

People die for the $10 in their wallets.

People die so that they can drink in excess everyday, or smoke too much.

People literally die for Big Macs.

People die because others can't pay attention to the road.

I agree, there is a lot of human stupidity out there. Blame the stupid people, you know they are there.

I think God already established slavery as a bad idea when He said to love your neighbor as yourself. When the man wanted to know who his neighbor was, we got this great little parable about a foreigner stopping to help.

If a person can't tell from the story of the good Samaritan and the command of Jesus to love others as much as you love yourself, then it wouldn't matter if He appeared in a person's house and told them slavery was bad. They would not listen. He already said it in the Bible. How much clearer can you be without just creating a long list of rules (or do you think that would be a better god)?

People can use the Bible to defend bad things, in the same way I can use the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf to argue for good things.

When stupid people are involved, you could use a brick to defend your point of view, and they will believe you.

When instead you use the Bible to shape your life, as opposed to shaping the Bible to fit your opinions, you get a much different picture. Unfortunately there are many more who see the Bible as a lifestyle-justificator than a plan for living.

If you ever meet someone who is using the scriptures as their model for life, I think you would see the difference (even if you do think they are naive).

Anonymous said...

bpr, are you really suggesting the ignorant hypothesis that if God had communicated as I suggested that it would result in no more or less slavery, witch hunts or killings?

I said, if God wanted to communicate more clearly and he could foresee that Southern slavery and witch hunts would result because he wasn’t clear, he could’ve said “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, trade or beat slaves of any kind,” and said it often enough that believers could not misunderstand.

Surely if God had done that there would be a whole lot less killing, and even if it saved just one person's life then what are you objecting to?

Ben said...

If a person can't tell from the story of the good Samaritan and the command of Jesus to love others as much as you love yourself, then it wouldn't matter if He appeared in a person's house and told them slavery was bad. They would not listen. He already said it in the Bible. How much clearer can you be without just creating a long list of rules (or do you think that would be a better god)?

Couldn't disagree more. I am a staunch atheist, but if God actually appeared before me, in my house, and told me slavery was bad, do you think I would "not listen"?

Jason said...

God 'communicated', clearly, that Lucifer is the king of Babylon. Man changed Lucifer into Satan. God clearly communicates the old law is null and void. Atheists have changed the old law into one that's still applicable to Christians today. You're pointing the finger in the wrong direction, John. :) It's not God's fault there are disagreements in doctrine, it's man's.

bpr said...

I think it is very telling that in your response you try to belittle those who disagree with you.

If you thought that your points were valid enough to stand for themselves, you would not have to call others stupid.

Anonymous said...

bpr, I have gone over this argument so many times before that it just seems obvious to me, that's all. But I'm sorry.

What's your response?

bpr said...

I guess I got away from my point. People who live like the Bible is the actual word of God, and make it the point, will live in the way that you wish people lived. Those who think that it is God's word and live accordingly don't go around doing all of this crazy stuff that you and I agree are bad things (slavery, murder, etc.)

It is when people have an agenda ("I like slavery") and use the Bible to back it up that you run into problems.

I have no qualm with your argument that people use the Bible to back up horrendous acts.

I hope you agree with me that a person who lives like Bible suggests would in fact be living a very good life for the most part.

Could God prevent human suffering? Sure. I don't personally believe that the goal and purpose of mankind is to prolong life. If you think that the purpose of life is to prolong life, then I can see where God failing to live up to your expectations would be a problem.

But I think you will find it hard to back up the idea that God's purpose for man is to increase the quality and duration of life, at least using scripture.

So unless you are suggesting that God wants us to suffer little and live long, there is actually no Biblical contradiction.

If God's purpose was for us to live happy, utopian lives on earth, I would agree with you that the Bible is a poor guide.

As it is, your only problem to me seems to be that more people don't live what they believe. I agree, that is a problem.

akakiwibear said...

My argument is that if God did reveal himself, he chose a poor medium (history) and a poor era (the ancient past) to do so . and If you’d like, I could show you how an omniscient God could’ve communicated better, and I only have an IQ of 160, again,sorry.

An interesting proposition, but scarcely defendable even with your whole 160 IQ points firing full on.

Your argument presupposes that you have all knowledge, i.e. are yourself omniscient, in that you could know all possible options and all possible outcomes into the far future and are then able select the best option on the supposition that you actually know the exact purpose to be achieved by the revelation, rather than the objectives you ascribe to it.


Sala kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

Of course, if God wanted to communicate more clearly and he could foresee that Southern slavery and witch hunts would result because he wasn’t clear, he could’ve said “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, trade or beat slaves of any kind,” and said it often enough that believers could not misunderstand.

I guess some people could find the message Christ’s A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. ambiguous or they exercised their freewill and ignored it.

Sala kahle - peace

JP said...

For me, it was a frustrating read over there in the comment section.


Not one person even attempted to entertain your assertions except with "God may purposly do this to test our hearts".....What, exactly does that mean, is god playing games with us? Your points are well spoken John and the counter arguments are quite lacking probably because....well, there are non.

It was critical thinking that pulled me away from the faith I embraced for so many years. Lack of clarity did play its part in my departure. The only reason I stayed in the christian faith for so long was, because A) I wanted it to be true and B) I had to ignore my own head when I began to critically think through issues as such. "Shut up and just trust" is what I always told myself.

Thanks for the good work you do here!

David M. Jarrett said...

Of course you like your own suggestions! Duh!

I find it interesting that christians seem to disagree, but all atheists completely agree on everything.

Pick up the sarcasm.

David M. Jarrett said...

BTW, i bet some athiests have owned slaves.

And if God had said what you suggested, you wouldn't listen, because you don't believe in God.

Sure, people who try to follow God have done bad things, and those who do bad things have tried to use God as an excuse, but . . .

Those who don't want to follow the teachings of the bible, and live the way it suggests, use non-belief as an excuse to do whatever they think "feels" right, or good.

How is that for a sweeping generalization?

Michael said...

This is also a reason why I am mostly an agnostic/uber liberal Christian. This is not he only reason I doubt. There are also a multitude of other problems that I have with Christianity.

akakiwibear said...

A quick response to this nonsense about slavery - I don't have time for a really careful and through post, so go with the flow not the detail.

The slavery argument seems rather fashionable here on DC. Christ’s failure to absolutely condemn slavery is blamed in part for slavery in the USA and the slave trade of the late 1700’s into the 1800's. At least it seems to be some reason for discrediting Christianity.

This view seems to miss a few important points regarding the sequence of events.

1) Slavery was deeply integrated into life at the time. Christ’s teaching at the time was in regard to the treatment of slaves. In a world without what we now value (democracy, equal opportunity employment – those where yet to be brought about by God) the humanitarian treatment of individuals was as radical a teaching as society could absorb at the time (has it really been taken to heart even today?) – so the message seems spot on for its time.

2) The abolition of slavery was on God’s agenda and was brought about men such as William Wilberforce. The slavery debate in Britain in the late 1700 – 1800 can be characterised as a conflict between Christians and atheists.

The abolition movement was started around 1770 by Quakers who remained the driving force behind the movement through to parliament passing Wilberforce’s bill in 1833. For once Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Abolitionism ) provides a fairly good, if popularist overview of the abolitionist movement.

Wilberforce was of course an ardent Christian who under God’s inspiration (a conversion experience in 1785) chose between becoming a preacher or fighting against slavery. a fair bio of Wilber force on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/William_Wilberforce

Who were the opponents to the abolition – those who placed wealth ahead of humanity, i.e. those who ignored Christ’s message of love and respect for others – were they all “out of the closet” atheists like Napoleon or simply atheists by default? Certainly there were those rushing to find obscure interpretations of scripture to support slavery – and yes the bible literalists had a field day on both sides.

Among the leaders of the abolition movement there is a common claim of divine revelation or inspiration.

The history of abolition in France is even more interesting from a a/theist perspective. Originally abolished around 1790 through the leading efforts of men like Toussaint Louverture (a fervent Catholic) and J P Brissot (strongly influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s theology with a Calvinist base note he reconverted around 1774 if my memory serves me correctly).
... But along came notable atheist Napoleon who reintroduced slavery in 1802.

I won’t go into the detail of abolition around the world and while there are some exceptions the general rule is that theists inspired by God opposed slavery and atheists or indifferent/nominal religious supported slavery.

The struggle against slavery in the USA is likewise led by true men of God like William Lloyd Garrison (devout Baptist) read “All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery” by Henry Mayer.

Also an interesting read is the book “Islam and the Abolition of Slavery” by William Gervase Clarence-Smith which highlights the role of Sayyid Ahmad Khan a devote scholar in opposing slavery in the face of commercial interests (i.e. atheists at heart).

Does my argument "prove" God - no it simply demonstrates that the argument of slavery is yet another weak and distorted atheist rationalisation to support the delusion that there is no God.

Sala kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

For a quick read on the views of the world's largest Christian denomination (and one I don't always agree with) on the bible not being literal or inerrant try this article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk
/tol/news/world
/europe/article574768.ece


or the full text on:
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk
/nav/giftofscripture.htm

akakiwibear said...

oops .. sorry - I put the last comment in the wrong thread

James said...

Re: Doctrinal Diversity

I have to say, if there's a reason for me having become an atheist, it is precisely because of this issue.

It mattered, to some of us, when we say "we really believe" something, and then, when you look at the people around you, you see something worse than "little evidence".

To give this a little depth, I'll introduce an example: middle of the road "liberal" churches having trouble with the issue of homosexuality. I found myself in the middle of one of those battles, banging on my Bible with the best of them. And sometime after, upon reflection, I saw that there was no difference between "my side" and "their side" - and in fact, before the debates we'd almost always prayed - Earnestly - for the spirit of god to bring wisdom, etc.

So - this past summer, I had the "pleasure" of noting that a certain church in my country had come to grips with this issue again - ten years later - and had AGAIN voted down the homosexual lobby, but this time, by a very narrow margin, in the highest of the high when it comes to "church wisdom" and I thought - Ah! Just a little longer, now, until the pension's ripe. No need for those poor dress-wearing old men to worry about the last remaining years of service, should the church suddenly schism from having delayed a resolution for this issue for decades! We'll just put it off a little while longer, a little precautionary principle never hurt no one.

Here's another interesting "admission" from on high - a recent past head of the church of england made some pretty good book sales on a text delivering the Ominous and Dire Warning that "the church is only a generation away from extinction". That certainly speaks for god's ability to plan ahead. He ought to find a new financial manager.

David M. Jarrett said...

I don't know the book you are referring to, but it's because people abandon faith because they don't have the strength to see past their own doubts and weaknesses.

Rich said...

John,
"I said, if God wanted to communicate more clearly and he could foresee that Southern slavery and witch hunts would result because he wasn’t clear, he could’ve said “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, trade or beat slaves of any kind,” and said it often enough that believers could not misunderstand.

Surely if God had done that there would be a whole lot less killing, and even if it saved just one person's life then what are you objecting to?"

I can't really agree hear because there are things that are clearly stated and still aren't followed. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and so forth. If the 11th commandment was your slavery commandment, why would it be followed any better than the rest? It just doesn't hold up that there would have been less killing, as you say, if God had clearly stated that about slavery. There should already be less killing with thou shalt not kill, less theft with thou shalt not steal, but yet it still happens even though the bible was crystal clear about them.

Anonymous said...

I can't really agree hear because there are things that are clearly stated and still aren't followed. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and so forth.

There is a big difference between what Christians do and what they will publicly support. No Christian will argue that as a matter of public policy they should lie, rape, kill, or steal. That's a huge difference, because the Southern church made it a public policy that slavery was justified. Even if some slave holders might still try to kidnap and enslave black people, the church would've denounced it, which is what they do with those who murder, rape, and steal. And in the case of slavery it probably wouldn't have existed much at all in the South, and slaveholders would've been prosecuted under the law.

Rich said...

"There is a big difference between what Christians do and what they will publicly support."

Agreed, and maybe I was misunderstanding you, but I was trying to make the point that simply stating something clearly doesn't guarantee it will be followed.

James said...

"I don't know the book you are referring to, but it's because people abandon faith because they don't have the strength to see past their own doubts and weaknesses."

You're Right - you don't know the book, OR what he said. He was encouraging the CoE to embrace its YOUTH, else they'd die in a generation.

and Ha! isn't it funny that you suggest it's the PEOPLE'S fault, not the Questionable Efficacy of the Gospel!

Steven Carr said...

How does Michael Patton know his answers are correct, when he knows that many Christians are wrong about doctrine?

Brother D said...

I'll tell you why, because there are many different "christs" in the world. When I listen to the wolves on so called christian TV channels it is plain to see that they don't worship the same Jesus I do. Different "christs" naturally lead to different "christians." Sorry to tell you, it profits you nothing to paint everyone calling themself "christian" with the same brush.