Preface
(Note: this document is a work in progress, it has not been edited for typos and some of the claims still need to be further fleshed out with supporting details and sources)
Introduction
If the Bible truly is the inspired word of God, I would like to know. I want to seek and find the truth. In my effort to conclude that the Bible is the inspired word of God, I have found nine reasons common people and scholars tend to give for how we can know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I have evaluated these reasons and identified why I cannot accept them.
We will be going through each of these reasons given for why the Bible must be the inspired word of God and I will be identifying what blocks me from being able to agree. I hope anyone who holds the position that the Bible is God’s inspired word would help me overcome these obstacles or provide new arguments so that I might come closer to the truth.
I also hope that anyone who cannot overcome these roadblocks, or provide a new argument for why the Bible must be the inspired word of God, would consider adopting my position of uncertainty and heed how I have learned to exist within it as detailed after the evaluation of these arguments.
Here are the arguments I have found:
One must believe the Bible is God’s inspired word on grounds of faith.
Those who read the Bible in a genuine effort to seek and understand the truths of God testify to encountering God through its pages and testify to being transformed for the betterment of their lives. Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.
The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God therefore it is.
The Bible is correct about the historical details of its time, proving correct, by extension, its claims about God’s work throughout the story of humanity. Therefore it is the inspired word of God.
Christianity is the most popular ancient religion. Therefore it is most likely that Christianity is the one true religion and thus, by extension, the Bible is the inspired word of God.
One-fourth of the Bible is prophetic and two-thirds of its prophecies have come to pass, therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.
If the wills of men inspired the Bible then it would cater to the desires of men, therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.
The stories of the Bible are ethically superior to the religious texts of other religions of that day and age. Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.
The Bible is the most well-preserved ancient document and its contents are without contradiction. Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.
“One must believe the Bible is God’s inspired word on grounds of faith.”
When it comes to many central Christian beliefs, it would seem to me that one is expected to ground beliefs in a foundation of faith. This is often an “accept claims as absolute first, seek explanations second” sort of approach which is expected of a person who is considering Christianity in their search for God.
It is from a foundation of acceptance without proof that one is then expected to build on additional reasoning. In the instance of the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, those other arguments are usually those we will address in this document.
However, this is a misuse of the concept of the biblical concept of faith.
A comprehensive word study on “faith” as it is used throughout the Bible yields the following result in accordance with HELPS Word-studies (an authoritative resource for interpreting and understanding the Bible):
“4102 pístis (from 3982/peithô, "persuade, be persuaded") – properly, persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust); faith.
Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, 4102/pistis ("faith") for the believer is "God's divine persuasion" – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it.”
As you can see, faith is two things. It is both the act of God divinely revealing something to someone and the status of having been divinely persuaded.
This makes the argument for beliefs on grounds of faith practically identical to the next reason on the list.
“Those who read the Bible in a genuine effort to seek and understand the truths of God testify to encountering God through its pages and testify to being transformed for the betterment of their lives. Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
In other words, people testify to the process of being divinely persuaded to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God through divine encounters and divine transformation; i.e. the biblical concept of gifts of faith.
I am not going to invalidate the testimonies of those who testify to encountering a higher power and to being transformed for the betterment of their lives. However, while I will not call into question the claims that these people experienced supernatural encounters and transformation, I will call into question the conclusions people arrive at after these experiences as there are factors I feel are not being taken into account. Factors that, when taken into account, function as roadblocks for me to agree with the conclusions people posit based on their experiences.
These claims fail to account for the fallibility of human discernment, feelings, perception, senses, and minds. Not to mention the possibility that there are other higher powers apart from God who are at work in the world attempting to deceive or otherwise exert control over humans; a possibility which the Bible posits as a reality (1 Timothy 4:1, Matthew 24:24, Genesis 3).
Such beings would not be so successful in their goals, as the Christian worldview suggests, if they were incompetent in their ability to manipulate human fallibility to convince us they are God.
How are we to conclude that the Bible is not the product of potential deceivers? We must attempt to answer this question in our effort to prove the Bible is the inspired word of God.
To its credit, this argument, along with others we will address, can be interpreted in a manner that attempts to answer this question.
Namely, the fact that the encounters with the being claiming to be God through the use of the Bible are positive and the transformations people undergo are life-bringing; often freeing people from oppressive forces like an addiction. This valid reality is posited along the assumption that positive spiritual encounters are encounters with God and the assumption that only God would help people better themselves.
Here is the problem, no human would seek to serve these false gods if they did nothing good for us before and after committing ourselves to serve them. Indeed many testify to the benevolence of other beings claiming to be God. Claims to have found peace, fulfillment, life, and freedom from addiction.
Many people claim to have this feeling that just lets them know they are encountering God, or that something is from God, or some moment was a “God moment”. The problem is that this too is not unique to any one religion. We have no idea how many beings might be able to induce that sort of feeling in humans and we have the evidence of many testimonies to suggest many can; just talk to anyone in another religion.
Put simply, a positive supernatural encounter is not automatically an encounter with God as it could be another spiritual power using goodness as a manipulative tool.
How can goodness be used as a tool for malicious manipulation?
One example may be a being intent on preventing people from helping those who are in need; severing compassion. One way this being could achieve its goal is by giving people so much happiness and peace that they fear risking it in the effort to help others who are in need.
Another way this being may try to accomplish this would be by making people misattribute their happiness and peace to something superficial, making them blind to systems of privilege and oppression which may have just as much if not more of an effect on people’s feelings of peace and happiness.
Not to mention all of the ways cult leaders, groomers use, “nice guys”, abusive loved ones, and religions use goodness to place others in positions of debt (“look at everything I’ve done for you. You owe me.”, “I sacrificed so much for you. You were bought and paid for.”, “How could you be so ungrateful for all of the kindness I’ve shown you.”). Christians even tend to use the sacrifice of Jesus in this manipulative manner.
Therefore these sorts of testimonies suggest three possibilities. Either they are truly indicative of God being at work through the Bible, or they are indicative of other higher powers using the Bible to exercise power and control over humans, or they speak more to the way a human’s quality of life sees improvement whenever they have something to place hope in and a community to find belonging within.
Hopefully you can see why I cannot simply accept these sorts of conclusions people draw from their experiences as being true. Again, to be clear, they are valid in their experiences. It is the conclusions we are calling into question. There are too many possible explanations and I cannot narrow things down given the information I have.
“The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God therefore it is”
This, surprisingly common, reason proves my point regarding the way one is often expected to accept a claim first and understand it later. The only reason someone might think this “proof” is valid would be if they have already chosen to accept the text which is making the claim as the inspired word of God.
Otherwise, the precedent for a text to be the word of God would simply be for it to claim to be the word of God. This is problematic because there are many texts which claim to be the word of God.
Then there is the matter of whether or not the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. Not only does it not make such a claim, but it also cannot make such a claim given the fact that the Bible, as the particular compilation of documents that it is today, did not exist in its present form at the time any of the documents were written; the Bible consists of documents which were picked from other collections of semi-related documents to create a particular theological narrative (this reality also undermines another reason people give as “proof” that the Bible is God’s inspired word. Namely the fact that the Bible shows some semblance of unity. Of course, there is a degree of unity, these documents were chosen and compiled together to create a particular theological narrative; the documents were not compiled together at random. Compiling documents in a unifying manner is far from a feat only God can achieve).
Certainly, the Bible claims to contain the words of God every time it says “God said”, “Thus declares the Lord”, and so on. Though this is different from saying, “Whatever compilation of documents this document is included in is the word of God”.
Then there is the matter of Paul’s writings in 2 Timothy 3: 16-17.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
Around this passage, there is much disagreement regarding what exactly qualifies as “scripture” concerning what Paul may have been referring to. The lack of clarity which results in so much disagreement renders these words nearly pointless. We cannot even know if this passage is referring to itself, and if this passage isn’t “God-breathed” then does it hold any weight?
If you interpret this passage in a particular way, one may be able to argue that the Bible claims to be wholistically God-breathed, but then you get into the arguments surrounding what books should truly be considered scripture. At no point has God explicitly provided us with a clear list of documents that should be considered God-inspired. We have been left to figure it out using flawed human discretion, often resulting in much disagreement.
The only other claim the Bible makes regarding what is the “Word of God” is in John 1:1,14 where it claims that Jesus is the Word of God. Beyond all of that, the notion that the Bible claims to be the Word of God is not clear at best and is a wishful human assumption at worst.
Hopefully, you can see why I cannot accept this argument given that it sets a bad precedent and is unclear on top of that.
“Christianity is the most popular ancient religion. Therefore it is most likely that Christianity is the one true religion and thus, by extension, the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
Not only is it fallacious to suggest that popularity makes something true, more likely to be true maybe, but not true as a matter of fact, this argument is also in tension with the following Biblical claims:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)
This would suggest that either Christianity is not the narrow gate it claims to be, the gate that leads to life has grown to be the widest gate over time, or we also have the task of sorting through tens of thousands of Christian denominations on top of the already four thousand non-christian religions, never mind whatever denominations those other religions might have. Given that we cannot know how the application of this passage might have changed over time, this argument is rendered unhelpful in our efforts to establish the Bible as a God-inspired document.
Hopefully, the fallacious nature of this argument is enough for you to see why I cannot get behind it. Then there is the confusion with Matthew 7: 13-14 to go on top.
“One-fourth of the Bible is prophetic and two-thirds of its prophecies have come to pass, therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God”
Let us first speak to the ways this statement is problematic even if we assume that the Bible contains fulfilled prophecies that are clear, which are not chronologically problematic, and which are detailed enough not to be fulfilled coincidentally.
We should also probably distinguish between prophecies and promises. If a being says “in four years on this day at this time I am going to do this specific thing” this is not a prophecy, this is just a being claiming they are going to do something and then doing it. There is no need for supernatural insights into the future to make such a promise. Also, if a being says “in four years on this day at this time this specific thing will happen.” it may look a lot like a prophecy, but if this being has the power to force this thing to happen regardless of what the future holds, this would also not require supernatural insights into the future to make such a claim.
This second sort of fake prophecy is especially problematic given that it would be almost impossible to distinguish it from legitimate prophecy. These two categories already encapsulate and undermine most biblical “prophecy”, but for the sake of giving the Bible the best chance, and to address any outlying prophecies, let us pretend that this too is not an issue that can be applied to the prophecies of the Bible.
Given this situation, the information we know is that we possess a book written by authors among whom some had insights into the future. Any additional explanatory information from this point is hypothetical until proven by other means.
The Christian explanation for this phenomenon is that there is a being outside of our plane of time for whom our past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. Since only God can exist outside of our plane of time, this is a clear indication of God’s direct involvement with the creation of the Bible.
This explanation is problematic because it depends upon the assumption that only God can exist outside of our plane of time; which is a claim without supporting evidence. We, humans, are an example of why this assumption is flawed because we are beings who exist outside of other planes of time which exist within our plane of time; specifically digital planes of time.
Right now I could open up a video game that permits me to move freely through the plane of time that game operates upon.
I can go into the future and then travel back in time to give prophecy. I can even make changes to the past to influence future outcomes which I can observe in real-time. I am outside of the plane of time of the world of the video game.
If it is a game I have made I could even have complete power over every aspect of the world of the game. I can change and break the physics engine, I can do things within the world that nothing else within that world is capable of doing.
Yet this reality does not make me a perfect being. I still have a limited scope on ethical issues, what I think of as good might not be right for everybody, I still have my character flaws, I still make mistakes, and I am by no means the only being who exists outside of the game world with the potential to exert power over it.
Given this demonstrable way that a being can exist concerning another plane of time that they are outside of, there could very easily be beings, not unlike us, who exist outside of our plane of time with this same sort of relationship to our plane of time as we have with some video game worlds that exist within our plane of time.
So even given the best shot, prophecies cannot be brandished to prove the influence of a perfect God.
Then there is the reality of how none of the prophecies in the Bible are simultaneously clear (not so vague or cryptic as to stir up disagreement regarding whether or not they have come to pass), not chronologically problematic (having been recorded after the prophesied events but written to appear at though the prophecy came before the event), and detailed enough not to be fulfilled coincidentally (specific dates, times, people, places, things, and events). In addition to the ways such prophecies may not require future insights to make if you have the power to make them come true regardless of future events, on top of not being something, someone like myself could do if I had the sort of relationship to this plane of time that I do to the planes of time I can create as a video game developer.
Hopefully you can see why I cannot accept this reason as valid. There are again too many possible explanations for prophecy and I cannot narrow things down given the information I have. Alongside the other issues undermining many biblical prophecies.
“If the wills of men inspired the Bible then it would cater to the desires of men which it does not, therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
As we did with the argument from prophecy, let us first speak of the ways this argument is problematic even if the Bible doesn’t cater to the desires of men.
The demonization of carnal desires and human nature are widespread elements of many religions and most if not all cults. The demonization of human desires is often used as a tool to make people dependent on religious leaders and the teachings of claimed holy scriptures as a guide for life and morality over any carnal instinct.
Demonizing human desires, as a means of controlling people, often spills over into moral judgment to make a person question feelings of discomfort when a religious leader may ask them to do something that feels morally wrong. This manifests in the marginalization of certain demographics of people, the turning of a blind eye to sexual abuse, the enforcement of rigid gender roles, and the upholding of certain power structures like the patriarchy or power structures of racial supremacy.
Then there is the reality of how the Bible caters to the desires of men by not cracking down on/tolerating for a time, things Christians believe are in opposition to God’s original design such as slavery, war, and polygamy. It is not like God was unwilling to crack down on people who were living lives that were sinful by His standards (Numbers 16:20-35, Acts 5:1-10, Genesis 6: 1-8, Genesis 19).
We are left with the reality that the Bible has tolerated and so catered to the desires of humans. Granted, there are some possible explanations for this.
It may be that God’s tolerance was a way to meet humanity where they were so as to improve us incrementally. The trouble is that this explanation could also be used to explain away the way man-made religions might cater to the desires of men. Therefore this argument cannot be used to prove Christianity is not a man-made religion neither in whole nor in part.
Hopefully, you can see why I am not compelled by this reason given that controlling human behavior in opposition to their desires is common practice in many contexts where one human wants to exert control over others. Additionally, there is the matter of the being, believed to be the Christian conception of God, tolerating some violations against their laws when they are more than willing to punish others.
“The stories of the Bible are ethically superior to the religious texts of other religions of that day and age. Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
"God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5)
People who stand by this claim most often point to two examples; the creation story and the penal substitution of Jesus.
Let's start with the creation story. The claim is that the creation stories in the Bible stand out from other creation stories of the time as being particularly non-violent; it is creation for creation’s sake as opposed to creation as the byproduct or for the purposes of violence. So far as I have looked into this claim (which is not much), it seems legit.
Then there is the “unified story pointing to the penal substitution of Jesus Christ”.
While there are a lot of details I could get into on this claim, which can tend to vary from denomination to denomination (even the penal substitution is a point of contest), for this point I will just say that the narrative leading to, through, and after Jesus is often upheld, by those who favor it, as an example of God’s selfless love for an undeserving creation; saving humanity from the destruction they have brought upon themselves.
The thing about these claims is that, without even contesting the claims, they are inherently disqualified as metrics given that they fly in contradiction with the theological doctrine of most Christian denominations.
To demonstrate this let's consider that the Bible conveys a God who regularly violates the free will choices of individuals to deliver particular people, who are supposedly not favored above anyone else, out of dangerous situations. Examples include:
God splitting a sea to undermine Pharaoh’s free will choice to kill the Israelites (Exodus 14)
God undermining Paul’s free will to kill the Christians (Acts 8:1-9:18)
God turning a king’s mind feral to make the King submissive to Him (Daniel 4:25-35)
and the list could go on.
Yet God does nothing to deliver many other people, especially children, from needless death, out of danger, out of harm, or out of captivity. The selective way God delivers individuals would appear to tarnish God’s consistency and character. The response to this tends to be an assertion that God is inherently good by nature and His ways are higher than our ways, therefore no matter what God does or does not do, one should assume God has good reason for it even if it does not seem to stack up to human standards of ethics.
I want to emphasize this theological point, “...no matter what God does or does not do, one should assume God has good reason for it even if it does not seem to stack up to human standards of ethics.”
This point alone disqualifies any attempt to distinguish Christianity from other religions on grounds of ethical superiority. If God’s actions or lack thereof can appear to be wicked by our human standards, then we are ill-equipped to use our sense of ethics to distinguish God from a false god. We cannot even lean upon a God-given standard of ethics to make such distinctions because we would first need to verify if the being giving us the standards of ethics is God to know that the standards are God-given.
Hopefully, you can see how Christianity itself disqualifies using this argument as a metric in distinguishing the being climbing to be God in the Bible from other beings claiming to be God. Thus I cannot justify the use of such an argument in my efforts to evaluate the claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
“The Bible is correct about the historical details of its time, proving correct, by extension, its claims about God’s work throughout the story of humanity. therefore it is the inspired word of God.”
The earliest record of written literature “The Epic of Beowulf” is a work of historical fiction.
Historical fiction is a genre of literature that takes a fictional story and injects it into a historically accurate setting oftentimes using real historical events and or people as characters doing and saying fictional things as a part of the fictional narrative. This genre of literature predates the Bible’s earliest manuscripts.
Therefore, historical accuracy means very little concerning the truth and trustworthiness of a text's claims beyond whatever details can be proven to be historically accurate by other means. It does nothing to prove if certain people said or did many of the things they are claimed to have said and done even if these people can be proven to have existed in history.
Additionally, historical accuracy does not prove the bible’s claims about God’s involvement with humanity.
An argument can be made that the historical accuracy, especially with regards to details that had been forgotten over time only to be later proven true, shows that the Bible is indeed an ancient text and not a modern fabrication. Considering the possibility that the Bible contains historical fiction about events it claims were recent to the time it was written, it may seem reasonable to believe that the people of the time would have known the Bible to be fictional and so would not have revered it as much.
This would seem a strike against the possibility of historical fiction if it were not for the other religions which, by the Christian narrative, would have managed to achieve the very thing this argument aims to paint as unlikely. To elaborate, if the Christian narrative is true then all other religious narratives of the time are false; their holy books are works of historical fiction that were somehow accepted by whole societies of people.
This would make the success of historical fiction taking the place of a society’s actual history a rather common thing.
However, another possibility would be if there were actual merit to the other religions insinuating that there are other higher powers apart from God which are at work in the world attempting to deceive or otherwise exert control over humans.
Albeit these other higher powers could be lesser than the being claiming to be the Christian conception of God, or possibly equal to the being claiming to be the Christian conception of God, or perhaps even greater than the being claiming to be the Christian conception of God. We have no way of knowing. There are biblical passages that claim to show the being claiming to be the Christian conception of God as triumphing over other Gods, but if the being claiming to be the Christian conception of God were masquerading as the other god or in cahoots with them, it would be easy to fake something like this. Like a company that owns two other companies which are “competitors”. So even if these stories are true to the experience of the authors, we still cannot know what was really happening.
This leads us back to the matter of identifying a metric useful for distinguishing the true religion from the others if there is even such a thing as “the true religion”.
Hopefully, you can see why I cannot accept this reason given the existence of historical fiction and the way it either commonly replaced the history of societies or the possibility that there are many spiritual forces at work trying to pass themselves off as God. Additionally, given everything I have mentioned in this document up to this point, hopefully, you can see why I believe I, or any human for that matter, lack a means of distinguishing God, who may or may not be among the beings claiming to be Him, from the other beings claiming to be Him.
“The Bible is the most well-preserved ancient document and its contents are without contradiction. Therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
Given that we do not possess the earliest documents of the Bible, the claim that the Bible is the most well-preserved ancient historical document is rendered groundless given that we cannot know the degree to which the Bible is preserved between the original documents and the earliest documents we have in our possession.
Additionally, the question must be asked, by what standards of preservation must a document meet to be proven divine in nature?
Is the Bible perfectly preserved? Given the discoveries we have made regarding significant differences between modern copies of the Bible and the earliest copies which have been discovered, no, the Bible is not perfectly preserved.
Is the Bible the earliest written religious document that we have in our records? No, there are at least one hundred documents that predate the Bible’s oldest manuscripts on record.
As for whether or not the Bible contains contradictions:
Q: Has anyone seen the face of God?
A: Yes “… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Genesis 32:30
A: No “No man hath seen God at any time…” John 1:18
Q: Are all things possible with God?
A: Yes “… with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26
A: No “…The LORD was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Judges 1:19
Q: Are sons to bear the iniquity of their fathers?
A: Yes “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” Exodus 20:5
A: No “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” Ezekiel 18:20
These are only three examples of hundreds. Whether or not these contradictions are substantial is rather subjective. Regardless, the claim that the Bible is without contradiction as proof of its being the word of God, is undermined.
Let’s take things a step further and assume all of the hundreds of contradictions can be resolved if you are willing and able to put in the effort to resolve them. No one has the life span needed to parse through every seemingly apparent contradiction in every claimed holy text in the effort to use lack of contradiction as a means of proving a text is from God. Therefore the mere fact that the Bible may require so much effort to know it might not be contradicting itself is a strike against it.
On top of all of this, who is to say freedom from contradiction is equivalent to a text being God’s inspired word? More likely perhaps, but not only might such a feat be possible for humans, but who knows what deceptive spiritual power might also be capable of inspiring such a document.
Hopefully, I have made it clear why I cannot accept this argument as proof of why the Bible is the inspired word of God. Not only does historical accuracy not equate to God-inspired, but neither does freedom from contradiction. In addition, the reality that the Bible is not free from contradiction.
To the Credit of Christianity
If I have done well defining the roadblocks which I have encountered, it should be clear why I am so uncertain. Perhaps you are as uncertain as I am. Or perhaps you are still quite certain, in which case I hope you can help me clear a way to your position of certainty.
Until then, I have come to terms with the reality of my uncertainty and I have made peace with it in the following ways. If you are as uncertain as I am, or even if you are still certain, I invite you to consider the possibility that certainty may not be for everyone. It may be that there is an equally valid way to navigate this life even if one must walk atop uncertain waters.
If you are intent on helping me clear my roadblocks, or find another route to the conclusion, I insist you read on as well. What follows will provide you with further insights into what you may need to help me overcome.
Most Christians operate under the belief that Christianity calls them to employ the “belief first, explanation second” mindset whether we are calling it faith or not.
This makes sense given the following passage and others like it:
“Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” (John 20: 29)
They then go from here and operate upon another misconstruction of the word “believe” taking it to mean that they must proclaim to have absolute knowledge of things they simply cannot know for certain. This sort of proclamation is highly problematic as it promotes a great lack of intellectual integrity.
To the credit of the Bible, this mentality, of proclaiming absolute knowledge where one lacks it, seems to be a misconstruction of the Biblical concept of belief.
A comprehensive word study on “belief” as it is used throughout the Bible yields the following result in accordance with Strong's Concordance (another authority on biblical interpretation) and HELPS Word-Studies:
Strong’s
“pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Definition: to believe, entrust
Usage: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.”
HELPS
“4100 pisteúō (from 4102 /pístis, "faith," derived from 3982 /peíthō, "persuade, be persuaded") – believe (affirm, have confidence); used of persuading oneself (= human believing) and with the sacred significance of being persuaded by the Lord (= faith-believing). Only the context indicates whether 4100 /pisteúō ("believe") is self-serving (without sacred meaning), or the believing that leads to/proceeds from God's inbirthing of faith.”
As you can see, belief has nothing to do with absolute knowledge. It has everything to do with placing trust/confidence in something or someone.
It should be noted that there is no biblical instance wherein we are called to believe/trust blindly. I know that the passage quoted earlier would suggest otherwise when considered on its own. However, the person whom Jesus is speaking to in that instance had supposedly already born witness to Jesus’s power, even Jesus’s power over death. In this instance, it could be argued that Jesus is calling Thomas not to simply believe for belief’s sake, but to instead remember what he had seen and lean upon those experiences as good reasons to trust Jesus even in times when he has yet to see.
It should also be noted that biblically speaking, a gift of faith does not guarantee one will believe such as when Zachariah did not believe God’s messenger (Luke 1:18-19).
Additionally, some biblical scholars believe there are biblical examples of gifts of faith which suggest that one is not always meant to believe in a gift of faith. Sometimes a gift of faith will be at odds with the character of God that one has come to expect, this gift is meant as a test to foster awareness of our fallibility in identifying what is and what is not from God. Against these, we are meant to push back such as when Abraham Intercedes for Sodom (Genesis 18) and Moses Intercedes for Israel (Exodus 32: 30-33).
It is my personal interpretation that the big difference between Zachariah being punished and Abraham and Moses being condoned is the difference between Zachariah doubting the truthfulness of the being he believed to be God versus Abraham and Moses being unsure if they were dealing with their God or an imposter (the difference between questioning God and questioning your own ability to distinguish God from a deceiver).
On top of all of that, at the time Jesus entered into the world most people had received the gift of faith which was the Torah, they trusted it, and using it they formed expectations about God and the Messiah. These expectations were off base to such a degree that when Jesus, the one Christians believe is the Messiah, was finally present, many would accuse Jesus of blasphemy because He did not match up to their faith-based expectations.
A huge part of Jesus’s mission was to correct the misconceptions human’s had of Him. Those who were humble enough to question if their expectations were representative of God were often the ones who were able to see through the false god of their expectations and receive Jesus. Those who clung stubbornly to their expectations rejected Jesus, often accusing Him of blasphemy.
Jesus’s expectation was for people to question their understanding of the faith they had received in the Torah. God’s expectations were for Abraham and Moses to question their understanding of the faith they were receiving, and it would seem that God expected his people to constantly wrestle with the difference between God and their understanding of Him so much so that he named them Israel which means “to wrestle with God” (Genesis 32: 28).
Given all of this information, what are we to make of Christianity?
According to the Bible, Christianity does not call us to declare absolute knowledge about anything. In fact, it would seem that we are to refrain from slipping into thinking that we have absolute knowledge of anything in recognition of our fallibility.
According to the Bible, faith is a gift from God, and apart from God initiating a gift of faith, there is no faith.
According to the Bible, not all faith yields belief, and not all faith should be believed, not in doubt of God, but in recognition of our human fallibility which can lead us to confuse something which is not God for God, or confusing that which is not from God for that which is from God.
This may all seem quite distressing if you have come to believe that faith is what is required of us; that faith is meant to be the bedrock of your Christianity. However, Mark 16: 16 tells us that faith is not what is required of us; belief and baptism are what is required of us. Later it is insinuated and believed by scholars that the baptism part was fulfilled by the coming of the Holy Spirit leaving only belief as what is required of us. Furthermore, we now know that belief in a biblical sense is purely a matter of trust or confidence.
Therefore, all that is required is trust in Jesus. Nothing else.
One need not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, one need not believe that Jesus is God, one need not believe that Jesus died and rose from death, one need not believe anything the Bible says, one need not believe Hell exists, one need not believe any given thing is or is not a sin. One need only trust Jesus to do whatever must be done to enable one’s salvation.
The simplicity of salvation in this instance does very little to inform how we go about living our lives and seeking God. So what can or should we look to inform these aspects of our lives given that we cannot know to what degree we can trust the claims of the Bible and what should our relationship to the Bible be like?
How Are We to Live?
If human life has a God-given purpose, that purpose must be achievable through the use of the tools we have access to within the context we have been placed. (including spiritual beings whom we may be able to interface with whether they be God, angels, or something else).
So it is valuable to acknowledge and uncover the tools we use to discern the nature of the world around us along with the limits and vulnerabilities of those tools. It is also essential to acknowledge and uncover the context in which we are placed with these tools. An intentionally equipped person in a purposefully designed environment gives us a lot of information to try to answer the question of the purpose of life.
Our tools
Here are some primary tools to consider. These tools are primary because all other tools are dependent upon one or more of these primary tools. Even an encounter with God is subject to these tools as a human uses them to form their understanding of the encounter. If we assume the Bible’s claims about human encounters with God are true then we can confirm that God does not override these dependencies lest every person God ever communicates to perfectly understand what God communicates at the time of the communication and thereafter (example Numbers 22):
Human memory/knowledge
Limited by either time or hardware space of the body.
Fallible for we have all had a brush with forgetfulness or remembering incorrectly.
Corruptible via brain damage, trauma, among other means
Manipulatable via psychological methods and social pressure among other methods.
Human senses/perception
Limited by presence; each sense has a limited range and blind spots.
Fallible for each sense has blind spots.
Corruptible via brain damage, and trauma, among other means.
Manipulatable via taking advantage of our blind spots in the way magicians and pickpockets do and perhaps by other means as well.
Human ethics
Inconsistent from one human to the next and ever-evolving and being influenced by context.
Limited by foresight/knowledge of consequences.
Corruptible via brain damage, trauma, chemical imbalances, and impairing substances, among other means
Manipulatable via psychological methods and social pressure among other methods.
Human feelings
Feelings are how we interface with our tools, so while they are dependent upon all of our primary tools, so too are all of our tools dependent upon our feelings. Thus feelings are also a primary tool. This also means feelings share every vulnerability and limit of the other tools. Thus one should always try to use feelings in conjunction with whatever other tools it is working with and never apart from them.
While our tools are all a matter of fault-prone information stored upon our fault-prone minds, making absolute knowledge as to the nature of our reality an impossibility for us, so long as our tools present us with a consistent reality, we can engage with reality meaningfully.
Our tools are useful for growing our understanding of our reality and engaging with it in ways we find meaningful. It would also seem that the more we use our tools the more effective they become.
Deceivers
While our tools are useful for the pursuit of our life's purpose, there are forces at work in the world, human or spirit, actively trying to use the vulnerabilities of our tools to deceive us. They often are attempting to deceive us into baseless understandings of reality, encouraging us to neglect the tools we have been given in exchange for a life that feels more meaningful but with less effort. The goal of such deceivers can range anywhere from gaining power and control over others to a desire to perpetuate a deception they themselves have fallen prey to.
If there is no purpose to our lives then these deceptions may be harmless, should they bring one’s life meaning and there is no greater meaning, then there may be nothing wrong with giving in apart from potentially violating some human-based standards of ethics. However, if there is a greater purpose, these deceptions prompt us to neglect our tools or use our tools, not for discovery, but only to further affirm pre-established conclusions, these deceptions rob us of the purpose we seem to be equipped to fulfill.
Given that the context we have been placed in seems laden with deceivers, and we are equipped to be able to resist them, it would seem that part of our purpose is to resist the temptations of deception.
We can resist deceptions by refusing to neglect our tools and by being aware of the tools a deceiver might use against us.
Here are some examples of tools a deceiver is likely to use (this list is not extensive):
Promoting the neglect of your tools
Promoting the affirmation of pre-established conclusions over discovery that is restricted only by honesty and integrity.
Telling truths to disguise lies.
Doing good things for you and others
To put you in a position where you feel like you owe them
To gain trust and limit your questioning of the claims they make
Creating “us” vs “them” narratives
To remove skeptical focus away from them and channel it towards their opponents.
Gaslighting; baselessly making you question your sanity and your understanding of yourself (remember the distinction between gaslighting and healthy skepticism as laid out in the preface of this document).
Community
Community is one of the most vital resources a human can have. As such it is a common tool for manipulation, deception, and control. So while it is important for humans to have constructive participation in a community they should be careful that the community they choose is not attempting to restrict/suppress other elements of their humanity, such as controlling their thoughts, body, spiritual pursuits, or relationships with others beyond the community. An exception to this would be exercising control as a means of protecting the autonomy of the community’s members (condemning violations of autonomy such as coercion or sexual assault). Restriction of external relationships can also look like the baseless demonization of those who are outside of the community.
A healthy community will delight in the diversity of thought, in the unity of ethics, in pursuits of mental and bodily harmony, in pursuits of health, in the prosperity of safe and constructive relationships with others, and in the unique spiritual journey of one another. A healthy community is void of fabricated supremacy that is not based on virtually definitive proof.
Healthy recognition of supremacy includes demonstrable characteristics, like who can lift the most weight.
Healthy recognition of supremacy also acknowledges environmental factors which may be at play. Such as the effect things like quality of education or access to resources can have on disparities in intelligence.
Healthy recognition of supremacy never evaluates the value of human lives through ways one person may be superior to another.
“From each according to [their] abilities. To each according to [their] needs.” Karl Marx
Whether you look favorably upon the ideas of Karl Marx or not, this quote is a healthy recognition and implementation of supremacy within a society to an extent.
I will add to this philosophy though. It is my opinion that “to each according to their need” should function as a minimum and not a maximum.
It is only natural that those of great ability might earn beyond their needs being met. Such an achievement shouldn’t be punished so long as it is not coming at the nonconsensual cost of another (such as an employer paying their employee far less than their labor warrants. Emphasis on the word “far”. Companies have to pay their employees less than the absolute value of their labor in order to grow. However, the gap between payment and the value of labor ought to be within reason and meeting the laborer's needs, assuming the laborer is investing as much time as is healthy for them to invest into the labor.). Simultaneously, there should never be a time when a person who devotes a healthy amount of their time towards labor does not earn enough to meet their needs (a healthy amount of time devoted to labor and a person’s needs varying based on their ability/disability)
Healthy community practices compromise and selflessness wherever it can be afforded.
Mental and Bodily Health
The health of the mind and body are also vital resources for a human, but they are less achievable without a healthy community of support.
Health can look different from one person to another. It is damaging to establish a single standard for every human to try to live up to.
Therefore, each person’s journey for mental and physical health should be treated with respect to the individual’s situation.
For the individual, this looks like a journey to understand their situation as opposed to a journey to live up to a broad standard.
For a community, this looks like putting in the effort to understand the unique situation of those you are closest to instead of judging others in accordance with a singular standard.
Spiritual Health
Similar to the nature of the human mind and body, every human’s spirituality is unique and their journey will look just as unique.
It is damaging to establish a broad standard of spiritual practice or journey that everyone is expected to mold themselves to.
Seeking spiritual health for the individual looks like a journey to understand their situation as opposed to a journey to live up to a broad standard.
For a community, this looks like putting in the effort to understand the unique situation of those you are closest to instead of judging others in accordance with a singular standard.
Combating Malicious Forces
Combating malicious intellectual forces can look like engaging in intellectual dialogue and, if necessary, cutting out harmful ideologies.
Combating malicious community forces can look like gaining influence in a community, establishing boundaries, or, if necessary, cutting out harmful communities. One should not stick with a community or relationship that is actively hurting them with the hope that they will be able to influence change if they endure the harm.
One should only attempt to influence change if, in doing so, they themselves, or those whom they love, are not at risk of harm. Sometimes this means influencing change from outside of a direct relationship where you and your loved ones are safe, and sometimes that looks like influencing change from within a safe community (safe in a holistic sense; mental, physical, and spiritual safety).
Combating malicious spiritual forces can look like sharpening one’s sense of self through internal reflection, communal engagement, and, if necessary, cutting out those who try to tell you who you should be.
The Purpose of Humanity
Humans are equipped with the tools they need to approach an understanding of the material world and sharpen their ability to do this through many mediums of arts and sciences. Humans are also equipped to form communities and improve their ability to participate in the community. Finally, humans are equipped to pursue mental and physical health.
Humans are also highly vulnerable to manipulation and deception in the pursuit of community, knowledge, or health.
If there is a purpose for humanity gifted by a creator it would seem that each person’s purpose is going to be a mixture of pursuing social health/community, knowledge, creativity, mental health, and physical health. It would also seem to be the purpose of each person to better their knowledge, community, and health while actively combatting manipulative and abusive forces.
However, should there be no purpose given to humanity by a higher power, then it may be that each person’s purpose is whatever they should choose for it to be.
The Purpose of The Material World
The material world is the common globally available source of truth. If there is a being who created the material world, then it cannot be reasonably denied that the material world is the direct product of that being. If there is not a creator being, then the material world is an even more invaluable source of truth for us as there would be no greater source of truth residing over it in the form of a creator.
Given the availability and influence that the material world has on humanity, it stands to reason that the preservation of the material world in opposition to corruption would be prioritized by a creator above and beyond any other potential source of truth.
Evolution is a biological phenomenon that passively improves the survivability of life where death is a factor. If death is somehow not an original part of the material world but was something introduced abruptly, then it stands to reason that evolution would be the creator’s response to combat the forces of death to a degree.
Therefore, those traits gained or changed by evolution that favors the survivability of life, and combatting death, should not be seen as a corruption of the material world by default.
However, if in combating death an evolved trait perpetuates more death than is necessary, it may be that we are to rise above it. Not unlike the way one may adapt certain behaviors to survive a span of one’s life which is traumatic; some behaviors may help you survive trauma but may be more harmful than good when the source of trauma is no longer present. A cast may help a person's leg to heal, but should it be left on for too long it can cause more harm than good.
It is not a matter of corruption to adapt hazardous behaviors or traits in order to survive. It can be a matter of corruption should those behaviors and traits, which are harmful to one’s self or community, go untreated once they are no longer needed.
There are, however, traits gained which persist after we have survived and are not harmful to one’s self or one's relationships. Examples might be the body’s immune system, homosexuality, or transgenderism (in accordance with biological studies I have read, homosexuality and transgenderism are hypothesized to be evolved traits that help to stabilize an aggressive community to better its survival). These traits should not be labeled as corruption nor should they seek to be treated. These traits may even be worth celebrating as they represent how life overcomes death or how peace overcomes conflict.
Whether a gained trait is something in need of treatment is a matter that should be determined on an individual level given that the ethical nature of these traits can often be highly contextual and nuanced.
While globally available as a source of truth, pertaining to the nature of the reality we occupy as evidently material beings, the material world is not a particularly accessible source of truth.
Most people do not have the time, resources, or ability to study the material world. Therefore, much of the knowledge about the material world is understood through intermediaries, scientists, and sometimes even more intermediaries, scientists, science communicators, news outlets, strangers, colleagues, friends, and family. At every level of intermediary there is potential for corruption of the truth via a fault in the scientist’s findings, via a fault in any of the intermediary’s understandings, or via an intentional misrepresentation of the findings to push a baseless agenda.
Therefore, it is important to maintain a posture of humility in recognition that you could be wrong or misguided in your understanding of the material world. Do not fold at the first sign of disagreement with your understanding, but should a reasonable argument be made which could be verified if you put in the effort, always be willing to adopt a neutral opinion until you have taken the time to verify.
However, should the disagreeing argument be an unverifiable/unfalsifiable claim, do not permit it to neutralize your position lest you be slowly neutralized into a state of ongoing stagnation, for there will always be unverifiable/unfalsifiable opposition to all understandings of the material world.
Given the fact that the material world is potentially the most direct source of truth from a potential creator and the fact that it is the most immune to human corruption (humans can twist and corrupt information about the material world but we cannot change the reality of the material world; the truth of the material world will always be available to those who can access it), it should always serve as the bedrock for truth pertaining to matters that are material in nature, superseding all other truth claims about the material world which are not rooted in studies of the material world.
When it comes to providing insights into the potential spiritual side of our existence, the material world can only offer minimal insights insofar as it can help us to infer the intentions of spiritual forces whenever they manifest in material ways. However, the material world would prove insufficient in providing insight into the nature of anything which is not bound by it.
The Purpose of Claimed Holy Texts
Texts which are claimed to be holy stake their claim in being directly given to humanity by God, indirectly inspired through men by God, transcribed by men who listened to God, or in some other means of acquiring divine knowledge regarding certain truths about reality that may or may not pertain to what can be observed and tested in the material world.
Given the limitations and fallibility of humans alongside the sheer number of possibilities as to the nature and purpose of God, it is impossible for any human being to verify if any given text is from, inspired by, or endorsed by a God.
A text which is claimed to be holy could be from any of the possible forms God may take.
The potential purposes that a potentially holy text may have can vary widely. It could be divine in some way or not.
It could serve the purpose of defining the relationship between God and humanity.
It could serve the purpose of manipulating people into adopting a baseless perception of reality meant to serve the interests of those in power.
It could serve the purpose of empowering humans to better fulfill their purposes.
It could serve the purpose of stifling human progress to benefit the interest of some being who fears it.
It could serve the purpose of bringing a message of hope, peace, and meaning to humanity which could benefit from such a message whether it is true or not.
It could simply be the product of people projecting their mental construct of God in an attempt to read meaning into their life.
It could be any mixture or combination of these possibilities or more.
Such text may be useful as a foundation for the purposes of humanity such as providing a commonality around which community can form. However, the use of these texts in this way can be extremely hazardous given the malicious forces at work in the world.
Any use of text which claims to be holy should take a back seat to pursuits of truths from the study of the material world and truths learned through communal participation, and the truths learned through self-reflection.
Given the mystery and risk of abuse, such texts should only ever be used to affirm truths one has observed elsewhere and should never serve as a source of truth on its own.
The Purpose of God
God may be one or a collaboration of many possible active forces at work in the world that may or may not surpass human minds and power.
This being may be a human equipped with powerful technology or mystical powers, it may be a member of another intelligent material species, it may be a member of a rank of incorporeal beings with mystical power, or it may be a being so beyond human minds and power that no set of limiting words could capture its nature; a being that simply is as it wills to be.
This being may or may not be active in our day-to-day lives. It might be that there are a variety of ununified spiritual forces which are active in our daily lives at any given moment. These beings may collectively be what many refer to as God. Though there may be a being who is greater than them that may or may not be active in our day-to-day lives at all, some might call this being God. Though there may be yet a higher being who may or may not be active in our lives, this chain of potentially higher powers can extend indefinitely and there is no guarantee that the being at the top of the chain cares to be involved in human affairs even if beings lower on the chain do care to be involved in human affairs.
All possibilities as to the purpose of God are largely speculative.
The purpose of God may be whatever God wants it to be.
Some believe God’s purpose is that of a creator, a caretaker, a judge, or a mixture/combination of the three and more.
Some believe that there are many beings at work in the world, each with different purposes, and people either collectively refer to these beings as God or individually refer to them as the gods.
It may be that a human mind cannot pin a purpose on the being or beings who operate as God or gods.
It may even be that God exists only in the minds of humans and is used to bring them comfort when faced with hopelessness, fear of the unknown, or meaninglessness. The mental concept of God may work as a placebo that manifests hope, manifests answers, or strings together unrelated events to suggest there is some greater meaning to life.
How Does the Bible Measure Up to The Purpose of Life as Assessed Through Our Tools and Context?
There are many ways in which the Bible is most definitely used as a tool of deception and manipulation. Any time it is used the demote the use of our tools for the purposes of discovery, any time it is used to pressure us into proclaiming things as true that we cannot be certain are true, any time it is used to feed us information which is in conflict with what can be observed in reality, any time it is used to put us in a nonconsensual position of debt (you were bought and paid for), any time it is used to shut down skepticism, any time it is used to demonize and marginalize a group of people needlessly, any time it is used to tell you who you are or what you think, and so on.
However, the Bible does not have to be used in these damaging ways any more than a shovel needs to be used as a weapon; just because it can be used in these ways it doesn’t mean it is meant to be used in these ways.
The Bible calls us to trust Jesus, but is it the name of Jesus which is important? If so then we had better start calling Jesus by His Hebrew name Yeshuah. Or is it more important that we trust what Jesus represents? If one seeks and trusts that which is life-bringing and true, and Jesus represents that which is life-bringing and true (John 14: 6), is one not seeking and trusting Jesus even if one is ignorant of the person, life, and name of Jesus?
The Bible may contain claims about who Jesus is, what He said, and What He did, but the Bible is not Jesus, and the Bible is not guaranteed to be at all true in its claims. But might it be true in its claims? It certainly might, but we are not equipped with tools that permit us to know for certain. Thus it can be deduced that it is not important for us to arrive at the conclusion that it is absolutely true.
Therefore, while we may not know the degree to which a potential God might have influenced the various components of the Bible, we may yet be able to learn lessons from it that inform our human purpose.
I believe the Bible calls us to read it with skepticism, not in doubt of God, but in recognition of our limits and fallibility; we are meant to wrestle with it, not to blindly proclaim it to be true despite our limits and fallibility which bar us from being able to know if it is fully true. For this reason, I have a great deal of respect for what the Bible is and claims to be even if I cannot get behind everything it claims and everything others claim about it.
In conclusion, we can engage the Bible without endangering the fulfillment of the purposes our tools and context suggest. Though we must be careful of the numerous forces that will tempt us into deception through our intake of the Bible’s contents just as much as we should be careful of deception from the intake of any other claimed holy text.
No comments:
Post a Comment