R
Runner
Guest
Bible idolatry ("Bibliolatry") is one of my pet peeves. Weirdly (to me, anyway) the Bible is exalted over the Christian's day-to-day relationship with the living God through prayer and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is largely a Western evangelical phenomenon. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are not trapped in this mindset, which is a huge advantage to their members regardless of what quibbles one may have with their theology. (In my case, I have essentially no quibbles with Orthodox theology.)
Worse yet, those trapped in Bibliolatry inevitably insist that their idol is a wooden one with a fixed, definite meaning - theirs. They determine this fixed, definite meaning through gyrations that are both comical and pathetic - picking and choosing pet verses; ignoring or explaining away verses that conflict with the pet verses; insisting there is no ambiguity or disharmony when there clearly is; pulling verses out of context (proof-texting); ignoring the genre (e.g., poetry) of entire passages; pointedly ignoring Bible scholarship that might inform and challenge their interpretations; and so on ad nauseam. Prime example: this forum.
Does the Bible have a fixed, definite meaning? More to the point, was it even intended to have a fixed definite meaning? "No" to both questions. The Bible is an extremely vague, ambiguous and at least seemingly self-contradictory collection of books. And why is this? Even given the foibles of the humans through whom He spoke, could God not have expressed Himself more clearly if He had wished to do so? Could not He have laid out such key doctrines as the Trinity a lot more clearly than He did? Of course He could. Is the fault entirely ours - is a fixed, definite meaning actually there, but our flawed human natures prevent us from seeing it? Hardly - the Bible is indeed an extremely vague, ambiguous and at least seemingly self-contradictory collection of books.
One can only conclude that the Bible is either not the inspired word of God or that the vague, ambiguous, seemingly self-contradictory collection of books we have is precisely what God intended. I opt for the latter conclusion. Everyone familiar with art, poetry and literature knows that great paintings, poems and novels have no fixed, definite meaning. Every poet is pleased and astounded by the diverse interpretations readers give to his poems - interpretations completely different from what he actually had in mind but that he agrees are equally valid.
Ditto with the Bible. By definition, it must speak to all people across all cultures, life circumstances and times. Its meaning for me doesn't have to be its meaning for you. My interpretation does not become the fixed, definite meaning just because I shout you down or bludgeon you into accepting it. Your interpretation may be entirely different from mine but equally valid. Assuming that we are both reading prayerfully and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what God wants a passage to mean for you is not necessarily what He wants it to mean for me.
I've often said I could probably summarize the message of the Bible - the core teachings that aren't vague, ambiguous or seemingly self-contradictory - in three typed pages, double-spaced. If your theology is that Jesus never existed or the Resurrection never happened - well, no, the Bible is not vague or ambiguous about those things. But it is vague and ambiguous about many doctrines that those trapped in Bibliolatry regard as "essential."
Many people just can't live with ambiguity and mystery. They want a God who is the Big Daddy In the Sky, who gives them clear and specific directions as though they were toddlers. Unfortunately, this isn't what the real God has done. Rather than simply accepting this, those who can't live with ambiguity and mystery erect a wooden idol - the Bible, interpreted according to their notions of what it ought to say rather than what it actually says. I have come to regard Bibliolatry as a form of insanity, perhaps the single biggest problem with the type of Christianity represented by this forum.
This will, of course, never change, which is why I have largely abandoned forums such as this. If one can approach them strictly as "sources of information," as a way to gain information or learn about views that you may want to factor into your own understanding of Christianity, they may be useful - but few people can approach them strictly in this way, and even then there are much more efficient ways to obtain better information.
Edited. No personal attacks. If you disagree with a staff decision, take it up privately.
Moderator.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sometimes things go right over my head. 
