[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Not being a Biblical scholar,. . .

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

If one believes that The Lord of the Rings is an inherently “Christian” work and that it we can extract good and worthwhile messages from it, yet nevertheless can accept it as a work of fiction, why cannot one apply similar reasoning to the Bible? There is, of course, a major difference in that the Bible is expressly set in our world and incorporates elements which may be viewed as historical events. But the principle is surely the same. As I see it, they are both, in their different ways, myths. Ones from which we can perhaps learn much. But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does n ot in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

While I also am no biblical scholar, I think there are other ways in which to view the Bible. This true/untrue literalism tends to belong to the more fundamentalist wings of the faith, but not all Christians view the Bible with a literal eye. There are other ways of understanding historical documents.

Another way of considering it is as the history of God's revelation. Or, if you will, the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is. I suppose this is akin to the way of explaining things to children. When six year olds ask where babies come from, they are happy with a 'simplied version' of events (which does not mean the old birds and bees or cabbage patches) and don't really want a medical-school level lecture on human reproductive technology. (Come to think of it, neither do teens, who are often bored in "Personal Health" classes with physiological details but who don't get the open and frank discussion about the psychology of human sexuality. I digress, though.) Adult understanding too, of all of life and not just theology/religion/sex, (should I add politics? Next paragraph!) undergoes change and development. There are more than a few people who have better knowledge of themselves at 40, 50 and 60 than they had at 25. And of other people.

One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. Yet at the same time I think people do, slowly and often times with regression, change awareness. Most people on earth today would not accept slavery as a fair condition, yet there is still much "white slavery trade" going on with women. Yet by and large among the human communities, more are agin it than for it. I'm not quite so sanguine about our understanding of war. The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here. I suppose something similar must happen in Islam, where previous revelations are accepted as prior prophesies. (At least, I think this is what happens.)

So, an understanding of the Bible as revelation involves an active, ongoing understanding of interpretation as process rather than as archeology.

Originally Posted by SpM again

I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.

It was Mithalwen as I recall who most vociferously posted about this. But there is nothing in Carpenter's biography of Tolkien which provides a clear explanation of Tolkien's insistence--at least not that I can recall is an adequate treatment of the subject, other than to point out how the decision cut Edith off from one avenue of artistic pursuit, her music playing.

Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance.

Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here?

And, umm, what was the topic here?

EDIT: Opps, cross posted with drigel. I'm glad at least someone bothered to read that article!