On Paradigms and Politics

I have noticed an interesting thing, while observing people during this pre-presidential-election period. People who support the democrats think that democrats are more interested than republicans in helping poor and middle class people. Because of this, everything that republicans say about policies who will the help poor and middle class is met with extreme skepticism, if not accusations of lying, by the democrats. People who support the republicans think that republicans will keep the economy prosperous by promoting business and minimizing governmental controls. Therefore, everything that democrats say about economic prosperity is met with skepticism, since republicans think the economy will be bogged down with government programs which require heavy taxation. As I understand it, republicans think that business drives the economy, whereas democrats think consumers drive the economy. For this reason republicans think that policies that support business will, in the long run, support the poor and middle class by improving the companies that hire them. In contrast, democrats think that it is up to government to ensure the welfare of poor and middle class consumers and that supporting business will unfairly promote the prosperity of people who are already prosperous enough. The way this relates to paradigms is this: Staunch republicans, because of their paradigm about what drives the economy and how democrats think, find it hard to find merit in what democrats say about political issues. Conversely, staunch democrats, because of their paradigm about what drives the economy and how republicans think, find it hard to find merit in what republicans say about political issues. So....... it is mostly democrats who listen to "the democratic position" on things, and it is mostly republicans who listen to "the republican position" on things. If anyone is to learn anything about another point of view, it helps to listen to the other side.“It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows.” (Epictetus)

Biblical Interpretation--Who is correct?

The issue of literal vs. figurative interpretation of the bible has been the subject of heated debate for centuries, but perhaps never more so than in this current age. Science and the Bible appear to contradict each other so often that many scientists believe that it is simply not possible to take the Bible literally and still be taken seriously by the scientific community. There is more than one way to approach this debate.

The first is to see what the Bible says about itself. Here are some key passages.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:16-17, NKJV]

For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly [1 Corinthians 13:12a, Amp]

Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes. [1 Corinthians 8:2-3, NLT]

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20-21, NKJV]

Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [1 Corinthians 2:11b-14, NKJV]

3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
And lift up your voice for understanding,
4 If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD,
And find the knowledge of God. [Proverbs 2:3-5, NKJV]

Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him judge whether they are right or wrong. And with the Lord’s help, they will do what is right and will receive his approval. [Romans 14:3-4, NLT]

A second approach is to read the opinions of theologians. These three articles all discuss the importance of understanding scripture in context, and indicate that there are clearly parts that are intended to be taken figuratively. It is the question of which parts should be taken literally that inspires the most passionate disagreement.
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/literal2.htm
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_BibleTrue.htm
http://www.christianodyssey.com/bible/0706literally.htm

In a Newsweek interview, the internationally acclaimed evangelist Billy Graham indicated "that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points. Like Saint Paul, he believes human beings on this side of paradise can grasp only so much. 'Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror,' Paul wrote, 'then we shall see face to face.' Then believers shall see: not now, but then."
(http://agaperevolution.com/2006/08/13/newsweek-interview-with-billy-graham/)

The organization Religious Tolerance . org, whose mission is to promote understanding and tolerance among different religions and religious sub-sets, when explaining the word "hermeneutics," defined it as refering "to the art of science of interpretation of written texts.... Within Christianity, the term generally refers to methods of interpreting the Bible.
Christians have reached a near consensus on what the Bible says. However, Christian denominations as well as individual Christians -- theologians, clergy and laity -- hold a wide range of assumptions about the nature of the Bible. Different assumptions lead to different methods of interpreting the text. As a result, they reach very diverse conclusions about what a given passage actually means.... This lack of consensus is so extreme that sincerely and devoutly held beliefs by very liberal Christians may well be considered blasphemy by very conservative Christians, and vice-versa. One result is that some Christians view Christianity as a collection of religions, not as a single religion." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm)

What is clear is that there are many opinions, even among devote Christians, about how the Bible should be interpreted. It is also clear that human beings can never fully understand the things of God, but that we can look to the Holy Spirit for guidance. In the Bible, as Jesus was nearing the end of His ministry on earth, He explained this to His disciples: "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth." [John 16:13a, NKJV] It is comforting to realize that certain things will always be a mystery.

Some Discussions are Bigger than I had Imagined--The Bible and the Qur'an--Part 1

Some days ago, I started a project that I thought would be interesting: a comparison of the main messages of the Bible and the Qur'an. It is interesting. The only problem was, when I looked up what scholars said about the Qur'an, and hence Islam, it was not at all what I had expected, considering all that we hear on the news about radical Islam. It was clearly going to be no simple task to compare the Bible and the Qur'an. At least, with the Bible, I can show pretty clearly what it actually says, even if different denominations have varying interpretations. However, I could not do that with the Qur'an, because I am not familiar with its content, as I am with the Bible. My solution was to go to several web sites about Islam, to see what Islamic scholars said about its key doctrines. This is where I ran into trouble. Scholar after scholar explained that the Qur'an teaches that "The Qur’an’s main message is to call people to turn to the Source of all being and the Giver of life, and to serve Him with a pure heart, free of idolatry or superstition." (From: http://www.discover-islam-online.com/article3.htm) In addition, they explained that the Qur'an teaches that "Muslims were allowed to wage war only because they were oppressed and subjected to violence. To put it in another way, God granted permission for war only for defensive purposes. In other verses, Muslims are warned against use of unnecessary provocation or unnecessary violence." (http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1154235111200&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout) It was clear, then, that this project was going to be harder than I thought. I have therefore decided to open this post up for contributions from other scholars of Islam.

"How Can You Say Jesus Is the Only Way to God?"

Because this topic is such a "hot button" in discussions about religious tolerance, I wanted to share an article that gives another view, albeit a view that is "politically incorrect."

~ ~ ~

"How Can You Say Jesus Is the Only Way to God?"

People who challenge Christians with "How can you say Jesus is the only way to God?" are good at verbal camouflage, what sounds like concern for tolerance but which is actually belief that Jesus is not qualified to declare the way to God. Their problem is not with tolerance, but with Jesus' authority.

Promoters of religious pluralism say it is applicable in all situations, including religion. However, they don't really believe it. They are willing to accept one way if they believe it is appropriate, and to listen to authority when it is in their best interests or they have confidence in the authority. They don't promote pluralism regarding to breathe or not to breathe (only one way keeps someone living). They follow their employers' way of doing things to keep their jobs. They follow detour signs held by orange-jacketed construction workers. When it comes to religion, however, suddenly pluralism is an absolute and anyone, such as Jesus, who is so narrow minded as to say his religion is the only way to God, is convicted of intolerance.
How does a Christian respond? First, show the skeptic that he is, himself, intolerant of at least one religious view -- Christianity....

Click on this link for the rest of the essay. => http://answers.org/apologetics/onlyway.html