Current state of religious thinking
So, while the message of good news has evolved, the thing that has not changed is the manner in which scripture is perceived. Without exception, and perhaps by definition, the “Christian” religions all approach God’s Word with the literal historical perspective, and each religion claims that its belief statement is “biblical” because it employs specific verses as proof points. Yet, no religion can ever claim to profess the absolute truth, because there are aspects of every belief statement that result in inconsistencies or apparent contradictions with other parts of scripture, such that no religion can refute all other religions. Arguably, the root cause for the inability to discern an absolute truth is due to the literal historical approach, but the wise men of religion would rather agree to disagree rather than consider the possibility of the obvious common error.
Of course, while the Protestant religions debate the proximate cause of your eternal salvation, many within the other half of Christianity perceive that Catholicism is the only true religion. Yet, even the Pope recognizes that claiming exclusivity to their version of the truth is tenuous, such that most Christians now perceive that they can all comfortably “agree to disagree” on “theological” matters as long as they agree on the “essentials” of the faith. So, much like the early Christians who accepted a church doctrine with essentially no understanding of scripture, has not the god of this world simply making it easier for people to accept their favorite religion based on a similar blind faith? Arguably, the reason why modern Christianity often stresses that salvation is based on a “relationship” with God is to negate the need for any thoughtful consideration of the images being depicted within His Word. If true, then religion is a deception.
Yet, even though many variations of religion exist for people to choose, fewer people are choosing Christian religions. Notably, the decline has mostly occurred within the developed societies, whereas Christianity is presumably advancing in developing societies. Presumably, as many will argue, the rise of scientific knowledge and critical thinking are precipitating the decline, because educated people have recognized that the wisdom of scripture is archaic at best, and even wrong in many instances. As many argue, if an elementary level of scientific knowledge can refute the creation account, then all biblical truths must be placed in doubt, because how can you believe anything if some of the core beliefs of religious thinking are absolutely wrong?
As part of my effort, a goal was to consider how others perceive scripture, and much of this effort conveys my understanding of how Christians currently perceive the images. Of course, with my background of religious experiences, it was easy for me to convey the perceptions of a typical Christian. However, I also devoted time to consider the views of those who argue against religious thinking, and that effort has surprisingly produced much of the fruit in my journey. Because, while I understand how a critic of religion might feel satisfaction “tearing down” man’s religious thinking, there is a much greater satisfaction when I perceive how the same image in question “builds upon” God’s line of thinking. So, whereas Christians must avoid the hard questions if they want to avoid the inevitable confusion and uncertainty, I diligently seek them out such that I gain an even greater confidence that no inconsistencies exist when the hard questions are approached with the symbolic perspective. And, invariably, that effort lead towards further inferences of understanding that revealed deeper and more profound truths, such that every hard question has been overcome in my mind.
Deconstruction of religious thinking
Consider how it is very easy to find numerous “un-testimonies” from people who have left a religious belief system after going through a process called “deconstruction,” which is simply the thoughtful analysis of a truth claim. And, what distinguishes a deconstructionist from a typical Christian is their willingness to consider rational thinking. Notably, those who argue against religion share the same basic misperception that God intended His Word to be perceived in a literal historical manner. Yet, deconstructionists recognize that a critical analysis of scripture reveals that the literal historical perceptions are inconsistent, particularly in regards to the expected nature of God, such that they perceive that religion’s claims of divine understanding are doubtful at best. However, in the end, deconstructionists are essentially no different than the typical Christian, because they both effectively build their particular image of God based only on the parts of God’s Word that make sense to them, such as applying the moral teachings of Jesus as a guide for living life. Notably, deconstructionists are different in the sense that they consider their perception of God is truly a personal matter, so unlike Christians, they do not claim that their understanding is the absolute truth for all people.
Deconstructionists often conclude that scripture cannot be the “inerrant” Word of God, rather they perceive that scripture is a collection of independent “mythical” texts written over many years by people with different beliefs. And, when approaching God’s Word with a literal perspective, it is quite easy to come to that conclusion. Modern scientific knowledge and the facts of history refute many aspects of the creation account and the story of Israel, and the claim of an absolute biblical moral truth is easily refuted by the apparent inconsistent nature of God. Arguably, anyone who perceives that God’s Word is depicting literal images of this world will find it challenging to argue against the deconstructionists’ conclusions, because a critical analysis by anyone with a literal perspective will always result in perceptions of mythical stories and a warped image of God. Of course, Christians are generally not willing to question their current beliefs, so they will never do a thoughtful analysis, and the deconstructionists who have done the thoughtful analysis simply settle for something else.
Arguably, deconstructionists have studied scripture more than most Christians. Yet, that perception should not be surprising, because it requires thought energy to change any core belief, particularly a belief created during childhood, and a belief that impacts the answers to the three great questions. So, consider how difficult it must be for someone to “un-believe” religious dogma that was drilled into them by parents and teachers, and how it must feel to be ostracized by a community that was the only source of their relationships. Of course, Christians are not always “thoughtful” believers of scripture, so it can be easy to leave behind a belief system that you never truly considered. However, if you had put your trust in the guidance of religious parents and teachers, then try to imagine the frustration when you realize that you were being led by people who were being illogical by ignoring rational thinking. I feel an empathy for the deconstructionists, but deep frustration towards mankind, particularly towards the wise men who claim to have studied scripture. Sure, if you want to preach a philosophy of religion, then label yourself a philosopher. However, if you claim to be a critical thinker who seeks the absolute truth of scripture, then you must be able to answer the hard questions.
Critical thinking
For the longest time, the wise men of religion could claim that the biblical events in scripture happened literally as described. Sure, there were unanswered questions, such as who actually wrote many parts of scripture. However, the general sense was that the bible was historically accurate, even though there was minimal evidence supporting many of the biblical accounts. That is, until the more recent times, when critical thinking revealed the many illogical conclusions of religion. No longer would the wise men of religion remain unchallenged in their thinking, because the wise men of the world endeavored to pursue an unbiased view of the ancient texts, rather than being motivated to defend the “truth” of a particular belief system.
I never considered critical thinkers in my religious upbringing, rather like many, I accepted the thinking being provided by my parents and by my religious teachers. Again, Christians avoid critical thinking, presumably because questioning their faith could be perceived as a lack of faith. Yet, if you label the bible as being a book of history, then should it not be subject to the same critical analysis as any other book? Certainly, the critical analysis validates the deficiencies of the literal perspective, yet the wise men of religion are not willing to concede historical inaccuracies, so there is often much uncertainty with debatable historical data such that neither side may ever be able to claim victory. So, my objective is not to restate the many modern arguments that attack historical accuracy of biblical accounts, or scientific accuracy of the creation accounts within Genesis. Rather, I want to focus briefly on just two key results of critical thinking that even the wise men of religion must concede are very problematic.
Problem with Daniel’s prophecies
The first matter to consider is regarding the prophetic accuracy in the book of Daniel. Regardless of their religious position, all wise men perceive that Daniel accurately records actual events that presumably occurred after the Babylonian exile. However, the events recorded in Daniel 12 obviously did not occur as is recorded, so the wise men of religion are left with a dilemma. Did Daniel accurately prophesy the earlier events, yet also fail to accurately prophesy the subsequent events? If so, would not that make him a false prophet?
Surprisingly, even many wise men of religion claim that Daniel was written after the earlier events, such that he was actually recording past history rather than prophesying future events. However, that position does not explain the inaccuracies of the later events, but they claim that it explains how he was correct about the earlier events. In other words, Daniel was not just a false prophet, but he was also a deceitful prophet, because he tried to fake prophecy by claiming to write about events before they occurred, whereas he was actually writing after the events.
Here is the major problem with all of this thinking. Even Jesus claimed that Daniel was a prophet, so was Jesus unknowingly mistaken about Daniel, or did He knowingly lie by validating Daniel as a true prophet? Or, is Daniel truly a prophet, and all of the wise men are mistaken by arbitrarily assigning Daniel’s images to actual events in world history? If so, then is God not making the false prophecy completely obvious such that Daniel cannot logically be perceived as trying to depict actual events? Arguably, there is no possibility of resolving this problem with the literal historical perspective, so what is God’s intent?
I have already argued how Daniel’s first dream interpretation is an affirming image of the four kingdoms as depicted in early Genesis, and I will argue how Daniel’s other images similarly are prophetic replays of other biblical images. However, at this point, I must ask a few simple questions. Why would Daniel (i.e. God) presumably predict world events that have nothing to do with the biblical narrative? In particular, why should you, being a disciple of scripture, care what Alexander or whomever did in world history? And, since God and Jesus both depict Daniel as an amazing prophet, why would God allow Daniel to fail so miserably? Could it be any more obvious what God and Jesus are doing? Are the wise men of religion and of the world being made to appear foolish?
Arguably, very few Christians will care to consider the problem with Daniel’s prophecy. Daniel is a challenging book to read, and most preachers simply focus on the images of how Daniel resisted conforming to the ways of society, and how God saved Daniel and his cohorts from the fire and the lion. Those are the “feel good” stories that capture the imaginations of readers, such that most people never consider what Daniel is depicting. So, even though Daniel’s prophecies are obviously a problem without any reasonable explanations, presumably everyone is willing to concede that Daniel must be “only human,” and even “inspired” humans can make a mistake. And, if Jesus does not later “validate” Daniel as being a prophet, then perhaps that explanation might be a reasonable. However, Jesus does claim that Daniel was a prophet, so the problem of Daniel’s apparent prophetic failure creates a serious hurdle to overcome for those promoting the literal historical approach to the book of Daniel. Arguably, the fact that the images in Daniel’s prophesies work in the symbolic sense gives that perspective much credibility.
Consider how, instead of recognizing their own foolishness, the wise men of religion are forced to claim, and tell you to believe, that Daniel was a deceitful false prophet. So, if you accept that absurd image, then are you also being made to appear foolish?
Arguably, if this was the only instance of inaccurate prophecy, then perhaps even I could accept the inconsistency. However, there are many instances where a prophecy does not “work” in the literal historical sense, or when the prophecy cannot be reasonably confirmed to have actually occurred. Even Jesus is depicted as being a false prophet as will be discussed next. Again, from a scientific perspective, no one would ever accept such inconsistencies even from Einstein, so why should it be considered acceptable for God’s Word?
Problem with Jesus’ prophecies
The second matter to consider are Jesus’ prophesies regarding His second coming. As recorded in the gospel accounts, Jesus explicitly states that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” and that “there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom” (Matt 16:28; 24:34; Mark 9:1; 13:30; Luke 21:32). Notably, James, John, and Paul similarly state that the time is near (e.g., James 5:7; 1 Thes 4:17; 1 John 2:18). So, it is one thing to claim that “inspired” prophetic utterances of humans can be wrong, but how do you explain the apparent failure of Jesus to prophesy future events, particularly regarding the matter of His own second coming? Notably, when Jesus depicts how this generation will not pass away, He states that only the Father knows the hour and day; so, how can He make any claim regarding the timing?
Of course, this topic has been debated extensively, and there are all sorts of ways that man’s wisdom has tried to “redefine” the obvious literal meaning of the texts, such as defining that “this generation” is the “race” of all Jews. Amusingly, the same people who otherwise demand “strict” adherence to the literal wording are the ones who try to manipulate the meaning of the text. Alternatively, some wise men (i.e. preterists) claim that the prophesied events actually did occur at that time, yet in a manner somehow different than a literal temporal fulfillment. Invariably, again by people who otherwise argue for the literal historical approach, the events are “spiritualized” such that preterists can claim that they occurred in a “heavenly” sense. Presumably, Jesus did come into the hearts of people, and He is somehow reigning in a heavenly Jerusalem. However, again, is it not obvious what God is doing? Is He not making the wise men appear foolish by their attempts to manipulate the text by arbitrarily assigning abstract meaning?
Of course, just like Daniel’s failed prophecy, Christians are not concerned about the very apparent failed prophecies of Jesus. Again, these matters typically fall into the category of “I don’t understand, but I will ask Jesus when I die.” Arguably, there are hundreds of instances throughout God’s Word where the literal historical perspective does not make logical sense, but Christians either simply ignore the instances, or they accept that the “inspired” writers were not flawless. However, if the writers were not flawless, then how can anyone claim that all of God’s Word is absolute truth? In particular, if Jesus is also perceived as being mistaken about Daniel’s prophetic ability, while also being perceived as a false prophet about His own second coming, then how can any biblical verse be considered to be absolute truth?
Arguably, if you cared enough to not ignore the apparent failed prophecies, and you sensed that God’s Word should not have these inconsistencies, then would you not consider a change in your approach? There is a popular story that evangelists often employ in their attempt to persuade unbelievers to accept their understanding of salvation. They depict a person drowning, yet the person ignores several clear attempts to be saved because he wants to be saved a particular way. So, the question must be asked. Is God doing the exact same thing by clearly depicting the foolish nature of applying a literal historical methodology to His Word? How many times must God make it obvious that His Word is depicting a story that can only be approached in a symbolic manner, just as Jesus similarly scolded His disciples? It is one thing to be misled by the foolish wise men of religion, but are you not now allowing yourself to be fooled by ignoring the obvious signs that a literal perspective is not God’s intent?
Problem with “inspired” authorship
Ultimately, the source of all difficulty in making sense of God’s Word stems from the perception that the bible is a collection of texts written by men who were somehow “inspired” by God. Because, when you adopt that perspective, you are committing yourself to the literal historical perspective of God’s Word. Yet, what are the consequences of making that broad assumption of scripture?
Obviously, the most significant consequence is that scripture becomes open to textual criticism, such that the historical and literary accuracy must be either affirmed or placed in doubt. Of course, the early wise men of religion were not challenged by modern wisdom, such that it was easy for them to convince the masses that scripture was inerrant. Critically, the church had the writings of the early “fathers” whose opinions were deemed sacrosanct, such that church doctrine stood on solid ground for hundreds of years. Notably, the Catholic Church still relies on the opinions of the early church fathers to justify their current “traditional” understanding of scripture. However, over time, the wise men of the world began to challenge the wise men of religion with questions regarding the accuracy of the texts.
Experts argue that many of the books were written by multiple authors, and that one thought alone should place in doubt the concept of “inspired” authorship. Because, how can you label a text as the book of Isaiah if one person did not write the entire book? Sure, God could have inspired multiple people to write Isaiah, but God’s Word never implies more than one author. Notably, the same applies to the NT texts, where experts claim that the authors were copying from other sources (e.g., “Q”), and that texts were amended by later writers to “Christianize” the wording. Those claims should make you question whether it is possible to discern a “single” understanding of authorial intent. Also, questions of manuscript authenticity arise, where experts claim that there are many instances of variations in the text. How can anyone claim inerrancy when there are different texts? Also, how can anyone be certain that the canon includes the proper books? Finally, the translation of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts adds tremendous potential for variability in understanding, so the motivation of the translators must also be considered by the experts. Logically, if you were to listen to the experts, then you should question whether you are truly reading the “inspired” Word of God. Why should anyone trust the translation of an assortment of ancient texts presumably written by unknown men who were vaguely inspired by God?
According to the experts, it is necessary to understand “why” each author wrote what he did. Because, since the author was only “inspired” to write the text, then the text is apparently influenced by the author’s biases and the culture of the times. Therefore, without also knowing the historical context, experts argue that the true meaning of the text cannot be affirmed. Notably, I had accepted that the authors were perhaps naive in the sense that they might not fully understand what they were writing. In my mind, since Moses was not a modern scientist, he could only describe the events of creation in archaic terms. Likewise, since Isaiah did not know about the future events, his understanding of the end times was limited. Similarly, Paul could only write about the things as he understood them, so his perceptions could be in conflict with the later gospels. Because, if the author is simply inspired, then each writer was influenced by his own particular perception of the world as he understood it at the time. Therefore, God’s Word is perceived as a collection of texts written by various individuals who are sharing their understanding of the truth as influenced by their own experiences and surroundings.
Arguably, this perception of inspired authorship ensures the absence of absolute truth, because any text can be influenced by the reader’s unique perceptions of the author’s intent. And, as evidenced by the many very different versions of religion, God’s Word can be applied to justify many biblical worldviews. If you like the prosperity gospel message, then it can be found. Or, if you like the Calvinist’s message of double predestination, then it can be found. Or, if you like the message of a great end times war between believers and unbelievers, then it can also be found. Therefore, whatever message you like, you can likely find it by manipulating certain verses to your heart’s content. It truly does not matter what the balance of scripture declares, because you found what you wanted in a part of scripture, and that part can be transformed from a truth “at that time” to the desired version of that truth as perceived by someone “today.” As such, the only thing that is “absolute” is the assurance that your version of the truth is absolutely unique to some degree.
Arguably, the most critical consequence of perceiving the bible as being various texts written by “inspired” men is the concept of time. As a reader, the perspective forces you to imagine that the author is writing about events in his time, such that the prophets were writing about ancient Israel, and the NT authors were writing about events two thousand years ago. So, when Paul or Jesus make a statement or a commandment, while that statement or command certainly applied to the people living at that time, the same statement or command can then be applied to people today depending on the reader’s unique perception. Presumably, since the OT was written in “archaic” times, the present-day applications of OT statements and commands vary to a much larger degree because a larger gap in time must be overcome. Yet, while that approach to God’s Word sounds reasonable to a point, could God have intended that His Word would one day be perceived as being “outdated,” such that the application of His truth would be “variable” depending on the current times? Critically, that is the perception of all wise men, regardless of their theological viewpoints, and everyone blindly follows along with the same line of thinking. However, have the masses been led away from the one absolute truth of God’s Word by all of the wise men of religion throughout time, and by many of the wise men of this modern world? Yet, of course, if you are satisfied with your particular version of the truth, then why would you ever care to consider another perspective?
The great misperception
Consider what happens when you begin to perceive scripture as coming from the voice of God instead of ancient men. The first obvious effect would be that you would no longer even consider another source of understanding. So, instead of trying to get into Isaiah’s head by researching extra-biblical sources, would you not seek a perception of Isaiah based solely on the information that your loving Father has depicted in the story? Because, does it matter how many people actually wrote the book of Isaiah, or only how God depicts the persona of Isaiah? Also, instead of trying to get into Paul’s or Peter’s head from extra-biblical information, would you not only consider how God depicts them within the story of Israel? If so, by extension, then you would not perceive any of the images as depicting historical events that can be compared to other historical texts, but rather solely as a series of images from the mind of God. Therefore, if your mind was wiped clean of religious thinking, and you were on a deserted island with a basic understanding of the world, with the bible as your only source of information, then what perception of scripture would be the logical result?
Consider how many times you have heard a teacher state that “we are Israel” in some sense. Notably, the early church fathers tried desperately to claim how the modern church is somehow related to OT Israel, but the “spiritualization” of the text was rightfully dismissed as being subjective. However, everyone recognizes that the OT promises to Israel must somehow apply to us today, or else why read the OT. Arguably, no one knows how to handle the OT promises to Israel, because everyone perceives the promises as being made to a nation in the past, as opposed to promises being made to a nation in the story.
Yet, if you started with a clean slate, then would you base your understanding on the last 25% of the Bible? If not, then when you pick up a chronological Bible, would you start at the letters of Paul that preceded the gospel accounts? Certainly not, you would logically start with the first words. So, if you lived at a time when you only had the first book of the bible, whether it be Genesis or Job, then your perception would be based solely on those images being depicted. And, if you truly perceived the words as being “divine” text, then you would likely perceive the symbolism being depicted. Arguably, if you were given just the OT, or even the entire canon, then you would perceive the nation of Israel as the primary image of the story. Such that, the only question you would consider is why God gave you this story, and “what” can be laid alongside the story such that “all” of the smaller images fit together to form a simple yet deep understanding that is consistent within the overall image.
Over the next four chapters, my goal is to provide insights that resulted from my assuming a new perspective of the story of Israel. However, I truly struggled with whether I should have ended my effort with just a statement of the new perspective. Because, I am not trying to convince you of my understanding, but rather to encourage you to consider the new perspective. I should just say that the story of Israel is a parable of your individual spiritual existence, and allow you to draw your own conclusions from the images being depicted. Arguably, if you simply approach every biblical image with that single “overall” perspective, then you will arrive at the exact same conclusions of this life and the next as I depicted in Chapter 3. I required thousands of hours of meditation on nothing else but scripture to logically develop my new perceptions, so I know that you will certainly struggle to overcome your current perceptions. Therefore, my hope is that this effort provides insights into the many new lines of thinking such that you might find it easier to consider approaching scripture with the symbolic perspective.
Please recognize that I consider myself still rather new to God’s Word, such that this effort took much longer than expected because I often found myself desiring to dig much deeper. Frankly, I envy the wise men who have an intimate knowledge of God’s Word, however I just wish that they considered how their understanding is changed with the symbolic perspective. Notably, I have greatly enjoyed watching the videos of James Tabor (www.JamesTabor.com), because of his deep knowledge of God’s Word, and how he uncovers particular perceptions of images that are often noticeably different than those suggested by religion. Of course, he approaches the images from a critical historical perspective, so he also misses the intended message. Yet, he attempts to employ scripture to interpret scripture, just as Jesus depicted of the trained scribe who is not far from the kingdom. I have watched many of James’ videos, while wishing that I was sitting with him to suggest a different perspective of the images. Hopefully, I will one day develop the same expert knowledge of God’s Word, because I am looking forward to the amazing perceptions that will be revealed when the images are approached with God’s intended perspective.
As argued, the great misperception of the literal perspective is that Jesus, and God’s Word overall, are perceived as depicting actual objects of the physical world, rather than symbolically depicting the elements within a person’s spiritual world. Consequently, by perceiving the biblical images with any variation of the literal perspective, everyone inevitably creates their own unique understanding of both God and His Word. However, there is always a vagueness or inconsistency in that understanding which causes doubt, and that doubt requires “believers” to have a blind faith, and leads “unbelievers” to have no faith. So, do you accept that God intended scripture to create uncertainty, or can you consider that He intended His Word to reveal the mysteries, such that you perceive simple yet deep answers to the three great questions of life? Only you can choose whether you will continue to follow the wisdom of man, or to consider another perspective of God’s Word.
Again, I know that many people will be offended by my tone, yet I hope that you can understand the reason for my disdain. It would be one thing if the literal perspective only resulted in the wrong understanding, but no matter how well-intentioned, the various lines of thinking results in biblical worldviews that are not consistent with the expected nature of God. Of course, Christians are willing to ignore the divisive and the destructive nature of their religion, because they perceive that there is a message of good news, even though they cannot make sense of most of scripture. Regretfully, I was also deceived by Tim, RC, and many other wise men of religion, because I assumed that there was an absolute truth that made sense. Yet, fortunately, I decided to consider other perspectives, oddly the perspectives of an ancient Jew and of a dead person which has resulted in many absolutely shocking realizations. I do not expect, nor do I want you to blindly accept my conclusions, but I do hope that you will consider my arguments. Because, not only is there an absolute truth hidden in plain sight, but the insights gained from the symbolic perspective reveal profound understandings about the nature of God and the nature of reality, such that the resulting worldview is far from religious thinking, but rather a line of thinking that obviously comes from God Himself.