Many arguments have been waged against religious thinking; yet, my argument is unique, because I am claiming that the misperceptions of religion are caused by assuming the wrong perspective, rather than what is actually stated by God’s Word. Ultimately, my argument is not only that the literal historical perspective of scripture cannot perceive the profound nature of God’s intended message, but also that religion’s misperception of the biblical images creates a worldview that is inconsistent with the expected nature of God. Certainly, religion may claim that its worldview is promoting a message of good news; yet, did God intend that His message is to be perceived as being good only for those few people who adopt a belief statement, or that His message is intended to be perceived as being good for every person regardless of their beliefs?
My intent for this chapter is not to repeat the many arguments against religion, rather to discuss how Christians have typically perceived the meaning of the biblical images, and how those various perceptions have evolved over time within the church. As argued, God’s message presumably should be constant over time, so any changes in the perceived message should cause one to consider the reason for the evolution, and whether God had intended that change. Ultimately, the question that should be considered is whether the lines of thinking being promoted by religion result in a clear and consistent message of the good news, such that one could imagine Jesus Himself proclaiming the same message at the beginning of His ministry.
Perception of creation
Perhaps the saddest consequence for many who approach the bible with a literal perspective is how they imagine the created world. Presumably, God created a perfect world as depicted by the image of Eden, but the sin of man has made the current world hell-ish. Consequently, many perceive that this world will continue to decay and will be ultimately burned up by God. Certainly, God depicts Himself as a consuming fire, but is that image intended to be perceived literally? According to Peter, what “land” with its “works” will be burned up (2 Pet 3:10)?
The biblical worldview often maintains that the created world is just a temporary location that must be endured, and that the future hope for believers is a different heavenly world. “They are in a better place” is a common thought at funerals; yet, did God intend the image of heaven to depict a world away from earth, often perceived as the lush garden of Eden, or as a vague new earth, perhaps with a big house and streets of gold? If so, then did Jesus proclaim the message of “good news” as being your ability to say “good riddance” to this world when you die? Sadly, since religion can provide no meaningful perceptions of your future existence, most people imagine that life after death means you will simply leave this world and forget your old life, instead of imagining how God plans to restore this world by refreshing everyone’s old life. So, does God redeem your life, at His great cost, so that your old life can be forgotten, or so that He can renew your old life to be the life that He has promised? Imagine what happens to your vague perception of the creation account when the images are instead perceived as depictions of God’s creation of not just your nature, but also of the particular life that He has created just for you.
Perception of male and female as designed sexes
Certainly, the imagined depiction of two biological sexes (male and female) is a perception that greatly influences the typical biblical worldview. The perception is that God created humans and animals with two distinct sexual natures, so presumably there can be righteous judgment against anyone who deviates in any manner from God’s intended design of one’s gender. Importantly, of all the sins of man, the matter of one’s sexual orientation is unique in the typical biblical worldview. Because, whereas many of the common sins against your “self” (e.g., obesity, alcoholism, and drug addiction) are commonly judged with some compassion, there is little or no tolerance regarding any perception of LBGQT sexual sin. So, while choosing to be an alcoholic or a drug addict is discouraged or frowned upon to some degree by everyone, changing one’s sexual identity or orientation is harshly criticized, and the violators condemned, particularly by those who claim to hold a biblical worldview. However, are certain sins “worse” than others; and, should the secular world ever be perceived as being more compassionate than the church in its attitude towards the lifestyle choices of others? Imagine what happens to your perceptions of male and female when the images are instead perceived as depictions of the distinctions between your soul and spirit.
Perception of Bible as tool to judge lifestyle choices
Consider whether God ever intended His Word to be employed as a tool to judge the lifestyles of other people. If you think so, then consider what happens when the “standard” of acceptable behavior evolves in a society. Does not the “modern” biblical worldview similarly evolve to accommodate the new standard? Notably, the typical biblical worldview has continually evolved since the fourth century, such that behaviors that were once considered blasphemous by practically everyone are currently considered acceptable by many, even from within the church. For example, consider the perceptions of divorce, remarriage, the role of women, and a variety of personal lifestyle choices (e.g., drinking, dancing, smoking, clothing style). Arguably, the typical biblical worldview has evolved to become much more compassionate in its line of thinking regarding many areas of a person’s lifestyle. So, how can the church ever claim to know the “absolute” biblical truth for a moral lifestyle while it also changes its tune every generation? As such, why should anyone presume that God intended His Word to be employed as a tool to set the standard of behavior when it is likely that a future generation will not maintain the same biblical perspective? Sure, you might feel that the church is becoming too tolerant of the behavior of others, but the question is whether God ever intended His Word to be your weapon to judge the behavior of alternative lifestyles, particularly the lifestyles of others who are presumed to be unbelievers.
Critically, who is depicted as being the morality police; Jesus or the Pharisees? Certainly, God’s Word is depicted as being the absolute truth, but the truth of what? And, did God intend the “truth” to be employed by the Pharisees, or today’s church, as a means to define the required “external” behavior for every person who will ever live? However, if you think so, then are you perceiving scripture as Jesus did, or as the Pharisees did, whom Jesus called blind guides? Imagine what happens to your perception of the OT law and the Ten Commandments when they are instead perceived as depictions of the eternal law necessary to establish justice within your spiritual world.
Perception of male and female roles
In addition to the perception that the images of male and female are intended to depict the biological truth of two sexes, the typical biblical worldview also imagines that scripture depicts the respective “roles” of the two sexes. Of course, the perceived role of women has been frequently challenged by an evolving society, so the biblical worldview must again either evolve or risk being rejected. Notably, when approached with a literal perspective, scripture certainly appears to distinguish between male and female in a way that creates the perception of misogyny. Of course, many argue that times were different when the bible was written, so they can rationalize an evolving “application” of the images because “modern” attitudes should presumably be considered. Yet, the applications are invariably subjective by their nature, so there is constantly much debate within the church on the biblical role of women.
Consider how bible translations even took it upon themselves to address this image of misogyny by literally changing gender references to make God’s Word respectful for today’s world. Apparently, not only must the typical biblical worldview evolve regarding the perceived roles of the sexes, but many Christians perceive that scripture must also be modernized. Yet, should a biblical worldview be required to evolve with the modernizing of society; and, must God’s Word also evolve with the times? Critically, did God intend scripture to cause so much debate and divisiveness within the church? Imagine what happens to your perception of the roles of male and female when the hierarchy is instead perceived as a depiction of the intended relationship between the soul and the spirit that is consistent for every person born at any time.
Perception of the fall of man
Of course, the image of “the fall of man” forms the foundation of the perceived need for a savior within the typical biblical worldview. Notably, there are many variations of theological opinions regarding perceived aspects of the fall (e.g., original sin), so there is no “absolute truth” of this image that can be claimed by anyone. Oddly, the fall of man is perhaps one of the most obscure and debated biblical concepts; so, did God intend to give us this critical image to cause confusion and endless debate? Imagine what happens to your perception of the fall when the garden scene is instead perceived as a depiction of your internal nature.
Perception of God
Consider how the image of “Eden” is imagined as God walking and talking directly with man, however, man exercised his free will and disobeyed God, so God threw man out of the garden. Notably, this perception of the fall results in the perception of a separation from God, such that the good news of scripture is often perceived as the promise to restore the direct fellowship between God and man as experienced in Eden. Consequently, heaven is often perceived as God’s reversal of the fall where believers are literally walking with God and talking to Him face to face. Yet, does God want us to perceive Him as a physical being? Does not the second commandment caution otherwise? Why would God depict an image that presumably encourages you to create an image of Him, while also cautioning you from creating that image? Imagine what happens to your perception of God when He is instead perceived as a depiction of the One with the perfect acts of love destined to be glorified in your life.
Perception of the nations
As mentioned, the nation of Israel is typically imagined as the ancestral line of the coming messiah, and a primary image of that nation is David with his “heart for God” as expressed in the Psalms. However, the righteous David continually calls out to God to destroy his enemies, and God does destine Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and other nations for destruction. So, does God literally kill other people to protect David? To protect His people? To protect you? If you think so, then these depictions of God’s wrath on the nations create apparent contradictions with Jesus’ command to love our enemies, and Paul’s depiction that our warfare is spiritual and not physical. So, can any belief system simply resolve these apparent contradictions, and can anyone reasonably rationalize the perception of God literally killing woman and children of other nations?
Consider whether your belief system perceives that there are wicked people today whom God has destined for destruction? Yet, how could God ever stereotype people by their nationality, or destine entire nations for destruction? Critically, based on a literal historical approach to scripture, you have two choices. Either you cannot explain the images, or you perceive that the images depict the literal facts of history and future predictions. Sadly, as will be discussed regarding the end times, many with a biblical worldview believe those images literally depict what God has done, and will do, to the “evil” nations. Arguably, the misperception of God’s protection of Israel from other nations is the root cause for many of the conflicts in the Middle East. Imagine what happens to your perception of the surrounding nations when they are instead perceived as depictions of the nature of various spiritual elements within your soul.
Perception of disobedient Israel
In addition to being the source nation of the future messiah, the nation of Israel is also imagined as the people who rejected God even though He delivered warnings through the prophets. Arguably, the typical biblical worldview perceives that most of scripture depicts the Jews as rejecting both God and Jesus. And, since their rejection resulted in a loss of God’s promised blessings and the promised land, the typical biblical worldview is primarily focused on how not to similarly reject Jesus today. As such, each belief system forms its particular statement for how to accept Jesus, and what you must do to partake in the promised salvation. Yet, what is God’s intent for depicting the image of a disobedient Israel? Arguably, the typical biblical worldview misinterprets the depiction of Israel’s rejection by simply countering with its vague work of faith. Critically, the common misperception of Israel results in Christians claiming that they are different than the Jews, where “they rejected God, but Christians accept Him.” Of course, this perception creates the sense of us versus them, which is arguably the root cause of all antisemitism. Imagine what happens to your perception of disobedient Israel when the story of Israel is instead perceived as a depiction of your entire eternal spiritual existence.
Perception of OT salvation
Arguably, the vaguest element of the typical biblical worldview is the perception of OT salvation. Because, while the nation of Israel had supposedly forfeited its salvation by its rejection, religion cannot meaningfully explain how, or even whether, people were saved during OT times. However, since the matter of salvation for people today is still a conundrum for religion, then should anyone be surprised that religion cannot perceive how earlier people were saved? Of course, many Christians do not thoughtfully consider the conundrum, rather they leave it to blind trust. Presumably, it is not important to understand OT salvation, because they perceive that something different started with Pentecost. Yet, are there multiple ways to God?
So, why do Christians not consider the matter of OT salvation? Arguably, if you perceive that your salvation is only possible by accepting a belief in Jesus, then you know that your perception creates a conundrum since that acceptance was not possible in the OT. Therefore, by extension, you must either believe that no one was saved in the OT, or that another way of salvation was made possible. Of course, if you perceive that faith is a decision of the will, then Abraham saved himself as you did. Yet, assuming faith is a choice, then who are you worshipping for bringing you out of Egypt (e.g., Ex 32:4; 1 Kings 12:28)? Imagine what happens to your perception of salvation when Pentecost is instead perceived as a depiction of the profound individual event that will occur in every person’s future life.
Arguably, many inconsistencies are caused by approaching scripture with a literal historical perspective, and any one of them might be the reason why you consider approaching with a different perspective. For me, this was the very first question that came into my mind when I started my journey into God’s Word; that is, how did a Jew perceive his salvation? As I will describe later, trying to perceive how a Jew answered the three great questions literally changed my life; yet, my point is that a literal perspective will never be able to answer the question of OT salvation. So, to reveal the mysteries of salvation for every person, did God send a history book, or a symbolic story?
Perception of the remnant
Consider how the OT image of salvation includes inferences to a “remnant” of Israel. So, what truth do you imagine by the image of a remnant? Who were these Jews? Presumably they were saved, but on what basis did God select the remnant? Notably, Paul depicts a remnant in Romans 11, where he states that a remnant remains today chosen by grace. So, who is Paul talking about, and how does the remnant of OT Israel relate to Paul’s NT remnant?
Arguably, the intended meaning of the remnant is a confusing and debatable point when approaching scripture with a literal historical perspective. A modern attempt to clarify the image of the remnant is the dispensational belief system, where God is perceived as treating people differently depending on the era they lived. Yet, do the dispensational belief systems provide clarity, or do they just add to the confusion? Obviously, if you cannot perceive God’s intent for the image of an OT remnant, then you can never resolve the image that Paul is depicting. Imagine what happens to your perception of the remnant when the obscure truth is instead perceived as a depiction of the spiritual elements within you that God has sovereignly chosen and destined for a particular salvation.
Significantly, perhaps the greatest consequence of religion is the division between those perceived as being saved and those perceived as being unsaved. Essentially, the typical biblical worldview perceives that someone is part of the remnant if they adopt the proper belief system, and whoever does not adopt the proper belief system is perceived as not being part of the remnant. Presumably, the world would be a better place if everyone adopted the proper biblical worldview; such that, Christians generally perceive that if you are not with them, then you are against them. So, how we perceive ourselves and others is greatly influenced by whether someone is imagined as being part of the remnant. Yet, did God intend the good news to be perceived as a message of “us versus them”? Sadly, many religious people imagine that He intended that divisive image.
Perception of Jesus
Consider how the typical biblical worldview externalizes both the solution (Jesus) and the problem (unbelievers and Satan). Jesus is imagined as physically coming into this world again, and the imagined purpose of a believer is to convince others to join their belief system while resisting the external forces of evil. This external perspective of the typical biblical worldview is very comforting for those who do not want to consider their ongoing role in salvation; because, while they will admit that they are sinners, they perceive that accepting a belief in the physical Jesus is the only action required to resolve their sin problem. And, since they now perceive themselves as saved, their purpose in life becomes a mission to rid the world of evil by convincing others to join their particular belief system. Their mantra becomes, “I accepted Jesus; so, you should too.” Is there a better way to justify your own particular decision than by convincing others to do the same? In many minds, the sole determination of how well they lived their life in this world is how many unbelievers they converted to their belief system. Imagine what happens to your perception of Jesus when the gospels are instead perceived as depictions of future events in your eternal life, and not simply as historical events that happened 2,000 years ago.
Perception of sin
The external perspective of the biblical worldview imagines temptation as an external force. For many, Satan is not just a name, but he is literally personified, with the dominant image of Satan tempting Eve to sin in the garden. Presumably, in a similar manner, many perceive that there is a literal external “satanic being” who tempts people to sin, and people choose whether to succumb to temptation and thereby disobey God. Importantly, the sinful behavior is perceived as being a choice made by a person’s will, and people are judged as to whether they freely choose to make good or bad choices. Of course, the common perception is that people are in jail because they freely made bad choices, while others can feel good about their behavior if they can control themselves such that they conform to the requirements of their belief system. Notably, the biblical worldview does attempt to include God in the battle against sin, yet the decision for whether or not to succumb to external temptations is perceived as being the choice of a person’s will. In other words, no one can claim “the devil made me do it,” but is that perspective consistent with the balance of God’s Word? Imagine what happens to your perception of sin when evil and wickedness are instead perceived as depictions of the internal elements that God is currently restraining in your life.
Perception of heaven
Consider how the typical biblical worldview makes everything about the way in which you live your life in this world, where even the believer’s life in the new world is imagined as being based solely on how they lived their life while in this world. Notably, judgment for believers is often depicted as an award ceremony where, while everyone gets a participation trophy, those who lived a righteous life will obtain a great glory and those who lived a less righteous life will obtain a lesser glory. Oddly, the image of the lesser glory is often depicted as being a street cleaner; it might not be the most glorious position in the new world, but it beats the alternative of hell. So, is the hope of future glory dependent on how you live your life in this world? According to the typical biblical worldview, your destiny after death is solely dependent on your behavior and your decisions made during this life. Arguably, that image depicts a yolk being applied to your current life; so, if that worldview is wrong, then would not the woe that Jesus pronounced upon the Pharisees also apply to those who promote that worldview (Matt 23:15)?
Consider how, according to the Protestant biblical worldview, all past and future sins are imagined as forgiven once someone adopts the proper belief system. Of course, there is a continued battle against sin while in this life, but it is perceived that the battle ends once a believer dies. So, while the heavenly realm after death is not clearly perceived, the presumption is that sin is not only forgiven, but that it is also forgotten. Presumably, since Jesus paid the penalty for the believer’s sins, it would be unjust for God to hold believers further accountable for their sins. Yet, there is a clear biblical image that everyone will need to account for every word and deed, so that image does create doubts of the future. Again, some suggest that the only risk to believers is the loss of rewards, but should your future hope be based on an unclear image that tickles the ear? Were not the false prophets lambasted for depicting a peace-peace message? Imagine what happens to your perception of the next life when the stories of Israel after crossing the Jordon river are instead perceived as depictions of the many generations of your future.
Perception of life
As suggested, how anyone answers the three great questions is influenced by their biblical worldview. And, when scripture is perceived as depicting images of this world, then the answer to the first question becomes dependent on whether or not you perceive yourself as part of the saved remnant. And, if you are part of the remnant, then your purpose in life is a mission to persuade others to also join the remnant. Finally, the answer regarding your future becomes a vague image of living a more righteous life in this world, and an even more elusive image of a glorious life after death. Critically, Christians will stress that their strong faith is exhibited by putting a blind trust in God’s plan for their life; however, since God repeatedly states that “my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge,” does not a blind faith result from a lack of knowledge? Again, while I am not questioning anyone’s heart for God, I am questioning the wisdom of the many who allow themselves to be deceived by a religion that cannot provide answers to the questions of life. Imagine what happens to your perception of this life when you perceive the stories of Israel being rescued out of Egypt and following God in the wilderness as depictions of your current life, such that you now have the same purpose (as should any fetus in a womb) to trust God for your provision and protection while seeking to understand His perception of your eternal life.
Summary of typical biblical worldview
Religion generally imagines that God’s purpose for His Word is to give us a wisdom of this world, which many profess to be a “biblical” worldview. Supposedly, everything you need to know regarding “how” to live your life is revealed in God’s Word. However, the typical literal perspective of scripture results in perceptions that are very confusing and inconsistent over time. Arguably, since the first Christian belief system was “created” in the fourth century, many aspects of the biblical worldview have evolved based on man’s wisdom and the current culture of the time. Certainly, one might expect that “cultural norms” would evolve within a modernizing society, but should anyone feel confident in adopting a belief system whose perception of the “absolute truth” also evolves over time?
Of course, religion also imagines that God’s purpose for His Word is to give us the good news of God sending His Son to die for our sins. And, depending on the belief system’s particular perspective, religion wants you to respond in some manner; such as accept, trust, obey, believe, submit, or love. Basically, most religious people believe that if you do the right thing in this life by “repenting” and “accepting” their particular belief system, then you will “go to heaven” and avoid the inevitable everlasting judgment of God. Typically, religion argues that a true faith in God is demonstrated either by a particular method of acceptance (e.g., baptism, profession of faith), or by the apparent evidence of acceptance (e.g., good works, less sin, sinless). In either case, a “work” must occur, otherwise your salvation is considered in doubt. Arguably, since the nature of that work is completely subjective, no one can ever know for certain whether any person is truly “saved,” such that the “good news” of religion always results in some degree of doubt. Yet, if the good news proclaimed by Jesus did not result in the same uncertainty, then why should anyone feel confident in a belief system that has never been able to provide a certain and indisputable message of the good news that one could imagine Jesus proclaiming at the beginning of His ministry?