Dear Totterman: Thank you so much for the reply. Here is some background on my concern. I am agnostic when it comes to Christianity. I am trying very hard to incorporate it into my belief system, but that’s a long story. The reason I am concerned is that I am running into significant variations in beliefs among Christians. These variations have much to do with how scriptures are read. A slight change on words here and there can end up as a huge difference in doctrine, dogma and overall belief down the road. Kind of how a mariner can make a tiny miscalculation at the outset of a journey that ends up taking him a thousand miles off course in the long term. This is what I am seeing in Christianity. Particularly on this web site, there seems to be a lot of concern about differences in doctrine and belief, and most of these are based on scripture. To that end, scripture seems largely to be the source.
Regretfully you are correct about there being so many variations in belief among Christians, especially among Protestants. This is one of the sad things in Christendom right now. Jesus called us to be one as He and the Father are one. He tells us this is how the world will know that I sent you is by your unity. Yet we have failed, but we must also fight hard and be diligent in seeking unity. This is what you are seeing right now. Which one is the right way?
The great thing about the Catholic Church is that we have Sacred Tradition and not just the Bible. What is the advantage of this? Well when one makes a translation of a document from one language to another, there are going to be things lost in the translation. So if all you have is the Bible, you are susceptable to those losses in translation. You are also susceptable to misunderstanding what is being said because you may not have the secondary knowlege that is required to understand what the author is trying to say. aka historical perspective, the audience, the situation being dealt with etc. This is what Sacred Tradition safeguards against.
I know that you are searching and I deeply respect this because that is how many of started. I was an agnostic at one time as well and so I have followed the same path that you are going through. Searching, learning and trying different beliefs and practises. I tell people I have been in my past I have been a pagan, deist, buddist, atheist, and pentecostal (I don’t think I missed anything). I have studied Islam, Hinduism, & Protestant beliefs as well. What I am saying is keep your open mind and search and you shall find.
I would have to agree with you that the general idea is good enough. That is good enough for me. The problem is that there is too much “play in the steering” being caused by this. Many on this website have made claims that they have the one and only way to God as opposed to everyone else’s way. As part of their reasoning, many of these people have put forth one or more of the following assertions:
Code:
-The Bible was written by God.
-The writing of the New Testament was guided by the Holy Spirit.
-The writing of the New Testament was inspired directly by God.
The Bible for us is meant to be read as a spiritual book. When people start focusing in on it as a history, science or future predictor book they will usually loose the true focus of the Bible. It is meant to help us find and learn about God. To me the Bible is God speaking to me. When I read my Bible, I am praying. Most of the time we view prayer as us talking to God and normally God doesn’t talk back. So prayer seems to be a one-way discussion. But in Scripture it goes the other way. God does all of the talking and we do the listening.
What I am saying is don’t get caught up in all of the frivoulus stuff that really doesn’t matter concerning your salvation. It doesn’t really effect your salvation whether or not the flood occurred way back when and Noah built an Ark, etc. No what effects your salvation is the truth concerning Baptism, which the flood symbolically represents.
Now my dilemma should start to come into focus. If any or all of the three assertions above are correct, the discrepancies are most problematic, and it strikes at the core of any assumption that one way of worship has the upper hand on another way of worship, because beyond some very basic tenets, we really don’t know what we’re dealing with. Not to be disrespectful, but it also implies (in my thinking) that if God had a hand in writing it, His Hand was a little shaky. Another possibility is that God thought that some obfuscation would make the already arduous path to God more interesting. A third possibility is that God had no hand in writing it in the first place. Why? This is my dilemma.
The major problem you are having is corrected in Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is not founded and based upon the Bible. The Bible is part of Sacred Tradition but it isn’t the reason why Sacred Tradition exists. Sacred Tradition is the teachings handed down to us from the Apostles. This insures that the sum total of Doctrine is not impacted by translations. Again the main problem you are seeing is translation and/or misunderstanding how to interpret the Bible.
What I would recommend is for you to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read it as a starting point. It is well layed out and provides many footnotes and references for you to use. If you really want to know Christianity this is where I would recommend you to start.
God bless.
