Human Interpretation of Christianity May be Moderated - Its Biblical Truth Does Not Change

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), May 16, 2014 at 14:29

In trying to assess whether Islam can be, or could be moderated, the dialogue seems to center on an ages old perception that Christianity could potentially moderated to fit a modernistic world view of moralistic changes; and that has been the issue all along. In the article, it is stated: [Yet, these days, important branches of Judaism and Christianity accept male homosexual activity. If such precise words can be reversed,……].

Therein lays the conundrum: it is wrong to presume upon the given WORD of the LORD, that any man can reinterpret those 'precise words.' Those 'important branches' of Christianity got Christianity in a bad place by thinking that anyone who has a deeply philosophical expression of religious thought (up to and including anyone in the papacy) can change the intention of those 'precise words.'

There is no, repeat, NO authoritative indication in the dialogue of any ancient or modern scholarship that the intent of the Hebrew Scriptures has changed in the mind of the Almighty Eternal Sovereign; and it is human vanity to think that the intent of Leviticus 20:13 has ever changed. So why does certain of the 'important branches' of Christianity think that they can 'change the rules?'

Study the past of Christianity and where it was infected with the apostasy of its day and realize that as the truth was marginalized by religious philosophy in its first few hundred years, the opening for Islam becomes all too easy to see. Islam sought to replace Christianity as the reigning religion since Christianity by that time lost its moral supremacy to moral relevancy. The seed of that is what is being debated today.

But the article continues with this, a statement implicit with the dichotomy of divergent religious perspectives; [Nothing human is fixed; even a scripture believed to be written by God must be interpreted. Islam exists in history and changes over time]. To be sure, the human element of this existence is variable and history records the variant views, some of which survives scrutiny and some that does not.

True Christianity does not have its human authorship except in subjection to spiritual instruction. To think that mortal man can change the intent by either 'interpretation' or outright moral rebellion is the result of taking the words of Jesus Christ and trying to tell Him He didn't know what He was talking about. Seriously, who is willing (except the Adversary, maybe) to take up that cause and think they are going to win?

But this is exactly what has happened: moral relativism is saying to Jesus Christ, you are out of touch and we need to reinterpret and change your words to fit what we want, not what You want- to modernize religion to fit our modernist thinking. Therein lays the delusion; some think it is possible.

Islam, from the beginning, has challenged the Judaic and subsequent Christian paradigm, doing so because the Christian witness had 'lost the salty flavor' of the truth that was its original basis for following the carpenter of Nazareth. The first three chapters of the Revelation speak to this.

All religion, by the imagination of humanity, can be modified; denominations of Christianity and sectarian Islam demonstrate that. For Christianity, it is apostasy and it is rampant in today's debates. Will Islam 'moderate' its more inflammatory rhetoric in order to coexist in today's search for peace? Ask the newly realigned 'Palestinian'-Fatah-Hamas associations for a clue-not reassuring at all.

From there, the inconvenience of a more implicit truth that cannot be changed: the same Word of the LORD that speaks in Leviticus is also the WORD that places Israel square in the middle of the debate of whose truth will win out. Ezekiel said Israel would be put back on the map and will never be 'wiped off.' No amount of modernizing Islam or Christianity is going to change that and the dialogue that tries will fail to change the intention of Israel's Almighty Sovereign.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".