I didn't MEAN to lie!

 Lying is weird. Usually, I know that I'm lying when I'm lying. Sometimes I sincerely believe that a fact is true and adamantly stick to it, just to find out later that I was incorrect.

Usually, it's somewhere in the middle.

I'd been suffering from some crises (yes plural) of faith, mostly because of the Evangelical support of former president, Donald Trump, so I said, "goodbye," to my church family, expressing that my beliefs hadn't changed, but I needed to be there for my girlfriend who was considering returning to church, but wanted to attend a PCUSA church in Champaign/Urbana. 

Yep, it affected me more than I thought it would. Looking back, it had affected me already more than I thought it had.

There are some foundational beliefs that I no longer hold. God cannot be all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, AND benevolent in a world where evil exists. ONE of those things can't be true. Refusing to believe that God isn't benevolent, It has to be one of the omni-whatevers. I'm not sure which one, though.

Also, how can a benevolent God allow any of his children whom he professes to love to endure eternal damnation? I Corinthians 3 talks about building on the foundation laid by Jesus with, "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw," that the fire would reveal and test each one's work. I have come to believe that the fire may be unquenchable in that it cannot be avoided, but it doesn't burn everything. Gold, silver, and precious stones (good works and/or good fruit) will not be burnt, only that which is unacceptable. Paul clearly states, "the builder will be saved, but only as through fire."

"The builder will be saved."

Dr. Dan McClellan, Bible scholar, author, and TikTok creator, is adamant that we all negotiate with the text of the Bible because it is not univocal. If that is true, then I would feel free and justified in rejecting any part of the Bible -- or at least understanding it differently than it may have been taught by any of the denominations I've belonged to -- that seemingly or actually contradicts I Corinthians 3. I have found myself in the past agreeing more with the preterist view of Revelation of St. John than with the literal interpretation of the pre-millenialist view. This means that it was written as a polemic against a real world leader of the day in which it was written, and not as literal prophecy.

I shouldn't be surprised. My views on the Bible and Christianity have changed over the years. In the past, I've tried to find a denomination that "fits" me. I've given up on that. I am truly a sect unto my own.

Multiple denominations vs one true interpretation

If God wrote or commissioned a book to be written in his name that was inerrant in it's original form and infallible, It seems that there would be correct interpretation of such a book. 

Granted, this is assuming certain things and does smack of begging the question so, let's step back from the theist vs atheist debate for a moment. 

How would a benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful god (small g is appropriate as I'm not using a proper name here) who commissioned such a work respond to the many different denominations and interpretations? More importantly, how would such a god respond to those who claim they have the one true interpretation?

There is another subtlety to be discussed related to how do we know what that one interpretation would be, and that is how do we reconcile our fallibility with the infallibility of God and/or scripture? What I mean by that is, if a fallible human says that x is the only correct interpretation, how do we know that the fallible human making a statement claiming infallibility is right, or isn't wrong?

I also see a spectrum from the idea that everyone should interpret it for themselves and interpretation should be carefully considered and arrived at by some authority or corporate entity such as a church, denomination, convention, etc.

One answer would be to say that while there is one correct interpretation of scripture commissioned by an infallible god, no fallible human could ever know for certain. As long as one is faithful to the god who commissioned the work, one could assume that god would be pleased

Edit on 1/24/24: This was written quite a long time ago. I also jotted down a few other ideas for posts that I'm reading through. They might end up seeing the light of day, but they will likely be edited. I'm going to post this one as-is, adding one thing: I've come to understand scripture in a different way than fallible/infallible/inerrant/etc. Rev. Heidi Weatherford of McKinley Memorial Presbyterian Church explains it, if I remember correctly, as we take the Bible seriously, but we don't consider it infallible or inerrant. It is good for learning about Jesus and for learning how to live, but every word in it is not literally true. This is what I've come to believe. I've also been reading both accessible and scholarly works on the nature of scripture and the nature and history of Christianity that have been both eye-opening and thought provoking. Hopefully, I can share more and actually start writing more often as I've tried to do many, many times in the last few decades (at least since my late teens/early twenties and I'm in the last half of my 4th decade.