Bible in the 21st century

[sam]

I remember in the introduction to Harold Bloom's The Western Canon, he was talking about how the Bible has lost it's pertinance for contemporary western society. And this idea really sticks to me and burnishes my apathy, which doesn't make the apathy look any finer but to be thinking is something. At any rate, I was reading some Isaiah just the other day, but i have seen too many parodies of the Bible, know of too many times in history that are in harmony with the resonances of Isaiah to get to the golden meaning of the book, to feel that the book has any currency. And here's my apathy i think, it seems to me that the western world is in between cultures right now, in between beliefs. The Bible is the only book that you can get people to say is sacred, holy, but the only people using it seem to be the religious right and those using the religious right. How does one live with a book that calls one to wait for the end of things?
Any relation of your experiences would be greatly appreciated.

[Volumnia]

On the Book Channel (cable TV) on Saturday there was a talk by Norman Podhoretz on his new book about the prophets and prophecy. I didn't write down the title, but I'm sure it will be easy to find. Mr. Podhoretz is editor of the magazine Commentary, and I've always thought of him as more of a political commentator than a literary one. He made a similar point to yours, noting that a century ago Matthew Arnold remarked that an illiterate man at least knows the Bible: now, an illiterate man may know everything but.

It happens that not long before this I was reading several books and articles on the making of various Bibles in English, with a lot of material on how getting into the hands of the lay public was one of the great thrusts of the Reformation. Now, availability notwithstanding, it is no longer a staple of everyone's education. We have undone this spectacular accomplishment of Wyclif, Tyndale, Jerome, Calvin and many more.

Podhoretz says we need the Bible, and we need especially to understand the prophets. They have been the most neglected of all. He cites two main misconceptions: (1) the "Christological" fallacy, that the Old Testament prophets were foretelling the coming of Jesus; (2) that they were not so much describing the future as they were exposing the evils of their own time and place. When it becomes specific, and indeed only when, does it take on universal significance.

Isaiah 57 is a case in point. He sees specific offenses--mistreating the unfortunates of society, making lewd or derisive finger signs, cultivating sharp practices. He then tells what the consequences will be, that the society brings on adverse conditions when people do these things. (I'm writing from memory, it may be 58, and I can't quote the text, alas.) He has already promised salvation in 40--"Comfort ye, my people, saith your God." He goes on with promises of abundance in 55, of Jerusalem being cherished by God "as one whom him mother comforts."

I think we can take these promises, these uncoverings of evils, these human and divine remedies personally as well as socially. We have to meet the conditions, summed up perhaps as what Micah sees as God's requirement: to "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God."

As for an end, well, haven't several worlds ended during recorded history? Isn't much of the Bible written in the present or aorist tense? It isn't for one time only that the prophecies apply, but when collectively enough people decide to avail themselves of the promises by fulfilling the conditions, then real amelioration, real salvation come. Then "they shall not hurt nor destroy in ALL my holy mountain."

Focus on what you, individually, must do to enjoy the promised divine comfort!

[RoseBud]

Who says that the Bible has become irrelevant? Did God say it?

No!

I find the Bible VERY relevant. Do you know that Bible prophesy speaks of things that sound very much like modern technology? "The elements shall melt with fervent heat" sounds like an atomic blast, and the "passage about running to and fro, increasing knowledge" could describe traffic on "the information superhighway."

But there are more fundamental ways that the Bible is still relevant. Human nature has not changed, and we still struggle with problems like crime, broken marriages, and so on. How can we respond sanely to these things? The Bible addresses these and many other current and relevant topics.

Let's take the headlines. A man is charged with the murder of his pregnant wife. The Bible offers a perspective on murder, and on violent actions resulting in the loss of a fetus. Fingers are being pointed regarding the looting of Iraqi museums. The Bible addresses theft, receiving stolen property, etc. Should the US allow the UN to help rebuild Iraq? "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

If you want to see how very relevant the Bible is today, I suggest you start with Proverbs. Rebellious children? They're in there. Drug addicts? That topic is covered. Cheating spouses? Yeppers, that's addressed. Dishonest politicians? Sure thing. Crooked business? That too.

[Shea]

I would also like to add a passage from Hebrews 13,

8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.

Just my imput! ;)

[Chardata]

i totally agree with Rosebud and Shea! They both make wonderful points. 8)

[blazeofglory]

The Bible in the present century has some pertinence but it should not be asserted at the expenses of other religions as well.

[jgweed]

"Relevancy" can mean many things, especially when discussing Biblical interpretations. For many, the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God is no longer tenable, and in this sense, the Bible is no longer relevant---Perhaps because this view requires a certain amount of ignor-ance of science (even as to the actual age of the world) and critical research into the text, perhaps because on a careful reading, many passages support moral viewpoints no longer acceptable (e.g. the secondary place of women, or slavery, or condemnation of homosexuality).
That is to say, that as a account of actual history or as a divine and complete set of rules for conduct and as a source of knowledge that one must follow for a promised immortality, its relevance is limited to a small, but vocal, group of sects.

But on the other hand, as one of the harbingers of certain poetical human truths about the human condition, it remains relevant to many persons' lives. In this sense, I would suggest that the statement "When it becomes specific, and indeed only when, does it take on universal significance" is completely inaccurate, and just the opposite is the ground for any relevancy to human lives.

It is ironic, but not far from the truth, that the cause of the Bible becoming non-relevant in more and more individual lives is the very strident insistence on its literalness on the part of sects in an effort to make it relevant, and their sad attempt to politically interfere with the ordinary lives of the "misguided" for their own good.

[Pendragon]

You don't think it might also be from the increase in wicked behavior, Weed? Any major newspaper will have enough articles to make you wonder if we have returned to the days of Noah, when every thought and imagination of man's heart was totally wicked before God! Murder-- up a large percentage. Violent crime-- the same. Gangs-- up in membership. Drug sales-- up, up, up. Suicide-- up. Prisons-- full to running over. Corrupt politics-- yeah, buddy! The world is a wicked place! :cool:

[slobone]

The question is, is the Bible relevant if you're not a practicing Christian or Jew? You can still read it purely for its literary, historical, cultural, psychological, and philosophical importance, all of which are immense.

It's odd to hear Bloom say that the Bible isn't relevant when he himself recently produced a new translation of part of the book of Genesis. He certainly considers Shakespeare relevant, and to me the Bible is just as multi-faceted and inexhaustible.

Furthermore, in no sense has Western culture moved beyond the Bible, not in the United States at least. We probably have a higher percentage of people who read the Bible regularly than any country in the world. You can't understand a lot of current politics without an appreciation of what people are extracting from it these days.

[Redzeppelin]

The Bible in the present century has some pertinence but it should not be asserted at the expenses of other religions as well.

What does this mean? Does it mean that I can't say it's the only correct revelation of the character of God? Could you clarify the verb "asserted" because I don't understand exactly what you mean?

And, just for the sake of discussion, am I supposed to be concerned about offending other religions? Are they concerned about offending Christianity?

Just asking.

[CognitiveArtist]

"The West", that vague culture, is very much in cultural change in belief. The church used to be a central institution or social structure, which made most individuals identify with the religion of the church. For those in the West this made Christianity central to lives and self-understanding. But around the 19th century and definitely by the middle of the 20th century the church became one of the least central institutions. That is, identification with Christianity rapidly declined. This was more a loss of religiosity, that is involvement of religion in a person's life then simple identification with religion ("yeah, I'm a Christian on sundays").
A main reason for the loss of relevance of religion is the increase in self-reflexivity and individualistic culture in the 20th century. Identification became more personal. Also with increases in liberties and general security people became safe to pursue what they want. I think this was, and is, marvelous social change as people become more loyal to what they affiliate with, there is more commitment. One problem I have, and believe is widespread, is religions (and specifically the West's dominant faith Christianity) present their religion simplistically. The rise of Evangelicalism and American Fundamentalism (which is more then 50% of Christianity in the USA, easily) are attempts to package a richly diverse tradition, which individuals may take to if the stories hadn't been lazily sold to them. This repulsion to religion culturally compressed in individualistic societies is partly the overjustification effect. I've heard adults (even a few university professors) profess the wonder of reading the Bible after being completely ignorant of it. And I enviously wish I could of approached it without the tainting superficial summaries desperately spread by religionists.

The Bible can be genuinely appreciated by people today, compared with it being the single desperate certainty people could cling to prior to the 19th century when the church was central. It will never be as central as it once was, as a crucial anchor keeping horizon-less societies from disintegrating. People who don't desire religion/spirituality to be a key part of their life can live finely, some people just aren't religious. Even the eminent theologian Paul Tillich thought "religion is not a special function of the human spirit!".
The Bible is never going to be irrelevant for Christians, Jews, non-Christians and non-Jews. It will always be valued as a spiritual piece of literature and as a part of Western cultural history.

Pendragon, if you're comments are serious I find it shortsighted to think 'wickedness' is the prime cause of the decline of religions. In countries strife with 'wickedness' (low human development indexes, considered failing states, high crime and economic failure etc.) like South Africa, Uganda, Columbia Christianity is above 80% and growing. In unstable and undeveloped countries religions easily spread, as something like religion is necessary to get by. Wicked or tragic circumstances don't seems to repel religion, but rather call to it in desperation.

In address to the OP, I think the Bible doesn't instruct us to wait for an end, I don't think even Revelations commands that. I think the Christian Scriptures (to avoid the political phrase 'New Testament') had different messages which can nourish living in the here-now. Also, like it's been said, there Bible can be read not as religious instruction but as aesthetic enjoyment. I recently read song of songs which I had always passed by, but in that fragment of literature I found large enjoyment.

[JBI]

Got is Tod - Frederick Nietzsche.

The bible has lost its relevance as a moral guide, I am certain of that. If anyone tries to stone their son to death, and they get pulled in front of the court, and they say "God told me to do it in the Bible." I am pretty sure, unless they are in some backwater rural area in the southern U.S., that the ruling will be against them (and even then, the backwater rural area may have the sense to convict them, I just left the gate open for an exception).

The bible as the source for where values come from is completely dated. Our way of life is too different from the Biblical times, and our society too mature, to accept the book as a moral code of any kind. Instead we rely on secular law, which does a far better job (in my opinion) by enabling other opinions besides the King James Version Opinion to be taken into the mix.

That being said, I think Canada does a far better job than the United States at separating church from state, but the "religion" question sticks its face in every now and then. Places like Sweden, and The Netherlands seem to have gone the furthest from the Biblical code, though you can still hear the Bible poking its face out if you look.

As for a text of literature, it offers many great passages, and great moments. I know Harold Bloom would agree with me there, and on almost every other issue I have raised, but, as he has seen, the book should be taken to be read along side The Iliad, and the Odyssey, and the Upanishads as works of art, and not fact, or moral codes.

I don't read Lolita to get moral lessons, nor do I read Eugene Onegin to learn how to be a good person. I read them for what they are, and it is this problem with the Bible, that people cease to read it as what it is, a literary work, that creates "religious conflict" and fundamentalism. Note, you could probably insert Torah, Koran, or Book of Mormon, amongst other books in here and come to the same result, though unfortunately the Book of Mormon is mediocre literature.

[dzebra]

If anyone tries to stone their son to death, and they get pulled in front of the court, and they say "God told me to do it in the Bible." I am pretty sure, unless they are in some backwater rural area in the southern U.S., that the ruling will be against them.

I hope no one tries that one.



The bible has lost its relevance as a moral guide, I am certain of that.


From my understanding of the Bible, it teaches about love, peace, kindness, forgiveness, generosity, and humility. I think that's exactly what this era needs. It's a pretty dangerous and corrupt time to be living right now, and it seems to me that the moral guidance of the Bible would make things better.

[CognitiveArtist]

From my understanding of the Bible, it teaches about love, peace, kindness, forgiveness, generosity, and humility. I think that's exactly what this era needs. It's a pretty dangerous and corrupt time to be living right now, and it seems to me that the moral guidance of the Bible would make things better.

The Bible may inspire love, peace, kindness, forgiveness, generosity and humility but i don't think it teaches or has taught these values. It is a literary production made up of many different books by many different authors, who all had different agendas. Then there's all the redactions, which are so plural redaction criticism had to be created. This in no way damages the quality the individual books and narratives, but it just must be acknowledged that the books and narratives are irreconcilable. There is no overt set of morals to the Bible. To repeat, this is no detrimental aspect to the Bible, it is only problematic for people who try to give a rich, complex set of texts overarching meaning.
For ethical guidance Plato's dialogues or Kant's critiques are much more superior instruction.

[Redzeppelin]

The Bible may inspire love, peace, kindness, forgiveness, generosity and humility but i don't think it teaches or has taught these values. It is a literary production made up of many different books by many different authors, who all had different agendas. Then there's all the redactions, which are so plural redaction criticism had to be created. This in no way damages the quality the individual books and narratives, but it just must be acknowledged that the books and narratives are irreconcilable. There is no overt set of morals to the Bible. To repeat, this is no detrimental aspect to the Bible, it is only problematic for people who try to give a rich, complex set of texts overarching meaning.
For ethical guidance Plato's dialogues or Kant's critiques are much more superior instruction.

The Bible is a self-referencing text that presents a cohesive narrative focused on the revelation of the character of God. The writers may indeed have had "different agendas" at a particular level, but if they were inspired by God, these agendas all anchored to God himself. I don't understand how the narratives are "irreconcilable" - how is that so? Because of discrepancies?

Plato or Kant may give a "superior instruction" in terms of morals - but they have no solution to the problem of evil. The Bible does - as well as giving a reason as to why morality has any weight whatsoever.

[hellsapoppin]

"The writers may indeed have had "different agendas" at a particular level, but if they were inspired by God, these agendas all anchored to God himself."


Recall, however, that a certain character asserted that he conducted a certain conflict because he had been divinely inspired to do so. Today, the veracity of such a divine revelation has been shown to be rather apocryphal. ;)

[CognitiveArtist]

The Bible is a self-referencing text that presents a cohesive narrative focused on the revelation of the character of God. The writers may indeed have had "different agendas" at a particular level, but if they were inspired by God, these agendas all anchored to God himself. I don't understand how the narratives are "irreconcilable" - how is that so? Because of discrepancies? The four canonical gospels are irreconcilable, they all have different narratives and different theologies. For example, the passion narratives are different in each gospel. Jesus says different things on the way to his crucification, different people visit the tomb and there are different post-mortem reports in each gospel (Jesus only ascends in Luke and isn't seen at all in Mark for instance). To repeat what I repeated in my last post it's nothing against the Bible and the books in it. For further information I recommend listening to Prof Thomas Sheehan's lecture Call me Yeshua or Prof Bart D. Ehrman's lecture Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know both on Stanford Itunes (http://itunes.stanford.edu/) (In the Itunes Store, then Itunes U, then Stanford).


Plato or Kant may give a "superior instruction" in terms of morals - but they have no solution to the problem of evil. The Bible does - as well as giving a reason as to why morality has any weight whatsoever. The problem of evil isn't a problem if you don't believe in an All powerful, All knowing and All good God. Also the Bible has contradictory responses to the problem of evil, with none of them providing a satisfactory rebuttal. As Prof Ehrman explains in an interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131) about his book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer.

[Redzeppelin]

The four canonical gospels are irreconcilable, they all have different narratives and different theologies. For example, the passion narratives are different in each gospel. Jesus says different things on the way to his crucification, different people visit the tomb and there are different post-mortem reports in each gospel (Jesus only ascends in Luke and isn't seen at all in Mark for instance). To repeat what I repeated in my last post it's nothing against the Bible and the books in it. For further information I recommend listening to Prof Thomas Sheehan's lecture Call me Yeshua or Prof Bart D. Ehrman's lecture Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know both on Stanford Itunes (http://itunes.stanford.edu/) (In the Itunes Store, then Itunes U, then Stanford).

The short response is that other scholars assert that the disparities (none of which affect the theology presented) reinforce the validity of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts. History books are not much different - except that we are given one of the possible views. Most people understand and accept that the story one tells is largely related to where one was standing at the time of the incident, and what one thought was important to record. Isn't it possible that the differing accounts complement (rather than contradict) each other?


The problem of evil isn't a problem if you don't believe in an All powerful, All knowing and All good God. Also the Bible has contradictory responses to the problem of evil, with none of them providing a satisfactory rebuttal. As Prof Ehrman explains in an interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131) about his book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer.

Evil exists, even if you decide to a) wish it out of existence, or b) call it by a different name. Disbelieveing in God doesn't make murder, rape, child molestation, genocide, et al disappear. Those things are here - they are perpetuated by human beings, and I cannot think of a more appropriate term for such things than evil.

I'm curious about the Bible's "contradictory responses to the problem of evil" - can you elaborate?

[CognitiveArtist]

The short response is that other scholars assert that the disparities (none of which affect the theology presented) reinforce the validity of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts. History books are not much different - except that we are given one of the possible views. Most people understand and accept that the story one tells is largely related to where one was standing at the time of the incident, and what one thought was important to record. Isn't it possible that the differing accounts complement (rather than contradict) each other? Firstly let it be known I'm analysing the Bible textually, I'm not inferring historicity. I'm just examining what the texts say.
Short answer, no the texts don't complement each other. Because the books of the Bible have individual agendas which tell rich individual stories that should be appreciated as such. When Jesus is lead to be crucified in the Gospel of Mark Jesus is a sufferer, he's not in control. It's a relatively short passage where Jesus is lead to be crucified after his sentencing by Pilate and the Jewish mob. In the Gospel of Mark Jesus says nothing. He is sentenced to crucification and the only words he says, his last words are "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?", My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? He is mocked by the soldiers (Mark 15:16-20), robbed of his dirty clothes which he wore through his degrading (Mark 15:24) and mocked by passers-by and the priests (Mark 15:29, Mark 15:31). Jesus says nothing through all this until his final words. Compare this with the Gospel of Luke. Here Jesus is sentenced by Pilate, the Jewish mob and Herod. Jesus remains largely silent whilst being sentenced by these parties, but when he is lead to be crucified and is amongst people he says
28Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" ' 31For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" (Luke 23:28-31 New International Version)

Jesus gives a lengthy monologue, saying don't worry about me worry about yourselves. He is in power, he talkatively says later "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34) while they are dividing up his clothes! He is actively focusing on others and not simply being a whipping-boy. Then Jesus and the thieves trade a few sentences of talk (Luke 23:39-43). Jesus can optimistically say "today you will be with me in paradise", not only feeling self secure but is reassuring to others. In the Gospel of Luke the final words of Jesus are "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), in control and optimistic. Compared with Mark's Jesus who is questioning, feeling betrayed "why have you foresaken me?", written in Aramaic instead of Greek to emphasise how personal this expression is.

I do not have time for lengthy exegesis, but I'll finally compare the ends of Mark and Luke. In Mark three women go to the tomb, find a man in white who tells them to look for Jesus in Galilee and they flee never saying anything to anyone (Mark 16:8)! Makes you wonder how these details got recorded doesn't it? Compared with Luke, who narrates Jesus being found around the tomb, talking to people, talking to some more people then "while he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven" (Luke 24:51). Mark tells his unique story of it ending in the tomb, Luke tells his of lengthy interactions with an ascension into heaven. I have stressed this throughout my other posts and will say it again. I am not pointing out that there's conflict, that the stories don't add up, I'm just saying that they are individual, unique stories! And it is fitting to recognise and appreciate them as such. Otherwise you miss and talk over the rich nuances detailing what Mark had to say in his narrative and what Luke had to say in his narrative.



Evil exists, even if you decide to a) wish it out of existence, or b) call it by a different name. Disbelieveing in God doesn't make murder, rape, child molestation, genocide, et al disappear. Those things are here - they are perpetuated by human beings, and I cannot think of a more appropriate term for such things than evil.

I'm curious about the Bible's "contradictory responses to the problem of evil" - can you elaborate?
I think we may have our lines crossed. The problem of evil is what the first sentence of the problem of evil wikipedia article reads "in the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God, a force for infinite good" (problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)). Or this is what I presumed you meant by the problem of evil. You seem to be on the other hand referring to how can a person exist in a world with evil. My way for living in a world not free of evil is to do as little evil as I can and promote good. I am a clinical psychologist in training, I am conscious of the evil in this world and I'm doing what I can to reduce it. The Bible doesn't motivate me to live in this world with evil, I use a lot of other resources to get by.

[Redzeppelin]

Firstly let it be known I'm analysing the Bible textually, I'm not inferring historicity. I'm just examining what the texts say.
Short answer, no the texts don't complement each other. Because the books of the Bible have individual agendas which tell rich individual stories that should be appreciated as such. When Jesus is lead to be crucified in the Gospel of Mark Jesus is a sufferer, he's not in control. It's a relatively short passage where Jesus is lead to be crucified after his sentencing by Pilate and the Jewish mob. In the Gospel of Mark Jesus says nothing. He is sentenced to crucification and the only words he says, his last words are "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?", My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? He is mocked by the soldiers (Mark 15:16-20), robbed of his dirty clothes which he wore through his degrading (Mark 15:24) and mocked by passers-by and the priests (Mark 15:29, Mark 15:31). Jesus says nothing through all this until his final words. Compare this with the Gospel of Luke. Here Jesus is sentenced by Pilate, the Jewish mob and Herod. Jesus remains largely silent whilst being sentenced by these parties, but when he is lead to be crucified and is amongst people he says (Luke 23:28-31 New International Version)

Jesus gives a lengthy monologue, saying don't worry about me worry about yourselves. He is in power, he talkatively says later "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34) while they are dividing up his clothes! He is actively focusing on others and not simply being a whipping-boy. Then Jesus and the thieves trade a few sentences of talk (Luke 23:39-43). Jesus can optimistically say "today you will be with me in paradise", not only feeling self secure but is reassuring to others. In the Gospel of Luke the final words of Jesus are "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), in control and optimistic. Compared with Mark's Jesus who is questioning, feeling betrayed "why have you foresaken me?", written in Aramaic instead of Greek to emphasise how personal this expression is.

I do not have time for lengthy exegesis, but I'll finally compare the ends of Mark and Luke. In Mark three women go to the tomb, find a man in white who tells them to look for Jesus in Galilee and they flee never saying anything to anyone (Mark 16:8)! Makes you wonder how these details got recorded doesn't it? Compared with Luke, who narrates Jesus being found around the tomb, talking to people, talking to some more people then "while he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven" (Luke 24:51). Mark tells his unique story of it ending in the tomb, Luke tells his of lengthy interactions with an ascension into heaven. I have stressed this throughout my other posts and will say it again. I am not pointing out that there's conflict, that the stories don't add up, I'm just saying that they are individual, unique stories! And it is fitting to recognise and appreciate them as such. Otherwise you miss and talk over the rich nuances detailing what Mark had to say in his narrative and what Luke had to say in his narrative.

But you've not supplied anything that invalidates the stories - and perhaps I misunderstand your post. When people suggest that the Gospels are "irreconcilable," that suggests to me that the person is implying that the "irreconcilability" is a mark of invalid accounts. What you've listed above strikes me as different writers offering different accounts and stressing different aspects of the topic. That is why 4 gospels are included in the Bible - if they all simply reiterated the same exact things, why bother? If I collect 6 different accounts of the Battle at Gettysberg from reliable sources, I would assume that their differing perspectives and "agendas" meant that they would stress different aspects of the battle.

Since they all purport to describe the same event, I don't see how they can be "irreconcilable" and valid at the same time.




I think we may have our lines crossed. The problem of evil is what the first sentence of the problem of evil wikipedia article reads "in the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God, a force for infinite good" (problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)). Or this is what I presumed you meant by the problem of evil. You seem to be on the other hand referring to how can a person exist in a world with evil. My way for living in a world not free of evil is to do as little evil as I can and promote good. I am a clinical psychologist in training, I am conscious of the evil in this world and I'm doing what I can to reduce it. The Bible doesn't motivate me to live in this world with evil, I use a lot of other resources to get by.

The entire Bible - specifically the Gospels - suggests that Jesus Christ is the solution to the problem of evil in the universe. Evil exists because of man's fallen nature - a consequence of his choice to choose self-service over service to God. When you talk about different approaches to the problem of evil, that's what I'm thinking of - there is no contradiction: the Gospels all tell of God's solution to the problem of evil: Christ and his sacrifice on the cross.