Ask Me Help Desk - Bible question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morganite

Show me where I have hurled epithets against anyone who does not believe in it.

The Bible, like all religious books, deserves better treatment than a put down. I believed I had made that clear in my previous post.

MORGANITE

I think you should reread my statement you responded to. I think you are getting a bit emotional and taking things personally.

My statement said: Originally Posted by celtearth
And You are obviously biased to one side also because you failed to mention the hurling of epithets against those who do not believe in it.

If my statement said "Your hurling of epithets" then your response would have been justified. Regardless, I digress.

I think the positive aspects of the bible and other religious books definitely are worthy of respect. Love and all that it encompasses in any form of written work, that is designed to teach us to love and embrace each other is the all important point.

It's the politics, prejudices and judgements that religious persons that are used to separate one another from who's right and who's wrong that I disagree with in any written book that people follow religiously. The bible has good aspects and bad aspects that are obvious reflections that the book was written by mans opinion and interpretation of what is right and wrong. People follow these other ways of thinking blindly, like sheep and use them to justify their own actions.

How can one explain a group such as the KKK being so adamantly and absolutely sure of themselves being 100% right and following the teachings of the bible to justify their every action yet those of us on the outside can see how wrong they are. Is it not the same thing, that people use this book to justify their own beliefs and it's all up to interpretation that best fits their own desires and prejudices. Who can say that the writers, ever so flawed that the bible presents itself, did not use their own prejudices to convey their own thoughts and feelings as they saw fit.

The ultimate flaw of the bible is that it is interpreted by the reader so how can it be the ultimate truth (and above all other books that claim the same)? Not two persons would agree from the first page to the last on it's exact interpretations, nor would the publishers or translators over the many centuries. It all can be interpreted to confirm or refute one's own internal working model of what is and is not right and just.

God is beyond a book, and yes, if it helps people to be more loving and kind towards one another, to respect and not judge others that's great, but when it turns people against others and causes people to judge others as wrong and themselves right it becomes very unholy. This book can not be the ultimate truth, God is too great to be held within the pages.

There is much more to the infinite than any language can portray.

Thank you for your explanation.

It's the politics, prejudices and judgements that religious persons that are used to seperate one another from who's right and who's wrong that I disagree

I quite agree. But it doesn't stop at books, written or otherwise. It needs to be applied to every form of human interaction.

Not all people who are religious are prejudiced. Not all who are not religious are free of prejudice.

The bible has good aspects and bad aspects that are obvious reflections that the book was written by mans opinion and interpretation of what is right and wrong. People follow these other ways of thinking blindly, like sheep and use them to justify their own actions.

Leaving aside the question of the inspiration behind the making of the Bible, if you had said "Some people" instead of "People" then I would agree. I am sure that is what you meant to say.

How can one explain a group such as the KKK being so adamantly and absolutely sure of themselves being 100% right and following the teachings of the bible to justify their every action yet those of us on the outside can see how wrong they are.

I have never heard a good and reasonable argument from the KKK, the Nazi Party, any of the Neo-Nazi Parties, White Supremacists, or any of their ilk justify their practices from the Bible.

The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." These people do.
The Bible says "Love thy neighbor" These people don't.

The root of their hatred is not religious but political and tribal. It is extremely unfortunate that many of these groups also claim that their members are Christians. They cannot be. If the KKK followed the teachings of the Bible to justify their every action, they would dissemble, launder their sheets and make up a bed for a black neighbor who the Bible has taught them to love.

I find it sad that you are ready either to throw away or disregard the Bible and religion because of the actions of those who are, in comparison with the whole population, a few evil and misguided people. If you can only see the Bible through the eyes of the KKK or its antitheses then you cannot see the Bible. You cannot see it because your view of it is distorted by reference to these groups.

Is it not the same thing, that people use this book to justify their own beliefs and it's all up to interpretation that best fits their own desires and prejudices. Who can say that the writers, ever so flawed that the bible presents itself, did not use their own prejudices to convey their own thoughts and feelings as they saw fit.

The Bible can not be blamed for the use people make of it. That is tantamount to blaming the victim for the crime against him instead of pursuing the criminal. Whilst it is unreasonable to say that the writers of the Bible were anything but human, that ought not to prevent us from understanding their thoughts on the spiritual matters and profound questions that human beings ask about themselves and their universe.

It is easy to see how the great thoughts of some of these men explained in wonderful poetic language what they felt inspired to write and share. To denounce the Bible as nothing more but a handbook for race hate groups is to do it great injustice. Not that I am saying that is what you are doing. But when we make sweeping generalised statements about it and its readers/believers, we brush all the good and the bad into the same trash can and miss the gold.

The ultimate flaw of the bible is that it is interpreted by the reader so how can it be the ultimate truth (and above all other books that claim the same)? Not two persons would agree from the first page to the last on it's exact interpretations, nor would the publishers or translators over the many centuries. It all can be interpreted to confirm or refute one's own internal working model of what is and is not right and just.

How is the interpretation of the Bible its ultimate flaw? If there is any flaw in understanding it lies within the interpeters, and not with the Book itself, surely?

Your statement that "no two person would agree from the first page to the last on its exact interpretations" is easily shown to not be true. If you had said that no two religious groups or movements, denominations, call them what you will, agree on all points, then that is reasonable.

As to translators of the various editions "over the centuries," they have constantly made attempts to update the text to the linguistic currency of their own times. In doing so there are occasions when they have taken exceptional licence with their translations, either to meet their own theological perspectives, or because they didn't know what else to do. The texts of the Bible monographs are far from clear in some places, and so some words are 'supplied' in the interests of common sense. Some translations have been little more that cynical redirection of the text into theological straitjackets. These are readily detected/

The differences in belief that you point to, in the last of your paragraphs I have reproduced above, say nothing about the Bible, but tell us a lot about human nature. If religious texts were the sole reason for disagreement among people the wide world over, then there might be something in your argument against the Bible and other religious books.

You know, however, that such is not the case. There are greater differences among people regarding political philosophies, government, economical questions, wars, progress, science, human rights, poverty, immigration, down to such muindane matters as football, baseball, where to vacation, or what to have for dinner.

These difference arise because human beings are individuals, often uniquely different, and have discrete goals, which they are often unwilling to surrender, even when their doing so would benefit others. Altruism is not dead, but is in short supply when the question is asked, "What's in it for me?"

If you don't like the Bible, if you find it doesn't help your personal spiritual quest, then your solution is a simple one.

Personally, I like the Bible very much. It is a guide to me in my spiritual life. It helps me to understand my relationship with God, and helps me to consrtantly modify my behaviour to be more Christ-like. That's the hard bit because I am human with all the frailties of every other human being. But I have learned that what is not my personal religious preference, has great value for those whose preference it is, and I am content not to be intolerant, like the KKK, and not to persecute because of differences.

The Ba'hai Faith, which is not mine, speaking of the diversity of humanity says, "We are all flowers from one garden."

So, in the garden of life, I am an onion and you are a rose. We can see each others' differences and we can smell them. But we can live together in harmony, should we choose to do that.

MORGANITE

:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morganite

Thank you for your explanation.

It's the politics, prejudices and judgements that religious persons that are used to seperate one another from who's right and who's wrong that I disagree

I quite agree. But it doesn't stop at books, written or otherwise. It needs to be applied to every form of human interaction.

[B]Not all people who are religious are prejudiced. Not all who are not religious are free of prejudice.[/B]

MORGANITE

I disagree. All people have prejudices - and the interpretation of prejudice here is not meant to mean bigotted, racist or discriminatory, it is to be interpreted as "a bias, belief or attitude formed beforehand." (another example of how words are all up to interpretation by the reader or writer). Everyone has their own prejudices in this meaning quoted. Either your ideas and beliefs are due to someone initially telling you what something means (according to their interpretation) or your ideas and interpretation of such a thing is based on your past experiences and knowledge which leads you to make conclusions on written words upon how you think and feel about a particular subject. Everything is filtered through the mind which is always leaning in one direction or another according to your decisions, choices and biases. The thing is no two people make choices exactly the same way and by simply agreeing with someone else's interpretation of something doesn't make it right, as they have processed the information in the same way, by using their own biases and choices to decide what their belief is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonfly11

I disagree. All people have prejudices - and the interpretation of prejudice here is not meant to mean bigotted, racist or discriminatory, it is to be interpreted as "a bias, belief or attitude formed beforehand." (another example of how words are all up to interpretation by the reader or writer). Everyone has their own prejudices in this meaning quoted. Either your ideas and beliefs are due to someone initially telling you what something means (according to their interpretation) or your ideas and interpretation of such a thing is based on your past experiences and knowledge which leads you to make conclusions on written words upon how you think and feel about a particular subject. Everything is filtered through the mind which is always leaning in one direction or another according to your decisions, choices and biases. The thing is no two people make choices exactly the same way and by simply agreeing with someone elses interpretation of something doesn't make it right, as they have processed the information in the same way, by using their own biases and choices to decide what their belief is.

I hope that you can see that I used 'prejudice' in the context of the poster to whom I replied, and that was racial prejudice, unless the KKK has changed its ways.

So when I used it is WAS meant to convey the meanings you say it wasn't. You must allow me to know what I mean when I wrote it even if I didn't make it clear enough for everyone.

MORGANOTE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morganite

MORGANOTE

I see that you rewrote your responses in #102 for motive.

Quote:

How is the interpretation of the Bible its ultimate flaw? If there is any flaw in understanding it lies within the interpeters, and not with the Book itself, surely?

Lets just agree to disagree. You've missed my whole point. The writers also had their own perspective and perceptions so it is only sensical that a book written by men would revolve around their own philosophies and perceptions. How is a mans interpretation of truth written on paper not blinded by his own mind.

And about the KKK, I'm sorry you've completely taken out of context my perception (well of course, the written words of men are flawed so it's all up to interpretation right, no wonder you're making judgements of my "distorted" view based on one example I had given - there's a lot more to me than the written word can hold on a message board or on a book - but it's easy for the reader to make their own interpretation of who and what I really am - That is the flaw).

Quote:

Your statement that "no two person would agree from the first page to the last on its exact interpretations" is easily shown to not be true. If you had said that no two religious groups or movements, denominations, call them what you will, agree on all points, then that is reasonable.

I completely disagree with you here. It is impossible for two persons of even the same religious group to interpret the words the same. Only programmed robots or computer chips can replicate. It's basic psychology. The mind is a flowing, energetic rhythm that is an ever changing palette of our emotions, feelings, views and so much more. Just as no two people have the same experiences in life, nor are their perceptions of any thing the same.

I think you know the garden exists but are not willing to accept you are one with it, and with that, one with all, including me.

And to all the other points you've edited, you're clouding the point and aren't willing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by celtearth

I see that you rewrote your responses in #102 for motive.

Lets just agree to disagree. You've missed my whole point. The writers also had their own perspective and perceptions so it is only sensical that a book written by men would revolve around their own philosophies and perceptions. How is a mans interpretation of truth written on paper not blinded by his own mind.

And about the KKK, I'm sorry you've completely taken out of context my perception (well of course, the written words of men are flawed so it's all up to interpretation right, no wonder you're making judgements of my "distorted" view based on one example I had given - there's a lot more to me than the written word can hold on a message board or on a book - but it's easy for the reader to make their own interpretation of who and what I really am - That is the flaw).

I completely disagree with you here. It is impossible for two persons of even the same religious group to interpret the words the same. Only programmed robots or computer chips can replicate. It's basic psychology. The mind is a flowing, energetic rythm that is an ever changing palette of our emotions, feelings, views and so much more. Just as no two people have the same experiences in life, nor are their perceptions of any thing the same.

I think you know the garden exists but are not willing to accept you are one with it, and with that, one with all, including me.

And to all the other points you've edited, you're clouding the point and aren't willing.

Thank you for the lesson in psychology, but it was neither necessary or helpful, and though you disagree, you do not know me better than I know myself. To insist that you do is to occupy one of the positions that you say you are against. How does that work?

I mistakenly thought that you were open to discussion, but I now see you are unwilling to see another's point of view, or even consider it, so will say farewell and good luck.

MORGANITE

:rolleyes:

I Would Tend To Agree That Unless You Are Fortunate Enough To
Read The Original Text, You Are Reading Someone's Interpretation.
This Is Why The Jewish Scrolls Are So Important. If In Copying One Scroll To Another, The Tiniest Error Was Made The Entire Scroll Was Destroyed And Started Anew From The Beginning. The Hebrews Were Emphatic About Knowing The Word Of God In It's Exactness.
And Please Bear In Mind That There Are Many Words In Hebrew That Have No English Translation For Them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by STONY

I Would Tend To Agree That Unless You Are Fortunate Enough To
Read The Original Text, You Are Reading Someone's Interpretation.
This Is Why The Jewish Scrolls Are So Important. If In Copying One Scroll To Another, The Tiniest Error Was Made The Entire Scroll Was Destroyed And Started Anew From The Begining. The Hebrews Were Emphatic About Knowing The Word Of God In It's Exactness.
And Please Bear In Mind That There Are Many Words In Hebrew That Have No English Translation For Them.

You are right in thinking that errors were not tolerated. If found, the scrolls were not destroyed but placed in a special place to remain out of circulation. If the errors were not found thene the errors went down to then next generation of copyists and were perpetuated. When errors were noted in writings that were in circulation it was th epractice for a scribe to make an emendation in the margin explaining what was meant. Marginal notes were also made to either explain historical things no longer current or to make a theological point that was either vague or different than was what written. Over time, these marginal notes became included in the body of the text. They are called glosses. There are Hebrew words thsat have no English equivalent, and some words in Hebrew as written make no sense in any languiage, not even in Hebrew.

As there are no original texts anywhere ion the world we have to do the best we can with what are available. This is a tricky problem.

MORGANITE

:)

In 1991 I Was Fgortunate Enough To Be Able To Visit Israel For A Short Tour, 9 Days I Think It Was. While At The Hebrew University
I Was Able To See A Scroll Under Glass Of The Book Of Isaiah. I Have No Idea How Old It Was But Had It Not Been For The Glass And Lack Of Oxygen It Would Have Disintigrated. As For Words That Are Not Translatable, "abba" Comes To Mind First. We Call It Father, But It Is A Much More Intimate Feeling To The Word And "daddy" Just Doesn't Come Close Enough To The Mark. Therefore The Next Reasonable Facsimile Is Used Instead. Thank You For Your Input,
It Is Much Appriciated...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morganite

Thank you for the lesson in psychology, but it was neither necessary or helpful, and though you disagree, you do not know me better than I know myself. To insist that you do is to occupy one of the positions that you say you are against. How does that work?

I mistakenly thought that you were open to discussion, but I now see you are unwilling to see another's point of view, or even consider it, so will say farewell and good luck.

MORGANITE

:rolleyes:

You can not have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you it seems. I am open to discussion.

I think my last post is clear.

The considerations of Pope John Paull II and the current Pope Benedict XVI on changing the rules of purgatory is proof that religion is made up as they go along and those in power do make changes. A book can easily be edited and burned.

Okay yes this is a really old post but it reminds me of something so there. A while back my friend I used to wrk with in sc gave me this letter to read that she had printed up. Basically it was a whole bunch of things from the bible about how much jesus loves us and it was like a love letter from jesus. I didn't get to keep it and id like to know where I can find it. It was really sweet and I think my mom and dad would like it also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonfly11

The considerations of Pope John Paull II and the current Pope Benedict XVI on changing the rules of purgatory is proof that religion is made up as they go along and those in power do make changes. A book can easily be edited and burned.

LOL They coul,d hardly change the 'rules of purgatory' even if there was such a place.

What they can do is reinterpret how the Church's teachings on purgatory should be understood.

Redefinition is 'proof' of nothing.

MORGANITE

I'm interesed!! What rules were changed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonfly11

The considerations of Pope John Paull II and the current Pope Benedict XVI on changing the rules of purgatory is proof that religion is made up as they go along and those in power do make changes. A book can easily be edited and burned.

Please provided souce.
Thanks Much.:)
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Wow... lots of good stuff here. BUt her in my simple way of thinking is my answer to the question: "What is the theme of The Bible?". There isn't one. It is a series of short storys and letters collected by man into a single book with the purpose of illustrating God's plan and rules for us, His people.

Wow... lots of good stuff here. But here in my simple way of thinking is my answer to the question: "What is the theme of The Bible?". There isn't one. It is a series of short storys and letters collected by man into a single book with the purpose of illustrating God's plan and rules for us, His people.

I'd agree that there is no overall "Theme" in the Bible. It is not a book, but a collection of books, and whereas manyu of the books do have a more or less central theme, those themes do not migrate to cover the book as a whole.

Seeking to know the theme of the Bible is rather like asking a librarian what the theme of his library is.

M:)RGANITE

Though I do agree that no book in the bible is the same, I would say that an overall theme is, in both old and new testaments, that Jesus is the Christ. Starting with Genesis we see types of CHrist and it goes on through the end. But yes, I do agree that at the same time it's very different in what each book teaches.

Moranite,
Just for the fun of it I phone a librarian I knew and read you post to her.
Then I asked the question, "What is the theme of a library?"
She answered, "It's obvious. "The theme is collecting published knowledge, the bigger the library the more successful collecting ."
So it dawned on me. The Bible's theme is knowledge of and about God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I like that a lot Fred. I think that is the most compete answer to the original question... now... as for what it's FOR... ahhhhh, that may be more what we are really talking about here, isn't it?