Before another discussion is ruined by the "Bible"

#1

As a moderator in this section, I have seen many a conversation turn essentially into a "Let's prove the Bible wrong." or alternatively "Let's prove the Bible Right." This really serves no purpose, and I find the whole thing to be completely distracting from the actual thread this on far too many occasions.

Therefore, I appeal to the membership here to consider, for a second, that its not all about the Bible's authority, or the Bible's inaccuracies.

Furthermore, there is NO good reason to not have a distinct thread about the Bible.

Resources will help,.. and here are some. Regardless of your stance, there are tons of links, and more are being made public than ever.

for example: http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm

Here is the Peshitta, which is the aramaic in translation still used by the Aramaic Christian Church, which predates any other.

So if you have a view of bias about the Bible, share it. We are not trying to convert, nor are we trying to disparage. We are just collecting our thoughts about the bible, in all its glory or lack thereof, in one place before we actually just become unable to have a conversation without it taking over.

vertical,
raum

#2

Should probably be pinned, and be the start of an awesome VU reference thread...

#3

Amen!

#4

I never actually felt like anyone was trying to convert me into christianity. I have always found religion and issues with religion quite facinating.

And for that I read a lot of posts where biblical references are made in order to understand where one is coming from. A lot of people on this site are actually quite informed about the christian ways and I'm not so I try hard to avoid replying into topics that spin off into just about christianity.

But none the less, I do still read the posts.

#5

I understand raum's frustration completely. Many other boards ban religious and political discussions for the same reason. The biggest problem is not if the Bible is right or not, it's people not respecting the beliefs of others that ruin threads. "Well that is just stupid because the Bible has been proven wrong about that /or/ the Bible says this." arguments are actually disrespecting the other person's views. If you tell me that you live your life according to a pamphlet you found in a fuzzy purple hat, I will respect you if you show me that you actually follow the teachings in the pamphlet.

Respect one another or be banned is my opinion.

#6

The beauty of any/all religious writings as that they can convey multiple meanings to multiple persons with the same passage or text. It's not the words, but the interpretation of the words that give them meaning. Each and every individual will and should interpret things differently based on their own experiences and there position/progress within the eternal journey. The proof of anything does not lie within the words but within the individual results of the person reading them and the effect of drawing that individual closer to God. (and trust me when I say that SHE wants us to be closer to HER.... )

#7

Deepak,

This is more to the point. The twelve disciples of Jesus were "Christians", right? Did they have a Bible? No.

The Criteria for being a part of the religion IS NOT the book (in this case). To my knowledge Jesus never argued for anything regarding Creationsism vs. Evolution, and it is not a facet of the religion. It may be imposed on by believers, but it has gotten in some cases to the point, that you can not mention religion at all, without it defaulting to a focus of Christianity, or specifically, the current debates in the Christian mentality, many of which have nothing to do with the actual edicts or ideas in the Pischitta, or the existing Aramaic New Testament.

As a religion, those who claim to be Christian may be a majority, but few can actually back up a scholarly or active Christian pursuit. So why must all this be about Christianity, as believed in current times.

Many "religions" have different views, so for people to just make sweeping general statements for or against the cause or effects of religion, as is often the case, it just isn't to the discredit of our forum, but a book many hold to be sacred.

Jeshua (called Jesus, called Iesu before) is an amazing man, no doubt; inside and outside the context of his stylistic reform of Judiasm. But he was trained in the traditions and curriculum of other religions for the purpose of debate. The same thing the pharisees did to Jesus, try to catch him up in his own words, or illustrate how he was violating the will of God by going against the will of the corrupt leaders of Judiasm who were flourishing in the confusion of Roman occupation. This is a classic approach to a action based religion like Judiasm, which is not a faith in redeemer, it is the course of actions of his People. Similarly, Hinduism is a action based religion, which encourages belief. Islam is a faith based religion that enforces action. While Buddhism is neither faith nor action based, rather is simply requires a certain orientation of the soul. and each of these "majorities" can be broken down into so many fringes that soon the tapestry of Religion reveals what a person can easily see. We are, all of us, unique. and we have not even begin to approach Religions of non-action; those which are not based on "belief" or "action", but rather based on what you "do not do." All of this is present in the world, and much of that world is illustrated in the Bible.

I honestly never feel I am trying to be "converted" by someone when they mention the Bible, but I do feel sometimes that were are having a discussion about some topic, and suddenly the current Biblical interpretation is introduced into the topic without context. It is fine, but at that point it seems the person would rather talk about the bible's content than the topic of the thread. So I created a thread soley dedicated to the Bible. And be sure I will be active in it.

So you got a beef with the book, or you got belief in the book, here is where to bring it out.

---------

but also keep in mind, there are many other "books" and many other paths... so when we are talking about religion, we are not just talking about ONE religion. but when we are talking about the "Bible", we are talking about the Holy Bible, though not just the King James version; and I will obviously expand the context to "extra-biblical" textual analysis and forensics, comparison, and reference.

I was tempted to create this thread long ago... but after the entire basis of Evolution and Intelligent Design was forcibly reduced to Natural Selection vs. Fundamental Biblical Creationsism, and there was room for no middle grounds or variations, I simply felt the time was right, and I had my focus.

I am not a man of conclusions. never have been. don't want to be. The me that will die on this planet is not the me I was born as, so few of those cells that were born to my Mother remain, that if the life of a cell is the condition of life, I am a completely different man. I observe what is, and examine the evidence of what was through that filter. Suits me fine. Sure, there are impossible attempts to predict the future by examining the past from some authoritative view, but there will always be gaps in that authority. Just as he who wished to speak about the future would be left failing some terms, and would have to use concepts, and metaphor.

I do not seek to arrive to conclusions about the Bible, I simply want to present facts about it and within it. Facts that neither speak for or against its spiritual import. Facts that are as obvious to the linguist or craftsman as genetics are to the molecular biologist. May these facts find a singular place here, so they can be comprised for clarity, and not dispersed and sources of contention.

and yes Mr. SM, she does... and so does he.

#8

QUOTE(raum @ Oct 26 2006, 08:37 AM) So you got a beef with the book, or you got belief in the book, here is where to bring it out.
OK, my beef with the book is rather simple. I have a positive faith in God, but my faith in the negative side of man is just as strong. Man has had control of the book since the initial writings of the apostles. I think that even you would have to admit that the middle ages were neither man nor the church's most shining years. Through the many rewritings and translations of the Bible, the words, and thus the meanings, have changed. Even if every single change was with the best intentions, which I doubt, with each translation comes an interpretation. With each interpretation comes a change of original meaning. As stalker writes, "religious writings as that they can convey multiple meanings to multiple persons with the same passage." Because of this, the meanings will change to each individual. So, in summary, if you ask me to have faith in the Bible, you are asking me to have faith in man and not God.

I am by no means an expert, so I invite argument on this subject.

#9

QUOTE(Highlander65 @ Nov 2 2006, 03:51 AM) OK, my beef with the book is rather simple. I have a positive faith in God, but my faith in the negative side of man is just as strong. Man has had control of the book since the initial writings of the apostles. I think that even you would have to admit that the middle ages were neither man nor the church's most shining years. Through the many rewritings and translations of the Bible, the words, and thus the meanings, have changed. Even if every single change was with the best intentions, which I doubt, with each translation comes an interpretation. With each interpretation comes a change of original meaning. As stalker writes, "religious writings as that they can convey multiple meanings to multiple persons with the same passage." Because of this, the meanings will change to each individual. So, in summary, if you ask me to have faith in the Bible, you are asking me to have faith in man and not God.

I am by no means an expert, so I invite argument on this subject.

I have been taught by both scientists and priests, that "The interpretations of others are dodgy".

"That's not ecologite, it's peridiotite!" "No it's a basalt!" No, that's not a basalt, it's an andesite!" "NO it's not, it's a mafic dolerite!' "NO, it's a quartz-rich tonalite!"

Sooner or later that ultramafic mafic rock will end up being considered as felsic as fresh pure quartz...

As has happened with the Holy Bible, the case of Chinese Whispers occured and things get warped and twisted in the process. Perceptions can interfere with understandings. Some things get re-phrased with good intentions. Parts are written by word-or-mouth to a scribe, who automatically edits things to their way, on the spot. Some things are hearsey and get mixed up and far from what they were. Some things get quite altered on purpose. And big chunks can get dropped out altogether, as has been discussed in Raum's "Pentagram" thread.

So you can see that is difficult relying on one source. And back to the "interpretations are dodgy" theory, basically what you have to do to get an understanding, is read widely, ask lots of questions, and make your own mind up from all that.

#10

My experience with the Bible was started by reading the book as a whole. I found that it is a very powerful experience to go through it with a group and having the context of the chapters. Like anything else, we get out of it what we bring in to it. I find it an amazing historical record of man's relationship with God and as such I can find much that I can use.

You can't "convert" someone anymore than you can "make" someone love or respect you. All you can do is be an example.

An interesting interpretation of the 3rd commandment (though shalt not use the Lord thy God's name in vain) is "Don't use God to hurt people".

When viewed in that light, it ceases to be a petty commandment about word usage and becomes a command against using religion as a weapon. Wish more of the world could see it that way.

(BTW, I am indeed bumping this topic - hope it's an appropriate bump, cause I like it.)