Bible - (most holy or most defiled?)

The bible is a massive book, so many people have “used” it…
And i think that it got shit in so much that my faith feels like an argument between chat room n00bz that was then cut/pasted and published like world news… Dr.Charit-C-Bullshitter reports: “the truth and the meaning of life!” …

So now i feel like the public opinion of the Bible is so insain and just…
worse then nothing?

Hi Dan~
Have you read the Bible, or parts of it?
Shalom

Bob, you are a nice person.

Yah it was read and quoted forever in my religion,
and id read it myself, etc etc…
wait…
People who think its myth and crazey crap,
wont realy feel what im trying to say here.

I was just feeling bad about how verious difforent religions each “use” the bible, yet say difforent things.

So, what do you think anyway?
Do you think the bible is the most messed up and twisted book around? Or has anyone else taken a book in such a variety of difforent ways?

And yes, Bob looks to be a nice person.

Hi Dan~,

The Bible is a holy book for me, which I have come to know over several tens of years. Yes, I do think that it has been misunderstood, overemphasised, taken literally instead of being understood intuitively, become a law in a judicial sense instead of being inspirational, and its promises have been thought to be prophecy of a future age, rather than a promise realised in the present to the obedient.

In being a source of inspiration, it will of course inspire people according to their circumstances. I don’t have the expectancy that it will be read by all people in the same way. But I do get angry when I see people using its words to vilify or to justify violence against others. The “evil” people have had to suffer under, to my mind, impeaches first of all the pious. Hitler was, for example, a catholic and the church has to understand what implications this has.

The Bible leads us to recognise that grace is higher than justice, that sacrifice is higher than duty, that hope is higher than intent, that faith is higher than belief, that love is higher than knowledge. This is given into the hands of the pious – and should be the centre of all they do. If only our contrition was genuine.

Shalom

All quotes will be extracted from Bob’s post.

Bob, you may well be a nice man. But let us try to put this aside and disentangle the tangles of what your trying to express.

Dan wastalking incessantly in his quirky style about how everyone seems to understand only what they want from the Bible, and here you come and say that you have come to know the book you say is holy. I suppose that you wanted to say you are acquainted with its content, rather than claiming that you hold the secret to its teachings. This is the reasonable thing to do, I guess, in respect for other branches of Christians around the world.

This is something obvious, only by observing the multitude of churches that are united by the prefix Christian. All of them stem from different interpretations of the same text, and in most passages only some passages of it. Today there are so many official cults, all of them with well defined doctrines, that I don’t think we are even aware of all of them.
All of this begs the question: all right, but which variant is correct, out of the multiude of wnna-bes ?.. However, this is not my concern now. What I want to find out is what argument convinced you that one faction is preferable to the others (I read in some other post of yours that you were baptised Protestant , prior to this being a member of the Anglican church).

From this I understand that you are tolerant about different views, although you do not accept them. However, your changing of cult and your affirmations reveal that you are pretty sure that protestantism is the most viable option of them all.
A romanian philosopher, Emil Cioran, who was a fierce contestatary of St Paul, said once that Paul’s attitude is rather dubious: “He is too convinced”. I didn’t know what to think of this then, but now Cioran’s words come into my mind.

I apologize to you in advance if you should feel offended in any way- this is not my intent; I do not want to be rude or disrespectful (I am also younger than you). But the “ILP Legend” status beneath you broad smiling, content face, should have suggested a rather more existentialist spirit, pulverised under hauls of passion and angst. If not that, anyway, a more skeptical or, at least analytical mind, used to put things to the test of doubt, suspicious of any man-made dogma or belief.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to prove anything. I don’t really know you, nor can I emit judgements about you. I am not aware of how many tantalizing conscience crisis you handled before taking your decision, but I would very much like you to not be just one of those people sleeping the dogmatic sleep.

What I’d like to find out, if you may be so kind as to tell me, is what determined you to pick protestantism over your innate Anglican church, and how well rooted you are in your conviction. I also want to ask you if you have read about the other Christian churches, Catholic and Orthodox, and why they didn’t appeal to you, considering that, looking at the historic context, they are, in fact the preservers of the original Christian cult and doctrine, as established in the first centuries after Christ, by the synods of the Church (remains to be seen which of them has deviated from the healthy direction).

I am sure that you are not so obtuse as to deny the possibility of redemption of righteous people, disregarding their faith, but do assure me, at least in a few words, that your conviction is based on thorough study and thought, and not just the result of an impulsive act.

How 2 take the bible is very simple.
Take it practicaly, like all other things, also,
the pharasies killed Jesus, were his greatest enemies,
were religious leaders, were more “rightious” then everyone else…
knew the laws down to the letter.

I think basically what Bob is trying to say, is that the Bible, just as anything else in life speaks to people according to their level of growth. I personally remember reading the Bible a few years ago, and didnt get much out of it. After I have here lately began reading it again, I see the truth in the majority of the words. The few verses I dont understand, Im simply not supposed to yet. But basically I see how, and Im speaking about the New Testament, all of Jesus’ teachings were pertaining to enlightenment.

Bob said:

I have to ask, I believe your referring to the possiblity of Heaven while you are here on earth through enlightenment or self-relization, what ever you want to call it, but what do you think about the Second Coming? How do you intuitively perceive those writings, when Jesus talks about coming back and what the new world will be like?

Dan, you’re eiher speaking in charades, or you’re seriously stoned.

You advise people to take the Bible practically, “like all other things”, and after that you speak of the pharasies who killed Jesus, who thought they were more “righteous”. You’re actually making no sense at all.

The pharasies were the ones who took the Scriptures literally and thought it of use only at a practical level, hence their bigotry and rigidity. Because of putting the letter of the Scripture above the spirit, they became so obtuse as to crush the people under God’s iron heel.

I don’ think you can derive any satisfactions by taking the Bible practically, or literally. In the worst case, you end up posing favouraly in the “How reading the Bible turned me into an atheist” thread…

I think the question “How should the Bible be taken” is flawed from the start. It’s 66 books (depending on your demonination) written over around a thousand year period. I can’t imagine that there’s any one way it should be taken. People who read Matthew literally, and then decide Genesis 1 must be read literally as well, are in error. People who read the Song of Solomon and Revelation as metaphor, and thereby conclude that the accounts of Jesus’ life must be metaphor as well, are also in err.

Hi Mucius Scevola,

thank you for your observant post. You gave me something to do - it took a little while.

I suppose I was entering a conversation in a manner that allowed me to approach the “quirky style” of Dan with respect, introducing myself as someone who has become familiar with the Bible. As you have read other posts of mine, you will know that I consider myself a Christian – even though I am aware of the critical state of Christianity. I didn’t feel it to be fitting to claim to hold the secret of the Bible’s teachings at this stage, but attempted first of all to find commonalities.

My move to the Protestant Church had more to do with my change of location 32 years ago. I came to Germany, stayed here and joined the Protestant Church after attempting to clear up where I belonged spiritually. The few Anglican Churches available to me here showed that I leant more towards a simple, Methodist style of worship than to the (in my experience) highbrow approach of Anglican services. My tolerance has changed over the years, but I remained where I was. In addition, the Parish close to me held its service in an old temporary wooden building which sent tremors off when the congregation sang. It had the nickname: “Halleluja Kiste” or “Halleluja Box” and had an appealing character, not least through the devotion of the Pastor serving there at that time.

It is this personal devotion that holds the convincing argument for one faction as against another.

I even accept different views, providing of course they are not completely opposite to my understanding. On the other hand, I give myself the right to argue from Scripture to support my own insight. If what Peter is recorded to have said at Pentecost is reliable, he pointed to the inspiration that the Holy Spirit gives all believers – and consequently it is this inspiration that I call my “insight”.

The “ILP Legend” is not something I can influence (except perhaps by not having posted as much) and my “broad smiling, content face” is taken from a photograph after a long drive through Germany. I didn’t pose, but rather smiled at a person I have an affection to. Then again, what is perfect? If you would ask some other Christians posting here, I am regarded as being sceptical to a certain degree, and certainly as a dissident within the Church. Professionally I am analytical, some say I am theologically too.

I am quite sure you needn’t have any worries here.

Yes, I have done extensive reading on the Church as a whole (my view is that Christian denominations are all part of one Church) and whilst working for the protestant Church (elderly Care) I pull my information from all corners – daily devotional from a catholic Mystic, exegesis from a Muslim Sufi, a Jewish Rabbi and a Protestant Theologian, Bible meetings with Evangelical Christians, extensive reading of religious history … etc. etc., I am also very aware of where I stand.

Although I took up my vocation on religious conviction, I still have been looking for people willing to “take up their cross” to a certain degree - people who are prepared to show what a little faith can do. But this faith is not a question of believing some statement is historical, or that Jesus is God’s only Son. Faith, to my mind, has to do with believing that the promises of God can be reached by those prepared to follow the example of Christ. “Believe God and believe me,” said Jesus.

The movements within Catholicism have all had some “blemish” to my view, either it was the Cult of the Holy Mother, or it was some other aspect that went beyond the inspirational into highly speculative and even fundamentalist opinions. Whereas I regard Mary as an important archetype, the Isis similarity and the over accentuation seems to take other important aspects away. In addition, when you read the mystical roots of Christianity which found expression in the patristic era and see how a fundamentalist attitude has latched on here and tries to apply rationality rather than devotion, I get the feeling there is something wrong. This is where I have doubts that the original Christian cult has been preserved in the way you say.

I suppose the only thing that hasn’t brought me into more contact with Greek orthodox believers is the lack of them in my vicinity. What fascinates me is to read the connotations of the Aramaic which gives at least a Semitic rendering of what Jesus is recorded to have said. The combination of traditions allowing each other, complementing each other, gives us the oriental Gentleman that he was and his call to understand the Kairos of the moment. Now is the time of Grace! Live it!

I believe that redemption is more than the forgiveness of sins. It is the beginning of holy life in the realm of God, but not a sickly sweet and heavenly perfection, but a wholesome, down to earth devotion to life, which makes mistakes but can forgive. The assumption that the waiting during advent looks towards some apocalyptic pie in the sky is far off from the reality of Epiphany. Advent portrays the patient expectation of the manifestation of God and Christmas is the final realisation in a baby in “cloths”. Incarnation is the embodiment of the will of God in believers.

Shalom

Mucius Scevola wrote:

Id have to disagree with your last statements. I believe when Dan~ says approach the Bible practically, he means incorporate your perceptions of what the Bible is telling you to do in your life. I mean it tells you how to live your life, so be practical with it. Use it and put it into action. The pharisees werent being practical for the love of God, they were practical for the love of themselves. They were showoffs and they liked having people think they were holy. And with this false holiness they controlled that area. People should take the Bible however it speaks to them at the time.

folks round here like the bible the way it is, we dont want any of your communism …and your eastern religions …if your lookin for trouble then thats what you,ll get mister, we dont want your marijuana here , go ahead and move on

Father Cleopa says that the Bible is like a well with water: in order to get to the water and drink it, one must use a bucket - you cannot just sip water from the lip of the well, you need an intermediary. The same goes with the Bible and its teachings: they are abstruse as long as you analyze them with the tools of reason. The first step is to approach it with faith and reverence and, in order to actually derive any spiritual benefit from it, to approach it through a qualified and eligible interpretor.
In 2000 years of Christianity, one might think that there have been more than enough qualified, “grace bestowed” theologists, to meet any demands.

However modest and well-intentioned this opinion is, you cannot but remain confounded when stumbling upon the multitude of different interpretations of the same, sometimes, passages. This dearly begs the question of which one to accept as truly dogmatic and suited to your own terms. It seems we are entering a stage in our history where everyone assesses his truth as being the only valid one.

After this rather useless detour, I guess the question remains the same: what should we consider when studying the Bible ?