How Many Here Have Even Read The Bible?

24567…13

Comments

  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Ahnimus wrote:
    My favourite piece of logic is "To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Copernicus.

    Reminds me of the world famous beat poet, Donald "Muddafuggin logic" Rumsfeld. He's a Christian, too:

    As we know,
    There are known knowns.
    There are things we know we know.
    We also know
    There are known unknowns.
    That is to say
    We know there are some things
    We do not know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns,
    The ones we don't know
    We don't know.

    It turned out that his true philosophy was, "What we don't know, we'll make up, and who cares about the consequences." Sounds much like attempts to explain the unknown, through logic.

    Back to the main thread point, though. I recommend the writings of St Anselm, to people who want to prove faith in God's existence, through logic, given difficulties in proving God's existence (the unknown), through logic. His argument can be disputed, but it's worth reading.

    Have I read the Bible? Parts of it, but not the entire thing.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    dkst0426 wrote:
    Other facts:

    Archaeological evidence supporting much of what is written in the Bible.

    That doesn't prove the all important matter of the existence of God, though.
  • dkst0426
    dkst0426 Posts: 523
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    That doesn't prove the all important matter of the existence of God, though.
    Perhaps not, but it sure does fly in the face of the "Bible as fiction" school of thought.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    dkst0426 wrote:
    Perhaps not, but it sure does fly in the face of the "Bible as fiction" school of thought.


    Not necessarily. Many works of fiction are set in real-life locations, and have highly accurate historical, geographical and topographical detail. They serve as useful historical documents in many respects, just as many primary source, historical documents can, conversely, be read as constructed narratives, or linguistic constructions of truth (the same way that some realist fiction or government spin/misinformation works).
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    You don't need the bible to know Christ.

    Having said that, I have read them both. I've read the texts of many religions. The only truth in any of them is that God is not there, and you will not find Him hiding in a book.

    There are also two sides to every story. Somewhere in the middle is where the truth is...that truth is in the soul of every living thing.
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
  • yosi1
    yosi1 Posts: 3,272
    I've read the Tanach. (The Hebrew Bible including the Five Books of Moses or the Torah, Prophets, and Writings).
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • eden
    eden Posts: 407
    yosi wrote:
    I've read the Tanach. (The Hebrew Bible including the Five Books of Moses or the Torah, Prophets, and Writings).

    Ive heard that some Jewish people only read the Pentateuch, is that true?
  • eden
    eden Posts: 407
    Cosmo wrote:
    I have read the Bible. I don't understand most of it.
    And here is the problem that I... personally... have with it...
    It was written by Man.
    It was in the hands of the Church for a long, long time.
    Gutenberg's printing press allowed for its mass production, allowing the common people to have their own copies... but Gutenberg's Bible was 1455. And it was expensive, so only rich people could buy them. It wouldn't be until the 1500s that the Bible makes its way into commoner's homes.
    Prior to that, the Bible remained in the custody of the Church. Monks hand copied them.
    And who decided when the Bible was a complete work? Who decided which books were included and which ones omitted? And were the books included in their entireties... or were they edited to keep certain things from the public at large? Maybe the parts that appear in the Bible are true, but are we getting the whole picture?
    Today... some guy in a robe reads a passage and explains to me what it means... well, I've got questions. Mainly, how does he know that's what it means? It is his interpretation of the passage... how do I know it is actually what it is supposed to mean? Because of his authority in the Church? It's like us trying to interpret Pearl Jam songs... unless Ed himself tells us what he meant or what the lines are about... it is left to our own interpretation. My interpretation of 'Yellow Ledbetter' is not the definative truth. My interpretation does not apply to anyone but me.
    I question the Church because it is basically a governing body run by Man.
    I don't trust Man to tell me the truth... the absolute truth. He will tell me his relative truth, but not the absolute truth. He tells me that his relative truth is called 'Faith' and that I just supposed to shut up and accept it.
    ...
    And I don't think people are down on Jesus Christ... if anything, we disrespect Him by disobeying Him.
    Although... I have to say that I stand in awe of the was the Amish have handled this tragedy in their community and we should ALL take a page from their book. THAT IS the teaching of Christ. Not justice tempered with anger and revenge... but, forgiveness and acceptance. Not exclusion, but inclusion. Maybe they got it right and te rest of us are the ones left out in the cold.
    ...
    Anyway... I don't need religion or church doctrine to talk to God for me. And all I can do is read what the Bible says Jesus said and go with that.
    But, just because I feel this way, I don't expect everyone else to. You have your own row to hoe. If you find comfort and faith and hope in your religion and your church, that is the path you should take. I believe that faith is personal and that you should concern yourself with your own journey. When you achieve the same status as Jesus... then, come see me and I will follow. Until then... have a safe trip... but, I'm taking this other road.

    Cosmo, I agree with most of what you said, and thabks for the lesson on Gutenburg, I didnt know some of the things you mentioned.

    But- Im not a hypocrite if I share my faith with others. If one believes in Christ the they realize that we are commissioned to talk to others about what we know. Part of his teachings was to show the apostles how to Minister to people who were searching.

    I respect all faiths and have studied most of them, but I only talk to people who want to know more about the teachings of the Man. On the flip side, I always ask Muslims and Jews that I meet about their faith, it fascinates me.

    And yes, the Amish taught us all a lessson this week...what a beautiful people they are, what dignity in the face of tradgedy.
  • yosi1
    yosi1 Posts: 3,272
    eden wrote:
    Ive heard that some Jewish people only read the Pentateuch, is that true?

    Um, thats mostly true. As a practice of reading the Torah (which is done as part of services every week) we read from the Torah which is the Pentateuch. It is also what is generally studied and reffered too. However, there are some scholars and students who read other versions as a frame of comparison, but in general the Pentateuch is what is read.
    However, when you say Pentateuch, that is only referring to the Torah, or the 5 Books of Moses. Jews also read Prophets and Writings.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    I don't need to read the bible to know that it's being used for something it shouldn't be. (But I have read some of it anyway.)


    Sorry if that's already been said.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    I have read the bible (ok, ok, I admit I just skimmed over the "begats"). God is the most unlikeable literary character I've encountered.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • Infinity_Now
    Infinity_Now Posts: 188
    I don't think many are down on Jesus, rather, we're all down on the religious leaders who a) in Christianity confuse their followers morality, or b) in Islam incite their followers to violent acts of payback.

    a) ie. Thou Shalt Not Kill- but you can kill to protect your country, Thou Shalt Not Steal - how many bankers are reading this?, Thou Shalt no be vain, selfish, and envious (paraphrasing) - yet prayer is used often to focus on what the follower wants rather than what the follower needs.

    b) Yeah, one word... Jihad.

    Bad men rule religions. Just like Bad men rule politics. 'Cause violence and fear rule primitive men (suckers, ie believers in bad things... creationism for one). We haven't yet evolved past these tribal situations, but at least the more we discuss this the closer we are to transforming our virtues and values.

    Ahem - A Moving Train - politics forum? I don't believe it.

    Could it be that religion - a system to control the docile, is the very same as politics - also a system to control the docile? And that by discussing all this, we're reaching something beyond politics, we're assuming control over our political world, that control it's not quite politically correct, but it represents will-power, its important but often not recognized.

    How do we separate church and state when they are one and the same?
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    My favourite piece of logic is "To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Copernicus.
    Quite good. It triggers this one: "He who knows not, but knows not that he knows not, is a fool."
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Infinity_Now wrote:
    I don't think many are down on Jesus, rather, we're all down on the religious leaders who a) in Christianity confuse their followers morality, or b) in Islam incite their followers to violent acts of payback.
    I agree. I'm not at all down on Jesus. For his time and place, he was quite the revolutionary, and people who move us forward in our thinking and introduce new ways of seeing the world are admirable and very much needed. The problem with organized religion as it exists today is that it often does quite the opposite.

    I recently came across this quote from Kurt Wise, Ph.D., who earned his doctoral degree in paleontology at Harvard, studying under Stephen Jay Gould.

    "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

    First I want to say that I am not attempting to turn this into another creation/evolution thread, we already have plenty of those. That is not the point. What I find disturbing about the quote is the larger issue of people being encouraged to reject solid evidence, people refusing to change their way of looking at the world, refusing to even consider viewpoints that conflict with their holy book. I see this as a very dangerous thing.

    If someone wants to live their life that way, that's fine. How people conduct their personal lives is no concern of mine. My problem is when someone wants to base public policy around a philosophy that doesn't allow for growth and change.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • eden
    eden Posts: 407
    yosi wrote:
    Um, thats mostly true. As a practice of reading the Torah (which is done as part of services every week) we read from the Torah which is the Pentateuch. It is also what is generally studied and reffered too. However, there are some scholars and students who read other versions as a frame of comparison, but in general the Pentateuch is what is read.
    However, when you say Pentateuch, that is only referring to the Torah, or the 5 Books of Moses. Jews also read Prophets and Writings.

    Wow.
    Hey Ive always wondered then, I know you stick to the hebrew scrips and avoid the greek scrips. So- what is the philosiphy in the Jewish faith as far as how or why the two scrolls were combined together?
  • yosi1
    yosi1 Posts: 3,272
    eden wrote:
    Wow.
    Hey Ive always wondered then, I know you stick to the hebrew scrips and avoid the greek scrips. So- what is the philosiphy in the Jewish faith as far as how or why the two scrolls were combined together?

    The two scrolls? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Cosmo wrote:
    I have read the Bible. I don't understand most of it.
    And here is the problem that I... personally... have with it...
    It was written by Man.
    It was in the hands of the Church for a long, long time.
    Gutenberg's printing press allowed for its mass production, allowing the common people to have their own copies... but Gutenberg's Bible was 1455. And it was expensive, so only rich people could buy them. It wouldn't be until the 1500s that the Bible makes its way into commoner's homes.
    Prior to that, the Bible remained in the custody of the Church. Monks hand copied them.
    And who decided when the Bible was a complete work? Who decided which books were included and which ones omitted? And were the books included in their entireties... or were they edited to keep certain things from the public at large? Maybe the parts that appear in the Bible are true, but are we getting the whole picture?
    Today... some guy in a robe reads a passage and explains to me what it means... well, I've got questions. Mainly, how does he know that's what it means? It is his interpretation of the passage... how do I know it is actually what it is supposed to mean? Because of his authority in the Church? It's like us trying to interpret Pearl Jam songs... unless Ed himself tells us what he meant or what the lines are about... it is left to our own interpretation. My interpretation of 'Yellow Ledbetter' is not the definative truth. My interpretation does not apply to anyone but me.
    I question the Church because it is basically a governing body run by Man.
    I don't trust Man to tell me the truth... the absolute truth. He will tell me his relative truth, but not the absolute truth. He tells me that his relative truth is called 'Faith' and that I just supposed to shut up and accept it.
    ...
    And I don't think people are down on Jesus Christ... if anything, we disrespect Him by disobeying Him.
    Although... I have to say that I stand in awe of the was the Amish have handled this tragedy in their community and we should ALL take a page from their book. THAT IS the teaching of Christ. Not justice tempered with anger and revenge... but, forgiveness and acceptance. Not exclusion, but inclusion. Maybe they got it right and te rest of us are the ones left out in the cold.
    ...
    Anyway... I don't need religion or church doctrine to talk to God for me. And all I can do is read what the Bible says Jesus said and go with that.
    But, just because I feel this way, I don't expect everyone else to. You have your own row to hoe. If you find comfort and faith and hope in your religion and your church, that is the path you should take. I believe that faith is personal and that you should concern yourself with your own journey. When you achieve the same status as Jesus... then, come see me and I will follow. Until then... have a safe trip... but, I'm taking this other road.

    And that is the post of the day.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • rigneyclan
    rigneyclan Posts: 289
    I think I read it once, maybe twice, when I was younger.

    It's too outdated for me anyways, plus I don't like how it demeans women: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

    "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.--Genesis 3:16

    By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world."
    7/16/06 7/18/06
  • dkst0426
    dkst0426 Posts: 523
    rigneyclan wrote:
    I think I read it once, maybe twice, when I was younger.

    It's too outdated for me anyways, plus I don't like how it demeans women: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

    That site's just a tad bit biased. When looking at how the Bible addresses gender roles, it's important to remember the sociocultural and historical context. Remember the audience.

    It takes the ultimate in legalism to reduce a woman's rule to nothing and base it on Scripture. Let's not forget the Bible is full of strong women figures as well, like Sarah, Rahab, Esther, Ruth, Mary, and more.
  • dkst0426
    dkst0426 Posts: 523
    yosi wrote:
    The two scrolls? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
    I think he means the Tanak and the Septuagint (which was a translation from Hebrew anyway).

Categories