1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Blame the Bible

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Apr 18, 2003.

  1. Basilio

    Basilio Banned

    What I meant is not that educated scholars are infallible, but to try to get close to some kind of understanding of the original intention of a text, historical or otherwise, it helps to have as many details as possible about the cultural background, background of the speak, some linguistic knowledge etc....
    People do that when they analyze historical documents and events, I would say it would apply to religion as well. I didn't say you can have several interpretations, it is part of human nature.
  2. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    One reason why I don't subscribe to organized religion, and never did. :)

  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Is the God of Christianity dead? The God of Islam? Or just quiet so they can see what we do with this planet given us? Is he or they watching people die and kill as a test? In a human this would be called sick voyeurism at best. Why is not the one true god speaking up and setting the record straight. Oh yes, a test. So the thousands of ministers of hundreds of faiths are all wrong, one is right, how many? And in the meantime people of faith are killing others in the name of that faith, trying to wipe out entire civilizations. And why can they do this? Cuz God said. Or his ministers. Any excess in the name of God is not an excess.

    And then I read you must be an intellectual to understand God's word, to properly apply and interpret it. What I do know of religion was pretty much that God was for all people, even those too stupid to understand his word so "smart" people can interpret it.

    I do not know how the world came about. I am in awe at its complexity. It being created by an omnipotent being is as believable as any other explanation. But no organized religion that I have yet been exposed to has any answer. They have moral codes that if practiced would be nice, but that has not happened yet. But to be told one has to be intellectual to understand the laws of god? How many people does that work on Basilio, how badly do you wish to insult the people of this board? Unbelievable.
  4. valgore

    valgore Veteran Member

    an education on world history and culture might make certain aspects of the bible more understandable but Jesus was a carpenter not a scholar. he came to try and save the thieves, murderers,rapists basically what we would call scum of the earth. these people are mostly uneducated so I don't think Jesus made an education a prerequisite to understanding his teachings.

    using the bible during deliberations is not a reason to overturn a conviction. there are passages in the bible that would support any side to an issue, "eye for an eye" could be countered with "turn the other cheek" if the bible was used extensively in deliberations then the only result would be a hung jury.
  5. Sacchiridites

    Sacchiridites Banned

    What I really want to know is... did the witnesses swear on a Bible that they would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but...?

    Even God's antithesis quoted scripture to get 'his' way. 'Course, that's from the Bible.

    I don't care if they quoted Clint Eastwood or Albert Einstein. But, in effect, quoting 'God' is the principle of the matter, isn't it? It would have been different if the jurors just gave their divinely-imparted knowledge as prophets of some sort without attributing it to one writing or another. But, if they are prophets of a sort, they probably wouldn't be quoting or adding to or taking away from any scripture to explain their reasonings. They would give yet another interpretation of the 'truth' as they see it, which is exactly what being a juror is about.....impartiality, right?

    To me, 'truth' is completely subjective. It only takes consensus to make something a truth. Bible included. Honesty, on the other hand is quite a different story.

    On a more personal note, I believe in the Bible as opposed to any other 'scriptures' I've read. I haven't found a more in-depth explanation of why things are the way they are and how they 'should' be in order to live in harmony in all my life. I have yet to find one person that can do everything the Bible instructs without flaw, though, so I still don't understand what the jurors were trying to do with it, even if they DID quote the Bible.

  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Very well said, Val... :thumbsup:
  7. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Said by ShinyTop: "Is the God of Christianity dead?"

    An excellent point, and one that I often ponder. God frequently spoke directly to many people, in accounts of the Old and New Testaments, and the Koran. For some reason, He stopped.

    Not only did He stop talking directly to people, but all of the mainstream religions today completely denounce the concept of God speaking directly to a person. All, that is, except for the Mormons.

    So the question becomes, has God abandoned humanity...or have the "interpretations" of the Bible shifted to some sort of meaning that God no longer talks to Man?
  8. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Or did he even speak at all? All those who claimed he did could have been certifiable.
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    It spoke and It still speaks. Those that want to hear it still do.
  10. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    Sorry to go off-topic.

    I can give you a bit of a lesson as far as Judaism goes. I don't think there are any sects within Judaism with the definition of sect that we all use.

    There are three major branches of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative and Reform.

    The people within Orthodox, such as Modern-Orthodox, Chasidim and "ultra"-Orthodox (A term which the Orthodox hate.) They all basically have the same laws and customs, they just have a slightly different sub-culture. There would be distinctions with secular education, career choices or how strict to do things. (But the things they do, they all do, it's just to a varying degree.) The bottom-line to remember within the Orthodox is that they ALL believe that the Torah is what their lives are based on and it's not just a history book to draw lessons out of.

    The Reform movement started in the 1800's in Europe after most European countries gave equal rights to the Jews. The Reform believe that the Torah should be changed to fit in with daily life. As such, many laws were thrown away.

    The Conservative movement came about as a bridge between Orthodoxy and Reform. The leaders saw how far away Reform was moving and tried to stop it. At first the Conservatives were pretty close to Orthodox until they made changes as well.
  11. Sacchiridites

    Sacchiridites Banned


    I agree. 
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    When I was younger and very questioning about religion I was told by a supposedly saved individual how once became saved. He replied that God will let you know. Now you are saying all you have to do is want to hear. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
  13. Basilio

    Basilio Banned

    [ The eye-for-an-eye comes from the Old Brith/Covenant, the
    Turning of the Cheek comes from the New Brith/Covenant.
    I mean according to the thinking of Christianity revenge is not acceptable, but self-defence is another story. However, an eye-for-an eye is not necessarily simply revenge, but that is another topic, I don't see evidence of a Yeshua endorsing it.
    Turning the other cheek can mean one must resort to peaceful, diplomatic means as much as one can, to take the higher path, but it does not seem to forbid someone when pushed against the wall to defend him/herself. I am not sure exactly if the eye for an eye and turn the cheek is a contradiction in Christianity as associated with Christos.
  14. Basilio

    Basilio Banned

    Ummmm Shinytop, what is unfreakin' believable is used I said they must be intellectuals. I said they should understand the context of something. It is like saying you should educate yourself on the issues before passing judgement and it doesn't mean you have to have a PHD at Yale. You can be a yeoman who can read and write and make up your own mind. I am saying that there is a place for theology even if you don't happen to agree with organized religion, and that is fine. I felt I personally understood more when knowing the historical context and the symbolism of the time, that would maybe be lost on me if I didn't know it. That is all I am saying. It helps clarify certain things.
    Everyone is capable of understanding more if they invest the time and try to understand. That is education, not being an ivory tower intellectual.
    All religious writings take place at a certain time and have certain things. I don't think religious education is simply an exercise in brainwashing followers.. Yes, I think people lose meaning overtime. And I wouldn't be so pompous to suggest you have to have the mind of Plato or Voltaire to have an understanding of the Bible, TORAH, or Qoran, simply you must educate yourself. And it doesn't necessarily entail simply imbibing whatever priest, rabbi or imam tells you. It can be simply up to you. There is a tendency among some Christians and Muslims to take their religious book literally at all times. An educated person should avoid doing that.
    As far as spirituality, I happen to believe people follow what speaks to them. I think if the God of Jews, Christians, Muslims and all humanity is loving and understanding, we all can have a place in heaven or whatever one wants to call it. Anyway, I don't think someone is crazy if they say they believe a God talks to them in a way, somehow they can feel a presence, a guiding force, some Entity saying something. But I can't stand religious conflict and using it as a tool for division and we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the details where we differ.
    I apologize if I gave you the impression that you must be intellectual to interpret religion, I don't agree with that, you must educate yourself on the issues. Just like history scholars are taught not to simply take texts at face value, that is all I mean.

  15. Basilio

    Basilio Banned

    [The common argument would be, the commandments are there, by not following we have shut off our ability to listen. Skeptics might say there is no God, we are left to our own devices.
    It all boils down to faith. Do we want to feel alone?
  16. Sacchiridites

    Sacchiridites Banned

    'The Bible', Just Fine Literature?

    I would have NEVER understood the hilarity of Moliere's Tartuff if I didn't know the history of the era, the social roles of men and women at that time and the  political climate of that period.  Could be the same with the Bible. I still manage to find timeless truths in just about all writings. But, one can get too caught up in the intellectual understanding and never have any empathetic comprehension of it whatsoever. 

    It's kind of like what they're doing in the subjects at schools.  I bring to my daughter a different appreciation for the fine science of enjoying literature.  She abhors reading while having to scientifically pick apart something that should be purely aesthetic to her.  So, we have a good time discussing many fine works aside from her having to write a 1500-word, double-spaced, introduction-body-conclusion paraphrase of the same work as it pertains to a certain political or social aspect.  In other words, I could have studied Tartuff and torn it meaning-to-meaning.  But if I ONLY did that, I never would have laughed so much. 

    To me, the MOST amazing thing about 'The Bible' is that I can read something one day, read the same thing six months later, then, again in another year, read it again and it will have different applications each time.  Perhaps it's just ME that's changing, not the words. Any way one looks at it, there's something called 'Rama'.  To me, 'Rama'  is that empathetic comprehension that is spiritually (albeit divinely communicated) imparted.  It's understanding we can't get on our own.  It's understanding you can't GIVE to another person by reciting scripture.  You can tear that word to it's original meaning, then to heaven and finally back, and it will mean the same BASIC concept.  I don't have to be a scholar to know 'Rama' when I FEEL it.  I don't have to label it, but I do because I'm human and I MUST have the POWER of understanding and, through understanding, I will control it!  Uhm....all the while I know just because I understand something, doesn't mean that I control it. 

    Here's what I consider a pretty good resource for those that like to study religious 'literature' in-depth: http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm 
  17. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Basilio, you contradict yourself. Above you say you did not say you must be an intellectual. Earlier you said "For instance, it would help when understanding the New Testament to have a knowledge of Jewish history, the Roman Empire, certain Aramaic, and Greek terms and Greek philosophy." Ya, that is the basic background of the average religious believer.

    It is really a simple issue. If you want to have the people you demand live by rules, you make rules that are clear and unambiguous. We all know murder is illegal as is theft. Lawyers, playing the same role shamans do with religion, then complicate things but at least the rules are clear.

    The complications of religious law and the interpretations that are endlessly debated are clear evidence to me that no omnipotent being has passed those laws on. There may be a creator but he/she is not represented by any religion yet extant.
  18. Sacchiridites

    Sacchiridites Banned

    Some of it's just DANGED common sense, right?  My three basic beliefs are:

    1) Don't hurt yourself 2) Don't hurt others and 3) Don't damage property.

    I can biblically or otherwise explain them.  Yup.
  19. Basilio

    Basilio Banned

    [ It all boils down to something called -FAITH.
    It is not empirical science........... Why can't you say the Creator if He/She exists is represented by all religions but they all might have not got as you see it, a firm handle on His or Her truth?

    "I am Tom Baudette, I will leave a light on for you"LOL
  20. Basilio

    Basilio Banned

    Re: 'The Bible', Just Fine Literature?


Share This Page