fett on 25/12/2007 at 14:48
Quote Posted by paloalto90
I can see your concern about just accepting any message that comes along,but can you convince me that the councils of men who very much shaped what would be acceptable in the Bible and what would not,thus altering what would become the historical context of the Bible, that these were also not interpreting in the way that it seemed best to them? They claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit which would be direct contact with God.Is it different than a single individual who "gets a message from God."
The danger is in accepting/rejecting one message over the other. Most of the insane behavior prompted by the bible is due to people forgetting that it is intended as both a book of man (100% a product of the writers, councils, etc.) and a book of god (100% divinely inspired). In other words, individual application is expected, but only balanced with the corporate context.
Here's an example: How would you apply most of the sacrificial passages in Leviticus? You can't physically apply them because the original message was intended for the Jewish priesthood. Can the instructions for cleanliness, holiness, and the concept of sacrifice for sin be applied? They certainly can, but to take the message of animal sacrifice, ignore the original audience, and try to make a modern, personal application, leaves you sacrificing rams in your backyard (and some 'cultic' groups have done just that). To do so takes the view that the bible is ONLY a book of divine inspiration with a primary message to ME. To ignore the personal application that can be gleaned because Levitics was for the Levites, takes the view that it is ONLY a book of the councils of men - historical, dead, and irrelevant to modern issues.
This is an extreme example that is obvious to the modern mind, but when it comes to more easily applied passages about marriage, god's blessings and promises, social issues, etc. it's much easier to skip over the original intention of the author. Yet, the same interpretive principals should apply. The approach I give in the above example seems to be unique to the bible, though I've never see people apply it to any other religious text or piece of literature. Why?
The mistake is in picking and choosing between a personal or contextual interpretation based on personal preference instead of internal interpretive guidelines. Most of the weirdness in the Christian church is a result of this, because taken in context, the bible doesn't prescribe the bizarre behavior we often witness. I do agree that the words of Jesus are too big, too important in many cases, to be restricted to internal rules, but they take on their fullest meaning (and hence, their most valuable application) when approached from this 'verbal plenary inspiration' viewpoint (100% God/100% man). The same could possibly be said for the writings of any religious leader.
Epos Nix on 25/12/2007 at 17:08
fett, I think the point paloalto and myself are trying to convey to you is that despite your 'correct' and widely accepted interpretation of the Bible, the sad fact is that it has failed you. How can you proclaim your interpretation correct and in the same breath say its all false when with just a slight interpretative twist, the bible does indeed work as intended for others here?
Correct, we may be interpreting it as our personalities would most see fit, but the lovely thing about religion is that it is primarily about your personal relationship with God. And before you reiterate it: yes, I know some people abuse this relationship and pervert it so that they may influence others into believing exactly as they do. I understand this and I let it go. If Christianity is correct they will have God to explain their misdeed to and if Buddhism is correct they will have many lives to iron out their misdeeds but in the end they will be dealt with and so I need not worry about it.
Raven on 25/12/2007 at 20:20
Quote:
The mistake is in picking and choosing between a personal or contextual interpretation based on personal preference instead of internal interpretive guidelines.
I totally agree with this, and I believe I would be arguing on the other side of the fence if I wasn't a card carrying Catholic. I honestly don't see how the Christian faith fits together out-with the Catholic world view, I get that mostly it would still "be there" and it would generally be a "good thing", but I can't see how it would hang together. Anyway yous already know all this... so I am not really adding anything - I'll get back to eating and drinking to much in celebration of Jesus being born :D
paloalto90 on 25/12/2007 at 22:45
Quote:
Here's an example: How would you apply most of the sacrificial passages in Leviticus? You can't physically apply them because the original message was intended for the Jewish priesthood. Can the instructions for cleanliness, holiness, and the concept of sacrifice for sin be applied? They certainly can, but to take the message of animal sacrifice, ignore the original audience, and try to make a modern, personal application, leaves you sacrificing rams in your backyard (and some 'cultic' groups have done just that). To do so takes the view that the bible is ONLY a book of divine inspiration with a primary message to ME. To ignore the personal application that can be gleaned because Levitics was for the Levites, takes the view that it is ONLY a book of the councils of men - historical, dead, and irrelevant to modern issues.
I would say your right.This does appear to be directed toward a particular group for a particular time.However I do bieleve there are different dispensations say from the old testament to the new,and there are groups which continue to practice dead ritual when it is no longer required because they are not in communication with God at a present and personal level.While animal sacrifice appears to have a role in the old testament Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple partly because they were doing animal sacrifices there.They were called robbers and the difference betwwen a thief and a robber is a robber kills when he steals,as they were doing with animals.
The dispensations from old to new show a progression in mans own consciousness.In the old testament to commit adultery was a sin.In the new even thinking about it was a sin showing that man had progressed to be able to understand a higher teaching,that the thoughts that you allow in your mind effect your level of thought and action.
fett on 26/12/2007 at 18:56
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
fett, I think the point paloalto and myself are trying to convey to you is that despite your 'correct' and widely accepted interpretation of the Bible, the sad fact is that it has failed you. How can you proclaim your interpretation correct and in the same breath say its all false when with just a slight interpretative twist, the bible does indeed work as intended for others here?
Correct, we may be interpreting it as our personalities would most see fit, but the lovely thing about religion is that it is primarily about your
personal relationship with God. And before you reiterate it: yes, I know some people abuse this relationship and pervert it so that they may influence others into believing exactly as they do. I understand this and I let it go. If Christianity is correct they will have God to explain their misdeed to and if Buddhism is correct they will have many lives to iron out their misdeeds but in the end they will be dealt with and so I need not worry about it.
I have to admit that I've also tried to interpret it personally so as to make it work. I think the conclusion I've currently reached is that I'm perfectly happy and fulfilled without any kind of religion or spirituality. I can't deny that man seems to have some innate sense of spirituality, but I think I'm so burnt out searching for something I don't seem to need, that I just don't want to be arsed with working out what, if anything, I should do about it.
paloalto90 on 26/12/2007 at 20:34
Quote Posted by fett
I have to admit that I've also tried to interpret it personally so as to make it work. I think the conclusion I've currently reached is that I'm perfectly happy and fulfilled without any kind of religion or spirituality. I can't deny that man seems to have some innate sense of spirituality, but I think I'm so burnt out searching for something I don't seem to need, that I just don't want to be arsed with working out what, if anything, I should do about it.
If your comfortable with that that is probably where you should be.
fett on 27/12/2007 at 00:00
That's really the bottom line. After 20+ years studying all these different religions and trying a few, I realize I'm perfectly happy without any of it. Why continue forcing something that just doesn't do anything for you? I can see a definite improvement in my relationship with my family since I've refocused my energies and I'm all the better for it as well. No drama or trauma anymore, no revolutionary de-conversion, just a gradual surety that this is the right way of life for me right now.
colonel_k on 20/1/2008 at 02:30
Everything is wrong, that's why we can't all just get along. Ever.
I think a reason that some Muslims do this stuff is because they think that they have to behave themselves and be 'good' muslims, or they go to hell. I could be wrong, though: they could do this just as a way of enforcing their morals, much the same as the goal of Christian politicians, gay politicians, any politicians actually. Who needs laws but those about to break them?
To please God you'd actually have to be God. They don't get this. God wants us to be 'perfect'. We're not, therefore we can't be. Even the best Muslim isn't perfect enough to be perfect. So looks like we're all going to hell regardless of whether we do the 'right' thing and strangle our daughters, or be naughty liberal Muslims and choose our own boyfriends and even have premarital sex and wear a bikini to the beach instead of a burqa.
Anyway if you have no idea what the frak I'm on about see this: (
http://www.supernaturalseed.com/demo/demo_pda.cfm)
or this one: (
www.needgod.com)
And to all people who say that God is a mental illness, tell me this: did you ever have to be taught as a child, how to lie or steal? Are these things mental illnesses too?
Do you assume that you can tell where the universe and everything came from by studying the nature of the present? Why?
Swiss Mercenary on 20/1/2008 at 02:36
Quote Posted by colonel_k
And to all people who say that God is a mental illness, tell me this: did you ever have to be taught as a child, how to lie or steal? Are these things mental illnesses too?
"Don't lie" and "Don't steal" aren't as inconsistent with reality as "There's a magical telepathic sugar-daddy in the sky."
Actually, they aren't inconsistent with it at all. They are commands, rather then unsubstantiated beliefs.
SD on 20/1/2008 at 12:58
Quote Posted by colonel_k
Do you assume that you can tell where the universe and everything came from by studying the nature of the present?
That is kinda the point of science. I don't think it's half as crazy as believing that you can tell where the universe and everything came from by invoking invisible sky wizards.
