Why do you conceive the Bible is difficult?

[Deng Xiang]

I heard people complaining the Bible is difficult.I wondered what makes it difficult.:(

[Chester]

The print's really small.

[patrickbeverley]

If it's the King James Version (which is the version I prefer), the archaism of the language. In any version, the length and the long passages in books such as Leviticus and Numbers setting out laws, eg:

22Take also the sum of the sons of Gershon, throughout the houses of their fathers, by their families;
23From thirty years old and upward until fifty years old shalt thou number them; all that enter in to perform the service, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.
24This is the service of the families of the Gershonites, to serve, and for burdens:
25And they shall bear the curtains of the tabernacle, and the tabernacle of the congregation, his covering, and the covering of the badgers' skins that is above upon it, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
26And the hangings of the court, and the hanging for the door of the gate of the court, which is by the tabernacle and by the altar round about, and their cords, and all the instruments of their service, and all that is made for them: so shall they serve.
27At the appointment of Aaron and his sons shall be all the service of the sons of the Gershonites, in all their burdens, and in all their service: and ye shall appoint unto them in charge all their burdens.
28This is the service of the families of the sons of Gershon in the tabernacle of the congregation: and their charge shall be under the hand of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest.
29As for the sons of Merari, thou shalt number them after their families, by the house of their fathers;
30From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old shalt thou number them, every one that entereth into the service, to do the work of the tabernacle of the congregation.
31And this is the charge of their burden, according to all their service in the tabernacle of the congregation; the boards of the tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and the pillars thereof, and sockets thereof,
32And the pillars of the court round about, and their sockets, and their pins, and their cords, with all their instruments, and with all their service: and by name ye shall reckon the instruments of the charge of their burden.
33This is the service of the families of the sons of Merari, according to all their service, in the tabernacle of the congregation, under the hand of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest.
—Numbers 4

[Drkshadow03]

I heard people complaining the Bible is difficult.I wondered what makes it difficult.:(

Each book is a different genre technically: mythical/fictional narrative styles, laws, psalms, porphetic structure (which can further be broken down into different styles, for example Isaiah has a more complex poetic structure than Ezekiel). Difficult references to other books or lost historical contexts for reading the books (we're not sure for example what some of those Hebrew words at the beginning of Psalms means: "to be read on . . ."). Multitude of interpretations: generally a theological interpretation from a Christian perspective will be quite different than a Jewish interpretation of a passage. Translation issues: how literally are you translating? Are you translating for readability? What principles guide your translation? How do you translate a single word that may be translatable into a number of different words in English? Are you translating from the Greek texts or Hebrew texts or Latin (if we are speaking of the New Testament)? You can see how this can add up to difficulties.

[El Viejo]

I heard people complaining the Bible is difficult.I wondered what makes it difficult.:(

As noted by others here, for some it's language, for some it's style. I would add that for some it's the lack of a fast-paced punchy story. These problems can be partially solved by choosing a translation suited to your tastes.

Because much is going to be dependent on you, you'll get a better answer by cracking the covers and seeing for yourself, then asking specific questions, if you have any.

[aabbcc]

Bible, my favourite topic. :D Likewise, my "favourite". :(
I have been studying it - i.e. not simply reading, and not simply knowing some 'general culture episodes' - for the past, roughly, two years. Granted, not much; but even in that extremely tiny time span I figured how clueless I was, how everything I thought I knew I did not really know, and how I know in my knowing more still know virtually nothing. Having said that, I speak a couple of modern languages, followed by Latin and Ancient Greek (whose one dialect, so-called koine, is the language of the NT I am rather well-versed in) thanks to the 'classical' aspect of my formal education in the last eight years, and finally there are snippets of Hebrew dating from about a year ago. So, I have access to the Bible in quite a few translations (especially given multiple ones for most languages I speak), as well as to the original (NT at least; I am not at all well-versed in OT given that my Hebrew is on rather bad level), as well as to the bunch of second-hand resources (theological works, Talmud in translation, stuff of the kind). So, you would think these are perfect conditions for a young biblicist - yet, not quite.

The biggest issue is, of course, Hebrew. You cannot, theologically, debate any passage of the OT [solely for the purpose of this thread I refer to it "OT", otherwise it is Tanah for me as I am not Christian, but I study also the NT], any allusion to anything in the OT, any concept emerging from the OT, if you do not know it in the original. It is hard to explain, but many things are mistranslated in Vulgate and KJV (whence most today's translations come from!), many things are hard or impossible to translate, and Hebrew's "logic" tends to be diverse from the logic of other languages, which becomes obvious in such texts. I have been putting off studying Hebrew, but about a year ago when my Bible 'hobby' became more-than-hobby, I had a lovely chat with a rabbi who told me that I had reached a point of going serious into those studies, and that if I wanted that, I had to learn Hebrew as there was simply no other way. However, with even little Hebrew, things complicate immensely. You just think you understand something, then somebody points to you that "it is not exactly that simple...", and then you figure that nothing is exactly literal, or exactly simple, and that the very first sentence is the seed of destruction and various schools of though. Macche first sentence, first three words. When I first studied those three words with a rabbi, these were some of the questions he posed to me:

Bere**** bara Elohim
1. Is it a coincidence that Torah starts with B [bet] instead of A [aleph]?
2. Is anything coincidence in Torah?
3. Look at the shape of the letter [bet]. In the left, it 'opens' the flow of time; however, in the right, there is a little 'tail' left. Does that mean that the opening of time and creation are potentially not the very beginning? That there was a 'tail' of time before?
4. But, how can "before" exist before a concept of time began, with opening of [bet]?
5. Is time created?
6. How did G-d exist before the creation of time? Does that 'tail' refer necessarily only to Him?
7. Look at the word bere****. It comes from the root of 'time, year', but this "be" can mean a couple of things. It is usually translated as "In the beginning", however literally following the logic of Hebrew, it can also be "[i]with the beginning", right?
8. And, if it is "with" the beginning, what the beginning was with in the moment of G-d's creation?
9. The verb "bara" does not mean exactly "create" as it means in Italian. And it comes only in regards to G-d's actions of creating. How would you define that kind of creating? Is that pure ex nihilo?
10. If before time and space and creation G-d was all, how could have He created anything outside of Himself? Would creation require an 'empty space' first?
11. Elohim is plural, how do you explain that? A track of mythical consciousness in oral literature, or is G-d maybe not one, or just plural majestic?
12. How do you know?
13. So, what about the difference between El- and Yah-?
14. Really, kid, are you sure you want to delve into these stuff? You're a pretty girl, wouldn't you rather be a model?

That was our first "lesson". By twentieth, I figured that all the questions he posed to me and all the things he told me in our first were vast simplifications of things much more complex, and were barely scratching the surface, and I'm not joking when saying that. That's, pretty much, when I figured how I didn't know a thing despite having read all Bible and a couple of commentaries. And the more I study it, the more I figure I have absolutely, but absolutely no idea what is written inside. When a friend gave me "Guide for the Perplexed", I was more perplexed while reading it than ever before. :D And all of that is ONLY regarding OT. NT is a story for itself, too, but I am much more "on my ground" there (sadly, it is OT that interests me, NT is just "by the way" :P), because its language is understandable to me without help aside; however, again, there are multitude of interpretations, schools of thought, that vary from simple disagreeing on something from Jesus' life to serious 'accusations' linguistically backed up that vangels are not originally written in Greek, to conspiration theories, blah blah. :confused:
Not to mention you need a whole lot of philosophy - actually, you need to really be well-versed in it. From Maimonides to St Augustine, and as they both rely to Aristotle, then why not turn to Aristotle first, and while you are there why not... That is pretty much how the references go - and all of that is before modern age, modern interpretations, etc.
Then there is studying Bible in popular culture, in literature, in art. If you want to study Bible seriously, you cannot avoid that too.

Overall, studying Bible is incredibly hard. Takes up much time and energy, and it requires being rather well-versed in classical languages, philosophical concepts, history of commentaries of it, etc. And after all, let us not forget that what we call Bible is a set of texts, of different lenght, authors and age, not a single book written in one style by one author in the same time. Which adds on more problems, not solely with the language, but with different idiolects within the language... And I'll go too far if I start writing about that. :)

So basically, I am frustrated to hell after only two years, actually only one since it became 'serious' after I added Hebrew to my studies, but I'm so addicted to it that I cannot stop. It's all so interesting, but this life won't be enough time to learn all I'm interested in regarding Bible. And I still don't speak Hebrew, pretty much at all. :(

That is why the Bible is notorious for being hard, in brief. See what is the vast simplification of the issues brought up in the first three words, now imagine in the whole book.

Of course, all of that is true only if you treat Bible from theological point of view. From literary point of view, it is way simpler (different 'flow' of text than that of modern writing - rather slow - which makes it hard for modern reader spoiled by fast-paced stories; language, esp. that of archaic translations; such stuff which are basically minor).

[Drkshadow03]

Of course, all of that is true only if you treat Bible from theological point of view. From literary point of view, it is way simpler (different 'flow' of text than that of modern writing - rather slow - which makes it hard for modern reader spoiled by fast-paced stories; language, esp. that of archaic translations; such stuff which are basically minor).

Yeah from a purely literary stand-point the opening is alliteration. Beresheit Bara. Further highlighted by the alliteration that appears in the next "verse": tohu vevohu.

Did the rabbi give you a reason for thinking about the issue with the first letter, shape and that it's not aleph. That seems more mystical theology than real material for scholarly concern.

[aabbcc]

Did the rabbi give you a reason for thinking about the issue with the first letter, shape and that it's not aleph. That seems more mystical theology than real material for scholarly concern.
No, but he's overall weird person, so I haven't considered that weird in context of everything else he told me (as everything was weird at that point) till a friend from Jerusalem told me that those stuff are, basically, kaballah. Usually he sticks to the scholarly stuff, though - you know, purely linguistic analysis (which is why I need his help, as my Hebrew is terrible) followed by a bunch of commentaries to read, no mystical theology or even non-mystical, but less common interpretations, and some philosophy to chat.

[Jozanny]

I may be a bit reductionist here, but I do not think full fluency in ancient Hebrew makes the Bible any more important as ur-literature. Humans use the tool of language like a game. Wittgenstein had some great insights about language and gaming theory, and kaballah seems to have much that function.

The Torah is a series of Semitic texts, influenced by other Semitic texts and stories of its kind, and the Christian New Testament derives most of its style from Jewish messianic tradition.

They have historical value, and even historical moral value, but I genuinely believe that humanity's center of gravity has long since shifted from a desert culture which saturated itself in moral guilt. So for me, even if archeologists find scroll X and tablet Y, and better linguistic scholarship provides an opportunity for more accurate translations, I can't help but wonder why we do not have the courage of the 21st century to look beyond two thousand year old parables and semi-historical narratives.

No one has yet shown me how games with words prove monotheism, or any sort of divine revelation.

[Drkshadow03]

No, but he's overall weird person, so I haven't considered that weird in context of everything else he told me (as everything was weird at that point) till a friend from Jerusalem told me that those stuff are, basically, kaballah. Usually he sticks to the scholarly stuff, though - you know, purely linguistic analysis (which is why I need his help, as my Hebrew is terrible) followed by a bunch of commentaries to read, no mystical theology or even non-mystical, but less common interpretations, and some philosophy to chat.

Yeah. After you've been around a lot of scholarly talk you get an ear for what counts as scholarly and what sounds more like pseudo-scholarship (in this case what I'm calling mysticism). I mean I am not saying it isn't interesting or valuable stuff; I tend to combine personal beliefs, mystical feelings, and scholarly knowledge, but it's not scholarship based on scholarly standards. And I just couldn't picture someone with a scholarly background saying, "1. Is it a coincidence that Torah starts with B [bet] instead of A [aleph]?"

That sounds like something my own rabbi would say, not my professor. Actually through the whole last, every last question falls more into the mysticism category. And I don't mean that in any way negatively. Are you Sephardic by any chance? Because these seem to be the kind of concerns I think the Sephardim have.

All the scholarly discussions I've ever heard about Genesis 1 points out the alliteration I mentioned. It points the orderly structure of the story. G-d creates light in day one, he creates the sky and water bodies in day, he creates land and vegetation in day 3, then the parallel begins. Day 4 matches up with day 1: G-d creates the luminaries (stars, moon, and sun) in day 4 matching up with the day he created light, G-d creates the birds and fish on Day 5 matching up with day 2 when he creates the sky and seas, and then G-d creates the land animals matching up with day 3 when he creates land and vegetation.

Then most scholarly discussions talk about the repitition of "it was good," which a central part of the Jewish theological worldview. The world is centrally good, material living existence and G-d created the world to be centrally good.

Then you'll notice G-d doesn't create the sun and moon until day 4. The reason for this is that many ancient cultures worshipped the sun and moon as deities. By placing it almost 4 days into creation there can be no mistaking who should be worshipped. Likewise you'll notice the text even in translations never uses the words, "sun" and "moon."

It says, "God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night" (Genesis 1:16). I heard the reason for this is that the words sun and moon in Canaanite language were the names of Canaanite deities. The Israelites and Canaanites could understand each other; supposedly the Canaanite languages is not really the difference between two languages, but rather it's more like the difference between regional dialects from what I've heard. So the text also goes out of its way to avoid using the Hebrew words for "sun" and "moon" because it doesn't want you to confuse it with those Canaanite deities.

In the JPS translation they decided to add dashes to the beginning so it reads: "When G-d began to create heaven and earth--the earth being unformed and void, with dakness over the surface of the deep and a wind from G-d sweeping over the water -- G-d said, "Let there be light"

Compare this with the King James: "In the begining G-d created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without fom, and void . . ."

The punctuation creates a very different effect when translated into English. In the first one G-d begins creating and what he is creating from is an unformed and void earth, etc. An unformed and void earth already preexists the act of creation, and its from this raw material that is being described that G-d creates.

In the second one G-d creates the heaven and earth. Pause at the period. Then after he has created the heaven and earth, the earth is still void and unformed.

The punctuation changes the entire meaning of what is literally happening in the sentence. It also changes the meaning slightly about what is happening in the background. Scholars know through comparison with other Ancient Near Eastern texts that unformed voidlessness, and the deep (which means saltwater oceans usually) were symbols of evil in Ancient Near Eastern culture. Literally then the JPS with its dashes is making a theological point. Evil preexists G-d in this book (other books give different answers to the question of evil). The author of Genesis 1 answers the question of where does evil come from and gets G-d off the hook.

Some scholars and theologians argue that Genesis 1 expected man to be a vegetarian. Also man and woman are created at the same time. Plus there's a cool pun. Adam which means generically "man" in Hebrew comes from the Adama which means "ground" I believe in Hebrew.

Additionally, many scholars believed Genesis 1 was actually written later than Genesis 2 and 3 (that these stories that appear after Genesis 1 were in fact earlier stories).

Also the two Creation stories compliment each other and the Jewish worldview: Genesis 1 is the cosmological story about the heavens and the cosmos where man is but a small part of the plot, Genesis 2 and 3 is the earth-bound story (where in a garden of Eden and G-d walks around like gardener doing much more anthropomorphic things) where man and woman is much more central to the plot.

Those are some of the scholarly issues/interpretations I am aware of.

You should check the extremely excellent: "How to read the Jewish Bible" by Marc Zvi Brettler, which has a great introduction to scholarship on the Hebrew Bible. It also has an astounding bibliography for further study.

Also, why don't you just teach yourself Hebrew?




They have historical value, and even historical moral value, but I genuinely believe that humanity's center of gravity has long since shifted from a desert culture which saturated itself in moral guilt. So for me, even if archeologists find scroll X and tablet Y, and better linguistic scholarship provides an opportunity for more accurate translations, I can't help but wonder why we do not have the courage of the 21st century to look beyond two thousand year old parables and semi-historical narratives.


I have one minor quibble with this point. It's not so much your views on the Bible. Rather the general sentiments you express have always bothered me. I've seen it in a lot of different fields: Plato and Aristotle no longer matter because they Ancient Greeks were horribly sexist and there is a ton of particularly Greek cultural issues found in their works, so they have no use for us today. Beowulf no longer matters because it was created in a different cultural context and it has no use for us today.

Of course, the problem is that one could extend this to any sort of literature that doesn't take place in the here and now. Dickens has no use for us because he wrote way back then. Shakespeare is no longer useful for us...

The only purpose then for all literature is basically function as an endless historical footnote. Even the works that one might say should be taken more seriously and matter to us today, won't matter to us tomorrow, and will also be nothing but a footnote.

I realize I am extending a bit what you actually said, but I do think there is something rather problematic at the core of your words.

I think the Bible means far more to people today than just as an historical footnote. Even if you think it shouldn't, it doesn't change the fact that it still does. Not to mention like any literature beyond its theological forms it has something to say about life, death, love, wisdom, and in general the world we live in. For example look at my post above, one viewpoint that can be found in the Bible is that the world is good and centrally good. Not a viewpoint you hear to often in other circles these days. Very optomistic. I think there is still plenty one can get from the Bible whether the believe in G-d or not.

You just get MORE out of the Bible if you believe in G-d. ;)

[Jozanny]

You just get MORE out of the Bible if you believe in G-d. ;)

True, since I do not know anyone who believes that Shakespeare or Dickens operate with the divine authority of Isaiah, or the godspel authors, whichever manifestation deity avocates prefer.

I suppose any text might create the problem inherent in the radicalism of literalism--because I believe literalism is radical, but it is the Bible which the species has most abused to cause a great deal of suffering.

Language is not a static tool, whether written or not, but many people think that the tool is capable of more than its actual utility. I don't. To me, reading, criticism, comparative literature, it is a kind of gaming because that is the way our brains evolved and adapted speech and writing. I also believe this about theological interpretation. It is gaming theory which illustrates the ultimate failure and uselessness of language.

No one really knows what they are talking about when dealing with faith and belief, because you cannot square existence into a neat prescriptive equation. And that is fine, but the brutality of dogma is still with us in the world, and the way we cling to some kind of mystic revelation through psalms, or yoga, or chants, or rituals, well, I am not particularly species optimistic if we cannot learn that maybe doubt should always wrestle with certainty.

[El Viejo]

Deng Xiang,

I suggest you read Richard E. Freidman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" You can read it before, while, or after you read the Bible.

EV

[aabbcc]

Actually through the whole last, every last question falls more into the mysticism category. And I don't mean that in any way negatively. Are you Sephardic by any chance? Because these seem to be the kind of concerns I think the Sephardim have.
Nope, my mother is Ashkenazi (and my father is irrelevant as he is not Jew). However, my rabbi is Sephardic, as are most of the Jews I know here; so perhaps he gave me some 'typically Sephardic' concerns to think about in addition to the regular stuff?


All the scholarly discussions I've ever heard about Genesis 1 points out the alliteration I mentioned. [...]
Those are some of the scholarly issues/interpretations I am aware of.
A brilliant entry, I loved reading it all summerized in one post. :)
All of those are actually things I went through and scholarly concerns my rabbi presented me first (despite having confused me with those initial questions). Only later he began to add more philosophising to it.

First, after the stuff you wrote, he started off with some theory that, in order for Creator who is everything at the beginning to create, He has to 'push off' a part of His unsplitted essence (sorry for weird wordings, I'm reading my notes now and trying to translate them the best I can from Italian) and create 'empty space' (which is not physical, again a thing I never understood) in which to create. Which leads to "chaos and emptiness", the former being the state in which an information could exist, but there is none.

Then he asked me if I knew how I to say a book in Hebrew [sepher], and off it took the root, which is the same in [sepher], [sfira] and [sipur] - "text, number, conversation" or, "quality, quantity, way". From that point he told me that every letter of aleph-bet has a "text" (a form, existing in space), a numerical value (and a point in time? :confused:), and a "pronunciation", orally and spiritually.

Then he proceeded to the "nothing is a coincidence" thing, since [bet] as a letter is opened only on one side, indicating the linearity of time, but there is a little 'tail' which makes some people think that the beginning was not absolute beginning (which he didn't elaborate on further, but those are stuff out of primary scholarly concern, as you say); then he pointed the fact that 'numerical value' of [bet] is 2, making plurality begin, etc, etc. Then about re**** he connected it with psalm 111:10 (beginning of wisdom) and did some game of words by which he further concluded that "bere****" can be viewed not only as "in/with the beginning G-d created", but also as "in/with wisdom G-d created"... Those kinds of things. A lot of it sounds pseudo at first glance, however the more he talks you about it, the more sense it starts to have; though as I said, he pretty much leaves those funny stuff aside.

Then he opened a huge issue of "evil", concept of evil and whether that would be simple reductio boni - if G-d 'emptied' some space off His essence, and if being away of G-d's essence/will (red. boni) is theologically "evil", would that mean that such state is pre-created to "that was good" - or something else. Only the third day one has a mix of matter (earth) and information by G-d ("it was good"), which only then leads to life. And life recreates itself, making G-d "unmoved who moved" (yep, Aristotelian thing definitely) when he moves by his order earth to recreate itself and life; and only then actually begins kosmos etc, etc.

He also told me about elohist and yahist tradition in the Bible; different names for G-d of different 'aspect', to say so; and also the thing about adam/adama, and adam perhaps being collective singular ("let us make humanity"), just like Elohim and na'oseh are majestic plural.
He also gave me Fromm to read ("Ye shall be as G-d" or whatever the book is called in English), as a sort of background literature, which surprised me, and we talked a lot later about his views.

Anyhow, sorry for the off-topic, I just wanted to present you the example of how he interpreted some stuff, as you seemed interested; but I have to stress that he did point to me everything you wrote and didn't only introduce me to pseudo-philosophical concepts. :D


You should check the extremely excellent: "How to read the Jewish Bible" by Marc Zvi Brettler, which has a great introduction to scholarship on the Hebrew Bible. It also has an astounding bibliography for further study.
Will do. Thanks. :)


Also, why don't you just teach yourself Hebrew?
Not smart enough for that, I just don't know how to do it. :( I tried, but I never really taught myself any language before, and I somehow learn the best picking the snippets rather than through organised study (all the languages I learnt I learnt either very young, either chaotically throughout the years ;)).

[Drkshadow03]

Heh. Thanks for sharing. Well I didn't mean to suggest that his concerns were pseudo-philosophy. I have a great respect for sephardim's ideas; though I admit I only know a little bit. I just think they are different than "traditional" scholarly concerns.




I suppose any text might create the problem inherent in the radicalism of literalism--because I believe literalism is radical, but it is the Bible which the species has most abused to cause a great deal of suffering.

Language is not a static tool, whether written or not, but many people think that the tool is capable of more than its actual utility. I don't. To me, reading, criticism, comparative literature, it is a kind of gaming because that is the way our brains evolved and adapted speech and writing. I also believe this about theological interpretation. It is gaming theory which illustrates the ultimate failure and uselessness of language.

No one really knows what they are talking about when dealing with faith and belief, because you cannot square existence into a neat prescriptive equation. And that is fine, but the brutality of dogma is still with us in the world, and the way we cling to some kind of mystic revelation through psalms, or yoga, or chants, or rituals, well, I am not particularly species optimistic if we cannot learn that maybe doubt should always wrestle with certainty.

Oh, I agree in some ways the act of writing literary criticism is useless (I believe this is what you were implying), that it's ultimately a kind of game. Interpretting a literary text might be seen as no different than playing a game of Sudoku. On the other hand, even while I feel that to a certain degree, I do think reading literature has value beyond mere entertainment or psychological satisfaction because of how we were evolution programmed us.

Literature as a whole functions I suspect much in the same way as myth in general do, not just to put forth some religious truths to blind-side us to the way the world works. On the contrary, it explores our everyday lives, the issues we face in the everyday world, and shows us how other people (in this case characters) who are fascimiles of real people made of words managed to transcend their troubles and hardships.

In addition, it is simultaneously historically-specific and thematically-universal. Language is useful because it connects us to others, and our relationships with others is in fact the only thing in this world that matters.

[rich14285]

Speaking of yoga, the bible, and gaming:
My first point: Please consider the "game" called being "blessed" by God. For example, Paul writes to the Galatians, and I paraphrase slightly here, - If you have been born in the spirit, or received an impartation of the holy spirit, then you are blessed in the sense that if you are of the holy ghost of Christ, and therefore in Him, then are you Abraham's spiritual seed, and therefore heir to the promise God made to Abraham to bless him and his spritual seed. Or that is kind of what I hear Paul saying inter alia in Galations 3.13-14. The blessing on Abraham was passed on to Isaac, and then to Jacob, and when the children of Israel came under the curse in the law of Moses, Jesus redeemed them and everyone else who believes that Jesus is literally who He said He is.
My second point might begin with a few lines from John Milton's "Paradise Lost" where his Muse suggests that Jesus is the one promised one, or the one greater man (than Adam) who came to restore the seat of bliss: "OF Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,"

Yoga teaches how to gain the seat of bliss; The Bible teaches how to inherit the seat of glory.

Have a nice day!

[Jozanny]

The Bible teaches how to inherit the seat of glory. Have a nice day!

This is exactly what I mean about over-reaching. What is this *seat of glory*?

The authors of these texts were for the most part agrarian bedouins who mistrusted city state sophistication. Their truimphalist metaphors in no way offer me any evidence that Yahweh was anything more than a highly insecure stage manager who had little wiggle room for tolerance beyond patriarchal authority of a specific kind.

And the gospels are even more incongruous, and led to worse evil once the Christians gained the power of the Roman state. Do you know how many people died in a terribly brutal manner because they did not accept the transubtanation of Jesus?

And this isn't a game about terminology?

I moved on from this a long time ago.

And perhaps shouldn't have posted at all, as I stepped in during a cultural heritage discussion without meaning to deflate that particular ethnic value.

But I will never understand, with all our advances in knowledge which have long superceded monotheistic prescripts, why people cling to the need for a particular pathway to an afterlife, not with all the horror we've done to each other in the name of those pathways.

[Drkshadow03]

But I will never understand, with all our advances in knowledge which have long superceded monotheistic prescripts, why people cling to the need for a particular pathway to an afterlife, not with all the horror we've done to each other in the name of those pathways.

I'd just want to add two more things. Why do you assume someone, in this case me personally, worships G-d out of some desire for an afterlife? I'm not even sure I believe in the afterlife, but I do believe in G-d. I worship G-d simply because such a being ought to be worshipped, he is my creator, guider, and mentor. I see my religion more as a path for this life than as the keys to getting into the afterlife.

Also, for your last part. Isn't the inverse of that statement equally true. With all the horrors that have been done to my people in the past in the name of religion ought I spit in the face of my ancestors by turning away from the very belief they were willing to die for so that their descendents might be able to practice and worship in peace?

[Jozanny]

I'd just want to add two more things. Why do you assume someone, in this case me personally, worships G-d out of some desire for an afterlife? I'm not even sure I believe in the afterlife, but I do believe in G-d. I worship G-d simply because such a being ought to be worshipped, he is my creator, guider, and mentor. I see my religion more as a path for this life than as the keys to getting into the afterlife.

Okay, but I am going to leave you with that because belief in and lack thereof usually doesn't make for a meeting of the minds. I assume we have very different backgrounds. Cerebral Palsy scored on me to such a degree that institutions where I was sent to be put away had more force in my intellectual formation than Roman Catholicism. And I suspect you are a more rational theist than certain evangelicals who frighten me--sorry, but they do.


Also, for your last part. Isn't the inverse of that statement equally true. With all the horrors that have been done to my people in the past in the name of religion ought I spit in the face of my ancestors by turning away from the very belief they were willing to die for so that their descendents might be able to practice and worship in peace?

What do you want me to say Drk? I think monotheism has had its day. You don't. You feel a living G-d and the strength of a covenant. Maybe that is enough, but I hope my sister's descendants can live in a world free of religious guilt, and free of religion and belief in Scripture as anything more than a curiosity.

[Drkshadow03]

Okay, but I am going to leave you with that because belief in and lack thereof usually doesn't make for a meeting of the minds. I assume we have very different backgrounds. Cerebral Palsy scored on me to such a degree that institutions where I was sent to be put away had more force in my intellectual formation than Roman Catholicism. And I suspect you are a more rational theist than certain evangelicals who frighten me--sorry, but they do.

What do you want me to say Drk? I think monotheism has had its day. You don't. You feel a living G-d and the strength of a covenant. Maybe that is enough, but I hope my sister's descendants can live in a world free of religious guilt, and free of religion and belief in Scripture as anything more than a curiosity.

Heh. The evangelicals scare the crap out of me sometimes too.

I should point out the reason I responded further wasn't to beat you over the head until you believe in G-d or force you to concede the point. Rather my intention was really just a sharing of ideas. I simply wanted to point out that there are other reasons and possibilities for believing in G-d that exist for you to consider if you'd like.

[Jozanny]

Heh. The evangelicals scare the crap out of me sometimes too.

I should point out the reason I responded further wasn't to beat you over the head until you believe in G-d or force you to concede the point. Rather my intention was really just a sharing of ideas. I simply wanted to point out that there are other reasons and possibilities for believing in G-d that exist for you to consider if you'd like.

Well, in my past I have read some about Jewish religious processes, ancient and modern, and I am in fact trying to sell a Chefitz hardback on Amazon. I will not say there are not things to admire in Jewish culture, but I don't feel cognizant enough to comment on specifics.

My main angst, and I am going to stick my foot in it here, is American Christianity, but I will stop there too. Atheist was right. There is no point in atheists visiting this forum, not really.

In Poets & Writers, I once posted, "logic cannot argue with faith." An African American lawyer who did not get along with me but had a similar temperment told me she liked that and could she use it.

I said sure, but it is a basic truism--which is not to say I necessarily feel that life can be entirely reduced to materialistic statements. Language ultimately fails there too. If string theory is right then so what? That the universe is one big perpetual motion machine is as nonsensical as is a 1 in 3 manifestion which gives us the Trinity. Maybe I rather agree with Flaubert that the employ of language is nihilistic.

If I do that's a bit of a bummer.:sick: Then again, recycling seems to be a viable eco-sustaining process.

[patrickbeverley]

But I will never understand, with all our advances in knowledge which have long superceded monotheistic prescripts, why people cling to the need for a particular pathway to an afterlife, not with all the horror we've done to each other in the name of those pathways.
Not a Christian or believer in the afterlife, but to quote somebody: "Because George Bush has done evil things that you deplore in the name of Freedom, does that mean you don't want to be free any more?"

[Jozanny]

Not a Christian or believer in the afterlife, but to quote somebody: "Because George Bush has done evil things that you deplore in the name of Freedom, does that mean you don't want to be free any more?"

If you think the 40 million Americans who live in poverty are free, I'd say come take a real close look at the entitlement system, and that is dangerously close to politics:blush:

[patrickbeverley]

If you think the 40 million Americans who live in poverty are free, I'd say come take a real close look at the entitlement system, and that is dangerously close to politics:blush:
Forgive me for my lack of clarity. Any more was meant to modify want, not free: that is, you still want to be free, don't you, even if you aren't? I'm not going to venture an opinion on whether Americans are "free", I'm merely pointing out that the atrocities committed in the name of God are fallacious as an argument against religious belief: If God exists, and loves us, refusing to worship him on the grounds that other people do bad things in his name would seem pretty crazy.

[Jozanny]

Forgive me for my lack of clarity. Any more was meant to modify want, not free: that is, you still want to be free, don't you, even if you aren't? I'm not going to venture an opinion on whether Americans are "free", I'm merely pointing out that the atrocities committed in the name of God are fallacious as an argument against religious belief: If God exists, and loves us, refusing to worship him on the grounds that other people do bad things in his name would seem pretty crazy.

Really? I have a problem with believers insistence that this creator has to be glorified and worshipped. I love my father, a man who I haven't lost yet, but I am all too keenly aware of his failings, and hardly revere him, and we're still at cross purposes.

To me, Yahweh, or God the Father, or Allah is nothing more than a super-human created out of patriarchal dominated desert culture which, again, by my point of view, is dead on arrival.

As to the Trinity, and Jesus Christ, I do not believe, as a teacher, that Christ is divine--and the evangelical corruption of his teachings will probably lead to more suffering in the world than I care to contemplate.

Human beings are animals, biological organisms which evolved into one hell of a machine. This fact is glorious enough in itself. Any God who demands things from me simply because *IT* supposedly put the life force in motion is supercilious reasoning, to me.

Why does this being need my love, need me to acknowledge how awesome it is? Old Testament theology is like a bad Hollywood mellodrama, and New Testament theology is incompatiable with the former, a feminized, victimized, cannibalistic-communistic philosophy that no follower in the modern era follows with fealty. In the US, evangelicalism has the taint of will to power about it which has nothing to do with being a disciple of a radicalized rabbi.

I like the science of evolution. I like being rational. I save mythology for entertainment and decent superhero movies. Batman and Spiderman were favorites long before their franchise reboots.

You folks want to bow to heaven and find joy in spirituality and interpreting texts with grandiose metaphors without a signifer, go ahead, as I believe in constitutional principles--but I'm also confident as an animal, that we're evolving out of this nonsense.

[Drkshadow03]

Atheist was right. There is no point in atheists visiting this forum, not really.

That's an interesting comment. I guess I'm wondering what you hoped was going to happen by visiting a forum entitled religion and presenting an atheist point-of-view? What did you hope to accomplish?

Besides the feeling that you may want to :crash: in frustration!

[Jozanny]

The informal exegesis between yourself and Anastasija made me think about Wittgenstein, and how right he was, and how language is a smokescreen, even though it shapes our minds in more radicalized ways than is the case for other mammals. For yourself and she it is superattenuated obviously, but the parallels to all forms of deconstruction was interesting. It has given me a couple of ideas for some atheist markets I like. Thanks.

[aabbcc]

I like the science of evolution. I like being rational. [...] You folks want to bow to heaven and find joy in spirituality and interpreting texts with grandiose metaphors without a signifer, go ahead, as I believe in constitutional principles--but I'm also confident as an animal, that we're evolving out of this nonsense.
Both of my parents are somehow occupied by science, my family has very little to do with religion whatsoever. They treated their respective 'religions' as merely cultural curiosities, without any form of religious belief or practice. They explained to me when I was a child that religion and science, even though not necessarily incompactible, are basically two different explanatory systems. They explained to me precisely what meant that something was "scientific way of thinking", how science functions when trying to explain and predict the world, and what are its limits; likewise, they presented me why some people considered some scriptures to be divine, how and why they viewed fundamental truths about the world conveyed in them, and how religion - regardless of the doctrinal differences between individual religions - works as an explanatory system.

Most importantly, however - they, despite being principally scientists and scientifically-oriented persons, never tried to diminish the 'strenght' of religion as an explanatory system either. They simply explained why it was not their choice for the glasses through which to see the world, but why, as a choice, it is essentially not 'of less value' than science. And why any explanatory system - though most of them are by their essential qualities reduceable to religion, science or philosophy - is not a question of value, but rather of belief and personal convinction in something.
The question of value, the ethical dimension, regards your behaviour in that world; but you how interpret it to yourself is ethically irrelevant. Which is why, as my parents taught me when I was six or seven years old, you should never ethically characterise somebody's choice of interpreting the reality around them, nor condemn that choice by the arguments belonging to different logic.
In other words, know what is suitable when - when we speak of science, then we speak from the standpoint of scientific logic and scientific method, and if we disagree with it, we must debate it from the position of its own logic. Just like religion, too, when you come to 'its' grounds.

After all, in life it is not always about knowing what to say; sometimes it is also about knowing whether to say it or not. You need to know to make a judgement about that. ;)

But, f*ck it, I was raised and educated by intellectuals, not by close-minded individuals who tried to camouflage their close-mindedness by scientific method, which is probably why I can reason like that.
After all, on level high enough, science is also an axiomatic system, some of whose fundamental 'truths' are improveable from the inside. There are even arguments that science, fundamentally, as an explanatory system of the world is only a very developed form of religion, given that it is based on fundamental assumptions that cannot be proved (for example, 1+1=2; a friend of mine had a doctoral thesis on why this cannot be proved from the position of mathematical logic; or, another example, an assumption that the world exists... because whether or not you want to admit it, it is assumption, not undenieable fact... even less so that it exists precisely in the form we experience it, but from that point on we delve into philosophy as explanatory system).

Also, I would like to point that on the level high enough, religion also has very little to do with bowing to heaven and playing spirituality. You would be surprised how complex, how philosophically complex, religion can be as a system. The shock of my life was when I, as a raised atheist, figured out that religion not only is a valuable standpoint as I was taught, but also makes sense. Note that I put in italics word "sense", not "belief". For, when belief is on a level high enough, it is not purely reading mythologies... Religion is far, far more than that, and I honestly believe you have very great misconception about it if you believe that all we do is read OT, play linguistic games and enjoy Biblical mythology. Not to even go into that myth and mythological consciousness does not really apply to all of Bible, and that OT itself can be viewed as an advance of human mind (evolution, there is for you :D) from tribal/mythical consciousness (and elohist tradition) above (yahist and on).

Anyhow, I do not really think you even understand what am I writing, so it is pretty pointless. Sometimes a gram of perception is needed rather than chilograms of knowledge; but your 'understanding' of religion, my friend, seems to be insufficient for touristical, let alone phenomenological understanding of the Other. No harsh feelings.

[Jozanny]

Anyhow, I do not really think you even understand what am I writing, so it is pretty pointless. Sometimes a gram of perception is needed rather than chilograms of knowledge; but your 'understanding' of religion, my friend, seems to be insufficient for touristical, let alone phenomenological understanding of the Other. No harsh feelings.

Not at all. Sure it is complex Anastasija, if it wasn't there would not be people who study religions and the social interaction of people in those systems. Human feelings are complex, so called spiritual ecstasy is complex. Been there and rejected it. I tried to be a good martyr for God. Hey, if it decided to keep me living with scarred brain tissue who was I to complain? I would become like the Blessed Mother, the ultimate in feminine submission to the procreation of the Incarnate itself.

One day, I was at a prayer meeting where the Holy Spirit had everyone rolling around on the floor in a semi-circle to my wheelchair. I opened my eyes, it was all I could do not to burst out laughing, went to college and became a half-mad devotee of an Irish atheist. My journey after that separation from him has been my own.

I stay away from my mother's sister not just because she reminds me of the ache where my mother used to be, but because she is like a member of the Pope's army with her fealty to doctrine and catechism.

Roman Catholicism may not be the closed system that orthodox Judaism is, but it is about as close in its imposition of a rational formula on the irrational, to channel James Joyce.

As to the phenomenology of the *Other*, that burden isn't on me. I believe consciousness is very tied to the biological process. The other is a projection of our own aspiration, probably due to amazingly rapid brain development, our emotions react to excess, as is the case with depression.

To me, monotheistic religious systems are bad for people, and at their worst, evil within themselves, very close to ultra-nationalistic ethnocentrism.

Eastern religious philosophy is much more tenable, and is more integrated with the processes of the natural world.

Best of luck to you in that phenomenological journey.:p

But to return to the OP, Deng, and his question:

Deng, the Bible is not complex. It is a series of ancient texts. What is complex is the human argument about those texts, and how they get translated from the Hebrew, and later, Greek, into modern languages like English, and the human argument about which of those texts are sacred, or guided by the divine. To me that is zero. To the Jewish people, and to Christians and its myriad sects, it is a continuing argument, like a very tedious video game of ping-pong.

My advice to you, specifically, is to explore your own culture and its spiritual growth, like the Tao, and let the West and the Middle East duke it out until they one day decide to stop killing each other over it, or, if the do finish each other off, maybe the rise of Asia will mean a wiser metaphysical balance with the reality of existence.

[rich14285]

[QUOTE=Jozanny;600223]This is exactly what I mean about over-reaching. What is this *seat of glory*?

One who inherited the throne of glory and who was seated at the right hand of Hashem, in the sense that his throne was to the right of the most holy place, is King Solomon. When the temple was constructed, the glory of Hashem, the presence of G-d was such that it became difficult to stand:

I Kings 8.10And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD,
11So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD.
12Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.
13I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.
14And the king turned his face about, and blessed all the congregation of Israel: (and all the congregation of Israel stood).

[Petronius]

Human beings are animals, biological organisms which evolved into one hell of a machine. This fact is glorious enough in itself. Any God who demands things from me simply because *IT* supposedly put the life force in motion is supercilious reasoning, to me.

I find this philosophy particularly interesting, because based on it you can question God's very existance, not just the morality behind worshipping him.

If there is one supreme axiom in science, it's that everything in the Universe is animated by rules, and that these rules are ultimately defined by strict equalities. This implies that identical interactions yield identical results (if experiments show slight variations, it is because science only takes in consideration the most prevalent of the forces that may influence a variable), and subsequently everything in (the known part of) the Universe is preserved as sum of basic components, inspite of the constant transformations - in other terms, everything has a source and a destination.

Now, as an atheist the only way I can picture God is as the deity behind the religions that worship him. Beyond that, there's no point in trying to stretch the concept to fit modern knowledge and philosophy. Also, I have to assume a certain degree of inaccuracy given the level of comprehenshion in the times the holy books of the three monotheistic religions were written.

If the most widely accepted view of God is that of supreme being and creator, the only way he could make manifest is either as the initial point and force from which the Universe was set in motion, or the code that defines all the interactions within it, or both.

And here lies the contradiction, one of many religions display: if God created the Universe, indeed is the driving force behind it, then there is no way to influence particular events within the system after it was set in motion - the same way a pyrotechnist can't shift around particles to play with an explosion's shape after detonation - lest everything would turn to chaos, all balance collapsing.

It would seem that if an all-powerful, sentient God did indeed set the Universe in motion, there would be no way for him to subsequently squeez in (or bend the rules, if he was part of the system and not an outside observer) to comunicate with mortals, lead a chosen people, perform wonders, offer us salvation through the sacrifice of Christ, teach his subjects through the words of prophets, all in all take part in the intricate history that inspired our monotheistic religions.

[Jozanny]

And here lies the contradiction, one of many religions display: if God created the Universe, indeed is the driving force behind it, then there is no way to influence particular events within the system after it was set in motion - the same way a pyrotechnist can't shift around particles to play with an explosion's shape after detonation - lest everything would turn to chaos, all balance collapsing.

It would seem that if an all-powerful, sentient God did indeed set the Universe in motion, there would be no way for him to subsequently squeez in (or bend the rules, if he was part of the system and not an outside observer) to comunicate with mortals, lead a chosen people, perform wonders, offer us salvation through the sacrifice of Christ, teach his subjects through the words of prophets, all in all take part in the intricate history that inspired our monotheistic religions.

Nice post, which leads us right back to why the First Cause always presents a problem, even when it comes to the Big Bang. It is very hard to wrap the mind around quantum channeling in a void.:p

[Chester]

I find this philosophy particularly interesting, because based on it you can question God's very existance, not just the morality behind worshipping him.

If there is one supreme axiom in science, it's that everything in the Universe is animated by rules, and that these rules are ultimately defined by strict equalities. This implies that identical interactions yield identical results (if experiments show slight variations, it is because science only takes in consideration the most prevalent of the forces that may influence a variable), and subsequently everything in (the known part of) the Universe is preserved as sum of basic components, inspite of the constant transformations - in other terms, everything has a source and a destination.

Now, as an atheist the only way I can picture God is as the deity behind the religions that worship him. Beyond that, there's no point in trying to stretch the concept to fit modern knowledge and philosophy. Also, I have to assume a certain degree of inaccuracy given the level of comprehenshion in the times the holy books of the three monotheistic religions were written.

If the most widely accepted view of God is that of supreme being and creator, the only way he could make manifest is either as the initial point and force from which the Universe was set in motion, or the code that defines all the interactions within it, or both.

And here lies the contradiction, one of many religions display: if God created the Universe, indeed is the driving force behind it, then there is no way to influence particular events within the system after it was set in motion - the same way a pyrotechnist can't shift around particles to play with an explosion's shape after detonation - lest everything would turn to chaos, all balance collapsing.

It would seem that if an all-powerful, sentient God did indeed set the Universe in motion, there would be no way for him to subsequently squeez in (or bend the rules, if he was part of the system and not an outside observer) to comunicate with mortals, lead a chosen people, perform wonders, offer us salvation through the sacrifice of Christ, teach his subjects through the words of prophets, all in all take part in the intricate history that inspired our monotheistic religions.
A.N. Whitehead postulated a kind of dipolar God, a God as creator (Whitehead used the term "principle of limitation" synonomously with "God" to describe what I think you are referring to as the "code" or rules, if you will) as well as a God who participates via the potential of the actualization of eternal objects. Each event (Whitehead's "occasions") has a proper path to move towards, a path in line, so to speak, with God's apetition for certain manifestations. It might follow, therefore, that as individuals we can, in a way, align ourselves to these ends, becoming, I like to think of it, God's creative instruments. Process and Reality is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but I just wanted to jump on here to say that your objections do have a philosophical counter, at least in Whitehead and possibly elsewhere as well, I would imagine.

[Petronius]

I have to admit I was unaware of Whitehead, so my recently formed opinions on his work may be as superficial as the research. At first glance, his vision as a whole seems a bit contorted, and the way he defines his Categories is too complex not to give way for error.

As an example, in his categories of existence he includes final realities and eternal objects separately. Given a reality that is changing constantly, which I happen to agree with, that which is final can only be so if it has been immutable from the start, so his view complicates things without necessity (I may have misunderstood though). In my view, candidates for this category can only be atomic and subatomic particles - the basic rules of the Universe being those defining their interaction, while any others derive from them, differ from system to system and are subject to change in cosmic time.

An other notion that bothers me in Whitehead's work is that of subjectivity, giving way to view free will (divine or otherwise) as a guiding force in the Universe. I belive free will only makes sense in incomplete information, both about the exterior world and inner subconscient. Free will is all about choice, choice is born of preferrence, and preferrence is defined by experience (personal or genetic). If we presented an individual with a choice, and we had the capacity to solve the ecuation of his DNA together with the sum of his life experiences up to the moment of said choice, we would be able to anticipate the course he takes. But I digress...

Regardless of Whitehead being right or wrong with his philosophy, or me fully understanding it, his vision of God is quite different than the religious ones. So the question is, can it really prove anything?

I'm not claiming there are no forces in the Universe greater than we can imagine, or that one such force can't encompass everything in existance. The latter surely exists because it's self-defined: it is Everything. Is it sentient? Does it have a purpose? Does it as a whole care about the fleeting form of its components? I have no ideea, nor am I certain it matters to know.

But can we really pick these strands from philosophies of the absolute and say "Look! This seems transcendental, therefore it must be God"? God, The Deity, is first and foremost the central figure of a handful of cults. The name and concept originated there, and they all demand two things: worship, and the forming of a priesthood. The only reason Whitehead, or any other philosophers/scientists, followers of the religions or not, used the word "God" to define their take on an absolute entity is that, having permeated in our cultures through the perseverence of said cults, it seemed suitable in scope.

A supreme being cannot be God unless it is consistent with at least one of the three monotheistic religions, therefore responsible not only for the creation of the Universe and its perpetual existence, but with the birth and doctrine of the cult. If it has no link with the religions and if it exists, then the being in question is not God, it is something else, deserving of its own identity.

The habit of using any pseudo-scientifical or philosophical take on a supreme being as proof of the biblical God's existance is not only meaningless but dangerouse, because it may give some justification to uphold a judgement & value scale that is horribly outdated. Like any living entity, cultures must evolve. That is the only reason I, as an atheist, think it is worthy to get involved in such debates. Other than that, any individual is free to belive in whatever empowers him, as long as that faith is constructive and not born of the smug impression of being the upholder of an absolute truth and future reaper of eternal rewards.

[Chester]

Well as I said, I think Whitehead's a bit beyond the scope of the discussion here and my point was more or less to suggest there is at least one philosophical worldview that marries the idea of a creator God with a participating God. (It's a worldview consistent with my own.) It took me quite some time to study Whitehead and maybe someday I'll start a separate thread on Process and Reality. Your questions are good ones. It's just more than I want to get into at this point.

I am curious though why you feel that the definition of God is the exclusive province of the "three monotheistic religions." I'm not sure I'm following you there. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

[jgweed]

Most philosophical concepts of "God" (for example, Whitehead) cannot be translated into religious concepts without doing injustice to either or to both. Certainly the philosophical arguments have little bearing on any sort of "proof" for the existence of, say, the Biblical "God" (or gods, given the multitude of interpretations of it) for this reason.

[Chester]

Most philosophical concepts of "God" (for example, Whitehead) cannot be translated into religious concepts without doing injustice to either or to both. Certainly the philosophical arguments have little bearing on any sort of "proof" for the existence of, say, the Biblical "God" (or gods, given the multitude of interpretations of it) for this reason.
I'm not sure I'd disagree with this other than to suggest that, as you mention, there are a multitude of interpretations, even within the same religion. Whitehead was a Christian (as am I), and found Christianity to be the most consistent worldview with his philosophical model. The two actually work quite well together, assuming one moves away from literalism.

[Petronius]

I am curious though why you feel that the definition of God is the exclusive province of the "three monotheistic religions."

Because the oldest and most widely accepted definitions of God, together with claims that he exists and can actively and explicitly interract with us, come from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Even if we expand on them to achieve more philosophically pleasing images of God, we owe the bulk of it to the continuity (and dominance) of these ideologies until modern times. It's not that you can't give a better definition of God, it's that you wouldn't even consider doing it if you had a different cultural background. Therefore, the truth of your belief depends on the truth of the original source.

On the other hand, if you are indifferent to wether said dominant monotheistic religions are accurate or not and believe in a grander, empirical force that may have, though not necessarily, inspired them, then I think you should choose a different term to define it, not "God", otherwise it may get confusing - think of it as the difference between the god Ra and the Sun as we percieve it today.

[Jozanny]

A.N. Whitehead postulated a kind of dipolar God, a God as creator (Whitehead used the term "principle of limitation" synonomously with "God" to describe what I think you are referring to as the "code" or rules, if you will) as well as a God who participates via the potential of the actualization of eternal objects. Each event (Whitehead's "occasions") has a proper path to move towards, a path in line, so to speak, with God's apetition for certain manifestations. It might follow, therefore, that as individuals we can, in a way, align ourselves to these ends, becoming, I like to think of it, God's creative instruments. Process and Reality is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but I just wanted to jump on here to say that your objections do have a philosophical counter, at least in Whitehead and possibly elsewhere as well, I would imagine.

Thanks for referencing Whitehead Chester. I do not read much 20th century metaphysics, and looked him up on Stanford. How he gets from "the reality is the process" which I find interesting, since matter having an infinite existence is perplexing, to the "primordial nature of God" seems slightly elusive, but I have yet to sit down with Kant's contingencies so as to better grasp Foucault's objections.

I'm not going to live long enough to stuff all this in!:(

[Chester]

Because the oldest and most widely accepted definitions of God, together with claims that he exists and can actively and explicitly interract with us, come from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Even if we expand on them to achieve more philosophically pleasing images of God, we owe the bulk of it to the continuity (and dominance) of these ideologies until modern times. It's not that you can't give a better definition of God, it's that you wouldn't even consider doing it if you had a different cultural background. Therefore, the truth of your belief depends on the truth of the original source.

On the other hand, if you are indifferent to wether said dominant monotheistic religions are accurate or not and believe in a grander, empirical force that may have, though not necessarily, inspired them, then I think you should choose a different term to define it, not "God", otherwise it may get confusing - think of it as the difference between the god Ra and the Sun as we percieve it today.

I'm still not really following you. Definitions and interpretations of many words change over time. The signifier points us to a concept, nothing more. I'm not sure I owe our ancestors anything for ultimately coining the word "beauty" for example. I feel pretty certain that I can define and interpret that word, and use it in conversation even if my interpretation is significantly different than what has come before. Language is a living, changing entity. "God" is a poor substitute for what it signifies (I've always rather liked Abraham Heschel's expression from God in Search of Man: "the ineffable") but in discussion it's important to be understood and this goal gets squashed if I start throwing around the word "hiuhgnwlf" instead of you-know-what. "God" is at least a good starting point. Does it get confusing? No more than if I start using the word "beauty," it seems to me. The terms are owned by nobody.


Thanks for referencing Whitehead Chester. I do not read much 20th century metaphysics, and looked him up on Stanford. How he gets from "the reality is the process" which I find interesting, since matter having an infinite existence is perplexing, to the "primordial nature of God" seems slightly elusive, but I have yet to sit down with Kant's contingencies so as to better grasp Foucault's objections.

I'm not going to live long enough to stuff all this in!:(
Glad I could point you towards Whitehead. He's terribly underestimated in my opinion but then Process is less than a hundred years old, pretty short time to be around in terms of major philosophical works.

Yep, there's a lot to stuff in, for sure. :)

[Petronius]

I'm still not really following you. Definitions and interpretations of many words change over time. The signifier points us to a concept, nothing more. I'm not sure I owe our ancestors anything for ultimately coining the word "beauty" for example. I feel pretty certain that I can define and interpret that word, and use it in conversation even if my interpretation is significantly different than what has come before. Language is a living, changing entity. "God" is a poor substitute for what it signifies (I've always rather liked Abraham Heschel's expression from God in Search of Man: "the ineffable") but in discussion it's important to be understood and this goal gets squashed if I start throwing around the word "hiuhgnwlf" instead of you-know-what. "God" is at least a good starting point. Does it get confusing? No more than if I start using the word "beauty," it seems to me. The terms are owned by nobody.

You are right, language is dynamic and often personalized, but that doesn't mean we can't go around that and understand eachother. Also, there is little value in using subjective interpretation as an argument to make one's views unassailable, since it can be used for virtually anything, even nonsensical ideas. I think "beauty" is a poor choice for comparison regarding how subjective interpreting the term can be, though it is relevant in showing me how I, as an atheist, would view God differently than a beliver. I do not seek a source of emotions when I think "God", but view it more like an entity, or a title - perhaps try the same comparison with "Shakespeare" or "Holy Roman Emperor", and I am sure you would find it harder to interpret it in a way that is both personal and relevant.

Perhaps I was so absorbed by nitpicking that I went the long way in stating that, my first post being directed specifically at disproving the existance of the biblical God, I didn't find Whitehead's arguments to be a particularly relevant, or fair, counter. To me, he only seemed to find a place for God within his model because he believed it was supposed to be there in the first place, so he made it consistent with christianity, and not the other way around. But I only checked some main ideeas, so who am I to argue that he wouldn't have reached the same conclusion if he had been unaware of christian ideology?
Ultimately, the differences between his God and the traditional one do extend to a conceptual level. The latter plays the role of participant indirectly, explicitly, and only on occasions, and he demands worship. The former is a seamless participant and doesn't need to be linked to religion. Accepting the latter's existance places you high on value scales influenced by religion, regardless of reasons and logical arguments, which I find particularly unhealthy for society, while the former is the byproduct of a complex and personal philosophy, which deserves respect even though I don't agree with it. Thus, the need to separate them.

What makes me wonder is why do you need to associate yourself with christianity and God when you are perfectly capable of entertaining your own personal worldview? Most of the time I belive society's greatest ill is individuals' inability to think for themselves. But sometimes they employ reason (an in wickedly efficient ways) only to make more palatable and further wrap themselves in whatever doctrines are enforced upon them. Why?

[Chester]

What makes me wonder is why do you need to associate yourself with christianity and God when you are perfectly capable of entertaining your own personal worldview? Most of the time I belive society's greatest ill is individuals' inability to think for themselves. But sometimes they employ reason (an in wickedly efficient ways) only to make more palatable and further wrap themselves in whatever doctrines are enforced upon them. Why?

Because if I’m going to have a worldview it’s going to be one that helps explain the world, and my experiences of the world. I have found myself completely unsatisfied with the explanations that do not involve what, for lack of a better term, I will call for the sake of this discussion ‘spirit.’ It’s become very clear to me over a great amount of time that there is more of this universe than what meets the eye. This is more than a God-of-the-gaps argument, in case you are wondering. My observations have led me to consider God as a very real possibility. And once one hits that point, then the question becomes one of how one can learn more about the nature of such an entity. For this, we look to the possibility of revelation. And so we look to written records and we consider holy texts. The next thing you know we’re engaged in religion. In a nutshell, this is how it happens, to answer your question. This is how one moves outward from one’s own “personal” worldview (necessarily limited in its scope) to something much greater than oneself. And in truth, we find revelation not just in holy texts, but everywhere we look. The revelation is in our history, from the holy texts to the theologians and the philosophers and the kings and the warriors and the poets. One’s choice then, the only real choice there is, to my mind, is whether or not to align with what one finds. It’s not having “doctrines enforced.” It’s living in the only way you can any longer conceive of living.

[Petronius]

Thank you for the answer. I am more certain now of why these debates rarely lead anywhere. You have needs I don't really share, some of which I find to be quite vain. I think life needs no grand purpose for me to accept and be fascinated by it. The cruelty and indifference of the Universe, the oblivion faced at the end, are worthy prices for the simple fact of existence, past, present and future. I need no religion to find peace and happines, no greater being... just others of my kind. If anything, I'd find a cult restrictive. The only problem is, there is nothing I could offer in exchange to a believer if I were to take away his faith. The debates fail because neither side can give the other something they would value.

[Chester]

Thank you for the answer. I am more certain now of why these debates rarely lead anywhere. You have needs I don't really share, some of which I find to be quite vain. I think life needs no grand purpose for me to accept and be fascinated by it. The cruelty and indifference of the Universe, the oblivion faced at the end, are worthy prices for the simple fact of existence, past, present and future. I need no religion to find peace and happines, no greater being... just others of my kind. If anything, I'd find a cult restrictive. The only problem is, there is nothing I could offer in exchange to a believer if I were to take away his faith. The debates fail because neither side can give the other something they would value.

You're more than welcome. But I think you misunderstand my position. It is not any "grand purpose" I seek. I have no "need" for religion. I’m not looking for meaning. What’s the meaning of a rose, after all? I merely find some level of spirituality to be utterly unavoidable in light of what I see and what I experience.

But you are right about one thing. These debates rarely lead anywhere.

[blazeofglory]

All that is said in the Bible is mythical and they have little pertinence in today's world and moreover schools of Christianity that molded even the world of philosophies that originated in the prehistoric or pre-christian era have redefined the Bible and getting it more and more inclusive.

But such inclusiveness has always harmed, has birthed fundamentalists and fanatics.

I do not think the Bible is simple and moreover in the name of making it simpler the so called the Biblical Gurus have made it much complexer than it was originally.

The Bible may be a good book, but those who claim to be interpreters have seamed or dirtied it.

[rich14285]

So, proof in the Bible has to do with whether one has a relationship with the big kahuna or not. Well, o.k., science has their say and discipline is key in any relationship in science or with God. And in the Bible one finds proof in the form of an element called "manna", or bread from heaven, and there is proof in the form of "water". These two elements constitute proof of the existence of God both in the covenant between Moses and God, and the covenant between Jesus and God.

Forty five days in the wilderness, Exodus 16.4. “Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.” This bread from heaven was something that no one had heard of or knew anything about until it became available. Deuteronomy 8.3. “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”

They were still talking about this event, during the life of Jesus: John 6.29. “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.”

But to receive this bread from heaven, well, Jesus says, “Blessed, they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled.”

The first word out of the mouth of Jesus, following his anointing of the Holy Spirit, at the Jordan River, comes after 40 days in the wilderness:
Matthew 4.1. “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.



The Bible tells that on that great day, that is, John 7. 37. “In the last day, that great day of the feast”, that is the feast of booths, there was a water ceremony. Water was drawn from the fountain of Siloam, and carried in a golden urn up to the great altar where it was then poured out upon that altar. And all the while there was singing. The words of one of the songs was taken from Isaiah 12:

1And in that day thou shalt say, Yah, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.
2Behold, Yah is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Yahshua is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
3Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.
4And in that day shall ye say, Praise Yahshua, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted.
5Sing unto Yah; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth.
6Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.

And at one point, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”

So, proof is proof. It is what it is. Recap: manna, that is bread from heaven, which perishes, as in Exodus 16. Water from a rock, as in Numbers 20. Wherefore bread and water, are two elements in the covenant made between God and Moses. And in the covenant made between God and Jesus, there is bread from heaven which does not perish and this manna, this bread from heaven, which does not perish, is also known as "living water". And the proof is in the pudding.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm having trouble following you. How does the fact that G-d delivered manna to the Ancient Israelites in the wildnerness and Moses struck a rock with his staff to produce water, and that later Jewish writers happened to know these stories already from the Tanakh or as you would refer to it, the Old Testament, actually prove G-d's existence?

I believe G-d exists and that he performed such miracles, but I'm not sure how a later writer making reference to them proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of G-d. All it proves is that the later writer was familiar with the earlier narrative. As far as Jesus is concerned, putting aside your belief in his divine origin that I do not share as a Jew, again all this proves is that Jesus and his audience was familiar with the earlier Biblical accounts.

You don't NEED to prove the existence of G-d. Just as I don't understand why every atheist needs to disprove the existence of G-d and viciously mock a true believer or two before they can fall asleep at night, I also don't understand why you so desperately need to prove to every bitter atheist that G-d exists, especially by turning to a book that they are never going to accept as authoratative in the first place. In fact, it's mostly impossible to prove that G-d exists, just as it is mostly impossible to prove G-d doesn't exist. Instead one should merely accept the existence of G-d as an article of faith, as part of a divine revelation dating back centuries to a community of my ancestors; it should be something you feel with your heart and that you see within the experiences of your life.

It is not something that should, or even can, be proved by endlessly debating it on a message board.

[Jozanny]

You don't NEED to prove the existence of G-d. Just as I don't understand why every atheist needs to disprove the existence of G-d and viciously mock a true believer or two before they can fall asleep at night, I also don't understand why you so desperately need to prove to every bitter atheist that G-d exists, especially by turning to a book that they are never going to accept as authoratative in the first place. In fact, it's mostly impossible to prove that G-d exists, just as it is mostly impossible to prove G-d doesn't exist.

Drk, I basically agree with what you've posted except for one thing. Atheists are not bitter because they do not believe. That is sort of like saying all European Christians are guilty because of the Holocaust.

Atheists are human, just like everyone else, and do not constitute a monolithic block, just as I am sure believers in Judaism do not constitute a monolithic block.

I am bitter, and I admit it, but that bitterness has nothing to do with theology, or my disavowal of Catholicisim, or any larger disavowal of theism.

As I posted to Anastasija before you, I regret not being more mannered into my entry on this discussion, and I've attempted to be more level since.

Now, do I harbor a certain level of anger? Yes, but again, this has precious little to do with belief, more to do with the oppression I experience in American society, an oppression that grows worse as my disease increases my vulnerability, and Christian hypocrisy, true, upsets me, but those are different issues.

I think one has to separate legitimate points of contention from descriptive terms. Atheists are and can be moral, we just believe morality is an independent value.

Discussing belief is a vicious circle, true. No one is going to change anyone and I myself am not looking for converts. I think moving toward atheism is a personal journey where one mistrusts emotion, and posits faith elsewhere, but at the same time, it doesn't mean believers and non-believers cannot talk, like reasonable people. You are right, however. Quoting the Bible isn't talking, or engaging in reasonable debate.

[Drkshadow03]

Forgive my loaded rhetoric, it was all just short hand for a certain type of atheist, not ALL atheists. Honest! I don't think atheists are bitter because they lack G-d in their lives, nor do I think most atheists are immoral. You don't need G-d in your life to be a moral person, though I think it helps. On the other hand, I fully accept and believe people have done some really crappy horrible things in the name of their beliefs. Keep in mind also my brother is an atheist, a good friend of mine is a staunch atheist, and my girlfriend is an agnostic of sorts. I don't think of them as immoral, horrible people; on the contrary, they're some of the most important people in my life right now.

However, there does seem to be a very large group of atheists who seem to act like their fighting some sort of existential war of ideas with religious folks, channeling an extreme "it's either us or them" mentality; in other words, they come off as being obnoxiously bitter.

[Sam?]

So, proof in the Bible has to do with whether one has a relationship with the big kahuna or not. Well, o.k., science has their say and discipline is key in any relationship in science or with God. And in the Bible one finds proof in the form of an element called "manna", or bread from heaven, and there is proof in the form of "water". These two elements constitute proof of the existence of God both in the covenant between Moses and God, and the covenant between Jesus and God.

Forty five days in the wilderness, Exodus 16.4. “Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.” This bread from heaven was something that no one had heard of or knew anything about until it became available. Deuteronomy 8.3. “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”

They were still talking about this event, during the life of Jesus: John 6.29. “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.”

But to receive this bread from heaven, well, Jesus says, “Blessed, they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled.”

The first word out of the mouth of Jesus, following his anointing of the Holy Spirit, at the Jordan River, comes after 40 days in the wilderness:
Matthew 4.1. “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.



The Bible tells that on that great day, that is, John 7. 37. “In the last day, that great day of the feast”, that is the feast of booths, there was a water ceremony. Water was drawn from the fountain of Siloam, and carried in a golden urn up to the great altar where it was then poured out upon that altar. And all the while there was singing. The words of one of the songs was taken from Isaiah 12:

1And in that day thou shalt say, Yah, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.
2Behold, Yah is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Yahshua is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
3Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.
4And in that day shall ye say, Praise Yahshua, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted.
5Sing unto Yah; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth.
6Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.

And at one point, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”

So, proof is proof. It is what it is. Recap: manna, that is bread from heaven, which perishes, as in Exodus 16. Water from a rock, as in Numbers 20. Wherefore bread and water, are two elements in the covenant made between God and Moses. And in the covenant made between God and Jesus, there is bread from heaven which does not perish and this manna, this bread from heaven, which does not perish, is also known as "living water". And the proof is in the pudding.

How is that proof? Just about every religious holy book in the world details miracles performed by their gods. Until you actually see bread fall magically from the sky, a story in a book isn't proof.

[Jozanny]

Forgive my loaded rhetoric, it was all just short hand for a certain type of atheist, not ALL atheists. Honest! I don't think atheists are bitter because they lack G-d in their lives, nor do I think most atheists are immoral. You don't need G-d in your life to be a moral person, though I think it helps. On the other hand, I fully accept and believe people have done some really crappy horrible things in the name of their beliefs. Keep in mind also my brother is an atheist, a good friend of mine is a staunch atheist, and my girlfriend is an agnostic of sorts. I don't think of them as immoral, horrible people; on the contrary, they're some of the most important people in my life right now.

However, there does seem to be a very large group of atheists who seem to act like their fighting some sort of existential war of ideas with religious folks, channeling an extreme "it's either us or them" mentality; in other words, they come off as being obnoxiously bitter.

I've only known one atheist, a professor I obsessed over, and he and I never discussed his atheism, although I was amusing, like a young whelp running around taunting my family about the Pope when I really still did believe. I was just being smug.

I came into my own in my late 30's, admire Dawkins and Hitchens, but not quite up on Sam Harris.

I joined an atheism group on Yahoo but had to leave for reasons I won't get into--but I admit many posters on that list seemed looney, replacing conspiracy and water dousing for religion. I am rather glad I don't interact in a group like that much anymore.

I do miss the community ritual of Catholic worship, but I really don't believe in doctrine anymore, and don't know how to reconcile that with my roots. There are atheists who believe in church participation.

That is a bit of my personal story.

One more thing: I think the "us or them" mentality is the fault of the political rise of American evangelicism. Even Harold Bloom is scared to death of it, and fears the rise of a Christian police state--that is why atheists of some influence have raised their voices, but it's hard to get paid well for such articles.

[Judas130]

I heard people complaining the Bible is difficult.I wondered what makes it difficult.:(

Jesus actually 'talked the way he talked' in the bible to simplify things for those who were listening. :D

[Jozanny]

Jesus actually 'talked the way he talked' in the bible to simplify things for those who were listening. :D

Given that the writers of the New Testament wrote their texts seventy to 150 years after the death of Christ, the way he talked is unknown. These early theologians were simply putting up the scaffolding of a new faith.

[JBI]

The KJV is pretty easy to read, though it has incredible depth, and is extremely ironic.

The original text however, is far more difficult, and is intensely ironic, and is loaded with complex word usages, and archaic (unknown) meanings. There are disputes still over the meaning of such words.

[blazeofglory]

Given that the writers of the New Testament wrote their texts seventy to 150 years after the death of Christ, the way he talked is unknown. These early theologians were simply putting up the scaffolding of a new faith.

I too think so

[Drkshadow03]

Given that the writers of the New Testament wrote their texts seventy to 150 years after the death of Christ, the way he talked is unknown. These early theologians were simply putting up the scaffolding of a new faith.

I should point out that generally New Testament scholars agree that any of the phrases that can be found in Matt and Luke and the apocryphal Gnostic Gospel of Thomas are often considered to be the historical words of the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Scholarly_methods). Most scholars believed that Matthew and Luke got their phrases from hypothetical earlier "Q" source of sayings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document#The_case_against_a_common_second_source ).

[Jozanny]

I should point out that generally New Testament scholars agree that any of the phrases that can be found in Matt and Luke and the apocryphal Gnostic Gospel of Thomas are often considered to be the historical words of the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Scholarly_methods). Most scholars believed that Matthew and Luke got their phrases from hypothetical earlier "Q" source of sayings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document#The_case_against_a_common_second_source ).

I have the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas in my edition of The Other Bible, a series of gnostic texts, and I'd be hard pressed to say why Thomas doesn't belong with the traditional synoptic gospels, although I am not a theologian and wouldn't want to be.

Thomas seems to have a great deal in common with Mark, and yet the former is a heresy which nearly destroyed Christianity in its early centuries. I myself don't have much sympathy for Gnosticism; it merely fascinates me because of its rivalry with the established theology surrounding the Trinity.

As a theology, Gnosticism seems to have a desire to merge Judaism with Hellenistic triumphalism, and succeeds at this somewhat awkwardly--to my limited understanding, in any case.

[rich14285]

How is that proof? Just about every religious holy book in the world details miracles performed by their gods. Until you actually see bread fall magically from the sky, a story in a book isn't proof.

Or until you actually experience bread from heaven, manna that does not perish, or everlasting life, or living water, pour out from whence you know not, and pour down on and in you. Thats proof, but, perhaps, one has to experience the baptism of the holy spirit to believe it.

[wilbur lim]

The KJV is pretty easy to read, though it has incredible depth, and is extremely ironic.

The original text however, is far more difficult, and is intensely ironic, and is loaded with complex word usages, and archaic (unknown) meanings. There are disputes still over the meaning of such words.
Probably it is genuine.King James Version is made into a simpler one.One of the things which are altered is the language-Old English and modern English.Thus,I do not think that it is intricate and make you perplex by reading King James Version.
I think that the problem is that it is ironic.

[jgweed]

Isn't much of this entire discussion really about how one answers the question, should be Bible be treated in a "special way" different from all other ancient texts?
Cheers,
John

[Jozanny]

Isn't much of this entire discussion really about how one answers the question, should be Bible be treated in a "special way" different from all other ancient texts?
Cheers,
John

But since it already is, maybe that begs the question? Even a non-believer or a skeptic cannot get *away* from the superlative (not the right word) or extra-textual authority of the biblical text--although it is easy enough to deconstruct by asking who had the authority to decide which O-source material was divinely guided, and why those decision makers in turn were divinely guided.

From a purely literary standpoint, I do not think Biblical texts are inherently great literature. Sure, the texts can be diced, and already have extant critical readings, just as regular works do, but I have never understood why first source means top canon ranking.

I will make exceptions for some things, but we seem to swallow the whole kit and kaboodle, without much further examination.

[Drkshadow03]

From a purely literary standpoint, I do not think Biblical texts are inherently great literature. Sure, the texts can be diced, and already have extant critical readings, just as regular works do, but I have never understood why first source means top canon ranking.


I think before I could respond to that I have to ask what you consider great literature and what about it is great? In other words, what do you think literature is supposed to do? What makes something great literature rather than not great literature?

[Jozanny]

I think before I could respond to that I have to ask what you consider great literature and what about it is great? In other words, what do you think literature is supposed to do? What makes something great literature rather than not great literature?

I suppose it would seem strange if I answer this by saying I prefer the Samson narrative to that of the Christ narrative(s), but we can at least use this as a starting point for a loaded question, which I will turn around and say are there any independent criteria for defining what makes a literature great?

To answer that we are right back to basic literary aesthetics--in some respects Biblical narratives meet these, but some do not, in my estimation, like Numbers, or even Revelations--and I have to say I hate this last.

Church elders debated Revelations for a very look time before including it in the Christian texts, and it has been the source of so much evil since that I have to have a really good reason to go back and read it.

I am most strongly read in Catholic English editions, by the way; it is fair that members debating this know that. I had to read King James in university and I am not sure I do not consider James as a nearly different book from those of the ancient Hebrew texts--though the closest I've come to the Torah as you would know it is through Gnostic editions and editors.

Did I even answer what you asked? Maybe indirectly--I'll come back to it.:)

[Drkshadow03]

I suppose it would seem strange if I answer this by saying I prefer the Samson narrative to that of the Christ narrative(s), but we can at least use this as a starting point for a loaded question, which I will turn around and say are there any independent criteria for defining what makes a literature great?

Ah, that's the million dollar question.


To answer that we are right back to basic literary aesthetics--in some respects Biblical narratives meet these, but some do not, in my estimation, like Numbers, or even Revelations--and I have to say I hate this last.

Hmm, why don't you feel Revelations meets basic literary aesthetics? Not only is it within a distinct tradition of apocalyptic literature, it's rich in symbolism. So rich that not only does it probably refer to Rome and the persecutions of Nero in its original historical context, but each generation can see itself in it and the impending end of the world.

Even Numbers I am pretty sure I've seen scenes in later novels that make direct allusions to Numbers. So it's still worth knowing for those purposes.

I personally would've added Leviticus to that list! :sick:

But I suppose that's the thing, each text is so different. Some are meant to be read as literary narratives, others need to be read in different terms. I suspect the books that are the most difficult are the ones that don't seem very "literary."

On the other hand, a lot of ancient texts have these long winded inventories or genealogies, etc.

[/QUOTE]

[Jozanny]

Hmm, why don't you feel Revelations meets basic literary aesthetics? Not only is it within a distinct tradition of apocalyptic literature, it's rich in symbolism. So rich that not only does it probably refer to Rome and the persecutions of Nero in its original historical context, but each generation can see itself in it and the impending end of the world.

But that is my objection to it. Believers don't see Revelations as apocalyptic literature. They see it as a designed, if abrupt, end to human civilization, and I have to agree with Dawkins that its most literal adherents border on mental defect.

I haven't read it in years, but my discomfort with it is deeper than evangelicals standing on hillsides awaiting the Return; some Protestants use it to attack Catholics, and I don't think this is necessarily helpful toward putting the centuries old discord between the two groups to rest.

It is difficult to sort all that out and say anything about it as narrative, but even here, the imagery is not just hyperbolic, but dianphanous, and to me, simply unpleasant--at least, via way of comparison, Isaiah's triumphalism is more invested in the joy of spiritual aspiration; if I channel Northrop Frye on Isaiah anyway.:(

[wilbur lim]

Isn't much of this entire discussion really about how one answers the question, should be Bible be treated in a "special way" different from all other ancient texts?
Cheers,
John I conceive so.We need notes to elucidate the Bible.

[blazeofglory]

All things in the bible are not conceivable or comprehensible and as such different interpretations are made and that makes the bible a difficult thing.