[PUG] Religious Texts

[88chaz88]

Specifically The Bible.

Most religious people I know around here see it as being symbolic, yet swing by to America and it seems that most of you take it as a literal text. A factual recording of everything that actually happened from the beginning of creation which goes against what most scientists know (with their evidence).

So why would you believe in this? What makes your text any different from the others out there?

As a disclaimer, I'm open to being proved wrong, or even converted, but since it hasn't happened yet in my 24 years, I doubt it will now.

 

[poshlost]

They have faith, they don't really want to know.

 

[88chaz88]

They have faith, they don't really want to know.

It's amazing how you're able to speak on another's behalf about their views that you don't personally share.

It's assumptive bullshit that I'm trying to avoid with this thread.

 

[poshlost]

What

 

[88chaz88]

What

First of all tell me what the hell you were on about. I was assuming you were replying to my whole post. If you were on about the "scientists know" part then at least give some indication to that, seeing as it really wasn't the main idea of my thread at all.

 

[DevilDoll]

Specifically The Bible.

Most religious people I know around here see it as being symbolic, yet swing by to America and it seems that most of you take it as a literal text. A factual recording of everything that actually happened from the beginning of creation which goes against what most scientists know (with their evidence).

So why would you believe in this? What makes your text any different from the others out there?

As a disclaimer, I'm open to being proved wrong, or even converted, but since it hasn't happened yet in my 24 years, I doubt it will now.

I agree. While the book has some interesting and helpful stories in it, it should be taken as more of a metaphor. Even if the stories are accounts of actual events, they were passed down by word of mouth before they were written. Meaning they are likely inaccurate accounts.

 

[poshlost]

First of all tell me what the hell you were on about. I was assuming you were replying to my whole post. If you were on about the "scientists know" part then at least give some indication to that, seeing as it really wasn't the main idea of my thread at all.

Cut your on-the-offensive shtick, you're just spouting assumptive bullshit.

 

[88chaz88]

Cut your on-the-offensive shtick, you're just spouting assumptive bullshit.

Lets fast forward:

No U

No U

No U

No U

No U

No U

No U

No U

... Now shall we skip to the part where you tell me what the hell you were on about?

 

[DimensionX]

[MENTION=2495]88chaz88[/MENTION]; Little bit of a harsh cut down there mate, admittedly it wasn't exactly a constructive comment so much but it wasn't necessarily destructive, a little pointless maybe but a clear statement saying what you were trying to obtain and like to discuss as well as what you are trying to avoid could of been made without it seeming so aggressive.

I personally...never even thought to see the bible as recorded history but as stories teaching morals when I was a kid, we had a vicar come to school and give readings every Friday and there were some that believed everything happened and so forth, I never saw it as factual, but I could see a huge collection of morals and teachings within it which I took and incorporated into my moral system.

I have a number of friends that believe fully that what happened in the bible happened which I don't have a problem with at all, I think it's great to believe in something so completely as long as it isn't derogatory to their lives, it's made me quite happy to see what I would consider true Christians living out their lives with such passion due to the bible being their foundation. Only trouble is I've seen a lot of Christians that pervert the bible and so forth though and I find it deeply troubling when I come across Christians that have believed in the bible but due to life's difficulties have become incredibly self destructive whether they project it inwardly or outwardly and a good few loose their faith because of it.

I can definitely see the attraction to believing in something like the bible and in some ways...I kind of wish I could see it as a recording of history, don't get me wrong, I think there are truths in the bible, many in fact but they aren't really what's been written, more what's underneath.

 

[frozen_water]

I might end up eatng my words, if a wave of people come here and say differently, but.....

I don't honestly think that that many Americans think of it as literal from cover to cover. It seems like a lot of people from Europe think that a very high proportion of Americans do (maybe it's in the news a lot there? If the news there is anything like the news here, I would expect it to be), and I know there are polls claiming that the proportion is pretty high... but it just doesn't gel with my experience. Granted, the vast majority of my experience consists of kids my age at university... but it's also really easy to craft the wording in a poll to get the answer you want (in addition to all the possible statistical errors you can get from polling people from one demographic or location), so they're both kind of suspect.

What I can say is that I went to a christian high school where you would expect those sorts of beliefs, if they were widespread.... but even there, they just... "weren't". From what I remember, one of the Bible classes (of which there were a ton) actually used Genesis as an example highlighting how difficult it is to figure out what an author meant, in their writing. So we went through and read other places where the same words were used as very clear figures of speech ("in the day of [some king]", same word as "on the first day"), talked a bit about Hebrew grammar and its lack of definite articles ("In the beginning" literally reads "in beginning," which may be "at the dawn of time, X happened," but may also be something like "to begin, God [did stuff]"... and it doesn't even answer the question "in the beginning of what?" Time? The earth? The universe? God's work? Without the "the" it might even be just describing something that someone did. "beginning to make lunch, Joey went to get the bread...").

So I dunno. Obviously this doesn't help answer your question "if you believe this, why do you believe this?"... but it might at least help to dispel some stereotypes about religious Americans over there.

 

[DevilDoll]

I might end up eatng my words, if a wave of people come here and say differently, but.....

I don't honestly think that that many Americans think of it as literal from cover to cover. It seems like a lot of people from Europe think that a very high proportion of Americans do (maybe it's in the news a lot there? If the news there is anything like the news here, I would expect it to be), and I know there are polls claiming that the proportion is pretty high... but it just doesn't gel with my experience. Granted, the vast majority of my experience consists of kids my age at university... but it's also really easy to craft the wording in a poll to get the answer you want (in addition to all the possible statistical errors you can get from polling people from one demographic or location), so they're both kind of suspect.

What I can say is that I went to a christian high school where you would expect those sorts of beliefs, if they were widespread.... but even there, they just... "weren't". From what I remember, one of the Bible classes (of which there were a ton) actually used Genesis as an example highlighting how difficult it is to figure out what an author meant, in their writing. So we went through and read other places where the same words were used as very clear figures of speech ("in the day of [some king]", same word as "on the first day"), talked a bit about Hebrew grammar and its lack of definite articles ("In the beginning" literally reads "in beginning," which may be "at the dawn of time, X happened," but may also be something like "to begin, God [did stuff]"... and it doesn't even answer the question "in the beginning of what?" Time? The earth? The universe? God's work? Without the "the" it might even be just describing something that someone did. "beginning to make lunch, Joey went to get the bread...").

So I dunno. Obviously this doesn't help answer your question "if you believe this, why do you believe this?"... but it might at least help to dispel some stereotypes about religious Americans over there.

Genesis is incredibly confusing. The creation story is told twice (with a couple of inconsistencies) and it seems almost like there were two writers. It shifts in an odd way throughout.

 

[randomsomeone]

An interesting topic...

I agree, I don't think most American's think of the Bible as literal text, but the cultural myth probably would indicate that this is so. Surely some groups do. To get at this perhaps one has to consider the religious groups came here to escape persecution and the movements that sought to reform religion based on the Bible and personal interpretation. These have evolved over time, but the foundations are still somewhat intact.

It is also good to consider that while the Bible may not be thought of as literal text, that does not mean it is not "true". There are many layers of thought in its pages and these speak to us still across time. Add to this that many of the impacts of religion that were seen, say in early Christian communities, still happen to people just as they did back then. This is a work of the Spirit. The book reflects this reality and establishes a framework for observing/patricipating in this Reality, but it also transcends the literal times/events on the pages.

I think it is somewhat lamentable that certain religious groups have become so wrapped up in a Book-centric reality. As vital and important as the Bible is as an inspired Source, it is a pointer to a Reality, not purely an end in itself. No one would ever deny it's singular relevance as a source of connection to the Apostolic communities and the witnesses to Christ's ministry on earth. However, some seem to rely on it with such singularity that they often miss the forest for the trees. They cling to each and every verse, but sometimes do not grasp the Book as an entirety nor it's place in the Christian community.

Finally, the Gospels were written as "good news", not exact historical accounts, yet critical studies do identify many historical fragments in the Jesus story and these occur at some very telling places. The actual construct of Jesus' words may have been altered slightly within the oral traditions that came to be compiled and written down, but the essential meanings are pretty intact. Biblical scholarship is a fascinating means of exploring the sometimes hidden connections and nuances in these texts.

It is quite possible to be bewildered at those who take the Bible as some sort of magical book, but it is also possible to look at it from a more scholarly perspective (as many have) and discern rich and numerous valid realities that are contained in and around it.

 

[Jack]

I am having a difficult time with the "the bible is literal" vs "the bible isn't literal" Its a collection of books in different genres not merely one book by one person.

 

[Nixie]

I think that there is always a bit of elitism that swirls around organized religions (my faith is the true one). I consider the bible to be Christian mythology.

 

[randomsomeone]

Its a collection of books in different genres not merely one book by one person.

Very true. It seems some people, in trying to show deference to the Bible, go to the extreme of putting the book on an overly-simplistic pedestal that few of the Apostolic age would even recognize. However, proper understanding of the Biblical sources, critical literary analysis, parsing through original languages, archelological findings and the rest really do not demystify or injure Bible's relevance at all. Quite the opposite. Seeing the Bible in it's truest light yields a truly rich, complex vision...the story of a people and their encounters with the Divine over centuries. There is mist and shadow and light and fire and Spirit. The story is ultimately a very human one, although based on times and places, some of which that are fairly well documented. And there is revelation...things we would not know or have insight into without this compilation of texts. The human origins of the Bible do not necessarily negate the words that are truly reflective of the Divine and the Divine Word. In fact, this in itself reveals something....that God interacting, engaging, being misunderstood, and yet ever-reaching towards humanity is truly the greatest Truth of all...this is what binds it all together. This is the truth that is present beyond the cover of the Book and reaches to us right where we live today....the ability of the human person and the Divine Person to reconnect and live according to our truest, highest, and fullest destiny.

I think people often go to a jargonesque shorthand when discussing religious ideas and often things get said that are easily misapplied and misunderstood. If one were to question these folks carefully one usually will find there is a more complex understanding lurking behind the simplistic catch-phrases. One would hope anyway.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I am very much at odds with my spirituality, and have been for about a year now. It's largely because of this. Mind you, I do not follow any specefic religion (the closest "group" my beleifs align with is New Age). This is exactly the thing for me: Why believe? There is no proof of this, there is no scientific evidence behind any of it. The only thing I have to go by with my beliefs is subjective evidence that I have experienced personally throughout my life. Much of it, really does back up what I believe in. However, it does not do it solidly though, nor is it consistent enough for me to deem correct. As far as god goes, I am not sure if I believe or not. I have had a number of experiences that very very strongly showed me that god possibly could exist. However it is by no means proof. All that usually occured was when I experienced very pronounced emotional feelings amist that. Since I take then stance that emotions are largely irrational, I must take the posistion that it can not count as solid evidence.

Interesting, I see a lot of parallels with relationships with this. Why? Because relationships are based off emotions almost purely at it's core. It's what is important. They are illogical, they do not make sense, and sometimes they are downright dangerous. However does this mean relationships are wrong, or bad? Quite the contrary. For some they are a deep seeded requirements. Emotional reasoning is very much needed for relationships. It can not be understood by pure logic. You can't have just one, you need both. For something like spirituality, I wonder if this is the same. One needs emotions and logic involved with it. What is spirituality but an emotional experience? That is where the trickiness comes from. Without something directly reciprocative, provable, and solid like you have in relationships. It makes belief in god that much more murkey for me.

I do not think it is wise at all to take what one says, or what a book says in regards to spirituality. This can lead to dangerous thoughts and feelings, as has been seen in history. I think personal experience, and contemplation on the matters is what is best for religion. The human mind is extremely tricky though, and what it tells you can not always be trusted, in particular when it comes to stuff we "think" we saw or felt. For some this will work, for some it won't.

Just like relationships though, it seems like the need and drive for it is stronger and more important and others to have a religious following or belief. For me, I must admit I do feel like I have a stronger need for a spiritual belief. It "hurts" and in a lot of ways feels wrong for me that I have subjected logic to my beleifs by what I have thought, experience, and what I have been told. However, it's right though; you can't prove nor rely on such things, emotions or not. Because of that, I have a hard time believing unless it is somehow very strongly "proved" to me. It's very cold though, there is a major lack of comfort from this, the warmth it gave me is simply not there like it used to be. It makes me wonder if I should search for something, or perhaps convince myself of a belief. However, I can not convince myself of any sort of belief because of what must be subjected to it.

In short, things are in limbo for me. Largely because I want to believe in something, but there is a serious lack of "proof" for anything. Further, subjective experience can not count as proof for me any longer.

 

[randomsomeone]

The faith journey is a very personal thing in that the Divinity respects complexities in us that we seldom even imagine are there.

For me (and I am speaking just for me in reference to the Bible), I have to go back to the Gospels and to critical analysis. The Gospels do contain a good number of actual historical fragments, these are not fabrications. They are as sure as anything we have in history from this time. The problem is that the placement of these fragments creates issues...they are found curious places in stories that lead one to deal with the essence of the Jesus story. Based on these, and in the face of these, and the way the dots connect for me, I have chosen to believe. My belief is not based on nothing, but on the fruits of fairly substantial critical literary and historical analysis. But...it is still belief, not proof. Proof will not be found, I think. Remember when the crowds constantly asked Jesus for a sign? Remember how they really thought we would sweep away the Roman intruders? Same thing. There is a pretty amazing paradox here. The signs are there, the info is there...but belief is still a leap and not proof.

All I know is this....a truly honest heart is all that is required of us. God/the Divine sees this. However our path unfolds we are never unloved by this Presence. Our encounter has to be based on the truth within us. God will decide the rest.

 

[Stella]

I see the Bible as symbolic, with representative accounts of things that may or may not have happened. I think through the years and translations the true Bible has been lost, and what's left is the result of a game of telephone. I do think the basic messages remain in the Bible, however.

 

[just me]

quote "As a disclaimer, I'm open to being proved wrong, or even converted, but since it hasn't happened yet in my 24 years, I doubt it will now. " unquote

oligopistoi....ones of little faith. Ye have not because ye ask not. Please don't try to make yourself feel alright by questioning another's faith or beliefs.

I will spend all the time I have to help someone that truly wants to learn, but I have to feel like they are sincere without other motives. I would rather talk to a tree than some people regarding religion. Some people, like trees, one can see right through. Sorry.

 

[randomsomeone]

For something like spirituality, I wonder if this is the same.

From everything I have seen over the years, yes, I think you are really onto something here. It is amazing the parallels one finds between human relationships...friend, father, spouse...to the Divine relationship. Mystical tradition, theology, and even the Bible is full of this stuff once we catch a glimpse of it. It's also interesting in that human expression, wonderful and good as it is, winds up still being a pale reflection of the Divine expression. In fact, I would almost say that the human interactions, even the best of them, are after-shocks of the other. And this might hint at why some of these things are so deeply rooted in our humanness. There is definitely something there.