Bigthink - Feature Comments Feed

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:56:19 +0100

I hope this guy can cook! he falls for the same cuddly fuzzy thinking that most do, when he says, 'basically the Bible is fine'.. he can't have read it all, or he will know what a mess it is. He succumbs to the PR message that Bible bashers put out... that this is the 'good' book... oh well, I can't say anything bad about it then, so it must be the interpretations? more purile tripe from the ill-informed.
The Bible is a bad stew, cooked up by primitive chefs, with a bit of everything thrown in... so for all the love and goodwill you might find, it's also leavened with hatred, racism and invocations to violence against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Thankfully civil society has knocked some of the rougher edges off their nonsense and the literalists are somewhere around 40% of believers. He should stay in the kitchen.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:41:08 +0100

The Bible can't be true. It contradicts itself too often. 4 gospels give contradicting accounts of Jesus' life. Then there's the fact that Paul wrote much of the remainder of the NT, when there's no evidence that he had any real connection to Jesus.

The OT is full of such medieval bile it's absolutely impossible to believe most of it was written by some all-powerful or spiritual figure.

It should be read as fiction.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:24:21 +0100

One word, Literally

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:53:33 +0100

How should the Bible be interpreted? Like any other work of ancient mythology: a collection of stories, all of which highly moralized and most of which set to the tune of allegorical readings. This book, albeit it wields a mighty strong voice of power in the hands of clergymen (and women, but lesser so amongst the women of churches), is a tool for keeping order as suggested here by the expert Peter Gomes, but it's also used to hold its followers as if in a trance to abide by its every word...some of those powerful words more so than others, but in all, that power it wields from its oblique scriptures (another point he makes) is and has been for thousands of years a tool to pacify, to structure, to influence, to essentially make sheep of men and women; This book has held so much sway that countless wars have been waged, countless lives lost, and all in the name of "God"; partly that's what's going on now in Iraq.
Let's leap back a few thousand years and take away all the drama that's associated with what the Bible represented; it is amazing that it's stuck around this long with so many faithful believers. However, suppose that another man (or woman) came along with a contrary set of ideals to that of what the ancient cultures valued and spread the word (more or less) about collectivism, democracy, and these ideas that contradicted current philosophy and government to the point of drawing a large number of followers; that's what Jesus did, but suppose it was someone else? Would there be the worship there currently is? Well, Ghandi did much of what Jesus did in his own way in India to bring peace to Pakistan and India without so much as a single fist thrown%u2013John Lennon and Yoko Ono could be even more recent examples of radicals, what Jesus was, a radical.
One day Ghandi might be immortalized and embellished upon the way that Jesus was, and I won't rule out whether or not he was divine (nor Buddha, Zoraster, Allah, Baha'u'llah, Brahma, etc.); after all, not many have brought peace through peaceful means, order through kindness and love%u2013but does that make Yoko Ono a living saint for working towards world peace?
Maybe Ghandi was a prophetic character as Jesus, Brahma, Zoraster, etc. all have been claimed to be: but that doesn't hold any bearings on the Bible's interpretation. Jesus is but one man in the bunch. Then you've got John the Baptist, St. Christopher (we can't forget the saints), Daniel, Moses, and countless others both from the Old and New Testament. Maybe all of these people were real, and maybe they were fabricated in the tradition of storytelling. One way or the other, the polytheistic gods of the Roman Empire slowly but surely were overtaken by the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus the Savior. This doesn't make the old polytheistic gods dead, we now read them as myths, and one day too likely we'll read the Bible as myth as well. Already, many, many preachers and believers selectively believe and read much of the Bible as allegory. Yes, some history may exist within some texts, but at one point it was all seen as history, not a shred of allegory taken away. It was ALL taken seriously. So times are already taking place.
The Bible was first introduced during the time when the West was merely the Mediterranean. It was at a time of great turmoil, change, and having seen the Greeks fall, the Romans shortly thereafter, the West was entering into the Dark Ages and something like the Bible provided respite to those who found themselves scared, alone, or lost during those dark days: much like now but in a different way. The Bible was (for a time, like the mythologies that preceded it) a form of rudimentary science, a way of explaining all things not understood in the world through conventional means%u2013yet still providing very moralistic lessons. Never in history has the Bible been used without the power it possesses in the hands of its clergy.
There's a funny thing about the Bible in that for those who feel they need it, it can be read for reassurance that things will work out with a little faith, but, so too do most world religions share this same dogma. Perhaps space aliens came down and told a handful of men how to help make civil societies...but I sincerely doubt that. The Bible is nothing new, even for its rhetoric. Other texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita (the Hindi "Good Book") is a text in which reincarnation plays a significant role. This is much like Jesus' second coming, not to mention his appearance after hanging from the crucifix that prompted Easter holiday; these texts share many similarities (look too to Buddhism at its Noble Truths and see how they resonate with the Ten Commandments).
Both of these texts predate the Bible. The Dhammapada one of many Buddhist texts (particularly a more popular Buddhist text...much like the King James Bible of all the translations) and the Bhagavad Gita, meaning that of these "teachings" (if that name suits you, I prefer parables and lessons myself), teach of things that the Bible does and have for several aeons of circulation amongst peoples of the world%u2013Christianity is even in many ways said to be modeled after Zorastrianism. I think it only fair to look at these other religions (mainly monotheistic) as mere mythology the way one looks at the dead religions. Once upon a time Zeus was God and there was no hell, only malicious gods that toyed with mortals, but all gods influenced human's daily lives like moves on a checkerboard, in ancient beliefs.
How could anyone who truly thought this matter over see it as anything more pragmatic than that? I'm not just talking the Bible, but all religious texts. In this case the Bible is the book of the topic, and for serious differences within just the Bible, look at the different denominations. The Bible itself has been passed down so many generations as well, taken, and written with several translations, so ultimately from Bible to Bible, Christian religion to Christian religion, you can read the same stories from different angles, in some cases with other elements, or even new stories all together.
You have Lutherans vs. the Presbyterians, those two groups vs. Catholics, Catholics vs. both of them plus the Eastern Orthodoxy and Asian Orthodoxy who can't meet eye-to-eye with anyone else either (these differences going back ages before the Christian Church split into two, you even had the Gnostics who still are the most disagreed with of them all). Then branch out and differentiate those groups from some of the newer, less well-known enclaves of the Christian doctrine comprised of such as folks like Christian Scientists, Quakers, Anglicans, Pentecostals (who speak in tongues), Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Evangelists (though old, they've taken on modern forums such as Tele-evangelism) or even Mormons. Mostly, you've got disagreement within the texts as I suggested, and likewise, even additional newer texts. How can this be taken seriously? Should we consider followers of Islam or Baha'i to be Christian, too? In a sense since they are since they both recognize Christ. Jews are halfway there with the Old Testament in hand. Whose mythology should be interpreted how is a better question. So whose? To all the zealous, that moral mending junk is pure and simple bad advice; we could use fewer misogynistic homophobes.
I've always been curious why so many people are SO caught up on dying and going to heaven or hell, that they have to be preoccupied with something that doesn't necessarily exist, that's probably not what's expected nor comprehensible: being saved?! Live here and now and let go of all that guilt, nobody knows what happens when we die...anybody, anybody? I'm all ears if I'm wrong. And then to believe the earth is ours for the taking and giving back isn't required, that there's no life out there but ours, and that we've been around for a miniscule 2000 some-odd years...WHY?! It's mass hysteria in my opinion. I personally prefer to live in the here and now, so how do I read the Bible? I don't make a habit of it, but I read it like poetry, like a play, I read like fiction because that's more than likely what it is. Perhaps there's some history intermixed, but who'd know where to look or what's real...even who's real, Jesus? Moses? Maybe they're both allegorical figures completely. The fact is unless you can definitively prove otherwise, I'll read a passage or two of your monster book the next time I'm in a motel.

(I thought I typed this already...weird. I've noticed this beta version also messes with your interests in weird ways, hrmmm)

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:07:26 +0100

Also, I said some things that pertain to this discussion somewhere else before I read this one...

>>Sure, you have to take into account that many forms of the Bible have been tampered with, but there are also newer translations that went back to original documents to bypass all that, and re-translate it.

The Bible is human interpretation,(those who have faith in it should assume, [and now more than ever because of language barriers,]) of truths communicated by God to individuals or groups. But we are human, and if "God Himself" actually "came down" and wrote out the first copies of the bible that existed, no one would understand them.

The ideas and truths in the bible are communicated through the hearts and minds of ancestors inspired, we should assume if placing any faith in the Bible, by God. This inspiration would be an individual experience and the communication of this to others is a very difficult task, never mind to people thousands of years later.

What makes me drawn to the Bible, more so than other religious texts, is the humanity of it... There are stories, songs, poems, expressions of joy, hatred, pain, suffering, war, and Love... and so many other things in agreement with the human experience. How many other religious texts have so many different voices?

An idea I heard that was put out in a similar discussion was that the Bible is so cryptic and confusing because life in general is, and if God were to try to communicate with us in any way that would be useful to us, it would be through metaphor, through parables (as Jesus so often spoke,) and through ways that are apparent only to the reader. Which is a big problem when you bring organized religion into the equation. I believe that a personal relationship with God is far more important that a church community.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:04:08 +0100

I think we need to differentiate between "The Word" meaning Jesus from the gospel of John, and the word, referring to the Bible.

Good points about misusing public forums. I do believe that when it is important to many, God helps out those that are trying to speak on His behalf, while others find unnecessary ways to "discredit" them.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:11:32 +0100

maybe we need a 'New New Testament'.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:09:51 +0100

well I can't answer how exactly, but nearly EVERY religion needs 'upgrading'. they all have outdated concepts and ideals, especially when taken word-for-word. even (ooh, dare i say it through fear?) the Koran.
Surely all the scriptures of all religions have a good 'cause' but commandments such as banning birth control or eduction for women dont serve a good purpose any more.
I have read most religions were instigated in history by leaders as a way of contolling the peasants in some way. mmm, i better shut up..

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:25:06 +0100

how do you know anything is true? i dont mean, oh i can touch it, it exists. i mean, how do you KNOW anything? answer please.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:09:57 +0100

When it comes to the Bible, ask yourself three questions and then answer them honestly:
1. How do you know, not believe, that the words are God's words?
2. How do you know, not believe, there is a god.
3. Given that it simply isn't possible to know the above, how do you take action, including restricting the rights of others, based on something that you do not know to be true?

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:55:40 +0100

i would like to reply to jacobite9.

opinion is opinion. mine is worth no more than yours, and i would hope that you believe yours is equal to mine in the same regard. i do not wish to change your mind, merely point something out.

you take points at stoning a child and the destruction of canaan. as many others do, you are taking points at the bible from a literal interpretation. many Christians, such as myself, do not take the Bible literally, instead as teachings told through stories designed to exhibit a particular message carried to the reader.

another point that i would like to make about the stoning and canann, and all other percieved negative aspects of the Bible, is that we, people of the 21st century, cannot judge aspects of a book written hundreds of years ago. we cannot look at the stoning of a child, or disgrace of a whore through the eyes of our current society, this offers a huge bias. what was acceptable then, and perhaps even normal, is not today. i understand this, but an argument for negativity cannot be based on "bad things" that happen in the bible based on ones thoughts of bad in a completely different time period

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:13:03 +0100

I%u2019m a hypocrite and my stance on this issue is perhaps my most defining attribute as such.
I think that the Bible is nothing but historical fiction of which even the alleged %u2018moral value%u2019 is blown out of proportion by desperate Christians clinging to their culture. I base this on the fact that under no interpretation or context can stoning a child or carrying out the genocide of a city%u2019s inhabitants (Canaan, look it up) is cool.
However I understand that a person would want to look for guidance in their relatively short life so choosing the Bible seems in that way at least logical because so many other people do it.
The works I have chosen to guide me in life are the works of American author Robert E Howard, particularly Conan the Barbarian.
I%u2019m a hypocrite because the Conan stories have almost as much gore and sex in tem as the Bible does.
Before judging me though I%u2019d suggest reading Conan first, you may be surprised.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:00:08 +0100

The Bible is a GOOD book not a GOD book. The practices and lessons within the Bible have good moral values but some are a little outdated... by a couple thousand years. The book should be used as a guideline, not a rulebook. Some people take these things way too far. Something that God (if he exists) probably would not have intended.
Plus, you have to consider how many times the Bible has been printed, and changed, and misinterpreted, and re-written to fit a sect's practices. Take the Roman era for example. If you don't know what happened, go look it up.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:59:00 +0100

first.. i do not think it is IMPORTANT to have read the bible in your lifetime(but to answer the question it is) but since i have only read the english(probably mistranslated from the real script but who would know?) version, i think that it should be interpreted as 'a good MAN (just the fact of 'Jesus Christ' being in it) doing great things in his time'(espically his use of cannabis which was outlawed) it is nothing to base your life on..it was originally many books written by humans to write a book to show the less fortunate they are great too(where i get this from is written on the bottom).and a single book now used to manipulate millions. :(
Luke 4:18
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:09:04 +0100

May i first say that i am a Catholic Christan, and not a Christmas and easter catholic ( those that attend mass only on days of a percieved importance). i am fully involved in my faith and i understand it's teachings and stances better than most.

The Bible, regardless of your individual belief system or lack there of, is a book of huge historical and social importance. I think it can be easily said that no other book in the history of mankind has created such an influence as the Bible has. This being said, the interpretation of the Bible can have large effects on the populace, pertaining to good or ill.

I, as a lone person, cannot tell you how to interpret the book that i believe will offer me salvation. This would be idiocy because of my obvious bias. So interpret how you will, but there is one thing that i can do and that is defend it. Many, in this conversation, have argued to classify the Bible as historical fiction. This is impossible, for no person can undoubtedly state in fact that the events occuring throughout the Bible did not transpire. However far fetched the stories may be.

My interpretation? I truly believe the Bible is a collection of Holy works, inspired by the holy father, and collected by imperfect man. I do not believe in the literal interpretation, except for the gospels, instead believing that stories within the Bible are written to preach, and ultimately preach lessons pertaining to the eventual Christan religion.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:18:50 +0100

may i just say that you can do alot worse than living your life by the Bible cmone it sounds like alot of you are afraid of Christianity much like the Romans were with the early church and as for you MiddleClassAmerican if you want Christians to change America for the better than stop complaining about and do somthing about it vote Huckabee

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:24:06 +0100

The bible should be interepreted as historical fiction.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:13:43 +0100

I personally know a 100 people who are more of a expert than this man.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:53:34 +0100

The bible is a cobbled-together collection of fables and folklore. It has anthropological value, but is no more god-inspired than any other tome. The desire by many to see it otherwise leads to all sorts of twisted thinking as scholars try to reconcile it to current knowledge. It is a book to live your life by only if you believe in being racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and vengeful.

Comment on: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:08:00 +0100

How does this video add to the intellectual conversation?