The Bible -- perhaps the most hated and loved book?
Raconteur
Several people made statements about the Bible (Bible means "Book" and comes from both the Latin and Greek). I added this to the mix but it was too many points to leave on the forum and I brought it here.
Let me know what you think.
Here is a bit of trivia:
Unlike anthologies which spring from a theme but do not hold the same truths to be in every story or book, the Bible claims a unity of belief that is consistent in every book.
The authors range over thousands of years, multiple languages and traditions (oral and written) and yet among the 66 texts of the Old Testament and the New Testament there are only 500 discrepancies, errors if you wish, that scholars credit with the transcription variations.
That may seem great until one compares the statistics with the well known speech of Julius Caesar, "Friends Romans Countrymen..." The one speech, by one author, on one day, in one language boasts 1500 plus discrepancies in its transcriptions.
Don't you think it is interesting that the term Bible has come to represent the pinacle achievement of anything? People speak of an exemplary book on an subject, it is the Bible of said system...sports, business, politics etc.
As Rosie noted, the Proverbs, wise sayings and stories frame the basis of many cultures, books and philosophies.
For steamy love stories, the Bible has its share, not the least of which is the Song of Solomon.
For hating things such as books or people, I strive to put aside the things which sully the world with negative energy and spend the time fixing the things I can.
I accomplish more when I am upbeat than when depressed, joyous than seething, laughing than sobbing, encouraging than disparaging and like Chukkie, I choose to avoid hatred of anything. Perhaps that sounds pious or self righteous...but pragmatically, it works and has proven itself again and again.
Add your thoughts or bring your own Bible trivia to the blog.
Lyn
Litopia is the winner
Origins
This is truly a fascinating and complicated subject. Some of the best research information that I have come across is from Jordan Maxwell and Zechiria Sitchin, who have found over 5,000 mis-translations in the King James from the origional Hebrew. Add to this the various deliberate changes/omissions that have occurred over the centuries, and things can get pretty confusing! Truth . . . lies? I think you'll find some of both in the Bible, or indeed in any religion's texts. I also think that two asspects of the subject that can not be denied, by believers or non-believers, are thus:
1. For good or bad, it is a book for the intention of controling people's perceptions of reality. One needs only to look at its vast influence in history to see this.
2. It was written by a highly intelligent source{or sources}. A good example of this point is found in Al Neal's book - The Infinity Bible Code.
A bit of trivia - The origins of the word 'church' can be traced to the Scottish word 'kirk', then to the Roman god 'Cerces'. Cerces was a goddess who brought men to her home, turned them in to animals, then fed upon them! There's something to think about next time you go to church!
I'm not at all convinced
I'm not at all convinced about the alleged unity of the Bible.
The Old Testament seems to be the developing story of a religion that starts polytheist (the LORD is the greatest among gods) and ends up monotheist. The stress is on laws, vengeance, and the chosen people. The laws include some which seem barbaric today. Add to this mix some beautiful Psalms and some not-so-beautiful e.g. 137 (about rejoicing in killing your enemy's babies).
The New Testament is a mixed bunch: stories about a man called Jesus, many of which would be considered to be fiction in any other context, focussing on miracles and love; letters which support the repressive status quo as far as slaves and women are concerned and lay out rules for a community; and a rather weird vision of the end of the world.
It only all hangs together when you bring a particular slant to it and force everything to fit in by choosing to interpret some things literally, some metaphorically, and to say that some have been superseded.
Well, that's what I think, anyway!
Well, let’s start off with
Well, let’s start off with this one: the bible condemns me to death. But I read on…
It amazes me that people can read this thing in any other way than for its place in the canon and influence on every literary work that came after it. It’s so full of holes, inconstancies, contradictions, brutal horrors and untruths that I am surprised that people can take it seriously at all. I can only imagine that people don’t read it – just say they do.
Still, I guess a strong fear of death can convince you that anything might be true. If you haven’t seen it yet, go watch The Invention of Lying. It makes this point in a very clever way.
Brou
Thanks for commenting Brouhaha
I won't address the generalized comments since there is nothing specific to address.
The threat of death was not what turned me into a Christian at a very young age. Youthfulness doesn't believe in death or the threat of death.
What turned me toward becoming a Christian was my awareness of my choosing to do wrong things (sin) and my feeling ashamed and sorry about it. I wanted to be better.
It was the overwhelming love that I felt from God that lured me, not death or threats. For Someone to love me unconditionally was a tonic. That God's love for me was so great that it did not depend whether I did something good or achieved greatness, appealed to my core. It was simply there for me to accept (or not). The love continues no matter how often I fail. That love has sustained me over the years when things have seemed bleak or uncertain. It has never failed me, even if I have failed to do it justice.
People can be convinced of things that aren't true from fear or con or other reasons, but a lie is hard to sustain forever. Truth rises like cream to the top. My experience has supported my faith over the years. My faith says it is true.
Thanks for sharing your ideas. I'll try to see The Invention of Lying.
Lyn
Misquote
" ...the well known speech of Julius Caesar, "Friends Romans Countrymen..."
Hmm ... I always thought that Mark Antony made the speech - unless he was "channelling" the deceased Julius!
You're absolutely correct, Tony
I should have typed "Mark Anthony's speech about Julius Caesar." :)
See how easy it is to have typos in one speech? Proves my point. LOL.
Thanks for pointing it out.
just to say,
I thought you meant Julius Caesar as the name of the work, the play. In which case, your sentence made total sense.
Just sayin'.
Perhaps
Perhaps she meant the name of the play, rather than the character? Just sayin'.
And the Tale Grows Taller on Down the Line
I am something of a paradox in that I have a firm belief in a higher power and a strong opposition to most forms of organized religion. This is why I consider the Bible, in all its many forms, to be the greatest piece of propaganda ever.
As has been noted the Micean Council wrote the thing hundreds of years after Christ's death. They chose to restrict specific passages that did not fit into their chosen dogma and therefore lied to their followers by omission.
I am a nut for clarity and accuracy of information. I find it patently offensive when someone chooses not to tell me something 'for my own good.' To do so implies that I am too immature to handle the information. Who are they to judge what I should and should not know? I feel the same way about the government in all but the most extreme cases. They deliberately obfuscate things from the people and then they wonder why we don't trust them.
I am currently researching a project that I hope to start later on this year involving the Bible. It's sure to be controversial but I firmly believe that a little revolution now and then is a good thing.
Does the bible tell the truth?
If you compare Genesis with earlier Sumerian creation story you see that Moses clearly plagiarised these. Moses, raised as an Egyptian Prince would clearly have had access to these in the Egyptian libraries.
As for the New testament, the 5th century Bishop Marcian gathered the first collection of stories concerning Jesus and concluded that the God Jesus called his father was a different god to the one of the Hebrews. Jesus, sent by his god to free the people from the rules created by the other.
Of course this didn't agree with the theology being developed by the early church. Marcian was declared a heretic and the Church order that all conform to what they wanted, be hunted down and destroyed. They then selected those scriptures that agreed with what they wanted giving us their 'approved' version.
Consider the Lost Gospels.
How's that for controversial?
Thanks for commenting, I have a thought in reply
Welcome Comicsluvr,
Thanks for your comment.
I submit for your consumption the idea that the Council of Nicea did not try to hide other views like some governments will. It merely distilled the key books from the perspectives that the church leaders agreed spoke the truth of Christianity.
The other views remain alive in other traditions, just not the Judeo-Christian.
If you started a religion called Comic-anity, then you and your disciples would be entitled to define the creed. If others wanted to express a different view, they could do so in their own group, but not as a representative of yours.
A government differs from the Bible councils in that it will withhold information behind closed doors.
Councils are conducted with the information announced to the world. The Council of Nicea proclaimed that Jesus was both human and God.
Those that did not accept that Jesus was God left and formed their own group with their own followers. That point of view is still available for people to research should they choose. The Council did not accept it as true, but did not hide it, as governments will do.
The Bible is a theological presentation of the Judeo-Christian perspective. It is not a presentation of the different religions of the world. You may call it propoganda. By definition, it is. The Roman Catholic Church even has a Propaganda division to expressly evangelize and promote its doctrines.
Propaganda can assume a pejorative meaning, since its definition includes spreading rumors to harm other institutions.
The Bible is a 'letter' to the people who believe and follow it (as well as those investigating it). It claims to be only one perspective. The Canon was chosen out of many texts (all of the non-canonical texts can still be read--they are not hidden from people as governments hide documents that would show there are no weapons of mass destruction) and these other texts have been said to have some value but have too many errors to be included. The Canon of Scripture is limited to those texts that gained concensus as speaking the truth of Christianity.
So in that, I submit, the Council did not do a disservice, but helped clarify the creeds.
I am glad you posted. A good dialog is essential to distilling the truth.
Thanks,
Lyn
Agree to Disagree
Call me a conspiracy theorist (because in some ways I am) but your reply makes several assumptions that I would like to discuss.
Firstly, that the Nicean Council's distillation of the written scripture was a good thing. Distilling something, by definition, takes something out. While it's possible and even probable that these men (no women involved by the way) had nothing but good intentions they were human and thus flawed. How do we know that they did not omit some vital scripture simply because it was contrary to accepted doctrine? The fact that they had to deliberate for a month leads me to believe that it was not easy to get them to agree on anything.
You also assume that although a government makes many decisions behind closed doors that the church does not. I have no doubt but that the Nicean Council met behind closed, guarded doors to prevent unwanted ears from hearing what might have been heated deliberations. Even now most church deliberations including the choice of the Pope take place behind closed doors.
As for the Bible being a 'letter' to the people, there are way too many points where commands and issued and laws laid down for me to accept that. There is no phrase in the ten commandments that says 'I strongly suggest that...'. It simply says 'Thou shalt not' and that's that. God did not 'suggest' that the chosen of Isreal (who were Jews, not Christians) kill the people who were residing in the Promised Land when they arrived. He said (I'm paraphrasing) 'Go forth, kill them all, kill their animals, burn their stuff and erase them from your memory lest you be tainted.' This was not a suggestion but a command from God through Moses. And by the way the chosen of isreal were the NICE guys of the story...
As for the non-canonical passages being available, to the best of my knowledge this is only true because the Dead Sea Scrolls were found hidden in a cave after two thousand and some years. They were not collected and placed in some sort of alternate faith compendium for the faithful to read but hidden away lest they be destroyed.
My next major writing project is going to follow these same lines of thinking. According to my Bible teacher (a nun) when I was in Catholic school the Bible is the word of God. It cannot be wrong because although it comes to us through men God would not let Himself be misrepresented and thus the Bible is perfect. So the passage 'Thou shalt not kill' is just as accurate as the parts that say 'Kill them because they don't believe in me.'
As I said before I have Faith myself and I have no problem with people who follow their own form of faith. My problem is with religion. Faith doesn't kill people...people claiming to preach the word of God (or Allah or whatever) kill people.
You raise some interesting points, Comicsluvr, but
I agree to disagree.
I believe that distilling brings purity. Distilling my writing produces less rambling. Esra Pound distilled T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland into a more readable poem.
There are closed doors and doors that are impenetrable. The dissenting information remained available even though the outcome of the Nicean Council was that all 300 but three ratified it--a huge percentage. Many things today receive much less support, take longer and are put in place as law and people feel they are victorious.
Those supporting Arius and his Arian doctrine moved to Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch, Turkey. It migrated and became part of the Goth, Visogoth, and Vandal theology. By the 8th Century, northern Africa was overtaken by Islam and the Arian beliefs died out.
Arianism wasn't the key findings in the Dead Sea scrolls since most of the texts were Hebrew texts--Psalms, prophets, Isaiah etc. transcribed by the Essene and other communities contemporary with early Christians or Christ followers.
Much of Arian dogma can be found in the Trinitarian works(writings against Arius) which gave Jesus equal status with God--three persons of the one God. It's similar in a way that I am woman, wife and mother--three persons in one human.
As to Thou shall not kill. It should be translated 'murder' more than kill. One person should not murder someone else for selfish and greedy personal reasons. To kill in order to protect, defend or sanctify was not considered murder.
As to the Bible being the Word of God. I agree. However, I differ from your teacher (nun) who claimed no errors. We established in the former blog, there are errors in transcription. However, II Timothy 3:16 speaks that "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness, that the people of God can be adequate, prepared for every good work." In this way, I believe the scriptures are valid.
The Scriptures inspire us to do better. If we pay close enough attention, we learn. They tell us that we battle not against flesh and blood but against principalities of darkness...etc.
There is more wrong in the world than we can detect. Science may determine some day how to measure evilness. Some scientists are examining the effects of positive and negative energy on water crystals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbpXRSIUnE&feature=related. Whether we will devise an accurate measurement sooner than later I cannot say, but science will uncover a way to detect it.
Can people use the cover of religion to do wrong? Yes. I am ashamed to say it is true. Jesus was not one of them. He promoted equality, kindness, integrity, veracity, love and nurture. He changed the world for the better, no matter how many inept or corrupt people have done wrong in his name.
I don't judge other faiths by the worst of their followers but by their leaders or the best of the followers.
The simplest I can put it: Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. Some are farther from the way than others, but only God can truly judge. Not my job, nor am I applying for the position.
I do my best to be my best, love and encourage others.
Agreeing to disagree, but enjoying the dialog, I thank you for responding.
Peace,
Lyn
“Esra Pound distilled T.S.
“Esra Pound distilled T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland into a more readable poem.”
So did Wendy Cope, but you don’t mention that one. Five limericks loses a little of the clarity.
“We established in the former blog, there are errors in transcription. However, II Timothy 3:16 speaks that "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness”
How can that be so, if it is flawed? How can the atrocities present in the text be worth teaching?
There are a couple of lines in Timothy that seem to be pertinent here: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
So now the man has spoken, shouldn’t you stop posting? Of course not, because it’s rubbish, it’s worse than rubbish. If you’re looking for something that approximates evil – you’ve found it.
“Science may determine some day how to measure evilness. Some scientists are examining the effects of positive and negative energy on water crystals:”
Oh no, Emoto again. Seriously, Litopia is the last place I ever expected this bozo’s name to be mentioned. This man is not a scientist; he doesn’t even claim to be a scientist. This is pseudoscience at its very worst. If you want a rundown on this guy http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html (read the second section).
Look I’m going to end this here with my final point. Some people are just wired to believe stuff that isn’t true: pyramid schemes, spam emails that tell you to send it on to 20 friends or you’ll die, reiki, the end of the world in 2012, mediums, fortune tellers, magical elixir merchants like Emoto, the bible, Jesus, god or any religion in general.
I’d just like to suggest George Carlin’s extra commandment: Keep thy religion to thyself.
Brou
Kill vs Murder
"As to Thou shall not kill. It should be translated 'murder' more than kill. One person should not murder someone else for selfish and greedy personal reasons. To kill in order to protect, defend or sanctify was not considered murder."
So what part of God commanding the chosen of Isreal to go forth into the promised land and kill the two tribes there was a form of protection, defense or sactification? If it was not then God commanded his chosen to murder two entire tribes of people.
Many of the stories told in the Bible are so horrific that they can scarcely be believed by a modern reader. And these are often not stories about what an evil warlord does to the innocent but what God commands be done to others. The Old Testament is filled with stories that portray a jealous and wrathful God. Moses was banned from the promised land because he doubted God for a second and struck the rock twice. I'm pretty sure he was contrite afterwards. Yet when even Jesus lost faith during his crucifixion he was forgiven. No offense but Moses got a raw deal there.
I simply have trouble believing anyone that tells me that I should do what he says because he has a better understanding of God's word than I do. If God's word is so important then why is it apparently so difficult to interpret? Why is there so much dissention between the various sects of Christianity? Oh and won't Christians everywhere be shocked when the 144,000 souls saved when The End arrives are Jewish?
Sorry but I just can't lend credence to anything that is so self-contradictory. Great debate though...I'm having a blast!
What fun! I love to dialog
Comicsluvr,
You have raised some very challenging ideas, especially in a day where we strive for more civility (as my government wages war just about everywhere and has commited who knows how many attrocities) or where we at least speak to the issue of peace.
Having grown up in largely a Christian environment with ties to other religious groups--Jews and Muslims, I was unaccustomed to sensing a creepy vibe that felt malicious. Most people of faith begin with some desire for goodness.
I was startled, after entering the chaplain corps in the Navy, when I encountered individuals who gave off a chilling vibe that made Iago in Othello seem like a choir boy. I encountered 'spaces' that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. What could cause this? Spaces don't seem to be 'living' but when I entered one zone, it felt like walking into a heavy dry mist of evilness. Was it evil? I can't say absolutely because there is no way to measure it. Everyone with me felt it. After praying over it, the feeling left.
The 'creepy' people I encountered became the problem sailors--wrecking havoc in their departments and among crew. Their home lives were in worse shape.
One ended up in Federal prison having attacked his wife with a gun.
There are some people without morality. Charles Manson comes to mind as a prime example, as well as a few others.
God did not ask the Israelites to treat all tribes the same way. Some were selected for extinction. Others were left alone.
Why was this? Were there differences between the tribes that we don't know about but God did?
As the spaces above had traces of evil left behind from who knows who or what, I imagine that a tribe that focused on doing harm and having no sense of morality may have left a taint on their spaces.
If the entire community was replicas of such villainous people as Manson, I can imagine that having anything left could taint. I don't know the answer, because we are dealing with the immeasurable, the intangible. All I can say is I had enough 'weird' things happen that I am no longer one who thinks the spirit world is a myth.
I speculate that a thorough cleansing of some places would take some massive decimation to remove all that might reside as a left-over to undermine and do harm.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against the powers of darkness...
In terms of Moses and Jesus. Moses lost the privilege of the promise land...a harsh judgment perhaps, but to those who have been given much, more is expected. That is why when we clergy fail, the punishment should be greater if we lead others to fail.
Moses had had a great learning process and he was free to 'argue' with God.
Arguing and disobeying are two different things.
As a leader, God needed Moses to follow things to the letter. To disobey is to suggest that he knew better than God. The greatest sin is pride that suggests we know better than God. Lucifer lost his prime position as a result of pride. Most downfalls are pride-driven. Disobedience walks hand in hand with pride.
Jesus was not disobeying when he cried 'Why have you abandoned me?' Carrying the filth and sin of generations on one person was clearly incompatible with God in the way that light is incompatible with darkness. Jesus felt the pain of abandonment, expressed it and still obeyed. Moses did not. BTW, I feel sorry for Moses too.
I am not clear about your statement: 'I simply have trouble believing anyone that tells me...do what he says because he has a better understanding of God's word than I do.' I couldn't quite understand who the pronouns referred to...so I won't answer until I am clear.
As to the difficulty of understanding God's word. God expresses that anyone who has ears to hear will hear etc. In essence, anyone with a desire to learn can and will learn. At the same time, there must be some test that distinguishes followers from fakers.
Dissension between Christians only proves that evil is alive and well and working among 'Christians'. Believe that Christ says that people will have done things in 'the name of Jesus' but he will tell them, 'I never knew you'.
The critical thing is that each of us must be responsible for our own belief in God. Working that out and opening our hearts to improvement as we age prepares us for the life hereafter. Some of us feel called to help others along the path.
BTW, the 144,000 will be Jews. Christians, if they read the book of Revelation, won't be surprised at that.
I know there are things in the Bible that seem contradictory, but my faith trusts that the God of Love has the best interest of all who believe and that there is a unity of the Scripture. If I don't see it, then I need more information. It's sorta like the movie where the MC looks like they have made all sorts of bad moves that don't make sense, but at the critical point, it becomes clear that those seemingly 'bad moves' ended up not being bad, but were necessary to achieve the good end.
Loving the dialog, too. I strive to maintain a respectful rapport. I agree to disagree.
Lyn
Ask me anything about the Bible and I'll try to answer it
With all the divergent oppinions about the Bible and the extremes that some buy into, I'm glad to address the profound and the weird and explain anything you may be curious about without trying to proselytise you.
Ask me whatever, no matter how bizarre. I'll try to provide a logical look at it.
Lyn
My bible
I work in theatre, as a stage manager, and one of my responsibilities at the end of a production is to compile a bible for the show. The show bible has all the blocking (movement) notes, cues (lighting, sound, etc.) and where they are called, prop pre-sets (i.e., "the hand mirror starts the show on the right-wing prop table, facedown, handle hanging over the edge so the actor can grab it quickly as she runs by"), electrics channels and patch charts, meeting minutes from all production meetings, contact information for all those involved with the show, set diagrams, etc etc etc...
It's basically a guide to how the show was put together, and how to re-create it if someone should so choose. And it's always called the bible.
That's my bit of "bible triva."
The Theatre is not alone in having a bible
There are books called The Golf Bible and instruction manuals for countless businesses that are referred to as their bible.
Thanks for your comment, CatWake. It's a wonderful bit of trivia. I may even use it in my next novel. You taught me something.
Lyn
I do not know the Bible as
I do not know the Bible as well as I should but have always been fascinated by it's existence and ability to influence so much of the world we live in. I had a teacher once who used to say that reading the Bible was like dipping your hands into a treasure chest of wisdom and never, ever, coming away empty handed or without the very thing you needed to know most at that particular moment in your life.
Thanks for your comment, Excellent addition on the Bible
Thanks, Boxofficegirl,
What a clever insight. I can verify that it is true for me.
I don't care how well one knows or doesn't know the Bible, friends are friends.
If you ever have a question, ask me. I try not to preach. LOL
Lyn
The stories survived by word
The stories survived by word of mouth, through centuries of persecution, and have gone through too many translations to keep track of. And yet the collection is still intact. No single book or collection of stories ... or whatever you choose to label it ... sparks as much controversy.
That alone makes it impressive.
I know it simply as my guide to living.
Thanks for your blog post, Lyn. I needed this today.
Carol
My mother gave great insights as I grew up
The pearls of wisdom fell off her tongue readily and easily.
I discovered that many of them came from the Bible. She'd memorized them and they were a part of her wisdom by the time I was born. They were clearly a guide to living.
Thanks for your comments.
That bible.
Was spatchcocked together at the Council of Nicea in 325, the main aim of that council being to exclude various Gospels that were cited in support of various heresies that were narking the church fathers at the time.
But I would say that, being a bastard the bible is very down on my kind: I shall not be admitted into an association of the Lord even unto the tenth generation which I think is rather harsh considering I had no say in the drunken St Patrick night's tumble that gave rise to me. I share that biblically-directed fate with eunuchs and those who have had their members crushed, who I assume had little say in their geldings and mashings either.
Obviously one takes these things a bit personally but it's a bit brutal on those of us who had no say in our fertilizations or geldings, that book of yours.
The Sunday football league in my circle of Hell will be dull. Presumably the eunuchs will keep losing the balls.
In agreement
It seems to me bible was a creation by a group of people with their own agenda who intended to promote their own view points.
I would have loved to have been able to read the gospels of Mary Magdalene however they were mostly destroyed.
Thanks Nivlem for commenting
When you say that the Bible is a creation of a group of people promoting their own views, don't you find it impressive that they are able to agree so much?
As my earlier note pointed out, the Bible has fewer discrepancies than other literature passed down through the ages. Compare Julius Caesar's speech with 1500 variations versus the Bible with 500 differences between manuscripts.
If we look at writing our own manuscripts, I have more than a few variations in writing the same story. How is it possible for a group over 4000 years to be so cogent and unified in their thinking?
Thanks for posting.
Bible discrepancies
Well if you consider that the Church had a tendency to burn people at the stake as heretics if they created a bible that was not in fitting with the church's beliefs, William Tyndale and possibly the whole Cathar movement could be seen as an example of this.
Don't beat around the bush, say what you mean. LOL
Thanks for your comments.
The Council of Nicea did settle the issues that were being disputed rather hotly. Was Jesus Christ God or just man or both? The Nicene creed speaks to the diety of Christ as a man...so both. It was also unique in that it was the first time in Christian history that the decisions about what to believe came from the unity of the leaders and consensus of a vote.
It's interesting that you focus on the cruelty to bastards in the Bible. Two things strike me immediately. One, the lengthy list of geneaologies in Matthew, cite only a few women. Rahab the harlot (or our contemporary word would be whore or madam) was in Jesus' heritage and there is no condemnation of that.
Secondly, Jesus probably felt some of the pain you experienced because his mother turned up pregnant and she wasn't married. No doubt he was called a few choice disparaging remarks and suffered the same painful experience of being judged by others for what happened before his birth.
Again, with great wit, you chose to comment. I thank you for taking the time, skipperjeru. I am honored by your contribution.
Yes, Jesus probably did get ribbed...
but being Son of God he could call down a murrain on their cattle, smite them hip and thigh, call up a Samson to thrash them with the jawbone of an ass, call down the seven plagues of Egypt, rain balls of fire on them a la Sodom and Gomorrah, do a road to Emmaus and appear to them and shout 'boo!' after he was meant to be dead.
All of which would make them think twice before doing it again.
HaHaHaHa LOL You'd think, wouldn't you?
Talk about self control. I'm not sure I was ever so polite when kids tormented me in school.
I tended to be a scrapper, literally with scraped knees and hands.
How Jesus could be so polite and peaceful under the extreme torment, continues to amaze me.
Of course, looking at the prophecy about Armageddon, what you noted above may be just the beginning. LOL
Thanks for adding your humor. You even have comedic timing in your writing. Pause. Punchline. Very clever.
Propaganda?
Been meaning to check in on this discussion for a while. The bible is a collection of books but it's easier to refer to it as one these days.
I'm amazed that the Jews, Christians and Muslims (chronological order!) allowed this book to survive. Abraham is important in all three religions and he is not a gentleman - he lied about his wife, said she was his sister, to save his own skin. Guess the danger he put her in? Moses murdered. Why didn't they keep that bit hushed up?
David (one of the most famous Jewish kings, father of Solomon, author of many loved psalms) had an affair with a married woman, got her pregnant, and set her husband up to be killed in battle so that he could marry her. Mmmm.
As far as I can see, the bible is about human fraility and the chance of redemption. I love the characters of Deborah, Shiprah and Puah, (and Rahab, mentioned above) - all women who risked their lives to do what they thought was the right thing. They may not all be famous but at least they get a mention. For books written so long ago, that is impressive. How many other ancient books give women heroic parts?
Yes, weejeanie, the Bible shows human frailties, warts and all
Thanks for commenting, weejeanie. Great points about how the Bible doesn't cover up any frailties but hangs them out there for everyone to see.
With all King David did, it is amazing that God spoke of him as "a man after God's own heart." I think it was because David was sincere and genuine. He recognized his wrongdoing (when he got caught by Samuel) and confessed his sin and God was forgiving when our repentence is not phony. He always gave God the credit and wasn't presumptive about his own accomplishments.
You've said it succinctly. The Bible is about human frailty and the chance of redemption. That is exactly it.
I love the fact that Rahab (the harlot) gets a mention as one of the key women in Jesus' blood line. She is honored for what she did. I can only imagine what the evangelicals would do if they spoke of her today--without her being included in the Bible or as one of Jesus' ancestors.
A belated comment.
I come to the discussion late in the day. As a new menmber of Litopia, and a Christian since I was twelve - wholly by personal choice and conviction, not not as a result of upbringing - I was naturally drawn to this discussion. I will not presume to comment on all that has been said, but I would like to offer a few thoughts from my own experience.
If anyone reading this really wants to know if the Bible speaks the truth about God and Jesus then he or she must commit themselves to doing what it teaches. The Bible opens itself to the seeking heart not to the mind. It is the map of an unseen country, an inner country - sorry, that probably sounds pompous or corny, but it is, nevertheless true, at least, it is true in my experience.
God's purpose in Christ is to give us back ourselves so that we are free to give ourselves back to Him and in doing so, become one with Him.
The Church is intended to be the living expression of Heaven on earth, and in the love believers have for one another, to prove the truth of the Bible's teachings. That's the intention; the reality is we fail horribly, and we deserve the criticisms that are levelled against us.That said, anyone who wants to can put the truths into practice and become the reality.
God cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who claim to follow Him.To dismiss God or the Bible on that basis is to do yourself a disservice. If you really want to know what He's like seek Him for yourself. If you are sincere He isn't hard to find.
well
As a devote atheist I don't put any stock in the bible or its followers. My personal opinion on religion goes like this I understand you got faith, kind of like I know you got underwear on, but that doesn't mean I need to hear about it or see it. It's best if you just keep it to yourself. And I'll keep my lack of faith to myself and we all can be happy.
Wordslinger, thanks for commenting
I appreciate your taking the time to comment. When I was in the Navy, the wardroom protocol stated that due to the volatile nature of beliefs about religion, politics and sex, that they were not allowed to be discussed.
Have you ever noticed that the minute they tell you that you can't do something, that suddenly it's the only thing you do? LOL If they weren't talking business about the ship, the wardroom most often turned to religion, politics and sex to discuss (probably the latter two, most of all).
Again, thanks for commenting. You are most welcome to share your ideas.
Lyn