That's the problem. Because we don't know for sure what is meant by each verse and passage, we have to rely on our own interpretation. Unfortunately, there's no 'Guide To The Bible - what I meant when I said that' by god or christ or anyone else. It would help if there were, and I'm sure there wouldn't have been near as many wars, cursades etc etc etc as there have been if something like that were available.

And that's what I'm saying...there's nothing to interpret. If you just take something at face value, no one has to worry about interpreting it and it only has one meaning. Maybe certain parts of the Bible are meant to be difficult or confusing on purpose? I don't know. lol

if we take the bible literally, we can't eat pork, or shellfish. We wouldn't have an established church. We have to marry the widows of our brothers etc... We also have to accept literally the book of Revelations, which makes 0 sense at all. Going with a literal interpretation is how you get the widest varrying interpretations because everyone likes to believe one passage is more important than another etc.

Karen understands this part...Jesus changed everything. He told people to "screw the laws" pretty much. He knew there was absolutely NO one that could ever abide by all those rules. HE was the only one that could do it. He's the rule breaker. If you think about it...the Bible is kind of about evolution. The evolution of man, our governments, our leaders, our rules. If the Bible were being written now instead of 2000 years ago...it wouldn't make sense to people in 4000 AD either, you know? Our rules are going to be nullified probably.

Every time we got a new ruleset, they were really supposed to replace the old ones. It was God going "Hrrm... ok, the previous approach didn't work... lets try something else" It was us, in our drive to complicate the world more than it needs to be.

It wasn't God screwing up. It was us. Jesus said that the greatest commandments were these: To love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. I tend to see the OT as being the background knowledge of Israel that we need to know before Jesus shows up. Here's all this crap that happened: This big power struggle between Israel and God--a game of tug of war if you will: and then here's the tie-breaker: Jesus. There wasn't any more need for the struggle anymore...

A literal translation gives us a universe that was created in 6 days. By interpretation of those words, we should be the center of the universe. A literal translation gives us a man, and a woman that then give birth to two sons. No daughters if I remember right. No genetic variation. Are we all inbred? A literal translation gives us men who lived hundreds of years in a time before any modern medicine existed. A literal translation would have us conducting animal sacrifices A literal translation would have had the Second Coming of Christ a long long long time ago.

So God really couldn't have made the universe in 6 24-hour periods? I don't see why not. If He's God, surely He's capable of that. Then again, God's timetable has never really been ours. Maybe a "day" at the time that portion of the Bible was written was a different length?

The Bible doesn't tell us everything. There's two options with Adam and Eve as far as I can see: God was making other people on the side, or Adam and Eve had other children than the author of Genesis was compelled to write about. Are we inbred? Well...God gave Cain the boot when Abel died...and Cain married a woman outside the Garden of Eden, correct? I wonder how that happened? I don't have the answer...I don't need it either. All I know is that we're here, and that's what matters.

I don't think there was illness to speak of like we had today. And if people lived to be a thousand years old, they could probably reproduce for at least 700 of those years. God told them to go forth and populate the Earth, and with so few people, it would have been hard to do with such short lifespans. God provides ways if it's His will.

Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. All the sacrifices of unblemished lambs, goats, and bulls wasn't enough to satisfy God, and make our sin right with him. A cow isn't equal to a human. A pigeon isn't equal to a human. ONLY a human death would be able to make things right with God--and once that happened there wasn't a need for animal sacrifice anymore.

The second coming? How so? I don't recall Jesus saying as he was doing his "Spirit in the Sky" act "Hey bros! Look to the east in about a thousand years...I'll be coming!" He said he'd come SOON. And God's timetable ISN'T ours.

I think sometimes people get so critical of God because they see these things in the Bible and wonder why they're not done yet. I'm thankful that I'm kinda stupid that way and I'm okay with not knowing everything. That doesn't mean I don't have questions...I have plenty. But I think its okay to let God be God and do His work...you know?

Heh, this is part of the reason why I gave up. If the Bible can't get its act together, why should I have to?

AMEN! It's a waste of time. Stop trying to determine what God wants and a great burden will be lifted.

AMEN! It's a waste of time. Stop trying to determine what God wants and a great burden will be lifted

I know that feeling very well.

If He's God, surely He's capable of that

If he's god, he's capable of more too. 

 

...i'm the "oddball" of the group in that i chose buddhism...they're all fine with it......

Me too!  How long have you been practicing?  I'm on my 5th year now!

The Godhead is made up of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit

To elaborate....three SEPARATE beings united in purpose, not self. (not GOD with MPD,)

I think it is interesting that we can make science fiction TV shows 26-per season that gives us aliens to which time and space are manipulatable, but for some reason when you say that 10 billion years to us could be 6 days to God people get all skeptical...

The mere fact that people expect bronze-age humans to scientifically describe God and all of God's works is telling. 90% of the people who turn on their computers can't tell you how electrons can be used to blog, and yet they seem to have faith in the fact it is going to work when they press the button.

Surely a student of Buddhism couldn't presume to "know" things at the level that the nay-sayers here impose on Christianity. God, is, well God, afterall. If what He does was easily explained and replicated then we, someday, could make ourselves God's through technology.

If what He does was easily explained and replicated then we, someday, could make ourselves God's through technology.

What do you think cloning is?

for some reason when you say that 10 billion years to us could be 6 days to God people get all skeptical...

I have no problem with the bible's overall message. Not in the slightest. The problem I DO have is with people who take the bible literally and refuse to consider anything other than the theory of creation in 6 human days. It says 6 days in the bible, therefore it must mean exactly that - 6 days. That's the problem I was trying to explain when I said I had an issue with taking the bible literally.

Surely a student of Buddhism couldn't presume to "know" things at the level that the nay-sayers here impose on Christianity.

I don't presume to know much of anything, to be honest. The only things I 'know' are those which I have myself found to be true...by my own experience. I can say that I 'think' otherwise, but I don't 'know'. That's the beauty of Buddhism (for me, anyway) - it doesn't require me to put faith in anything that I cannot see or find for my own self to be true. I 'think' many things that I haven't yet had the opportunity to find to be the truth...some of which I won't know until my heart stops beating and my life ends.

If I had to sum up my outlook on life in a single sentence, it would be much the same as I believe the overall message of Christianity to be: 'be most excellent to each other'.

"That's the beauty of Buddhism (for me, anyway) - it doesn't require me to put faith in anything that I cannot see or find for my own self to be true."

And yet, basically nothing about Buddhism is more quantifiable that that of Christianity. You can't say that Buddhist cosmology is self-apparent. Have you decided to adhere to their idea of the beginnings of the universe? What about all these Gods and titans, demons and demigods? Some buddhists have their gods and hell and demons, too.

So, do you have as much of a problem with them as you do with Christian literalists? Is their belief that you won't reach enlightenment with your attitude as bothersome to you as Christians who think you are going to burn in hell? If not, why? If so, why just choose Christians to point to for this kind of mythology?

Look at the intricate Catholic heirarchy of angels and saints and sins and virtues that are basically non-existant to your average Baptist. Then look at this description of Samsara. Are we really talking about a religion that doesn't have any metephysical aspects, or a religion that you yourself have decided to adhere to in your own way?

How's that different than the literalist principles you are differing with here? To you, all the "believe in the 6 day creation or burn in hell" is silly. Guess what, it is to me, too. I'm sure there are many aspects of Buddhism that you don't buy into either.

You pass by someone every day, I have no doubt, that believes in UFOs, or witchcraft, or inner earth, or giant government conspiracies. Does it rub off? Do they stop you and demand you adopt their beliefs?

Am I wronged when someone tries to persuade me to believe socialist ideals are valid? When a wiccan tries to tell me that all my holidays are really pagan and I should cast off all the affectation, should I feel threatened? Why, then, do people see fundamentalist Christians trying to spread their message as a threat or a bother?

If we live in a nation wherein people are allowed to stand on the sidewalk and scream their opinions at me, I don't really get why Christians spreading their message is so bad. They aren't standing on the street and throwing red paint at you. What if Fundamentalist Christianity adopted the tactics of PETA or NOW?

So, do you have as much of a problem with them as you do with Christian literalists?

Yes, I do.  Buddhism is often described as 'the middle way'.  You can believe basically what you want to.  If you want to go with Mahayana Buddhism and it's Tara's and prayer flags, you can....or you can go with the Zen school of thought.  Either way, you can still be Buddhist.  We don't regard any one person as being more 'right' than the next...it's all about what we ourselves found to be true.  My truths today are not going to be the same as my truths tomorrow because there are things that I have yet to experience (if that makes sense).  I happen to think that there are parts of Buddhism (particularly in The Tibetan Book Of The Dead) that are as much hogwash as the 6 day creation story - but that doesn't stop me from being Buddhist and adhering to the other major precepts, just as your non-belief in it makes you any less Christian (in your eyes anyway, I'm sure there are those who would say that it negates your entire experience).

Are we really talking about a religion that doesn't have any metephysical aspects, or a religion that you yourself have decided to adhere to in your own way?

We're talking about the middle way.

To you, all the "believe in the 6 day creation or burn in hell" is silly. Guess what, it is to me, too. I'm sure there are many aspects of Buddhism that you don't buy into either.

Yes, there are, and I've already explained them.

Why, then, do people see fundamentalist Christians trying to spread their message as a threat or a bother?

Because it's not just Christ's message of love, tolerance and compassion that they're spreading.  They tell people what they should and should not read, what they should and should not tolerate...people feel dictated to.  Not to mention the 'I'm going to heaven and you're not because you aint been born again' aspect.

 

I don't really get why Christians spreading their message is so bad.

I think that before we can debate that point we have to decide exactly what the christian message is.  Don't you?  I already said what MY impression of the christian message is.  What's yours?

The problem I DO have is with people who take the bible literally and refuse to consider anything other than the theory of creation in 6 human days. It says 6 days in the bible, therefore it must mean exactly that - 6 days.

And why is this a problem for you? If that's what someone chooses to believe how does it harm you or cause you problems in any way? I have my own views on some of these issues but I certainly don't feel the need to debate beliefs. Besides, if God is an all powerful being capable of creating an entire universe, complete with intelligent life, I would venture to say that He is capable of doing pretty much whatever He feels like, including doing it all in 6 days if that's what He wanted. Or with no time having passed at all. Or using whatever time reference He chooses.

The simple truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no way to prove He did or He didn't and debating the issue becomes one of simply debating beliefs. When dealing with spiritual and/or supernatural ideas, people are going to believe what they choose to believe.

As for reading every part of the Bible as literal, any serious scholar of the Bible will tell you that it would be absurd to do so. Various parts were written using different styles, some with a great deal of symbolism, and often phrases or examples which were meaningful to the people of the time, but less so to us today. Some parts were written literally, some parts were more symbolism. The writing style and context are what tells us which is which. This is why people are told to study the Bible, not merely read it.

For example, "40 days and 40 nights" in the bible is not a literal or precise measurement of time. It was a commonly used phrase which meant "a long time" or "several weeks". When Jesus said "I am the door". He wasn't saying that he was literally a door made of wood and that He had hinges.

That phrase made a lot of sense to people who were intimately familiar with herding sheep. At night a sheep herder would often round up the sheep into a kind of corral made of thorns to protect them from predators. He would then sleep laying across the entrance to the corral, thus acting as the "door". It was a common practice at that time and anyone would have instantly understood the reference.

Even today we use figurative phrases in our every day speech and writing so I fail to understand why this becomes a problem when it comes to the Bible. With the possible exception of a text book, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any contemporary book that doesn't contain both literal phrases and figurative ones. This is a normal means of communicating ideas and the Bible is not somehow an exception to this.

As for parts of the New Testament referencing the Old, I am not sure why this is a problem for you as there are hundreds of references to the Old Testament in the New. For the Jew, the Scriptures were their source of knowledge about God, society, and law. It should be no surprise that New Testament writers would make frequent reference to them. They often did so in order to set the mindframe of the reader, a sort of refresher or reminder, or to demonstrate the validity of something by showing how it relates to their Scriptures. Because one was written a long time after the other doesn't somehow invalidate it, it actually ties them together.

This is a normal means of communicating ideas and the Bible is not somehow an exception to this.

But Christianity proclaims that it ISN'T just a book, or a normal method of communication.  It's divine instrument.

If that's what someone chooses to believe how does it harm you or cause you problems in any way?

Hey, if people want to keep their views to themselves, that's cool.  However, when we have groups insisting that textbooks on evolution be plastered with stickers proclaiming that the information contained within is 'simply a theory' (which, btw, creationism is too, and there's more evidence to support evolution than creationism), well, then it becomes a problem to me and mine.  When I have people telling my children that they are not going to heaven, and they and their parents are destined for hell because we do not believe the same thing they do, it becomes my problem.  Sound far-fetched?  It's happened, and still does happen.

This all started with my asking for an explanation as to why that particular scripture was written as it is.  We're way off track now.

Oh, and one more thing: I shouldn't have used the words 'I have issues/problems with'. It would have been better for me to say 'I think it's silly'. I Do think it's silly. Just like I think that atheism is silly...because if you cannot prove something, how can you DISprove it? I also think that there are aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Taoism that are equally silly. So, it's not just christianity.

But Christianity proclaims that it ISN'T just a book, or a normal method of communication. It's divine instrument.

This doesn't negate the use of symbolism or figurative forms of writing.

Hey, if people want to keep their views to themselves, that's cool.

Consider what you just said here. You are fully free to talk about/write about Buddhism, but Christians shouldn't be free to talk about/write about Christianity? If you really felt that people should keep their views to themselves no-one on JU would know you are a Buddhist, would they? It's called freedom of speech and it applies to all of us equally.

However, when we have groups insisting that textbooks on evolution be plastered with stickers proclaiming that the information contained within is 'simply a theory' (which, btw, creationism is too, and there's more evidence to support evolution than creationism), well, then it becomes a problem to me and mine

While I agree that teaching religion in public schools is not what tax dollars are supposed to be spent on, I also believe that children should be exposed to a wide range of ideas. Creation is not strictly a Christian concept, and has not been absolutely disproven any more than macroevolution has been proven. Microevolution has been observed, there is plenty of evidence for it and it has been effectively proven, but macroevolution has far less evidence and far more conjecture so perhaps it shouldn't be taught either. Realistically, the more senisble idea would be to simply present that some people believe that life evolved from single celled organisms through a process called macroevolution, and other peoples believe that life was created by intelligent design. This can be done without the need to teach any specific religious doctrines and exposes the students to the fact that not everyone in the world believes the same things and neither idea is actually a proven fact. The biggest objection many Christians have is simply that macroevolution is taught as if it is a proven fact, when in reality it isn't.

When I have people telling my children that they are not going to heaven, and they and their parents are destined for hell because we do not believe the same thing they do, it becomes my problem.

I agree that's is bad taste and is not what most Christians would be doing so it's wrong to lump all Christians together based on this. But it does open the door for the parent to teach their children the concepts they themselves believe and that not everyone in the world believes the same things (which the parent should have been doing anyway).

This all started with my asking for an explanation as to why that particular scripture was written as it is. We're way off track now.

I agree, but if you look back at the thread I believe it was your own responses to some answers which started to lead the thread so far off track. But hey, it's your blog.

Oh, and one more thing: I shouldn't have used the words 'I have issues/problems with'. It would have been better for me to say 'I think it's silly'. I Do think it's silly. Just like I think that atheism is silly...because if you cannot prove something, how can you DISprove it? I also think that there are aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Taoism that are equally silly. So, it's not just christianity.

While I wouldn't use such an insulting term as silly in reference to people's core beliefs, I understand what you're saying. There are some things with regard to the teachings of both modern Christianity and modern Buddhism that I disagree with as well, but perhaps for different reasons.
It really boils down to people having to make their own choices about what they believe, and none of us has the right to make fun of people's beliefs or to denigrate those beliefs. In my opinion that's just wrong.

Only some Christians are literalists. Only some literalists believe that Creationism should be taught in schools. You don't define Buddhism for the people who believe in the vastly complex Buddhist universe, and literalist, creationist Christians don't define Christianity for me. The homogeneous Buddhism you espouse is no more a reality than a homogeneous Christianity or Islam.

The problem is that people can't be satisfied believing what they believe, they have to take issue with other people's beliefs. Now, if Christians are trying to get your schoolboard to adopt some Creationist dogma, then by all means address THOSE Christians. Otherwise, buying in to all the fearmongering threats and warnings that anti-religious types like to propagate only makes you as intolerant as those you deride for being intolerant.

People are often very skeptical when the terrorism threat level is raised. They want proof. Where are these terrorists. When someone says "Christians are taking over the schools", though, it starts a panic. What have these Christians actually accomplished? How many are there? What are their names. Have you met them? Have they attempted something in your area.

Most often the only threat anyone who reads such stuff knows of is carried by anti-religious people. Myrrander and others make out like there is some huge Christian conspiracy because it provokes strong anti-religious feelings in people. That doesn't mean there is any more likelyhood of anything happening, it just means they want to create some sort of infantile front against what they seem to believe is 'destructive' Christianity.

Screw them, frankly. I trust them as much as I trust the color-coded terrorism threat level or the paranoid UN helicopter folks.

Again, I would point out that the Amish are quite Literalist. So far to my knowledge they haven't burned anyone, stolen away women to make their wives, or tried to impose their beliefs on anyone.

Deal with people's actions, not their level of literalism. There are as many simply, peaceful Christians as there are simple, peaceful Buddhists. It isn't the dogma that makes people behave otherwise.

I trust them as much as I trust the color-coded terrorism threat level or the paranoid UN helicopter folks.

I was with ya right up to this point. Those black helicopters are for real, man!

It seems that religion abounds in paradox, which is probably why the author of the Tao Te Ching wrote: "The Way that can be described (in words)is not the eternal Way. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name."

On the one hand, the problems of taking every word of the Bible as perfect, literally true and utterly unchangeable are clear enough and have been well expressed above. On the other hand, Marcie's answers ask a really good question: if it's not the perfect word of God, then what use is it at all?

Personally I don't see how the Bible can be read as anything but 'symbolic' language, which implies that the Literalists are probably mistaken in insisting on, for example, "six days of creation, i.e. six 24 hour periods". On the other hand, if the Literalists are the ones really living the Bible, rather than just reading it, then that, in a way, makes them the 'experts'. Another paradox.

So many problems come about because our human brains, trained in certain forms of logic, cannot accept paradox, that a thing can be true and false and that we can be right and wrong at the same time on an issue. Paradox offends us so much that sometimes we will do monstrous things just to establish a bit of 'clarity'.

The Lankavatara Sutra says it best for me, "Things are not as they seem; neither are they otherwise".

#69 by Chakgogka Saturday, June 25, 2005

Some excellent points. I have always felt that if we could truly understand God, He wouldn't be God.
And yes, as much as the human mind despises a paradox, I believe paradox to be far more the norm in the true nature of the universe than we would like to believe. I think that's one reason we have such a difficult time, as human beings, truly understanding the universe.
Modern science has begun discovering certain paradoxes, such as particles that appear to move backward in time among others. I believe the universe is far more complex and there is far more to it than we perceive. Much of it defies logic, which can be maddening.
The more we discover, the less we understand. For all of our advances, we really don't know nearly as much as we would like to think we do. I suspect that if humans are still here in another 1000 years they'll probably be having a good laugh at some of what our culture currently accepts as scientific fact.

Because it's not just Christ's message of love, tolerance and compassion that they're spreading. They tell people what they should and should not read, what they should and should not tolerate...people feel dictated to. Not to mention the 'I'm going to heaven and you're not because you aint been born again' aspect.

lol...you hit the nail on the head, Karen.

I go to church nearly every Sunday. Bully for me, right? I believe that the only way to go to Heaven is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died to forgive my wrongs.

BUT...when I go to church, I don't want to hear hellfire and brimstone, either. If I'm talking to someone of my same faith, I don't want to hear it from them either. I *KNOW* when I've done something that goes against what God wants me to do, you know? ANd I know I have to make those things right...like...for instance: A few weeks ago I went to the store and when I checked out I did the self-checkout thing. I was kind of in a hurry and my purse had gotten on top of one of those little $1 meat marinade packets and I didn't pay for it. I was too lazy to go back in, get in line, and swipe my card again for it, so I just took it home. And it's been driving me NUTS that I haven't paid for it yet. I know it's just a dollar, and I know the store doesn't really even care...but *I* do...and I know that God would want me to make the situation right so I can get on with life.

If I'm Christian, and my job is to help other people become Christians (because God says to), telling them "Hey...you. Are you a Christian? No? You're going to hell! You'd better get right with Jesus!" isn't the way to do it. Building a relationship and a friendship and genuinely caring for people is the way to show them Christs love. Praying for people. I know the hellfire and brimstone is there...but I don't want to be berated when I go to church. I want to be gently corrected and have the opportunity to make my sin right before God and I also want my Christian brothers and sisters to be willing to help out if I'm up against some kind of sin that I have a hard time overcoming.

Please just keep in mind that all Christians aren't like that....not all of us walk up and down the street handing out tracts that are just going to be thrown away or strike up hellfire and brimstone conversations with people to frighten them to faith. I know that's how it seems sometimes. There are lots of people out there with the wrong motives when it comes to faith: self-glorification, pride, money, etc., etc. I think it's really sad, but it's also a reality of life.

If I'm Christian, and my job is to help other people become Christians (because God says to), telling them "Hey...you. Are you a Christian? No? You're going to hell! You'd better get right with Jesus!" isn't the way to do it

You're correct. you should preach the gospel always and if all else fails, use words. (St. Francis of Assisi)

The best testament is not words, but with how you live your life and how you interact with those you meet.

When someone says "Christians are taking over the schools", though, it starts a panic.

if there was a comprehensive searchable list of all the articles posted on ju for the past 12 months, i wonder whether we'd find an even number of hysterical 'aclu/others kick christ off the continent' and 'pat robertson sworn in as new supreme court justice' type articles or if there were significantly more of one than the other?

Please just keep in mind that all Christians aren't like that....not all of us walk up and down the street handing out tracts that are just going to be thrown away or strike up hellfire and brimstone conversations with people to frighten them to faith.

What other religion has members who are judgemental and condeming of non-believers and nutcase street preachers and con-artist televangelists? All because they believe that their religion is the only correct one.

What other religion has members who are judgemental and condeming of non-believers...

To be fair, pretty much all of the world's religions. I think it IS unfair to pick on the Christians, even though it must be obvious that I'm not a Christian myself. The reason why some of us in the West get so het up about Christianity is that it's the religion that most of us have had the most experience with.

I've personally been more attracted to Buddhism, because of its apparently greater tolerance, but that interest has survived moving to Asia and discovering that there are some downright nasty Buddhist fundamentalists, like the monk in Sri Lanka who was recently on hunger strike protesting that Tsunami relief money is being shared with the (non-Buddhist) Tamils.

For me the important difference is a philosophical difference. Christianity, is a creed - and what you believe matters; some would say it makes the difference between heaven and hell. In some ways I feel that this is an in-built intolerance generator.

Most Buddhist schools (there are exceptions) are essentially sceptical of the power of 'belief' to deliver. Instead individuals are invited to listen to a practical teaching and then try and test it out, only giving credence to it if it seems to work.

This is, of course, a bit of a simplification. Millions of Asian Buddhist layfolk do practise their faith as a belief system - and many Christians would argue that they do 'try and test out' their life of faith and prayer, and that it 'works' for them.

Whatever. Best to remember that 'empty vessels make the most noise'. Scandalous behaviour makes the headlines. Millions of ordinary people leading quiet, ordinary decent lives using religion as a personal moral compass and trying to grow in tolerance, compassion and love will never be 'breaking news'...

Whatever. Best to remember that 'empty vessels make the most noise'. Scandalous behaviour makes the headlines. Millions of ordinary people leading quiet, ordinary decent lives using religion as a personal moral compass and trying to grow in tolerance, compassion and love will never be 'breaking news'...

Well said. Some folks tend to forget that many Christians go about our lives quietly and are very tolerant of the beliefs of others. Most religions believe theirs is the "true" one, that is the very nature of religious belief. That does not mean that we can't understand that others hold beliefs different from our own and respect those beliefs. Personally I am fascinated by the belief systems of others and try to learn as much about them as I can. I've discovered that doing so tends to highlight the similarities much more than the differences.
What I am personally intolerant of is people of any belief system who feel a need to bash the core beliefs of others. That is intolerance at it's worst and is hardly indictive of an intelligent and tolerant person although many who do this claim to be exactly that.