Jiving on Jesus

[woodchip]

Sunday morning I turned on the tube and got a black christian minister. Normally I just flick on by with a finger dance on the changer keyboard but I stayed and listened. Firstly 'cause the reverend was good at jiving the crowd and secondly because he had a sense of humour.

What piqued my interest was the song and dance mans theory that Jesus wasn't poor, but comparitively speaking, was rich. After all in Corinthians, minister man exclaims that Jesus had 12 desciples to support and even had a man in charge of the treasury. So from you of the christian persuasion...is this true?

[Iceman]

It is misleading. The disciples were for the most part well off ... having successful businesses of their own making. They left their successful lives behind in order to follow Jesus and they took nothing with them but the clothes on their back. Jesus was a carpenter and made a decent living doing so until his calling. He gave that up and took nothing but the clothes on his back. During their or 3 year ministry they traveled the land preaching the word. They had no jobs and no income, relying on the people in the towns they visited in for subsistence.

Show me where he appointed a treasurer ... I have no recollection of that. I may be wrong but I believe this man is mis-representing the lives of Jesus and his disciples.

[DCrazy]

Uh, Judas Iscariot?

[Iceman]

Ok I stand corrected ... Judas 'carried the purse'. People probably gave them money for food, clothing, and shelter.

The fact still remains that they left all of their possessions behind and relied on the people along the way for support. They didn't go to Tunica or Vegas for the weekend, they didnt go on cruises, They didn't buy lavish clothing and jewelry, they never owned a Lexus, they didnt go backpacking in the Smoky mountains for a week, and they didn't fly to other states for LAN parties ... the point here is that they lived a meager existence when it comes to earthly things.

When it comes to non-earthly things he was definitely a rich man.

[Flabby Chick]

When it comes to non-earthly things he was definitely a rich man.

I can relate to that!



Hmm! hope that worked! (clicky piccie)

It's my kid (on the left) casting his net to the other side. Not much has changed in a couple of thousand years!!

[Drakona]

Rich? I doubt it. Here are some things to consider:

Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.

Now, it's true that Jesus spent a lot of time wandering and away from home--and he could have been referring to that. But he spoke these words as admonishment to someone who promised to follow him anywhere--a way of saying, "You'd give up house and home?" He at least lived as a homeless man, and probably was one.

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

"Yes, he does," he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Two drachmas was two days' wages--so about $100 (more if you assume a decent wage). It is revealing that Peter doesn't pay it on the spot, but comes back to Jesus--and that Jesus tells Peter to get the money from a fish, not from Judas. They did have money, but clearly not a lot of it.

Another story along similar lines...

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed [Jewish holiday--traditionally includes a long dinner]. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

"Where do you want us to prepare it?" they asked.

He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house he enters, and say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there." They left and found things just as Jesus had told them, so they prepared the Passover.

This seems to have been a habit--to provide things, either by gentle miracles, or simply to ask people. Though he did have twelve disciples to provide for, I don't think he did it through wealth. Indeed, on the occasion or so when he had thousands of disciples to provide for, he did it with prayer.

You have to remember, too, this is the Jesus who told the rich young man, "Go, sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me." (Mark 10:21) Also the Jesus who said, "Don't store up for yourself treasures on earth." (Matthew 6:19) This is the Jesus who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." (Luke 18:25)

And here's a very revealing story.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazurus lived--whom Jesus had raised form the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And then the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But oen of the disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages!" (He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as the keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.)

"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Some things to note. It seems that the money bag Judas kept was for the poor, not for the disciples. It also seemed that he expected a good response from Jesus from his suggestion that the perfume (a year's wages worth!) be sold and the money given to the poor--which will tell you something about how he expected Jesus to handle his money. Furthermore, it seems Jesus cares much, much more for the gift than for the money.

The Bible doesn't tell us a lot about how Jesus and the disciples supported themselves, in general. But every time we do see them in need and it's recorded, God simply provides for them. Or other people do. Now, it's certainly possible that they spent some time working to support themselves--or it's possible that they didn't. It doesn't really say. With Jesus' extreme (I mean, extreme!) teachings on giving to the poor, though, I sincerely doubt they were rich.

Television preachers don't always have their facts all the way straight. Or even most of the way straight...

[Bet51987]

You have to remember, too, this is the Jesus who told the rich young man, "Go, sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me." (Mark 10:21) Also the Jesus who said, "Don't store up for yourself treasures on earth." (Matthew 6:19) This is the Jesus who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

So Jesus wanted everyone to give up all their worldly goods, be poor, (so they get into heaven easier) and just follow him. Hmmmm....something Bin Laden and the clerics have been doing.
Bettina

[Will Robinson]

Hmmmm....something Bin Laden and the clerics have been doing.
Bettina

You haven't been paying close enough attention to what bin Ladden or those self proclaimed clerics have been doing or saying.

[woodchip]

The difference Bet, is Jesus didn't want the young mans riches nor did He require the young man to give up his richs.
When Osama was based in Afganastan, he had nice houses to live in as did the Taliban leadership...all the while the rank and file lived in poverty. See the difference?

[Duper]

You have to remember, too, this is the Jesus who told the rich young man, "Go, sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me." (Mark 10:21) Also the Jesus who said, "Don't store up for yourself treasures on earth." (Matthew 6:19) This is the Jesus who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

So Jesus wanted everyone to give up all their worldly goods, be poor, (so they get into heaven easier) and just follow him. Hmmmm....something Bin Laden and the clerics have been doing.
Bettina

Bet, through your bitterness you missed the point. This is about priorities. Not about being dirt poor to be holy. Money and wealth are irrlevent, but if you Heart is consumed by these, then you are doomed.

Abraham was a very wealth man. Many people of God were. Preaching wealth as a theology is inaccurate and a perversion. Wealth is a tool, nothing more.

[Top Gun]

Interesting, Drakona; I've never read the particular Bible quote about the drachmas in the fish, but I looked around online, and there it was. I guess you don't really hear it at church since it falls between two more well-known passages. I guess you learn something every day.

[woodchip]

Preaching wealth as a theology is inaccurate and a perversion. Wealth is a tool, nothing more.

Jive preacher gave a interesting perspective on this. Seem many in the black community think being devote and poor are synonamous. He had to admonish them that being well off and pious are O.K. too.

[Drakona]

You have to remember, too, this is the Jesus who told the rich young man, "Go, sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me." (Mark 10:21) Also the Jesus who said, "Don't store up for yourself treasures on earth." (Matthew 6:19) This is the Jesus who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

So Jesus wanted everyone to give up all their worldly goods, be poor, (so they get into heaven easier) and just follow him. Hmmmm....something Bin Laden and the clerics have been doing.
Bettina

... .... o_0 ... ... are you mocking me?

It is an awfully long theological road from "Jesus gave this specific command to this specific man in that day and age" to "Jesus wants everyone to do this in every age." Geeez, I'd think that would be common sense. What, should we all pick up our beds and walk, because Jesus told a lame man to do it?

It's an awfully long road from "It is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven" to "You should give up your riches so that it's easier to get to heaven." For starters, "entering the kingdom of heaven" refers to salvation; "getting to heaven" happens after death. Very different things. Do you even know who and what Jesus was talking about when he said this? And if not, did it not occur to you that you should look it up to check out the context, before making an interpretation? (That's what those little references are there for...)

And what's amazing here is that you don't seem to have any background in theology or Christian ethics--even the common-sense sort you pick up from junior high Sunday School, or a year or so of attending church. You know--that sixth sense that cautions you by saying, "The church REALLY doesn't believe that--so either I'm interpreting the passage wrong, or the whole church is." The church doesn't teach that everyone should give up everything they own and give it to the poor in order to make it easier to get to heaven. Some rare churches teach poverty as a virtue, but most don't even teach that. And yet you don't seem to even realize that what you just said goes badly against the grain of what the church teaches. Like in science, when you find yourself at odds with the whole community, that means you should double-check your work and be really sure of yourself; you seem totally unaware that you're contradicting anyone or anything. It's like you've never been to church or Sunday School...

And I'm not going to even touch the "Jesus and Bin Laden have some teachings in common, therefore they're morally equivalent." You've got to be kidding.

If some mindless anti-Christian wrote this, I might put it down to well-meaning ignorance. But you're sixteen years old, and have been raised in the church. How can you be that ignorant of Christian thought and Biblical interpretation? That's like... that's like playing Descent for months and still using a config that does slides with alt + turn. I almost can't believe it.

What on earth are they teaching you in those classes your dad is having you take?

[Drakona]

Interesting, Drakona; I've never read the particular Bible quote about the drachmas in the fish, but I looked around online, and there it was. I guess you don't really hear it at church since it falls between two more well-known passages. I guess you learn something every day.

Yeah, a lot of cool stories get swept under the rug in Sunday School and just don't show up in sermons much. And a lot of the churchy versions of stories have embellishments that aren't in the text (e.g., how many Sunday School Goliaths are 40 feet tall? The Biblical one was 9'6" or so.) Or often they leave out important detail that is in the Bible. I mean, props to the Veggie Tales version of Jonah for including the bitter end of the story--I bet most people didn't know that was in the Bible! (I love the "And Jonah wailed, 'Dear God, I want to die!' ... The End." *screen pans to people going o_0* Ayep, that's the way it ends. )

There's a lot to be said for reading the Bible cover to cover--a lot of people don't seem to have the stamina for it, though. That's popular knowledge for you--in any arena, really. Though I had a creepy experience recently. I'm teaching a class on Biblical interpretation, and one of the homework exercises was to look up the other half of the story of King Menasseh (the half in Kings and the half in Chronicles). Most people don't know who Menasseh was, and that's... sad, but understandable. And I try to broaden people's horizons with the homework a bit. But what was scary was that I showed the homework to the discipleship pastor at my church--who's helping me with the class--and he didn't who Menasseh was. Even when I told the story, he didn't give any indication that he'd heard it before! Um, yikes.

It's sad, really, because then sometimes people get online and some heckler is like, "Hey, have you read the story where the priest cuts up his concubine and mails pieces of her dead body all over Israel?" And people go, "Holy crap, is that in the Bible?" And it is... and they are very confused about it.

[Paragraph below edited for content and clarity, Woodchips earlier quote was what I said before.]

The sugary, yet thin knowledge of the Bible and Christian teaching that people often pick up from church tends to leave them poorly prepared to engage the world, build the church, and address difficult moral questions. A sad thing... I'm thinking about starting a revolution in the church to change that.

[woodchip]

"With a sugary-thin knowledge of the Bible and Christian teaching, people are just poorly prepared to engage the world, build the church, and address difficult moral questions."

Heh...kinda like the liberals. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Bet51987]

[... .... o_0 ... ... are you mocking me?

Drakona. I've been raised to respect my elders, and I respect you. I'm sorry if you interpreted what I posted as mocking you. I would never do that.
This is the first (and only) BB I've ever been allowed on, and am still learning what not to say.
I'm sorry.
Bettina

P.S. I do have a comment to make on your last post later.

[Mobius]

Rather than dumbly quoting Jesus from the Bible, perhaps it's worthwhile studying what jesus ACTUALLY said, rather than what the Bible says he said.

Truth != Bible.

Some of the things attributed to him are true, but the vast majority of "Jesus Words" in the Bible are fictitious; invented by biblical *scholars" between the 2nd and 10th century C.E.

http://seaburn.com/blackbooksplus/jesus_chronicles.htm

http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/

[Top Gun]

Mobitroll strikes again! I guess you just can't let one religiously-themed thread get one page without interjecting your precious two cents, eh?

[Jeff250]

At least Rican supported his opinions with erroneous information.

[Bold Deceiver]

That's like... that's like playing Descent for months and still using a config that does slides with alt + turn. I almost can't believe it.

You uh . . ., you mean you can change that config?

BD

Descent Player since 1996

[Ford Prefect]

Drakona:

A sad thing... I'm thinking about starting a revolution in the church to change that.

Look out world. If anyone can do it I think Drakona would be the one.

[Bet51987]

How can you be that ignorant of Christian thought and Biblical interpretation?

What on earth are they teaching you in those classes your dad is having you take?

Since you asked me those questions, I don't feel out of line by providing my answer. I won't talk of the troubled time I had when my mom took off, sending me to a physco dad and then a physco priest.

My religious instructors teach me the theory of creation, the origins of the bible, the apostles, why Jesus died for me, etc etc. I've read books he gave me titled "The mind of God" by Paul Davies, and "The creator and the cosmos" by Hugh Ross because he knew I liked cosmology. I've never told him how I felt, after getting "frowned" a few times and so I go along with what he says for fear he would tell on me. I don't think he would, because he's a nice guy and cute too. I will admit that he really trys to do some good.

The science teacher is teaching me about cosmology, evolution, the origins of mankind, why the sky is blue, etc, etc. I've read books "Infinite in all Directions" by Freeman Dyson, and the works of Carl Sagan who was, by the way, an atheist, but highly respected Cosmologist.

I am an A minus honor student, and I'm lucky that I've always found things easy to learn and I often help my friends who aren't so lucky. I have a way of getting thru to a friend that a teacher doesn't have time for, but one thing I've noticed though, is that some kids just believe whatever theyâ??re told or read, right away without question. They highlight sections of the workbook, write notes on their hands, and memorize the best they can for a test, but some like me like to look deeper and learn more. I want to know "What if"....(my two favorite words), What if the Sun had one less element. What if the earth was a little farther out in it's orbit. What if there was no God. What if there was a God.

I don't know what started the "big bang" resulting in matter forming planets and stars, but I find it interesting and believable and I see photographs of objects taken from voyager. I also don't know where life first began in space either, but I believe life on earth came here embedded in the ice of comets that crashed into earth for millions of years during its birth. Humans didn't begin here as Adam and Eve, but seeded from comets as small one-cell organisms in swamps. Life is everywhere in the universe because the universe is way over designed for life to be "created" just here on earth.

As time passed, millions of mutations formed with some dying out early, but some adapted until life evolved to finally walk on land, eventually producing apes that walked on all fours. Like it or not, I believe we mutated from an ape,adapted and survived to continue on a new line.....Humans....Robustus, then Habilis, Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and then modern Sapiens. I learned about "Lucy" too.

I've gone to science museums on class trips, and saw skulls of early man, the tools that they used, how they ate, cooked, and lived. My two favorite sections are Paleontology and Cosmology. I've seen proof of where we came from. Hard evidence and proof......I held artifacts in my hands, saw images of writings on cave walls. I didn't just read it in books.

I find an overwhelming conflict between what the religious instructors tell me, and what evolution teaches me. I may be "ignorant" of religious thought and interpretation, because I see it for what it really is. Why does the bible need so much interpretation anyway? I was told that I will go to the burning place if I don't believe that Jesus is the son of God. Well, I believe in Jesus, but not that he is the son of God, so if I'm wrong and there is a burning place, I will go there with my head held high. I won't feel sorry for myself.

I sometimes have trouble forming my words when I type but these are my beliefs, and everyone is entitled to form there own opinion. I won't fully say there is no creator, just not the one in the bible. I'm sorry if anyone thinks I've dissed them cause I would never do that. I love you guys.

Bettina

[woodchip]

Actually Bet, you are expressing yourself pretty darn good. Hanging out on this BB ought to give you a wholly different perspective on the world from that which you learn in school.

[Shoku]

I am an A minus honor student, and I'm lucky that I've always found things easy to learn and I often help my friends who aren't so lucky. I have a way of getting thru to a friend that a teacher doesn't have time for, but one thing I've noticed though, is that some kids just believe whatever theyâ??re told or read, right away without question.
Bettina

Knowledge is life. You have a great attitude about gaining knowledge. If you continue on that course your life should be very successful.

I recommend two books:

Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated, by Thomas Van Flandern. He's a very respected astronomer, who also helped establish the GPS system. I think you'll find what he has to say very insightful.

Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton. Denton is not a Creationist. He is a micro- biologist, and his examination of the theory should not be missed by anyone interested in the field.

[Bet51987]

Those replies were nice....It made me feel good..Thanks.
I can suggest a couple more that I've read and liked. "Cosmic Coincidences" by John Gribbin, and "The Matter Myth" by Paul Davies. The first one gets a little deep for me with string theory stuff but I'll figure that out or what it means anyway.

Off topic, but one thing I do to certain books, is not to read the last chapter. If I really like the book, I will re-read it again, then read the last chapter. It drives my History teacher crazy. Does anyone else do that?

Bettina

[Drakona]

Bettina, I wasn't talking about origins--creation/evolution--but rather Biblical interpretation. I know my earlier response to you was pretty harsh, but the truth of the matter is that I don't have much patience with people who distort the Bible in order to discredit it. I guess I have the "tech support" problem: I've made the same point enough times, to enough people, on enough different forums, that I feel everyone should have gotten it by now and anyone who's still confused is stupid. Beg pardon, if you were the recipient of unjust wrath...

I can't tell if your class is good or not from what you've told me, but it does seem they don't tell you a lot about how to read the Bible, if you can ask me a question like, "Why does the Bible need so much interpretation?" I guess that's to be expected in a Catholic school--I know they used to make a big deal out of having clergy, not laymen, intepret scripture. I don't know where they stand on that these days, but I guess that figures.

Here's the key principle. It's important, as a rational thinker, to be able to judge things fairly--and that means to appreciate their strengths as well as weaknesses. This is true in a lot of places--it's true in politics, it's true in religion, it's true in science, it's true in relationships. What I basically mean by this is that you should investigate things, determine their strengths, see why they make sense to others--and if you're going to discard them, do it gracefully, in full acknowledgement of the value it holds.

For an example in origins (since you seem so interested in the topic), have you ever read arguments by people who only study biology in order to oppose evolution? There's a creationist argument that is like that--people talk about evolution as adding information and thereby breaking the second law of thermodynamics. It's like someone read a physics book only looking for things they could use against evolution--and as soon as they saw something that looked promising, they jumped on it. They didn't take the time to full appreciate the physics or the theory of evolution--and so they end up rejecting something without fully studying it and appreciating its strengths.

Some people do that with the Bible, too, and it peeves me to no end. People read it looking for things that they can use to prove it wrong, and as soon as they see something they can use, they jump on it--and don't take the time to fully appreciate the meaning or the relevance. So they end up rejecting something without fully studying it and appreciating its strengths.

The goal of a thinker should be to strive for twin virtues of open-mindedness and sound judgement. Open-mindedness means pursuing ideas that oppose your own, seeking out the strengths of opposing arguments, really listening to opponents rather than simply dismissing them. Sound judgement means pitting ideas against each other and judging which prevail. It means determining which ideas are stronger, and not being afraid to say you think certain ideas are foolish or outright wrong.

To read anything--an opposing political view, an opposing religious view, an opposing logical argument--and view it with an eye toward criticism, rather than understanding, is to fail as an open-minded thinker. It means you aren't giving the argument a chance--and so you're denying yourself a chance to grow. It means you'll never understand the people who hold the opposing position, and so you'll never be able to reach them and persuade them. And it means you'll never understand their argument, so if they're right, they can't persuade you.

There are people inside, outside, and all around the church who use the Bible in stupid ways--and a lot of the ways critics interpret it are inherited from stupid ways people in the church interpret it. I don't deny that, it's justified. But for you who claim to be a serious thinker... you can do better. It is better to study it fairly, interpret it responsibly. If you reject it, reject it out of sound judgement, not closed-mindedness.

"Why does the Bible need so much interpretation?" It doesn't. It needs sound interpretation. There's nothing mystical about interpretation--at least, there shouldn't be. It's simply the effort to get meaning out of text.

Historically, and currently, the methods of Biblical interpretation have been inconsistent. In the middle ages, people would ask a question, open the Bible to a random page, and take the first sentence they read as the answer. Some today are hardly better--they memorize a few verses, and when they seek guidance, they sift through memory until they find a verse that seems applicable, and there's their answer. Some take a Bible verse, and use the words to mean anything convenient at the moment--anything they can sound like they mean. Some have even taken to very mystical forms of interpretation, reading something like, "The twelve tribes of Israel were..." and interpreting it by saying, "The twelve tribes are representative of the twelve virtues..." All of these are silly modes of interpretation, in my view.

An overarching rule of interpretation is that a text ought to interpreted as the author intended. If the author intended some text as a riddle or koan, to be puzzled over and sought for deep mystical meaning, then we ought to puzzle over the text and search for deep, mystical meaning--it would be distorting it to do otherwise. If the author intended the text as a historical report, we ought to take it as such. If it was intended as hyperbolic poetry, or sarcasm, or propositional teaching, or whatever... that is how it ought to be taken. (And I can tell you, as someone who studies the Bible, that it wasn't intended as a koan or mystical meditative document. Almost everything in it has an intended point, an idea to communicate--in a particular historical context, to a particular person or group of people, for a particular reason. Those need to be appreciated to give a fair interpretation!)

This principle seems self-evident to me, yet it is amazing how many people approach the Bible without it. Some seem to come at it with the line of thought, "I live in the twenty-first century, and I am engaged in a philosophical debate. Therefore, let me examine this verse in the Bible as if a twenty-first century philosopher had written it in the course of a philosophical debate--placing on it all the cultural expectations of twenty-first century Europe." Is this not as random as opening a page and looking for an answer to a preconceived question? Far better to take the author on his own terms--if he is writing poetry, don't pretend he is writing philosophy. If he lives in the ancient near east, don't pretend he lives in modern Europe!

Here is the overarching rule, then:

Read the Bible in the way that makes the most sense, not the most nonsense. Look for what the author evidently means, not for the answer to a preconceived question. Look for what he is sensibly saying, not for what nonsense and criticism you can make out of his words. Read him on his own terms, not on yours.

In practice, this means...

If stories in the Bible don't teach sensible moral lessons, maybe they weren't intended to teach moral lessons.

If propositions in the Bible are flaming nonsense, look again--maybe they don't say what you think they do.

Take the time to look up the context of any quote. Have the familiarity to understand the style of teaching, and the applicability of different kinds of passages. If, for example, you don't know why Jesus said, "go, sell all you have and give the money to the poor," don't make up your own meaning ("so it's easier to get to heaven"). Rather, look up the passage, try to understand the worldview of the author and the point he was making, and figure out what his meaning was. Or if you don't have the background or scholastic stamina to do that... ask somebody who has more interest in and experience on the topic.

It is an intellectual conceit to suppose that all your opponents are stupid or psychologically confused. There seem to be a lot of atheists online who feel that all Christians are stupid, or all Christians are merely responding to a psychological need for humanity to not bear ultimate responsibility in the world. But this is conceited, and obviously false. Christianity has a lot of tolerent, thoughtful, intelligent followers. There are people who spend a whole lifetime studying the Bible--and not just pastors, but academics at seminaries. And not pseudo-scholars, but real scholars; I can vouch for them, because I read their work on occasion. These are men and women who are intellectually honest, brilliant, wonderful thinkers. The Christian world is a bigger place than you may have been exposed to, and home to much debate. And if Christians as a whole aren't always brilliant (and God knows they aren't...), there are at least some brilliant people among them.

In light of that, it's foolish to go assuming that the Bible is full of nonsense. And it's more foolish to go reading it by making up foolish interpretations for everything, interpreting by the seat of your pants and looking for things to ridicule. That's just as foolish as studying evolution looking for things that sound silly, or which you can ridicule by taking out of theoretical context. Don't do that. That's not thoughtful criticism, that's bitter mockery.

I worry about you, Bettina... I know you're bitter about losing your mom, and I know you don't like the classes you have to take. But don't let that spill over into your intellectual life--don't be overly cynical and bitter when you study the Bible. Don't suppose that those who take it seriously have never heard the adage, "You can't believe everything you read." You can discard Christianity, you can discard the Bible, but if you do so by distorting it, studying it cynically and bitterly... you aren't doing yourself any intellectual favors.

[Bold Deceiver]

I was told that I will go to the burning place if I don't believe that Jesus is the son of God. Well, I believe in Jesus, but not that he is the son of God, so if I'm wrong and there is a burning place, I will go there with my head held high. I won't feel sorry for myself.

Bettina,

I was raised in the Catholic church, by my Mom, who was and is a devout Irish Catholic. My father, on the other hand, was born into the Mormon church, the son of an academic who eventually renounced the Mormon religion and became agnostic. My father became an atheist.

Made for some fun family dinners.

Once, in catechism, I asked one of the Sisters about what happened to atheists, after she made a remark similar to the one you referenced, about nonbelievers going to the burning place. Naturally, I was very worried about my dad, whom I loved, but who watched NFL games while we went to Mass. The Nun was very old, and not knowing the subtext of my question, answered "what do you think?", in sort of a snide way.

Well I was simply mortified. My father, by the way, is the most principled, ethical man I have ever known -- and I'm not the only one who thinks so. The Sister was thoughtless when she made that remark to me, because it caused me a lot of angst and hey, I was like, 12 or something.

Flash forward 30 plus years. I'm still struggling with these questions. You will too. I, like you, believe that Jesus existed. Hard to dispel that, what with all the hubbub, eh?

The question whether Jesus is the Son of God is a different one. I, like you, grapple with that. For what it's worth, this is the direction I'm heading with it --

God is perfection. The message that Jesus brought to us, brings us nearer to that perfection. Assuming Jesus existed, there is little doubt he was human, as are we. In my mind, you and I are the children of God, from any angle you take on it. What made Jesus different, in my own mind -- was his message. Some people call it, the Word. Whatever -- it was a communicated philosophy of living. It was combined event of Jesus, together with his message of peace on earth, goodwill toward men, that made him God-like, perhaps even in a transcendental way. He certainly was sincere about it -- he died for us, I am told -- although I'm still too dull to figure out why, exactly, that was necessary.

What is the Word? I am no theologist. I am not even terribly well-educated about religion. But over time I have learned, in my own life, that if I follow Christian teachings, I am better for it and so are those around me. Weird, eh?

Heaven? The Burning Place? I'm totally skeptical. But Quality? Perfection? I know these things exist, and I know I must struggle to move closer to them.

You seem really bright. Keep at it, and let me know what you come up with.

BD

[DCrazy]

I've learned that the most important thing about organized religion is separating the faith in God from the faith in the system. Then you see where bureaucracy takes over theology, and can actually start to get to the important questions.

Hooray for being 17 and only starting now to ask existential questions. Pretty soon I'll be 25 and looking back saying, "why the hell did I act so god-damned snobbish, elitist, and intellectual? I wasn't."

[Bet51987]

Drakona
I don't know how to respond to your questions anymore. I've already apologized in one post, and explained what I've learned thru hard evidence, facts, and photographs in the following post which you had no comment on. You've called me foolish and ignorant, and I am, but not about evolution. I admit I shouldn't have poked fun at certain lines in the bible that you hold close to you, and I was wrong and sorry for that but what I wrote in my later post is what I was taught, have seen, have felt, and truly believe.

Most people never truly read the bible because they haven't a reason too and things for them are going smooth. When I found out my mom left because she didn't want or love me, my dad sent me to a physco and then a priest like I explained before. My dad did what he thought was right to help me and we both cried a lot for a long time but I know now he was crying for me. That physco priest he sent me to told me without God I would never achieve happiness. Geez....how wrong is that? I finally decided to pretend to believe him so my dad wouldn't send me anymore.

The bible? I read it...believe me I read it. What I see in the bible are words, false dreams, wishes and hopes. One time, I moved the bible book in our bookcase next to the Fiction books, then later to Greek Mythology, but now I've got it in with my cosmology books because the bible is my Dads.I've given the bible my best shot but it still comes up empty and I can't live with both a creationist mind and an evolutionist mind. They conflict too much with evolution providing me with answers hard facts, and most of all, sense. Evolution and the Universe makes sense to me without a God.

Somewhere in these long posts, I saw a line that said, "If Evolution is correct, then Christianity is a religion without a reason". Well, I don't fully feel that way. The bible may be meaningless to me, but to many that are sick, it brings great comfort and peace, even if only held and never opened. I've seen that visiting a friend of my dads but didn't understand because I was 11 at the time.

I know how we humans got here, and where we go when we die. (Ill explain my dream in another post) I've seen proof, positive evidence, and learn more each day. I looked at the universe thru a telescope and I don't see God. (I know.....don't say it)I also wonder how much thicker the bible will get as evolution science advances. And by the way, to those who believe that evolution is "just a theory" are just kidding themselves, trying to salvage the true theory....Creation.

Drakona, your a good person, and I like your posts, but we will never agree with each other, because you believe you were created, and I believe I rode in on a comet....



P.S. Give "ILuvbettina" an extra hug onight.......he didn't do too well when we last met.
Bettina

Code: Select all

39) bettina
===========
Total Time In Game: 1:04:20 hours
Callsign:                     Kills:    Deaths:
Outrageous                    18        23 
[d3kids]david13               5         5 
aint skierd                   14        8 
DeadAgain                     10        11 
iluvbettina                   10        3 
flux capacitor                5         1 
ACE                           3         0 
Miker                         3         1 
wog                           2         0

[Bet51987]

Bettina,

I was raised in the Catholic church, by my Mom, who was and is a devout Irish Catholic. My father, on the other hand, was born into the Mormon church, the son of an academic who eventually renounced the Mormon religion and became agnostic. My father became an atheist.

BD

I like what you said, and I'll tell you what I think happens when we die in another post. Just my thinking of course.

Bettina

[Drakona]

Bettina, I didn't respond to what you said about evolution because I wasn't talking to you about evolution. I was talking to you about Biblical interpretation. Somehow you can't talk about religion for five minutes without talking about creation & evolution--as though that's all there is to it!

There are Christians that aren't creationists, you know. I myself am origins-agnostic; I definitely believe different pieces of the things people on different sides say, and I'm certainly no out-and-out creationist. I admit divine creation and naturalistic evolution as possibilities only, to be decided on the scientific evidence (and the theological evidence--but it's slimmer than some people think). I do believe in pieces of evolution, if I'm skeptical about the whole story--but that's still ongoing study for me. Something I'm trying to learn.

But that's all off topic.

What I was calling you ignorant for is your knowledge of how to interpret the Bible, not your knowledge of origins. Even if you don't believe in the Bible, it's still good scholarship to read it with charity and common sense. Even if you think it's all fables and nonsense, it's still good scholarship to read it with an eye toward understanding what the author intends, toward understanding what its overall message is. You may not believe God wrote it, but that doesn't give you a free license to tear things out of context, ignore the author's stated intent and cultural surroundings, or make up your own meanings for isolated sentences.

This is not some trick to get you to read the Bible, nor do I suppose that if you read it fairly it'll somehow 'win you over.' All I am advocating is reasonable interpretation. If you're going to be arguing that the Bible is nonsense or mythology, at least know it well enough to make your case--if you give silly interpretations like you did earlier in the thread, all you do is make me not take you seriously.

You can reject the Bible, but that doesn't give you a scholastic license to say anything you want about it. And you can declare that the Bible is nonsense or mythology, but if you do so without good literary scholarship, you'll only convince yourself.

[Bet51987]

Drakona,

You keep bringing up my previous posts of poking fun at the bible so I guess I still deserve the lecture. I get the impression that you are a very serious person, even more than Lothar, so I won't joke in this part of the forum anymore.

To try to answer your question the best I know how is simply to tell you my true life experience. I've truly read the Bible when I was 11, 12, and 13. I read parts and prayed every night because I wanted to understand it. The special psychiatrist/priest my dad sent me too went thru bible parts with me many times, over and over and over, because I was easily molded and I wanted to be good to God so he would make my mother come back. I read and understood all the parts he showed me, but after a time, I began to be suspicious and I stopped reading it at 14 convincing the priest and my dad I was happy and cured. I won't read it anymore, because it's doubtful anything will change my mind about the contents and my dad is happy because he sees a good Christian girl who wears a large cross to school. I really am a â??Christian likeâ?

[Top Gun]

The only thing I will take on about your post, Bettina, is your gripe that no one has rewritten the Bible to be more understandable. That's like saying that someone should rewrite Hamlet or Oedipus Rex to make them more clear. Just like the Bible, both of these works are deep in meaning and possible interpretations; does this mean that the works of Sophocles or Shakespeare should be re-interpreted to make them more accessible to the masses? Of course not. Likewise with the Bible; "simplifying" it would remove much of its purpose and intent. Obviously, neither of my two examples are "worshipped" as anything but great works of literature, but they serve a good purpose.

Regarding what Drakona's saying, I can't speak for her, but I don't think she's trying to "yell at you" or change your mind. She just wants to make sure that you're not closing your mind to the evidence in front of you. Since I don't personally know you, I can't really know that either way. However, I think that Drakona would agree that no one on this forum wants to be hostile to you; I, for one, would like to count you as a friend.

That is, if you didn't like SD so much, I would.

[woodchip]

I get the impression that you are a very serious person, even more than Lothar, so I won't joke in this part of the forum anymore.

[/quote]

Bett, this is exactly the place you want to throw a little humour in otherwise you'll be driven nuts around here. Just ask my liberal buddies here if I haven't driven them wacky

As to your comment, "The only B&W part of the bible I believe in is Jesus." may be in doubt. A while back I made a post after listening to some learned biblical scholar expound on the idea that jesus may not have been real...rather a metaphor of the times. If memory serves we had a pretty good discussion on that (I'd look it up but I'm too lazy ). Anyway the only advice I'll give you is to not let your sense of humour lie dormant...especially in this arena.
O.K. you can now go back to your regular programming.

[Shoku]

Drakona,
To me, understanding the bible to satisfy everyone is almost impossible because six intelligent people can read it and each will form his or her own interpretation Why? Because the bible is written to mean all things to all people.

The important point you make here is "To me." The reason six intelligent people come to different conclusions is because of the same reason; "To them," what they read means different things for different reasons, which is referred to as "interpretation."

Unfortunately the Bible was NOT "written to mean all things to all people," as you state. The problem is that people tend to read into something more that what's really said, or they take things out of context, or they TRANSLATE from one language to another with a bias that really doesn't jive with what's really being said. Most Bibles are translated very well, with very good scholarship behind the translation (I had at one time 143 different translations; now I only have 30). The ones that are off, are obvious to anyone who has seriously looked into the issue.

Interpretation should be left up to the author â?? If you let the Bible explain what it means you will be amazed at the meaning. The Apostle Peter said, â??For know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.â?