by crystlew123 76 Replies latest jw friends
EP: What, exactly, are we learning from the book that only it can provide?
Well, as far as i can tell, the most important lesson in reading the bible is exactly not to read what it says, then go tell other people they are stupid for doing so.
Said in another way, the bible can tell us where the asshole is.
You coul look it up yourself from OTHER scholars besides wiki.
In any case, I think if you actually did the research, you might find something other than what wiki says.
Are you trying to make some point. Because wiki is not my only source of information. In fact. It is probably the last place I go to read information. It's just handy to look up online.
No point... you said IF you were inclined to believe (which you are not) you would be more inclined to look at religious sources/traditions; I just gave my thoughts on what I think you would find as per those and scholars, and some would very much be in conflict with the wiki quote that Sol provided, that you repeated and respond to.
Peace,
tammy
Well...he and I only quoted the wiki definition of a religious text. but we could use this if you prefer. Either way...I don't believe in any of it...OR people who claim to hear voices...I have no reason to.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred+scripture
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religious+text
| Noun | 1. |  sacred scripture - any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group scripture religious text, religious writing, sacred text, sacred writing - writing that is venerated for the worship of a deity canon - a collection of books accepted as holy scripture especially the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspire |
| Noun | 1. |  religious text - writing that is venerated for the worship of a deity religious writing, sacred text, sacred writing piece of writing, written material, writing - the work of a writer; anything expressed in letters of the alphabet (especially when considered from the point of view of style and effect); "the writing in her novels is excellent"; "that editorial was a fine piece of writing" sacred scripture, scripture - any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group Christian Bible, Good Book, Holy Scripture, Holy Writ, Scripture, Bible, Word of God,Book, Word - the sacred writings of the Christian religions; "he went to carry the Word to the heathen" Paralipomenon - (Old Testament) an obsolete name for the Old Testament books of I Chronicles and II Chronicles which were regarded as supplementary to Kings Testament - either of the two main parts of the Christian Bible evangel, Gospel, Gospels - the four books in the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that tell the story of Christ's life and teachings Synoptic Gospels, Synoptics - the first three Gospels which describe events in Christ's life from a similar point of view prayer - a fixed text used in praying service book - a book setting forth the forms of church service Apocrypha - 14 books of the Old Testament included in the Vulgate (except for II Esdras) but omitted in Jewish and Protestant versions of the Bible; eastern Christian churches (except the Coptic Church) accept all these books as canonical; the Russian Orthodox Church accepts these texts as divinely inspired but does not grant them the same status sapiential book, wisdom book, wisdom literature - any of the biblical books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus) that are considered to contain wisdom Pseudepigrapha - 52 texts written between 200 BC and AD 200 but ascribed to various prophets and kings in the Hebrew scriptures; many are apocalyptic in nature Talmudic literature - (Judaism) ancient rabbinical writings Veda, Vedic literature - (from the Sanskrit word for `knowledge') any of the most ancient sacred writings of Hinduism written in early Sanskrit; traditionally believed to comprise the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, and the Upanishads mantra - (Sanskrit) literally a `sacred utterance' in Vedism; one of a collection of orally transmitted poetic hymns psalm - any sacred song used to praise the deity http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred+scripture |
Now I'm wondering at your point, lol.
Peace,
tammy
Said in another way, the bible can tell us where the asshole is.
Save people the trouble, I'm right here.
EP: What, exactly, are we learning from the book that only it can provide?
Pace bohm and, to be honest, as an actual answer rather than a passive-aggressive insult, there happens to be a Christian response to that question. Of course, it only makes sense if you begin with the idea that Jesus is God, so most xJWs begin with a bit of a disadvantage. In any case, we learn the history and traditions of the people whom God chose to use to fix mankind. Scattered throughout the OT, according to Christians, are insights about the nature of God as man. Christians read the OT in light of the New.
And, no, it isn't supposed to be, like, the most accurate and perfect newspaper ever! And, no, it isn't a collection of stories of people who were happy little non-violent M.L. Kings and Ghandis who happened to live in the Bronze Age. And, it turns out that God doesn't ordinarily use conceps that haven't been invented (and won't be invented for a couple thousand years) to interact with the world.
But pointing out this is greatly offensive to folks like bohm, who insist that the OT should be a really accurate newspaper. Only, like, the perfect newspaper, since it is inspired and all. Pointing out that this is dumb because 1) nobody ever did that until the fundamentalists and JWs invented the idea and 2) not every piece of literature is a newspaper and 3) inspiration hasn't meant anything like "absence of conflicting accounts of events"
This is just basic stuff, really. It requires a small amount of investigation and an even smaller ability to suppose that your own, conflicting assumptions (given to you by the JWs, who got everything else wrong, by the way) might not be exactly on-point.
And it turns out that that's asking quite a lot.
You ever read MacBeth? The Iliad? Even the ghastly parts are wonderful because they tell us the truth about ourselves. I mean, even the awful stories
are amazing, for the most part.
The problem is that I have a hard time distinguishing the reality from the myth in the Bible, especially in passages where it claims Jehovah spoke or gave a command. Sometimes, his commands were brutal. I can just give an example on Jehovah regulating slavery. This is problematic for you. You reject that part because it suits you, or rather interpret it to be that the Israelites made that part up, Jehovah didn't say that at all. Well then, which part do you hold true, and most importantly, why? The Illiad and other works of fiction are, on the other hand, just that. So again, this all boils down to your preference for rejecting some parts of the Bible, yet allowing others to be literal. How convinient.
Orthodox teaching is that Jesus is God and that, after his death, he was raised transformed, but still human. So, that makes him a Jew. Still.
I'm sorry, but I could care less about orthodox teaching. Just like I don't believe "might makes right", I don't believe "tradition makes true".
Reality? Yeah, we are primordial soup that got struck by lightening or whatever and, you know, boom! That's great and all, but I'm not sure that tells
us something more important about us than either of those creation myths. In the same way, The Iliad is more true than any history of whatever war
happened during the time.
It tells us our origins, which are far more profound than any myth you can imagine, by virtue of it being true. Truth cares not for our fancies.
Well, I think the JW / fundamentalist approach to scripture is a catastrophe for reasons that are probably the same ones you have. But, look, any reading of, say, the gospels simply must not allow itself to be amazed to find that the synoptics and John disagree on the day of the Last Supper. We Catholics put the NT together and we did it knowing very well that there are differences in the gospel acounts. I guess the fact that John and Peter (Mark) remember it differently must not be what we mean when we say both works are inspired.
Same with the OT. Jews have been reading it for a very long time now -- they know there are different traditions expressed in it. They have left them in because the importance of the Jewish scriptures is not diminished by that fact. Not to them, anyway. If you find that the presence of more than a single tradition in some of these stories makes you think less of those scriptures, well, you must not be viewing them in the same way Jews are. I guess you have that right, but that ain't the way the people who wrote / edited those works viewed them. So, yeah, you'd be doing it wrong.
Again, I could care less how they are "supposed to be viewed", whether by Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or whatever "authority". At the very heart of it all, something like Christ's resurrection must be a physical, or rather literal, event that happened, otherwise it's all untrue. The genealogy presented at the beginning of Matthew and Luke go all the way back to Adam. I know there are people that existed beyond any possible Adam. In other words, no matter how I feel about it, no matter how I connect with my pet belief and with others, it still doesn't make it true. Something to ponder upon.
Of course, it only makes sense if you begin with the idea that Jesus is God, so most xJWs begin with a bit of a disadvantage.
So the only thing the book provides that no other book can provide only makes sense if you already believe what the book says?
Bit of circular reasoning there, it seems.
The problem is that I have a hard time distinguishing the reality from the myth in the Bible, especially in passages where it claims Jehovah spoke or gave a command.
Not sure why this would be the case. For example, just yesterday I picked up a book on the very early history of Rome: Everitt's, The Rise of Rome: The Making of The World's Greatest Empire. And in the preface found this comment about what his book contains:
Legend, the age of kings, wher most of the events never took place, at least not in the manner described; Story, the conquest of Italy and constitutional conflict, where fact and fiction cohabit; and History, the Republic as a Mediterranean power, where literary sources make a serious attempt at objectivity and accuracy.
So, the OT is like the stories about Rome: a mixture of legend, stories, and attempts at real history. The Flood is a legend, the Patriarchs are stories, and David is history (though not perfect, since history isn't perfect even now, as you know). I think it bothers you to hear anybody who is religious speak this way about scripture, but it is really an off-the-shelf version of Catholic and Jewish thinking.
Sometimes, his commands were brutal. I can just give an example on Jehovah regulating slavery. This is problematic for you.
I hope you can understand that the question, "Why weren't the Jews of 1,000 BC abolitionists?" doesn't even make sense except insofar as you approach the OT with some sort of fundamentalist approach. I keep trying to emphasize this point and nobody keeps listening. Why stop there? If the Jews were God's people, why didn't they have representative democracy with universal suffrage, child labor laws, and the EPA?
But didn't Jesus address this question? He said, "You were allowed to divorce because y'all were knuckleheads, but I tell you now that marriage is a lifetime proposition." Baby steps, KN, baby steps. That's how it works. Or, if you don't care for Jesus, how about Martin Luther King: "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." Same idea.
Again, I could care less how they are "supposed to be viewed", whether by Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or whatever "authority".
Well, now, you are making an error that is beneath you. Surely you learned in school that you must approach literature with an understanding of context. Who was writing, for what purpose, with what audience in mind, how he eas planning to make which point, etc. To say you don't care how the Jews intended their books to be read, or that you don't care what the Catholics were trying to do by collecting this group of books and not some other group is simply a declaration that you don't intend to read the work honestly. You insist that you should be able to read scripture as if it were the universe's most accurate newspaper and, when you discover that it isn't, you insist it isn't worth anything at all. I'm sorry to say, that's not an educated way to approach any piece of literature from any time. And that really does mean you are doing it wrong.
