GraphicsGuy Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I had an interesting conversation with my mother yesterday. We always delve into these levels of discussion that I so rarely find with anyone else outside of the cyber-world. How it came up I don't remember, but the question was this: If Xians truly believe that the Bible is the "Living" Word of God then why are they so strict in its interpretation? (mostly speaking of the evangelical mindset when referring to Xians) Something that is alive is subject to growth and change. It is subject to personal interpretation. It is subjective and not objective at all. Yet evangelical Xianity really treats the Bible as this cold, dead, unbudging object. There's no "life" in something if its meaning is not allowed to be perceived in different ways. Like a piece of art or a song or poetry. Where is the life...the heart in it if the creator of the work says, "this is what it means and that's it." They can say what they meant by it, but to deny what someone else gets out of it as "wrong"...kind of kills any worth it might have had... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 If they were really looking for an accurate description...it would have to be the stagnant, xenophobic, paranoid, and biased word of god. Honesty is not part of the 'sales pitch'. An honest description of how believers treat the word is not going to gain converts, or encourage christians to continue believing (and funding) their racket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Well, that's true...it came up in the conversation as well. In the format of, "take what you want from it," Xianity is hardly marketable then, is it? "Think for yourself," doesn't gain followers, bring in tithes, or fill pews. Of course, it's questionable if there is actually a need to "sell" Xianity anyway. There are tons of people out there who don't want to search and just want to be told the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I had an interesting conversation with my mother yesterday. We always delve into these levels of discussion that I so rarely find with anyone else outside of the cyber-world. How it came up I don't remember, but the question was this: If Xians truly believe that the Bible is the "Living" Word of God then why are they so strict in its interpretation? (mostly speaking of the evangelical mindset when referring to Xians) Something that is alive is subject to growth and change. It is subject to personal interpretation. It is subjective and not objective at all. Yet evangelical Xianity really treats the Bible as this cold, dead, unbudging object. There's no "life" in something if its meaning is not allowed to be perceived in different ways. Like a piece of art or a song or poetry. Where is the life...the heart in it if the creator of the work says, "this is what it means and that's it." They can say what they meant by it, but to deny what someone else gets out of it as "wrong"...kind of kills any worth it might have had... This is quite insightful. You're absolutely correct. Literalism kills myth. In fact, I'd say that the death grip on Christianity occured when they canonized the Bible. The gospels refelct a progression of thought, to borrow the phrase, "from Jesus to Christ". Mythologies are reflections of societies and evolve with it. Once it become sealed in a book, it's no longer something from people and is something from an Institution that governs and controls people. Any myth can still serve people if they are allowed to see in it what refelcts something of themselves back to themselves. Otherwise, it's dead. It's a language system that like any living language needs to be allowed to evolve. If not, then it becomes a dead language. So the salvation of Chrisitianity would be to fire all those who serve on Church boards, deciding what is acceptable docrtine or not. I honestly believe early Christianity was anti-religion. It's funny how it became one, and thus killing their own savior, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Rather like the languages it was written in... it is a dead book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 I honestly believe early Christianity was anti-religion. Now, this falls in with what I and many others have been saying lately. Xianity has become what it hates...pharisee-ism. The Jesus in the gospels couldn't stand the pharisees. That was obvious. Time and time again he called them out. Paul...really...Paul was an ex-pharisee (according to myth ). Was Xianity mostly an attempt to escape Judaism? Once everything was canonized and structured, was the life squeezed out of the freedom that had been attained? This all ties into a discussion I had with my parents over the Xmas holidays. Does Xianity have value? Fundamentalism obviously does not. Strictness, black and white answers, it all removes the "mystery" from this journey of life. I was wondering about tossing all of my experiences out, so to speak. Yet, my journey...the journey itself...has value. Sure, maybe the current pitstop kinda sucks, but the road travelled has great value to it. Sorry if this seems a little all over the place. It's something I've been slowly mulling over for a month now...and I'm still thinking about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I'm the Living Book! Glory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Pssst! Your pages are showing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Pssst! Your pages are showing! O, shit! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I honestly believe early Christianity was anti-religion. Now, this falls in with what I and many others have been saying lately. Xianity has become what it hates...pharisee-ism. The Jesus in the gospels couldn't stand the pharisees. That was obvious. Time and time again he called them out. Paul...really...Paul was an ex-pharisee (according to myth ). Was Xianity mostly an attempt to escape Judaism? Once everything was canonized and structured, was the life squeezed out of the freedom that had been attained? This all ties into a discussion I had with my parents over the Xmas holidays. Does Xianity have value? Fundamentalism obviously does not. Strictness, black and white answers, it all removes the "mystery" from this journey of life. I was wondering about tossing all of my experiences out, so to speak. Yet, my journey...the journey itself...has value. Sure, maybe the current pitstop kinda sucks, but the road travelled has great value to it. Sorry if this seems a little all over the place. It's something I've been slowly mulling over for a month now...and I'm still thinking about it... You are correct about Paul. He was a self-proclaimed apostle with a vision he could not describe correctly after three attempts. We only have his word that he was a pharisee. Just like today, some people start out a course of education that they let slip away or drop out of. There is no proof that Paul was an actual Pharisee but that he may have been in training at the time he took up persecution of the Christians. He could have been a drop out. This could also help explain him desire to be somebody of importance. He infiltrated the apostleship, ridiculed the disciples for doing what Jesus commanded them to do, and he imposes his own gospel as the message for humanity. He interpreted everything in light of his own gospel, which he often bragged about. Even Jesus said to beware the leven of the Pharisee and that a person had to be more righteous than they--Pharisees were hypocrites. Paul demanded obdience to his gospel which he claimed he learned from a 3-second vision compared to the training of the disciples that lasted for about three years. Paul claimed to get his gospel right from Jesus himself in a fraction of the time. Paul lied all the way up to his execution for being a rabble rouser. It is the church that claims he was killed for being Christian. I believe he couldn't keep his mouth shut and was snuffed and the church made up what they could. The church is known proudly as the Pauline Church. It preaches his gospel. It steals the history of other religions as its own and fabricates miraculous events to validate itself cuz it says so. The prophets said the scribes were liars. What does the Christian church do? They follow the rant of a converted Pharisee and believe the words of liars. This is what they use for proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 THere's no evidence that Saul of Tarsus even persecuted Christians that close to the time of Jesus' death... the whole of Acts makes no sense in terms of that. They had a helluva an organisation pretty much out of the box, considering they were sending Paul off to some remote bit of empire to 'preach'... it was a bit like the IRA sending someone off to the Peruvian Golden Dawn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It's living (i.e. what God is saying to someone much smarter than, much more spiritual that you, and much higher on the pay scale then you) when they want it to be and an historical document (i.e. UNCONTESTABLE FACT) when they want it to be. The Bible is anything they want it to be at any given time and that's the way they like it. Whatever suits the need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I honestly believe early Christianity was anti-religion. Now, this falls in with what I and many others have been saying lately. Xianity has become what it hates...pharisee-ism. The Jesus in the gospels couldn't stand the pharisees. That was obvious. Time and time again he called them out. I try to look at it in terms of who created those stories, and the underlying schools of thought that propelled them. The Matthew community has the Jesus character assailing the Pharisees, even though during the traditional dates of Jesus ministry the Pharisees were much more of a non-power (sort of like in the future someone setting a powerful religious character of this time spending huge amounts of time attacking the Green Party, instead of the Democrats or Republicans who really rule the political world - in other words it's somewhat anachronistic). But the point is I see that community as being somewhat anti-establishment. They were still part of Judaism, but were sort of like the 'hippies' of the group with a bunch of progressive ideas and challenging the status quo. So in response, the community that the tradition of the Jesus story became penned as the Gospel in the Matthew tradition has their character speaking for them and their attitudes/views of the established religious power in their day - the Pharisees. Not only was it religious, it was also the social/political force. They took the essential tradition from the earlier Gospel of Mark (Mark's Odyssey is a better term for it), and embellished it with their views of their day. Hence why Jesus is an anti-establishment, "love is the message", follow-your-heart-love God-Peace," Hippie sort of dude. Fascinating stuff. "He" was right (actually they were right). Institutional religion is contrary to spirituality. Their take was from schools of thought that were likely from those that spawned the simple "sayings" Gospel, such as Thomas. "Love your neighbor". "Do good to those that despise you". These were sayings of Wisdom, the feminine personification of God. They likely evolved into the words of a revered figure and became, "Jesus said, love your neighbor", "Jesus said, Do good..." Then evolved into the embellished stories such as in Matthew, "When the Pharisees tested him asking which is the greatest commandment, Jesus responded saying Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." It was all a vehicle of story telling to tell the message of the sayings. Not a lie, a vehicle. Paul...really...Paul was an ex-pharisee (according to myth ). Was Xianity mostly an attempt to escape Judaism? Once everything was canonized and structured, was the life squeezed out of the freedom that had been attained? Paul was an egomanic. His whole break with the Jerusalem church was about him and his small bodily member (recall his reference to his physical infirmity?). Sorry that's rash, but I've known religious charasmatic leaders like him. It's interesting who canonized his writings as sacred. This all ties into a discussion I had with my parents over the Xmas holidays. Does Xianity have value? Fundamentalism obviously does not. Strictness, black and white answers, it all removes the "mystery" from this journey of life. If you're interested, read my thoughts here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6401&hl= and here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=7854&hl= I was wondering about tossing all of my experiences out, so to speak. Yet, my journey...the journey itself...has value. Sure, maybe the current pitstop kinda sucks, but the road travelled has great value to it. What can I add to this? Yes. The answer is what speaks to you. It's all about finding a language that expresses both your reasonable mind, with what's in you heart. It's a fun journey. It's not the finding the answer, but looking. That's the journey, that's the beauty found. Sorry if this seems a little all over the place. It's something I've been slowly mulling over for a month now...and I'm still thinking about it... A month or so? I've been at this for quite a few years now. It's all good. Enjoy it. It's growing. It's evolution that you choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I enjoyed your whole post graphics guy. This sentence stood out to me most. Strictness, black and white answers, it all removes the "mystery" from this journey of life. great insight sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts