But yur wrong. Yes, there are cookies in Heaven. These ones are good for you, becuz they are Spiritual Cookies which have higher vibrations without all that nasty sugar,
I'll bet you ain't never had OUR KINDA cookies!
Gumby
Does the Bible interpret itself, or a fiddle you can play any tune with?
by Rod P 66 Replies latest jw friends
-
gumby
-
Abaddon
Okay, now on topic, ish, as ever.
I agree with Iggy.
I mean add that to some of the other points some already put forward by posters;
- accident of birth; people almost always end up in either their birth faith, or a faith that is common amongst the indigenous population. This means if the Bible IS God's word and you are born in Calcutta to a Hindu family, you have a very unfair disadvantage.
- pluraility of interpretation; any sufficiently large body of text (bar reference texts) can be taken anyway you want to. Popular literary opinion hold Rudyard Kipling to be a racist. Bollocks I say; he was a man of his times and his writing shows respect to other races; some characters are racist; one of such is a Seikh, but Kipling giving a Seikh's down-the-nose opinion of Hindus and Muslims is not Kipling being racist, it's him expressing a fictional (but realistic) charaters opinion - another one of which was the Seikh's opinion that the young English officer he served could only be better "if he were a Seikh". The Satanic Verses is a inditement of problems in Islam or a waste of paper, or blasphemy.
Religion isn't about being right. It is about having a good argument based on its source texts - whatever they may be even if they are verbal in form.
This means it is exactly the same as the study of literature, and shares with literature the characteristic of more than one credible interpretation of any text or portion of text being possible.
If one assumes therefore that there IS a god, the lack of obviousness, certainty, and universality in any belief system makes it illogical an ethical entity would allow 'wrong choices' due to those deficts to disadvantage someone.
Therefore all claims to exact inspiration or specficity of belief or observance (with adverse consequences for 'sin') must be false, or god is an unethical monster.
It is such a monumentally silly idea as to defy belief.
I don't know whether there is a 'god', or what 'god' is if there is one. I do know that I believe these books are ideas about god. The same books can be used to back different ideas about gods, but that's the ways things are. IF there is any entity that would somehow fit the term 'god', it is the common message in these' sayings' where truth lies. The idea of some god playing games with "hunt the truth -whoops wrong country you're dead" is just offensive.
Be good to each other.
Just because it's a nice thing to do.
... with that and "Don't eat the yellow snow", you have it covered.
-
Rod P
Gumby,
Wrong answer! Now go to the Principul's Office and explain why you choose not to pay attention. You know where it's at- just down the hall and up the elevator, and stop on the 5000th floor. Look for the door with the big, illuminated "J.C.: on the front.
Anyway you know better than to akuse the teach' of bein' a, what was it yu said..."non-spiritual heathen". Now I don't mind bein' called a "heathen" cuz all that means is someone who comes from the "heath" or the countryside. But to call me "non-spiritual", that's just plain nasty and vindictive. Now for that, I'm gonna wash yur mouth out with spiritual soap, and get rid of all that foul garbage that's in there.
And the next time I catch ya readin' one of them Apostate magazines, feedin' yur head with all that nonsense, I'm gonn make ya write 5000 lines: "I will not read apostate magazines in class." Damn, Gumby, it's no wonder J.C. yanked you outta that Sunday School ministry. I told Him you couldn't handle it, and then we'd have to go into damage control for all those wrong teachings you keep spreading around. Oh those poor, innocent believers! I just hope it's not too late!
Rod P.
-
Rod P
I think all of the Sacred Texts from many diverse sources are written by men, with many different personalities and viewpoints, but that the writers were "spiritually minded". But thru it all, there was a spark of Divinity peaking thru and entwined within, revealing spiritual truths and principles and concepts that would lead us to God, if we followed the Spiritual Path.
So yes, God let the writers say what they wanted, describe events and situations, and they could even be fallible and contradictory in some of their "comments". Yet there in the midst of it all was the indelible stamp of Divinity.
Now there is an awful lot of stuff in the Old Testament that strikes me as pretty nasty and mean, and the antithesis of the spiritual. And I don't know how much of it was all borrowed from somewhere else (eg. Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc.), but I'm pretty sure there was a lot of it in that category. But thru the pages of the Bible are a lot of spiritual principles that are inspired or "God-breathed". It's like God trying to get thru to us with our thick skulls when we don't even want to listen. (Free Will, and all that.) My search is to find what is and what is not "spiritually valid", in spite of Man, and not because of him. That is why I do not think my search is limited to the Bible, because the God of the Universe is for all mankind, and not just for a chosen few of one race or colour or creed.
Rod P.
-
LittleToe
Gyles:
It is such a monumentally silly idea as to defy belief.
ROFLMAO
Bwahahahahahaha!!!! -
Abaddon
Or did I mean deify belief?
Gyles of the "were those the oven beeps I just heard, mmmm, home-made pizza class"
-
Rod P
Abaddon,
I just want to say that I think you have made some excellect and salient remarks. Some real food for thought, and a few new ones for me!
Rod P.
-
LittleToe
I was laughing with, not at
It defies belief, yet belief is where it's at
LT, of the "hungry and now he know's what he's making" class.
-
Narkissos
Rod,
The Kingdom of God and Salvation is not an Objective Experience or concept. It is a Subjective one. You can only know it by experiencing it from within.
I think all of the Sacred Texts from many diverse sources are written by men, with many different personalities and viewpoints, but that the writers were "spiritually minded". But thru it all, there was a spark of Divinity peaking thru and entwined within, revealing spiritual truths and principles and concepts that would lead us to God, if we followed the Spiritual Path.
So yes, God let the writers say what they wanted, describe events and situations, and they could even be fallible and contradictory in some of their "comments". Yet there in the midst of it all was the indelible stamp of Divinity.
Now there is an awful lot of stuff in the Old Testament that strikes me as pretty nasty and mean, and the antithesis of the spiritual. And I don't know how much of it was all borrowed from somewhere else (eg. Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc.), but I'm pretty sure there was a lot of it in that category. But thru the pages of the Bible are a lot of spiritual principles that are inspired or "God-breathed". It's like God trying to get thru to us with our thick skulls when we don't even want to listen. (Free Will, and all that.) My search is to find what is and what is not "spiritually valid", in spite of Man, and not because of him. That is why I do not think my search is limited to the Bible, because the God of the Universe is for all mankind, and not just for a chosen few of one race or colour or creed.
Whereas I feel close to your first statement about subjectivity, I am more uneasy with the second one in which many concepts belong to the sphere of objectivity. Wherever there is "Divinity," "God," "truths," "revelation" and "inspiration," in the end it is "right" vs. "wrong" -- even though it may be presented along a soft "evolutionary" pattern -- as in "the truth gradually emerging from its imperfect, partial and outdated representations". Not very different from Christianity's depiction of its relationship to Judaism for instance.
Taking subjectivity seriously, imho, calls for a different perspective, in which nobody is objectively higher or lower, closer to or farther from any "truth". The less "spiritual" person may surprise you (or me) any day by an unsuspected and thus far unnoticed depth. Words and signs meaningful to you (or me) can be found in the Bible, in the Gita, in the Book of Mormon or in the cheapest novel or daily newspaper. What will be meaningful to you may leave me indifferent and vice versa. Still we can communicate and find some echo of our experiences in each other -- but never convert those relative encounters into an objective truth. Human relationship works as a centreless network.
-
Rod P
Narkissos,
While it takes a Subjective path to find the spiritual, once found or realized, and then embraced and applied, then I think what happens is that it begins to manifest in the Objective world thru the person experiencing the revelation or inspiration or catharsis. Those within his/ her sphere of influence will also recognize it, if they are in tune with the spiritual.
As members of the human race, we all have our "input channels" that are particularly receptive to certain truths or insights. Some of us refer to these as "gifts" from God. Others merely see this as "talent", whether innate or learned.
I also agree with you that we are all on a "level playing field" when it comes to matters spiritual. Forest Gump, Bubba, Savants and many of the so-called "mentally challenged" people we have witnessed have taught us all some very important lessons. Even small children (i.e."Out of the mouths of babes") are instruments of the Divine, and some of their insights can be quite startling. I believe that God uses the humble of the earth to teach us all about spirituality in the context of how to apply it in our daily living. It is the Spiritual that drives the Material, and not the other way around. The "heart" is the doorway and the compass to this inner world.
Rod P.