Reading Sacred Texts

The question as to whether one should read sacred texts alone or with help from presumably "higher ups" is a peculiar question from the modern standpoint because it is routinely accepted that one can read and even write alone without help from others.

It strikes me that the more an age is close to us, recent and not distant, the closer to modernity, the more people can write and the more books exist and the more it is accepted that people can read and write alone.

The more distant an age from us--from modernity--the less not only is the written word disseminated but the less writers exist in the first place. Therefore writers become increasingly considered sacred whether they disseminate anything of value or not. Even readers are considered highly blessed in ancient times.

To say in our modern age that a person should not read the Bible alone but should get help from "higher ups" is to essentially say that a person cannot read alone, without help. And it is certainly to say that a person cannot even write--or if one is considered able to write, it is certainly stated that one can never even remotely approximate sacred texts.

In essence, the more devout people among us are, the more they are stuck with respect to the problem of whether or not one can read and write in an age behind the times.

The less devout people among us are, the more they are released in their writing capacities and the more they look askance on a person should that person suggest they should not read sacred books--let alone non-sacred books--alone.

Dan, Dan, Dan,

How "unchristian of you"!!!!

Daniel - I've briefly had problems similar to what you're describing and I wondered if it was related more to my computer than to the On Faith website. Never have figured it out, but your posts have never contained anything that would remotely get you banned from posting anywhere on this blog IMO.

Even our most egregious violator of posting ethics continues to post here from time to time - albeit with a name change.

Daniel

I don't think that Susan or anyone else has banned you from thier threads. If they wouldn't ban CCNL, they certainly wouldn't ban you.

I think this site has a bunch of software errors. The length of comments posted on Susan Jacoby's thread may be limited because she routinely gets a huge response, when many other routinely get ZERO comments.

Nevertheless, I have had very, very long posts go through. I have also had many posts blocked for reasons that I do not understand. I once complained to David Waters that my post was rejected, and he looked it up said it was "fine" and did not know why it was rejected.

I also notice that somtimes a panelest's essay will disappear for time; Susan's have done that; and then they come back. I think it is non-critical software system that the WaPo is not putting alot of money or maintenance into and it just every now gets things wrong with it.

If I were you, I would post a test periodically on Susan's thread, and see if it doesn't clear up.

Well, FOR EXAMPLE, in the last three weeks we've had

three rabbbis. One dictated that everyone who doesn't believe the holocaust story, hook line and sinker,

should be persued and persecuted. Here, there and everywhere.

And one who was indignant because American presidents and others dare mention God, as in
"GOD BLESS AMERICA". It must stop, he said.

NOW, would you want one of these wonder-poos
instructing you on what to think?

Most religious types disagree with everyone else and among themselves. Any first hand observation with whatever Book you believe in must be superior. First hand being YOU.

To Persiflage and CCNL concerning posting on Jacoby's site: I cannot post even a sentence. It used to be I had to break up posts as you both say, but now nothing at all goes through. I have for example been posting " testing 123 testing 123" and it does not go through. On the other hand, my posts get through on everybody else's sites no problem.

To understand sacred texts, I would like to add this observation.

As this pertains to the Bible, while one may need the assistance of dictonary, concordance, or similar study help, one can understand it w/o having to have it interpreted by other sources/people.

If one apply grammatical rules, honoring a context, etc., then no outside help is required to understand the meaning of the author. If not, help in this area may be needed, but this ought not extend beyond tutoring of how to apply these rules.

I can't speak for other writings that one views as a sacred text. Professional help may or may not be needed for them.

Daniel - I agree that longer posts have to be cut in half and posted in two parts, particularly on the Jacoby thread. I have to do this regularly, and not only on her thread.

Give that a try - from long residence here, we know that thread authors play no direct part in monitoring or otherwise censoring posts....there is no real consistency as to how or when longer posts will go through unobstructed!

Daniel12,

You might want to reduce your musings to two or three short paragraphs on Susan Jacoby's commentary pages. Each panelist appears to have their own restrictions as to length of comments

To Persiflage from Daniel. I will check out the site you mentioned. Thanks! And here is something that you might find interesting: So far as I can tell Susan Jacoby has banned me from commenting on her site here on on faith. Even if I try to post a sentence it goes to a page which says "blog owner will review post". I find it interesting because according to Jacoby she is a woman of reason above all. But if she is a woman of reason would she not allow me to comment and take me to task by reason if she finds something to criticize?

Let me cut to the chase. Jacoby would like us to believe she is a woman of reason and an atheist but she is more a modern day liberal with all the dogmatism that goes with it than anything else. Her vaunted reason I would wager has not led to a single original idea, and in fact she is simply another voice for liberalism against religion and conservatism and republicanism.

And being a liberal more than anything else she feels she is perfectly justified in censoring me and is nothing more than a mirror image of right wing party censoring. Perhaps the best proof would be to examine her books (the one's she writes). I would wager that not only does she demonstrate no originality but her ideas are perfectly consistent with dime a dozen liberal thought.

And on the subject of writing books, I have never understood putting pen to paper without providing an original line of thinking. Not being original is just using up trees for something worse than toilet paper. At least toilet paper provides a service. An unoriginal book provides nothing--except it be an attempt to shore up a group of people who hold pet ideas.

Jacoby being a writer should know that all it takes is one brave and original person to wipe out a group of people and their pet thoughts. Let me make a prophecy: Jacoby's books will die with her and leave not a trace on the world.

Furthermore let me demonstrate what Jacoby cannot do--provide an original thought. Lately I have been observing that although the advance of civilization and society--particularly the democratic heritage--tries to utilize increasingly complex technology to provide for everyone--to satisfy a "horizontal drive"--the technology actually demands increasingly complex humans to stay abreast of developments. A tension is set up between attempts to satisfy horizontal drives (satisfy everyone no matter how unskilled) and demands for new technology and increasingly complex humans to not only invent but operate technology. In short, although at first it looks as if technological and scientific progress is a boon for all, eventually what is actually occurring is an automatic process of eugenics because increasingly the more complex humans are selected and have the best chances of providing for young, who in turn go on to be successful (but even the young feel the tension if they do not measure up). And society it seems automatically understands this crisis--for education becomes stressed more and more. A desperation sets in to somehow educate and leave no one behind. But education can do little because as society becomes more complex only the biologically gifted find themselves at the top of society. All hopes of nurturing--of satisfying a horizontal drive to have all equal and successful--collapses under the weight of nature. Specifically nature understood as society increasingly selecting the biologically gifted specimens. If you want to build a skyscraper you better have people that can walk the rails thousands of feet up--in fact the skyscraper does not exist unless such people exist. There it is--an original thought. Or if not original certainly in line with a relatively unkown origin.

P.S. If you see Timmy on Jacoby's site tell him I am sorry I can no longer answer his posts. He posted to me but I could not answer, so...Where I will be posting from now on is here, on the main page. And I certainly thank Sally Quinn and John Meacham for having the integrity of thought that Susan Jacoby so obviously lacks.

Daniel - here's a link that you might find interesting. Physicist Frank Tipler is commenting here. Lots of interesting stuff on this website. ......

He has speculated elsewhere that humans may be headed toward an eternal existance as formless human nanobots - wherein humans eventually collapse through the evolutionary process to life at the atomic level - albeit with full consciousness, intelligence, and memory intact.

Now that's a myth in the making!

http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000592.html

Should a person read sacred texts alone?

Why not do the best possible thing and write a sacred text of one's own?

There are people who believe in God. But there seems to be no hard proof of God except it be by logical argumentation such as it seems incomprehensible that the intelligence of man should arise without at least a generic intelligent designer and possibly a specific God such as the Christian.

And there are people who do not believe in God--and in fact these people are often those who subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection to the point of saying man is just another species, and like all species man has no clear, assured direction toward continued improvement.--In fact man is just another creature with a quite directionless existence.

1) We should set aside the argument that it seems incomprehensible that the intelligence of man should arise without at least a generic intelligent designer as a working foundation for continued argument.

2) Addressing directly those who not only do not believe in God but believe after a reading of Darwin there is no real direction to man's existence, why is it that religion is held against the religious when after all one is suggesting that not only is there no God but there is no direction to existence? What reason for trying to wrench the religious from belief? Pure sadism? Or is it that we should accept no God and no direction to existence as some sort of honorable outlook, that we should "face the truth" even if it spells hopelessness for man?

3) To those who say not only is there no God but there is no direction to existence, why the often postulated belief and hope in a secular humanism, a reasonable society in which all are relatively equal and successful? How to reconcile the latter with a foundational belief in not only no God but no direction to existence? How is it possible to found a society on not only no God but no direction to existence? Furthermore, is this hoped for secular humanism not only something of a belief in God and heaven but a belief that such can arrive not only more quickly than the religious conception of God and heaven but arrive quickly here on this earth--that it is imminent and the goal of history? Who really are the deluded? The God fearing or the atheist secular humanists?

4) The notion that one can be moral without a belief in God. But the religious do not so much say that one needs God to be moral as they say that man can never be truly moral while alive on earth--that man is in a perpetual state of fallenness and can be made moral and rescued only by God. Is this not a more humble position--in fact more moral position--than saying one can be moral without God? Without God are we not essentially left asserting ourselves--and does that not often translate to sheer hubris?

5) The atheist belief that nothing good can come from a belief in God. Does this mean increased fortitude by hope does not count? And does this not mean that atheists should abandon their hope in secular humanism (and it is a hope) if they want to remain consistent in saying nothing good comes from a belief in God?

Questions are often beautiful answers. Now perhaps a dream, perhaps a piece of pure subjectivity. Something of an attempt to synthesize all of the foregoing. Or not. Maybe just a personal new direction.

If we want to go ahead and discount God it does seem we can do so provided we do not get in the rut which seems to be only strengthened by Darwinism: The rut of believing there is no real direction to existence. We should instead observe that we are intelligent, and although this intelligence may not have been born of a generic intelligent designer let alone particular God, it does give us hope for continued development in the direction of increasing mastery over ourselves and nature (extending to the entire universe).

And if we are successful in this first foundational step, we should be able to safely entertain not only Darwinism but all advances in biology without postulating there is no direction to existence. And in fact we have a working position here for safely criticizing the religious, which is to say discounting God without throwing the world into meaninglessness and thus actually giving the religious a greater excuse for believing in God.

From the above two paragraphs things now follow rapidly. We can see now provided we entertain a direction to existence that it might indeed be possible to have a continually increasing secular humanism. But we should not be too hasty. We should not be led into the trap of smugly asserting man can be moral without God. We should instead continually preserve something of the religious outlook that man is a fallen being, a being that cannot truly be moral without being "in the body" of God. But of course we are discounting God, so we are left with something of a supreme carefullness, a will to not be too morally smug, lest we fall into hubris which seems to thrive whether or not there is God.

And we do have to be careful of hubris. From my reading of Darwin, many other books, leaves of all types, streets, ethnic groups and races,--not to mention the two sexes--it does seem the world is in denial about the many differences between things--particularly differences between ethnic groups, differences between races, and of course differences between the two sexes. And for centuries this law of society has been operative although no one seems able to articulate it: That the more complex and advanced a society becomes the more it automatically engages in eugenics because it automatically demands continually more complex humans to be abreast of developments.

In other words, what I am trying to say is it seems we have rapidly jumped from not believing in God to Darwin to genome, and although many are still religious and there are atheists who not only assert there is no God but no direction to existence, the main current is rapidly moving to how man can biologically improve himself. We are moving to contemplating how we can be something of Gods, and we have to beware of crimes against humanity, hubris in general. Perhaps we do not believe in God. But we should never be fooled into believing it is easy to become God. In fact not believing in God should automatically mean realizing that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to become God.

A sacred text of my own based on no God. Or perhaps God has the best hand here after all.

Should a person read sacred texts alone?

Why not do the best possible thing and write a sacred text of one's own?

There are people who believe in God. But there seems to be no hard proof of God except it be by logical argumentation such as it seems incomprehensible that the intelligence of man should arise without at least a generic intelligent designer and possibly a specific God such as the Christian.

And there are people who do not believe in God--and in fact these people are often those who subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection to the point of saying man is just another species, and like all species man has no clear, assured direction toward continued improvement.--In fact man is just another creature with a quite directionless existence.

1) We should set aside the argument that it seems incomprehensible that the intelligence of man should arise without at least a generic intelligent designer as a working foundation for continued argument.

2) Addressing directly those who not only do not believe in God but believe after a reading of Darwin there is no real direction to man's existence, why is it that religion is held against the religious when after all one is suggesting that not only is there no God but there is no direction to existence? What reason for trying to wrench the religious from belief? Pure sadism? Or is it that we should accept no God and no direction to existence as some sort of honorable outlook, that we should "face the truth" even if it spells hopelessness for man?

3) To those who say not only is there no God but there is no direction to existence, why the often postulated belief and hope in a secular humanism, a reasonable society in which all are relatively equal and successful? How to reconcile the latter with a foundational belief in not only no God but no direction to existence? How is it possible to found a society on not only no God but no direction to existence? Furthermore, is this hoped for secular humanism not only something of a belief in God and heaven but a belief that such can arrive not only more quickly than the religious conception of God and heaven but arrive quickly here on this earth--that it is imminent and the goal of history? Who really are the deluded? The God fearing or the atheist secular humanists?

4) The notion that one can be moral without a belief in God. But the religious do not so much say that one needs God to be moral as they say that man can never be truly moral while alive on earth--that man is in a perpetual state of fallenness and can be made moral and rescued only by God. Is this not a more humble position--in fact more moral position--than saying one can be moral without God? Without God are we not essentially left asserting ourselves--and does that not often translate to sheer hubris?

5) The atheist belief that nothing good can come from a belief in God. Does this mean increased fortitude by hope does not count? And does this not mean that atheists should abandon their hope in secular humanism (and it is a hope) if they want to remain consistent in saying nothing good comes from a belief in God?

Questions are often beautiful answers. Now perhaps a dream, perhaps a piece of pure subjectivity. Something of an attempt to synthesize all of the foregoing. Or not. Maybe just a personal new direction.

If we want to go ahead and discount God it does seem we can do so provided we do not get in the rut which seems to be only strengthened by Darwinism: The rut of believing there is no real direction to existence. We should instead observe that we are intelligent, and although this intelligence may not have been born of a generic intelligent designer let alone particular God, it does give us hope for continued development in the direction of increasing mastery over ourselves and nature (extending to the entire universe).

And if we are successful in this first foundational step, we should be able to safely entertain not only Darwinism but all advances in biology without postulating there is no direction to existence. And in fact we have a working position here for safely criticizing the religious, which is to say discounting God without throwing the world into meaninglessness and thus actually giving the religious a greater excuse for believing in God.

From the above two paragraphs things now follow rapidly. We can see now provided we entertain a direction to existence that it might indeed be possible to have a continually increasing secular humanism. But we should not be too hasty. We should not be led into the trap of smugly asserting man can be moral without God. We should instead continually preserve something of the religious outlook that man is a fallen being, a being that cannot truly be moral without being "in the body" of God. But of course we are discounting God, so we are left with something of a supreme carefullness, a will to not be too morally smug, lest we fall into hubris which seems to thrive whether or not there is God.

And we do have to be careful of hubris. From my reading of Darwin, many other books, leaves of all types, streets, ethnic groups and races,--not to mention the two sexes--it does seem the world is in denial about the many differences between things--particularly differences between ethnic groups, differences between races, and of course differences between the two sexes. And for centuries this law of society has been operative although no one seems able to articulate it: That the more complex and advanced a society becomes the more it automatically engages in eugenics because it automatically demands continually more complex humans to be abreast of developments.

In other words, what I am trying to say is it seems we have rapidly jumped from not believing in God to Darwin to genome, and although many are still religious and there are atheists who not only assert there is no God but no direction to existence, the main current is rapidly moving to how man can biologically improve himself. We are moving to contemplating how we can be something of Gods, and we have to beware of crimes against humanity, hubris in general. Perhaps we do not believe in God. But we should never be fooled into believing it is easy to become God. In fact not believing in God should automatically mean realizing that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to become God.

A sacred text of my own based on no God. Or perhaps God has the best hand here after all.

opita1 has it right. To add a little more, read them as you would Aesop's Fables. There are some good moral stories, but interpretation as the word of God is only for the naive or those emersed at an early age.

Ah, OK, n.p.

Should a layperson read sacred texts alone, without the help of clergy or community?

Of course not!!! The brainwash will fail.

How do you read and study sacred texts?

By looking at the writing in the text and applying what I learned in grammar school whenever I am faced with a group of letters written in a page.

Cacxo, you're right. I mis-directed my note. It was meant for someone else who had a dialog going with you. Sorry. So many names fly around in these interchanges that it's easy to "read too fast"--a common problem in reading scriptures too.

And I can also infer some missing elements in what I know, from my broader understanding.

By the way, BCASS5, I don't see how the term 'mixture' can apply to what I've said or to the overall approach. Mixing two or more things does not necessarily imply different phases or a suspension. If the elements connect, then it's chemistry. Combining oxygen and hydrogen does not produce a 'mixture', it produces water (water is the ash of hydrogen).
In other words, I don't just gather interesting ideas or concepts or facts from what I read, wherever I may read it - that would be pointless; I gain a broader understanding from everything I've read, when some elements in it (ideas, concepts, facts etc.) connect meaningfully.

Of course they should read the texts for themselves...

Without clergy's "help", reading the bible is the surest way to determine - for yourself - that is full of iron-age barbarism. It's the best advertisement for atheism that I know.

The question concerns sacred texts, not just the Bible.

Judging from these comments you would never know that the Pali Canon, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Koran, the Gospel of the Esssenes, the Tao Te Ching, the Kitab-I-Iqan, the Confucian Canon, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc., etc. even exist! The world is filled with sacred writings and they are all valuable!

I would agree with Lepidopteryx that anything requiring a boatload of "secondary expositional text" is not going to be all that helpful in a spiritual crisis. But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, either.

It is amazing how scholarly an individual can pretend to be about one of them, able to quote and speak at length about all of the signs and messages, where and when they occur, and why, without once acting with a deep awareness of the truths that they point to.

The best answer on this board suggests that certainly they can be read alone, but that "help with the historical and cultural context can be invaluable."

The problems come in when that "help" gets imbued with ego, and the helper takes on the role of telling you what to think and what to believe.
Perspective is, by definition, limited. An inability to acknowledge that is really the height of arrogance - do you honestly think you are so mentally, emotionally and spiritually superior that you and your peeps have cornered the market on truth and the rest of the world is wrong?

There is no one on this planet who can claim understanding of God's mind (which is by definition beyond understanding) and so have moral authority over my life. I alone am responsible for my thoughts and actions, and for my relationship with the God of my understanding.

There are always plenty of people who would rather not acknowledge that responsibility, and who seek to turn it over to others, and be absolved of their sins. Egocentric experts abound who are happy to oblige.

I am grateful that I somehow managed to escape that trap, because my life is so much richer for it.

I learned from "Misquoting Jesus" that nobody has a clue as to what was in the original New Testament. It is generally agreed that the "Let him who is without guilt toss the first stone" story is not part of the original but a later addition.

I learned from "The Bible Unearthed" that much of the older parts of Torah has been disproved by archeology. After that the Torah is distorted by its writers, the priests of King Josiah, who wanted to make the Kingdom of Judah look good and the Kingdom of Israel look bad.

How can any clergyman change this reality?

If I remember my bible correctly, I’m taught that the word of God is not for anyone man’s interpretation. However, those who have been controlling and putting people in religious bondage say you’re to listen to them instead of erroring in what you read, hogwash! God expect us to know better by walking away from them. The word teaches us that God made it for the simple, so lets not get too holy. A second point I want to make is; the Holy Ghost will always remind us of what Jesus said and He is the only one who can reveal the deeper revelation of the word, where one’s heart is not puffed up. The Holy Ghost is our teacher, although he uses man when man learns how to yield for his use in teaching and leading the body and lets not forget, to lay hands on the sick where they indeed do recover. I’d recommend reading II Timothy 3:1-5 from the Amplified Bible to get a clearer picture of today’s events and the many years of ongoing deception that continues to affect the weak-in-faith by following those who do not adhere to the written word of God themselves.

Advocate4Good

I'm a student in an interfaith seminary.

Reading sacred texts can be quite challenging. Sometimes I think of scripture as being like a big party, with lots of different people, standing around talking, in groups and loners. Some are serene, some are boisterous, some are wise, some are great story tellers, some are smug, some are drunk, some are friendly, some are standoffish and some frankly sinister. Who's going to speak to me? Will I learn something here? Will I go home with something to treasure, or will I wish I'd spent the time at home with a good book?

It's good to go to the party with a friend--someone you know and trust, who can introduce you to some of the other people who might be good friends for you. So, find a friend to go with: a living friend or a writer who can introduce you to the people who can befriend you, or even teach you, challenge you, and guide you.

To Timmy from Daniel--if you are keeping up here. I was not allowed to post even one sentence on Jacoby's site for some reason. Why I appeared as Daniel10 on her site...the only thing I can think of is that long ago when the sites started requiring passwords and names I signed on as Daniel10--but then discovered I could not log on for some reason. Then I changed to Daniel12 and have been so ever since--until the post on Jacoby's site for some reason. This is the worst problem I have ever had with Jacoby's site. I am changed to Daniel10 for some reason and now cannot post even a single sentence.(Site keeps saying the notorious "post will be reviewed by blog owner").

P.S. Your criticisms of my post were pretty good. Why I wrote it I have no idea. Maybe the question of whether one should study sacred texts alone made me just brood on some thoughts.

P.S.S. Sacred texts should be read alone. Furthermore one should read many books alone.--And the latter is much better at forcing one to criticize one's thoughts than having another person look over one's shoulder. A person looking over one's shoulder is nothing, cannot be of help at all, if one reads only few books. But if one reads many books one automatically enters the world of many persons--and one is paradoxically alone and not alone.

One doesn't need a SPIRITUAL guide to read these books, but some help with the historical and cultural context can be invaluable. When reading the Judeo-Chrstian scriptures, I found very valuable:

Reading the Old Testament -- Boadt
The Bible as Literature -- Gabel
The Bible Unearthed -- Finkelstein
Who Wrote the Bible -- Friedman
Jesus for the non-Religious -- Spong
Who were the Ancient Israelites -- Dever

The actual history is 1000 times more wonderful than the mtyhs they contain.

Send me an email bruno55. You threw out multiple paragraphs about your beliefs, covered 15 or so topics, and skirted the question for the day. I would be happy to reply with lengthy references, articles, and hermeneutic systems I have garnered over the years. But don't try to convert me. Been there. Done that. It took longer to un-learn the church's story about Jesus than it took to learn it. Life is too short for absolutes. It's meant for living. The pursuit of absolute certainty is a bore.

bcass05@comcast.net

From your comment on absolute truth (hmm), I gather that the concept of absolute truth is not certain in your mind.

May I ask why? Do you perceive a negative effect from a common standard for all humanity? Is it unrealistic? Why/why not?

Also, care to comment as to why you feel my earlier post was bordering on propaganda?

bruno55

Look down a few notes. You'll see how I've used it for the past 70 years. It serves me well as a way to shape and live my life for the remaining years I have in the 21st century. When you get as old as I am, you want to lighten up--shed some of the baggage.

Absolute truth? Hmm.

Borders on propaganda? Respectfully, I need clarification, are you saying it is propaganda or isn't?

Upon what authority are you appealing to? I would appreciate an answer to this also from you.

The bible is in written form and therefore subject to the same literary rules as any writing.
All books teach the same way, and therefore, impart information in the same way, by statements of fact, by example, or by a command. From these necessary conclusions can be drawn.

How is truth arrived at in our judicial system? Are not all the facts obtained before a judgment is made?

Treat the Bible with the same respect as any other writing. I read the scriptures as I read any literary document. Objectively.

The Bible has (and will) withstand any and all scrutiny. This is a unique feature of truth. Again, not just religious truth. It welcomes investigation as it will emerge from such investigation and will expose all error. The Bible stands upon its own claims. My rejection or denial of facts do not change those facts.

Truth is absolute, not relative. The only way to arrive at truth is to gather all the facts before making a decision.

I have every reason to believe that Bible is from God. Following its precepts will cause me to treat my maker w/the respect due Him and my fellow man as I would want to be treated. I know what sacrificial love and mercy are because God has shown that to man.

There are no higher righteous judgments and statutes than found in the Bible; no greater incentive to treat my fellow man with the utmost respect than for the reasons given in scripture.

Would you do me the same courtesy and answer the same question you asked me, "How do you read scriptures and how does it work for you?"

Bruno55

Your submission borders on propaganda. How about telling us about how you read scriptures and how it works for you?

Debate on this question is much like the debate held on other moral issues that are dealt with in the Bible. Upon what basis will they be conducted? What standard will be utilized? Is there a moral standard of right and wrong, or are we controlled by our own lusts? If we’re simply controlled by our own lusts, then man has no right to impose upon anyone a preference. What prohibits an individual from taking your husband, wife, daughter or son? Is it not "law?" And if just man’s law, by what standard is one law set above the other? There are nations that have no laws concerning bestiality. Is that what we want in this society—individual’s defining their own personal preferences? If there is no standard higher than man’s, then our society is set for destruction. There is, however, a standard that claims to be divine in origin, a standard that comes from the Creator, to His creation. That standard is the word of God, the Bible. Although the ignorant will deny its origin, it does not need man’s approval to be seen as righteous. It’s not just man’s standard that prohibits murder, yet even those who oppose God’s word cry out about the atrocities of murder. If they reject the word of God as the standard, what right do they have to impose their standard on others? The fact is, man wants to pick and choose his vices: pick and choose what he wants to do and then force the rest of society to accept and respect his vices without question. Without a standard of right and wrong, there is no right or wrong, there is simply preference.

It is absolutely amazing how much is written negatively about a book (the Bible) questioning its self-claimed, non-human, inspired authorship by quoting human writings and accepting those human writings w/o the same scrutiny.

The bottom line is, in so doing, the authenticity of the Bible is proven. For those who refuse to acknowledge that an absolute standard of truth exists, for which all humanity is subject, I have yet to read or hear of a viable alternative from you.

Most object to submitting to any authority higher than themselves, simply because they have a problem with subjection to any authority other than self. They don't want to acknowledge an all-wise divine being (GOD), yet promote themselves as such a being in the process.

So they vent their frustrations in such venues as this, but offer no answers or solutions to the common problem faced by all humanity--sin.

OK, so you don't want to admit that this writing (the Bible) is inspired by a being that created (and sustains) all life......well what does the alternative view offer?

Will denial of God remedy the situation? It hasn't so far, and history verifies that civilizations have fallen into obscurity for such attitudes.

One fact that no one can dispute regardless of a profession of faith or the denial thereof: humans don't live forever here on earth; they die; death is a reality.

What then?
No reward...no punishment?
Then why complain about any behavior? Why be responsible for any actions?

What better hope than what is offered by the Bible? An eternity with your creator as a reward for a life of service to Him now in this life.

There is no better reason for living with any higher purpose than this.

What better determent than a day of reckoning and accountability for actions?

The old saying, "don't throuw out the baby with the dirty bath water" is as true now as ever.

There is nothing wrong with the Biblical evidence of who God is, what His will for all humanity is, etc. it is the denial of such that is the problem.

The existence of God is evident from the things that are made. The truth about God was once known (Romans chapter 1); but has been suppressed by the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man.

God created man with the ability to choose, and he can acknowledge facts or deny them.

Is any behavior unacceptable? Why...upon what basis? To what authority will we appeal, man's or to a divine being?

There is a quote in the Christian "Book of the Acts of the Apostles". It was supposedly something said by one Shimon bar Yonah (St.Peter to Christians) a disciple of Yeshuah. Here's the quote: I PERCEIVE THAT GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS BUT THAT IN EVERY NATION THOSE WHO HOLD HIM (GOD) IN AWE AND SEEK TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, ARE ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. The author of that bit lived two or three or more generations after the events portrayed, so we can't be sure he is quoting Peter or someone's memory of something Peter said, etc. It doesn't sound much like the impetuous disciple and most weak-kneed of the disciples. Yet it has a certain coolness about it that I like. Along with THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM from Jewish scriptures, it has become my test for my own minimalist religion and that of all others of any culture who claim to be religious. I'm sure many Christians and Jews would find it much too inclusive for their taste. Others would find it much too "easy" and make their case for moving on to higher wisdom.

Though it might seem simplistic and reductionist, I came to this position both from individual reading of Bible and from sitting with ministers and rabbis and teachers for decades. It seems to me that one ought to move to some kind of encompassing simplicity lest we fill the world with books and burden those who hold God in awe.

Without Having Seen:
If a high school graduate struggles to understand MacBeth, written in our parent culture and in our language, but removed 400 years - how much harder will it be to understand a text written 2000-2500 years ago, not by one but by numerous hands, from different culturals that share only their foreignness to us.
****************************************************************************************************

True, but no one is claiming that MacBeth was written by the hand of an omnipotent, omniscient, divine supreme being or that it contains a divine masterplan by which everyone should live.

If the Bible (or any other holy book) is truly the plan by which a supreme being wishes all people to live for all time, then it seems to me that an omnipotent, omniscient supreme being would have taken greater care to ensure that every concept, every word, every nuance was crystal clear across all cultural differences. If you're really God, that shouldn't be difficult.

"Faith is about the individual, it's personal. But it's also a community thing. But it shouldn't be coercive. 'Cause the bible speaks directly to the faithful, except when it's contradictory. Unless... ..." (FaithBot explodes)

If I thought that popular acceptability is a good measure for truthfulness, then I'd be a politician. But I'm not.

Cacxo, your writing is clear and persuasive, but your mixture of apple juice and orange juice will taste good to neither extreme. Those extremists are the ones who make religious wars. Those who hold that the bible is the "word of God" are never going to accept the position of those who hold it to be "the word about God" and vice-versa. I see no way out other than that all parties agree to accept diversity within religions--many Christianities, many Judaisms, many Islams. Do you think it's possible? It seems to have worked in the USA but is being sorely tested.

Cacxo,

Your analogy is very good, in my opinion. The most important reason for historical research into the Bible is to help take off our own lenses, and put on the lenses, if only temporarily, of the writers - to get at what they literally meant, as opposed to what we literally understand.

When we say "take the Bible literally," we usually end up brining in all of our cultural baggage and interpreting through that lens - which is anything but the lens with which it was written. Consequently, we are interpreting and distorting without even knowing it!

What the letters actually spelled out in the minds of the writers and original audiences is usually obscured by our own way of seeing things.

Lepidopteryx, who normally has very good points, kinda blew it this time, I think. Writing, "If your "sacred text" can't be understood without the use of umpteen secondary expositional texts or having it explained to you by a seminary graduate, then it isn't much good," misses an important fact. All good things take some work to get at, and writing from even 50 years ago, by dint of cultural change, requires some introduction to the modern reader. If a high school graduate struggles to understand MacBeth, written in our parent culture and in our language, but removed 400 years - how much harder will it be to understand a text written 2000-2500 years ago, not by one but by numerous hands, from different culturals that share only their foreignness to us.

It's a very American, pragmatic thing to say that our lives are complicated, and our religion should be simple (nobody here has said that, but it is the unstated assumption that the question is getting at). But if our religion, whatever religion, is going to speak realistically to a fairly complicated reality, shouldn't we expect some degree of complexity? Even algebra, used by anyone who figures out how much he is saving with coupons, with its limited usefulness, requires some complication. Why should we expect a guide to all of life to be simpler?

Again, if we insisted (even without actually saying it, as Fundamentalist Christians do) that our sacred text fell out of the sky intact and ready to be read by one and all, easy-peasy - how long before we stopped finding it relevant, as our culture has? But precisely because we assert the opposite, that it is sacred because of God's action within the historical, human development, and not because of any free-and-easy simplicity about it, people are incredulous - oh, it's too complicated. You people are obscurantists. Let us just have it plain and simple!

But that's not real life.

I am a sikh by religion but always more inclined towards spiritualism.My parents tried hard enough to get me hooked to religious text books but unfortunately I never found them very eager to read it themselves on regular basis.Being a parent myself now, I opine we should practice what we preach ourselves first and then expect our children to follow in the footsteps.They look upon us as mentors.But I strongly believe that we should not force our children into it as forcing leads to rejection.

The question shows a certain obtuseness of thought about religion. For starters, it carries with it a sort of presupposition that sacred texts - religions, by extension - are all more or less the same sort of thing. Each has a row on a grid, and along the row's columns are labels like, "Founder," "Country and Year of Origin," "Belief in Afterlife?" and "Number of Rituals."

But "religion" is hardly a category at all. For example, Buddhism, commonly taken as a religion, is better described as a mystical philosophy precisely because it is compatible with so many other worship-practices and deities (or none at all) that are more obviously religous. That is one of the fundamental differences between the various schools of Buddhism. One can be a Buddhist and an atheist, a Buddhist and a polytheist, a Buddhist and a Confucian ancestor worshipper, and any number of other variations. So to compare Buddhism with Islam is a bit silly, since Islam needn't be mystical or spiritual at all (though it does have mystical schools), and is fundamentally religious - pertaining to a clearly thought out idea of God and the right relationship with Him.

As "religion" is more of a convenient way of thinking than an actual category containing a group of analogous thought-systems, so is "sacred texts." Christians consider the Bible to be sacred, but when we say that, we usually mean the words and ideas, rather than the actual book, which accounts for the physically ripped up condition of many well-used Bibles. It is almost a mark of honor among us that our Bibles are ratty and marked up. We freely print them on the cheapest newsprint to get them into as many hands as possible. This could never be so among Muslims, for instance, who consider an offense against the physical document an offense against God himself.

Different "religions" are going to have different understandings of their various "sacred texts," so to lump them all into one category is hopelessly naive. I cannot speak to other religions. But I can speak as a doctoral student in Biblical Studies.

The Christian Bible (encapsulating within itself the Jewish Bible in one form or another) is the product of a historical development among real people in the community gathered together by God to worship him, and under the inspiration of his Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it is not worth calling it a sacred text, at least not in our sense of the words. And it should be read in the same way - in light of historical factors of its times, as an exercise of reverent devotion to God, guided by the community He has called into being (the Church), and under the direction of His Spirit.

The Bible is far better read in privacy and quiet, at least sometimes. But we fool ourselves if we think we can ever read it "on our own." Even when we have some great, new, revolutionary interpretation, odds are that we picked it up on the back of some cereal box, or listening to something in the movies or the news. We are more culturally programmed than we believe. The question isn't whether we will listen to outside voices telling us how to interpret it for ourselves; but to whose voices shall we listen?

In reading someone's diary or correspondence, or even cooking recipes when they are not clear, it is far better to go to the source for clarification than to outsiders, if we really want to know what the source was trying to get at. The historical author of the scriptures is undoubted the People of God - Israel and the New Israel (the Church); and spiritually, it is the Holy Spirit, or none of it is worth anything more than dead men's diaries.

The question--along with those about evolution vs. creationism--is one of the big dividing walls within Abrahamic religions. Judaism and the Church operate largely with a biblical interpretive system which has been inherited from pre-Christian Judaism. It is a man-made system and not part of the Bible itself. However, those who refuse to use that system base their decision on reason and logical history. Those who embrace it do so on the basis of emotive faith. Apples and oranges! I fear the two may never be able to talk to one another.

I've trying to come up with an analogy for the relation between sacred texts and theology.
Sacred texts are a bit like an album with polaroid pictures of what is considered to be spiritual. Not all pictures would be good pictures - some may be out of focus or poorly centered. A camera, in that analogy, would be the photographer's own cultural background and preconceptions that serve as lensing - it distorts light, but it can do so beneficially, if arranged properly to make a picture.
Pictures, per se, are not sacred or holy. Looking at pictures in a picture album is not research, it is more of a study of the past.
Research, on the other hand, takes place in the world, in the present, bearing in mind that there are different angles to everything (a picture is two-dimensional and the world is not) and that world does not remain the same for long.
It's not a very good analogy, but that's the best I could come up with.

"How do you read and study sacred texts?"

1. By using the best available English translation. For example, if I am re-studying the Christian Bible, I use the same Oxford Annotated Bible (1968, RSV) that this atheist received when he was 13 years old.

2. By keeping close at hand numerous books on religious history, higher criticism, etc.

3. Alone, and away from the meddling and prattling of apologists and evangelists.

A starter set of references for your bible study groups:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

WHO WROTE IT, WHEN,WHERE, AND WHEN WAS IT CHANGE TO WHICH DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, WHEN? WHO HAD THE FINAL SAY OF WHICH BOOKS WHOULD BE IN AND WHICH WHOULD NOT? WHY ARE SOME BIBLES NOT UP DATED WHICH ARE LIKE A BOOK OF RIDDIES? WHY DID ROMA NOT WANT BELOW CLERGY TO READ THE BIBLE BEFORE THE 1500s? WHY WHOULD ONE WANT A CLERGY TO BE PRESENT TO READ THE BIBLE? ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS.

Hell yes!

Without new heresies where would we find the energy to wage new and ever more pointless wars?

Knowing of love and being in love are very different.
Knowing of suffering and suffering are very different.
Knowing of what being a parent means and being a parent are very different.

A book allows you to know of God, but it won’t make you know God.
Knowing God can only be accomplished through individual experience.

I think it would be hard to know God without first knowing of God. These text are a jumping off point on your journey to knowing God. They are only the beginning.

It shows what a backwards intellectual world some religious types live in that in defiance of 2 centuries of political and social liberation of common men and women, of elevation of their rights by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and their capabilities by universal public education, that anyone would still suggest that religious texts are somehow incapable of being properly understood by the average literate person without the fussy ministrations of some delusional cleric. The real fear here at all times is that the average person is now literate enough in the sciences and history that they will immediately cut to the chase and ask, "why should I believe any of this stuff?" before the clergy have a chance to sow the seeds of self-doubt that soften people up for their mind-control games...

Studying along with the likes of Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and Pagels (On Faith panelists), one develops a synopsis for the flaws and errors of Christianity.

To wit: (for those eyes that have not seen)

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

With the help of clergy? Certainly not. Too biased.
With the help of a historian, a linguist or an anthropologist? Yes. This would be helpful.

If one chooses to place faith in the evidence presented by JD Crossan and Raymond Brown’s statements as truth instead of Paul and Peter’s, then my question would be, what sources did they appeal to, clergy or community? The same needs to be considered of those who analyze Jesus’ words; what sources do they base their analogy conclusions? And where do we draw the line…i.e., how many analysts does it take before a statement from the Bible will be deemed ‘authoritative’?

As long as 'sacred texts' means all texts that have a certain spirit, then yes, by necessity.
If 'sacred texts' means only texts that have been declared 'sacred' officially, then they probably shouldn't be read at all - this is not a good starting point or mind-frame for reading said texts.
Me, I have never actually read the Bible (or any other official sacred text), except bits and pieces here and there. I sometimes check up verses, when I see something quoted or referred to, but that's about it. This is not to say that I don't know what's in the Bible, or the stories in it, but this is from general culture.
I do my own research when it comes to things spiritual.
Frankly, I have never read any book on philosophy either - I use what I got from one high-school class (Theory of Knowledge), plus whatever philosophical ideas and concepts I've seen mentioned or used elsewhere.
I've read some serious books on psychology, but that would probably be about 5 or 6 books, not much.
It works fine for me, but I have a knack for inferring the bigger theme and related ideas from small bits and pieces, I wouldn't really recommend that approach to someone else.

I would suggest reading the sacred texts in light of Judaism in which they originated.

By approx 100 CE, we have a clear divide occurring between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

The question that needs to be asked (and examined) is whether or not Jesus was trying to start a "new" religion or get His people to rightly follow God through repentance to Him and ministering to the community.

One of the interpretations of the "Rich young man" is that the commandment to sell his possessions and give to the poor was actually a common teaching of sages of Israel. The command is to take care of those who need help - Don't let worldly cares blind you to the needs of the community around you.

Of course there are other interpretations removed from Judaism given through Christian theology.

In Christ,
Chris

Some observations:

1. Timothy's Epistle was not written by Paul but was composed by a pseudo Paul making said epistle hardly inspired by god. (see JD Crossan's book, In Search of Paul)

2. Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming the words of the simple preacher man or those of Peter.

3. John 7: 17-18 and John 3: 19-21 have been thoroughly analzed by contemporary historic Jesus exegetes. Most have concluded the passages are single attestations and therefore do not meet rigorous historic testing i.e. The simple preacher man did not utter these passages i.e. John added these words to embellish Jesus' life

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

To understand God's word, the instructions given in 2 Timothy 2:15 apply; 'rightly divide', don't go to the sacred text with a preconceived idea to try and 'prove' your point by taking statements out of context.

Why can the Olympic rules be printed in multiple languages yet all who are involved, understand them alike and agree upon the interpretation?

In secular schools, there are teachers and students, yet learning can occur. The same process works in religion. There are milk items and meat items (Hebrews 5:11-14; 2 Peter 3:16)

The problem is found in the purpose or motive of the teacher. The Bible points out that there is such a thing as false teachers of God's word, and explains in many texts, what their motive is.
2 Peter 2:1-3 is one such text.

Jesus said in John 7:17-18, If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

If anyone could have explained truth, could not Jesus have done so? Did He convert everyone He taught? Was the problem with Him or in the heart of the hearer?

John 3:19-21 explains the hindrance to seeing and understanding truth.

Studying along with Father Edward Schillebeeckx, from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (and others?) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

If your "sacred text" can't be understood without the use of umpteen secondary expositional texts or having it explained to you by a seminary graduate, then it isn't much good.