elevator

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say here. You assert that in reading the bible you have found that it interprets itself; but you must persist in seeking this truth (i.e. believe it) to know what it means? Knowing this truth, you also assert that it explains why religion is divided? Please explain that. Also, please explain how it is intellectually honest to imagine the bible to be true, while at the same time rejecting the truth of any other allegedly divinely inspired book? (as you say yourself: "God does not have more than one truth").

I repeat the last line of my previous post (the one you didn't respond to):

juergen

God: Ok, Eve, you're outta here!
Adam: Wait, didn't you marry us just the other day?
God: Oh, right, the divorce thing ... Adam, you get to leave too.
Adam: Doh!

juergen

How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?

ohmi

Communication is when people transmit their understanding in symbolic form, the truth is not in the words but either in both people [or not]

To understand the absolute [what we know as 'Love' , unquestionably not wrong] we have to do it , not read about it ... then we know what it does for us , but one is not going to even try to perfect Love until one 'believes' in it , until the spirit moves in one to do Love, to stop being unloving to anyone (directly or indirectly).

The irony of mankind then is that in a very real sense we know Love, but the world puts us in conflict with that knowing, covers it for sake of things which cannot satisfy long-term... uncovering the truth in oneself thus turns out to be painful indeed ,beyond what most can yet bear [nor yet want to bear]

Simply look at the cause of the division. For instance most religions say that they believe in Love but find cause within traditional dogma not to do that Love which they give lip-service to.

The scriptures are more than the bible, but they are distinct in many ways from the works of men, which I started to explain, but you do not seem to understand. There simply is no work of art comparable to scripture, no playwright ever reached this level of intricacy, weaving of modes of expression, th massive redundancy that has defeated the abuse of scripture, the exposition involving men separated by thousands of years going both backward and forward in time ... but these things most men never know about because they rely upon other sinners to tell them what it says , and sinner men do lie [both intentionally and unintentionally, both to others and to ourselves]

I repeat the last line of my previous post (the one you didn't respond to): I did not reply since you did not take in what I said ... one does not confirm or deny a scientific hypothesis until one has seen the results of the tests, it is just the same with prophecy , it is NEITHER confirmed nor denied until its time comes

as for convenience, the truth is farthest indeed from convenience, it brings great sadness and extreme trial of heart, life , mind, and body... this too you will find out one day.

ohmi

I think that you misunderstand... it is God that separates by means of His own spirit of truth , God gives faith in Love [uncovering the heart by means of the truth about one's self] when it is required to do so for his plan.

Thus few find the narrow way [Matt 7:14] of ceasing from unlovingness in this life ,because God requires only few as priests and kings in His kingdom come upon the new earth , but their later perfect ministry saves the many afterward [Rev 7:9-10] who went by the broad way in this life.

Thus the wheat are the few separated at Jesus return, but they do not look down on the 'chaff' , nor indeed yet judge those that God has made unto dishonour :-

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

rizdek

If anything, poetic, figurative, idiomatic, exaggerated text is less efficient (i.e. takes more space) at communicating clearly and effectively. The scripture is NOT too short to be clear, concise and literal. That is why scientific literature avoid it unless it is made perfectly clear that it is an example or an analogy. They don't use these literary tools in place of clear text. If the bible is is too short, it is too short to be poetic, figurative, idiomatic or exaggerated. Your statement seems to be just your rationalization for founding your faith in what appears to me to be myth and legend collected and canonized by ancient peoples.

I'm not sure what you mean by private. But referring to 2P1:20, I think you miss the point of the earlier post. All Peter is dutifully saying here is that prophecy in the bible wasn't the personal (is that what you mean by private) interpretation of the prophet that wrote it. What else could he write? That it was personal interpretation? I think he meant the prophecies of which he was aware were not personal interpretations. But in fact many view the bible text as being the result of "personal" interpretation of the inspiration of god. Which is why we see contemporary customs and culture imbedded such that it often makes little sense to us now unless we read it in that context... See, even you and others might disagree on the interpretation of that passage.

And take an earlier passage in that same chapter:

What is your take on that verse? I take it to mean that Peter was actually aware of myths and legends that had sprung up concerning Jesus, even in the short years between Jesus "life" and when Peter wrote this letter. Peter was also aware that the audience was aware of these legends so these myths and legends were apparently widespread by that time. It tells me that there was plenty of time for myths and legends to have formed in that short of time period, completely falsifying apologists claims that it takes 2 or more generations for legends to come into being. Too long to be the basis for the gospels, which were written after the epistles. Indeed, perhaps Peter is talking specifically about the kind of myths and cleverly devised stories that were ultimately included in the gospels and the kind of myths he said were no true. Afterall, the gospels were probably finalized after Peter died, so he wouldn't be there to check the mytholizing.

And Paul refers to another Jesus that is being taught other than the one he is preaching. Who is this other Jesus? Is it perhaps the very Jesus about whom the gospels were ultimately written... in gospels finalized after Paul died?

What in the world does that mean? Was Jesus trying to be intentionally deceptive by using parables? Or did he think that if he just told people in clear concise words what he wanted to say that they would not understand? I think he should have tried. But what it tells me is that the writers of the gospels realized what they were saying didn't make sense, so they masked the uninterpretability behind even more obscure parables and figurative speech....all in keeping with their mystery religion. That would be my personal interpretation of that passage. What is your personal interpretation of that passage?

But the point is that now, apparently as evidenced by the many denominations/religions that all center on all or part of the bible such as christianity/judiaism/islam and all of whom believe they are essentially or even absolutely correct, there is substantial personal/collective interpretation.

E.G., Some think the Genesis account of creation is factual down to the 24-hr days and the GOE with the serpent and all. Others believe it to be a myth, except foir what they take to be true, i.e. that God created the universe but over a much longer time period. Some believe the story of the GOE and the serpent is just a story demonstrating that man turned from god after being created. Others believe there was an actual talking serpent that tempted Eve just as it is written. So, what else is that except personal interpretation?

Do you think you have a "correct" interpretation or an absolute "this is what god meant for us to believe" understanding of the scripture?

rizdek

:Cheeky:LOL

rizdek

I was waiting for that to come out. The threat of hell fire.:wave:

Speak for yourself. I certainly do not ignore my conscience. You certainly have a dim view of humanity in general. I recognize that there are wrong-doers and do not condone them but I also see lots of folks trying to do what's right. But now, let's hear about the fall in the GOE as to why we're all so evil.

Joan of Bark

I also find it funny that ohmi quotes Revelation, a book that has been wrong about the end of the world for nearly 2000 years now.

elevator

What you are saying is all good and dandy, but it is all your personal interpretation of scripture. I absolutely agree with you that traditional religious dogma is bad. It is the faith (with absolute certainty) that religious doctrines and truth claims are true that are the cause for religious conflicts. Biblical ambiguity allows for different interpretations of the same doctrines and the establishment of conflicting dogmas based on the same scriptural basis. In a previous post I gave you a link listing several areas where different interpretations are possible (at your specific request).

A perfect example is creation. Some Christians imagine a strict literal interpretation; the world was created in six literal days, 6000 years ago by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, with earth and man as the center of the universe. Other Christians believe in six day creation, but imagine that "day" should be translated as "age", each of which could be of any length (millions of years?). How about those Christians who believe God created the universe and earth billions of years ago, and then at certain points in time created species to populate the earth (the lawn theory), where each species can be imagined to be strands of grass with no biological connection. Other Christians, again, believe God created the universe billions of years ago and seeded earth with life, then left Evolution to take care of the rest. All of these Christians, curiously enough, are apparently able to find scriptural support for these claims and have no problem consolidating this with their faith.

What about other religions? Hindus believe in reincarnation. They believe the universal spirit, atman, is eternal, and as such have no need for a specific creation event. Even in Hinduism there are denominational variations. On one of my trips to Mexico (the Yucatan) I was fortunate enough to visit an old Mayan village with a beautiful mural depicting a certain understanding of Mayan creation - humans created out of Corn!

It is utterly confusing to me how you can find a coherent, consistent, non-ambiguous understanding of the bible, when not only people within the Christian belief disagree so passionately, but when people from different faiths (and cultures) can have such wildy conflicting beliefs. Curiously, apart from personal experience and personal interpretation, you can have no empirical proof that your interpretation of the process of creation is any more correct than that of your fellow Christians or the adherents of any other religions. In fact, you may all be wrong.

Since you, apparently, have a perfect interpretation of the bible, I am sure you can smugly inform all believers of other religions (and the non-religious) that Christianity is the right religion, and also inform your "sinner-Christians" about how to correctly interpret the bible to fit the right account of creation (and any other ambigious scriptural wisdom).

As for your last comment; "truth is farthest indeed from convenience". I do indeed agree. One shouldn't imagine something to be true because it gives warm and fuzzy feelings of an afterlife and an all-knowing, all-powerful deity keeping watch over us, promising everlasting life (at the expense of the torture of billions). It is far more convenient to imagine this despite the lack of evidence, than to face the cold, hard world devoid of a supernatural nanny watching over us, promising blissful reunions with our long lost loved-ones after death.