Moving that fascinating question over here, so we can let that contraceptive thread die in peace.

So what do you think? Divinely inspired, or one big plot to subjugate the masses? Somewhere in between? Discuss.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Answers

Ahhhhh ... well I think it's a hodgepodge of a whole lot of things. There's stuff in there that just feels as if it probably was divinely inspired, but a whole bunch else that's more like a record of the legends and myths of a people.

It's history, myth and philosophy all in one.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

Inspired but not dictated word-for-word. Plenty that are obviously parables or fables to instruct (Much of Genesis, possibly some of Exodus, the story of Noah---not so much for the fish-whale swallowing him as the reformation of a great Chaldean empire to Judaism, not recorded in any history we know)---and other parts that seem as literal and historical as what we know of Queen Elizabeth the First's court. I'm not a literalist, certainly, as shown by my rather impassioned defenses of evolution. (If you grant a billions-year-old Earth, it would be a miracle if evolution DIDN'T happen.)

I do find it interesting that the type of poetry that the ancient Jews favored was based on repitition rather than rhyme---so it translates rather effortlessly without losing its beauty. I don't claim that it "proves" it's divinely inspired---but it's a point in its favor.

Still there's much with great wisdom in the Qu'ran, the Bhavagad- Gita, and even, yes, the Prose Edda *grin*

My only reason for preferring the Bible to other ancient texts has to do with what I believe about the literal truth of Jesus---and which book He favored. So I believe in the Bible because of Jesus--- rather than believing in Jesus because of the Bible.

---Al of Nova Notes.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2001

I think it's a book written by and about a people who were in search of God. I don't think anyone has a unique door on the divine, and I believe there have been false starts in every people's search, including the ancient Hebrews' search. Of course it was written to "subjugate the masses," in a sense. It -- or at least the Hebrew Scriptures (we used to call it the Old Testament in Sunday school, but my Jewish friends have pointed out that it's not old to them) -- is an official history, full of clear instructions on whom to love and whom to hate. In both Testaments, there's a fair amount of propaganda and a fair amount of detail about the rituals of a daily life that I feel no obligation to share.

But I think that people who reject religion because they can't swallow the Bible whole have set up a straw man to make a tough decision easier. I think that imagining God as a sort of amalgam of the views of God presented in the 80-odd books that make up the Bible is too simple. Of course the God imagined by a semi-nomadic desert people in the ages before voting and OSHA bears little resemblance to the God we now imagine. And even the God most people imagine today is just a bigger, more powerful parental figure -- what Jung would call an archetype. I forget what wit said "God created Man in His image, and Man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."

It doesn't take a genius to imagine a more complex God Who has less in common with Man (and men) than the God presented in Billy Graham's sermons. Somehow, though, very few people seem willing to leave childhood in their conceptions of God, and their God never grows beyond a big, big powerful, invisible, immortal human who takes requests.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Well, many people that have and do read the Bible grow beyond the childhood conceptions. More often it is the doubters who have but a passing (childlike) understanding of the Bible see it in those terms. Of course, the faith of a child is an asset highly acclaimed by Christ himself. I would say, Tom, that you would be correct if you say that some preachers dumb down or reshape biblical passages to fit their personal interpretations. One thing that causes the anger to boil in me more than anything is a preacher using his authority to misguide or mislead the layperson. And, doing so out of ignorance does make it any more pallatable. If anything, it makes it less so.

I recently heard a message in which the bringer concluded that the Bible contains no contracdictory scientific information. He also made references to a round Earth, mountains beneath the sea and some other "truths" that man discovered long after the Bible was written.

Revelation and its foretellings will make you stop and think. Really, how far away are we from implanted chips? Just ask any s adopted animal from the pet shelter. As far as not being asble to buy or sell and the political 'beast' of the anti-christ - people will have to draw their own conclusions.

One other little fact I recently heard - the Bible is the only holy book that references an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent spiritual auithority that exists independant of time and space and is not limited to three dimensions. Not sure if it's true though.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

I think it's an interesting book, a potpourri of history and philosophy and all kinds of other stuff. I think it's worth reading if only to understand references in Shakespear and other things in Western Civilization. Whether or not it's divinely inspired, I don't know. An omnipotent god could inspire multiple writers to write it, I suppose.

I don't think it belongs in our laws and I get irritated with people who defend or criticize this or that based on the fact that the bible is for or against it. We're a country that was formed out of Judeo- Christian principles, but the bible isn't supposed to be the basis for our laws. Or any other holy book or religion, for htat matter.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

Normally I'd steer clear of posting in such a topic, but now I'm obsessed with the concept of a pre-OSHA and post-OSHA deity.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2001

I'm not trying to offend... I'll just preface with that.

The literal interpretation of the Bible (especially the New Testament) is a fairly new phenomenon which didn't exist in widespread practice, as it does today, until the rise of the fundamentalist movement at the turn of the century. Pastors were responsible for multiple parishes and would travel every other Sunday to be at one parish or another. (This is also where we get the phenom of Wednesday night church services - the people who were ministered to weren't able to have services on Sunday, so would have the service on Wednesday.)

With these multi-parish pastors, who were through time constraints unable to minister to their far flung flocks, there came to be a book called something to the effect of "Fundamentals of Christianity." (Thus the name fundamentalism.) This book was to teach the "fundamentals" of the church and exegeted out specific passages as reference in order to do so.

That's where we came into the huge rise of literal readings... I'm leaving out tons and tons of other facililatating factors, but these literal interpretations were brought about by this change, and some assert that the Bible was never meant to be read as such. Instead the text was meant to be both pseudo-historical and metaphorical - much the way we now view mythology today (though in the context of that it is a story meant to teach and guide... the the falsity that mythology implies.)

We hear the phrase, "well, God meant what he said when he wrote the Bible." True, but not all believe in the literal interpretation that phrase implies. First of all, the view which is counter to the literal interpretation (and predates it) is that the Bible is devinely inspired, but not dictated into the ear of an entranced scribe. (There's a famous painting depicting this...) Human error thus comes into play and that explains inconsistencies in the text.

Furthermore, before the rise of the literal interpretation, the Bible was predominantly viewed in the context of its time... the time it was written. Many stories are borrowed from other sources, appear in variation throughout the text, and other anamolies.

MY OPINION: I find it easier to view the Bible in the aforementioned context of historically fuzzy, meant to teach lesssons (but not read literally as fact), not fully truthfully dictate history as it occurred. There are certain phenomenon in the Bible which can be scientifically proven (such as Abraham's sons Isaac and Israel), but others (such as the Earth's creation in a week) which cannot. Otherwise, when I try to view it literally, I see a bunch of hogwash I want no part of. I see people a million years from now laughing at the inplausability of Jesus walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, and other assorted "supernatural" acts. Viewing as a metaphorical, at times exaggerated text, which means well, enables me to believe.

Does that make sense? I hope I offended noone who believes in a literal interpretation.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

I can respect that Grace. I don't believe in a fully literal interpretation either. Of course, we may applying our definition of literal in different ways. Mine is more of the take it in the context it was written sense.

Anyway, I have a question based on the last sentence in your last paragraph, what exactly are you enbaling yourself to believe? For me, believing that someone walked on water is a bit easier to swallow than believing that he was the actual son of God sent to Earth. And if you don't believe the latter, exactly what is there about the Bible to believe?

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

Well, you still have people taking all of the Bible literally, and working to support it with scientific explanations as well.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

If you take the bible metaphorically, then doesn't heaven become (say) the state of mind from having done the right thing? Isn't hell living with guilt of doing the wrong thing? Doesn't God become the forces of randomness or somesuch?

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001

Rudeboy - your definition of "literal" is my definition of non- literal. I take the Bible in a mostly metaphorical sense.

I have less of a problem with the Son of God, because I think of it metaphorically. That Jesus came and was so "Godly" as to be the "Son of God." Does that make sense?

I think there are mysteries within the Bible, things, which most humans will never fully understand like the origin of providence and evil; but there are also things which escape the bounds of logic such as (fellow Catholics cover your ears) ~the Virgin Birth~ that I think have to be explained methophorically, otherwise I think I'm being had.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

And Dave Van... I very much subscribe to that line of thought, which, I think at least in the western world, is thought of being more associated with eastern religion meets psychology of the human person.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2001

Read the essay @ www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Humility is of more valuable to humanity than religion.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001

(Pardon my spelling error): value

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001