The Gospel according to Judas

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Bear with me. You obviously are more immersed in the subject than I but I'll try to present my case.

I have read that certain sects of Judaism believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible (OT) through Qabbalah; in that, it was a secret doctrine or book passed from God to the holy priests, and it was "encoded" -- in much the same way the tetragrammaton is "encoded" -- through gematria and other numerological systems to preserve it's "truth".

Correct.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Now, that's not really where I'm going (I don't care for numerology), but since I read that it really germinated the idea in my head that the Bible was non-literal: that is, meant to be "interpreted", such as is done through priests in the Catholic faith. Like parables, you know? It makes far more sense to me to suggest that many of the events in the Bible are not unlike our modern mythologies.

Well...Sort of.
the authors who originally told and then wrote down the traditions which became scripture almost certainly believed in their veracity. But the handling of the traditions almost certainly changed in time, as part of the interpretive process. I believe that prior to the destruction of Herod's temple, the sacred narratives, prophecies, litugies and wisdom traditions were constantly being re-worked through a process of adaptation and contemporization. It was not until after the Temple—and the institutional foundation of ancient Judaism—was destroyed that the idea of unalterable, "sacred" writings was really cemented for Jews and Christians.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

A quick example here. Spiderman is not real, but he represents much of the way modern North-Americans think. It is romantic to think that, because life is so "ordinary" for many people, something truly exceptional can happen to an individual so that they can make a real difference on the world. Now imagine that there was some massive breakdown of modern society, and only some information was recovered say two hundred years in the future. It's not so hard to believe that those recovering the information would think Spiderman was actually a real entity, is it? Similarly, it's not so hard to believe that two thousand years ago, stories and second-hand accounts of the life of Jesus were re-interpreted, exaggerated, and changed. Or that a particularly bad storm became a huge storm, then an epic storm, and then that God flooded the entire earth. Even given the different dates at which the different books of the New Testament were written, there are some discrepancies. When one book (I forget which) is written in like 130AD and the rest much earlier, and given the non-ideal record keeping systems of the time, human fallibilities play a significant role.

I have actually used similar examples to your Spiderman one in classes that I have taught in the past. There is no question that the biblical texts (all of them!) have undergone extensive revision subject to poliical, sociological and theological forces. Because of this, most are skeptical about their historicity. I share some of the skepticism, but because of the paucity of sources in hand to accuratley reconstruct early Church history, or ancient Israelite history, we are dependant upon the biblical accounts to provide us insight into the periods in which they were written, and the evnts which they purport to have recorded. In many instances, while the manuscript copies are far removed from the actual "autographs" there are internal clues to a composition's age such as grammar and spelling, political outlook, and cultural descriptions. IN the cases of most of the NT books, we can be certain that they largely originated in the mid-to-late first century C.E. Because of so many of these internal consistencies, SOME validity must be afforded to the historical accuracy of the synoptic gospels in particular, and at least half of the Pauline epistles.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

A certain amount of leniency must be afforded those who wrote the Bible as their experiences would be extremely colored by the way human beings thought in that part of the world at that time. What may be an easily explainable meteorological phenomenon now may seem like God raining fire from the Heavens. What might have been just a powerful storm or tsunami might appear to be God flooding the world. When every event is colored by the presence of the divine, one has to expect that the same event would look massively different to a North American in 2006 AD than a Mesopotamian two thousand years ago.

So...yeah, that's my case for why I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. A little bit disjointed, but it's 12:30 AM.

I absolutely agree for the most part. Although I do appreciate much from the Bible as accurate representation of history (the accounts of the raids of Senechrib and the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem have proven to be very accurate; as well as the descriptions of Herod's reign, Roman occupation and the Temple establishment in the Gospels and Paul). I prefer the distinction "non-literal application" to "non-literal interpretation".

[Vulcan]

I've read the bible a couple of times and although I don't study it or belong to any religion, I believe in god.
In the bible it says "Eyes to see and ears to hear" and I suggest we each use our own to find what meaning the bible or any of the religious scriptures from any religion has to us. Just the phrase I mentioned can be interpreted at different levels but I like to take it that there is no final answer as it will change as I grow.

[liamenator]

Let me just say that it is refreshing to see such a relatively civil and intelligent debate/discussion of such a complex and controversial subject take place.

Sometimes I wish the hockey debates on the other board could be fashioned in such a way!

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The only ones who like to interpret the Bible literaly are fundamentalists and atheists.

Proof please.

The theological basis of the belief, in its simplest form, is that as God is infallible, the Bible, as the Word of God, must also be free from error. A more nuanced restatement of the same idea is that God inspired the authors of the Bible without marginalizing their personal concerns or personalities, and so preserved the texts from error. (See Biblical inspiration).
Roman Catholic teaching holds that the resurrection of Christ affirms his divinity, and Christ in turn appointed the Pope, or the body of Bishops led by the Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, to offer infallible guidance on questions of faith and morals whose answers are found within the Word of God, comprising both sacred tradition and sacred scripture. But some liberal Roman Catholics do not affirm that the Bible is without error, even when interpreted correctly by the Pope or tradition.

The Catholic position

The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the infallibility of the Bible is contained in Dei Verbum, one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965. It states that "everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit" and that "they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He [God] wanted." (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, n. 11).
Dei Verbum reaffirms a well-known and often-quoted statement by Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893), that "...all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely ... at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).
Nevertheless, the Church does not adopt a literalist approach to inerrancy, but holds that, although every biblical passage is true and inerrant when correctly interpreted, the authority to decide correct interpretation rests with the Church through its magisterium.

Biblical Inerrancy

[SaskaBushFire]

Ahh Religion, the sure fire way to pick a fight, even with a monk!

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes it is.
Thank you.

My cousin was charged by a grizzly bear not far from there (that area is thick with Grizzlies). No divine voice warned my cousin. Why not?

And if you were indeed warned by a god(s), how do you know which one it was?

wikipedia:

Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as:
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates to:
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities

I have fished myself at Burn's Lake (a lovely spot). I have no doubt that sound could carry very far there.

Isn't it far more likely:

1) you were warned at a distance by another human at the lake; or

2) someone in your group made the statement; or

2) you did not hear what you think you heard?

Does God intervene?

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_ess..._questions.asp

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The only ones who like to interpret the Bible literaly are fundamentalists and atheists.

haha!! Good one. It's true!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Proof please.








Biblical Inerrancy

My proof is in your answer.
You use the fundamentalist Catholic church to attack the bible. I don't blame you though, fundamentalists are easy targets.
The Catholic church is clever though, they seem to allow themselves an out by saying that the Pope can interpret scripture any way he wants. Gives them more power and gives them an out if cornered.

Me, I'm my own pope and I'm willing to have my interpretations change. Even if you could prove Jesus never existed it wouldn't change my own experience or the inspiration I get from various writings. I like history, so I would be curious as to what really happened in those times though.
Thanks for the article.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

My cousin was charged by a grizzly bear not far from there (that area is thick with Grizzlies). No divine voice warned my cousin. Why not?

While I cannot speak on behalf of God, the grizzly or your cousin, perhaps God just doesn't like him very much?

Originally Posted by troutman

And if you were indeed warned by a god(s), how do you know which one it was?

I don't believe there is a pantheon of 'gods', only different and varied concepts of perceiving the divine. While I worship the Christian expression of who God is, who am I to say that he is entirely distinct from another's abstraction of the supernatural? Anywhere from 95%–99% of the entire earth's population believes in the supernatural; whether or not anyone on this planet has a perfect understanding of it is really beside the point that there is millennia of cultural substance behind this universally accepted notion.

Originally Posted by troutman

Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as:
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates to:
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities

I am familiar with Occam's razor, which is a great standard for conducting anayltical research. I find it difficult to embrace the same principles when they fail to provide an explanation to life's many conundrums.

Originally Posted by troutman

I have fished myself at Burn's Lake (a lovely spot). I have no doubt that sound could carry very far there.

Isn't it far more likely:

1) you were warned at a distance by another human at the lake; or

2) someone in your group made the statement; or

2) you did not hear what you think you heard?

Does God intervene?

IF you do not believe in the supernatural, then I would concede that the above three instances would qualify as "far more likely". Because I do not, your explanations do little to convince me otherwise.
It's a funny thing about faith. Either you have it or you don't. There is (unusally) no convincing those who have it to reject it, and likewise for those who disdain it to understand and to accept it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's a funny thing about faith. Either you have it or you don't. There is (unusally) no convincing those who have it to reject it, and likewise for those who disdain it to understand and to accept it.

Thanks for your response. I don't mean to ridicule your experience. Your story is fascinating. I hope it is what you believe it to be. It is a comforting thought. But, why wouldn't god intervene before every tragedy?

I'm not against studying religion. I do have trouble with people taking religious dogma literally.

How can anything be supernatural? The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. - Carl Sagan

I like what Joseph Campbell has to say:

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
-- Joseph Campbell

Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts -- but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. Myth tells you what the experience is.
-- Joseph Campbell

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by FireFly

What would you say if your kids told you they'd decided to become Christian?

*Ahe*Ahem*

Cheese? I do believe I directed this at you and while you laughed at me for not responding, (to a question that wasn't even directed at me I might add,) I shall respect my elders and refrain from such a tactic.


I will add on to that question, 'or that they believe in ANY God?'

[Clarkey]

Cheese, aren't you a staunch humanist? If so you are part of a religion you religious zealot you. I just thought I'd point that out because I think it's funny. No hard feelings, just busting your balls.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

If you don't believe in any sort of god, why do some people believe you are automatically an atheist or humanist or something else?

Is it possible to just be..........nothing?

Not directed at anyone in particular, just curious.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

If you don't believe in any sort of god, why do some people believe you are automatically an atheist or humanist or something else?

Is it possible to just be..........nothing?

Not directed at anyone in particular, just curious.

Good one. Because people like labels and thus can put you in a convenient box?
It should be enough, just to be a human being.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

*Ahe*Ahem*

Cheese? I do believe I directed this at you and while you laughed at me for not responding, (to a question that wasn't even directed at me I might add,) I shall respect my elders and refrain from such a tactic.


I will add on to that question, 'or that they believe in ANY God?'

sorry Fly...real busy...and out of town all day today...if my old mind remembers ill get to it tomorrow.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Cheese, aren't you a staunch humanist? If so you are part of a religion you religious zealot you. I just thought I'd point that out because I think it's funny. No hard feelings, just busting your balls.

prove what you say. dont pee into the wind...because it usually flys back into your face.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Cheese

prove what you say. dont pee into the wind...because it usually flys back into your face.

You have written about it on here on more than one occasion.

[troutman]

Secular humanism is not a religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

There are a number of ways in which secular and religious humanism can differ:[2]

• Religious humanists may value rituals and ceremonies as means of affirming their life stance. Secular humanists are typically not interested in using rituals and ceremonies.
• Some religious humanists may seek profound "religious" experiences, such as those that others would associate with the presence of God, despite interpreting these experiences differently. Secular humanists would generally not pursue such experiences.
• Some varieties of nontheistic religious humanism may conceive of the word divine as more than metaphoric even in the absence of a belief in a traditional God; they may believe in ideals that transcend physical reality; or they may conceive of some experiences as "numinous" or uniquely religious. Secular humanism regards all such terms as, at best, metaphors for truths rooted in the material world.
• Some varieties of religious humanism, such as Christian humanism include belief in God, traditionally defined. Secular humanism is skeptical about God and the supernatural and believes that these are not useful concepts for addressing human problems.

By the 1970s the term was embraced by some humanists who, although critical of religion in its various guises, were deliberately non-religious, as opposed to anti-religious, which means that their humanism has nothing to do with spiritual, religious, or ecclesiastical doctrines, beliefs, or power structures. This is how "secular humanism" is most commonly understood by humanists today.

[Clarkey]

Well it's a registered religion in the U.S.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

Thanks for your response. I don't mean to ridicule your experience. Your story is fascinating. I hope it is what you believe it to be. It is a comforting thought. But, why wouldn't god intervene before every tragedy?

I am a big fan of civility. You're a class act.
As for the old "why do bad things happen to good people?" argument, I prefer the words of William Shatner doing his best impression of Captain James T. Kirk: "I don't want you to take my pain away; I NEED MY PAIN" ~ Star Trek V: The Undiscovered Country
I believe people misconstrue pain, suffering, and tragedy too often with evil. Pain and suffering are a necessary part of living, and as unpleasant and unpopular a position as it is, I maintain with conviction that our most profound and meaningful spiritual and metaphysical experiences reside in the embrace of pain. Ultimately—and without going into great detail—my relationships with family, friends, and God is healthier and more enriching because of my perseverence through moments and seasons of profound suffering.

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not against studying religion. I do have trouble with people taking religious dogma literally.

If there were no people who took "dogma" seriously (I will abstain from the misapplication of "literally", as it has been long recognized by the Catholic Church and most mainstream religious groups that there is a "mystery" inherent in faith that depends on an analogous or figurative interpretation fo the literature), there simply would be no study of religion. the study of religion is very much related to the study of culture, as religion is perhaps best described as the epitome of cutural expression. Religion is responsible for many of the most spectacular of human acheivements, and reciprocally so many of the most horrific human tragedies. Religion is rooted in passion, and it is one of the few distinctions of humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Originally Posted by troutman

How can anything be supernatural? The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. - Carl Sagan

With respect to Sagan, the is no assurance that our understanding of the cosmos is complete. I am sure he would agree that knowledge and consciousness is perpetual, which means that there will ALWAYS be something (or someOne?) just beyond the grasp of our intelligence. Religion is simply an expression of the mystery of existence and the cosmos.

Originally Posted by troutman

I like what Joseph Campbell has to say:

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
-- Joseph Campbell

Exactly. But the supposition that religion has no meaning or function or accuracy is rooted in the conviction that humanity will overcome this transcendence. I am acutely aware that I will never be in a position to know or to understand everything, and in this void of uncertainty is wher my faith takes root.

Originally Posted by troutman

Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts -- but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. Myth tells you what the experience is.
-- Joseph Campbell

I like it, and I tend to agree. But I do not see how Campbell's observations preclude the fundamental need of most for religious expression.