....the only time people cain't understand the bible is when they don't want to
Interpretation
- Thread starter Prizebeatz1
- Start date
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Conscious Awareness..............
Conscious Awareness..............
That's been noted, but there are common themes, symbols, archetypes and principles that are common to many religious teachings, because there is a universal truth common to human experience that all souls share, an 'original reality-matrix' if you will from which all streams of wisdom flow, the Heart-source itself, call it 'God' (Deity) or any number of names/appellations. It is Absolute Truth itself that is native to all existence from which souls conceive various thoughts, ideas, conceptions. There is one fundamental reality. The Universal ONE. This is one of the principles held in Theosophy, which is recognized among many ancient and modern esoteric schools of both east and west. For an example of the principle behind the 'Unity of the world's religions' go here, from a Theosophical perspective.
I might also add that we are perhaps prejudging Prizebeatz1 since we are not certain unless hes stated what religious traditions or schools of thought hes drawing from or articulating, apart from his own personal expression of language or use of terms. Therefore I usually see how far an engagement of what I call 'creative dialogue' can go, and constructively build upon a fruitful and informative discussion thereby. One is free to contribute or leave a dialogue at any time, as it becomes a 'co-creation' of sorts. That we get to 'co-create' with God and each other via 'logos' is pretty awesome
Understood,...but some passages or doctrines could have been influenced by preceding and surrounding cultures and their philosophy, as we see the Jews did come under the influence of neighboring cultures especially those who subdued them ( Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece,...here I speak of the OT particularly,.....the NT has its share of cross-cultural influence, as it would be impossible not to have any, especially Paul of all people who grew up in a pagan city and mixed many elements from different schools combined with his own 'personal revelations' to create his own 'gospel').
Also, we are generalizing a bit here apart from actually addressing specific passages and their 'interpretation', for an actual 'hands-on demonstration' to test our propositions. In fact thru-out this discussion so far, I'm not sure any specific examples of text have been engaged to any lengthy degree,...I could be wrong.
I like using the word 'hogwash' too at times. As touched on earlier, Theosophy and other schools of esoteric philosophy include a concept of the unity of all world religions on certain fundamental principles that underly its exoteric teachings and mythology. This requires a much deeper study of course for those willing to invest it. Now while there may be notable differences between Christianity and Buddhism,...there are also some common themes and correlaries,...some of Jesus teachings in the gospels are somewhat similar to Buddhas in moral and ethical principle.
Similarities between Buddha and Jesus
There are other traditions of Jesus having visited India during the 'lost years' period (ages 12 - 30 ish) as he travelled the world, so that he may have studied with Hindu and Buddhist teachers during that time. We had a thread on the 'lost years' and 'Jesus in India',...that may be another new thread idea :idea:
Yes, to one degree or another. The splinter groups within each major world religious tradition or culture are also interesting. As I used to preside over our former 'Hinduism' thread in studies of its various schools, I was beginning to delve deeper into the schools of Buddhism, but some of these endeavors were postponed for one reason or another with other pursuits. Granted among the dharmic religions, both Hinduism and Buddhism have wonderfully rich heritage of some of the deeper truths of existence, particularly the Vedic tradition, from which Advaita Vedanta springs, giving us the deeper truth of 'non-duality', from which some Buddhist schools such as zen also touch a deep resonance. But perhaps I digress.
We see in Judaism and Christianity both anciently and in modern times many different sects/denominations within each tradition,...showing that even these religions holding to a particular holy book, have different interpretations thereof. While a spiritual unity may be had among a religious community, an intellectual uniformity may not exist, since given the variety of human intellect and philosophical disposition one may gravitate to one school of thought or another. It is natural that different schools or classes exist within a university, but the university is still one, its just like a book with different chapters. Of course we could play with analogies and various metaphors here.
Conscious Awareness..............
That's been noted, but there are common themes, symbols, archetypes and principles that are common to many religious teachings, because there is a universal truth common to human experience that all souls share, an 'original reality-matrix' if you will from which all streams of wisdom flow, the Heart-source itself, call it 'God' (Deity) or any number of names/appellations. It is Absolute Truth itself that is native to all existence from which souls conceive various thoughts, ideas, conceptions. There is one fundamental reality. The Universal ONE. This is one of the principles held in Theosophy, which is recognized among many ancient and modern esoteric schools of both east and west. For an example of the principle behind the 'Unity of the world's religions' go here, from a Theosophical perspective.
I might also add that we are perhaps prejudging Prizebeatz1 since we are not certain unless hes stated what religious traditions or schools of thought hes drawing from or articulating, apart from his own personal expression of language or use of terms. Therefore I usually see how far an engagement of what I call 'creative dialogue' can go, and constructively build upon a fruitful and informative discussion thereby. One is free to contribute or leave a dialogue at any time, as it becomes a 'co-creation' of sorts. That we get to 'co-create' with God and each other via 'logos' is pretty awesome
Understood,...but some passages or doctrines could have been influenced by preceding and surrounding cultures and their philosophy, as we see the Jews did come under the influence of neighboring cultures especially those who subdued them ( Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece,...here I speak of the OT particularly,.....the NT has its share of cross-cultural influence, as it would be impossible not to have any, especially Paul of all people who grew up in a pagan city and mixed many elements from different schools combined with his own 'personal revelations' to create his own 'gospel').
Also, we are generalizing a bit here apart from actually addressing specific passages and their 'interpretation', for an actual 'hands-on demonstration' to test our propositions. In fact thru-out this discussion so far, I'm not sure any specific examples of text have been engaged to any lengthy degree,...I could be wrong.
I like using the word 'hogwash' too at times. As touched on earlier, Theosophy and other schools of esoteric philosophy include a concept of the unity of all world religions on certain fundamental principles that underly its exoteric teachings and mythology. This requires a much deeper study of course for those willing to invest it. Now while there may be notable differences between Christianity and Buddhism,...there are also some common themes and correlaries,...some of Jesus teachings in the gospels are somewhat similar to Buddhas in moral and ethical principle.Similarities between Buddha and Jesus
There are other traditions of Jesus having visited India during the 'lost years' period (ages 12 - 30 ish) as he travelled the world, so that he may have studied with Hindu and Buddhist teachers during that time. We had a thread on the 'lost years' and 'Jesus in India',...that may be another new thread idea :idea:
Yes, to one degree or another. The splinter groups within each major world religious tradition or culture are also interesting. As I used to preside over our former 'Hinduism' thread in studies of its various schools, I was beginning to delve deeper into the schools of Buddhism, but some of these endeavors were postponed for one reason or another with other pursuits. Granted among the dharmic religions, both Hinduism and Buddhism have wonderfully rich heritage of some of the deeper truths of existence, particularly the Vedic tradition, from which Advaita Vedanta springs, giving us the deeper truth of 'non-duality', from which some Buddhist schools such as zen also touch a deep resonance. But perhaps I digress.
We see in Judaism and Christianity both anciently and in modern times many different sects/denominations within each tradition,...showing that even these religions holding to a particular holy book, have different interpretations thereof. While a spiritual unity may be had among a religious community, an intellectual uniformity may not exist, since given the variety of human intellect and philosophical disposition one may gravitate to one school of thought or another. It is natural that different schools or classes exist within a university, but the university is still one, its just like a book with different chapters. Of course we could play with analogies and various metaphors here.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Author intent behind religous writing.....whats the agenda?
Author intent behind religous writing.....whats the agenda?
Well,...understanding the Bible would include learning the culture, thoughts, intents and agenda of the various bible writers (authors) would it not? That takes a little more study and investment than most 'hand-me-down' religionists are willing to put into it, since they are probably more comfortable to just take whats fed to them by tradition, you know...the usual religious programming.
For a really objective look into what the authors of the OT were trying to communicate try 'What is the Bible?' for starters. - this scholar tries to see the reasons behind 'bible contradictions' looking into what purpose the texts were written for, in the greater context of what could be considered 'religious narratives' rather than actual historical events. Its a fascinating study.
Any given text must of course be taken first 'literally', but how its interpreted is what is key, and a passage that is nonsensical/illogical/impossible to take literally must obviously be taken 'figuratively'.
Author intent behind religous writing.....whats the agenda?
Well,...understanding the Bible would include learning the culture, thoughts, intents and agenda of the various bible writers (authors) would it not? That takes a little more study and investment than most 'hand-me-down' religionists are willing to put into it, since they are probably more comfortable to just take whats fed to them by tradition, you know...the usual religious programming.
For a really objective look into what the authors of the OT were trying to communicate try 'What is the Bible?' for starters. - this scholar tries to see the reasons behind 'bible contradictions' looking into what purpose the texts were written for, in the greater context of what could be considered 'religious narratives' rather than actual historical events. Its a fascinating study.
Any given text must of course be taken first 'literally', but how its interpreted is what is key, and a passage that is nonsensical/illogical/impossible to take literally must obviously be taken 'figuratively'.
Prizebeatz1
New member
I don't think you know me very well. Of course I understand the Bible. I was a devout Catholic who studied the bible for 35 years and graduated from Emory University. Surely I am more than capable. I like most everyone else took it literally because that is all I was taught. I depended on my intellect to get to the truth but God doesn't speak to us through the mind. He speaks to us through the heart. I do understand the purpose of interpretation. That is so basic, so elementary. It doesn't change the fact that the common interpretation comes from man and not from God. In effect, our understanding of the Bible is not infallible.
No one can claim to have the one and only true interpretation but believe me, I took what the church told me as solid gold. Unfortunately the church left out the most important piece which is the soul, the crown of life, the cornerstone, the infinite and eternal part of us. It's qualities are of a purity of a much higher order than what the personality can conceive, it is miraculous in its ability to heal unconscious lack of self-worth, it has been spit upon, judged, trampled and treated as insignificant in favor of something more palatable to the masses, yet it still lives. It's not a coincidence that the story of Jesus so closely resembles the soul. There is no replacement.
Prizebeatz1
New member
I'm saying you are in the same camp that you condemn. Why the hypocrisy?
I take the bible literally, I only condemn folks who wilfully misinterpret it... there is no hypocrisy
The bible speaks about being saved and I am saved, the bible speaks about being born again and I am born again, the bible speaks about filled with the Holy Ghost and I am filled with the Holy Ghost,
the bible speaks about being healed and I was healed, the bible speaks about God being a very present help in need and He is so. The bible speaks about Christ being a Friend who sticketh closer than a brother and I have found Him to be so.
What have YOU got?
The bible speaks about being saved and I am saved, the bible speaks about being born again and I am born again, the bible speaks about filled with the Holy Ghost and I am filled with the Holy Ghost,
the bible speaks about being healed and I was healed, the bible speaks about God being a very present help in need and He is so. The bible speaks about Christ being a Friend who sticketh closer than a brother and I have found Him to be so.
What have YOU got?
If you don't mind me saying so this is a bunch of horseshine
A summary of the OT is love God with all your heart and soul and mind, a summary of the NT is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
What didn't you understand?
Cruciform
New member
On this topic, I would highly recommend the following excellent texts:
Last edited:
Prizebeatz1
New member
The soul. More accurately, the soul has me.
Prizebeatz1
New member
With all due respect, I'm sure he understands the premise. I also have a hunch he has outgrown the idea that there is only one interpretation of the Bible or that there is only one sacred scripture to be found in all the history of mankind. Timothy 3:16-17 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." If we take this literally then we have to include not just the Bible as scripture, but the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Book of Mormon, A Course in Miracles, etc. The personality is going to find this distasteful so maybe we can learn a lesson from locking ourselves in a prison of literalness.
Also, why should we give away our right to decide for ourselves what a scripture means to us? Is that not important? Did we unconsciously give away our power to discern to someone who we think has the answers without really trying to find out for ourselves because it's much easier than the alternative? Jesus said the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Has not the same principle come into play here where the rules and standards have manipulated, controlled and molded us to someone's benefit? Who profits from this? Have we unknowingly given away our freedom to think for ourselves in favor of gaining approval from our peers or in favor of avoiding the unknown? Are we proud of the interpretation we believe because it gives us comfort and solace in the face of not actually knowing what the scriptures actually mean? Isn't it tempting to grab for the low hanging fruit rather than be left with what seems to be nothing? Do we fear having to face the emptiness inside us because we will judge it as bad or wrong? Can such a fear come from God or is it more likely our internalized authority figures?
Isn't having to conform to society's standards painful after a while when we intuit that something is missing from our lives? Isn't there a hatred for ourself for agreeing that our being is entirely sinful? Don't we resent being made to feel less than who and what we really are? Doesn't that resentment and hatred cause us to lash out violently and then judge ourselves for such a reaction for not being able to figure out what is wrong? Can't we tell that its violent because it hurts? Can't we tall that other people are going through the same thing and reacting with warfare? Why can't we ever feel good enough? Isn't the prideful puffed up attitude caused by lack of self-worth? Isn't that a symptom of trying to overcompensate for something? Where do we get our self-worth from if not from the soul? Perhaps we feel we have no choice but to hold on to beliefs because we feel like we would disintegrate if were to let go. As scary as it seems, perhaps that would be the beginning to becoming one with infinity and eternity? Remember Luke 17:33 "Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it."
Last edited:
csuguy
Well-known member
I don't claim to know you well - but I have seen from what you have written here just how well you understand the scriptures. You don't understand how love is central to the scriptures/Christianity, or what it means when scripture speaks of living spiritually as opposed to leading a worldly life, and you try to infuse into the scriptures Buddhist ideas that are clearly contradictory to what the scriptures teach.
Lumping yourself in with most people confirms that you never truly studied the scriptures or theology in all that time. You may have gone to church and learned your denominations standard doctrinal positions - but that is not the same as seriously studying the scriptures to understand what they teach, what Christ and the early Christians taught and believed. Like most people you blindly accepted what was taught at the pulpit. Now that you've learned that the approach of blindly following what they say is erroneous, you've gone to another extreme - even abandoning the intellect as you say.
God speaks to us in many ways; the heart and the mind. We in turn are called to love him with all our heart, soul, and mind - our everything. God is love, but God is also wise and the architect of all that is. King Solomon asked for wisdom to lead God's people, and God was so pleased with this that he blessed him with much more. The proverbs tell us to get wisdom; though it costs all you have, get understanding. Furthermore, God invites us to come and reason with him. You are foolish to abandon the intellect with the hope of finding truth.
If you understand the purpose of interpretation then you can understand why what you have done by interpreting scripture by means of infusing into it foreign religions and philosophies is wrong.
And of course our understanding of the scriptures are not infallible; yet that does not mean we should not try to understand them, or that our pursuit is in vain. Your approach of abandoning the intellect certainly isn't going to solve this problem - it's simply going to consistently give you erroneous results.
Again - what you say here demonstrates that you, as an average Christian, never truly studied scripture and theology over your 35 years. You accepted what your denomination said, you didn't question the preacher. By no means is this unique - most people fall into this mindset. Many never escape this mindset. Others eventually escape, and when they do they go to some other extreme as you have done. It's human nature I suppose.
I suppose I'm unique in that I have always loved theology, but never cared for the church environment - and wasn't really raised in the church. Nor was I raised as part of a particular denomination - though I was raised Protestant in a general sense - so it never troubled me to question what they taught. By the end of high school I was taking on doctrines like the Trinity and starting to dive into the writings of the Church Fathers. Indeed, I spent a good amount of my undergrad studying and debating the Trinity, and for my BA in Religious Studies I wrote a paper on the Trinity and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
So I understand and encourage questioning and studying these things for yourself; I have never really been one to follow whatever they preached at the pulpit - but have always been motivated to study these things for myself. And I do so logically, challenging them from the scriptures and church history that they like to claim they represent.
csuguy
Well-known member
At the surface there are some common themes, but at their cores these different religions and philosophies are often fundamentally opposed. For example, above you speak of souls. Christianity agrees with the existence of souls. However, one of the fundamental tenants of Buddhism states that there is no-soul, no permanent self. Thus, while you might be inspired by some of Buddhisms teachings - if your beliefs include the conception of souls then you are fundamentally at odds with Buddhism. If you adopt the Buddhist conception of letting go of all desire and attachment, then you are fundamentally at odds with Christianity, which is rooted in love for God and your fellowman. So study away - but it is impossible for you to truly merge these opposing belief systems together. All you will do is create a new belief system that is incompatible with the ones you claimed to be inspired by.
I might also add that we are perhaps prejudging Prizebeatz1 since we are not certain unless hes stated what religious traditions or schools of thought hes drawing from or articulating, apart from his own personal expression of language or use of terms. Therefore I usually see how far an engagement of what I call 'creative dialogue' can go, and constructively build upon a fruitful and informative discussion thereby. One is free to contribute or leave a dialogue at any time, as it becomes a 'co-creation' of sorts. That we get to 'co-create' with God and each other via 'logos' is pretty awesome
I'm not prejudging anyone; I've only addressed what he has stated of his beliefs and background.
Of course there can be - and are - cross-overs between different cultures, religions, and philosophies. Being able to identify where this occurs is part of what goes into understanding the context from which the author is writing. But you can't blindly assume such things; you need to be able to objectively argue why and how some culture/religion/philosophy influenced the author. There is no good reason to think Jesus or his disciples were Buddhists or influenced by Buddhism.
While I have presented some passages; prizebeatz1 misunderstands what it means to interpret something or why you interpret. Indeed, it seems that a proper interpretation is beyond his reach at this point - as he claims to have given up on logic as a valid means of understanding God/truth. He's the feel good type; which is rather incompatible with my logical personality (INTP).
I don't mind the idea that there maybe common principles/themes/etc. behind the various world religions. But if you are going to pursue it then it should be approached logically, and honestly. Which means not just recognizing the similarities - but also recognizing where there are fundamental differences that make a pair of religions incompatible.
Finding some superfiscial similarities doesn't erase their core conflicts. Trying to link what Jesus says concerning love with Buddhists passages about loving-kindness and such is laughable. As we have discussed in the past, love in the Christian sense in incompatible with the Buddhist idea of loving-kindness. By seeking to let go of all attachments and desires, love in the Christian sense is impossible for the practicing Buddhist. They can't care about others in any meaningful sense or act for the sake of another - lest they produce karma, which prevents them from reaching Nirvana and escaping Samsara.
There's nothing in the scriptures to suggest a Hindu/Buddhist influence on his teachings; rather his teachings are fundamentally opposed to their teachings. Things like that website you linked to above rely upon the reader seeing similar words while being ignorant of what is meant by each.
Also, they try to suggest that Christ was influenced by Buddhism for things like saying you need to love others as yourself - completely ignoring the fact that he was quoting the Law, which Jesus knew by his Jewish heritage. Such a source cannot be taken seriously.
Don't be stupid
Paul was not speaking about the Koran, there was no Koran...or book of Mormon
No it is not important what scripture means to me, it is important for me to know what God meant when He spoke through Moses or the prophets, or through His Son or His apostles....nor is it difficult to discern if you desire truth.
If you are in that resentful frame which you describe and I think you are then yes you do have a problem...I didn't have a problem because God shows the way out, YOUR problem is you don't like God's way out. You don't want to die to self...you WILL die to self mate.
I chose death to self now in return for the heavenly life in the soul, if you die in your sin you'll die in that mess you describe yourself as being in.
You will die a rebel
The soul of itself [unguided by God's Spirit] is the devil's playground....he is your angel of light, illumination.
Prizebeatz1
New member
First of all I am not advocating abandoning the mind and the intellect. They simply take a back seat to the infinite intelligence of the heart. I have studied much but it wasn't until I was willing to give up dependence on my mind to stay alive that I found true life. The mind is a tool that I've learned to put down when I am done using it. Otherwise it ends up using me instead. I think independent study of what other people have written down or have said about this subject or that subject is a bit different than accessing the guiding wisdom of the heart. Notice how the mind tends to pull us into unconscious judgment which is biting of the forbidden fruit associated with the downfall of mankind. I see you think I'm wrong for having the guts to formulate my own opinion and stand in my own truth. What's really wrong is the way we unconsciously give up our right to develop and use our own capacity to discern the meaning of the scriptures for ourselves. There is no rule saying that we cannot take the best from all religions and use them for our own good. Are we the masters of religion or is religion the master of us? The personality is divisive, quarreling, at odds with duality and the splits inside of itself while the soul is unifying, indivisible, whole, one, with integrity. Which one is the true self?
And why should we allow the incompatibility of different religions to dominate us instead of the harmony between them? Are we allowing the personality to run the show? We get so inundated with this hostile, harsh and judging attitude through conditioning from the civilization process when we are children. We hardly ever question the effects of restriction, constraint, limitation, division, conflict, violence, hatred and destruction it has inflicted upon humanity. It seems normal after a while. There are unconscious forces at play that we need to address. The enemy prefers we not become aware of this. The collective personality, the group identity, the public conscious, the aggregate of institutions such as churches and commercial enterprises profit off of keeping us ignorant of these kind of things. We get to the point where we forfeit our own soul, the connection to divinity, in order to keep the fabric of civilization alive. It has turned into a monster which has secretly been devouring our self-worth for centuries. Should we continue to pass this down to our children and the future generations? We need to wake up.
Last edited:
The Holy Spirit (Spirit of Truth) is the guide, is a feeling.
Do you know the feeling?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
According to whom? There are still issues of 'translation' and 'interpretation'. All 'translations' of an original language into another, suffer from some 'distortion' from the original. 'Interpretation' further distorts, so that all 'interpretations' are more or less relative.
I repeat. Scripture can only mean what scripture meant. The meaning will always be revealed to the redeemed, regenerate and repentant sinners as, when and if they need it. The rest of you are kept in the dark.
There is also the potential of purposeful manipulation of the text. There has certainly been opportunities and motives over the last 6000 years or so.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL