Why don't you believe the bible is the inspired word of God?

..

 

Religions are born out of an attempt to perpetuate the teachings of God realized people.

It can't be done.

Only a living person can transmit the word of God. Only those people have the ability to correct the path. Books can never do this. The are hard and cold and static. They do not change.

A spiritual master can see inside you. Shape the lesson to your personal needs, and correct any deviation that may arise.

Religion is a fast food version of the truth. It lacks true spiritual nutrition.

The bible is useful for living within a society as it teaches rightful conduct among your brothers and sisters, but it will not deliver you to the Kingdom. You must walk there on your own. And your best guide will be someone who has already made the journey and returned from it.

Your book just sits there.


x

 

glossolalia

 

There's truth in parts of the Bible. A lot of it, esp. the OT is entirely out of date and actually dangerous for modern humans IMO. We just can't go on with the agenda of tribal war backed by a tribal war god which much of it emphasizes so much.
Nor can we really give much credence to statements like 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', or really believe in some causistry which says it doesn't really mean it.

Its also a somewhat horrible thing to have at the centre of one's religion an image of a man nailed to a cross. It gives a kind of undertone to Christianity which is always going to be sombre, heavy, joyless. The ancients had many nasty forms of punishment, mostly we try not to dwell on them. So why traumatize any further generations of children with this barbaric image?

When the Red Army was advancing into Germany at the end of WW II, they crucified literally thousands of Germans. Wonder where they got the idea from?

Also there are numerous other scriptures from other more spiritually developed cultures - yet most Christians insist their book is somehow better or more divinely inspired.

 

i don't think the bible is the word of god, because god doesn't write books.

 

Glossolalia is not babble like you see in churches.

It means that mystics who have had a direct encounter with the divine are unable to effectively tell people outside themselves what they have experienced. It won't make any sense to them, eventhough the language is the same.


x

 

My thing is the Nicene Convention if it is the word of God shouldn't it all be there, i believe it is to corrupted by man, from the very begining people have picked and pulled untill they got what they wanted, ever heard of the dead sea scrolls, there might be stuff in there that would compeletly change your religion, but you will never know because the Vatican isn't gonna let that happen. What about when King James commisioned his version, he left out 8 chapters because they were just geneaology and history.

 

In Barthesian terms, this is as true of The Bible as any other text. Everyone takes something different away. Call it a holy book, and people will take away religious views, rather than just opinions, but that's the only difference I can see.

I can't explain to you why anyone could possibly doubt whether the Bible is "the inspired word of God". I'd have thought that would be pretty obvious, so if you can't figure it out from the available evidence I can only imagine that you're incapable.

 

Also: The Cocteau Twins.

 

I made the remark about the book of Revelations, the question really is, why should i believe it? what does it have to do with the father, the son or the holy spirit? nothing... i dont understand why one shouldn't be allowed to consider the source of the material... just because some one sais it is truth doesn't make it so.

Revelations doesn't teach anything, it is all fear mongoring and the vatican probably thought made a nice ending. But what does it have to do with the teachings of Jesus? What more does it add to the explanation of nature of Yahweh? nothing!

Jesus didn't write the bible man did, so the only important parts of the NT are the parts that are directly about the life and teachings of Christ. The OT needs to be understood in context but personaly i believe it is true but not on a literal level.

 

Enlightenment comes from within, not from some external source. You honestly believe that the various churches over the years haven't twisted Jesus' words to suit they're agenda?

 

..

 

if god were actually making sure a text was true he'd be making sure that everyone interpreted it correctly, too, and not just a clerical elite. Millions of ppl throughout history have touched divinity and they usually want to communicate it, and books get canonized as a result. but the experience does not come to you through ancient texts, it comes from you and if you want scripture you can write your own after you touch samadhi, but don't expect anyone to understand it like you do.

Jesus' disciples wrote time and again that they did not understand what jesus said (parables, etc), and then they wrote the gospels a dozen years later. The meaning was lost before it even reached their ears when they heard Jesus speak, much more so recollecting it years later, especially since we tend to embellish things we remember. I think if Jesus were here today he'd be nauseated that ppl having been worshipping him as a savior, esp. seeing all the things done in his name

 

I got a differen't message, God wants us to know him because he is jeleaous. As for Jesus (the loving part of God) he said the kingdom of heaven is within... so again i got a different message.

You know what the difference is between you and me? you think you know what every one else should believe, i do not.

 

word of god is the way things flow into these harmonic shapes.....

 

You may have been reading one of my posts. I don't believe the Book of Revelations (as opposed to revelation) is true, and consider it to be basically inconsistent with the central message of Christ. I also believe some parts of the Bible, and disbelieve others. As Bible scholar Marcus Borg says, the Bible should be taken seriously, but not literally.

 

But the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies, as well as beliefs that strike modern readers as horrendous. For example, in the Old Testament, the atrocities committed against the Caananites and other people with the blessing and encouragement of God. And in the New Testament, the sado-masochistic revelling in horrific revenge fantasies (in Revelations) and in the eternal pains of hell. If these things were true, God would seem to be a monster. I don't believe that. I think that the Bible contains truth, but not always literal truth, and there is much error in it. It is a result of all those humans you mentioned trying to capture their personal visions of God, like the proverbial blind men trying to explain an elephant on the basis of whatever appendage of the animal they happened to grab.

 

And that's the problem. The Bible is subject to so many different interpretations by people who think they know "what the Bible really teaches." The Catholic Church maintains that God has given it the authority to tell us "what the Bible really teaches" and if we just followed it, as Christians did in the middle ages, what a wonderful world it would be--except for the Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc. Protestants, of course, didn't accept that, and went off on their own to read the Bible "for what it says and teaches", coming up with more denominations than you could shake a stick at. So tell us, what does the Bible really teach?

 

they didn't even decide upon christ's divinity until the council of nicea(sp?) presided over by emperor constantine.

 

One for every person intelligent enough to ignore it and look to themselves.

You can't