For those who read the Bible... (Christianity, God, Christians, Christ)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Man made - no God.

[James the Persian]

It's the written, and most important, portion of Holy Tradition. It was inspired by God but written by fallible men and hence can't be dogmatically claimed to be infallible or inerrant. It is not the be all and end all of Christianity and nor is it the basis of the Church, but rather a collection of books collected and cannonised by the Church which pre-dates it. The Word of God on which the Church is based is the Incarnate Christ, not the Bible.

I, obviously, voted 'Other'.

James

[mormonman]

Originally Posted by Lost Soul

The bible is a book or collection of books that no one really understands.

I understand the Bible very well. People just won't listen.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by dawny0826

What is the Bible to you?

I know this question has been asked before but I wanted a poll.

I haven't made up my mind. I approach it as a work of unspeakable beauty, a collection of myth that by faith has become active in my life.

[dawny0826]

Originally Posted by Dentonz

I bet you know what I voted for. I believe it is the holy, infallible, divine, singular Word of God. It holds the answers to any question you could ever ask, and it will guide you to true enlightenment and wisdom.

My thoughts mirror yours.

[michel]

Other (Please explain, as I'm sure there are MANY other views)

I believe the Bible was written by many men who believed that what they were writing what what God had told them to write, and their own interpretations of the meaning of life.

[MidnightBlue]

Other.

It's hard to say concisely how I see the Bible, because it's a collection of so many diverse and layered works, and I've had an attachment to it all my life, though that attachment has changed and -- I hope -- grown over the years. I've been reading it since I could read, and before that it was read to me. My mother believed (and still does) that the Bible was the infallible Word of God. My grandmother believed the Bible was inspired, but not necessarily factual. I grew up Methodist, but my paternal grandfather was Catholic, my paternal grandmother was United Church of Christ, and my maternal great-grandfather was a Pentecostal minister. So from the beginning I've understood that different people look at the Bible in different ways, and one aspect of the Bible for me has always been that it's a puzzle to solve.

The stories of the patriarchs, Moses, Judges, and Kings are stories I grew up on. As a child I was far more interested in those stories than anything else in the Bible. The poetic books, prophets, gospels and Acts were benign but less interesting; Paul was deadly dull. I still have an interest in those stories as stories, but that's not my focus at all anymore.

The most important part of the Bible to me is the teachings of Jesus, which doesn't necessarily mean the Gospels as we now have them. In this respect, I'm more interested in Mark than the other Gospels, and in Matthew and Luke I'm more interested in what they can tell us about Q than in Matthew and Luke's redactions. I find Matthew's use of the Old Testament very nearly incomprehensible, and I doubt the factuality of much of the historical narrative in both Matthew and Luke. John I see as mainly a document of Johannine spirituality, which I find interesting and sympathetic, but not primarily a reflection of the teachings of Jesus. Bottom line: I'm mostly interested in what Jesus said, and I think we get closer to that in Mark, in the extra-biblical Gospel of Thomas, and in reconstructions of Q. The four canonical gospels as we now have them are interesting for other reasons: textual criticism is interesting in itself, and they also throw light on the development of Christianity. But what I'm really looking for is the teachings of Jesus.

The prophets are also interesting, and inspiring in the way they demand justice and right living. To the extent that some of them were promoting centralized worship at Jerusalem, they kind of lose me, but you have to take them for what they are. I don't have to agree with every word they say to find value in their works. There are also interesting textual issues in the prophets, especially Jeremiah, which is more complicated than I've found time to get a grasp of.

The poetic books are strictly devotional reading for me; I admit I tend to spiritualize them where necessary. For instance, I see smashing the infants of my enemies as an admonition to quash my own bad tendencies before they go too far.

The narratives of the Old Testament -- Genesis through 2 Chronicles -- are my detective novel. Hidden therein is much of the progress of the Israelites from polytheism to a centralized monotheism. In fact, I first realized the Bible couldn't possibly be the infallible Word of God while reading the books of Kings. It's obvious that the authors aren't telling the whole truth; they're shaping history to their theological ends, much as the religious right tries to re-write the history of the United States. But they left too much evidence of what they were trying to brush under the carpet. I think it's fascinating.

Paul is an interesting character. To me, his writings are the foundational writings of Christianity. It's interesting to watch him try to whip his unruly and scattered flock into a unified world religion. I don't believe his teachings are as consistent or systematic as people pretend they are. He was writing in the heat of the moment, most of the time, and exhorting his followers to stay the course -- his course -- not trying to be systematic. In the end, he was pretty successful, though I don't think we can blame Paul for everything about Christianity. I like Paul, much as I like Muhammad and Luther, and he's interesting to me pretty much the way they are: it's mainly a historical interest. I don't consider his writings binding, though, or even particularly useful from a spiritual standpoint.

James is, again, an interesting character, pretty much opposed to Paul, but still likeable and interesting for the same reasons Paul is.

Revelation is a good read, and I find it inspirational, but I could almost wish it had never been included in the canon, it's been the jumping-off point for so much fantastic, utterly baseless and harmful speculation about the future.

[Atheist_Dave]

I think you know what I ticked... enough said.

Peace x