Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baerly
You have made a very good point. The problem is that to prove a particular religion WRONG,there must first be (A) STANDARD. When there is an absolute standard,then we can tell who is straying from that standard. It is sad but most seem to think there is no such standard. I strongly disagree.
Our Lord gave us a standard and it is the bible (John 12:48).
Jesus was the only person who lived upon this earth who actually claimed to BE TRUTH (John 14:6).
His words were recorded in a book called the bible (John 14:26 ;16:13) (Jude3) (2Peter 1:3).
If we do what is asked of us in the bible we will never fall (2Peter 1:5-10).
in love Baerly
|
The thing is, though, that Jesus often spoke in metaphors. And when people asked him to clarify them, he then spoke in parables. It seems that Jesus tended not to want to give us 'matter of fact' literal orders as to how to think and behave.
Also, Jesus did not write the bible, nor any part of the bible. And the men who did write it were very likely to have "embellished" parts of it according to their own understanding of things. This is only natural, as we human beings can only express what we know, or think we know, and we can't ever really know what's in someone else's heart and mind.
And then Jesus' supposed words have been translated and copied by thousands of other people in hundreds of different languages. And each of those translations represents what the translator
thought the words he was reading, meant. But what he thought they meant may often times have been more an invention in the translator's own mind than in the meaning of the text, itself. A great example of this was the ridiculously poor translation of the Greek word "logos" to the english word "word". And because of this ridiculous mistranslation of a single word, millions of people now wrongly believe that the written scriptures are sacrosanct, because they represent the mind of God. Yet that's not at all what was meant by "In the beginning was the "logos", and the "logos" was with God, and the "logos" was God ...".
In another example Jesus is supposed to have claimed: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.", and lots of religious folks interpret this to mean that Jesus is claiming to be God, and that we must believe that he is God to go to heaven. Yet a non-religious person can read these exact same words and understand something very different. Jesus could only be claiming to be an image, or representation of God: more like a human example of what God would "look (be) like" if God were human. And in fact this would make a lot more sense than Jesus claiming to actually BE God, when he in other places and times specifically said that he was NOT God.
The truth is that there is no "absolute standard", as you are suggesting. I think that you're simply deciding, based on your own desire for it to be so, that YOUR translation of the bible and YOUR interpretation of the words you read in it are "absolute", and therefor everyone else's must be wrong. I agree that an absolute standard would be nice, because then we wouldn't have to think about anything. We'd just look it up, and then know what to do or not do. But that's not the way God intended us to live. God intended us to be confused, and to have to constantly question and reconsider what's right and wrong. And in fact the men who wrote the bible understood and practiced exactly this sort of faith. They gathered together and argued and debated every word in their scriptures, because this is how God came alive for them in their own minds, hearts, and lives. Their relationship with God was a tumultuous one, it was confusing, and difficult, and involved lots of misunderstanding and even anger and resentment. But that's how they GREW, spiritually. That's how they were changed by their own religious beliefs and their own relationship with their understanding of God. And that's why even the depiction of God in the bible changes over the course of it's assemblage. There is no "absolute" depiction of God's mind or will in the bible or anywhere else, because God is dynamic, not static. And God wants our relationship and conception of Him to be dynamic as well, so that we can change and grow, in our spirit.
03-03-2007, 09:56 AM
but it is just a matter of my perspective on religion and the ‘standard’ as Baerly notes. According to my view, the individual’s perversion of the religion is often confused with the religion. My view does consider that an individual and his/her religion cannot be separated - the individual is the manifestation of his/her unique religion. The ‘original’ religion is differentiated, divided, regrouped, etc. into many varieties until it boils down to an individual. The individual often undertakes action in the name of their religion that is not in sync with the heart of their professed religion. Only the heart, source, and goal of religion cannot be blamed for ‘wrong,’ but the individual with the perverted religion is a different story.
Linear Mode
