Is Bible alive? Bible talks to you?

[questfortruth]

Bob: "The dogma of Christianity says that God has nothing to do with Death. Hence, I am making the direct logical conclusion, that God has not created satan (angel of death)"

1213: "That dogma doesn't seem to come from the Bible."

Bob: "It is dogma of Eastern Orthodox Christianity; it is the Holy Fathers' consensus. Bible does not interpret itself, so I need authority figures. The book is not alive. Readers are. For example, suppose the statement is on page 213, and another statement is on page 557. In that case, there is the chance that the reader will not connect both statements together to make a correct interpretation if both statements are needed. Hence, very educated people with good memory are required to interpret Bible verses.

More in: Einstein's proof of God

 

[PureX]

I understand the phrase, "it speaks to me" metaphorically. But not actually. There is nothing in a bible but paper and ink. The only "speaking" going on is in my own mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes! It says quite loudly that it is largely a book of fiction and dated moral concepts.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Bob: "The dogma of Christianity says that God has nothing to do with Death. Hence, I am making the direct logical conclusion, that God has not created satan (angel of death)"

1213: "That dogma doesn't seem to come from the Bible."

Bob: "It is dogma of Eastern Orthodox Christianity; it is the Holy Fathers' consensus. Bible does not interpret itself, so I need authority figures. The book is not alive. Readers are. For example, suppose the statement is on page 213, and another statement is on page 557. In that case, there is the chance that the reader will not connect both statements together to make a correct interpretation if both statements are needed. Hence, very educated people with good memory are required to interpret Bible verses.

More in: Einstein's proof of God

The word of God is alive, so the word in the bible may contain spiritual energy. So in that regard one could say the bible is alive.

That Bob person sound very much like Dimtri Martila

 

[Twilight Hue]

I understand the phrase, "it speaks to me" metaphorically. But not actually. There is nothing in a bible but paper and ink. The only "speaking" going on is in my own mind.

Bibles makes good doorstoppers.

 

[Kenny]

Bob: "The dogma of Christianity says that God has nothing to do with Death. Hence, I am making the direct logical conclusion, that God has not created satan (angel of death)"

1213: "That dogma doesn't seem to come from the Bible."

Bob: "It is dogma of Eastern Orthodox Christianity; it is the Holy Fathers' consensus. Bible does not interpret itself, so I need authority figures. The book is not alive. Readers are. For example, suppose the statement is on page 213, and another statement is on page 557. In that case, there is the chance that the reader will not connect both statements together to make a correct interpretation if both statements are needed. Hence, very educated people with good memory are required to interpret Bible verses.

More in: Einstein's proof of God

If I said "I love you" to a stranger - it would be lifeless (and probably would be looked at as weird).
If I said to my wife "I love you" - it would be filled with life and received.

The words are the same. The receptive heart gives it life.

The same with the word of God. One can be deaf to it or it can be containers of spirit and life.

 

[PureX]

Bibles makes good doorstoppers.

So do bags of money.

 

[Brian2]

Bob: "The dogma of Christianity says that God has nothing to do with Death. Hence, I am making the direct logical conclusion, that God has not created satan (angel of death)"

1213: "That dogma doesn't seem to come from the Bible."

Bob: "It is dogma of Eastern Orthodox Christianity; it is the Holy Fathers' consensus. Bible does not interpret itself, so I need authority figures. The book is not alive. Readers are. For example, suppose the statement is on page 213, and another statement is on page 557. In that case, there is the chance that the reader will not connect both statements together to make a correct interpretation if both statements are needed. Hence, very educated people with good memory are required to interpret Bible verses.

More in: Einstein's proof of God

Heb 4:11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same pattern of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight; everything is uncovered and exposed before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.…

The Spirit of God in a Christian uses the Bible, God's Word, to speak to us.
The Word us God tells us that God created everything, including Satan. But it is Satan who chose to rebel against God.
It is God who judges us and if we will live or die. It is God who withdraws life from us and casts into the lake of fire, the second death.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes! It says quite loudly that it is largely a book of fiction and dated moral concepts.

I don't think anyone should look to the Bible to learn about morality. Personally, I don't think that the following incidents from the Bible serve as examples of righteous moral behavior: forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist; smashing the heads of infants against the rocks; ordering the execution of witches; God commanding his "chosen people" to kill an entire population of foreign nations for their land in a conquest to possess a "promised land," or God being irrationally angry and killing every living creature and eradicating the entire human race by drowning every living being (except for one family) in a worldwide flood, thus committing global genocide. In addition to using the same faulty creatures he did the first time before destroying everything in a global flood, this "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" God repopulated the Earth with them. Furthermore, the Bible says that God regretted creating humans (Genesis 6:6-7).

According to Genesis 6:6-7, God regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. A God who is supposedly "all-knowing and all-powerful" would surely know better than to commit the same error twice. But God did commit the same error twice, which, in my opinion, was either extremely foolish and irresponsible in terms of morality, or he did it because he is a sadistic and psychotic maniac who delights in punishing flawed humanity for acting precisely as he originally intended for humanity to behave. The Bible contains other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating humanity, all animals, and birds (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). In addition, the Bible mentions God changing his mind about bringing disasters upon his people as retribution for their sins against him (Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, Joel 2:13).

Some Bible translations substitute the word "repent" or the past tense of repent for the word "relent." For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which says, "I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The New King James Version uses the word "calamity" instead of "disaster," and the King James Version uses the word "evil" and not "disaster" or "calamity." The word used in the verse depends on the Bible version.

1 Samuel 15:3 states that God commanded the Israelites to attack and not spare the Amalekites (killing every man, woman, child, newborn, and animal and destroying everything that belonged to them). And Psalm 137:9 states, "Happy is the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rocks." So much for the biblical commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." In my opinion, the God of the Bible has a sadistic mentality of "Do as I say, not as I do," making him the most hypocritical (detestable and barbarous) figure known to mankind. And this article, "Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits," has several other instances of severe violence in the Bible.

Like I said, I don't think anyone should look to the Bible to learn about morality. That being said, I also think that people should take whatever the Bible says with a grain of salt. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the stories in the Bible as well as the stories of Jesus were adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions that predate the Bible, as I explained in other posts (see here).

 

[Alien826]

If I said "I love you" to a stranger - it would be lifeless (and probably would be looked at as weird).
If I said to my wife "I love you" - it would be filled with life and received.

The words are the same. The receptive heart gives it life.

The same with the word of God. One can be deaf to it or it can be containers of spirit and life.

Excuse me, but this is often said, and it irritates me every time.

The problem is, it's can't be argued with. You "hear" the Bible, you have good hearing. You don't "hear" the Bible, you are deaf. The more obvious second (or third if you like) alternative is that the Bible doesn't actually speak, but that is excluded by the form of the statement. It's so patronizing. "I don't get it Dad!" "You will when you grow up, Son".

 

[Kenny]

Excuse me, but this is often said, and it irritates me every time.

The problem is, it's can't be argued with. You "hear" the Bible, you have good hearing. You don't "hear" the Bible, you are deaf. The more obvious second (or third if you like) alternative is that the Bible doesn't actually speak, but that is excluded by the form of the statement. It's so patronizing. "I don't get it Dad!" "You will when you grow up, Son".

I'm not sure what part was patronizing. Certainly there are things I didn't understand and now I do. I certainly understand what my dad was saying more than when I was a youth.

Sometimes it is just lack of understanding. Like when you are being taught math and you hit a problem. "I CAN'T SEE IT!" and then, as you are being taught one exclaims "I GOT IT!"

It isn't necessarily an indictment against the hearer.

In our view, sometimes it is our heart as Mark 4 says. Hard, stony, weedy and fertile conditions for various reasons.

Sometimes it is in the hearing or in not wanting to hear

Mark 4:24 And He said to them, Be careful what you are hearing. The measure [of thought and study] you give [to the truth you hear] will be the measure [of virtue and knowledge] that comes back to you—and more [besides] will be given to you who hear. 25 For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away

 

[Alien826]

I'm not sure what part was patronizing. Certainly there are things I didn't understand and now I do. I certainly understand what my dad was saying more than when I was a youth.

Sometimes it is just lack of understanding. Like when you are being taught math and you hit a problem. "I CAN'T SEE IT!" and then, as you are being taught one exclaims "I GOT IT!"

It isn't necessarily an indictment against the hearer.

In our view, sometimes it is our heart as Mark 4 says. Hard, stony, weedy and fertile conditions for various reasons.

Sometimes it is in the hearing or in not wanting to hear

Mark 4:24 And He said to them, Be careful what you are hearing. The measure [of thought and study] you give [to the truth you hear] will be the measure [of virtue and knowledge] that comes back to you—and more [besides] will be given to you who hear. 25 For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away

Sorry, I didn't mean to make that personal in any way.

Let me try again. The problem for me arises when the criterion for understanding is presented as something lacking in the hearer, which is defined by the speaker. For example, if the father says that the son won't understand the physical desire a man has for woman until he is older, then that's reasonable. If he says it's because the son is stupid, not so much. Maybe the son would understand quite readily if the father took the trouble to explain it better.

According to the subject in hand, the implication is that some people don't "understand" the Bible because they lack some quality that believers have, and that quality can only be gained by becoming a believer! It may be true that some people have set their minds against it, but no allowance is made for someone who reads, genuinely tries to understand and still fails to understand. There can only be two categories, believers and those who willfully reject the message.

I just thought of another example. There was a news story about some hunters that rescued a deer from some kind of predicament. I carelessly remarked that it was odd that they would one day rescue the deer and another day shoot it. Someone (no doubt a dedicated hunter) said something like "You don't understand the relationship between a hunter and the prey". In other words, if I just had this miraculous understanding that all hunters had, I wouldn't say anything so stupid. I didn't pursue the matter as it was at work and I didn't want to stir up trouble, but my reaction would have been "Sure I understand. Hunters want to kill deer, and deer don't want to be killed."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I didn't mean to make that personal in any way.

Let me try again. The problem for me arises when the criterion for understanding is presented as something lacking in the hearer, which is defined by the speaker. For example, if the father says that the son won't understand the physical desire a man has for woman until he is older, then that's reasonable. If he says it's because the son is stupid, not so much. Maybe the son would understand quite readily if the father took the trouble to explain it better.

According to the subject in hand, the implication is that some people don't "understand" the Bible because they lack some quality that believers have, and that quality can only be gained by becoming a believer! It may be true that some people have set their minds against it, but no allowance is made for someone who reads, genuinely tries to understand and still fails to understand. There can only be two categories, believers and those who willfully reject the message.

I just thought of another example. There was a news story about some hunters that rescued a deer from some kind of predicament. I carelessly remarked that it was odd that they would one day rescue the deer and another day shoot it. Someone (no doubt a dedicated hunter) said something like "You don't understand the relationship between a hunter and the prey". In other words, if I just had this miraculous understanding that all hunters had, I wouldn't say anything so stupid. I didn't pursue the matter as it was at work and I didn't want to stir up trouble, but my reaction would have been "Sure I understand. Hunters want to kill deer, and deer don't want to be killed."

There is a problem with the "You have to be a believer to understand" claim of many Christians. They keep forgetting that many of the people that they are debating with used to be Christians and if anything they have a better understanding than they do. Their only response to that is the false claim of "Then you were never a real believer in the first place'. That is roughly the same as claiming that if one is a Christian that one cannot reason rationally. Though it may be true for some Christians I would not say that is true for all.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

There is a problem with the "You have to be a believer to understand" claim of many Christians. They keep forgetting that many of the people that they are debating with used to be Christians and if anything they have a better understanding than they do. Their only response to that is the false claim of "Then you were never a real believer in the first place'. That is roughly the same as claiming that if one is a Christian that one cannot reason rationally. Though it may be true for some Christians I would not say that is true for all.

I can personally attest to the "Then you were never a real believer in the first place" diatribe because I've been told that by Christians since I left Christianity and renounced my faith and belief in God. It didn't matter to these Christians that I was a very devout Christian for thirty years and I read the Bible cover to cover many times during these years. Not to mention the almost five years I helped my nephew earn his Master of Theological Studies (MTS) degree, during which time we extensively studied and researched the Bible and Christian theology. And now I know the Bible backwards, forwards, and sideways. I'm pretty sure I know the Bible better than they do.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, I didn't mean to make that personal in any way.

Let me try again. The problem for me arises when the criterion for understanding is presented as something lacking in the hearer, which is defined by the speaker. For example, if the father says that the son won't understand the physical desire a man has for woman until he is older, then that's reasonable. If he says it's because the son is stupid, not so much. Maybe the son would understand quite readily if the father took the trouble to explain it better.

According to the subject in hand, the implication is that some people don't "understand" the Bible because they lack some quality that believers have, and that quality can only be gained by becoming a believer! It may be true that some people have set their minds against it, but no allowance is made for someone who reads, genuinely tries to understand and still fails to understand. There can only be two categories, believers and those who willfully reject the message.

I just thought of another example. There was a news story about some hunters that rescued a deer from some kind of predicament. I carelessly remarked that it was odd that they would one day rescue the deer and another day shoot it. Someone (no doubt a dedicated hunter) said something like "You don't understand the relationship between a hunter and the prey". In other words, if I just had this miraculous understanding that all hunters had, I wouldn't say anything so stupid. I didn't pursue the matter as it was at work and I didn't want to stir up trouble, but my reaction would have been "Sure I understand. Hunters want to kill deer, and deer don't want to be killed."

This was really good!! Thanks!

"There can only be two categories, believers and those who willfully reject the message." I agree that this is absolutely wrong in its entirety since I was neither of the two. It was "No, you haven't given me enough information (answering my questions) for me to make a quality decision"

Appreciate your heart!

 

[1213]

Bob: "The dogma of Christianity says that God has nothing to do with Death. Hence, I am making the direct logical conclusion, that God has not created satan (angel of death)"

1213: "That dogma doesn't seem to come from the Bible."

Bob: "It is dogma of Eastern Orthodox Christianity; it is the Holy Fathers' consensus. Bible does not interpret itself, so I need authority figures. The book is not alive. Readers are....

That leads to question, where does the dogma come from and why it is correct?

 

[questfortruth]

That leads to question, where does the dogma come from and why it is correct?

It is faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Bible alive? Bible talks to you?

Was the Christian scripture called Gospels ever alive rather it was born-dead, one imagines, ever since Hellenist Paul faked a vision in which he neither saw Yeshua in person, nor he listened Yeshua's voice most probably, as Paul never knew Yeshua enough to recognize Yeshua's voice, one gets to know, please???! Right?
Did Paul hear from the Devil instead, please? Right?
So, why people fake that Bible- the Christian Gospels talks to them, please? Right?
The Christian Gospels do not belong to Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, just to remind everybody please, right?

Regards