Why the bible?

[Rosie]

If God truly wanted to reveal himself to us, why would he try to contact us in such an ineffective way as through the bible? Surely we should give him more credit than that. Like the classic game of Telephone, we learn at a very young age that the spoken word is not concrete. Eventually, a message repeated over and over again, to an innumerable amount of people, inevitably changes. It evolves not only in the way it is said, but in meaning as well. It is impossible to predict how many times the bible has been changed.

If God truly wanted to speak to us (I use the term speak very loosely) he would do so in a way that could never be changed. He wouldn’t put his words in the hands of a small group of men.

Sorry for getting a little off topic - I'm just wondering who else agrees with how silly the bible is? I don't understand why God, this magnificantly intelligent being, would convey his message through a simple, easily missunderstood book. Does anyone else feel the same way. (And I am trying not to offend anyone. I respect all religions and all faiths)

[Angela]

I have to agree. If someone sent me an email telling me he was my all-powerful, personal interventionist savior, without whose help I would be damned to an eternity of suffering, I would not hesitate to hit *delete*. I feel the same way about religious texts.

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer from believers as to why their omnipotent god appears directly to only a select few to give them their proof of his existence. Why not, in his power and glory, make it plain to me that he exists and is not just a figment of some people's imaginations? Free will? I'm just "not ready"? Bah humbug. I'm not buying it. Such power and love as I've heard described would not be stopped by my puny skepticism.

All he would have to do is materialize, right here next to my desk, and give it to me straight, then *poof* disappear. I might dismiss it as impending mental illness, but I don't think so, since I've just basically told god: here I am, what have you got to say to me?

(update: As I was typing that, Jan just brought me my mail. she didn't say anything about god. the closest thing I could find to a supernatural message in my mail was the new issue of Vegas Magazine. That sounds more like Satan talking, though.)

I'm going to give god another few minutes, then I'm going to lunch.

[Matthew Shea]

What happens when you give an irresponsible teenage boy a brand new sports car? Why would it be any different for God to give anyone proof of his existence when they're not willing to accept him?

[wolfgang]

I don't agree even though I'm not religious. But maybe I do agree because I think all religious texts are just attempts. Then people latch on to something to believe and sort of "use" that as a way to stop wondering and let something else tell them what to believe.

I view the bible as an attempt to describe what being spiritual is. And I always fall back to the Dao de Ching's first chapter - "the way that can be named is not the way". Which is to say, it's impossible to put ultimate spiritual ideas into words that directly say what it is. It can only be writen to make you think about it and feel it out for yourself - at least that's how it should be used, imo.

[Angela]

Matthew, are you likening me to an irresponsible teenage boy? I may be irreverant, but I am willing to accept a god if he were to present himself to me in a credible way. And since, I'm told, god made me, he of all people would know what would be credible to me.

Also, your metaphor (or is it a simile?) seems to indicate that the knowledge of god is something that could be smashed up, or that it might cause damage to myself or others if it falls into the wrong hands. If my hands are the wrong ones, why is that, and why would my having the knowledge of his existence be dangerous?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I view the bible as an attempt to describe what being spiritual is. And I always fall back to the Dao de Ching's first chapter - "the way that can be named is not the way". Which is to say, it's impossible to put ultimate spiritual ideas into words that directly say what it is. It can only be writen to make you think about it and feel it out for yourself - at least that's how it should be used, imo.

I can align myself with that view. But that's not how religious texts are presented to us by the religious leaders. They are presented to us rather as law, as The Truth, and as the path from which we must not diverge, lest disaster befall our immortal souls. Kind of like the Ethiopian email scam.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I think that all religious texts are based on the same ultimate truth each filtered through the time and culture in which they were written. As such, they all have great wisdom in them. Religious fanaticism is the culprit, not the truths it's all based on.

[Matthew Shea]

Angela, I'm certainly not likening you personally to anyone or anything. That metaphor was just intended to make a general statement in answer to the original post. Keep in mind I'm assuming God's existence, which cannot be proven one way or the other. An irresponsible teenager will not appreciate what's given to him and will mis-use it, possibly causing harm to himself and others. If God suddenly revealed himself to the world in an undeniable way, there would still be those who would choose to exploit that knowledge to take advantage of others. There would also be plenty among us who would dismiss that proof altogether. How many times have we ever accused people of living in denial?

What I'm saying, basically, speaking as one who does indeed believe in God, is that finding him is a maturing process based on a fundamental openness to and acceptance of his presence in the universe. No one would ever grow as a human if all of a sudden all the universe's most mysterious secrets were revealed en masse. If that happened, the challenge in life would be gone and what reason would we have for sticking around?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

What I'm saying, basically, speaking as one who does indeed believe in God, is that finding him is a maturing process based on a fundamental openness to and acceptance of his presence in the universe. No one would ever grow as a human if all of a sudden all the universe's most mysterious secrets were revealed en masse. If that happened, the challenge in life would be gone and what reason would we have for sticking around?

Some people do "know" God or the holy spirit and they don't feel like life has no reason - just the opposite. Those that have found alignment feel more whole and able to operate in the world. At least as I once talked with a born again and said that I don't want to believe that the goal is to get to nirvana and become tranparent to the world, to be in oneness so much that you don't have any identity. I want to have oneness and also my individuality. This born again guy said, you sound like a Christian.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I think that all religious texts are based on the same ultimate truth each filtered through the time and culture in which they were written. As such, they all have great wisdom in them. Religious fanaticism is the culprit, not the truths it's all based on.

Very wise words aspiring!

The Bible has come down to us through centuries in many translations, interpretations and cultural traditions. There is much wisdom in it, however, we have free will, logic and reason to help us discern what does and doesn't work for us. I don't think it was ever intended as anything but a guide to living a decent and moral life. If we took everything literally and verbatim we wouldn't have to think, make choices or do anything. We're not meant to be automatons, I'm sure.

[Angela]

I get what you're saying, Matthew. But why not me, personally? Throughout my life I believe I have been very open to the mysteries of the universe, and have specifically invited the personal, interventionist god to make himself known to me. I believe my invitation has been hospitable and sincere. Also, while remaining open to "signs" that I haven't yet thought of, I've also suggested small indications that I would happily and willingly take as good faith messages directly from god.

Being fundamentally open to and accepting of something for which there is no evidence, and which I'm told the evidence is only there for people who are fundamentally open and willing to it -- well, that doesn't smell right to me. I'm an intelligent, seeking sort of person; I don't see why an omnipotent god wouldn't want to recruit me for his team.

But the OP was about the validity of the bible, specifically, as a means for god to communicate his existence. As Rosie asks, why wouldn't the Personal Interventionist God "write" something a little less spurious, a little more dependable, as his very special communication to mankind? We little catechism students are taught that the bible is indeed god's way of revealing the universe's most mysterious secrets to the masses. Why hedge? Why speak directly to Jerry Falwell, but leave me in a lurch?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

Why speak directly to Jerry Falwell

Lord, help us!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

But the OP was about the validity of the bible, specifically, as a means for god to communicate his existence. As Rosie asks, why wouldn't the Personal Interventionist God "write" something a little less spurious, a little more dependable, as his very special communication to mankind? We little catechism students are taught that the bible is indeed god's way of revealing the universe's most mysterious secrets to the masses. Why hedge? Why speak directly to Jerry Falwell, but leave me in a lurch?

I would say the idea that there is a God that can directly talk to us is a false assumption. The question of "why doesn't God reveal?", assumes that God is like that - something that is revealed in a direct way. The question could be backed up to "Is the God of the bible able to be directly and logicaly known?". So this thread has a built in assumption that God should be able to directly communicate to us in a normal person to person type of logical mind type way. The mind is such a small part of our being and we are all so well trained to use the mind that we have a hard time being in touch with spirit. I don't think God or spirit can reveal itself since, really we are one with spirit. When we are very aligned and in tune we are actually being in the will of spirit and delivering spirit into this world. We we do this, act from algiment, other's feel "graced" in our presence and maybe that's where we can see God or spirit - in others that are aligned (or ourselves if we are really aligned). Of coarse this begs questions, of what does it mean to be algined. It's realizing that we are one in a spiritual way. How to realize that? Not sure, still working on that with ideas and even techniques, like meditation, being with nature, chasing peak experiences, being kind, being loving, etc...

[Angela]

Wolfgang, I get what you're saying, but you must know that it is in direct conflict with what the bible teaches, which is that god in fact DOES speak and otherwise communicate directly with us mortals, in ways that our little minds can deal with.

And religious leaders and other people who tout The Truth tell us all the time about "talks" they've had with god. These people are talking about direct and logical person-to-person communication.

So in this regard, would you say the bible is wrong?

[ZHereford]

Wow Wolfgang, very deep and philosophical!

I would agree with you that God can be known and is revealed in ways that we don't typically expect i.e. through love, spirit and alignment. I also think that it is intended to be that way. It forces us to use all of our mental, spiritual and sensual faculties to reach the point of communication. Brilliant, Wolfgang!

[Angela]

So, Zhereford, it sounds like you also feel the bible is wrong?

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Angela

So, Zhereford, it sounds like you also feel the bible is wrong?

I don't know if 'wrong' is the word as much as to be taken with a grain of salt. I certainly don't consider it the ultimate moral authority.

I was brought up in a very Christian home where I found it was taken too literally. I consider it to be a work of mere mortals such as the rest of us. It does contain much wisdom, but there are also many contradictions and questionable points.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

It does contain much wisdom, but there are also many contradictions and questionable points.

Right. One of the contradictions and questionable points is the fundamental one: is the bible the unerring word of god? Is the bible, in fact, god's word directly to us via his hand-chosen scribes? The bible says yes. You, Zhereford and Wolfgang, say no. So, either you are right and the bible is wrong, or vice-versa. Which is it?

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Angela

Right. One of the contradictions and questionable points is the fundamental one: is the bible the unerring word of god? Is the bible, in fact, god's word directly to us via his hand-chosen scribes? The bible says yes. You, Zhereford and Wolfgang, say no. So, either you are right and the bible is wrong, or vice-versa. Which is it?

The people who wrote the Bible say it's the word of God. I am a people too, and I say it's a wonderful guide with some great advice for living a moral life.

Is it the word of God? Perhaps some of it is. Does it matter to me one way or the other? No it does not.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

it's a wonderful guide with some great advice for living a moral life.

If we were to be honest about it... would you say that you need the bible as a guide to lead a moral life...???
.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Shamou

If we were to be honest about it... would you say that you need the bible as a guide to lead a moral life...???
.

No, of course not, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. There are many books, religious and otherwise, that serve as helpful guides.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

The people who wrote the Bible say it's the word of God. I am a people too, and I say it's a wonderful guide with some great advice for living a moral life.

Is it the word of God? Perhaps some of it is. Does it matter to me one way or the other? No it does not.

(hmmm, my post was deleted for some mysterious reason... maybe it was... nah, couldn't be...... I'll recreate it and see what happens....)

Your answer does not address the OP's fundamental question: If God truly wanted to reveal himself to us, why would he try to contact us in such an ineffective way as through the bible?

If the bible fails to even convince believers that it is god's unerring word, his direct communication with mankind; if even believers such as Zhereford and Wolfgang won't buy into to this basic tenet, then it's pretty paltry in the PR and credibility department, don't you think? If the bible is a "wonderful guide with some great advice", why would it be considered any more important than say, "Think and Grow Rich" -- which is helpful, but nothing to to base your whole life and afterlife on. Why would an omniscient and omnipotent Being create something paltry, or something in the self-help section? With all the resources at His disposal, he can't come up with something more effective to communicate with us and bless us with his presence?

*I'm not clear that Zhereford and Wolfgang believe in a personal interventionist god, by the way.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

Wolfgang, I get what you're saying, but you must know that it is in direct conflict with what the bible teaches, which is that god in fact DOES speak and otherwise communicate directly with us mortals, in ways that our little minds can deal with.

Maybe I don't know what the bible teaches. I'm not a bible reader. But I do seem to remember that there are things in the bible saying "and God said to me". Now was that someone who was just being really aligned and whatever they said was actaully the will of God by just being pure of heart? I like to think, yes that's what it is. It wasn't that God was a person to person communication but maybe like a merging or being moved by the holy spirit. And then when they go to describe the state they say "God said this". Just my interpretation, with limited knowledge of the bible actually.

And religious leaders and other people who tout The Truth tell us all the time about "talks" they've had with god. These people are talking about direct and logical person-to-person communication.

So in this regard, would you say the bible is wrong?

Talking with God - to me that is possible whenever one is motivated by love, that is being moved by spirit. If you have a loving thought you are algined with spirit in that thought and that thought is divine communication with which you are at one. Maybe there are leaders that feel they are connected to spirit all the time and have imagined a dialog in their heads - but that is not how I'd take it. Divnity comes through us, not as something "not us" but as being one with the will of holy spirit (that is always with us but we are too cluttered most of the time and driven in our own ways to allow).

I don't think the bible is wrong - just not interpreted in the correct light, and as such I haven't tried to read or understand it much. It's not interpreted correctly mostly because spiritual ideas are difficult in words. That map is not the territory, the dao that can be names is not the dao, just fingers pointing at the moon, etc...

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Angela

Your answer does not address the OP's fundamental question: If God truly wanted to reveal himself to us, why would he try to contact us in such an ineffective way as through the bible?

The answer to that question is
1. I have no idea!
2. I don't think he has, necessarily.

If the bible fails to even convince believers that it is god's unerring word, his direct communication with mankind; if even believers such as Zhereford and Wolfgang won't buy into to this basic tenet, then it's pretty paltry in the PR and credibility department, don't you think?

Why do we have to throw the baby out with the bath water?

I can believe it's got good advice without believing it's God's unerring word. If I know that fallible people wrote it, why would I unquestioningly accept every aspect of what they wrote?

If the bible is a "wonderful guide with some great advice", why would it be considered any more important than say, "Think and Grow Rich" -- which is helpful, but nothing to to base your whole life and afterlife on. Why would an omniscient and omnipotent Being create something paltry, or something in the self-help section? With all the resources at His disposal, he can't come up with something more effective to bless us with his presence?

The importance of any literary work is such because people give it that reverence, including the Bible.

I think that "Think and Grow Rich" is from God as much as the Bible is. Why wouldn't it be? As would anything in the self-help section be. If it helps you and makes you a better, happier person that's exactly what 'God' would go for.

[Angela]

Well, Zhereford, I think you see the bible much differently than do most christians. I think pious christians would be horrified to hear you equate the reverence due Think and Grow Rich with that due the bible. In fact, they might get be very angry about that! How upset would anybody be, for instance, if I flushed "The Power of Now" down the toilet? Only my plumber, I think.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't take, use and treasure whatever advice and guidance you find in the bible, just because it's full of mistakes, contradictions, and other gobbledygook. I think if it helps you and makes you happy, great! Don't throw the baby away with the bathwater.

The question still stands, however: why wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing god generate a more compelling mode of communication with his beloved creation, Mankind? Why rely on a book full of mistakes, contradictions and gobbledygook?

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, Zhereford, I think you see the bible much differently than do most christians.

I'm sure I do!

However, it's not like I haven't given it much consideration, which is why your second point below is quite valid.

The question still stands, however: why wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing god generate a more compelling mode of communication with his beloved creation, Mankind? Why rely on a book full of mistakes, contradictions and gobbledygook?

[Angela]

The bible itself indicates that direct, logical, person-to-person communication is not only possible, it's common! God speaks, and loudly! And that all you have to do is open your heart to god for that to happen. Well, I've done that more times than I can count, but no word of god yet. There's nothing in there about how you have to mature or grow first. The word is supposed to be literally the first thing, not the result, not a reward, not something to work towards.

Everybody, thank you for your thoughtful responses in this thread.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

The question still stands, however: why wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing god generate a more compelling mode of communication with his beloved creation, Mankind?

There is a compelling mode of communication. It's love. When you are acting with love you are in communion. Does the bible have this message? That all you need is love?

Why rely on a book full of mistakes, contradictions and gobbledygook?

I agree. But wouldn't say getting closer to God is relient on the bible. The bible has it's own set of terminology for what spirituality is. When I listen to a bible reader I can take out the God, Jesus, holy spirit labels and stretch what they say into a more general sense that makes sense in my way of thinking too.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

The bible itself indicates that direct, logical, person-to-person communication is not only possible, it's common! God speaks, and loudly! And that all you have to do is open your heart to god for that to happen. Well, I've done that more times than I can count, but no word of god yet. There's nothing in there about how you have to mature or grow first. The word is supposed to be literally the first thing, not the result, not a reward, not something to work towards.

Everybody, thank you for your thoughtful responses in this thread.

I think hearing God is being able to distinguish your habitual thoughts versus your pure awareness. All the habitual thoughts are not divine, they are programs in our heads trying to deal with the world (and actually very helpful for the most part to have or we'd have to keep learning how to walk). Then we have that part of us that we can choose to have what ever thought we want. When we think with love, we are joining and having thoughts with God. When you decide something that brings more peace you are listening to God. I think this is what is meant by listening to God. I don't know that people actually were able to have exact words that were not also their own. It's a merging with spirit. person-to-person with God - I don't know, really? I'll have to talk to my born again brother who is listening to God and also asking. And I have and what he tells me what is being "said" to him, he's not saying he says something to God and then he hears words that are not him saying something back to him. He says, he may get a synchronicity about what he asked (although he probably used a different term). Or someone else will say something that will be directly related to what he was just aksing God about. Or the chruch will deliver a particular passage that "answers his prayers".

Just being open is one thing, but then "God helps those that help themselves" is in a way saying we still have to think with love and God will be with you.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

There is a compelling mode of communication. It's love. When you are acting with love you are in communion. Does the bible have this message? That all you need is love?

Well, Jesus' message was all about love. Love I believe in; I've got plenty of evidence of the existence of love. It's the divinity of Jesus (or Mohammed, or Mother Theresa, or anyone else, for that matter!) that I have seen no compelling evidence for.

Divinity, I was taught in my little catholic schoolgirl youth, is even higher than love. I was unconvinced.