The holy bible...........or not so?

@mark noble,

mark noble;170922 wrote:

The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?

Nope.

mark noble;170922 wrote:

The point here is - Many "christians" attach a sacredness upon what is merely "ink upon paper" without ever realising that what they are doing is "Kneeling to wood" - Isaiah: And therefore performing an act of idolatry.

Yeah they do seem to worship it despite the fact that 90% have never read the thing from cover to cover either.

mark noble;170922 wrote:

Do you see the bible as Holy (I don't mean the message within)?

Far from anything great in my opinion. It's chalked full of superstition, abuse, misleading statements, oppression, hatred and discrimination and myths.

mark noble;170922 wrote:

What do you think of a legal system that obligates those being tried and those bearing witness to swear upon the bible?

I don't think they do this anymore in some places within the US. I have testified on several different cases and never once was presented with a bible to swear an oath of truth on. But anyways, if this does still occur it is a little silly and superstitious.

Like Christians don't ever lie?

@mark noble,

mark noble;170922 wrote:

The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?

The point here is - Many "christians" attach a sacredness upon what is merely "ink upon paper" without ever realising that what they are doing is "Kneeling to wood" - Isaiah: And therefore performing an act of idolatry.

Do you see the bible as Holy (I don't mean the message within)?

I think we agree completely on the kneeling to wood issue. That is of the essence, as you well know. Smile

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 05:40 PM ----------

Krumple;170924 wrote:

Yeah they do seem to worship it despite the fact that 90% have never read the thing from cover to cover either.

I've always been amused by this. I've read most of it, and most "Christians" haven't. Which shows that they don't really believe it's the word of God, and they don't really believe in God. But that's a little harsh. Because there are some sweet old ladies I know who do believe in God, but there sweetness is proof to me that they are in touch with the Good, whether or not this is tangled a bit with an obsolete conception or two.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;171001 wrote:

I've always been amused by this. I've read most of it, and most "Christians" haven't. Which shows that they don't really believe it's the word of God, and they don't really believe in God. But that's a little harsh. Because there are some sweet old ladies I know who do believe in God, but there sweetness is proof to me that they are in touch with the Good, whether or not this is tangled a bit with an obsolete conception or two.

I would hate to nitpick with you here but I have met nice old atheist ladies too. I don't think you have to be theist to be a nice person. I know you might not have meant it to read like that, but you have to admit that it does. However; I know that many times it comes up in arguments that an atheist can never be a good person but it simply is not true.

@Krumple,

Krumple;171007 wrote:

I would hate to nitpick with you here but I have met nice old atheist ladies too. I don't think you have to be theist to be a nice person. I know you might not have meant it to read like that, but you have to admit that it does. However; I know that many times it comes up in arguments that an atheist can never be a good person but it simply is not true.

Oh, I don't mean it that way at all! I'm an atheist in any practical sense of the word, and I am chock full of values. I was just stressing that the conceptual element is only part of any human situation. I was thinking of believers out there who were nice people, and that I might have sounded too contemptuous about "Christians." So I wanted to soften it by recognizing that a person can be a little silly on intellectual matters and still deserve respect. It's a minority pursuit, this thing called "intellectual honesty." Most don't care. I notice that many women have no great affection for abstractions. They feel their way through life. And some of them do just fine this way. And "feeling is first" in the end, even if I'm personally obsessed w/ philosophy. And this concern with the truth and reason is ultimately just that, a concern, a passion. There is an artistic element to philosophy. There is a beauty to logical coherence.

@mark noble,

mark noble;170922 wrote:

The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?

No, I do not . . . neither that book of today, the scrolls and parchments and skins of days of old, nor the content within and upon them all.

mark noble;170922 wrote:

Do you see the bible as Holy (I don't mean the message within)?

See above.

mark noble;170922 wrote:

What do you think of a legal system that obligates those being tried and those bearing witness to swear upon the bible?

Both such practices and ideas, like the 'in god we trust on the US coins and bills, and the 'later-added-on' 'one nation under god' in the US pledge of allegiance, are old mental baggage which should be done away with.

@mark noble,

Mark Wrote

Quote:

without ever realising that what they are doing is "Kneeling to wood" - Isaiah: And therefore performing an act of idolatry.

Very insightful words. Kneeling to wood, means materialising Spirituality, and materialising Spirituality is idolatry.

You can read more here.
The Language of the Kabbalists | Articles | Rav Michael Laitman | Kabbalah Library - Bnei Baruch Kabbalah Education & Research Institute

@ABYA,

Hi All,

To take this one step further - How do you feel about "kneeling before a cross or madonna figure", crossing oneself, and wearing a cross, st christopher, etc.

I see all these as idolatry? But, why does the most reknowned church on earth promote the practice of these idolatrous behaviours.

Are they not the "Blind" leading the blind?

Thank you all, once more, for your participation in this thread. Have a brilliant everything, always.

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;171271 wrote:

....To take this one step further - How do you feel about "kneeling before a cross or madonna figure", crossing oneself, and wearing a cross, st christopher, etc.
I see all these as idolatry? But, why does the most reknowned church on earth promote the practice of these idolatrous behaviours. ...

Merely symbols pointing to a higher level of reality, thin places providing a location for mental comtemplation of the sacred or the divine here on earth.
To worship the symbol itself would be idolatry but only those who do not believe in higher levels of reality perceive it that way.
If you do not believe in the sacred or the divine all you can see are silly people worshiping material objects.
Of course if you do not believe in the sacred or the divine idolatry itself is sort of an empty or meaningless concept.

@mark noble,

mark noble;170922 wrote:

Do you see the bible as Holy (I don't mean the message within)?

What?

If there is no message, there is no Bible.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:42 PM ----------

mark noble;170922 wrote:

The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?

Yes.

.....................

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:43 PM ----------

mark noble;170922 wrote:

The point here is - Many "christians" attach a sacredness upon what is merely "ink upon paper" without ever realising that what they are doing is "Kneeling to wood" - Isaiah: And therefore performing an act of idolatry.

Merely? Says who? You?

@fast,

fast;171313 wrote:

What?

If there is no message, there is no Bible.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:42 PM ----------

Yes.

.....................

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:43 PM ----------

Merely? Says who? You?

Hi Fast,

Yes - Me, and the prior posters, everyone I have ever discussed this with, those who understand the idolatry passages of Isaiah and anyone who considers "Ink and paper" to be materials.

I am not a christian, by the way.

Thank you for your participation, fast. Have a wonderful day, sir.

Mark...

@mark noble,

[QUOTE=mark noble;171327]Hi Fast,

Yes - Me, and the prior posters, everyone I have ever discussed this with, those who understand the idolatry passages of Isaiah and anyone who considers "Ink and paper" to be materials.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I was too subtle. But worry not, for here's the fix for that:

First, the Bible (I'll have you know) is not ink and paper. It may very well be composed of ink and paper, but what it is composed of, and what something actually is, ought not be confused with one another.

Consider a car. It may be composed of parts, but tear down a car to its constituent parts, then before you there will not be a car, for a car is more than merely the sum of its parts, as a car also includes the assemblage of many of those parts, so even if a car was it's parts (which it's not, I hope you now understand), it still wouldn't imply that the car is merely the sum of those parts.

Not only have you confused the Bible with what many Bibles are composed of (and you even screwed that up, I might add), but you have gone so far as to think (though not well) that the Bible includes nothing more than the materials that go into making Bibles.

[QUOTE]I am not a christian, by the way. [/QUOTE]Maybe I'm not either, but at least I try to be (sometimes).

[QUOTE]Have a wonderful day, sir.[/QUOTE]I don't know what to say to you to get you to stop talking to me like that. I could ignore you in hopes that you'll quit, but you seem to enjoy it so much. I could ask you to quit, but it's my experience that people would just continue to do so for spite. Do you have an ideas on what to do? There should be a rule about addressing arguments instead of the arguer.

May your day be wonderful.

@fast,

fast;171344 wrote:

Maybe I was too subtle. But worry not, for here's the fix for that:

First, the Bible (I'll have you know) is not ink and paper. It may very well be composed of ink and paper, but what it is composed of, and what something actually is, ought not be confused with one another.

Consider a car. It may be composed of parts, but tear down a car to its constituent parts, then before you there will not be a car, for a car is more than merely the sum of its parts, as a car also includes the assemblage of many of those parts, so even if a car was it's parts (which it's not, I hope you now understand), it still wouldn't imply that the car is merely the sum of those parts.

Not only have you confused the Bible with what many Bibles are composed of (and you even screwed that up, I might add), but you have gone so far as to think (though not well) that the Bible includes nothing more than the materials that go into making Bibles.

Maybe I'm not either, but at least I try to be (sometimes).

I don't know what to say to you to get you to stop talking to me like that. I could ignore you in hopes that you'll quit, but you seem to enjoy it so much. I could ask you to quit, but it's my experience that people would just continue to do so for spite. Do you have an ideas on what to do? There should be a rule about addressing arguments instead of the arguer.

May your day be wonderful.

Hi fast,

I purposely omitted any reference to the message within the pages in the original post. I am only discussing the object here.

I haven't confused the issue either. Others appear to understand the issue. And I would not indulge in judging your level of confusion, if any.

I do live by christian values - only I don't share the doctrine.

And as for wishing you a good day - I'll do that in heart for you in future, not in print. If this pleases you, it pleases me...

Mark...

@mark noble,

[QUOTE=mark noble;171351]I purposely omitted any reference to the message within the pages in the original post. I am only discussing the object here.[/QUOTE] Yet you continued to use the word "Bible" which includes the message. The word "Bible" is a referring term, and the referring term has a referent, and the referent of the referring term is the Bible.

If you talk about what's remaining after excluding the message, then you're not talking about the Bible, for the Bible includes the message.

Quote:

Mark...

:brickwall:

@fast,

fast;171360 wrote:

Yet you continued to use the word "Bible" which includes the message. The word "Bible" is a referring term, and the referring term has a referent, and the referent of the referring term is the Bible.

If you talk about what's remaining after excluding the message, then you're not talking about the Bible, for the Bible includes the message.

:brickwall:

Hi fast,

Yet I continued to use the word "bible"? I used it only the once, in the opening thread. Otherwise the post would be intangible. Are you following the same thread?

Why are you banging your head against a wall (above image) Can't you control your frustrations?...Mind you don't break the wall.

Read Isaiah 44 - and draw your own conclusions.

Bible - Gk, Biblos - Library (collection of books).
To revere anything material is to commit idolatry. To carve, sculpt, draw or even imagine an heavenly image is idolatry. Various scriptures in various religions depict God as the Author of all things. None of which are to be revered - The Bible is, along with all the other creations, merely a source of guidance to one's own spiritual connection with God, and holds no special place in God's kingdom. It is a BOOK, no more - no less. As are all books.

The birthplace of Christ, the cross, Jerusalem, the mount, the temple wall, Gethsemane, the river Jordan, etc - All not holy, sacred or special, if you see it as otherwise...Good luck with that.

ONLY GOD IS HOLY.

Great discussion though, thank you, Fast.

Mark...

@mark noble,

[QUOTE=mark noble;170922]Do you see the bible as Holy (I don't mean the message within)?[/QUOTE]

I saw a car the other day, and in that car was a driver. I could talk about the car, or I could talk about the driver. I need not talk about both, since I can talk about one and not the other.

When talking about the Bible, things are different. When I talk about the Bible, then necessarily, I'm talking in part about the message that is within the Bible. Now, if you want to talk about something that excludes that message within the Bible, then you're not talking about the Bible, since the Bible includes the message within it.

So, your question is confused, and I can see right through it. You think you are asking about the Bible, yet you also say, "I don't mean the message within," so you're not asking about what you think you are. If you're excluding the message, then whatever it is you're talking about, it's certainly not the Bible.

Therefore, you shouldn't be asking whether or not we view the bible as holy--since you're specifically excluding the message. Instead, you should be asking something along the lines of whether or not we think the cover, binding, and the paper that goes into making bibles are holy.

If I have just eaten and you ask, "how did you enjoy your dinner (but I'm not talking about the food), then you really shouldn't be using the word "dinner" since the food is a part of dinner. Maybe you mean to ask about the atmosphere. If that's what you want to ask, then fine, but don't use the word "dinner" if you're specifically excluding the meal.

If you ask how is one's dining experience, then you're asking about more than if you were to ask about one's meal, but one's dining experience includes one's meal, so if you want to ask how one's dining experience is (except one's meal), that's no good reason to think you're asking about dining experience (though you are asking about a part of the dining experience-- when excluding the meal.

Thence, don't ask us if we think the Bible is holy and exclude the message while doing so, since by excluding it, you're not talking about the Bible. It's would be as odd as if signed my name every time I post to you.

I hope your day brings you what you deserve,

fast

@fast,

The cat shat on the Bible I left lying on the living room floor. Did the cat sh*t on the Bible's message?

@fast,

Scuse me interupting guys.
I understand exactly what your saying Mark, but, how would you feel about chucking a Bible into a fire or tearing one up to shreds. Even though I agree with you, I feel that it would be sacrilegious to willingly destroy a Bible.

@Ahab,

Ahab;171779 wrote:

The cat shat on the Bible I left lying on the living room floor. Did the cat sh*t on the Bible's message?

No.

...................

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 05:31 PM ----------

[QUOTE=ABYA;171780]Scuse me interupting guys.
I understand exactly what your saying Mark, but, how would you feel about chucking a Bible into a fire or tearing one up to shreds. Even though I agree with you, I feel that it would be sacrilegious to willingly destroy a Bible.[/QUOTE]If every page was blank (and the cover too), and never was there anything on those pages (nor on the cover), then what did you throw into the fire, and if you think you have thrown a bible into the fire, then why would you think that? I mean, how could you even tell it was a collection of books to begin with?

@mark noble,

mark noble;171271 wrote:

Hi All,

To take this one step further - How do you feel about "kneeling before a cross or madonna figure", crossing oneself, and wearing a cross, st christopher, etc.

I see all these as idolatry? But, why does the most reknowned church on earth promote the practice of these idolatrous behaviours.

Are they not the "Blind" leading the blind?

Thank you all, once more, for your participation in this thread. Have a brilliant everything, always.

Mark...

A good question. Perhaps images could be viewed as ladders, as training wheels. One stokes the spirit (emotion/love/the real thing) w/ images until the spirit is stoked to the degree that it's obviously greater than metaphorical representations it sees. A person feels the limitation of all images, experiences them as parables, messages of love.

Philosophy Forum

The holy bible...........or not so?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know