Are you proud to have The Bible as your holy book?

[CarlinKnew]

You mean your two follow up questions?
I don't regard further questions as being explanatory.

And this is what I was talking about. Do you really feel highly honored that you credit yourself with selecting the Bible?

That's not what the question is. Have you ever told someone you're proud of them? Have you ever heard someone say they're proud of their country's actions? It's a matter of having a favorable or satisfied feeling toward someone or something you are associated with, regarding it as honorable. I'm asking if Christians/Jews have that feeling for the Bible, because their faith is associated with it.

 

[Quagmire]

Think you're getting hung up over one word. I'm simply asking if they think the book is good, if it represents their faith accurately.

Nah. To me it seems pretty obvious that the "are you proud" in your OP was a sneaky way of saying "aren't you ashamed".

 

[CarlinKnew]

Nah. To me it seems pretty obvious that the "are you proud" in your OP was a sneaky way of saying "aren't you ashamed".

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[Straw Dog]

I dig the Carlin avatar. I respect much of his work, especially his earlier observational material. I don't know that I have anything to debate here, but we'll see where it goes. I recall that he had a strong respect for individuals, but thought that logic was depleted within herd conformity. I also agree with his belief in the Big Electron. It doesn't judge. It doesn't reward. It just is.

On the other hand, I felt that he had some hang-ups on certain issues. Like thinking about religion in black and white terms, but can we really blame him after all he was educated in a old-school Roman Catholic parish school. He seemed bent on projecting all religions in that same light. Regardless of whether he was always right or not, he was funny as hell.

 

[Rami]

I am Proud that Guru Granth Sahib is my Hollyy Book. Everything is very clear. Language is very understanding.if someone read it only one time they will become sikh .

 

[Me Myself]

I am Proud that Guru Granth Sahib is my Hollyy Book. Everything is very clear. Language is very understanding.if someone read it only one time they will become sikh .

Only one time? you promise?

Tell me it´s free too

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I read somewhat into the Bible, but I didn't enjoy it, but I am enjoying the Gnostic Gospels a lot, probably because they seem more... in line?

But the Bible does bring a good message as well as any other religious book on the planet, even Norse Myth.

 

[Me Myself]

I do most say that I´d put the bible in better terms than norse myth.

while I love them as stories (aqnd I do find them mnore entertaining). their moral standards are indee below the ones of the bible. (except for the eternal torture part. Very few mythologies end up that low.)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I do most say that I´d put the bible in better terms than norse myth.

while I love them as stories (aqnd I do find them mnore entertaining). their moral standards are indee below the ones of the bible. (except for the eternal torture part. Very few mythologies end up that low.)

Meh, I don't draw out morals from Religions (and Myths) and Folklore, being as I support total amoralism, but I do draw out metaphorical literature and interpret them in any way I choose to, even if it goes against how it is "supposed to be" interpreted. Mostly for epistemology and such.

 

[Straw Dog]

I do most say that I´d put the bible in better terms than norse myth.

while I love them as stories (aqnd I do find them mnore entertaining). their moral standards are indee below the ones of the bible. (except for the eternal torture part. Very few mythologies end up that low.)

Pros and cons, as in everything else.

The Norse mythology did have a better way of approaching existential awareness. The final battle of Ragnarok, in which a number of major deities such as Odin, Thor, and Loki die, along with numerous natural disasters, and the subsequent end of the world seemed to have a great deal of adaptation incentive for mortals. I mean, they weren't banking on their deities being able to survive forever so they had to go on with their strength and adaptability. At the same time though, the world was promised to resurface once again to be repopulated by two human survivors so...

Pros and cons, ups and downs, strikes and gutters, etc.

 

[Straw Dog]

I support total amoralism

Not necessarily a bad thing depending on the alternative avenues you pursue. Do you believe in a sense of integrity? That is, that one should attempt to be as consistent internally as they are externally with who they are as a person. If you say to yourself, "I am the kind of being that prefers to tell the truth in most all cases," would you desire to follow through in the external world with the agreements that you've made with your internal processes? Ergo, integrity?

 

[Breathe]

Only one time? you promise?

Tell me it´s free too

It's free to read; I wouldn't say only one time and you will become Sikh, but it is a damn beautiful read.

 

[tempter]

Do you think it's a good book? Does it represent your faith accurately?

Finally forced myself to read it cover to cover, all 1,750 pgs of my KJV ebook, and it would be an understatement to say I'm not impressed. Probably 90% of it is either repetitive (practically word for word) or trivial (geneologies, measurements...)

I wonder how many times the Old Testament states that following the law will lead to you spreading your seed gloriously, and disobeying the law will lead to death by "the sword, pestilence, or famine," or in the New Testament that faith leads to eternal life and lack of faith leads to destruction. If you removed all repitition of those statements you'd probably cut the length of the bible in half.

There are some interesting stories and some pearls of wisdom, but most of the book is petty, is it not?

It's a good book if it's read for what it is, not some supernatural proof book. That's just silly

 

[tempter]

The Bible doesn't attempt to "prove the existence of God." The Bible assumes God's existence.

Which is good, as it fails miserably.

 

[tempter]

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that it's edited to encompass many belief systems and interpretations aside from trivial differences, nor do I see how you came to the conclusion that it was designed to contain facts for proof of God's existence.

The religion has amassed many other belief systems. Books written about Jesus/God weren't included into the bible we see today. Etc.
If you can't see that, then.....?:sad4:

 

[Shermana]

As for repetition, there is of course some. However, I don't see it even being close to 90%.

Yeah I have to wonder if he's actually read it if he claims 90% is repetition. But then again, the prophets all have a very similar message, so in one respect one could say that, but not really.

 

[D.A.S.H.]

I'm actually reading the KJV again.This time alongside Young's literal translation.(I know,right:sleep.

Don't know if "proud" would be the right word...maybe.Somebody has already mentioned the word "privileged".I think that's a pretty accurate word,for me.
I consider it a privilege to own a bible.In the past,it was not accessible to the common layperson to read from the bible.Many died for us to be able to read from it ourselves.
So I enjoy reading the bible,just about any bible.
With that said,I believe the bible is a great book,but still a book.
A book on an ancient cultures way of life,centering on their path to follow the "Abrahamic" god.
Some good morals and teachings,some not.Some historical accuracy,again,some not.
I believe it is up to the reader to find his/her own meanings behind the words.If they find any at all.(as you implied).I,myself,take the logic I want from it.Same as I would reading Milton or Shakespeare.I take in what I want,and don't take in what I don't.
Make sense?
Even with all the errors in translations,we can find evidence of a religion that still follows us into the 21st century.

Repetitious?(heresy!)lol
Sorry.Been studying the Baltimore Catechism.(now that's repetitious).

 

[tempter]

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that it's edited to encompass many belief systems and interpretations aside from trivial differences, nor do I see how you came to the conclusion that it was designed to contain facts for proof of God's existence.

I've seen evidence of christianity absorbing other culture's ideas, concepts, dates etc to better assimilate their believers into the fold.
That's enough for me to give christianity my stamp of disapproval

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I've seen evidence of christianity absorbing other culture's ideas, concepts, dates etc to better assimilate their believers into the fold.
That's enough for me to give christianity my stamp of disapproval

:sleep: That's the genetic fallacy for you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Finally forced myself to read it cover to cover, all 1,750 pgs of my KJV ebook, and it would be an understatement to say I'm not impressed. Probably 90% of it is either repetitive (practically word for word) or trivial (geneologies, measurements...)

I wonder how many times the Old Testament states that following the law will lead to you spreading your seed gloriously, and disobeying the law will lead to death by "the sword, pestilence, or famine," or in the New Testament that faith leads to eternal life and lack of faith leads to destruction. If you removed all repitition of those statements you'd probably cut the length of the bible in half.

You really don't sound like you have read the Bible, as even saying half of it is repetitive, genealogies, or other trivial things is really stretching it, and missing most of what people typically complain about, one issue of which is concerning the inconsistencies and self-contradictions contained within the Bible. Sure there is alot of war in the Bible, but there has been a long history of war in the Middle East.
You also seem to also have very little knowledge or understanding of Judaism, because if you did you would realize that many parts of the OT were to be taken in an entirely different context that was meant for a Jewish perspective, not a Christian.