Have you read your holy book

[Quagmire]

I'm still writing mine.

 

[Clara Tea]

Done. Now twist the results to your evil ends.

Those who intend to do evil would never expose their intents. Rather, they would pretend to be on the side of God "fightin' evil" and using Satan's tools of fear, greed, and deception to further their ends. Satan is well know for mascarading as God.

 

[Clara Tea]

This is true of almost all words and books, but not that of guidance from God. Kids books are obviously not written for grown ups. There are books meant for higher academics and not meant for people reading subject first time. However, God's book is not like this. The reason being that's God words are layered go reach out to all minds of mankind and still never be fully appreciated and understood by anyone save himself. Ahlulbayt (a) words are similar, in that, only they realize the full meaning and appreciate it, but they speak in a way all can listen and benefit.

God's book, the more you recite, the more deeper it gets, the deeper it gets, the more clear it gets. It's clarity expands and it's outward clearness expands the more knowledge you get.

As for Ahlulbayt (a) words. Alone they are almost nothing. With Quran and the way they compliment it, their eloquence and insights and level of light, too high for Devils to imitate for "they are from the hearing far removed".

This is also true of the bible of the Masons. It is written in code, and they give nothing to decode it. One must read it to gain an understanding. After than, one must read it again, to understand more. Then one must read it to understand more.

But, some argue that it is not a holy book, but a book of evil.

 

[RabbiO]

I have read Quran for approximately a hundred of times from cover to cover. Right?

“Right?” How would we know if the number you have stated is true? You’re not simply citing a number here. You’re asking us to confirm it. How do you propose we do that?

 

[syo]

Of course.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I have read Quran for approximately a hundred of times from cover to cover. Right?

“Right?” How would we know if the number you have stated is true? You’re not simply citing a number here. You’re asking us to confirm it. How do you propose we do that?

I explained it in my post #52 paarsurrey , my friend perhaps missed it. Right?
I have also read Torah (OT), from cover to cover and Gospels (NT) from cover to cover , both Catholic and Protestant versions. Right?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Although I am personally an atheist, as I was brought up in an essentially Christian culture, I will answer regarding the Bible -- and yes, I have read the Bible from cover to cover, three times. And I still always have a KJV and NIV Bible close at hand, and refer to them regularly.

There are several reasons for this, the easiest one, I guess, being intellectual curiosity. Second, English literature is chock-a-block full of Biblical references, and if you really want to get the most out of your reading (in English), it's not a bad idea to be familiar with the material.

But, yes, I have also read a great deal of the Bible with the purpose of understanding how it was put together (I get help by reading other scholars who know way more than I do about this), and if (and why) there are very real and irreconcilable contradictions (there are).

 

[paarsurrey]

Although I am personally an atheist, as I was brought up in an essentially Christian culture, I will answer regarding the Bible -- and yes, I have read the Bible from cover to cover, three times. And I still always have a KJV and NIV Bible close at hand, and refer to them regularly.

There are several reasons for this, the easiest one, I guess, being intellectual curiosity. Second, English literature is chock-a-block full of Biblical references, and if you really want to get the most out of your reading (in English), it's not a bad idea to be familiar with the material.

But, yes, I have also read a great deal of the Bible with the purpose of understanding how it was put together (I get help by reading other scholars who know way more than I do about this), and if (and why) there are very real and irreconcilable contradictions (there are).

" and if (and why) there are very real and irreconcilable contradictions (there are)"

So one means that one has read the Bible in its letter and Spirit. Right?

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Even I have to reread the entire internet, because it didn't soak in the first few times that I read it. (Joking). There is too much to learn in the world. Some cope by learning a lot about one subject. Others (like me) try to get a very broad education.

That has been my path as well.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

All the best, regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

" and if (and why) there are very real and irreconcilable contradictions (there are)"

So one means that one has read the Bible in its letter and Spirit. Right?

Regards

I did not say that. I was quite open -- I am an atheist -- so there are are places where I cannot read the "Spirit" of the Bible. It doesn't make any sense to me, in that respect. If you want to know where that gets particularly difficult, try the book of Job. Job, read literally ("in its letter") is obvious nonsense, and it's easy to see that some of it (all of the Elihu stuff) is a later addition, and actually contradictory to what the original material is trying to express.

But trying to read its "Spirit" leads you just as far away -- because it is in "spirit" that Elihu departs from the original text. Job, as a Bible book, is a contradiction in and of itself.

 

[paarsurrey]

I did not say that. I was quite open -- I am an atheist -- so there are are places where I cannot read the "Spirit" of the Bible. It doesn't make any sense to me, in that respect. If you want to know where that gets particularly difficult, try the book of Job. Job, read literally ("in its letter") is obvious nonsense, and it's easy to see that some of it (all of the Elihu stuff) is a later addition, and actually contradictory to what the original material is trying to express.

But trying to read its "Spirit" leads you just as far away -- because it is in "spirit" that Elihu departs from the original text. Job, as a Bible book, is a contradiction in and of itself.

I meant by "spirit" to ponder deep on the verses and the context verses while reading and to form one's own reasonable understanding instead of following the clergy, as they say. Right?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I meant by "spirit" to ponder deep on the verses and the context verses while reading and to form one's own reasonable understanding instead of following the clergy, as they say. Right?

Regards

I ALWAYS read with my own understanding -- I NEVER accept somebody else's reading of a text that I am considering.

 

[Secret Chief]

Those who intend to do evil would never expose their intents. Rather, they would pretend to be on the side of God "fightin' evil" and using Satan's tools of fear, greed, and deception to further their ends. Satan is well know for mascarading as God.

I always had my suspicions, now you've confirmed them.

 

[paarsurrey]

I ALWAYS read with my own understanding -- I NEVER accept somebody else's reading of a text that I am considering.

So, one read the Bible in letter and spirit. Right?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, one read the Bible in letter and spirit. Right?

Regards

I cannot answer that because I do not know what you mean by "spirit."

Let me try to give an example that (I apologize) is going to be very, very difficult for you to understand -- I'm not blaming you for that, be assured.

The play "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett. It is a very strange play, and the author, Beckett, never said what he thought it was "about." Nor did he ever give any indication of the "spirit" in which he wrote it.

But believe me, it is difficult to understand, both literally and "in spirit," but the only "spirit" from which I can try to understand it is my own. That's all I have. I've seen the play (in different productions) 6 times so far, and I've read it (it is, basically, unreadable). The best description of it that I have read says: "nothing happens -- twice."

But I can only appreciate it fully when I engage the fullness of my own perspective -- nothing else. If that's what you mean by "spirit," then yes. But I don't think that's what you mean by "spirit" at all.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Inspired by a conversation with @Mark Charles Compton about whether Christians actually read the bible.

@Mark Charles Compton suggests that in his experience the majority of Christians have read the entire bible though it may differ by denomination. While my view again based on experience is that very few Christians have actually read the bible and are satisfied with snippets handed to them, so long as those snippets.meet their expectations.

Here i am going to expand the idea across all religions. First I ask for a simple Yes/No answer to the questionnaire then add a quick post naming which of the Bible, Qur'an, Gita, Torah, Guru Granth Sahib, Tripitaka or other named holy book of your religion you have read cover to cover.


Edit for clarity.

Some faiths have more (many more) than one book, for these, full read of the book(s) you consider most important will suffice for a tes vote

I read the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price. Our religion probably has more writing than any other though; I haven't read all of it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I cannot answer that because I do not know what you mean by "spirit."

Let me try to give an example that (I apologize) is going to be very, very difficult for you to understand -- I'm not blaming you for that, be assured.

The play "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett. It is a very strange play, and the author, Beckett, never said what he thought it was "about." Nor did he ever give any indication of the "spirit" in which he wrote it.

But believe me, it is difficult to understand, both literally and "in spirit," but the only "spirit" from which I can try to understand it is my own. That's all I have. I've seen the play (in different productions) 6 times so far, and I've read it (it is, basically, unreadable). The best description of it that I have read says: "nothing happens -- twice."

But I can only appreciate it fully when I engage the fullness of my own perspective -- nothing else. If that's what you mean by "spirit," then yes. But I don't think that's what you mean by "spirit" at all.

"Letter and spirit"

"According to what it says and its intention "

in letter and spirit | English | Idioms / Maxims / Sayings
Right?

Regards

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Yet, when President Bill Clinton had a lesser sex scandal, he was impeached by their so-called Independent council

Are you referring to Republican politicians, or Christians? If Christians are your target, I beg you to find a Democratic POTUS that wasn't himself a Christian.

we swear on Christian bibles in courts

You can swear your oath on another book of importance to yourself.

Christians claim that Atheists are evil or sinners, and they have nor morals. Yet, we don't see many scandals of atheists

Consider that they are restricted to their Dogma lest they risk fiery damnation, thus they lack freedom of choice. If that is the case, cite this: Without Freedom it is Impossible to Make Moral Choice Discuss - PHDessay.com they're the amoral ones if they lack choice.

Alex Haley's movie/book about his genealogy and slavery

I just found out this year that Haley apparently fictionalized a good deal of his book. Not that it reduces the tragedy of slavery, but it still felt lowbrow that it was sold as nonfiction.

"Genealogists have also disputed Haley's research and conclusions in Roots. The Gambian griot turned out not to be a real griot, and the story of Kunta Kinte appears to have been a case of circular reporting, in which Haley's own words were repeated back to him. None of the written records in Virginia and North Carolina line up with the Roots story until after the Civil War. Some elements of Haley's family story can be found in the written records, but the most likely genealogy would be different from the one described in Roots.
Haley and his work have been excluded from the Norton Anthology of African-American Literature, despite his status as the United States' best-selling black author. Harvard University professor Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., one of the anthology's general editors, has denied that the controversies surrounding Haley's works are the reason for this exclusion. In 1998, Dr. Gates acknowledged the doubts surrounding Haley's claims about Roots, saying, "Most of us feel it's highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village whence his ancestors sprang. Roots is a work of the imagination rather than strict historical scholarship."" - excerpt from Alex Haley - Wikipedia

"Haley called his novel "faction" and acknowledged most of the dialogue and incidents were fictional. However, he claimed to have traced his family lineage back to Kunta Kinte, an African taken from the village of Juffure in what is now The Gambia. Haley also suggested his portrayal of life and figures among the slaves and masters in Virginia and North Carolina were based on facts which he had confirmed through historical documents.
However, some historians and genealogists suggested Haley did not rely on factual evidence as closely as he represented, claiming there are serious errors with Haley's family history and historical descriptions in the period preceding the Civil War." - excerpt from
Roots: The Saga of an American Family - Wikipedia

Clearly

You're overdue for a vacation. Clearly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Letter and spirit"

"According to what it says and its intention "

in letter and spirit | English | Idioms / Maxims / Sayings
Right?

Regards

Then, "No." That's too legalistic. I can know nothing about the intention of Beckett writing "Waiting for Godot," and I can know nothing about the intentions of the (at least) two people responsible for the book of Job. In the latter case, I do know that the intention of the author of the central part of Job was very different from the intention of the later redactor who added the parts containing Elihu.

A law may state its intention, and may then try to develop language that attempts to ensure that intention is achieved, but that will never be perfect, because judges approach both language and intent with their own internal viewpoints. And they cannot, therefore, fully comprehend the intent of the writers of that law.

Welcome to being human.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually reading it helped convince me to leave.