The bible is a poor source for moral guidance

[leibowde84]

It seems odd that a god would communicate his message in a way that is so equivocal that there are as many seemingly legitimate ways to interpret it as there are people. This is how we end up with over 35,000 sects of christianity alone. In this scenario, one can never be certain about which interpretation of gods word is real or false. Why would a god do that if he is able to make his presence and message known to everyone in a way that is as unequivocal as the rising of the sun ?

Hey, there are obvious risks, I know. But, I do not see how that matters. The Bible was written by men from a very different time with a much shallower understanding of the world we live in. While they got some of the interpreting right, they clearly missed on some other stuff. Further, the Gospels were chosen from a collection of over 30 books written about the life of Jesus. Obviously, they picked the 4 which seems most accurate and linked well with each other, but it certainly added to the likelihood that some of the included text was wrong, or at least misleading. I know that you might not see this as a risk, possibly because the Holy Spirit would have prevented it, but I do not see that as the point. In other words, I don't think that was God's objective in the exercise.

Imho, it seems far more likely that the Gospels especially are meant to be living documents, studied and thought about. The important meaning behind passages cannot be seen with a mere glance. It takes time, patience, and a thirst for further understanding to really get to the point. And, each interpreter can build off those that attempted interpretations before him/her.

All in all, I think we have progressed a great deal morally and scientifically since the Bible was first interpreted. I believe that God had a part in this progression. And, as a result, I strongly feel that it is a slap in the face of God to refuse to use our reason and gained understanding to get a better idea of what Jesus was actually trying to teach us. You claim that risks of many denominations or people interpreting with bad intentions (making it fit their will) is reason enough to avoid deeper investigation into the meaning of scripture. I would strongly argue that the risks associated with sticking with the interpretations of ancient men is far more risky, as times have changed quite a bit.

But, we are both free to practice our faith in whatever way we choose. I have a close relationship with God, but I am not a member of an organized Church, because I do not agree with the interpretations of scripture that my own Roman Catholic Church held. Pope Francis is great, but he's not enough to win me back.

To me, the rules aren't nearly as important as inclusion, acceptance, grace, humility, generosity, love, and forgiveness. These are the things that make me love Jesus ... the rest are just side notes. And, if you think this is me "shaping the interpretations to my own will," so be it. I have to do what I think is right, not what the Church thinks is right ... they have been know to be wrong A LOT.

 

[Right lane]

Hey, there are obvious risks, I know. But, I do not see how that matters. The Bible was written by men from a very different time with a much shallower understanding of the world we live in. While they got some of the interpreting right, they clearly missed on some other stuff. Further, the Gospels were chosen from a collection of over 30 books written about the life of Jesus. Obviously, they picked the 4 which seems most accurate and linked well with each other, but it certainly added to the likelihood that some of the included text was wrong, or at least misleading. I know that you might not see this as a risk, possibly because the Holy Spirit would have prevented it, but I do not see that as the point. In other words, I don't think that was God's objective in the exercise.

Imho, it seems far more likely that the Gospels especially are meant to be living documents, studied and thought about. The important meaning behind passages cannot be seen with a mere glance. It takes time, patience, and a thirst for further understanding to really get to the point. And, each interpreter can build off those that attempted interpretations before him/her.

All in all, I think we have progressed a great deal morally and scientifically since the Bible was first interpreted. I believe that God had a part in this progression. And, as a result, I strongly feel that it is a slap in the face of God to refuse to use our reason and gained understanding to get a better idea of what Jesus was actually trying to teach us. You claim that risks of many denominations or people interpreting with bad intentions (making it fit their will) is reason enough to avoid deeper investigation into the meaning of scripture. I would strongly argue that the risks associated with sticking with the interpretations of ancient men is far more risky, as times have changed quite a bit.

But, we are both free to practice our faith in whatever way we choose. I have a close relationship with God, but I am not a member of an organized Church, because I do not agree with the interpretations of scripture that my own Roman Catholic Church held. Pope Francis is great, but he's not enough to win me back.

To me, the rules aren't nearly as important as inclusion, acceptance, grace, humility, generosity, love, and forgiveness. These are the things that make me love Jesus ... the rest are just side notes. And, if you think this is me "shaping the interpretations to my own will," so be it. I have to do what I think is right, not what the Church thinks is right ... they have been know to be wrong A LOT.

It seems you are saying to each his own. I fully agree with that. However, some religions, including christianity and Islam, tend to condem non-followers.

 

[leibowde84]

It seems you are saying to each his own. I fully agree with that. However, some religions, including christianity and Islam, tend to condem non-followers.

Not at all. I am saying that understanding the Bible is a progression. We get better and better at it as society learns more about our existance. We get closer to the truth through this exercise. It is most certainly not just interpreting in a way that is easy. It is actually the opposite.