A quick Bible question:

[Random_Australian]

What is its purpose? (According to those who believe in it)

Is it supposed to be some guide to a better world? I thought it was people writing down what Jesus said, and how he could do miracles and other impressive stuff. If so, then why do so many treat the Bible as a sort of guide to how it all works? (This is does, however, assume that you are using the Bible as a source of morals)

Lemma question: Was Jesus supposed to be able to reveal, in the 100,000 words or less he was given, enough information to give an accurate descriptor of the way we should live now? In other words, did he have more purpose than to just die for our sins? Was he actually supposed to reveal the true meaning of life or whatever?

Cheers,
R_A.

Note: This post made from curiosity, not desire for flame.
If the Bible says somewhere "This is the purpose of the Bible" that would be lovely, thankyou.

Edit: I realise that this is only answerable by the individual - I am not asking you to represent Christianity but rather your beliefs and interpretation of it.

[still_one]

1. I don't know I'm Jewish

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Oy vey!

You don't know the Talmud? What, you didn't go to Hebrew School when you were a youngster?

[still_one]

2. I don't know I'm a Muslim

[Random_Australian]

5. Interesting that you need an "a" in the second but not the first.

I wonder if this is due to the out group homogeneity fallacy?
(Don't mind me, just rambling)

[still_one]

7. not at all, I was trying to make a point that it was in the eye

of the believer

[Random_Australian]

12. I see - that is why I put "according to those who believe in it" plus I

do expect a range of answers from the various people who do.

This is more about discovering what they think than attempting to uncover some objective truth.

[still_one]

cool, interesting thread you started

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Salaams

to you. It is odd, indeed, that you don't know of the Book, for the Qur'an explains that the Torah, the New Testament, and the Qur'an are all part of the same Message from the One.

And indeed it must be so-

Shema Israel Adonai elohenu Adonai a Hud

La illaha il Allah

[still_one]

3. I don't know I'm a Buddist

anyway you get my point, it is in the eye of the beholder

[Derailer]

4. Oh man you should look into the gnostic gospels

my personal favorites are the ones where Jesus says "all women shall become men" and the one that assigns a speaking role to the cross :)

That would pretty much have to be enlightening I think!

[Random_Australian]

8. Look for the meaning of the Bible -according to Christians- in the Gnostic

Gospels? ;)

Just fooling around. I'm sure they would be interesting.

[Derailer]

9. If not interesting, entertaining anyway

Think of it as a BANNED FROM THE BIBLE compliation

[saltpoint]

6. It is the history of the faith of a people.

But this collection of books is arbitrary, as there were many other books in use contemporary to these, and significant omissions and interpolations are a consideration.

As literature it is frequently spellbinding.

[Random_Australian]

11. I see- so it is not supposed to be a guide - even if it is incidentally-

that is not it's purpose.... most interesting.

So - could you say that it is an interpretation of some original revelation by a series of people?
And secondly, would you say that the guidance from it is mainly through interpretation of the history? Or is it from the attempt to recover the original revelation?

[saltpoint]

14. All good questions, even essential questions, but only answerable

in my opinion through the individual practitioner.

The early bishops banned and burned some of the active texts which might just as easily have defined the New Testament.

The Middle East and Egypt would have been on any number of camel routes and ideas had reasonably swift and certainly frequent passage and commerce in the towns and villages along those routes. Almost anything we have to look at now is a dazzling slap-dash of a thousand individual interpretations. It makes it daunting on one hand and unbelievably exciting on the other.

If one person sees it as a guide, it's a guide. Or as literature, then it's literature. As a source of historical insight, ... and so forth.

[Random_Australian]

22. *ahem* "Only answerable (....) through the individual practitioner" -Well,

yes I agree, and had anticipated this. In particular, I was after your opinion, as in the individual practitioners who answer this.

I'll edit the OP.

[saltpoint]

31. 'Was only trying to respect the range of practitioners!

[Random_Australian]

33. Ah, I see. Now you have, feel free to post or not to post your opinions.

If you've formed them about those questions already. If you've not.... well they certainly are good food for thought!

Cheers,
R_A.

[saltpoint]

35. My initial response covered my thoughts to your question.

A history of the faith of a people. Omissions and interpolations likely, and literature of frequently elegant style and import.

[Random_Australian]

37. *ahem* yeah sorry. Trying to keep track of too much. :)

[hedgehog]

44. "The early bishops banned and burned some of the active texts"

That may be true as far as it goes, but keep in mind that the early bishops were popularly elected by the local people, not appointed from Rome. In other words, they represented the views of the bulk of Christians. I don't know if they actually engaged in a house to house search for banned texts, but book burning has been a popular practice in many cultures. Some Christians still engage in it periodically, but many would not.

[saltpoint]

47. As Christianity became the coin of the realm that was once the Roman

Republic and then eventually, and sadly, the Roman Empire, over what -- the first 800 or 900 years? -- bishops were appointed. The first ones were elected. But it was never not political.

The canonization of "The Bible" is an arbitrary selection and does not necessary represent "the majority" of texts, or communities using this or that or the other text.

Bishop Irenaeous of Lyon and others ordered that texts not consistent with Church teaching be banned or burned as heresies. Communities found using these texts were often condemned or excommunicated.

Fortunately a few brave souls stashed a few tattered copies into earthen jars, where history eventually unveiled them. The Nag Hammadi texts are such a find.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. It's a guideline to how to be a Paulist

Just my 2 cents. :-)

[Random_Australian]

13. This is it's pupose? And is to live as a Paulist the intention

of Jesus? Or does the intention to live in a certain way arise from the interpretation of followers?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. Paul designed the Christian religion.

In fact, how Jesus worshipped, was not good for Paul, so Paul altered it. Perhaps he did this because he never knew Jesus, having been born after him and lived after him, and never having met the man. Paul was very dynamic and designed this church almost singlehandedly. He even adapted his instructions to each audience. I thought that was pretty amazing.

[saltpoint]

17. Thank you for using that term, "Paulist."

Just my own take here, but I don't rate Paul as a very positive or sympathetic figure.

I'd rather hear more gnostic-infused text than the letters of Paul, at least if those are my two choices.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. You're welcome. The Christian religion is Paulism.

Very different from what Christ intended to happen, if one is to judge Christ's words, and not Paul's.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. It is my impression that the Bible evolved

over the centuries. It was first a collection of stories related orally, only written down years after the events happened. Some of it, especially in the Old Testament, was a series of laws given to the Hebrew people to follow, as well as a history of their nation.

If one is acquainted with Middle Eastern history, one understands, for example, why Leviticus condemns eating milk and meat at the same meal; this is what the Canaanites did in their scrificial rituals to the weather god Baal;they slaughterd a kid and cooked it in the milk of its mother. Archeological evidence around Jericho seem to indicate the walls did "come tumbling down" not once, but several times during its 9000 year existance.

Mark, I believe, is the oldest existing written Gospel, but be cautious with what it and the other books of the New Testament say, for they were often written in Greek from oral Aramic traditions, and Greeks didn't think the way the Aramaic-speaking Jews did; in Greek, there is a dichotomy-a thing can be either one thing or another; in Aramaic, a thing can be both one thing and another, an important difference that has often been lost amidst translations and history.

All holy books give us a clue on how people should live. Jesus said it in His second commandment: Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. You can find variations of this in all major religions.

I can't cite a quotation that says "This is what the Bible means" or how the Bible should be used, because, as I said, it was not written down as it was inspired, but rather evolved. This may be one reason why there are so many different ways in which it is interpreted.

[Random_Australian]

20. O.K. the reason I was getting at in all this; that needs must now be

uncovered; is that is the Bible supposed to be the source of morals? (Remembering that purpose does not translate to effect, so if it is not it's purpose it still could be the source, and if it was the purpose - for arguments sake the purpose of the scribes/dicators - then it may not be the source).

So, in a search for morals, one can certainly use the Bible and the normal world, but, is the Bible going to provide an accurate descriptor of the way we ought to live? Can a moral Christian rely soley on the Bible? To me it would seem that if the Bible is the accounts of the salvation through Jesus, then it would not be a source of morals at all - with one notable exception that in attempting to live like Jesus we could bring forth a better world.

If it is indeed the record of history - should you not still be writing it? THAT would be interesting.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. I don't think so

especially if you take the evolutionary view of the Bible. It points the way to some rules and regulations of the past, especially in Leviticus, but as my example indicated, some rules were apparently in place for reasons that now aren't as important.

I don't quite get your idea that an historic text should be continued on to the present day-but I will say that with the discovery of ancient texts and of new translations of the Bible and other holy books, whole new interpretations of the Bible and its meaning are coming forth. I recommend the works of Neil Douglas-Klotz on new interpretations, especially if you are interested in the mystical aspect of the Bible.

[Random_Australian]

24. I'll clarify my "should still be writing" thing -

In a search for the truth, there have been a lot of people thinking over the Bible and other matters for many centuries. A few good books worth, like a set of condensed philosphy books, would be good, but also writing down and preserving the essentials of history. Learning from mistakes and stuff.
g2g, more later....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Ah, thank you for the clarification

Then I would strongly recommend the books of Neil Douglas-Klotz, starting with "Prayers of the Cosmos", which analyses each line of the Lord's Prayer and also the Beatitudes. Neil is a Sufi Murshid (teacher) and has made this reexamination of the Bible his life's work. He's just finished a book called "Genesis Meditations" which looks to be very enlightening as well.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. the purpose has changed over time

until the 500s it did not exist. Not as one collected work.
until the 1500s, it existed in many different versions, all contradictory.
But, let's talk about the english versions.

The Wycliffe version REALLY pissed off the priests. In fact, they managed to pass laws that barred any civilian from owning a copy. They surmised that private ownership of the book would allow them to negotiate the terms of that fairy tale. Of course, in the 1300s few people knew how to read. But it was still upsetting to the powerbrokers.
It was a magical, mystical and unseen center of power. The common man only knew what he was told about the bible, its contents, and how they had to obey.

The widespread dissemination didn't really occur until King James 1 and 150 yrs later, King james 2.
Only after a third revision (to americanize the language) did it become a hit in the US. Then, the purpose became to be a propoganda vehicle. Which it serves as today.

[Random_Australian]

21. O.K. So it had some original intrinsic purpose, (as what?)

And now it has been modified, so that the purpose is modified also.

So, what is the purpose now? A combination of the original and the attempted ones. What do you believe to be the original purpose of the the information from Jesus now in the Bible - the uncollected works?

[okasha]

34. Biblical versions

until the 1500s, it existed in many different versions, all contradictory.

Inaccurate. There was one standard version in Western Europe, the Latin Vulgate. The Bible became widely distributed with the invention of the printing press in the late 15th century, followed by Luther's translation into German almost a hundred years before the KJV. The KVJ was preceded not only by John Wycliffe's translation, but by the Coverdale Bible, which was the first English-language text used in the Anglican Church.

[tjwmason]

39. As an aside - Coverdale is still used.

His translations of the Psalter is still part of the official Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England - sung in churches and Cathedrals across the country every day.

The Authorised Version (alias K.J.V.) was also preceeded by the Douay Rheims which was translated by English Jesuits living on the continent (to avoid persecution here) and until fairly recently was the most common translation among Roman Catholics.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. but wasn't it Coverdale, not wycliffe, that was intended for public use?

And that one fact managed to anger the preacher class something awful?
I recall the Henry VIII concocted his own version with some fairly inaccurate translations. A jewel encrusted beautifully bound version.

Don't forget that there were three king james versions.

KJV -1 which had not one scholar capable of translating hebrew, aramaic or syriac. A century or more later came:
KJV-2 made more than 10,000 corrections to the old testament alone.
Then, they concocted KJV-2 Rev. - an americanized version for export to the states. They simplified some of the bigger words thinking that yanks could not grasp their meaning as written.

[pretzel4gore]

28. it's premised on the notion that God has a 'plan' for ....creation

...to implement this 'plan' entails overcoming 'death' which is the ultimate evil (like 'off' or zero in the binary etc) ....since all people are linked together somehow, that means education and politics and communication and belief systems, prejudices and so on: the bible is an aid to getting the social order set up so 'life' ('on' or 1 in the binary) will prevail over death, peace over war, joy over misery and so on.....the bible is but one part in the struggle for 'salvation' which in the final analysis means 'eternal life' and all the rest of that religious type stuff (heaven as opposed to hell)
there are alot of religious skeptics here at DU. That's largely the result of the fact men have used religion to become pigs (the type that don't taste good) and too many have played havoc with the human race (not to mention the animal kingdom) using God's name in vain. To respond to your question seriously subjects whoever does it to ridicule, but the bible is a plus factor in the world, despite the fact many bible thumpers seem to have a death wish (for the whole damn planet!)...as anyone who has watched the bush regime these last few years can see, 'evil' does seem to have some kind of built in advantage - but the bible does condemns them, despite their self serving lies, and noone should worry about THAT!

[Random_Australian]

29. I'm not here to flame nor ridicule, atheist though I am; ok, so

this is the purpose of the Bible, in your opinion which is a valid conclusion; so I'll ask this follow up:

In viewing the Bible, you see the purpose as both something that is a guide for social order, and also something that God intended. (That is how I interpreted it, kindly correct me if I am mistaken)- so did God act (in this case to give the Bible a specific purpose) through Jesus or through the people who wrote it down? In other words, was Jesus' purpose not simply to die for our sins but to enable a more sinless world? How have the humans writing this down affected the purpose of the Bible and it's ability? In other words, will the Bible alone be enough to bring this world to social order?

But most importantly, how is the Bible intended to do this? Is it something that we, for instance, read and think about, or is it something we read and follow? Is it something that modifies someones behaviour, who in turn modifies other peoples behaviours and so on until social order is reached?

Feel free to throw in random asides.

[pretzel4gore]

46. if 'god' wants something, 'god' gets it...

going back to cain/abel, free will has been the main argument concerning believers.....the bible contains info towards the idea of god, and humanity's experience etc, but the bible is only what its readers makes of it-you fail to factor in the 'holy spirit' who is actually in the world (if you want to 'feel' the holy spirit, you can: in 'Pilgrims Progress' there's a scene where the character Hopeful is questioned by Christian as to why he was on the journey, what caused it? Hopeful answered that he met an 'evangalist' who told him if he wanted to meet the holy spirit, he first was to say this specific prayer, again and again, and eventually, the Holy Spirit would enter him etc....in 1980 i was basically crazy, an unemployed merchant sailor beached in montreal, and for 2 years past i has been trying to be a 'xian'....i read Pilgrims Progress, and wondered what would happen if...to make a long story brief, i did as the book said, and sure enough(!!))...anyway, there's something going on that just isn't linear progression of time or a mishmash of matter: something very dramatic, and it involves everyone whether they want it or not. The bible tells people about this and that, and some people imagine the answer can be appreciated while, as ts eliot put it, we're 'distracted from distraction by distraction'....noone can deny every creature that ever lived dies alone, and when we're dead, there aint no more distraction, none.
i hope that answers your question

[TexasProgresive]

30. Looks like you got some helpful responses-NOT!

The Bible is a collection of writing from the Jewish testament, including the Torah, the historical books, the Prophets, Psalms and Proverbs. The Christian Bible adds to that it's testament which has 4 Gospels- which tell the story of Jesus from 4 points of view, the Acts of the Apostles which is a sequel to the Gospel of Luke, the letters of Paul to various churches and people, the "catholic" (in that they were universal and not addressed to a particular congregation or person), letters of John, James and Jude and then the Revelations of John.

It was written over a fairly long period of time. Much was oral traditions that were written after many generations of being passed down. The Bible has several literary forms including fiction. Christians and Jews who do not engage in bibliolitry (Bible worship) view the Bible as the revelations of God to the people. It is an unfolding that brought together a scattered people into one Nation, Israel. The murderous tendencies where revenge consisted of wiping out a whole tribe were mellowed to something a bit more reasonable, "an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth." with even a payment schedule not unlike insurance policy dismemberment payments.

Jesus comes on the scene and is seen as the fullness of revelation. He called us to love neighbor, enemy and each other as he loved us. I doubt that I am much of a Christian (which is to be an imitation of Christ) since Christians are called to live fully the above as a sign of having the grace of Christ. But it is the road I have chosen to travel.

God bless you, Father/Mother, Daughter/Son and the Holy Spirit/Sophia. Amen.

[Random_Australian]

32. I did get some helpful responses.... remember, I am asking what you

think the purpose of the Bible IS, in your opinion, not what the Bible is. Sorry for the confusion. :blush::blush:

[immoderate]

36. To fill out a bookshelf?

--IMM

[bluesbassman]

38. Reconciliation

God created man to have beings that he could have fellowship with because they wanted to, thus He gave us free will. The Bible is a chronicle of God's attempts to provide man with a means for overcoming the negative aspect of free will (sin), and reestablish the relationship that God had intended. If you study the Bible, Old and New Testaments, from that viewpoint, I think it is clear that this is the case. The problem for man was that the power of sin through free will, much like the power of addiction, is too strong for man to overcome on his own. Therefore, God provided the ultimate gift of grace through the sacrifice of Christ in taking on the obligation of the consequence for sin, which is the separation from fellowship with God. The Law, in theory, could provide the means for living a sinless life, but in actual practice no man was ever able to achieve righteousness through it. So you are certainly free to try to live according to the law, but the problem is that when you break any of the laws, you in essence break them all (become lawless) and in so doing separate yourself from God.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

40. so when you cut to the core, we are like playstation for god?

he "created" us, then inserted the cosmic game disc and watched it go?

How egotistical of him to require prayer. (Oh you so powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing creature, you! - hey, if he is all knowing, all seeing and all powerful, why would he need prayer? Doesn't he know everything without our having to ask?)
How mean of him not to answer so many. So either he cannot deal with all the demands or he doesn't care. Either way, god's a sadistic creep.
How "human" of him to create faulty critters. If he is omnipotent, why did he create error prone critters? The only logical reason is for his own entertainment.
How "big" of god to father a son (Who was his sex partner, by the way? Who was Mrs. God?) then have him killed on earth?
How foolish of him to create an "adam" and forget to create an "eve". Is god so limited that he could not predict that adam would get horny?
How foolish of him to forget the blueprints when he tried to create eve, so he needed to clone her from adam's stem cells in his rib.


What a crock of fairy tales intended to scare people into sheeplike submission.

The true purpose of the bible is to scare people. TO control them and to have the religious leaders maintain that control.

[Random_Australian]

41. *ahem* Loath am I to further antagonise you, but I was after

personal opinion. Glad I have yours to add to the mix, but perhaps something that doesn't char someone else next time? ;)

Eh, I expected at least one. You saved me from dissappointment. ;)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

42. I was not intending to char anyone here, just broil and baste the

idea of the bible being some word of an imaginary being. Of course, if this were 500 years earlier, I would be fried. 1000 years ago, not only would my goose be cooked, but the torture might be to much to handle.
Despite this temporary backsliding under Herr Bush, humanity's agnostic path away from religious-based societies has been a very healthy one. Just look at how badly people were treated by religions in the past and you can readily see that secular societies treat people much more humanely.

[bluesbassman]

48. Hey, I dig a good BBQ!

So in the spirit of good eating, allow me to comment on some of your remarks.

What is prayer but a conversation with God. As I indicated, that was God's original intention.

What makes you think he doesn't answer all prayers? Isn't no or not yet an answer? Or do you get everything you ask for out in the secular society?

What you call faulty design is actually free will. We have the right to choose good or evil. I don't believe God's intention was to create another animal with no choice but to follow it's instincts.

Jesus' purpose on Earth was to overcome sin, and provide man with a means to do the same. As to his birth, if you accept that God created all (which I realize you don't, but just for arguments sake), wouldn't He be able to effect a non sexually initiated birth?

He did create Eve, so what's your point? As for the method, read the account again, I think you missed what God was doing.

Like any principle, or teaching, if mis-used by people seeking their own agenda, the Bible and other spiritual teachings certainly can be used to subjugate others. However, I think those people don't study those teachings for themselves.

You may be right about 500 or 1000 years ago, but how close have you come to being roasted for your beliefs recently?

And finally, I agree that people representing religions of all flavors have and still do mistreat people. However I think you would have to admit that secular societies have their share of human rights abuses. I don't think that all of the people who died at Stalin's hand did so because Stalin was trying to please his god.

Now, could you please pass the cold slaw?

[Random_Australian]

49. Sorry, but I've been dying to use this line:

Stalin wasn't a real atheist! (He does not follow the teachings of science so he can't be)

The human population has loonies at random. Therefore some are bound to claim atheism.

BBQ you may like, but be rather careful to detach yourself from the idea that atheism was a causal factor in him behaving like that. People have been saying that in GD of late so we atheists are really angry about it. At least I am.

Anyway, "Or do you get everything you ask for out in the secular society?" Re-read vis a vie 'Do atheists pray?'.

Have you been roasted recently: Yes, atheists have. (I'm putting together the exact mechanisms right now. (Well, explaining them. Social Psychology already knows why prejudice happens.))

IIRC, a DU friend was fired due to atheism, atheists are distrusted, seen as immoral, angry, selfish unsocial bastards all across America, and even the left will not stand up for them. No, this isn't just imaginary, but found from interpersonal interaction.

Look, I've an idea: Wear a shirt saying "I'm an Atheist and proud of it!" for one week. Go on, I dare you.

Now for the annotation: Fun Fact: Animals have free will too.

[bluesbassman]

50. Not following the teachings of science?

That disqualifies Stalin from being an atheist? My understanding was that simply not believing or acknowledging that there is or are gods makes one an atheist. But my choice of Stalin was not because I believed him to be an atheist, but rather because of the secular nature of his regime (I think you would have to admit that the post war USSR government was predominantly secular) and it's relevance to antifaschits post about secular societies treating people better than religious ones. So believe me, my reference had nothing to do with atheism.

I surely believe that there are atheists being abused for their views, just as there are theists who receive similar treatment. I do not condone either. However, antifaschits made reference to what would have happened 500 or 1000 years ago, indicating that in today's secular society the treatment would not be the same. As a side note, your friends situation sounds like lawsuit material, IMO.

As for the shirt idea, where I live i probably wouldn't get more than a few sideways glances. But I'm sure in some areas you'd be putting yourself in serious risk. And that is unfortunate.

And could you expand a little on what constitutes free will in the animal kingdom. Thanks.

[Random_Australian]

51. The 'not a real atheist' line was to illustrate this point:

(Ok, to be honest, I am just testing it out on you before I use it in general)

Because yes, to be an atheist, all you need to do is not believe in any God.
To us, all you need to do to be Christian is to believe in God/Christ.

Thus, the 'not a real Christian' thing gets very annoying sometimes.

Anyway, free will.

Just suppose for a second that Newtonian Mechanics solved all of science. There was no Einstien, Bohr, Planck, any of that, because all the things guided by Newtons Laws hapened, and nothing else did.

Then, in this modified reality, if you knew all about the universe at any given time, you could predict with absolute certainty what it was going to be like at any other given time. As this involves humans and animals and all that, and our decisions, you could predict someones decision before they made it with absolute certainty. In other words, there would be no free will.

Now, we move to the real world.
If you know the maximum amount of information you can, Quantum Physics will systematically randomise it as it goes along, but following the laws of probability completely.
Therefore, if you knew all about someones brain, that is you knew what they were thinking, you could, because it takes a little while to get significant amounts of randomness, predict what they were about to do, and if you made a prediction for the first second, you may even have a 99% chance of bieng right. The second second, 93% and so on.

All brains share this, so everything with a brain has some slight degree of free will. (I'll go into the extremes more some other time), and there are a few things that set humans apart.

1) Big Brains. We don't have the biggest brain (blue whales do), but it certainly adds to how quickly we become unpredictable.

2) Planning brains. One part of the brain, using other parts, is planning ahead our future and whatnot. Small changes in one can have larger effects elsewhere.

3) Cognition. The amount of information we go through each day in words, symbols et cetera is enourmous.

4) Complex society. A small failed prediction in someone very powerful's brain will change the world, in time.

In conclusion, with unpredictability is the seat of free will, humans have rapid, above and beyond free will, but the animals still retain some.

ugh! That was not neatly put. My apologies if my rather clumsy post has confused.

[hedgehog]

45. According to the Gospel of St. John,

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31
But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name."

Book by book, the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian scriptures are believed by followers to be a record of faith in God. I myself would say that a lot of what is written is a record of contemporary attitudes, i.e. if the author believed in a vengeful god, God is shown as vengeful. Oddly enough, the belief pushes away from the vengeful god to a loving, forgiving God. This God does gives rules for living. He also confirms the beauty and value of Creation. (That's the point of the Creation story in Genesis, IMO). In other words, we aren't withdrawing from this world in an effort to unify with the One but engaging the World in order to build the Kingdom of God here and now.


As for what Jesus revealed, Catholic Christians believe in an on-going Revelation by the Holy Spirit. If we are guided by the Spirit, we come closer to what we should be. Thus, conditions such as slavery that were accepted in Jesus' time are now recognized as sinful.

Finally, just because we know what we should be doing doesn't mean that we always do as we should. We are still human.

[believerinchrist]

52. Within its pages is everything a human being needs to love God,

to love his/her fellow human beings, and to overcome evil. It takes discernment, desire, determination, and patience to sift through all that is written in it to find the nuggets of truth and wisdom.

What the Bible is not is a code of laws. Although it relates the laws that ruled the Hebrew nation in its early days, the Bible also moves beyond those laws to the love, grace, mercy, and compassion of God as shown by Jesus Christ. The New Testament is quite clear that believers in Christ are not to judge other human beings but to fight a warfare that cannot be seen but is real. It is a war between good and evil, love and hate, and light and darkness; it is accomplished first in the prayer closet and then in loving our fellow human beings.

[Stevepol]

53. The purpose of any book is in the mind of the reader and his./her ability

to use or exemplify the book. The people who first started writing it down had a purpose in mind probably, associated with the best behavior and attitude to have to deal with the world; and as time passed, the purpose of the book for the writers who added to it differed I'm sure from that of the original writers, etc.

The best version of the Bible is the one you write with your own life, so the purpose of the Bible must be the purpose you give your own life in response to the best that's in you. The way you live your life says, "These are the best principles I can deduce to base my own life on." And if I truly believe in my principles, I would also think that my principles would be good to be adopted by everybody else too, that is, if my own life is an Ideal one, the best that I can imagine for it.

If it won't work for me, it won't work for anybody else either; if it won't work for everybody else, why would it work any better for me?