Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[Stosh 3452]

You seem to have missed my point in my previous post -- the ONLY definitions of morality we have are from people, including people who claim to be speaking for god(s).

 

It's people all the way up.

 

So you aren't comparing the opinion of men vs. god, you're comparing the opinion of men vs. men, but you are mistaking it for the former.

 

Nope, I don't think he missed your point, you missed his.  

[Eagledad 2779]

You seem to have missed my point in my previous post -- the ONLY definitions of morality we have are from people, including people who claim to be speaking for god(s).

 

It's people all the way up.

 

So you aren't comparing the opinion of men vs. god, you're comparing the opinion of men vs. men, but you are mistaking it for the former.

I didn't miss it, I was trying to keep the discussion in the context of why God has to be in the BSA program.

 

Personally, I disagree with you.

 

Barry

[moosetracker 132]

Meryln - you are speaking a foreign language saying the Bible was written by man, when talking to people who believe the Bible came from God.. You will never ever see each others points of views..

 

Me, I fall somewhere in the middle of the two views with the Bible was written by man interpreting the word of God, and man writing down what Jesus did when he walked amongst us (think the very first newspaper men.)... Then it's been reinterpreted, and reinterpreted, and reinterpreted again... But, somewhere within all that reinterpretation, there are nuggets of God & Jesus...  But, then everyone now takes the current Bible we have and get 50 points of views by how each of us individually interpret the Bible..  So where does that leave us?.. Who knows.. One of the reasons why organized religions do nothing for me.. I can interpret for myself and I don't need anyone to do it for me, thank you..

Edited April 22, 2015 by moosetracker

[Eagledad 2779]

Meryln - you are speaking a foreign language saying the Bible was written by man, when talking to people who believe the Bible came from God.. You will never ever see each others points of views..

 

 

Inspired by God, but yes the point is correct. I see Merylin's point of view, I just don't agree with it, at all. There has to be a leap of faith somewhere, otherwise you are just an atheist. LOL

 

I admit I don't understand your view Moose with the "nuggets of God and & Jesus". If you can't trust all the Bible, how can you trust any of it? It's too easy to just pick those things that make us feel good. And when it really gets down to it, the different written Bible interpretations are pretty close. It's just the laymen interpretations that go out there. 

 

I do agree that you can and should interpret the Bible yourself, but you aren't going to get much out of it until you at least hypothetically approach it as God speaking to you personally. Being the skeptic you are, I imagine that you will get far more out of it than many who just accept it as Gods word. 

 

Barry

Edited April 22, 2015 by Eagledad

[Stosh 3452]

People who seek self interpretation of Scripture is the main reason for all the different traditions.  Once everyone's agenda is established, it's pretty difficult to get back to the original meanings.  No religion is without it's many factions.  Muslims fighting with Muslims, Jews fighting with Jews and Christian fighting with Christians is just as prevalent as fighting going on between the different religious traditions.  Then there's me off in the corner, doing my own thing, convincing myself I have all the answers because I interpreted Scripture better than anyone else.    Every new tradition is heresy to the old.

[Eagledad 2779]

People who seek self interpretation of Scripture is the main reason for all the different traditions.  Once everyone's agenda is established, it's pretty difficult to get back to the original meanings.  

I agree, it is risky. But maybe Moosebyterians could become the new hope for us all. 

 

Barry

[Stosh 3452]

I agree, it is risky. But maybe Moosebyterians could become the new hope for us all. 

 

Barry

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

It's not just the "interpretation" of Scripture, it's what material is included in the first place.  It is my understanding that if you compare the Roman Catholic version of the Bible with the version used by most Protestants, some books (or portions of books) are added or subtracted from one to the other.  (I am obviously not an expert on this, but that's what I have read.)  Meanwhile, the "Jewish Bible" (for lack of a better term in English) was somewhat added to and subtracted from to produce what Christians call the "Old Testament", and even that is not identical from one part of Christianity to the next.  And of course the "Jewish Bible" does not include the New Testament at all.  And then there are some books that have been discovered that seem to have been intended to be included in either the "Old" or New Testament, but they were not included anywhere.  I believe portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls provide examples, at least in connection with the "Jewish Bible."

 

So it's not just what the words mean, it's what the words are to begin with.  And those decisions were made by people.  

[Eagledad 2779]

And those decisions were made by people.  

If one is supposed to have faith that God is omniscience and omnipotent and omnipresent, then one can consider that God is in control in what each individual requires for their individual growth.

 

The hard part is making the first step to just do something. While many folks are critical of people using wrong interpretations, I find more often people are giving credit to God for their decisions without ever opening the bible. Things like "God says we are to love everybody, so I choose to.......". I consider ignorance more dangerous than misinterpretation because those people blindly follow their emotions without any balance of objectivity.

 

Barry

[MattR 2659]

Part of me agrees with Barry. In my prayer book is a quote in a footnote that I really like. It says Judaism is a matter of the heart. Reform Judaism views the messianic age as a goal we should work towards, where violence and poverty are no more. It's an impossible goal that is still worth striving for. That's a contradiction for the mind, but not the heart. So is following the scout law. The scout law is an ideal we'll never reach but that we should always strive for. So having an absolute such as God, even if we can never reach it, is good training that works well with the Scout Law.

 

On the other hand I disagree with Barry. Interpretations of the meanings of the bible do change. The changes can not be quick and not just anyone can make changes to suit their needs. There is a process that slows changes down and requires consensus of past ideas and present scholars. Look at the interpretation of the story of Jacob. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have very different views of that story. Many Christians view Jacob as similar to Christ. Jews don't see it that way. Same God, different interpretations of what the Bible says.

[Sentinel947 1205]

It's not just the "interpretation" of Scripture, it's what material is included in the first place.  It is my understanding that if you compare the Roman Catholic version of the Bible with the version used by most Protestants, some books (or portions of books) are added or subtracted from one to the other.  (I am obviously not an expert on this, but that's what I have read.)  Meanwhile, the "Jewish Bible" (for lack of a better term in English) was somewhat added to and subtracted from to produce what Christians call the "Old Testament", and even that is not identical from one part of Christianity to the next.  And of course the "Jewish Bible" does not include the New Testament at all.  And then there are some books that have been discovered that seem to have been intended to be included in either the "Old" or New Testament, but they were not included anywhere.  I believe portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls provide examples, at least in connection with the "Jewish Bible."

 

So it's not just what the words mean, it's what the words are to begin with.  And those decisions were made by people.  

The books are called the deuterocanonical books. They are Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther. They are all books from the old Testament. Catholics consider then canon, most Protestants do not and call them the Apocrypha.

 

The decisions were certainly made by men at various councils. Some would say the councils were guided by the holy spirit in making the decisions about the books.

 

Sentinel947

 

 

Sentinel947

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I didn't miss it, I was trying to keep the discussion in the context of why God has to be in the BSA program.

 

Personally, I disagree with you.

 

Barry

 

 

So, you mean you have personal revelations from god?  That's about the only non-human source of god-based morals that I can think of that you could claim.  Anything else, as I said, have humans in the loop.

[Eagledad 2779]

Anything else, as I said, have humans in the loop.

Humans in the loop, ya I think that's fair.

 

Barry

[qwazse 4344]

So, you mean you have personal revelations from god?  That's about the only non-human source of god-based morals that I can think of that you could claim.  Anything else, as I said, have humans in the loop.

What, you don't? Sorry you're missing out.

 

I once explained orthodoxy (to a zealous protestant friend who was a little in denial about being protestant) as the doctrine that we choose to hand down to our children because we have found it to be of lasting value. The trick is making sure that "we" includes the carnival of souls who've come before and gone ahead.

[qwazse 4344]

It's not just the "interpretation" of Scripture, it's what material is included in the first place.  It is my understanding that if you compare the Roman Catholic version of the Bible with the version used by most Protestants, some books (or portions of books) are added or subtracted from one to the other.  (I am obviously not an expert on this, but that's what I have read.)  ...

 

So it's not just what the words mean, it's what the words are to begin with.  And those decisions were made by people.  

The decisions on cannon are a study in itself. But protestants and catholics work from the same OT and NT. They dispute the importance of apocrypha ... which basically cover the period between Israel's return from exile, the wars of Maccabees, and the rise of Roman occupation  -- most devout protestants (and, obviously, Jews) read it sooner or later. There is nothing from those books that couldn't be inferred from agreed-upon cannon, and therefore the extra narrative does not explain any schism.

The one distinction between Jewish and Christian cannon, is the ordering of the books. The Jewish Bible has books in Chronological order, while the Christian Old Testament is ordered (crudely) by style of writing (Law, History, Poetry, Major (i.e. prolific) Prophecy, and Minor (i.e. brief) Prophecy).

Obviously, the NT sets the tone for divergence in Jewish and Christian thought. But, even there, the writing seems to reflect on why there is a division, not drive people to be divisive.

 

If you have a bookish scout who wants to discuss these things (at least from a Christian perspective), here is a source of public-domain material that a friend started back when everyone was asking what the "www" on his buisness card meant: http://www.ccel.org/search/books/apocrypha. The Vatican library produces similar resources online. (I'm sure there are comparable Jewish sites. And, at last look, the Islamic schools are getting there.)

(And yes, CCEL comes with an app.)