IMO the bible is as you say just a collection of interpretations written by a number of different authors.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I am not anti-religion, people are entitled to believe whatever they want so long as they accept the fact that I am as well.
my opinion is that the bible is the best selling work of fiction in history.
You see this is where the disconnect happens. You're saying people believe in the crucifixion of Christ because people saw it in a painting. They don't. The painting is just that, a painting. It's someone's artistic depiction of an event which they believe happened because they learned of it from other sources they held to be trustworthy. Whether or not one or more people have in their minds a incorrect idea about the technicalities of crucifixion because they saw a painting really doesn't matter. But there are two subjects here. The first is that misrepresentations of things can transmit wrong ideas/facts. This is true. In the case of art, there is context in which we view it. Rarely should one go to art for an education in technical details. Nevertheless, whatever the form, if one wishes to convey truth of some sort, one should try to be as accurate as possible. That's why the message, not the method, is sacred (insofar as the method does not, in itself, convey vital parts of the message - but this is complicating things). So point one is, people can and do get wrong ideas from imperfect methods of communication. Even so, that doesn't mean that a truth doesn't exist, nor that is cannot be or is not properly/effectively communicated. It just means that in one or more cases it hasn't been. Saying that because some people might have a wrong idea about things doesn't mean they can't get the right idea about it.I must not lose the plot on what I'm trying to say here though. What I mean is that, things written in the bible cannot all be true. There have been too many variances, too many changes, to many people involved over too many centruries for it to all be right.
The second issue here though, is how a reasoning person might come to the right ideas. If a person comes to, in this case, the idea about the crucifixion of Christ, the first thing is the truth of the idea in general. The painting might be their first encounter with that idea, but a reasoning person, an inquisitive one, can, and would, go beyond the painting. They could ask around and find out that the painting is a depiction of an event recorded in the Bible. They could then go to the Bible and read what it has to say about the crucifixion. They could learn what it says about the details of the event, they could learn what is teaches about the reasons behind and implications of the event. If they wanted to know more about crucifixion they could then go to the history books to learn more about crucifixion to learn the truth about that form of execution - things like who used it, how was it used, why, and how it was effective and how widespread was its usage and for how long. They could then apply what they have learned of that history to the particular event in the Bible. They could also then ask questions about Christ. They could do the same investigations to learn about Him. See what history has to say. See what His message was, how He lived His life, what He did, etc. And so on and so forth and the thinking person can form their own views upon the events they first saw depicted in art. All this to say, a painting might not give a full perspective on something, but an educated, reasoning person would know this. An uneducated reasoning person could learn this. They could then delve deeper to see what else they might learn so that they have more accurate ideas.
This is, I think, the point that so many fail to grasp. It is assumed that Christians are all unthinking people who are deceived or self-deceived into believing silly fairy tales. This though isn't the truth. It is in fact exactly the sort of mistaken belief presented with the idea of this painting. People, have a simplistic, caricatured idea of what Christians and Christianity is about - a child's sketch on a fridge, perhaps something a little finer, They then make assumptions and decisions based on that simplistic knowledge. Not everyone of course, but a great many people. Perhaps because they have no desire, perhaps because they've been firmly taught to believe that way, or perhaps for one of many other reasons, they fail to go beyond the painting of Christianity and look deeper. They fail to find out the truth about why a given person believes. They do not, or perhaps in some cases cannot, conceive that such a believing person can be reasonable, because no reasonable person would put faith in such a simplistic thing as that painting. They fail to realise that the painting they have seen, which they hold in their mind, is just that, only a painting. That which the believer believes is not the painting, it is a reality greater than the painting, and until such a person can conceive of the fact that there might be more depth and truth to a person's belief than just the painting they know, they will never be able to conceive of 'believers' as rational - because rational people would, honestly, never do that.
So then to answer. In a word, yes. Yet, it should be made clear, the Bible isn't just one book. It's many books. And so while I believe in the full inspiration and truth of the Bible, I read that truth in different ways. When there is history I read it as history. When there is law I read it as law. When there are letters I read them as letters. When there is poetry I read it as poetry. When there are more ancient and complicated forms of writing, such as apocalyptic literature or prophetic imagery, I read them in the way they were intended to be read and understood. If you fail to understand that, if you have only a painting of the Bible in your head - as book from God to be read as an instruction manual from Him - then you will never be able to understand what I am talking about when I answer 'Yes' to your question.Do you, Galant, believe every word in the Bible to be... gospel? to be exactly true?
The Bible carries the words of God, the message of God. It is relevant and good. Seeking to know God through His word is life changing. Many men and women, far more intelligent and educated than I have said just the same, and experienced it for themselves. I count myself privileged to stand with them. The question is, you may dismiss me, an invisible face on the internet, but will you also dismiss men like John Lennox, Sir Robert Boyd, C. F. von Weizsäcker, Francis Collins, Larry Wall, CS Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, GK Chesterton, and many others as ignorant, unlearned, and foolish?
There are arguments against the existence of God, ones that demand a good, honest thinking and discussing, but these simple arguments about translation and historicity aren't them. Sincere, intelligent, critically thinking individuals, in a skeptical society, would hardly permit their lives to be governed by mere child's play.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
If paintings didnt matter, then why so much effort made to display them ,as large as possible inside churches etc ( Many of which were done by the greatest painters of the day , and couldnt of been cheap )
Why were churches themselves designed to amply sound and littered with religious symbolism everywhere you looked ( in case you happened to forget where you were ) which even included having stained glass windows so you couldnt look out ?
Why was it too that churches where often the tallest buildings in the cities or towns ?
If art didnt matter or the power to use it to trap someones attention and impose a sense of awe or fear, Religion sure had funny way of showing it ..
m
Symbolism. Crucifixion was a known method of Roman execution, but a painting is not a contemporaneous record. The details of the nonfiction (binding the body to the cross are not relevant to the symbolism (although some paintings do include such detail.)
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Ropes holding people to the cross are clearly visible
Vodka
kalniel (21-09-2012)
I wasnt talking about it being proof through accuracy though , but rather efforts made to infiltrate and overwhelm culture with religious grandeur through artistic endeavors - much like advertising does today.
The point being that painting or art, while admittedly itself is just an act of perception ,can transcend that into common perception used to promote whatever it is they want to sell or put on display.
My question is why they would need to put on displays of craftmanship or power, when surely it only detracted and attracted they very sort of people who " seek " religion in the first place?
If its promoted so much and furthermore enforced , its no longer religious /intimate / sacred
is it ? ( which I thought was the whole point of any religion i.e. the relationship you have with God ,Buddha or whatever through yourself ) it just becomes the norm , and a brand like everything else - you kill the mystique & myth ( the very thing that attracts people )
m
Last edited by melon; 21-09-2012 at 11:58 AM.
melon states it exactly as I was thinking it. but words it better.
misconceptions are what makes mankind.. interesting. And misconceptions must have clouded the truthful history of the Bible, at least in parts.
It can't all be right... and because Galant, lovely as the member is, believes every word of it.... and I don't.. we will never agree on it's content. Not because I dislike religion. But because I dislike people blindly believing in things that are likely part fiction, or bent fact.
History is written by the victors. The victors were Christians in this part of the world and not in others.
Science is right in my part of the world. and any of us can prove that things written are not always to be believed as they can be misconstrued
melon (21-09-2012)
This is another increasingly worrying problem that is not helping western religions cause ...
How can someone be deemed as , " Holy " or approved by God - or working in Gods name if their doing this ?
Dali lama has also has had some interesting things to say as of late as well .
m
Last edited by melon; 21-09-2012 at 02:01 PM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_%28music%29
Clearly they're not going to be deemed as Holy or approved by God, any more than non-religious people are going to be judged by the actions of a hilterite. If there's one really clear message from Christianity it's that we are not perfect - the above is a great illustration of that.
Not by us - but someone using the same approach to religion as written in the bible did ( clergy / minister / bishop / pope or whoever it is )
m
Same - much of the western worlds ideas of ethics and justice are in line with Christianity in any case.
True , but they're not using it to purely represent God or some higher " supernatural "power by making laws in his name .
m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute...ecution_method
Ropes holding people to the cross are clearly visible
"Stauros" interpreted as stake only
Crucifixion on a stake,
Illustration in Justus Lipsius' De cruce 1595
Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger, in The Companion Bible (which was completed and published in 1922,[3] nine years after his 1913 death), was emphatic in his belief that stauros never meant two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, "but always of one piece alone ... There is nothing [of the word stauros] in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber." Bullinger wrote that in the catacombs of Rome Christ was never represented there as "hanging on a cross" and that the cross was a pagan symbol of life (the ankh) in Egyptian churches that was borrowed by the Christians. He cited a letter from English Dean John William Burgon, who questioned whether a cross occurred on any Christian monument of the first four centuries and wrote: "The 'invention' of it in pre-Christian times, and the 'invention' of its use in later times, are truths of which we need to be reminded in the present day. The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed in any manner."[4]
Justus Lipsius: De cruce, p. 47
Crucifixion of Jesus, by Justus Lipsius
Plymouth Brethren preacher W. E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words also states that the primary meaning of stauros was an upright pale or stake on which malefactors were nailed for execution. Vine said the shape of the ecclesiastical form of two-beamed cross had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (taking on the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in Chaldea and nearby lands, including Egypt. He said third century churches, which by then had departed from certain doctrines of the Christian faith, accepted pagans into the faith in order to increase their prestige and allowed them to retain their pagan signs and symbols. "Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the 'cross' of Christ."[5]
In his 1871 study of the history of the cross, Episcopal preacher Henry Dana Ward similarly accepted as the only form of the gibbet on which Jesus died "a pale, a strong stake, a wooden post",[6]. James B. Torrance in the article "Cross" in the New Bible Dictionary writes that the Greek word for "cross" (stauros; verb stauroō; Lat. crux, crucifigo, "I fasten to a cross") means primarily an upright stake or beam, but also allows the construction that Jesus and Simon of Cyrene carried a patibulum to Golgotha.[7][8]
there's a lot of possible misinterpretations of biblical texts LV19:28 is most likely in reference to the common practice of branding slaves like cattle so slave masters knew who each slave belonged to
LV19:19 is most likely regarding cross breeding of animals and plants, creating something that could potentially be harmful, or simply that you can't grow two sets of crops in the same field mixed together
you really need to go back to the original writings and then try and translate for yourself, but without knowing a lot of history of custom and practice at the time, and how language changed, and even if you did, you still might not know what it meant. only a few years ago people would think "happy" when someone said gay, but now people would think something very different. it's the same back then
but some people just take the writings literally and try and live their lives around words that are quite possibly wrongly translated and mean something completely different and maybe not even relevant now
take other stuff like jesus walked on water. anyone can do that. just let it freeze. years ago when someone first did it in a country that wasn't so cold, it must have amazed people, just like the first use of fire by man. most "amazing" things can have a simple real world explanation, and have nothing to do with a man in the sky
Yes, those two points are part of 19:19, but:
"neither shall there come upon on you a garment made of two kinds of material."
"neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee."
"'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
"nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
"Never wear clothes made from two kinds of material."
are sending a pretty coherent message that is not really open to interpretation, right?
Vodka
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
