True Purpose of the Holy Bible.

[MCcoins]

Enslavement to power.

Romans 13 Respect for Authority (Royals)

This is how Christianity was used to keep people under the thumb of the Catholic dictatorships that plagued Europe throughout the dark ages.  Unlike our Constitution, the Bible does not say that government can be wrong or malicious, only that you should obey them.  It tells you to trust and obey authority (the Catholic church) without question, because "they are sent from God" to rule over you.  Several times the verses refer to "authorities" almost as being "God" or at least "sent by God".

Sick... sick..


Romans 13
1Everyone must submit to governing authorities... 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons... 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect.

Can we admit these are ideas circulated by men who wanted power, and an easy mechanism of control?  What better form of tax collection than saying "God demands it"?

[Sophus]

What better form of tax collection than saying "God demands it"?

It is sort of odd that you hear God-fearing Tea Party people shouting "no more taxes" instead of "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

But yes, I agree, he Bible is there to control people. It's funny, I just got done watching The Book of Eli today. Gary Oldman blatantly said he wanted the Bible as a "weapon" to control people.

[McQ]

What better form of tax collection than saying "God demands it"?

It is sort of odd that you hear God-fearing Tea Party people shouting "no more taxes" instead of "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

But yes, I agree, he Bible is there to control people. It's funny, I just got done watching The Book of Eli today. Gary Oldman blatantly said he wanted the Bible as a "weapon" to control people.

This post made me think of that movie too, for the same reason. Funny.
On the Tea Party side of things though, I don't find it strange about the view on taxation. In general, conservatives (and certainly Fiscal Conservatives) are all about minimum government intrusion into their wallets. Or minimum government intrusion period, really.

[Achronos]

St. Augustine, in his Sermon on Matt 8:8 and 1 Cor 8:10(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.xiv.html)makes a very clear exposition of this passage (see paragraph 13):

Do we lift up ourselves unto pride, or tell you to be despisers against the powers ordained? Not so. Do ye again who are sick on this point, touch also that border of the garment? The Apostle himself saith, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. He then who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.”

But what if it enjoin what thou oughtest not to do? In this case by all means disregard the power through fear of Power. Consider these several grades of human powers. If the magistrate enjoin anything, must it not be done? Yet if his order be in opposition to the Proconsul, thou dost not surely despise the power, but choosest to obey a greater power. Nor in this case ought the less to be angry, if the greater be preferred.

Again, if the Proconsul himself enjoin anything, and the Emperor another thing, is there any doubt, that disregarding the former, we ought to obey the latter? So then if the Emperor enjoin one thing, and God another, what judge ye? Pay me tribute, submit thyself to my allegiance. Right, but not in an idol’s temple. In an idol’s temple He forbids it. Who forbids it? A greater Power. Pardon me then: thou threatenest a prison, He threateneth hell. Here must thou at once take to thee thy “faith as a shield, whereby thou mayest be able to quench all the fiery darts of the enemy.”

Since Paul was writing during the reign of Nero, we can only disobey the authorities when they command us to disobey God.

The passage does not promote slavery or tyranny any more than it promotes the persecution of the Church. In my opinion, Paul's basic position is that, however evil our rulers may be, God is using them for some purpose, and we should endure them as far as possible.

In Christ,
Achronos

[Sophus]

St. Augustine had several ideas that contradicted the Bible's. Does this mean you think that the Bible is not infallible?

[Achronos]

St. Augustine had several ideas that contradicted the Bible's. Does this mean you think that the Bible is not infallible?

I don't hold to Bible infallibility.

The Bible was written by fallible human beings who were attempting to seek God. Much of what the Bible portrays is man's attempt to find God. For example with the bears eating the children, this story may or may not be based in reality, but the purpose of such a message was probably to protect the image/reputation of a particular prophet at the time, to convey that it is dangerous to mock prophets of God, and probably an attempt to quell a dissention among the people who were mocking prophets at the time. The idea that God sent the bears to eat the children was man's interpretation of what God did (the person who wrote it), not what God actually did, that is the key difference. Again, I don't see much value in this particular story; I am not much of a fan of the OT in general except for perhaps some of the psalms and proverbs.

You might say, well then how can you believe anything in the bible if you 'believe' some is true and some isn't? For me, faith isn't intellectual assent to a creed, or believing that a prescribed set of miracles were historical events. The teachings and truths conveyed in the new testament are very profound and affect me on a deep level. The only way that the life, death, and resurrection of Christ becomes real or 'true' to me is to participate in his life death and resurrection (not literally obviously, but through the life of the church). It is only then that the reality of who Christ was/is becomes effective and transformative in my life. For me, believing in facts has no power by itself. Faith must be 'tried on' or put to use by practical action for it to be of any true value. For me, one of the true benefits of religion is that it draws me to a higher level of compassion for my fellow human being that I have not otherwise thought I was capable of.

To sum up I don't consider the bible to be inerrant or the literal "word of God". Some of it is useful for contemplating the divine, and some of it simply isn't. The only real meaning I draw from the scripture it's use in the context of the liturgy itself.

[Heretical Rants]

Some of it is useful for contemplating the divine, and some of it simply isn't.

Very good, Achronos.
I give you an A.

Cheers.

[Sophus]

Fair enough. Just trying to understand where you're coming from.  

[Achronos]

I'll say this as well,the Bible is not read by a scholarly way. Sure, there is a scholarly way to read the Bible if you want to study it in a scientific manner. But there's also a spiritual way, as was its true intent, since it's not primarily a history book (although it has some historical elements that can't be ignored) or a science book, but a book of spirituality. So we acknowledge that some mistakes can be made, but its spiritual essence is infallible). We "prayerfully" read the Bible searching for lessons and teachings in our lives, and sometimes passages are taken allegorically for these teachings to be made manifest for us personally as well as strengthening our faith in Christ. There are tough passages no doubt, but I think most of these touch passages people deal with is in the Old Testament. The way Christians read the OT is through the lens of the NT, not alone. The OT at its time is believed to be a time of the veil that covered the true spiritual meaning of the text, which is the NT.

[Sophus]

Prayer leads believers to interpret the Bible - or any Holy text for that matter - many different ways. So I don't really see how that can be the source for knowing the "true meaning" of anything.

[Achronos]

It's not something you can do alone. One needs guidance. That's the point of a spiritual adviser or priest in your life. This way the whole Church can be of one mind.

In other places, text can be interpreted in different ways without compromising the central faith that unites the Church.

[Tom62]

I've read many books that were translated from one language to another. No matter how good the translation, something always gets lost in the translation. It gets worse, if the translated book is a translated interpretation of the book, from people who decide for you what is suitable and what isn't. I've seen that a lot with fairy-tale and other fantasy books where the original texts are mutilated to make them "suitable" for children (like 1001 Arabian nights, the fairy-tales of the brothers Grimm, Gulliver's travels, etc.).

The same I think is true for the Bible. For many centuries, any translation of the Bible in a common language was forbidden by the church. The church didn't want that the masses would read the Bible, that was just too dangerous, because it undermined the authority of the clergymen. Even nowadays, the church doesn't really want you to read the Bible. It wants that you don't question the beliefs and dogma's of the church. Therefore, the people in the church are only exposed to those parts of the Bible, that the church thinks is suitable for them. I believe that most believers don' t believe in the Bible (a recent study showed that Biblical knowledge among believers is very low), but that they believe in what their church tells them to believe.

[The Magic Pudding]

[Sophus]

I've read many books that were translated from one language to another. No matter how good the translation, something always gets lost in the translation. It gets worse, if the translated book is a translated interpretation of the book, from people who decide for you what is suitable and what isn't. I've seen that a lot with fairy-tale and other fantasy books where the original texts are mutilated to make them "suitable" for children (like 1001 Arabian nights, the fairy-tales of the brothers Grimm, Gulliver's travels, etc.).

The same I think is true for the Bible. For many centuries, any translation of the Bible in a common language was forbidden by the church. The church didn't want that the masses would read the Bible, that was just too dangerous, because it undermined the authority of the clergymen. Even nowadays, the church doesn't really want you to read the Bible. It wants that you don't question the beliefs and dogma's of the church. Therefore, the people in the church are only exposed to those parts of the Bible, that the church thinks is suitable for them. I believe that most believers don' t believe in the Bible (a recent study showed that Biblical knowledge among believers is very low), but that they believe in what their church tells them to believe.

I didn't think about that, but it's true. After a while the Bible was no longer the main tool for controlling the flock. It took the Catholics a while to even put it into a living language.

[McQ]

Now, this is something I can use! Nice.