Reading the Bible Non-Stop

ajani_mgo

Someday I'm going to try reading the Bible non-stop from Genesis to Revelations, any objections?

Anyway, is the Book of Mormon a part of the Gospel too? I'm rather confused by it's place in Scripture.

twobitbob

i tried that recently. Got to Deuteronomy. Man the old testament is a slow, makes the new testament read like a best seller (which i guess it is).

Are you going to go for the apocrypha as well?

buddhafoot

ajani_mgo wrote:

Someday I'm going to try reading the Bible non-stop from Genesis to Revelations, any objections?

Anyway, is the Book of Mormon a part of the Gospel too? I'm rather confused by it's place in Scripture.

Yes, I object.

Please don't do this.

-bf

Simonthepilgrim

The Book of Mormon is not part of the Bible used by other Christian denominations, Ajani.

I have done this read-through. I couldn't do it now. It certainly needs the stamina and bloody-mindedness of youth. It did, however, serve to persuade me that this is a work of staggering importance stuffed with tedium and acts so disgusting that they would be banned in any civilised nation. The other thing was that I noticed a 'sweep' across the ages, a process, which is, in fact, an attempt to explain why God is absent, today.

DharmaKitten

ajani_mgo wrote:

Someday I'm going to try reading the Bible non-stop from Genesis to Revelations, any objections?

Anyway, is the Book of Mormon a part of the Gospel too? I'm rather confused by it's place in Scripture.

No objections from me. I think everyone should read the Bible - but all of it, not just the pretty parts. I've read it completely several times. That was actually part of the reason I became and atheist. Warning, some parts are very boring and it definitely takes a long time to read.

As for the Book of Mormon, it is a modern invention - though don't tell the Mormons I said so. It supposedly a translation/transcription of an ancient text that only the founder of Mormonism saw. Still, you might as well read it if you have the time and like reading religious texts.

Brian

If you read the book of mormon, make sure you only read the first pressing - the one on sheets of solid gold

All kidding aside, the book of mormon is pretty much a very obvious fabrication. Mormons tend to be people who are weak-minded and easily swayed, so they think it's an actual gospel. You won't get anything fulfilling out of it.

You should read the bible cover to cover. I did it once, I hated most of it, and it firmly pushed me away from christianity for good. Your mileage may vary

ajani_mgo

I know of some of the stuff in the bible supposed to be banned due to erm- some reasons. The reason why I'm trying to read it whole is to get a different perspective on things.

But yeah, maybe I wouldn't do such a thing, I'd have to starve, dehydrate, stay awake etc. etc. But heck, someday when I'm bored and I get crazy, maybe I'd. We shall see...

But I guess I'd need a big bucket next to me in case I vomit blood, and a mouthguard to bite on. :tongue2:

ZenChristian

Reading the Bible straight through is quite an undertaking. Just to throw my two cents in, I feel the Bible is a book about a creator that has given the dominion of His creation over to mankind and the whole bloody, confusing quaigmire that ensues is the process of reconcilliation of God and man to the end of producing a new species-actual children of God. Roman chapter eight brings this out best. I guess we could debate the need for all this instead of a more direct approach, but I would just end up spouting cliches about intelligent design, the need for free will, and the basic character of God as benevolent and good with the action of Karma bringing all the negativity upon people. No need, I'm not trying to convert anyone.
By the way, in Buddhist teaching is Karma an automatic thing are is there a Karmic governor somewhere that determines one's place on the wheel thingy upon reincarnation and the transendance of the need for suffering and the freedom from past negative action ramifications? Who set that system up, or is it just a way of explaining observable phenomena? Unless it isn't observable, then is it a matter of faith that a person will return in a more noble station if he has done well?
Not being contentious, just curious.

Peace and Light, David

ajani_mgo

Just as bird can migrate by themselves from birth, without the intervention of humans, humans also take charge of their own karma, without the help of anyone.

Karma is something of logic. If you are free enough, you can eventually draw up charts of where you could eventually end up ten years in the future, provided you have enough paper...

ZenChristian

OK, I agree that there are Karmic laws. They are echoed throughout all spiritual texts in some form, from Wiccan to Christian. Things like "cast your bread upon the waters and in many days it will return to you" "Don't cast your pearls before swine" "Do unto others as you would have unto you" "With the measure you judge you will be judged, condemn not and you will not be condemned" off the top of my head. The action of these laws are observable, while the resulting reincarnation is not. That is fine, cause one has to have faith. The thing is-who set this up to work this way. If negating suffering through dharma practice, meditation, right thought, right action, etc produces positive effects other than what is observable who decided that. Why does it work? Obviously, the natural tendancies of men trend toward selfishness and materialism. My question is, without some sort of designer, how did this unatural seeming system of Karma develop in the universe?(unatural in the sense that the rest of nature seems hell bent on consuming each other as quickly as possible while the cosmos disenegrate)

Peace and Light, David

ajani_mgo

Well, you could join the lines of great men from Aristotle onwards on the meaning of life... Then find the First Cause... Then ask yourself why the First Cause put the system in...

But my personal opinion is that it's simply like that. Cause and effect does not require any starting procedure, since the First Cause is already inside the Laws of Karma. The Laws of Karma are the eternal, and truly beginningless.

twobitbob

i see creation as a human concept, an idea we try to impose on the universe to try to make sense of it.

i've always thought the biggest difference between buddhism (for me anyway) and monotheistic religions is highlighted by a sunset.

A christian will see its beauty and see God's work in it.

A buddhist will feel only beauty - anything else is just concepts that cloud the original feeling.

ZenChristian

Good enough. I actually agree. One of my favorite books is called the "Cloud of Unknowing" and is a primer on Christian mysticism. It basiclly asserts that point and goes on to say that we meet God when we move past our desire for intellectual understanding.
In my case, it gives me joy to feel I percieve the benevolent and majestic hand of God in the sunset. I think that perception is a finger pointing to God and that has the opposite effect of making the feelings cloudy. It intenifies and infuses them with a greater beauty than is percieved naturaly. As worship and prayer ensues, though, intellectual consideration of these things is left behind and only the beauty is experienced, except it is a beauty of oneness with divine source. Which is pretty much where the Buddhist guy in your example started, so I guess the case could be made that Christians are over thinking this and setting intellectual traps for themselves, but I imagine that is an eucemenical phenomena that crosses into all camps.

Peace and Light, David

Palzang

I guess you answered the question I just put up on another thread, Zen Christian, about reading The Cloud of Unknowing! I kind of figured you had read it anyway.

As for reading the whole Bible, I think if you do (or even if you don't), Ajani, you should read the Gnostic gospels as well. Those are the books that were excluded from the Bible because they didn't follow the party line. Especially the book of Mary Magdelene. It will give you a radically different view of the role of women in the early church as well as the apostles in general. What the male apostles didn't want you to know is that there were female apostles as well as male, and in fact, Mary Magdelene was singled out by Jesus as the only one who actually got what he was teaching, which really pissed off some of the male apostles (not all though!), like Paul especially. Probably where his miscogynism came from!

BTW, my favorite book of the Bible is Job. Great teaching on impermanence!

Palzang

Simonthepilgrim

Zen Christian and Palzing,

As you both appear to like the mystics, do you know Mother Julian of Norwich's wonderful Revelations of Divine Love?

Palzang

I haven't read her, but I am aware of her. Thanks.

Palzang

ajani_mgo

THERE ARE FEMALE APOSTLES? That's news... Rats, throughout 3 years of Christian education and a lifetime of studying the religion I swear I didn't know...

Ajani 0
Propoganda 1!!!

Simonthepilgrim

The Gospel stories make it clear, Ajani, that there were 18 members of Jesus' inner circle, of whom six were women. The Gospel of John is interesting from that point of view: the 'first miracle', the midrashic Cana water-into-wine action is at the request of a woman, Jesus mother, Mary, and the first person to whom he reveals his liberating mission was the (unnamed) woman at the Samaritan well.

federica

....And the first person to whom he spoke, upon his resurrection, was Mary Magdalen...

(and when I see her name, I'm always soooo tempted to pronounce it 'Maudlin'....! )

ZenChristian

Lady Julian is a much worn volume on my shelf. My copy has the original work and the second writing she made near the end of her life after she learned to read & write effectively. I reccomend it to as many disciples as I feel can recieve it, as I believe it demonstrates many of the more positive aspects of Christianity and, if taken to heart, could be catylist for some much needed changes in attitude among Christians.
Her story is amazing and inspiring even in a strictly secular sense.

David

Jason

All,

Ajahn Chuen, from the Midwest Buddhavihara, particpates in many inter-faith dialogues. One in particular is the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue. They especially are a collection of some of the greatest spiritual teachers of our time. Great Christian and Buddhist teachers alike discuss a variety of topics. There was a quote by Fr Leo Lefebure that caught my attention, and I thought I would share it with you:

Leo Lefebure: "I’d like to approach this discussion from a Christian perspective. Obviously there are many differences in the background, but I’d like to push what has been discussed, probably picking up on some things William Skudlarek said. In the Christian world, on the one hand we have the sense of God as totally other than this world, as the creator, the giver of the act of existence. There is a whole strand of the Christian tradition, however, represented by people like Bonaventure, Meister Eckhart, and Nicholas of Cusa in the Middle Ages, who stress that all of us exist in the mind of God; and in the mind of God, there are no distinctions. From one perspective, that is the most real existence of me—as God knows me. That knowledge is truer than my own imperfect knowledge of myself. In a real sense we are all one, and yet there is also the reality of creation itself.

Bernard de Clairvaux, one of the great leaders of the Cistercian tradition, was asked by a monk: “Since everything in Christianity depends on grace, why do we have to do the whole monastic practice?” I think it’s similar to Dogen’s question: “If the mind is originally enlightened, if we are Buddha-nature, why do we do the whole monastic routine?” Bernard de Clairvaux told him: “You can’t think of this as we do fifty percent and then God does fifty percent. God does a hundred percent, and we do a hundred percent.” As long as we are thinking of God as another finite agent, we are not thinking of the God in whom Christians believe. So I think the whole language game—certainly among Christians, and as I understand it with Buddhists—has to be understood from different perspectives, where different statements that seem contradictory can be true. Nicholas of Cusa, coming out of the same tradition, argued very strongly that God is not other. He even argues in Latin, Non aliud est non aliud quam non aliud. “Not other is not other than not other.” What he meant by that is that, on the one hand, God is infinite, and there is no proportionate between the finite and infinite, so I can never understand God at all. On the other hand, if God is simply out there, God is a finite being other than the world. So God must be not other than this moment right here."

- A quote from the MID article: Suffering Caused by Greed and Consumerism



Jason

ZenChristian

Truly an apple of gold in a setting of silver, as well as a word in due season for me, Jason.
My schedule has been beyond hectic for over two years and work is still erratic, rotating from days to nights frequently, and continued school work so my practice has suffered leaving me feeling disconnected from source and letting condemnation creep in. Thanks.
The author of the "Cloud of Unknowing" asserts that God reaches out to man through symbols and words while man reaches out to God by negating these things until the two are made one. In the spirit of Zen, as I understand it, my frequent prayer is to be made one so that in my oneness I may be made one with God. I think this is what John was getting at when he described Jesus as the Word, or Logos, made flesh. I teach my little ones, girls ages six and four, that Jesus lives in their tummies and the whole world lives in Jesus' tummy in an effort to convey this mystery and to date I think that is the most theologicaly sound and complete way I have found to put words to the idea. It is true, I believe, that the more spiritual and true something is, the fewer words there are to say about it.
I would like to thank you, as well as the other good people that participate in these forums, because most of my exposure to both the Christian mystic and Buddhist culture has been through lititure and I enjoy the conversation immensly. Micheal Jordon replied, when asked how he got so good at basketball, that he always found people to play with that were better than him in order to elevate his game. It is not a perfect analogy, but I find conversing in these forums is having the same effect on my 'game.'

Peace and Light, David

Jason

David,

As funny as it sounds, I have acquired a new appreciation of Christian myticism and thought through my practice of Buddhism. I am glad to hear that you are benefiting as well. I am going to visit the used book store soon to see if I can find a copy of the Cloud of Unknowing. It sounds intriguing.



Jason

digger

Elohim wrote:

David,

As funny as it sounds, I have acquired a new appreciation of Christian myticism and thought through my practice of Buddhism. I am glad to hear that you are benefiting as well. I am going to visit the used book store soon to see if I can find a copy of the Cloud of Unknowing. It sounds intriguing.



Jason

You don't need to buy it (unless you want to). It can be read online (or downloaded) here.

Jason

digger,

Thank you!



Jason

Palzang

Elohim wrote:

As funny as it sounds, I have acquired a new appreciation of Christian myticism and thought through my practice of Buddhism.

I don't think it sounds funny at all, Jason. I never understood Christianity (or rather Christ's teachings, not the organized religions who teach something else) until I became Buddhist.

Palzang

Jason

Palzang,

I understand exactly what you mean. Buddhism took away some of my prejudices and ignorance so that I could see some of the commonalities in all people. What a devote 'Christian mystic' may describe is not unlike what a devote 'Buddhist mystic' may dscribe. What stood between my appreciation and understanding of other people's beliefs and practices was only my perspective.

I held to certain definitions and words so much that I missed what they were actually trying to say because I was too focused on what "I" thought they meant. If they used the word "God", for example, it must automatically be wrong because "my" idea of 'God' doesn't conform to the true nature of what "I" am experiencing. ("I", in my opinion, is the trickest little bastard that has ever existed in any dimension of time or space!) That is why I am so leary of 'labels'. Once you become attached to them you create the gateway for dukkha to come marching into your mind and lay seige to wisdom.

I may not be free from dukkha, but I'm trying to close the gateway.



Jason

ZenChristian

Well said guys, you're comments reflect my own experience. I have stirred up more than a couple of folks by commenting that to find true Christian lititure on the magizene racks and bookstands it is best to shop in the Buddhist section. I truly feel that Buddha provided more practical insight into and direction for the practice of Christianity than any other teacher I am familiar with outside of the original authors of the Christian cannon. As a matter of fact, Buddha's teachings are somewhat more illuminating from my experience. The issues of selflessness and negation of wrong desire are dealt with quite effectively throughout the Christian scriptures, but are not elaborated on relentlessly as in Buddhism. One of the results of this is the rampant materialism and focus on self-gratification that abounds. One of my favorite authors, A.W Tozer, calls these out and names them self sins. He says go to the dictionary and look up the word self and any word preceded by 'self-' is a self sin. In this fashion he discourages materialism, striving, and dependance on anything except the working of divine grace. In the circles I move in, striving in the area of spiritual/supernatural phenomena is also an issue. In 1 Corinthians 12-14 Christians are strongly encouraged to seek after the practice of 'gifts' such as prophecy and healing, mainly for the strengening of the church, but the seeking often is affected by egocentrisms and produce conflict and strife. In a perfect world, these things should be productive purging as people examine themselves and grow in grace. Unfortunately, most of the issues that arise in any given congregation remain unresolved.

Peace and Light, David

Adiana

digger wrote:

You don't need to buy it (unless you want to). It can be read online (or downloaded) here.

Digger,

Thanks for the link. I will also read the book. It does sound interesting.

Adiana :thumbsup:

ECM

This is an interesting site on the book of Mormon. You might enjoy it.

http://www.whatismormonism.com/

I can't imagine readig the Bible from cover to cover. How exhausting. That is also giving equal merit to all the chapters -- some of the chapters are not really worth reading every word. Of course, there might be something interesting in every chapter, but I think it is better to read it with comments so you can understand it in the end. For example -- the part about "going the second mile." In Jesus' time a Roman soldier could ask a civilian for help to carry their pack for a mile, but not more than that. If you carried the pack for two miles, there was potential trouble brewing for that soldier, since he was only allowed by law to ask someone to carry it for a mile. If you just read the Bible without these cultural notes, then you are sure to misunderstand it. (And think that Jesus was asking you to be a doormat!)

EM

plowy

I'm new to this and haven't the vaguest idea what I'm doing... but I have recently found a great tool called e-sword, found at
http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
i would advise you
Sometimes you get the impression it's a bit "happy-clappy", but all in all it's a great tool as you can easily compare a verse from, and it provides possible translations and the ability to compare between say the Good News against The William Tyndale Bible of 1534, and it opens up some interesting ideas into translations and perspectives of the Bible...
It certainly isn't nearly the same, or as good as reading the actual text, or knowing the verses yourself, but if you ever find yourself needing to know the greek for virgin, or need to compare a pre- 1500s bible against the ISV, it's a good tool.
but here i am on a NewBuddhist website getting excited about Bibles...

plowy

That was fun! By the way, what actually is mormonism? In England I've only heard facaecious or satirical remarks about it...

federica

Welcome Plowy.... Thank you for your links... you sound weird.... right up my street so far....!!

Very flat, Nar'fak.....

Sabine

Mormonism. Hmmm. I don't really feel up to summarizing the entire religion - I had two midterm exams earlier today :sadc: - so I'll just pull out this little clip from my US History book.

"Mormon history began in upstate New York in 1827, when Joseph Smith announced that he had received a special message from God in a book 'written upon golden plates' buried in a hillside. Placing America at the center of Christian history ((terribly biased, yeah, I know)), Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon attracted an eager following. Smith and five associates established the Mormon Church - or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - in Fayette, New York, in 1830."
Other tidbits:
"...Smith and a growing band of followers decided to move west...within five years, [his] community...reached 20,000 members."
They apparently had a really violent early history - someone started denouncing Smith's beliefs in a local newspaper, and he destroyed their printing press... So in response, he was jailed for treason. However, "...an anti-Mormon mob broke into the jail, hauled out Smith and his brother, and murdered them."

Oy.

Despite this...troubling start, Mormons tend to be nice people. One of my best friends is Mormon, and he basically does anything any other normal teenager would do. His only limitation is that his parents forbid him to date outside of his religion, but he turns 18 in a year, so he'll be able to make his own decisions soon enough.

plowy

Thank you loads for that... So does the religion take a relatively strict of fundamentalist stand point then? It seems to be a subject isolated from all the religious study I have found myself doing, however i have heard something about stone spectacles...
many thanks again!

Sabine

plowy wrote:

Thank you loads for that... So does the religion take a relatively strict of fundamentalist stand point then? It seems to be a subject isolated from all the religious study I have found myself doing, however i have heard something about stone spectacles...
many thanks again!

Yes and no - quite a few modern-day Mormons are very liberal when it comes to hot topics in the US (ie, abortion, gay marriage, blahblahblah), and allow themselves to mingle with people from other religions, backgrounds, races, etc. Then again, there are some Mormons that live separately from the "secular" world - as in, they have their own self-sufficient villages, and only come near other cities/other people when they're "spreading the Word (ie, giving out Books of Mormon)."

Now, the Book of Mormon is a kind of add-on to the Bible, I guess one could say. It's based on the aforesaid golden plates, and Mormonism centers around these scriptures.

Quite welcome ^_^

ajani_mgo

Actually I've got a question. Do you think that the JW should be banned? 'Cause my country bans it, and to me I think it should not - since the JW do nothing significant to our country (only that they are pacifists, so they refuse mandatory service) but well, simply being pacifists. And what is more is that it should be guranteed under the Constuition that freedom of belief should be guranteed - I'd allow Satanism even, if it came.

Adiana

ajani_mgo wrote:

Actually I've got a question. Do you think that the JW should be banned? 'Cause my country bans it, and to me I think it should not - since the JW do nothing significant to our country (only that they are pacifists, so they refuse mandatory service) but well, simply being pacifists. And what is more is that it should be guranteed under the Constuition that freedom of belief should be guranteed - I'd allow Satanism even, if it came.

When you say JW I am assuming you mean Jehovah's Witnesses---am I correct? If so, then no, I don't think they should be banned. I believe in religious tolerance and acceptance for all. I think that it is highly arrogant of anyone who arbitrarily decides that this or that form of belief/religion is unacceptable. (Or not worthy enough to be recognized.) While I may not believe in or practice the JW belief system, I still respect their right to practice it. I know. I am a Nichiren Buddhist and I have been told that other Buddhist traditions do not accept Nichiren Buddhism and in particular the SGI movement because "that's just the way it is." I have even been told that the SGI is considered a "cult" which is not true at least in my opinion. I do not feel as though I have been "brainwashed" or any other such thing that cults supposedly tend to do. What I believe in is world peace for all and religious tolerance/acceptance for all.

Adiana:thumbsup: :usflag: :wavey: