you may be suprised the type of bibles believers read, one of my bibles have notes that the author thinks the prophesys were writing after the event had already happened. many thinks the some prophesy we interprete was actually meant for a different time. some pastors now teach that prophesys are fulfilld 2ice to account for the fact that the current interpretation may not be d jewish interpretation....
believers can be a wild bunch, mind u the bible that think prophesies were written after the even is approved by a church body.

Many christian simply filter those note, i certainly do.

Ubenedictus:
It may suprise you to know that i also agree with 9 on the objectivity of the bible.

for instance, the bible say God is merciful, objectively it is talking about divine character or attribute, that stuff that is in God that makes him always give beyond what justice demands, subjectively, i may make committed a terrible sin and that verse for me simply means do not dispair, in a moral sense it means i must be merciful myself.... the meaning make be much but it has an objective interpretation ie mercy is a divine attribute.

The goodnews for a catholic is that each of those different interpretation is acceptable in different context but if i were discussing doctrine i will give priority to what that text means exactly and how that has always been understood from ancient time.

Jn 6 for instance can mean for me Jesus wants faith in him but that is not exactly what the text says, the text says Jesus wants us to gawn his flesh and that has been understood since the 1st century as communion

It's a view, I guess, and depends on what one understands by objectivity. We atheists, for instance, use biblical objectivity to muddy the waters more often than not. Take Genesis 1, for instance. An objective reading would be a more literal understanding of the text, which to some is pure stupidity, but a subjective read might make one look behind the facts as listed and see further. Would one be wrong to claim any project one embarks on would not benefit from the steps listed in that chapter?

Or take the commandments of Jesus Christ. Love that which is good with all you are and love your neighbours too. Some might claim the first part of that law is easy, and the second easier still, but does it's meaning not depend very heavily on the subject who reads it?

The Bible wasn't written with objectivity in mind, is my position, since what one sees in it depends pretty much on where one stands looking at it. That's the reason why some have used it to justify things we would not contemplate justifying today, though I'm certain those who justified atrocities would claim they were being objective then too.

The fact that we call it a living book that comes alive in the mind of the subjective reader makes it very unobjective to me, and the fact that we need to interpret it makes it even more subjective. If that weren't the case, we'd all agree on one single objective meaning and there wouldn't be so many subjective sects. You compare the objectivity in a science book and you might see where I stand.

Ubenedictus:
you may be suprised the type of bibles believers read, one of my bibles have notes that the author thinks the prophesys were writing after the event had already happened. many thinks the some prophesy we interprete was actually meant for a different time. some pastors now teach that prophesys are fulfilld 2ice to account for the fact that the current interpretation may not be d jewish interpretation....
believers can be a wild bunch, mind u the bible that think prophesies were written after the even is approved by a church body.

Many christian simply filter those note, i certainly do.

Sounds like a classic definition of subjective, to me. Nasty when got wrong, but life affirming when got right.

I think you should consider politics, i have a priest friend who spent long periods on the news, he is a person i admire, i asked him what facinated him about the who politics thing and he replied it has the power to create something good for everyone, i agreed.
you can create something good for ur people.

God didnt create anyone a Christian, for most people Jesus seem like a great guy, for me he is either a mad man or the Son of God, no one makes those kind claims he made and deserves the title good man.
God draws us to the good, that is what i believe, if u search u will find. "i have not said to the sons of jacob search for me in vain"

My dear, there truly is a subjective sense to scripture, you are certainly right.

it is also a text given to a community which means a specific thing to that specific community, if u like call it a dogmatic sense. the shema for a jew can mean something personal but it has a dogmatic, specific sense for d jew, the oneness, uniqueness and exclusivity of God.... the same is true of entire new testament and the church, it has a specific rendering.

SO if a catholic or an orthodox or oriental christian is directing you to one interpretation he actually means this is the sense this has always been understood in the church for every century.

HappyPagan:
.

I replied him in the negative - I have never been that bored.

It must have been strange to find Yahweh wasn't reigning in India. I had a similar experience when I first got to Nigeria. I came from a place where they teach one to ask what, why, when, where, at an early age, so imagine when people tell you god done it and you're asking and the answers they give sound something out of Homer's Odysseus which they're claiming is fact and you must believe it! It's what made me go church, to find out what they were talking about, and what made me read the Bible only to find those telling me to believe hadn't ever read the book! I got lots of beatings just for telling them what I'd read!

Thankfully, I had parents who would never, at the time, ask me to believe anything. Dad was a lawyer, so you had to prove your case with evidence and facts, and ma being a nurse never could quite get her head around immaculate conception after finding out Jerusalem and Egypt were places on earth and not in heaven as she'd been made to believe before going there on her way to London.

We have a long way to go in our nation. I don't think we've yet got to the stage where many read it objectively, if at all (note that, Ubenedictus, despite my earlier position). When we do, our eyes will open and only then would we truly “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth and subdue it”, as we understand what it means to be God as people in more developed nations do.

budaatum:
It is in my opinion, subjectivity, that makes one 'hear' different things in different situations, and what makes the book the so called "living word of God". I see it like the mud that God breathed life into. If not read in the proper way it is just another book or dirty mud, but if read properly, it's like mud spat on by Jesus and rubbed in the eyes so one can see.

Crux of the matter: What's the "proper" way of reading the bible?

Ubenedictus:
.

SO if a catholic or an orthodox or oriental christian is directing you to one interpretation he actually means this is the sense this has always been understood in the church for every century.

You called them "commentaries", and they seem to change over time, so I am going to heed your warning against them and go up the mountain with Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel to get my own interpretation directly from God as I stated I would here, with the one guiding principle that whatever I get must be godly. Amen.

I got my Quran from the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the way. They did a course over 9 weeks on understanding Islam which I appreciate them for. Their objectivity on the subject was commendable.

9inches:
Crux of the matter: What's the "proper" way of reading the bible?

See in my response immediately above.

Buda i did note it. you have argue for subjective and also noted objective.

budaatum:

It must have been strange to find Yahweh wasn't reigning in India. I had a similar experience when I first got to Nigeria. I came from a place where they teach one to ask what, why, when, where, at an early age, so imagine when people tell you god done it and you're asking and the answers they give sound something out of Homer's Odysseus which they're claiming is fact and you must believe it! It's what made me go church, to find out what they were talking about, and what made me read the Bible only to find those telling me to believe hadn't ever read the book! I got lots of beatings just for telling them what I'd read!

Thankfully, I had parents who would never, at the time, ask me to believe anything. Dad was a lawyer, so you had to prove your case with evidence and facts, and ma being a nurse never could quite get her head around immaculate conception after finding out Jerusalem and Egypt were places on earth and not in heaven as she'd been made to believe before going there on her way to London.

We have a long way to go in our nation. I don't think we've yet got to the stage where many read it objectively, if at all (note that, Ubenedictus, despite my earlier position). When we do, our eyes will open and only then would we truly “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth and subdue it”, as we understand what it means to be gods as people in more developed nations do.

My Dad was Catholic, Mom Pentecostal - the tongue-speaking, pray-without-ceasing kind. Lost kids, Mom got more spiritual, to a point I sincerely worry about her mental health too. Dad is only just recovering. the past few years have been stressful - my unbelief hasn't helped matters.

But I've been so resolute, and slowly beginning to earn some respect. It's gone beyond 'it's just a phase he's going through' to 'let's see, God can still bring him back'. hopefully we get to 'maybe, he's right' soon.. that will be glorious.

budaatum:

You called them "commentaries", and they seem to change over time, so I am going to heed your warning against them and go up the mountain with Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel to get my own interpretation directly from God as I stated I would here, with the one guiding principle that whatever I get must be godly. Amen.

I got my Quran from the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the way. They did a course over 9 weeks on understanding Islam which I appreciate them for. Their objectivity on the subject was commendable.

Good for them at the cathedra, did u look at the painted crucifix at the place.
d bible was writen so u can climb that mount with moses. The notes are profitable, just invent in the text

Ubenedictus:
Buda i did note it. you have argue for subjective and also noted objective.

In masonry, it's called, squaring the circle, and is also what one learns from studying Koans in Zen. In Zen, we say, Mu, in recognition that things are not only good or evil, black or white or positive or negative.

It's not easy to show what I mean, but I see it in the Gospels with Jesus not being blinded by the subjective view of the religious order of his day with their fire and brimstone god, and which allowed him to objectively approach the text and subjectively interpret it in light of a loving merciful God.

You see, however one wishes to see God and the Bible, one must approach it from, using your own words, "the bible says God is merciful", and anything that fails to comply with this can not be of God.

Taking God's mercifullness, a subjective but necessary view, as given, informs how one subjectively understands one's reading of the Bible as a religious text. But there's still the objective view, as in one without the religion and belief, which informs one too.

I, an atheist, read my bible for the book it is without the religious indoctrination for or against that most receive before reading it having never been fed it from childhood. I'll call that a somewhat objective reading. But despite being an atheist, also allow it to come alive in my subjective reading as a religious text. A spiritual reading might be a suitable description for this latter sort of reading.

I apply the "bread alone" to not reading it in only one single way, see.

HappyPagan:


My Dad was Catholic, Mom Pentecostal - the tongue-speaking, pray-without-ceasing kind. Lost kids, Mom got more spiritual, to a point I sincerely worry about her mental health too. Dad is only just recovering. the past few years have been stressful - my unbelief hasn't helped matters.

But I've been so resolute, and slowly beginning to earn some respect. It's gone beyond 'it's just a phase he's going through' to 'let's see, God can still bring him back'. hopefully we get to 'maybe, he's right' soon.. that will be glorious.

how did the Catholic Vs Pentecostal thing play in your house.?

Ubenedictus:
how did the Catholic Vs Pentecostal thing play in your house.?

It did not play out well.

I remember getting a warning from my Dad one evening. He had returned home early from work, and saw me reading the Bible. He asked to me find something else to read.

He's a mix of old traditional values and Christianity. I don't remember him being much into religion, until the event that led to his trauma.


My mom was always religious, got worse after the whole traumatic experience. I remember her taking us to 'special' pastors, and warning me and my siblings not to tell my Dad..... my late Sister once spilled... Wasn't a peaceful Sunday evening, I can tell you.


Oh, I remember the morning devotions. On the rare occasion Pops attended, he would my mother against speaking in tongues in his house. Lol..the fights those days... Thank God we grow.

budaatum:

In masonry, it's called, squaring the circle, and is also what one learns from studying Koans in Zen. In Zen, we say, Mu, in recognition that things are not only good or evil, black or white or positive or negative.

It's not easy to show what I mean, but I see it in the Gospels with Jesus not being blinded by the subjective view of the religious order of his day with their fire and brimstone god, and which allowed him to objectively approach the text and subjectively interpret it in light of a loving merciful God.

You see, however one wishes to see God and the Bible, one must approach it from, using your own words, "the bible says God is merciful", and anything that fails to comply with this can not be of God.

Taking God's mercifullness, a subjective but necessary view, as given, informs how one subjectively understands one's reading of the Bible as a religious text. But there's still the objective view, as in one without the religion and belief, which informs one too.

I, an atheist, read my bible for the book it is without the religious indoctrination for or against that most receive before reading it having never been fed it from childhood. I'll call that a somewhat objective reading. But despite being an atheist, also allow it to come alive in my subjective reading as a religious text. A spiritual reading might be a suitable description for this latter sort of reading.

I apply the "bread alone" to not reading it in only one single way, see.

actually a reading of scriptures as you described above without religion and belief is certainly not in any way objective.

The Bible was written by religious people, the immediate audience for which it was written are religious people, Israel and later the church. To read the Bible without religion and belief is the exact opposite of how it was written to be read, by so doing you arrive at defective conclusions.

Ubenedictus:
actually a reading of scriptures as you described above without religion and belief is certainly not in any way objective.

Objective means, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Ubenedictus:
The Bible was written by religious people, the immediate audience for which it was written are religious people, Israel and later the church. To read the Bible without religion and belief is the exact opposite of how it was written to be read, by so doing you arrive at defective conclusions.

I submit that one will arrive at defective conclusions by reading the Bible objectively or subjectively, alone.

In the above, everywhere that you have mentioned "people, audience, Israel, the church", subjects are meant. And, "religious, Israel, the church, belief" precisely denotes a lack of objectivity since it is the personal feelings or opinions - understanding, you would rightly claim - according to their very own unobjective subjective view.

We are spiritual beings having dwelling in a physical body made of dust.. Of what benefit is religion?

Judaism is a journey of self discovery.. Christianity as a religion is just at best an alternative reality..

God is consciousness and within, we are the breath of God, God spirit dwelling in a body,

The igbos calls the spirit "chi" the yoruba calls it "or"
When God sends the spirit, they are created and when he takes it death occurs psalm 104:29-31.

budaatum:

Objective means, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


I submit that one will arrive at defective conclusions by reading the Bible objectively or subjectively, alone.

In the above, everywhere that you have mentioned "people, audience, Israel, the church", subjects are meant. And, "religious, Israel, the church, belief" precisely denotes a lack of objectivity since it is the personal feelings or opinions - understanding, you would rightly claim - according to their very own unobjective subjective view.

it is not objective to read a letter written to me by my brother as though it was written by any Tom dick or Harry.

It is not objective to read a novel like a science journal.

It is certainly not objective to read a religious text as though it isn't a religious text.

It is not particularly objective to read a writing made by jews for an immediate Jewish audience as though it isn't Jewish.

It is not objective to read a Christian text as though it wasn't addressed to an already believing community.

You need a rethink what objectivity means.

A text written by a particular people for it particular immediate audience is objectively read if that very premise is kept in mind, if not you are abusing the text

Ubenedictus:



it is not objective to read a letter written to me by my brother as though it was written by any Tom dick or Harry.

It is not objective to read a novel like a science journal.

It is certainly not objective to read a religious text as though it isn't a religious text.

It is not particularly objective to read a writing made by jews for an immediate Jewish audience as though it isn't Jewish.

It is not objective to read a Christian text as though it wasn't addressed to an already believing community.

You need a rethink what objectivity means.

A text written by a particular people for it particular immediate audience is objectively read if that very premise is kept in mind, if not you are abusing the text

Sorry Uben, but I do think you are switching subjective for objective, as all you've listed above is a call for a subjective reading, and not an objective one at all. A text written by a particular people (subjects) for a particular immediate audience (subjects) is subjectively written by subjects no doubt. It can however be objectively read as such though its full meaning may very well be missed. Scriptures, by its nature, is subjective, and it promotes subjective religion and subjective belief and reading it only objectively, if at all possible, will most certainly lead to conclusions that were not the subjective intentions it was written for.

An objective reading would be one without all the subjective stances you've listed above and by such a reading "one will arrive at defective conclusions" (at least as far as religion is concerned), as I've already conceded, just as much as I am finding one would by "reading the Bible objectively or subjectively, alone". Besides, objectivity is a rather difficult thing for subjective subjects just by their nature. What we tend to do more often than not is in error claim that our subjective view is an objective one. The numerous interpretations of Biblical understanding is sufficient evidence to point out our lack of objectivity when we read it.

If you'd like to educate me on subjectivity or objectivity, you might want to consider how much or little I know about it. It is a subject very close to my heart and one I have time for due to its complexity.

Ubenedictus:
you may be suprised the type of bibles believers read, one of my bibles have notes that the author thinks the prophesys were writing after the event had already happened. many thinks the some prophesy we interprete was actually meant for a different time. some pastors now teach that prophesys are fulfilld 2ice to account for the fact that the current interpretation may not be d jewish interpretation....
believers can be a wild bunch, mind u the bible that think prophesies were written after the even is approved by a church body.

Many christian simply filter those note, i certainly do.

The Jews themselves had various subjective ways in which they too read the Bible, or at least what of it they accepted. The Zohar, for instance, is a foundational work in the literature of Jewish mystical thought based on an esoteric method, discipline, and school of thought of Judaism known as Kabbalah and which dealt with the first five books of the Torah. Such a reading sure does give a different understanding of the text.

Then you've got the literal reading, the fundamental reading, gnostic reading, mystical reading, esoteric reading, pharisaic reading, sadducee reading, scientific reading, philosophical reading, the ignorant reading and misunderstood reading (I made those last two up), all subjective readings which give different meanings, or rather, understandings, to the text. I'd even say there's a "so it can be said that out of Egypt I called my Son" reading, which differed from the pharisaic reading and got Jesus killed.

An objective reading would be one that takes all the ways the Bible can be read into consideration without being subjective in their taking. By not being subjective in their taking, I mean by not adopting (confessing?) any one view apart from in their study which a believing religious person would and cannot do because their believing and religiosity implies subjectivity already. You likely find such a reading amongst he non-religious academic sort.

Confession

My eyes don't work as well as they used to so I have not been reading the books I said I would read. I'm listening instead with the devices below. The beauty is I get to 'read' each book more than once - four five times to be precise, and wherever I happen to go. Nothing beats a 1am walk listening to the Word of God.

HappyPagan:

It did not play out well.

I remember getting a warning from my Dad one evening. He had returned home early from work, and saw me reading the Bible. He asked to me find something else to read.

He's a mix of old traditional values and Christianity. I don't remember him being much into religion, until the event that led to his trauma.


My mom was always religious, got worse after the whole traumatic experience. I remember her taking us to 'special' pastors, and warning me and my siblings not to tell my Dad..... my late Sister once spilled... Wasn't a peaceful Sunday evening, I can tell you.


Oh, I remember the morning devotions. On the rare occasion Pops attended, he would my mother against speaking in tongues in his house. Lol..the fights those days... Thank God we grow.

LOL. Your dad was certainly a secret cult member.

budaatum:
Confession

My eyes don't work as well as they used to so I have not been reading the books I said I would read. I'm listening instead with the devices below. The beauty is I get to 'read' each book more than once - four five times to be precise, and wherever I happen to go. Nothing beats a 1am walk listening to the Word of God.

Hi friend, how are you?

Daviddson:
Hi friend, how are you?

Fine thanks. You?

Daviddson:
LOL. Your dad was certainly a secret cult member.

What's a secret cult?

It's September. I'm at Chronicles. Stuck, actually. Kind of afraid to step into the Prophets for fear of the influence they'd have on me. I could probably get through the entire book in a month, but I'd be doing myself a disservice as I've found different bits 'speak' out to me at different times, and some bits even sound new after even the fifth read! It's like there's a Spirit inside my book! It has been my slowest read of the Bible so far, and I can see why many spend so much time studying it, though, I daresay, in error, especially if you're like young and should be learning a trade instead. Inagine if you'd spent all that time studying to be a Mathematician instead of learning how to get into Heaven! But all's not lost. At least you can be a Bibletician, instead.

So, what have I learnt so far? The first is that most on here, despite their claim, have not read it! They've dipped into it, likely, but not started at page 1 and worked their way to the end, which makes them False Witnesses. Then theres the many who may have read it but have not bothered to understand that which they read themselves and parrot what they've been told it means. And there's the arrogant fuqs (including me, before anyone accuses me of lacking a mirror), who think they understand the book but actually don't. And then there's my Lord, who actually knows the understanding he has been given is very wrong and atheistically opposes that understanding but mistakes that misunderstanding for what they Bible might actually mean to 'say'.

it's a very complicated book, with much wordplay and references to previous bits that are very easily missed. The more one thinks one gets it the less one actually does, and I've learnt how ignorant I am!

budaatum:

Fine thanks. You?

I'm good; thanks. So I went through a few of your threads in the Religion section and I picked interest in your love and quest for knowledge and the emptiness and indecision about religion and God you seem to be experiencing. In one of the threads you lamented "why God didn't create [you] as a Christian". Can we talk about it and many more?

Daviddson:
I'm good; thanks. So I went through a few of your threads in the Religion section and I picked interest in your love and quest for knowledge and the emptiness and indecision about religion and God you seem to be experiencing. In one of the threads you lamented "why God didn't create [you] as a Christian". Can we talk about it and many more?

Indeed we can. Start by telling me about the "emptiness and indecision about religion and God" you seem to think I am experiencing.

What thread of mine gave you that impression?

budaatum:

Indeed we can. Start by telling me about the "emptiness and indecision about religion and God" you seem to think I am experiencing.

What thread of mine gave you that impression?

I can't recall the exact thread, but it seems to resonate across all your comments on the Religion section.

Let me ask you a question: Are you a Christian? In fact are you a religious person at all?

Daviddson:
I can't recall the exact thread, but it seems to resonate across all your comments on the Religion section.

Let me ask you a question: Are you a Christian? In fact are you a religious person at all?

Yes, I am religious. I am religiously on here. No, I'm not a Christian, at least not here. The Christians would not have me.

Do let me know where I resonate what you say please. You'd be helping me see me.

budaatum:

Yes, I am religious. I am religiously on here. No, I'm not a Christian, at least not here. The Christians would not have me.
Do let me know where I resonate what you say please. You'd be helping me see me.

LOL. That's not true - you don't need any person's approval or disapproval to become a Christian. And BTW if no other person here want you as one, I would. I have tried searching for that thread or post, but I was unable to. Are you saying you've never thought in that direction?