• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Two New Bibles Preach A Hip, Eco-Friendly Gospel

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Woohoo! A Lord-off! I'll pop the popcorn. Heretic Pop, my favorite.

Honestly, I just really can't think of anything substantial to add to this. Hirsch has pretty much said everything I could have said, and a lot more eloquently to boot.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
Guys, the Christians are upset because their sense of the sacred is being portrayed/packaged as just another trend that teenagers/college students eventually outgrow, rather than the bedrock that underpins values which are perceived to have held true throughout the ages. Its not particularly difficult to see where they're coming from...
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
I'll first like to say I have not read any of the replies to the original post I am lazy, but this thread does raise a interesting question of how the bible (and I suppose other holy scriptures) should be interpreted.

It is interesting to note the largest Christian Church, the Catholic Church, has in my opinion had a strange historical position on this sort of thing. On one hand, it has up until relatively recent been somewhat unconformable with not only the laity owning the Bible, but also with translations and interpretation of the Bible. While on the other hand, it wanted to help spread the word of Jesus; Which seems paradoxical to me at best.

During the medieval era in England, a struggle began over translating the Bible from Latin into a language that everyone could understand, in other words English. England was quite late in getting a vernacular bible. At the time John Wycliffe viewed the English translations by the Catholic Church as too condensed if not biased. He wanted everyone to be able to interpret it for themselves. At the time, most Christians only encountered the Bible orally in Latin; the problem was only the very rich and educated could read and understand Latin.

John Wycliffe was a radical who challenged many theological aspects of the Catholic church; for example, Mass, the idea that one could be trusted to read the Bible for themselves, and most importantly Magisterium. The Vatican's response was to declare his followers, the Lollardy (which was considered derogatory);Wycliffe's Bible was banned, and possession of his Bible was punishable by burning at the stake. As for John Wycliffe himself, he had like Martin Luther some powerful supporters; he was shielded by John of Gaunt and Oxford University (where as Martin Luther had Frederick III). After his death John Wycliffe his body was exhumed on the Pope orders and his bones were burnt.

It was not until 150 years or so later, during the reign of Henry VIII, that a combination of things happened that lead to the English translation of the Bible. Firstly, Martin Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church with the aim of reforming it rather than splitting it. Secondly, William Tyndale was inspired by Martin Luther to translate the first English translation to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. Most ironically, he was forced into exile from England during the reign of Henry VIII, as unlike Martin Luther and John Wycliffe he did not really have any powerful supporters. He went to Belgium and made a living from smuggling his very own Bible's. He was eventually betrayed by a English clergyman, held in some random castle near Brussels, before he was strangled to death and his dead body was burnt. Thirdly, the Catholic Church by annoying Henry VIII for not letting him divorce from Catherine of Aragon. It is worth noting Henry VIII seems to have never became a Protestant, advocated the fundamentals of Catholicism for throughout his life, and for much of his reign he brutally suppressed the Protestant reformation of the church. He was willing to tolerate Protestantism after he was excommunicated; Even as far as letting, the Archbishop of Canterbury, not only recommended that people read Tyndale’s Bible, but forced every parish in the country to have a copy.

The point I am trying to make, with the historical context, is the ability of one to translate and interpret the bible has led to some very profound theological questions. It has ultimately led to what is the greatest tragedy in Christianity, the fragmentation of Christianity in to a ridiculous amount of denominations; it was the other day I heard the Anglican's in North American have seem to have split into two. I think there would be much more proactive theological debates if Christian denominations just let people translate and interpret the bible freely, for being one of the best if not the best the philosophy. I not only talking about the Catholic Church, Protestants can just as bad; The 'King James Only' movement for example. I can't comment on the particular bibles in regards to the original post in this thread as I have not read them. That said, I don't really see the problem with translating the bible as long keeps the fundamental message of Christianity; love, tolerance, and having faith in Jesus.*




*Everyone feel free to disregard the last paragraph, as it's highly debatable if I am even a Christian at all. I have never had that much of a problem with Jesus' actual teachings. That said, I have a tremendous anarchistic disposition, therefore, I hate any religious establishment on principle. I view the term 'Christian Leader' as oxymoronic. Much like communists, Christians don't have a living leader; their leader is both :jew: and dead.

 
S

Sniffles

Guest
You know I like you Peguy and I realize this is a sensitive subject to you, so I didn't react, but but I second Hirsches comment on your remark about the burning of heretics. I realize you were joking. But if I didn't know you, I'd steer clear of you for a while after a remark like that. For me, joking about burning heretics hits a sensitive nerve...
I love your passion and don't let me stiffle you, but do take on board the comments you get on what you sometimes say in the heat of the moment :hug:

I take no offense. In fact just a few days before I gave mention to this tendency of mine in the INFJ thread, and admitted they weren't my finest moments.

Trust me like any good INFJ, I'm my own worst critic.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
Thanks for the interesting history lesson and comments, Falcarius.

The schisms? Too much time spent on trying to figure it out and not enough time experiencing it.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
so how is this any less cheapening then when the ORIGINAL (read: catholic) Church usurped pagan holidays to make Christianity more accessible?

If you celebrate Christmas, yet dislike these books, it sounds somewhat hypocritical doesn't it? Isn't hijacking pagan holidays a cheapening of the holy words???
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
so how is this any less cheapening then when the ORIGINAL (read: catholic) Church usurped pagan holidays to make Christianity more accessible?

If you celebrate Christmas, yet dislike these books, it sounds somewhat hypocritical doesn't it? Isn't hijacking pagan holidays a cheapening of the holy words???

The catholic Church usurped longstanding cultural practices whose viability had been proven over the course of several generations, these recent biblical repackagings are trying to tap into recent trends that will likely be abandoned-along with any spirituality that is intimately associated with it- by the majority of participants.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The catholic Church usurped longstanding cultural practices whose viability had been proven over the course of several generations, these recent biblical repackagings are trying to tap into recent trends that will likely be abandoned-along with any spirituality that is intimately associated with it- by the majority of participants.

Of course they were viable, back then they were forced down peoples throats in order to stick. And it was equally spiritually empty back then, IMHO, as it was a political move to convert more people. I don't have a problem with Christianity, but you've got to admit that they weren't exactly nice about usurping these pagan days in the first place. I think we all agree that we don't want a repeat of that.
 

Wild horses

New member
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
1,916
MBTI Type
ENFP
It is interesting stuff... I myself have written on the green issues that the Bible raises and vegetarianism. I'm not saying that these Bibles are appropriate I have to spend some more time reflecting but the Bible is in fact a very green book and drawing attention to that may open a certain sector of the community to the basic message of Jesus. It's just a form of Evangelism
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
so how is this any less cheapening then when the ORIGINAL (read: catholic) Church usurped pagan holidays to make Christianity more accessible?

If you celebrate Christmas, yet dislike these books, it sounds somewhat hypocritical doesn't it? Isn't hijacking pagan holidays a cheapening of the holy words???

Nice set of loaded questions you have there.

Ever heard of the concept of inculturation, where the message of Christ becomes part of the local culture of a people?

This has been so ever since the days of the Apostles, with Pentecost and later the Council in Jerusalem which declared that Gentile Christians need not adhere to Hebrew customs like circumsicision.

Pope Gregory the Great declared that any cultural custom that didn't contradict Christian doctrine was to be included.

Now was this all just a political ploy, as many here are trying to argue? Well you could argue that; but as Richard Fletcher notes in The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, to do so would mean projecting modern cynicism unto the past - when religious claims were very serious business.

This is especially true since a major justification for why many pagan customs were maintained after Christianization was because they bore a strong resemblence to the folk customs of the Israelites in the Old Testament.

It also ignores the important theology behind such practices. Pope John Paul II summarised it as such in his Slavorum Apostoli, commenting on the evangelizing efforts of Ss. Cyril and Methodius, and the model they set for evangelizing cultures in general:

"The Gospel does not lead to the impoverishment or extinction of those things which every individual, people and nation and every culture throughout history recognizes and brings into being as goodness, truth and beauty. On the contrary, it strives to assimilate and to develop all these values: to live them with magnanimity and joy and to perfect them by the mysterious and ennobling light of Revelation."


This is in accordance with the claim set forth by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century about how grace does not negate nature, but rather transforms it. Same logic applies to cultures.

As GK Chesterton noted, one does not cease to be human when one becomes Christian. Humans love festivels, pagan or Christian. And of course the chief boast of Christian Europe is that it is built on top of pagan Europe - particularly Greece and Rome. You might as well say our legs are of pagan origins too.

That's all I have to say.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Now concerning John Wycliffe. I already mentioned the fact that an English Bible existed under Alfred the Great. Not only that, throughout Europe there was a general tendency to use the vernacular more after about 1250, in both secular and religious institutions.

I can call upon the example of the Polish archbishop Jakob Swinka, who at the end of the 13th century called upon sermons and services to be conducted more and more in the Polish language, since the German Fransicans didn't understand the local language.

As for Wycliffe; he was not condemned by the Inquisition, and when his followers were summoned for trial - most either recanted or received light punishments.

Interestingly enough, one major reason why the Church condemned Wycliffe's Bible was because of its many errors of translation.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
And it was equally spiritually empty back then, IMHO, as it was a political move to convert more people.

I wasn't arguing otherwise (except I would describe it as spiritually neutral), I was explaining why I think these bibles inspire such discontent with most Christians (I'm an agnostic, though a cultural Protestant). As for the rest, I don't think that the Christians were any less nice (and were often more nice) than the pagans surrounding them, but they were more cohesive as a side-effect of practicing a universalist religion, while those practicing pagan religions were disunited (militarily and otherwise) as a side effect of practicing particularlist religions.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
In my opinion the bottom line is that there exist certain natural laws. Break those laws and you suffer. Follow those laws and you grow. This applies to individuals and humankind as well.

Whatever calls a human to learning this lesson is valuable and arguing about it obfuscates the underlying truth.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
So, Peguy, what do you think of my last post? Does that make sense?

I know it's my usual global perspective. Is it absolutely necessary for a Christian to get the letter of the law down to the very detail?

Is it a process of coming to an understanding through interacting with others?
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I find it offensive that anyone would be offended by something like this. To me it looks like a case of literally judging a book by its cover. ;)
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I wasn't arguing otherwise (except I would describe it as spiritually neutral), I was explaining why I think these bibles inspire such discontent with most Christians (I'm an agnostic, though a cultural Protestant). As for the rest, I don't think that the Christians were any less nice (and were often more nice) than the pagans surrounding them, but they were more cohesive as a side-effect of practicing a universalist religion, while those practicing pagan religions were disunited (militarily and otherwise) as a side effect of practicing particularlist religions.

I can understand why it is upsetting to them. As for the last part of your comment, I have no doubts that the pagans weren't the treehuggers they're sometimes made out to be, but they didn't set out to convert people and force beliefs upon others. On the contrary, most adapted to the practices of the region they invaded. It's sad that their customs and traditions were lost or 'adjusted' beyond recognition IMHO. It would be kind of ironic if the same were to happen to Christianity, but I doubt these books or the modern trends that surround them will make that happen.
 

alcea rosea

New member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,658
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
It's not really a matter of mere disagreement with people. I get along quite well here with people of various belief systems. Just last night I was chatting with alcea rosea, who's a skeptic.

Actually I'm lutheran. I'm sceptic about life and sceptic about religions but I wouldn't call my "religion" sceptic. I'm still lutheran and I do respect some of the traditions in my religion even if I'm not the best believer or the best in practicing my religion. I respect all religions and I do not judge people if they are religious or not.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Actually I'm lutheran. I'm sceptic about life and sceptic about religions but I wouldn't call my "religion" sceptic. I'm still lutheran and I do respect some of the traditions in my religion even if I'm not the best believer or the best in practicing my religion. I respect all religions and I do not judge people if they are religious or not.

I stand corrected. ;)

So, Peguy, what do you think of my last post? Does that make sense?

In many ways yes. The concept of natural law is found very much within the Christian tradition, especially via St. Thomas Aquinas.


Is it absolutely necessary for a Christian to get the letter of the law down to the very detail?

I would say no per se. My view is simply that a Christian should comprehend as much of the faith as they are intellectually capable of. Some people are more gifted concerning the details, other are more gifted concerning the big picture.
 
Top