Two New Bibles Preach A Hip, Eco-Friendly Gospel

[Night]

Although sadly this concept is being neglected terribly, so now you have overgrown children walking around untill their mid-40s.

Is this the type of development you believe the contemporized Bibles will help to protect?

If so, how?

 

[ajblaise]

Would you care to provide some examples of such as I originally asked?

In theory at least, this is appropriate for first-graders, but not young adults. There's a point in life when one must proceed from the kiddy Bible to the real deal. It's called growing up.

Although sadly this concept is being neglected terribly, so now you have overgrown children walking around untill their mid-40s.

I didn't have any specific examples in mind, but the books here seem to be the kind I was talking about.

What's the main difference between these kid's bibles and this new eco-friendly bible that makes the latter something bad?

 

[Sniffles]

Is this the type of development you believe the contemporized Bibles will help to protect?

If so, how?

I'll repost the excerpts in the OP:

Two new Bibles targeting a young, hip — even secular — audience are hitting bookstores. One is a slick, illustrated version of the New Testament; the other is an environmentally friendly edition that takes advantage of the popularity of the green movement.

If you didn't know this was a Bible you might think The Book was a "goth" magazine, or perhaps something you'd find in a doctor's office. The front cover is a close-up of a translucent green eye, caked with black makeup and staring eerily from the page. On the back is a photo of a faceless figure wearing a black hooded sweat shirt.

They're basically trying to transform the Bible into your everyday Teen magazine. This is especially true in regards to putting pictures of Angelina Jolie, Bono and John Lennon alongside Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King, Jr.(perhaps it should be mentioned that none of these people are actaully Biblical figures) further shows how trivalizing this is of Holy Scriptures.

Within this context it's simply impossible to comprehend the profoundity of scriptures.

And I don't buy the whole Machiavellian argument of "well at least it gets people reading the Bible", which displays a rather un-Christian lack of integrity.

Quite a contrast to the attitude shown by Bl. Bishop Paul P. Gojdich, who suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Communists:

"I am certain that at the end truth will triumph over lies, and love will overcome hatred. I do not hate my enemies. I would like to bring them closer to Christ, of course not by force or deceit but by love and truth."

A true Christian sense of integrity would also show greater aesthetic appreciation as to presenting the word of God. We certainly see this in the majestic artworks that Medieval monks displayed in their hand-crafted Bibles.

Even the Bible I inherited from my grandmother contains a gallery of Renaisance and Baroque paintings displaying scenes from the New Testament.

Of course truely devout art is not confined to the past. You can look at the artwork displayed here, which were produced only 10 years ago:
Art for the Catholic Restoration

I cannot in good conscience give my support to such an endeavor as this. If I did, then I cannot call myself a good Christian.

 

[Night]

They're basically trying to transform the Bible into your everyday Teen magazine. This is especially true in regards to putting pictures of Angelina Jolie, Bono and John Lennon alongside Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King, Jr.(perhaps it should be mentioned that none of these people are actaully Biblical figures) further shows how trivalizing this is of Holy Scriptures.

You make a good point that to compare the essential spiritual character/social virtues of contemporary celebrities against important socio-spiritual cornerstones would make for a cheapening of the advancements of each figurehead.

Yet, I don't think this a fair encapsulation of the author's intent. To perpetuate Christian philosophy to an audience unfamiliar with the essential guideposts offered therein likely is best accomplished with the assistance of a contemporary "hook" -- a well-known face as a bartering instrument to clarify the value of having an interest in Christianity. The value of this strategy is (presumably) self-evident towards servicing the bottom line of the Christian movement.

I think it's (somewhat) clear that the author is working to familiarize otherwise-"unhip" theological concepts to new/different demographics.

And I don't buy the whole Machiavellian argument of "well at least it gets people reading the Bible", which displays a rather un-Christian lack of integrity.

This is a strange approach to take, when discussing the teachings of Christ. Not everyone shares the corpus of your positive conclusions on Catholicism. As such, divergent systems of personal belief undoubtedly corkscrew otherwise-valuable insight away from the essential teachings of Christ.

Elitism is wanton insecurity against change.

Quite a contrast to the attitude shown by Bl. Bishop Paul P. Gojdich, who suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Communists:

"I am certain that at the end truth will triumph over lies, and love will overcome hatred. I do not hate my enemies. I would like to bring them closer to Christ, of course not by force or deceit but by love and truth."

I don't see how this relates, other than working to (inappropriately) add an alarmist approach to a well-meaning translation of Biblical code.

We aren't dealing with Communism. Nor are we discussing the Basilian order.

A true Christian sense of integrity would also show greater aesthetic appreciation as to presenting the word of God. We certainly see this in the majestic artworks that Medieval monks displayed in their hand-crafted Bibles.

Even the Bible I inherited from my grandmother contains a gallery of Renaisance and Baroque paintings displaying scenes from the New Testament.

Precisely.

Paintings convened as an attempt to increase awareness on the beauty found within scripture.

Although the elegance in media has certainly changed, the desire to facilitate awareness has remained uncannily similar.

Of course truely devout art is not confined to the past. You can look at the artwork displayed here, which were produced only 10 years ago:
Art for the Catholic Restoration

Beautiful.

I cannot in good conscience give my support to such an endeavor as this. If I did, then I cannot call myself a good Christian.

Then I would advise you to remain firm in your beliefs.

Tolerance has often been described as one of the purest examples of compassionate wisdom.

 

[Valiant]

I think it's weird though... They try to make it "more relevant"... How does one go about doing something that is bullshit into something better without changing the entire concept?

(Note: sorry! I just couldn't help myself! )

 

[Hirsch63]

I find the issue entirely uncontroversial.

Religion and politics are intermingled entities. Welcome to human culture.

Trying to broaden one's audience by pursuing unfertilized avenues should be an exciting opportunity for conversion, not an excuse to draw petty lines of personal division.

I agree 100%. Here is another opportunity to widen the conversation and therefore the understanding of this text. You are right on target Night. Those curious enough to engage will seek further, into other more conventional texts and commentaries and their own gifts will take their understanding as far as it will go.

WTF is this???

Back in the day these wretched pieces of shit would've been used more properly as fuel for burning heretics!

Fear and immaturity are right here, plainly to be read. Is this the attitude of a follower of Christ, or a slave to church dogma? I'm sure it is if we take the offensive, abominal and criminal historical actions of the church into account. Souls uncounted were tortured and destroyed in the name of the church to "protect" the integrity of it's position. This is old, available and well-understood history motivated by the basest of human interests with no real reference to divine law. Burn heretics? are you serious? Do you think what happened long ago was forgotten; that writing a statement as patently offensive as this could be excused by your disgust for these two publications? This is simply out of line.

Would I buy either of these books? Probably not. I can find passages myself in conventional sources to support our responsibility to creation...and I am sure others could find just as many passages supporting the notion of creation as essentially ours to dispense with as we see fit without reference to stewardship or husbandry. The idea of "slicking up" a version of the New Testament to draw in an audience who might otherwise ignore it should offend only those who stand to lose something from that possibility and have no faith that the word can stand up to any presentation. There should therefore be no representation of the Word in any other form than that available to a select few, or approved by them? Sounds very familiar. Of course when efforts were first made to provide legible translations to the laity centuries ago the church took persistent steps to capture, torture and execute those trying to expand the understanding of the Word. It is disappointing to see that this mindset survives especially in one who has gifts enough to amend many of the hurts perpetrated by the church and expand a truly "universal" understanding.

The uniform of faith is that of the healer, the open, helpful hand and guide; not that of the judge, soldier or executioner as it has all too often been understood to be by insitutions hoarding and exercising it's inherent power, the ultimate, pathetic sorrowful irony of our history.

You wish to burn books? Or better yet those books along with those who might read them and come to a different conclusion than you? I cannot with propriety dispense my full response to your writing on this forum. In short it could best be expressed by the phrase "grow up".

 

[Night]

As is usually the case, Hirsch63's insight far exceeds my own.

Of particular strength is this statement:

The uniform of faith is that of the healer, the open, helpful hand and guide; not that of the judge, soldier or executioner as it has all too often been understood to be by insitutions hoarding and exercising it's inherent power, the ultimate, pathetic sorrowful irony of our history.

 

[ptgatsby]

I agree 100%. Here is another opportunity to widen the conversation and therefore the understanding of this text. You are right on target Night. Those curious enough to engage will seek further, into other more conventional texts and commentaries and their own gifts will take their understanding as far as it will go.

I find myself strongly against the OP and see it from the opposite side of this concern.

The absolute last thing the green movement needs is religion. Hell, the green movement is already close enough to religion to negate the realistic concerns (both economic and scientific). I don't particularly care about the impact on religion, but I really don't like seeing it merging with movements that should clearly be in the realm of empirical science.

 

[Night]

I agree, ptgatsby.

One of the most frustrating campaigns to observe has been the peculiar insistence of Evangelicals towards the symmetrical inclusion of Creationism alongside Evolution -- as a science.

If nothing else, the movement showcases a basic lack of understanding on the material differences between a falsifiable platform and faith-based personal reckoning. I guess I'd be more sympathetic to the fundamentalist cause if Theology wasn't an available elective within the standard operational rubric of most academic curriculums.

Actually, scratch that -- the persistence of the Creationism model is another needle in the pincushion of socially-fashionable/politically-marketable ignorance. Serves as a powerful reminder on the dire necessity for distinction between belief and empiricism.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I find myself strongly against the OP and see it from the opposite side of this concern.

The absolute last thing the green movement needs is religion. Hell, the green movement is already close enough to religion to negate the realistic concerns (both economic and scientific). I don't particularly care about the impact on religion, but I really don't like seeing it merging with movements that should clearly be in the realm of empirical science.

This is an interesting point. I've long questioned the whole green movement and the political push towards it is so strong, it leaves me extremely suspicious. It truly is becoming a religious movement. It has its heretics, its leaders, its followers, its misinformation and tendency to combat any skepticism or criticism with vicious attacks that don't combat the criticism but the one offering the different point of view.

If anything, these people don't seem to want to destroy the existing bible: they're not saying theirs is correct or right, just putting a spin on existing scripture to appeal to a different audience or highlight certain things they think is important and others may feel that way as well.

 

[Hirsch63]

I find myself strongly against the OP and see it from the opposite side of this concern.

The absolute last thing the green movement needs is religion. Hell, the green movement is already close enough to religion to negate the realistic concerns (both economic and scientific). I don't particularly care about the impact on religion, but I really don't like seeing it merging with movements that should clearly be in the realm of empirical science.

You're a fan of tangible reality and I can get behind that too. Part of that reality, wether we like it or not is that there already exsist strong constituencies for every position, beyond our endorsement of their motivations.

I was (my bad) only considering the faith perspective in my post. If I had to state a position I do believe that this planet is finite and in need of responsible husbandry of every sort and degree. Scienticfic method is vital to that end in the most expedient and productive sense. Like religious text, scientific evidence can be used,perceived and presented to butress a variety of positions, we have seen this in congessional hearings. When it comes down to it, despite the evidence neuterally gathered by science, the implementation of any solutions will most likely (ultimately) be a matter of public opinion based on sentiment. Groups are already being swayed by their beliefs to endorse positions on global matters irrespective of scientific eveidence. The cat is out of the bag on this one. To the extent that more minds are brought into a sympathetic notion of the planet as a responsibility of the most profound sort, I am for it. And i am sure there is someone else out there equally invested in the opposite opinion.

 

[ptgatsby]

Actually, scratch that -- the persistence of the Creationism model is another needle in the pincushion of socially-fashionable/politically-marketable ignorance. This is a powerful reminder on the dire necessity for distinction between belief and empiricism.

I should be clear - I don't like this because I want religion to adapt, not become popular. What I don't want is religion to make "pretend" changes, attach itself to science/progress, to attach itself to social movements, etc.

However, the reality is that it will happen... The big picture strategy is that I want the ardent believers, like Peduy, to fight these associations tooth and claw. This means that their religion becomes subject to adaption - change, or perish. This eliminates the crowding out effect that monolithic (in terms of belief ) religions have. Religion, from my perspective, is a social device. It doesn't guide society, it emerges from society. The problem is that when it pretends to be more - as in, it becomes political, when it starts integrating into movements - it crowds out the natural emergent belief systems. This means that religion becomes society, the society becomes rigid and the society becomes inferior - the rate of adaptation changes. You can see it somewhat in the US and the lashback with science.

So, what I want to see is a religion for the times. I want religion to adapt it's moral principles, not survive on the coat tails of popular movements. If religion does not, then it should fade away, replaced with new religions that are more adaptable. But adaptable does not mean embracing science or some such, of course, but... a better, stronger framework than basing our knowledge - our guide to moral behavior, from what we knew thousands of years ago.

Hell, I would love to see a green "religion" that put forth that we are stewards of the world and the universe, because we are a part of it and the outcome of not assuming that role is to be replaced, through extinction, by others that will.

But handing over the keys to a green movement with "god tells us to"? I just hope that it never turns into "too many humans, and God tells us to...". Sends me to the hills, I tell you.

This is an interesting point. I've long questioned the whole green movement and the political push towards it is so strong, it leaves me extremely suspicious. It truly is becoming a religious movement. It has its heretics, its leaders, its followers, its misinformation and tendency to combat any skepticism or criticism with vicious attacks that don't combat the criticism but the one offering the different point of view.

Yup, I hate that too, heh.

Now, granted, with the evidence I have seen, I believe in climate change. However, the exact same evidence shows horrendously long trends. The impact will be severe, in terms of entropy... but again, over very long periods, as in centuries.

This tells me that yes, we should do something, as a species. And individually we don't have much incentive to. But what should be done should be looked at from a 50-year+ perspective. The fanaticism gets in the way of solving the problem.

So, given my perspective, the absolute last thing I want is actual religious fervor attached to it.

You're a fan of tangible reality and I can get behind that too. Part of that reality, wether we like it or not is that there already exsist strong constituencies for every position, beyond our endorsement of their motivations.

You are, of course, correct. I probably should of quoted someone else I don't disagree with anything you say, exactly, but I think we differ in the way we view the overall situation (which I didn't point out in my previous post).

Perhaps I should say that I don't like seeing an entire segment of the population motivated for reasons that would disrupt the cost/benefit and risk measurements of a tangible problem, in this particular case.

 

[Eldanen]

They can print whatever they want. It's really their choice. But honestly, I find that it's a useless load of crap because it appeals to a market that changes so often. Flighty teenagers, eh? Oh, and come on, goth? Since when would a goth want to read the Bible? Unless they were really interested in the middle ages. I think what they're doing is appealing to a stereotype and a cliche and will probably fall flat on its face.

 

[Journey]

As we stand before our Maker in the end, Night, we shall know the truth. I, for one, believe it will be that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them according to His Word, literally. We shall see.

 

[Night]

As we stand before our Maker in the end, Night, we shall know the truth. I, for one, believe it will be that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them according to His Word, literally. We shall see.

You illustrate well the arrogance I find with my religion, Journey. Your haste in condemnation makes me grateful that our philosophies are so vastly different, despite the appearance of a theistic link.


I commend your honesty.

I regret your approach.

 

[Journey]

You illustrate well the arrogance I find with my religion, Journey. Your haste in condemnation makes me grateful that our philosophies are so vastly different, despite the appearance of a theistic link.


I commend your honesty.

I regret your approach.

I don't believe it is arrogant to say we will know the truth in the end and I condemned nothing, Night.

However if you believe that it is arrogant of me to believe in the theory of a literal Creation to the exclusion of the theory of Evolution, I find that it is arrogant to put forward the theory of evolution as though it were fully proven and irrefutable.

 

[Night]

However I do believe that it is arrogant to assume that the theory of evolution is absolutely proven and irrefutable.

Again, your assumptions criticize what you incorrectly infer about my system of belief. As such, they do not address anything I've yet offered.

Here is my earlier (now somewhat ironic) post on the topic:

If nothing else, the [Creationism] movement showcases a basic lack of understanding on the material differences between a falsifiable platform and faith-based personal reckoning.

...

Not once did I claim that evolution was absolute. Nothing in science is absolute.

Science affords us the opportunity to apply critical thinking skills in a perpetual effort to revise our understanding of the world.

Faith is belief without falsifiable (independently verifiable) "proof". What one believes is up to their personal understanding of the world and does not require independent verification for it to be valid.

As concepts, there is no friction between them. They exist in independent spheres of thought, regulated by fundamentally different guidelines.


As I said earler, your approach lacks humility.


Edit: I see you modified your language. I think you'll agree that the themes are still valid.

 

[Sniffles]

You make a good point that to compare the essential spiritual character/social virtues of contemporary celebrities against important socio-spiritual cornerstones would make for a cheapening of the advancements of each figurehead.

Yet, I don't think this a fair encapsulation of the author's intent. To perpetuate Christian philosophy to an audience unfamiliar with the essential guideposts offered therein likely is best accomplished with the assistance of a contemporary "hook" -- a well-known face as a bartering instrument to clarify the value of having an interest in Christianity. The value of this strategy is (presumably) self-evident towards servicing the bottom line of the Christian movement.

Evangelization is not the same as marketing. To try to approach it as such is to comprimise the nature of authentic evangelization.

The concern of how to attract the attention of young people is legitimate. However, adopting the marketing model of pandering to their tastes is not the right way to go.

Even as far as the "bottom line" is concerned this is poor strategy since much of the evidence shows that younger people are actually attracted towards more traditional forms of Christianity, which doesn't pander to their whims.

This is a strange approach to take, when discussing the teachings of Christ. Not everyone shares the corpus of your positive conclusions on Catholicism. As such, divergent systems of personal belief undoubtedly corkscrew otherwise-valuable insight away from the essential teachings of Christ.

This isn't about Catholicism, this is about maintaining the integrity of Christ's message. And this applies to all Christian traditions.

Here's even a take of the issue from Father Michael Azkoul of the Orthodox tradition:

"The Faith we preserve has not developed or changed. The Church has not been seduced by Plato or Aristotle or Freud or Darwin or Marx. She has never found it necessary to follow current trends and fashions to make Her Message appealing. Indeed, She is no beggar of souls. Moreover, She belongs to no century. She is not, therefore, a Twentieth century Church, but the Church in the twentieth century. She exists to change, not to be changed. The Orthodox Church has a Message for the modern world, the same one Christ preached almost two thousand years ago---"Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand!" Here is the essence of the Gospel, here is the answer to poverty, crime, racism, war, leadership, mores and manners, sex and feminism, egalitarianism, fraternalism and supposed liberty---to all the human problems, national and international. The Church's answers are sacred not secular, because Her voice is the voice of eternity."

Elitism is wanton insecurity against change.

I resent your inaccurate charge against me.

I don't see how this relates, other than working to (inappropriately) add an alarmist approach to a well-meaning translation of Biblical code.

There's a true way to preaching the message of Christ and a false way. These "bibles" represent a false way, especially since the publisher admitted that the intention was provoking people.

I presented Bishop Gojdich as an example of a more proper way of expressing Christ's message.

BTW, there is no "Bible code".

We aren't dealing with Communism. Nor are we discussing the Basilian order.

Where exactly did I say we were? I merely mentioned that Gojdich was killed by the Communists and provided a link to his life story for those interested.

 

[Night]

I'm not sure we're arguing the same points anymore, Peguy.

It's clear that we both maintain a strong opinion on the topic.

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't understand these religious folks and the outrage they experience when someone finds differently to them.

Peguy is no exception: they're irked to the point of concrete lashing out at their opposition.
I wonder why they don't just let them be wrong.
It would seem to make sense -- most of these religious nuts develop and foster ill will for their 'adversaries' and opposition. You'd think they'd be comfortable (since they're so sure that it WILL go this way) letting them burn in hell for the wrong beliefs.
But instead, they play god and judge people for their sacrelige.
And peguy, before you go flying off the handle at me like you have these magazines, hear this: I'm not just talking about you, and I'm not just talking about Christians.