Is the Bible a sacred book? Why?

Tradition is an important aspect.

There are some good truths there.

But sacred?

The human life is infinetly more sacred than a book.

Do not mistake the territory to its map.

I'll bet most of the people who think it is sacred would also criminalize flag burning.

Oh, and I agree Donna...

I think its ok to burn flags...so HA. I also think the bible is sacred.

...always gotta be a wise guy... ;)

Our relationship with G-d is bridges through Torah.

The world stands on three things; justice, truth and peace. Pirke Avos 1:18

MS

The book itself is not sacred, but the words within are. The Bible I use most of the time is literally falling apart. it should be used and look like that...because it means it's being used and not just siting around collecting dust

that being said what is more sacred is what we take from it and how we use it in our lives to effect others.

yours in Christ

sherm

Why is anything sacred?


This book, is believed to be divinely inspired from God. If that is what we believe, then the sacredness of the book is a no brainer.


Why is life sacred to you Donna? What establishes it's sacredness?



Puzzled

Donnas

I am coming more and more to the conclusion that I find your personal relationship with the bible so much more agreeable

it seems to allow the bible to be used for guidance rather than a set of rigid rules

I imagine that if Jesus was here today, that he would baulk at the way we have used it

nice to see a little existentialism getting involved


oh yeah, Rastus, your take on it all isn't too shoddy either

Where are the bible believers?

*waves to Donna*

*see's Josh waving, thinks a full moon would be more appropriate... remembers "Care Bears Rock" tattoo on the left cheek and decides to wave with Josh*

"Sacred Book" = idolotry

Reminds me of the "Finger pointing to the Moon" Buddhist analogy. "Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory..."

cwatts,

Well, you're towing party-line pretty well with those slogans. So...you do consider a book by Random House sacred? Which translation is the sacred one, btw? I'd hate to hold the wrong idol to such reverence.

and ok...you think "the word of God" is sacred. Fine. Would you admire the cavemen who moved the meteorite to the the Sacred Tree Stump as an object of worship? Doesn't that seem myopic and primitive to you? Caveman wars over who's Sacred Stone is the true one?

What...do you admire the Ayatolah who gave the death sentence to Salmon Rushdie for "blasphemy" on the Koran, another religious tome? That sound like a good idea to you?

How 'bout recognizing the concepts as sacred, instead of the treated tree pulp and ink that makes the "ready for consumption" translations by men for men?

You can't sloganize away this subject, cwatts, with bromides like "ten commandments, not ten suggestions". Fanaticism isn't enlightenment. Look at the nearest Al Qaeda training camp in Bangladesh if you don't believe me.

"Our Creator has provided us the blueprint"

You have no evidence, whatsoever, that Our Creator provided anything. You have a book, whose content was written by men, the very chapters of which were decided by men and whose content was interpreted by men.

"But it's divinely inspired!!!"

"How do you know that?"

"Some dude told me so."

"How did he know that?"

"Some dude told him so."

"How did HE know that?"

"Because GOD himself told him so..."

"and how do you know God told him so?"

"Because some dude told me so..."

Eventually, you'll come to realize that you're trusting some fellow's word of mouth that The Creator's words are in the bible, cwatts. Even if you don't, I still haven't heard you address the point of WHICH TRANSLATION IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!!! God didn't speak English, sir.

Or do you throw up your hands with a divinely inspired translation?

One must believe the bible the literal word of God, or one ought not be allowed on the HolyGround? Is this your position?

"Just wonder why someone apparently lacking in faith is frequenting this section. Care to answer?"

No. I don't answer to you, sonny. Know your place.

"Because you have obviously made the decision,already, that you have no Creator or at least not one capable of providing His word through various chosen individuals through time."

You're confused. Let me help you.

Person A has an encounter with the divine, but keeps quiet.

Person B also has an encounter, but out of ego gratification and desire for power elaborates on the encounter to suit his needs.

Person C includes the text of Person B with significant alterations to fit his own agenda, and slams person A as a charlitan. He also convinces the power structure that Person B was "divinely inspired", as is the entire text.

Person D translates Person C's text, making alterations to fit his agenda, and gives you a copy some two thousand years after Person's A and B existed. Please...don't tell me that D's text is the infallible word of God. That's ludicrous.

This situation is entirely consistent with what I've stated on this thread. The past is largely unknowable, forever shrouded in mystery. If you choose to extinguish your critical thinking and merely "believe what you're told"...well, that's your perogative.

Don't expect me, however, to allow your opinion to go unchallenged.

Oh, Rastus, while I was training, you did all the hard job for me!

Thanks. :-)

"You have a book, whose content was written by men, the very chapters of which were decided by men and whose content was interpreted by men."


Man has always been one of God's favorite tools. Why not use man to convey your message?

You're confused. Let me help you.


"Person A has an encounter with the divine, but keeps quiet.

Person B also has an encounter, but out of ego gratification and desire for power elaborates on the encounter to suit his needs.

Person C includes the text of Person B with significant alterations to fit his own agenda, and slams person A as a charlitan. He also convinces the power structure that Person B was "divinely inspired", as is the entire text.

Person D translates Person C's text, making alterations to fit his agenda, and gives you a copy some two thousand years after Person's A and B existed. Please...don't tell me that D's text is the infallible word of God. That's ludicrous."


Is this whole alpha-analogy supposed to resemble something?






Puzzled



"I think it's supposed to represent the origins of the Bible..."


Well, I'd say there's some pretty heavy misconceptions with that analogy if it's supposed to accurately portray the "unknowable" history of the bible's origin. Unless, your big on conspiracy theory stuff. Like a guy last week who told me, "William Shakespear wrote the KJV." To which I responded: "Exsqueeze me. *cough* I baking powder...?" Then he "proved" it to me by showing me where the words "will," "shake," and "spear" all appeared in the same chapter in one book of the Psalms. Well, I simply couldn't argue with such logic. But I did encourage him to do a study on the bible's origin.

Puzzled,

Which part of my construction do you dispute, Puzzled?