Charlene, you are right. Since we don't have any forensic evidence of the writer's/author's cyligaphy(?) or hand writing(notice how Paul loops certaing semetic letters or Issaiah has a certain visual slant) to compare nor their own non-scriptural comment, much less anything from Josephus or early 2nd Cent. Church Fathers to collaborate such matters. Even George Lamsa and Rocco Errico implied that the original manuscript penned by the Biblical writers were often treated as toilet paper or to start fires as kindling shows that the physical papyrus was not worshiped(biblioidolatry)as fundamentalists tend to do.
It is unfortunate all this happened. We're lucky we have translations of versions that are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. The documents we DO still have are records of a time many people are interested in, to say the least.
I'm wondering, though, about the tendency to downplay the significance of all those fly specs and extra comments in the margins. They can make the difference when it comes to translations.
Any one else have this concern? Is anyone out there reading this who has worked with translating any of the scriptures?
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God.
That is correct. People with these beliefs are referred to as agnostics. Those who say there is not enough empirical evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of God.
I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and logic lately, but I'd like to drag the conversation back to point of the article:
To show that inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim.
Is it not common scientific practice to start with a premise or hypothesis? The problem is not in having a premise, it is in the logic and methods used to prove or disprove that premise. Is this not an accepted practice of science?
There are no originals of the text(s) of the Bible to make this claim about.
Fundamentalist are making a claim about something that does not exist. No one has seen the original(s), they were destroyed long ago.
True. There is literature in existence, however, that quotes passages that are in what we now call The Bible. Bible scholars, that is, people who have careers in researching the Bible, have a pretty good consensus as to what was actually written. There are a few exceptions as you know. Interpretation, however, is another issue.
Get it?
I cannot overstate the importance of this point.
I'll use VPW's quote here because we are dicussing TWI and its offshoots that adopt the same premises he did for researching the Bible:
PFAL book, pg.128:
"What students or scholars refer to as originals really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not originals [he's right about that]...at best we have copies of the originals. [most scholars say we have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. of the originals]. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men."
Did VPW ever show us these originals? NO. He did not have them. Nobody does.
Wierwille's problem was that he taught that God taught him the true interpretation. Implied in that was that Wierwille was above reproach or criticism.
When he refered to "the Word of God" he refered to what he THOUGHT the Word of God must be.
Yeah, well, I ain't no Wierwille defender
The claim of inerrancy is an assumption made about something that does not exist.
No one can point to the originals and say, "See these are perfect, without contradiction, they are inerrant."
Why? Because no one has them. Cough, cough. They should be embarrassed if nothing else about making such a claim.
It is easy to make a claim about something that does not exist.
No. They don't have the original parchments with the original ink. But what legitimate Bible historian, or any historian for that matter, claims that no writings ever existed? Furthermore, where is the legitimate Bible scholar who purports major discrepancies between what was originally penned and what is now accepted as Biblical text? The works of Homer as we now have them are accepted without the original documents, as are the writings of Plato and Socrates. I don't think we have the original writings of Shakespeare either but I could be wrong about that.
I can claim the "original" moon was made of cheese and no one can prove me wrong. There's no original moon for anyone to examine who might want to prove me wrong.
The amazing thing is that I could get some people to BELIEVE my claim about the original moon made of cheese or something else that does not exist.
Perhaps. But there would be an entire army of scientists that study astronomy who would oppose you and would say the weight of the evidence does not support your hypothesis.
There are always people, given certain circumstances, who will believe (and I was one in TWI and may very well be one again some other time) even the most outrageous claims made by the most sincere and kind people.
I suspect we all can think of examples...
Topic Disclaimer:
What this post is NOT:
This post is not intended to destroy anyone's belief in God or the sacredness of the scriptures, or any religious beliefs or lack of them.
This post is not an attack on God or a way to dispute His (or Her) existence or non-existence.
These ideas IMO would be
What this post IS:
An attempt to use critical thinking regarding the physical texts of the Bible and to remind everyone of the fact - which most of us already know - that there are no original texts of the scriptures about which we can even make a claim of inerrancy. Most people seem to forget this.
Why remind us of this?
Because inerrancy is the cornerstone of TWI research and is till being perpetuated in offshoot groups who claim their beliefs as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD. This has been proven time and time again to lead people into making bad decisions for their lives and families. That's what I find a problem with. If you want examples, roam around the topics here at GSC and you'll find them aplenty.
My problem with offshoots is that by their very existence they are stating they believe that Wierwille really was the one who had the "rightly divided Word" and no one else did.
If some people still want to BELIEVE in inerrancy, fine, they have that choice.
I simply ask those people one thing:
Please have the courtesy to say inerrancy is your BELIEF, and not say it is THE TRUTH which everyone else must accept.
I will accept what you say here with one caveat. Yes, inerrancy in scripture is my belief but it is one that I am convinced is set on a solid base of principles of logic and historicity
Peace,
Charlene
Now, back to the "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" shared with us on the previous page...now THAT'S funny!
It may not seem like it, but I actually enjoyed reading your post and I agree with about 98% of it. I just disagree with your logic that a belief in inerrancy of scripture being inappropriate in regards to research.
I just disagree with your logic that a belief in inerrancy of scripture being inappropriate in regards to research.
One characteristic as regards to what research is about (well, what _should_ be, ... IMNSHO that is ;) ), has to do with the initial premise of said research, and that is if you go in with your mind already made up as to the 'inerrancy' of the source of your research (in this example, the Bible), and that belief hasn't been proven and established via consistent evidence prior to acceptance (<-- Oh, and note the bolding of the word 'belief' as a clue as to why this might be so ;) ), ...
... You ain't got no research. ... Well, no more than what Wierwille had anyway, and I would say even less.
Oh, by the way, for all you Inerrancy of the Bible aficionados, ... do you even realize what 'inerrancy of the Bible' implies? What it all entails?? ... Inerrancy, in its real meaning and application, means ... no errors. ... NO errors. ... Of any kind. ... Not _one_ contradiction. ..... Not so much as even a typo. :o ... As in 99.999999999999-1/2% <> 100%. ... Period! ...(Uhh, Can you folks hear me in the back on this?)
Seeing all this, inerrancy is rather difficult to maintain and establish here, ..... doncha think?
I dunno, but _I_ wouldn't place any money on this kinda gamble, ... but hey that's me. I never been a "Let's go c-r-a-z-y at Vegas!" kinda guy.
My, oh my, there seems to be so much here already that it is hard to even catalogue. Much wonderful insight is found here at GS. I am posting because I believe I qualify. Charlene (Penworks) started the discusssion with:
“Are you someone questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International (TWI) or groups run by former Way followers? I am. If you are, then what I have to say may interest you.”
I am interested in this topic because I DO QUESTION the value of TWI’s research. In fact, I always have. I never bought into their interpretation of:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
They have used this verse, NOT to challenge people to really search for themselves to see if what was found actually “rings true to them” or not. To TWI, what it really means is:
Work our findings in the precise manner that we have until they become your own conclusions as well. And if you happen to come up with anything contrary to it in the process, then you are horribly mistaken because WE ARE RIGHT ALREADY! We are not interested in your take on it -- even if what you find seems to make EVEN MORE SENSE than what we have taught. And in that case, once you start to say anything which seems to differ, we shall stifle you! And if you even DARE to promote this different rendering (“some other gospel”) among our followers, WE SHALL NOT ALLOW IT. We will treat you as a heretic, because we are not interested in YOUR RESEARCH, only ours!
I found this to be true about them, though I just did not want to believe it. And this painfully took way, way too long. I had to find out the hard way for myself – by remaining honest with God, and OPEN to what He has written. I continued to search the scriptures as best I could with the BRAIN I was born with.
True research is not to start with some sort of premise. It is honest and objective. And if what you find seems to have some merit, there should be some genuine interest on the part of everyone. Even the best of debates rely on the fairness of an independent mediator or moderator, which was NEVER THE CASE with TWI, for the further you go up the ladder, the worse it gets. Eventually, no matter how you try, you will run into the well-established BRICK WALL located at the ROOT of The Way Tree – HEADQUARTERS!
Ever notice how over the years they stopped referring to their people as “Leaves on a mighty tree”, as one of their old Way Productions songs went? Ever notice how they eventually stopped using the term Twig as well? To anyone with a science background, that should speak volumes!
Lest I seem to be getting OFF TOPIC here, let me relate with more of what Charlene had said in her article on the front page of GS, which this discussion is supposed to be addressing:
“And from the Introduction to my all-time favorite by Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, A History of Fundamentalism, here are a few words….”
“….Christian fundamentalists reject the discoveries of biology and physics about the origins of life and insist that the Book of Genesis is scientifically sound in every detail.”
Well, what if someone were to find things in the Bible which DO AGREE with science, and BOTH are found to be in harmony together? Let us keep in mind the following verse:
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
If this verse has any merit (oops…am I starting with some AXIOM myself now?) then we can understand that even spiritual truths (the invisible things of him) might well be ascertained indirectly from nature itself, by that which lies BEHIND the things that are made, which serve as their “physical examples”. Let me continue now…
In botany, (and I am certainly no authority on the subject by any stretch) it is found that leaves collect energy directly from the sun and (by a process known as photosynthesis) turn it into a form of sugar called glucose. This needed nutrient not only helps the Leaves and their supporting Twig to be nourished by this light from the source, but this glucose is also transferred to the ROOT by way of the Twigs, Branches, Limbs and Trunks. The root collects all of this (indirectly from every leaf on the tree) and redistributes it back to the tree as it is needed so the entire structure flourishes.
It should always have been a two-way street folks! If anyone truly found anything on his own (directly from the source of light) it should have been WELCOMED and utilized. But alas, there came a time when neither the leaves nor even the twigs were important enough to be recognized as useful. It became as though they had nothing to contribute. But lauded to the sky remained the “faithful leadership” -- the BRANCH, LIMB and TRUNK coordinators, etc, many of whom were usually ordained, or sold-out bond-slaves as well!
And (lest I seem NOSTALGIC for the days when it all seemed right) let me say that I now firmly believe there NEVER TRULY WAS any desire for the leadership of TWI to accept anything from their followers, except for their LOYALTY and their hard-earned CASH, of course! When we take the long view of things, we know this to be a FACT.
The Way used to pride itself saying how it was the NEW DYNAMIC CHURCH, implying that it constantly grew and changed just like a tree is normally designed to do in nature. Well I say, “How COULD IT, if you deny the leaves their natural job as designed by the Creator?”
They were no different than any other organization which eventually had established many things and considered them to be SET IN STONE. They, who said they did not rely upon TRADITION, did EXACTLY THAT! And, as I said before, if any DARE disagree with any of their “precious foundation”, they would be considered a heretic.
And under LCM’s administration this was doled out in the form of Mark and Avoid, or Abandoned. I am sure there are many here who can relate to that.
I suppose I could write volumes here, but out of fairness I perceive it is time for me to suppress the urge to continue this ranting for now and give others an opportunity to respond.
Let us hear what some of the other “leaves” (excuse me if that term seems offensive) have to contribute.
My article has lit up some otherwise dull fuses out there. (Note: I've received some personal emails that indicate this but I will not post them here.) If I have offended anyone in regards to their hero, that was not my intention.
My intention was to share my opinons/experiences in the hope that they would be helpful to others or useful in their understanding of TWI and what was taught by that group.
Naturally, what was taught by that group originated with VPW. My writing is not a personal attack on him. My writing is an exploration of the THINKING that he promulgated. He used that word a lot so I will use it in an attempt to communicate with TWI followers or spin-off group members.
The THINKING behind the TWI research approach involves assumptions.
I personally think that inerrancy is not a reasonable assumption with which to start research.
Why?
It denies the "facts on the ground" about the texts of the Bible that most people know, i.e. that they were written by various different writers in different countries during different periods of history and could not possibly be "without contradiction" by the sheer fact that these writers were unknown to each other. Not to mention the fact that we have no originals. At best we have translations of versions that are copies of copies, etc. etc.
I fully realize these "facts on the ground" fly in the face of another assumption, which is God is the author of all these books. To those who choose to accept that proposition, it doesn't matter who wrote them or how many writers there were. The books constitute a pile of writing that constitutes The Word.
Who cares about the history of the text?
TWI cared about it for awhile. Until someone in 1986 named Ch(s Ge*r came along and read the Passing of the Patriarch and all of a sudden, the research group at TWI, which consisted of TWI research team members (myself included) and members "from the field" were stopped from continuing on the project by the head of research, (Wal*&r Cu*mins who was I suspect (watch out, this is my OPINION) under pressure from Ge*r) canned the small group of people interested in that topic. It became too problematic, I guess. YEAH. Why? It might undermine one of the cornerstone assumptions of TWI, the one they were fighting so hard to maintain: that the Bible "fits like a hand in a glove."
I personally think that inerrancy is not a reasonable assumption with which to start research.
Why?
It denies the "facts on the ground" about the texts of the Bible that most people know, i.e. that they were written by various different writers in different countries during different periods of history and could not possibly be "without contradiction" by the sheer fact that these writers were unknown to each other. Not to mention the fact that we have no originals. At best we have translations of versions that are copies of copies, etc. etc.
I fully realize these "facts on the ground" fly in the face of another assumption, which is God is the author of all these books. To those who choose to accept that proposition, it doesn't matter who wrote them or how many writers there were. The books constitute a pile of writing that constitutes The Word.
Who cares about the history of the text?
One would think that what you laid out in the post above would be the default position and any inerrancy would have to be proved. If the bible was inerrant, it stands to reason that that would be demonstrable.
You know, when I look at fundies, literalists, whatever, I don't really relate to them. The wayfer in me feels no connection. Cause, wayfers don't look to the bible, they look to leadership. Fundies know the bible inside out. Wayfers, don't. They know "Wierwille said blah blah blah blah." Wayfers use the bible to make themselves more credible to other religious groups.
I guess fundies who joined twi would be more comfortable cause they were holding a bible.
Notice all the bible references in the following passage:
This may seem strange, but Dr. Wierwille's very last teaching was lost. In the non-Corps grad population about 99% of the people are entirely unaware of Dr's final instructions to us all. I've done a poll. In the Corps and clergy population, many more know about it, but they dismissed it as unimportant and hid it from all the rest of us, and then went on to forget about it.
Most grads think Dr's very last teaching was "The Hope" but this is not true. In the coming days more details will be forthcoming, but you can talk amongst yourselves until I have time to get back to my computer. Some of you already know about the loss of this teaching. Talk it up. I'll return soon with what I've found out after five years of researching it.
VPW’s research method started with his desired conclusion: the inerrancy of the Bible which he stated like this: The Bible is the Word of God so it is perfect.” That is not research. That is the end of VPW’s investigation of the Bible sounding like his beginning.
. . .
VPW’s belief in inerrancy . . .
I thought vpw plagiarized to get rich and laid. His belief was very simple.
Now, if someone believes that the bible is a credible book, they may be more prone to get involved in twi. But not every "bible-believer" joined twi, and not every cult uses christianity.
vpw reigned in young people with crazy enthusiasm for his cause? People miss the excitement and being spoon-fed on demand? vpw was a story-teller, people liked the emotions he aroused?
The fundie-part I would think served as some vestige of credibility, an excuse, a license to follow vpw.
One would think that what you laid out in the post above would be the default position and any inerrancy would have to be proved. If the bible was inerrant, it stands to reason that that would be demonstrable.
Thank you, Oakspear, for saying that the "facts on the ground" about the texts could be "the default position."
That is EXACTLY the one I've taken since I haven't seen anyone demonstrate inerrancy of the whole Bible.
Because I take that position, the burden would rest on the fundamentalists to show the assumption of inerrancy to be a worthwhile one.
To do it, they would have to choose a particular version to start with, I think, and probably be able to read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. That seems a tall order from "God the author" in order to get to know anything he said "in the originals."
Our best attempts have been in attempting to "reconstruct" the originals.
Which leads to the next question, "Since we don't have the originals, how would we know our so-called reconstructed original is actually anything close to the original? There's no original to which we could compare our reconstruction.
So after all this reconstructive surgery (like on a human face) could we honestly say it's exactly like the original?
Some people seem confident in what they have that they still say, "Thus saith the Lord." My problem is I'm not that confident. That's just me. That's what put the brakes on my joining an offshoot, as much as they said they were correcting VPW's error - what about the errors in the text to start with, besides the ones VP added?
TWI took the KJV with add-ons to try and reconstruct the original. I was part of the research team who tried to do that with "literal transaltions according to usage." It all got pretty gymnastics-like after awhile...trying to scramble and explain contradictions...
Who really cares about this anyway?
Well, I used to when I depended for guidance in life on what I thought was God's Word and using it for my only rule of faith and practice. To let go of that idea requires some adjustment...to say the least. But I'm still alive and kickin'.
Ah well, any further comments on this topic? I'd like to read what further implications others see regarding this "default position" - the downsides and the upsides.
Our best attempts have been in attempting to "reconstruct" the originals.
Which leads to the next question, "Since we don't have the originals, how would we know our so-called reconstructed original is actually anything close to the original? There's no original to which we could compare our reconstruction.
I suppose that whatever results or conclusions are drawn in the end should at least make sense with what we understand today from science, physics, nature, geology, and other related things about our world. It seems to all be pointing "somewhere"!
I believe all "religions" have discovered some "pieces of the puzzle", so to speak. They all have some merit or nobody would adhere to any of it. And scientists have also found some pieces as well.
Now...just how do you get them all together on some common ground? What can be done to "put the whole story together"? I suppose man has been attempting to do that all along, but pride has somehow gotten in the way, and there remain few who can actually listen to all sides and glean from it.
Just a thought...does this relate, or am I getting off on some tangent? If I am, please correct me. Thanks!
my post-twi adventures have led me through many fields...one of which i feel most lucky to have studied/practiced in was world-class hospice education.
...there is a little known period of european history where common ground was found by christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, celts, and others... and this common ground was dying...as religion was born out of the need to process all stages of the mortal span, and the profound experiences that accompany them. Together they built hospice/hospital/hospitality systems that were like palaces for the sick and dying. With the discovery of America...the extreme fundamentalist part of the church basically wiped most of them (and their writings) out. I dont think western science, medicine, or religion has ever recovered from it. Our western world has been in terror of dying/aging for a long time now...which has pretty much disconnected most religions from their deeper more meaningful roots.
...as it relates to "mythological fundamentalism"...and i realize this may be challenging...but one of the important differences between fundamentalism and the form of spirituality that finds common ground in dying is the importance given to actual PRACTICE. Fundamentalism gives more importance to the right translation...while the forms of religion that are most likely behind the world's sacred texts focus on actual practices that actually stimulate the transformation of human consciousness. This includes practices that increase the capacity of the heart and mind...interfaith dialogue is an important sign of this type of recognition and intention.
...As ive posted about around here before, developmental studies have shown that there is a bandwidth of ways any given text or artifact or experience is interpreted. As it pertains to the bible, or any sacred scripture...fundamentalism is but one of the ways. But the authors and founders of the religions were most likely not literal fundamentalists.
Much more can be said about all this. Even more has been said and written by folks much more learned and experienced than me. My lot is more of a bard telling stories of my travels. A signpost pointing toward a great many something elses.
I suppose that whatever results or conclusions are drawn in the end should at least make sense with what we understand today from science, physics, nature, geology, and other related things about our world. It seems to all be pointing "somewhere"!
I believe all "religions" have discovered some "pieces of the puzzle", so to speak. They all have some merit or nobody would adhere to any of it. And scientists have also found some pieces as well.
Now...just how do you get them all together on some common ground? What can be done to "put the whole story together"? I suppose man has been attempting to do that all along, but pride has somehow gotten in the way, and there remain few who can actually listen to all sides and glean from it.
Just a thought...does this relate, or am I getting off on some tangent? If I am, please correct me. Thanks!
SPEC
:)
For me personally, I don't have to put the "whole puzzle together". For starters though, how about the "ETHIC OF RECIPROCITY." This is a web site that Charlene let me know about. I think many of you will enjoy it.
www.religioustolerance.org
Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:
Bahá'í Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3
Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5
Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6
Native American Spirituality: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.
Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga
Sikhism: Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299
Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.
Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Unitarian:
"The inherent worth and dignity of every person;"
"Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.... "
"The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;"
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles. 7,8
Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Some philosophers' statements are:
Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)
I read something recently, probably in something by Bart Ehrman, that one of the reasons that Church tradition and apostolic succession became the rule, as opposed to solo scriptura very early on in Christian history was that not only was it quickly becoming impossible to tell what the "originals" had written in them, but there was much disagreement over which epistles, gospels and other "books" should be included in the canon. One of the parameters generally agreed upon was whether the writing was done by an apostle or other witness to Jesus' ministry. This naturally led to an abundance of writing that had the name of an apostle attached to it, when it wasn't really written by the apostle. There were competing gospels and epistles floating around, each espousing different views of who Jesus was and what his ministry was all about. Most of the more egregious departures from what became orthodox theology were stifled and for the most part disappeared (other than fragments and references in other documents) although not all contradictions were excised or harmonized, as there still remain many contradictions to explain.
In my opinion there is no reason to suppose that any of the bible is inerrant.
I never like anything Karen Armstrong writes. the first point I have to disagree with. That TWI claims the the Bible is perfect (forget her exact words and to busy to go copy and paste). I believe they teach the Word as originally given by God was perfect. discrepancy comes from errors in translation and/or error in our understanding.
I believe they teach the Word as originally given by God was perfect. discrepancy comes from errors in translation and/or error in our understanding.
And Mr. Wierwille was oh-so eager to instruct you in the CORRECT interpretation of those scriptures that you thought held errors or contradictions. Step right up and plunk down your hard earned cash for another glimpse into enlightened understanding of the apparent inerrancy.
Notice all the bible references in the following passage:
View PostMike, on 27 December 2002 - 12:40 AM, said:
This may seem strange, but Dr. Wierwille's very last teaching was lost. In the non-Corps grad population about 99% of the people are entirely unaware of Dr's final instructions to us all. I've done a poll. In the Corps and clergy population, many more know about it, but they dismissed it as unimportant and hid it from all the rest of us, and then went on to forget about it.
Most grads think Dr's very last teaching was "The Hope" but this is not true. In the coming days more details will be forthcoming, but you can talk amongst yourselves until I have time to get back to my computer. Some of you already know about the loss of this teaching. Talk it up. I'll return soon with what I've found out after five years of researching it.
How many did you count?
I count (a disturbing) three. but I guess it all depends on what you are counting..
I never like anything Karen Armstrong writes. the first point I have to disagree with. That TWI claims the the Bible is perfect (forget her exact words and to busy to go copy and paste). I believe they teach the Word as originally given by God was perfect. discrepancy comes from errors in translation and/or error in our understanding.
Billy, I don't see any posts by "Karen Armstrong". Perhaps you mean someone else's posts. Who are you referring to?
The following may be of interest concerning “inerrancy of the Bible”, found at Wikipedia.com:
The Reverend Professor (John Stephen) Keith Ward (born 22 August 1938) is a British cleric, philosopher, theologian, and scholar. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and (since 1972) an ordained priest in the Church of England. He was a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford until 2003.
Comparative theology and the interplay between science and faith and are two of his main topics of interest.
He said:
There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
penworks
It is unfortunate all this happened. We're lucky we have translations of versions that are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. The documents we DO still have are records of a time many people are interested in, to say the least.
I'm wondering, though, about the tendency to downplay the significance of all those fly specs and extra comments in the margins. They can make the difference when it comes to translations.
Any one else have this concern? Is anyone out there reading this who has worked with translating any of the scriptures?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
It may not seem like it, but I actually enjoyed reading your post and I agree with about 98% of it. I just disagree with your logic that a belief in inerrancy of scripture being inappropriate in regards to research.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
One characteristic as regards to what research is about (well, what _should_ be, ... IMNSHO that is ;) ), has to do with the initial premise of said research, and that is if you go in with your mind already made up as to the 'inerrancy' of the source of your research (in this example, the Bible), and that belief hasn't been proven and established via consistent evidence prior to acceptance (<-- Oh, and note the bolding of the word 'belief' as a clue as to why this might be so ;) ), ...
... You ain't got no research. ... Well, no more than what Wierwille had anyway, and I would say even less.
Oh, by the way, for all you Inerrancy of the Bible aficionados, ... do you even realize what 'inerrancy of the Bible' implies? What it all entails?? ... Inerrancy, in its real meaning and application, means ... no errors. ... NO errors. ... Of any kind. ... Not _one_ contradiction. ..... Not so much as even a typo. :o ... As in 99.999999999999-1/2% <> 100%. ... Period! ...(Uhh, Can you folks hear me in the back on this?)
Seeing all this, inerrancy is rather difficult to maintain and establish here, ..... doncha think?
I dunno, but _I_ wouldn't place any money on this kinda gamble, ... but hey that's me. I never been a "Let's go c-r-a-z-y at Vegas!" kinda guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
My, oh my, there seems to be so much here already that it is hard to even catalogue. Much wonderful insight is found here at GS. I am posting because I believe I qualify. Charlene (Penworks) started the discusssion with:
“Are you someone questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International (TWI) or groups run by former Way followers? I am. If you are, then what I have to say may interest you.”
I am interested in this topic because I DO QUESTION the value of TWI’s research. In fact, I always have. I never bought into their interpretation of:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
They have used this verse, NOT to challenge people to really search for themselves to see if what was found actually “rings true to them” or not. To TWI, what it really means is:
Work our findings in the precise manner that we have until they become your own conclusions as well. And if you happen to come up with anything contrary to it in the process, then you are horribly mistaken because WE ARE RIGHT ALREADY! We are not interested in your take on it -- even if what you find seems to make EVEN MORE SENSE than what we have taught. And in that case, once you start to say anything which seems to differ, we shall stifle you! And if you even DARE to promote this different rendering (“some other gospel”) among our followers, WE SHALL NOT ALLOW IT. We will treat you as a heretic, because we are not interested in YOUR RESEARCH, only ours!
I found this to be true about them, though I just did not want to believe it. And this painfully took way, way too long. I had to find out the hard way for myself – by remaining honest with God, and OPEN to what He has written. I continued to search the scriptures as best I could with the BRAIN I was born with.
True research is not to start with some sort of premise. It is honest and objective. And if what you find seems to have some merit, there should be some genuine interest on the part of everyone. Even the best of debates rely on the fairness of an independent mediator or moderator, which was NEVER THE CASE with TWI, for the further you go up the ladder, the worse it gets. Eventually, no matter how you try, you will run into the well-established BRICK WALL located at the ROOT of The Way Tree – HEADQUARTERS!
Ever notice how over the years they stopped referring to their people as “Leaves on a mighty tree”, as one of their old Way Productions songs went? Ever notice how they eventually stopped using the term Twig as well? To anyone with a science background, that should speak volumes!
Lest I seem to be getting OFF TOPIC here, let me relate with more of what Charlene had said in her article on the front page of GS, which this discussion is supposed to be addressing:
“And from the Introduction to my all-time favorite by Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, A History of Fundamentalism, here are a few words….”
“….Christian fundamentalists reject the discoveries of biology and physics about the origins of life and insist that the Book of Genesis is scientifically sound in every detail.”
Well, what if someone were to find things in the Bible which DO AGREE with science, and BOTH are found to be in harmony together? Let us keep in mind the following verse:
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
If this verse has any merit (oops…am I starting with some AXIOM myself now?) then we can understand that even spiritual truths (the invisible things of him) might well be ascertained indirectly from nature itself, by that which lies BEHIND the things that are made, which serve as their “physical examples”. Let me continue now…
In botany, (and I am certainly no authority on the subject by any stretch) it is found that leaves collect energy directly from the sun and (by a process known as photosynthesis) turn it into a form of sugar called glucose. This needed nutrient not only helps the Leaves and their supporting Twig to be nourished by this light from the source, but this glucose is also transferred to the ROOT by way of the Twigs, Branches, Limbs and Trunks. The root collects all of this (indirectly from every leaf on the tree) and redistributes it back to the tree as it is needed so the entire structure flourishes.
It should always have been a two-way street folks! If anyone truly found anything on his own (directly from the source of light) it should have been WELCOMED and utilized. But alas, there came a time when neither the leaves nor even the twigs were important enough to be recognized as useful. It became as though they had nothing to contribute. But lauded to the sky remained the “faithful leadership” -- the BRANCH, LIMB and TRUNK coordinators, etc, many of whom were usually ordained, or sold-out bond-slaves as well!
And (lest I seem NOSTALGIC for the days when it all seemed right) let me say that I now firmly believe there NEVER TRULY WAS any desire for the leadership of TWI to accept anything from their followers, except for their LOYALTY and their hard-earned CASH, of course! When we take the long view of things, we know this to be a FACT.
The Way used to pride itself saying how it was the NEW DYNAMIC CHURCH, implying that it constantly grew and changed just like a tree is normally designed to do in nature. Well I say, “How COULD IT, if you deny the leaves their natural job as designed by the Creator?”
They were no different than any other organization which eventually had established many things and considered them to be SET IN STONE. They, who said they did not rely upon TRADITION, did EXACTLY THAT! And, as I said before, if any DARE disagree with any of their “precious foundation”, they would be considered a heretic.
And under LCM’s administration this was doled out in the form of Mark and Avoid, or Abandoned. I am sure there are many here who can relate to that.
I suppose I could write volumes here, but out of fairness I perceive it is time for me to suppress the urge to continue this ranting for now and give others an opportunity to respond.
Let us hear what some of the other “leaves” (excuse me if that term seems offensive) have to contribute.
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
My article has lit up some otherwise dull fuses out there. (Note: I've received some personal emails that indicate this but I will not post them here.) If I have offended anyone in regards to their hero, that was not my intention.
My intention was to share my opinons/experiences in the hope that they would be helpful to others or useful in their understanding of TWI and what was taught by that group.
Naturally, what was taught by that group originated with VPW. My writing is not a personal attack on him. My writing is an exploration of the THINKING that he promulgated. He used that word a lot so I will use it in an attempt to communicate with TWI followers or spin-off group members.
The THINKING behind the TWI research approach involves assumptions.
I personally think that inerrancy is not a reasonable assumption with which to start research.
Why?
It denies the "facts on the ground" about the texts of the Bible that most people know, i.e. that they were written by various different writers in different countries during different periods of history and could not possibly be "without contradiction" by the sheer fact that these writers were unknown to each other. Not to mention the fact that we have no originals. At best we have translations of versions that are copies of copies, etc. etc.
I fully realize these "facts on the ground" fly in the face of another assumption, which is God is the author of all these books. To those who choose to accept that proposition, it doesn't matter who wrote them or how many writers there were. The books constitute a pile of writing that constitutes The Word.
Who cares about the history of the text?
TWI cared about it for awhile. Until someone in 1986 named Ch(s Ge*r came along and read the Passing of the Patriarch and all of a sudden, the research group at TWI, which consisted of TWI research team members (myself included) and members "from the field" were stopped from continuing on the project by the head of research, (Wal*&r Cu*mins who was I suspect (watch out, this is my OPINION) under pressure from Ge*r) canned the small group of people interested in that topic. It became too problematic, I guess. YEAH. Why? It might undermine one of the cornerstone assumptions of TWI, the one they were fighting so hard to maintain: that the Bible "fits like a hand in a glove."
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Fits like a hand in a sock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You know, when I look at fundies, literalists, whatever, I don't really relate to them. The wayfer in me feels no connection. Cause, wayfers don't look to the bible, they look to leadership. Fundies know the bible inside out. Wayfers, don't. They know "Wierwille said blah blah blah blah." Wayfers use the bible to make themselves more credible to other religious groups.
I guess fundies who joined twi would be more comfortable cause they were holding a bible.
But in twi, the bible was all for show, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Notice all the bible references in the following passage:
How many did you count?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If one were a fundie in twi, wouldn't they stand up one day and say, "yeah, uh, "spirit of lesbianism", uh, am I reading the same verse?"
If anything was inerrant it was vpw. God crush his soul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I thought vpw plagiarized to get rich and laid. His belief was very simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Now, if someone believes that the bible is a credible book, they may be more prone to get involved in twi. But not every "bible-believer" joined twi, and not every cult uses christianity.
vpw reigned in young people with crazy enthusiasm for his cause? People miss the excitement and being spoon-fed on demand? vpw was a story-teller, people liked the emotions he aroused?
The fundie-part I would think served as some vestige of credibility, an excuse, a license to follow vpw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I guess fundieism would be a "prong" in a sense, but how deep does it really pierce the nostalgia onion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Thank you, Oakspear, for saying that the "facts on the ground" about the texts could be "the default position."
That is EXACTLY the one I've taken since I haven't seen anyone demonstrate inerrancy of the whole Bible.
Because I take that position, the burden would rest on the fundamentalists to show the assumption of inerrancy to be a worthwhile one.
To do it, they would have to choose a particular version to start with, I think, and probably be able to read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. That seems a tall order from "God the author" in order to get to know anything he said "in the originals."
Our best attempts have been in attempting to "reconstruct" the originals.
Which leads to the next question, "Since we don't have the originals, how would we know our so-called reconstructed original is actually anything close to the original? There's no original to which we could compare our reconstruction.
So after all this reconstructive surgery (like on a human face) could we honestly say it's exactly like the original?
Some people seem confident in what they have that they still say, "Thus saith the Lord." My problem is I'm not that confident. That's just me. That's what put the brakes on my joining an offshoot, as much as they said they were correcting VPW's error - what about the errors in the text to start with, besides the ones VP added?
TWI took the KJV with add-ons to try and reconstruct the original. I was part of the research team who tried to do that with "literal transaltions according to usage." It all got pretty gymnastics-like after awhile...trying to scramble and explain contradictions...
Who really cares about this anyway?
Well, I used to when I depended for guidance in life on what I thought was God's Word and using it for my only rule of faith and practice. To let go of that idea requires some adjustment...to say the least. But I'm still alive and kickin'.
Ah well, any further comments on this topic? I'd like to read what further implications others see regarding this "default position" - the downsides and the upsides.
Peace,
Charlene
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
I suppose that whatever results or conclusions are drawn in the end should at least make sense with what we understand today from science, physics, nature, geology, and other related things about our world. It seems to all be pointing "somewhere"!
I believe all "religions" have discovered some "pieces of the puzzle", so to speak. They all have some merit or nobody would adhere to any of it. And scientists have also found some pieces as well.
Now...just how do you get them all together on some common ground? What can be done to "put the whole story together"? I suppose man has been attempting to do that all along, but pride has somehow gotten in the way, and there remain few who can actually listen to all sides and glean from it.
Just a thought...does this relate, or am I getting off on some tangent? If I am, please correct me. Thanks!
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
interesting article Penworks...interesting thread.
a few things..
my post-twi adventures have led me through many fields...one of which i feel most lucky to have studied/practiced in was world-class hospice education.
...there is a little known period of european history where common ground was found by christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, celts, and others... and this common ground was dying...as religion was born out of the need to process all stages of the mortal span, and the profound experiences that accompany them. Together they built hospice/hospital/hospitality systems that were like palaces for the sick and dying. With the discovery of America...the extreme fundamentalist part of the church basically wiped most of them (and their writings) out. I dont think western science, medicine, or religion has ever recovered from it. Our western world has been in terror of dying/aging for a long time now...which has pretty much disconnected most religions from their deeper more meaningful roots.
...as it relates to "mythological fundamentalism"...and i realize this may be challenging...but one of the important differences between fundamentalism and the form of spirituality that finds common ground in dying is the importance given to actual PRACTICE. Fundamentalism gives more importance to the right translation...while the forms of religion that are most likely behind the world's sacred texts focus on actual practices that actually stimulate the transformation of human consciousness. This includes practices that increase the capacity of the heart and mind...interfaith dialogue is an important sign of this type of recognition and intention.
...As ive posted about around here before, developmental studies have shown that there is a bandwidth of ways any given text or artifact or experience is interpreted. As it pertains to the bible, or any sacred scripture...fundamentalism is but one of the ways. But the authors and founders of the religions were most likely not literal fundamentalists.
Much more can be said about all this. Even more has been said and written by folks much more learned and experienced than me. My lot is more of a bard telling stories of my travels. A signpost pointing toward a great many something elses.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
taxicab
For me personally, I don't have to put the "whole puzzle together". For starters though, how about the "ETHIC OF RECIPROCITY." This is a web site that Charlene let me know about. I think many of you will enjoy it.
www.religioustolerance.org
Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:
Bahá'í Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3
Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5
Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6
Native American Spirituality: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.
Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga
Sikhism: Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299
Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.
Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Unitarian:
"The inherent worth and dignity of every person;"
"Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.... "
"The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;"
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles. 7,8
Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Some philosophers' statements are:
Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Penworks:
I read something recently, probably in something by Bart Ehrman, that one of the reasons that Church tradition and apostolic succession became the rule, as opposed to solo scriptura very early on in Christian history was that not only was it quickly becoming impossible to tell what the "originals" had written in them, but there was much disagreement over which epistles, gospels and other "books" should be included in the canon. One of the parameters generally agreed upon was whether the writing was done by an apostle or other witness to Jesus' ministry. This naturally led to an abundance of writing that had the name of an apostle attached to it, when it wasn't really written by the apostle. There were competing gospels and epistles floating around, each espousing different views of who Jesus was and what his ministry was all about. Most of the more egregious departures from what became orthodox theology were stifled and for the most part disappeared (other than fragments and references in other documents) although not all contradictions were excised or harmonized, as there still remain many contradictions to explain.
In my opinion there is no reason to suppose that any of the bible is inerrant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Billy G
I never like anything Karen Armstrong writes. the first point I have to disagree with. That TWI claims the the Bible is perfect (forget her exact words and to busy to go copy and paste). I believe they teach the Word as originally given by God was perfect. discrepancy comes from errors in translation and/or error in our understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And Mr. Wierwille was oh-so eager to instruct you in the CORRECT interpretation of those scriptures that you thought held errors or contradictions. Step right up and plunk down your hard earned cash for another glimpse into enlightened understanding of the apparent inerrancy.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
How many did you count?
I count (a disturbing) three. but I guess it all depends on what you are counting..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
begs the question . . . is anything inerrant?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
taxicab
Billy, I don't see any posts by "Karen Armstrong". Perhaps you mean someone else's posts. Who are you referring to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
The following may be of interest concerning “inerrancy of the Bible”, found at Wikipedia.com:
The Reverend Professor (John Stephen) Keith Ward (born 22 August 1938) is a British cleric, philosopher, theologian, and scholar. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and (since 1972) an ordained priest in the Church of England. He was a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford until 2003.
Comparative theology and the interplay between science and faith and are two of his main topics of interest.
He said:
There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture.
Any thoughts on this?
SPEC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.