Some of my friends and I have discussed this very thing.  We've considered what writings in the last 2000 years should be included as sacred text:  20th and 21st century writings by Borg, some of Bonhoffer's letters and papers from prison, C. S. Lewis have been suggested.    Going back to the first few centuries - I would definitely include the Gospel of Thomas.  In between:  Ansalem, St. Francis of Assisi?  some of Martin Luther perhaps but not his terrible rants against the Jews.

You are right in that it should include selections from the literature, theology and stories of other cultures and religions.

What should be left out?   That's a whole different question.  At one time I would have left out the Book of Ester and the Revelation of John, and perhaps cut some other books.  Now, I am not so sure.  Perhaps it should stand as it is, as a historic book, reflecting the wisdom and experience of the people at the time it was written.

Instead of making  new Bible, (and becoming some crazy cult leader), why not study all these things and teach others about the trends of peace and love you find? How can such a recurring message be ignored?

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

That's a good question.

For me, it's because when we push an image of God slaughtering innocent children (only one example out of many), then clearly we are not talking about God at all.

Why would we push such myths? In what way are images of God like that helpful?

My idea is to focus on the recurring messages of peace and love - as you suggest. But in my church we follow the lectionary, which means we also read out stories of the "bastard" God.

So, either we have to constantly contextualize the stories, or avoid them, or do something else with them.

I posted this topic to explore the benefits and limitations of the "avoid them" option, because I am currently leaning in that direction.

There are so many good things to read in the Bible, why should we include the crap?

I can't tell if we're on the same page or not - let's keep talking......

I've been advocating for a new bible for years.

Matthew Shepard's story should be included.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/2878/vf1.html

To render the Bible politically correct is almost impossible. Those who regard the Bible as literally true wouldn't change their minds anyway, and those who regard it as a work of inspired literature, on par with many other such works, will be as inspired by it as they are by any other work of sacred literature, and won't be turned off by the passages that are deemed politically incorrect.

Morever, what is deemed politically and regiously correct today may well be regarded as incorrect tomorrow.

Anthropocentricity, for instance, is still regarded as politically correct by most Christians today. But in the emerging spirtuality of tomorrow we may forego being human-centered in favour of being world-centered. Will we then edit all antropocentricity out of the Bible?

God may not be particularly anthropocentric. If we continue making monumental mistakes, and favour ourselves at the expense of other species, God may well snuff us out in a cosmic eyeblink.

Yes- hard to rewrite the known bible, but why not a new one?  And rather than ignoring or simply leaving out the harsh biblical stories, we need some essays to include that discuss them & help with understanding, (or years from now we'll all be accused of repressing the skeletons in the closet).

Maybe Sins of Scripture (Spong) needs to be a book in the new bible.

zephyr:  sometimes those difficult passages in the lectionary readings really challange us.  Why did the people of that time think of God in that way?  How have we changed and why?  What does this passage mean to us today? 

Recently I struggled in preparing a sermon on a parable from Matthew that seemed to be anti-jewish.  I asked those on the Cafe for help in interpretting it - got some good suggestions.  Thought it through - what point Jesus was really trying to make, how the early church interpretted it, what it can teach us now.  And I think I got a point or two across to the congregation - I know I learned from the study.

Some passages are more difficult than others:   Abraham offering Issac as sacrifice - for instance.  Saul being rejected by God and the people for sparing the lives of some of his enemies in war.  The psalm that rejoices in bashing babies heads against the stone.  And a great deal of the Revelation.   But isn't it better to face them and struggle through them than to pretend they don't exist?

Greetings!

I think I get your point, Zephyr, about taking the "good" out of various writings of various religions and cultures with the hopes of making it "better".  But how would you choose . . . if good is subjective . . . in the eyes of the beholder . . . what is good to you might not be good to me (others), and vice-versa.  There maybe something in the Bible, or in the Qur'an, or other writings that is particular meaningful or helpful to one and not another.

I wonder if it might be better to leave these writings in their entirity, and promote learning from all cultures and religions, instead of breaking them up and possibly losing some of the treasures within?

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

Lots of good ideas so far - thanks!!

Perhaps I can focus my question a little better.  I agree that what you leave out would be more difficult to agree on than what we might agree to include.

Here's where my problem started:

I taught sunday school once, on the passover text, and one of the children was a recent immigrant from Egypt (a Christian).  I struggled to think of how to explain that text - that God had killed his innocent people (and some not so innocent of course), and went from there to thinking I should not have to explain it in the first place.

My problem is not with violence per se, or with political correctness. My problem is presenting an image of God that is destructive - BECAUSE - I don't beleive in such a "God" anyway.

So perhaps my problem is less about the text, and more about it's uncritical application in church.

Your comments are helping me to focus on my underlying problem - please keep it up!!!

And if you have suggestions on how to teach passover in sunday school, I'm all ears.  But clearly, that is only one example among many, some from the new testament too of course.

Still thinking .....

Let me try a single example.

Would anybody object to "removing" the story of the concubine (Judges 19-21) from the canon.

Why or why not???

There are always very serious problems with syncretism and "editing" of the sort that's being variously proposed here.

First: There is much to be learned from faiths other than Christianity, not least from the many indigenous narratives, insights, faiths and wisdom traditions that exist around the world. That said, not all will be helpful because your life experience will be so very different from that of some peoples.

Second: But, with the single perspective of a modern or post-modern Westerner, it is a form of derangement to try to pick the "good bits" from them all. It is only a colonialist, supremacist mindset that would dream of doing that. How will YOU know what the best bits are? Against what standard are you, an individual, judging thousands of years of some other culture's accumulated wisdom? You think we know better? Look at the 20th century during which it was found necessary to coin the new word "genocide". The smarter we think we are, the worse we make the world around us.

------

Understanding comes only from the whole; understanding is an act of humility: immerse yourself in, say, Anishnabe wisdom, religion and experience, learn the stories and dance with the people, by all means. B You will feed your spiritual understanding. Become a Moslem, study the Q'ran and gather an understanding from within, be drawn to sufism, become a dervish or a Shi'ite, follow the paths within the faith and learn. But taking bits and pieces with an unchanged point of view is merely misleading and, it could be argued, exploitative. You will certainly misrepresent these other truths to yourself.

And leaving out bits you don't like is also going to diminish your understanding. If you're trying to be Christian without understanding the excesses of the Reformation, the barbarity of persecutions wrought by Christians, the mistakes and the horrors, you risk falling into the same errors. Scriptures and faiths are perplexing. They MIST challenge us to think, to engage with contradiction and paradox. What all faiths ultimately gaze on is mystery; not pat answers. Suck it up.

Narratives have a whole integrity. Destroy that integrity and what was of worth there has turned to dust in your hands.

I've always found it to be interesting that all the "bad" parts could have been ommitted right from the beginning, but they weren't.

Had it been written today a good editor would have cleaned it up and erased supposed contradictions and "iffy" passages.

Instead what we have is a book that challenges us daily to dig deeper and find continuous new meaning as to what it has to say.

Certainly one could compile a book like you're suggesting. There is nothing to stop that. Might even be a best seller. But to replace the Bible? Hmmm, no.

Very interesting discussion. I think that you have to keep the entire Bible the way it is the gems and the warts. I know that there are very harsh stories especially those in the Old Testament but remember you need to look at them in the cultural setting of the times that they were written. Some do not translate to these times but I don’t believe that they have to as I believe that they are a gathering together of stories of men from another time who was trying to encapsulate their experience of God. That means to us that some of what they have written seem horrific, some mundane and some inspirational. 

Great response - I can't do justice to all the comments, but here goes:

I agree that creating a "new bible" would be more than a bit tricky.  Therefore, I'm thinking about a new lectionary, which like our current lectionaries would enhance what they authors like and suppress what they don't like - but don't actually "throw the bible away".  I see enough energy around this topic that editing the bible (again) is simply not practical.

The current western lectionary avoids the most disgusting passages in the bible.  Is that really any different than what we are discussing here?

And Mike:

Sure - but remember that what we call "The Bible" today is a function of a lot of syncretism and editing.  Prior to being canonized, various parts of the bible were edited quite freely, and even the pentateuch show massive amounts of syncretism. Who are you (or anybody) to say that the editing phase is now over?

As to "who am I to pull out the good stuff"? That is of course an excellent question. There are at least 2 answers:

1) I am not trying to do this myself - which is  why I am trying to engage others on this site.  If I had access to a multi-faith community of open minded people I would have started there, but this forum is the best I have at present - and the responses have already made the effort worthwhile.

2) The second answer is "who do I have to be?" All children know killing is wrong - they don't need to "be anybody" to state that clearly and simply.

Keep it going .....

When we live in a society that's obsessed with depictions of violence, sexual exploitation and vivid destruction as its chief form of entertainment and sexism as its most potent marketing tool, and porn websites are among the most popular…?

Children know it's not nice to kill? Why do we, the righteous 'we' who are so concerned to be politically fastidious, provide them them several simulated killings an hour on prime time television?

Give wisdom a break!

What was the JC teaching about motes and beams? When we look into the wisdom teaching and traditions of every culture, we are looking at encouragement to reflect about our personal relationship with the absolute and our participation or not in the creation of unpleasant worlds.

Why do so few people, it seems to me, want to go anywhere near self-examination? Why is it always about those folks out there?

Do we post-modernists suddenly live in an enlightened time of peace and beauty of our own making? If not, how come we think we know so much?

Self-examination is necessarily at the core of any genuine attempt to understand wisdom teachings.

Changing the teachings is just a way to avoid that.

Come now!  This is a united church website, of course it's multi faith! :)  I'm a Sunni-Sufi  Muslim.  I know there are a fair few atheists, we have a wiccan or two I think, I think we have a practicing and a non-practicing Jew(s), and there are a LOT of new age religious people floating around.

Shoot them questions out, we got more than enough backup to help you with anything in the multi-faith department!

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

I totally agree with your first point.

The other point is not so obvious. Life, knowledge, and faith are evolutionary, and I would expect "the teachings" to change too.   The Bible is a great example of changing teachings itself, as it was extensively redacted, rewritten, and "discovered" by the humans who influenced it.

As a scientist, I support teaching scientific history as a way to understand science. We talk about what we (as scientists) used to think, and we talk about what we now think.  In a typical first-year physics class (for example) the amount of time devoted to history is, shall we say, limited. Most of the time is devoted to what actually works for scientists today. BUT the history is important too, because it helps us stay humble if for no other reason.  In a sense, you couldn't really teach physics without including history - but you include it AS history.

In the church, by contrast, our "history" is dragged out and repeated every week (I know this depends on which church we are talking about), and it is not presented AS history, it is presented as ..... well .... it's never really specified - but since it is repeated weekly, clearly it is supposed to be meaningful.

I think we need to embrace a model of Christianity that honours the past while we move in more productive dirctions.  If the teachings never changed, I would wonder what the point is.  Not that we are "better" than our predecessors, but we ARE different.

We may be on different pages here Mike. You refer to "wisdom" literature, but I am mainly offended by the texts that I don't think most people consider wisdom - myths like exodus for example that are swamped by tribalism and images of the vindictive "God".

These are great ideas - keep it up!

Great.  I'm trying not to jump to any conclusions (based on your site name or your site image for example I would have guessed you were - Oh - I'm not going to do that....) 

But I know this is a place for the many, which is why I'm trying to engage here.

Do you have any suggestions for passages for the Qur'an that you think speak to humanity and would contribute to BetterNews???

Zephyr - you said that you had difficulty in teaching the story of the Passover with an Egyptian Christian boy in the class when the story says that God caused the angel of death to 'passover' the Hebrew homes but to slay the firstborn of all Egyptians - how could a loving God kill  inocent Egyptian children?    Have I summed up your problem correctly?

You didn't say how old these children were.

I taught Sunday School for many years - gradually moving up from primary, to elementary, to youth and adult classes.  I'm thinking now how I would present this to youth.

First I might remind them that history is written by the victors - in this case the Hebrews.  We only see their point of view - their problems - their interpretation of what happened.  Trying to get under the story I might present it like this:

Like many nations the Egyptians welcomed refugees from the famine in Palestine.  The refugees thrived and advanced to powerful positions in the country.  They became numerous.  Gradually the Egyptians began to fear these others who were clinging to their own culture and separate identity and taking good jobs from the Egyptians.   (Depending on the age level of the students and how much time we had to devote to this topic, we might stop here to discuss refugees in Canada - how they are welcomed and treated, and whether they are expected to become fully intregrated rather than retain their culture and religion.)

The Egyptians reacted by gradually taking away privileges until, over a time, the Hebrews found themselves enslaved.  It is never right for one people to enslave another.  Inevidably the enslaved will revolt against harsh and unjust treatment.  So it happened in Egypt.  A leader arose (prehaps in a previous lesson we have studied the story of Moses birth and early life or the children may remember it from previous years).

First he tried to reason with the Egyptian leaders but to no avail.  The economy had developed to depend on slave labor - it would upset the natural order of things if all the slaves were permitted to walk away from their labors.  They were being housed and fed and provided with honest work to do.  They had lived in the country for generations.  They had no experience in making their own decisions - they were dependant on the Egyptians.  It would actually be cruel to allow them to go of into the desert on their own - with no experience in desert living.

But as often happens when a society is built on inequality, there were problems.  Perhaps some were the result of unrest among the Hebrew slaves, acts of resistance.  And there were some natural disasters, failure of rain, polution of the river, with resulting plagues of rats and insects.  Eventually illness broke out in the palace and among the ruling classes. 

Perhaps the slaves were better off - maybe they lived in marginal areas away from the river.  Perhaps their diet was less affected by the seasonal rains.  Whatever the reason they seemed to escape the disasters and they interpretted this as God being on their side and helping them. 

And so on the terrible night of the "passover" while the Egyptians were mourning their dead, the slaves grabbed whatever they could of their possessions (and some that belonged to their Egyptian overlords) and fled without even giving their bread time to rise.  (unleavened bread). 

It was natural for the Hebrew people to thank god and rejoice at being freed from slavery.  But perhaps in this lesson opr in one to come the students could be reminded that many times in the desert when food or water was scarce the Hebrew people longed to be back in Egypt where they had food to eat and water to drink and their lives were ordered and secure.

Is that a less biased account?  I'm not sure.  Could that be taught in Sunday School?  Not all of it in one day - but it may give you some ideas on teaching about the feast of the passover.

zephyr:

The teachings of any faith are always contextualised. That doesn't mean that the insights gathered over thousands of years, expressed in sources that have come to be regarded as sacred, need to be re-edited or altered. It means that we have to re-work ourselves, not in order to clone past, clearly mistaken generations, but to understand and interact with the experienced truths described in the sources — and, of course, forge our own mistakes.

But we are easily tempted to feel superior to previous generations and to other cultures because we feel we have attained greater life expectancies, greater material comfort, better health care, we are more "civilised" and have earned some kind of higher level of authority. The dials we look at, like the mirror on the wall, all tell us how beautiful we are. I would suggest that, rather, we have managed to isolate ourselves more effectively from reality, to merge more single-mindedly with the image in the mirror. And we have done that at a horrifying cost to other peoples and to the world we inhabit. We are in desperate need of humility.

Science is about manipulating the material world in predictable ways. I do my best to keep up with it. But it has really made far less progress than popular lore would have us believe. It remains massively mechanistic and blindingly reductionistic. Cosmology remains highly speculative. The place we all actually inhabit is our own consciousness. I think you misunderstand faith traditions if you understand them as "history". These traditions have no "information" value whatsoever. They are about "wisdom".

Information accumulated in vast amounts increases "knowledge". "Wisdom" is about the distillation of information to the point of knowing "nothing": it comes down to a realisation that the only practical possible response to the infinite is a form of absolute trust. What that means to me or to you, the nature of the trust we experience and express, will be different because we inhabit different consciousnesses, each of them finite, each unique.

The wisdom narratives/sacred texts/wisdom traditions/myths and legends/holy writ, etc, are stories/statements/insights that help us to resource our own "spiritual" development, and form a trust that is healthy within the one life you or I lead. So it makes sense for them to be repeated. Like any repeated experience, we gradually in-dwell an understanding of that which helps us to healthy maturity of consciousness and of spirit; we are led forward, we hope as better people. So, we do not mimic, say, Moses — we learn from Moses' faith and story and way of thinking; knowing the story resources our own journey. The Bible opens to us stories of just about every conceivable human experience and tells us that, in terms of consciousness, others have travelled the paths we face.

All of this is less true of historical method or historical interpretation. There we imagine we are speaking about things of universal significance and agreement: of factuality. History tells us that Welliongton won at Waterloo, and Wolfe on the Plains of Abrham, but it doesn't tell us so clearly what the word "won" means. I have spent many years in study, in non-fiction writing and in journalism (the diabolical craft). I have not yet encountered a fact that had not been shaped by the question that produced it, and not a question that is of universal relevance or truth. Science is a cultural artifact as much as history is. Universalism is imperialism in the king's new clothes. Nor have I encountered a fact that stands up in every context into which is is put.

Given that the potential number of facts is infinite, and the number of contexts is infinite, and that human consciousness is finite — the "fact" that we choose to agree in certain contexts has very little meaning beyond "us" and can be bloody devastating for "them".

History, as you will know, records countless catastrophic outcomes from contextually-formed agreements about the nature of reality. We trip into absolutism and utopianism very easily when the temptations are sweet enough. And we currently live in a highly perfumed society, adept at covering the bad smells that others experience.

I examine myself, and I find have have nothing of universal significance to offer except conversation like this. I have strong views on many things to do with my faith but it is MY journey that makes them truths. Your journey may not.

Thanks seeler,

Yes, you understand my problem correctly.  The approach you describe makes a lot of sense to me - but I don't see it working with, say, 8 year olds.

I guess my problem is that I can read these texts myself, and contextualize them like crazy - but I don't think young children can do that - and I don't think they should have to either!!!

And what I am ultimately struggling with is - should we be using stories where the context we need to add is so much longer than the original story (as your proposal demonstrates).

I like your summary though - and I can see using pieces of it, as you suggest.

Thanx.

For what it's worth, here is how I look at the nasty stories in the Bible, in a nutshell:

I cannot remove from my family tree the uncle that beat his wife or the aunts that drank heavily .  I cannot remove the part of my family's story where all the males deem it perfectly acceptable to demean and shame the females.  If I am perfectly honest with myself, I cannot overlook or edit out the part of the story where the leader of my church tells me that it's okay for him to kiss little girls because he is holy.   And all of the effects that these events have had on my need my honesty in order for healing...  Hopefully, with time, the pain of these stories is diminished and healing is found in other parts of the story, too.  And hopefully, lessons are learned and wisdom is gleaned and new ways of doing things are discovered.  And as the story continues to unfold, GOD is present and active in its unfolding.  I do not always know what role GOD plays.  If I'm really broken, I will argue that GOD is doing this or that to me.  If I open my heart to trust and love, I will say that GOD is suffering alongside me.  But the story continues to unfold whichever way I interpret GOD's presence in it... or if I see GOD there at all. 

I do not retell the sad stories in order to learn how to do things.. more like, how NOT to do things... or how, despite of how bad things were, forgiveness and healing eventually were possible. 

I'm not ignoring your comments Mike.  I'm still thinking about this one.  I'm hung up on the idea that if there is no "information value", then does it matter what we read anyway?

good thing we are allowed to think in this game.

I enjoyed reading your comment Agnieszka. I agree that we can learn a lot from "negative" stories, particularly since they echo our own lives. 

MY hangup is with presenting an image of a God I could never believe in doing disgusting things to humans - and promoting that image in church.  I also have a particular problem with doing this in sunday school.

Your interpretation works well for me - I just can't do it with/for children - but I'm still thinking about it.

Maybe it's because I see Jesus as a sort of role model, or at least the type of person I could only hope to emulate (ok, except for a few things). But generally, Jesus is at least an admirable human.  So why is God such a bastard???  I'm either taking this too literally or not literally enough!!

This conversation is becoming particularly poignant for me as I am in the beginning of a Borg course called Heart of Christianity where Borg says "Being a Christian means a commitment to the Bible as our foundational document and our identity document" (pg 38).  This really brought me up short as I could agree with that sentiment if we were only referring to the synoptic gospels (maybe even John if I let myself think of it as poetry and metaphor) but I certainly cannot think of St. Paul as someone who I would acknowlege as my foundational prophet.  I like a lot of what of Paul and the other NT writers have to say but to me they are simply humans filled to a greater or lesser degree with the Light just like the OT writers and have no more or less relevance than the writings of Luther or Gandi, or the Buddha or St. Augustine etc.  This is not even getting into the thorny issues of translations (ever sit in a bible study with everyone bringing different translations and reading them out - we did this recently and some of the Psalms are not even recognizable)

So I cannot honestly say that the Bible is my foundational and identity document - but I can say that I do everything that I can to follow the teachings of Jesus who is my hero and who I believe strongly to be a great prophet and someone who was filled completely and utterly with the Light of the Spirit.   It sounds like many on this thread would not survive Borg's definition of Christian given many take great umbridge to the God that is depicted in some portions of the Bible.  Borg tries to save the nasty bits of the Bible by arguing that one should look at it as metaphor and understand it in its cultural context.  I simply think that there are parts that are human made and often wrong - So am I a Christian? E.

I will look some up tomorrow, seeing as how it is  2:30 right now lol.  But look them up I shall!

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

This is a commandment.  We is refering to God and his Angels.  Basically, it is the idea of "combat evil with good" or at least non-evil.

If God had willed it, all would have had perfect faith.  But then faith would have no merit.  So God gave humanity a portion of free-will.  Does this verse not point out that there should NEVER be forced faith!?  Forced faith is no faith at all. It is not  God's will for you to force your religion upon others.  A lot of other religions (as well as many muslims) would do well to learn from this.

I think this Verse says alot about humility.  Humanity, for all it's power, still cannot master nature.  We need to learn to not be so arrogant and insolent.

Those are just a few, but I will be posting some more later on.

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

Well said elisabeth.  I think scripture is (best case) a variety of human windows on the divine.  I don't see it as foundational, EXCEPT that it is the only book that we pretend that we all agree on.

Are you a Christian?  You are if I am!! And I don't think we're alone.

I agree that lots of the bible will only make sense in their context - but even so - what do we do when we really can't understand that context?

I've become somewhat less interested in right/wrong and more interesting in finding out what is helpful. What is helpful for us, as human, to develop into better humans, or if one needs OT language, what is it that helps us move into being "images of God".

So to me, the ultimate test of a text, particular for reading in public (say in church) is, is this helpful???  If not - move on to something else.

I'm glad I'm not alone!

Great.  And I appreciate your interpretation - I would have struggled longer with the original text alone.

It's a very meaningful point.  Religion is not the ultimate objective.  I think if Jesus had a mission, it was to help people look beyond their own rituals and religious practices and embrace humanity.  It was a great idea until it got turned into "just one more religion". 

Thanks for a few texts - I want to learn more about the Qur'an.  Please suggest more texts when you have time.

Omni are these your interpretations or are they standard interpretations.  I really like them.  I look forward to reading more of your postings. E.

My interpretations, although I've seen them similarly spake elsewhere.  Sometimes I won't get a verse, and I'll come back to it and think long and hard (of course sometimes i'll just skip over it for my eventual second read through lol).  Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't.  It's all up to Allah.  Allah reveils what he willeth, when he willeth, to whom he willeth.

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

After reading these posts, I thought of Better News as a periodical, featuring examinations of troublesome passages or motifs in our holy texts.

Above is a pretty good explanation of the good news.

There is no better news.

I'm not sure how this is "good news" to non-Christians.  Can you please elaborate?

Ray Comfort is one of the most intellectually deficient and deceptive people I've ever heard speak.

His MO here (and in other, similar videos) is to go up to random people, ask prepared questions, and then proceed to "demolish" the unprepared person's arguments.  He then declares victory for his brand of Christianity.  It's lame and unconvincing to people who have the chance to think about this issues for longer than the 5 seconds Ray gives those in the videos.

Thank you for jumping in.

Would you please edit your comment to be a bit less abrasive though.  I would appreciate that. At least change the "m" word. thanx.

Your comment is bang on - and I thought the "victim/target" guy did pretty well given the nature of the "interview".  He was able to say we should listen to what Jesus said, and love each other.  not bad for an atheist put on the hot seat.

The argument due to fear/ignorance has always intrigued me.  I am intrigued that people would buy it.   For example, if there are aliens, and if they have the technology to come to earth, then presumably they would have "great" weapons. So, out of fear of calamity, we should spend billions on global defence. right???? But we don't, because the premise is rediculous.

To me the argument about fearing "God"'s judgement is the same thing.   It requires belief in a "God" who is powerful enough to send us to hell, and at the same time small-minded and petty enough to only endorse a single expression of faith.  I mean, doesn't God know that God is invisible to us mortals????

Anyone want to take a stab at how the video is "good news"??  I'm not getting it.

 thank you nighthawk.  your edit makes your text more clear - and I agree totally,

Zephyr… ridiculous premises have never proven much of an obstacle to human stupidity.
And, when it comes to scripture, interpretations based on ridiculous premises also seem to come quite naturally.
Ridiculous premises (and I'm sure you can add to this list) might include:
• the Bible is a history book, a compendium of factual information.
• the Bible is the intact word of a God that has revealed zit to humanity ever since his ink dried.
• the Bible is culturally neutral and can be taken at face value in English translation, and 3000 years-plus of history need not be thought about before plunging to conclusions.
• the Bible is a compendium of moral truths that literally applied are essential to getting into an Otherworld we have come to call Heaven and avoiding the other Otherworld we have come to call Hell.
• the Bible is a recipe book from which you can choose the bits that taste best.you like.

-------

I have an exercise I have often used in writing courses: I give people this two-sentence account of a scene:

"She leaned into the wind, hair streaming, and felt the deck lift like a restless animal. She sipped from the cup, threw back her head and laughed."

Then I ask:
How old is the woman? Is is day or night? Is it raining or fine? What does the woman look like? What is she wearing? What is she on and what does it look like? Where is she? What's in the cup? Why might she laugh? What sort of animal would the words "restless animal" be referring to? Is she leaving somewhere/someone? Or going TO somewhere/someone?
And, from people representing different cultures, even subcultures, the answers vary. Each is trying to fit the image into something familiar, and most people do it without hesitation. And people will individually be quite clear about many of these untold details. The reader ALWAYS does this: fills in the gaps from his/her own experience and acquired imagery. Try it yourself. A workshop group of 10-12 people will often add far more words of description than the 27 words in the passage. But the passage makes "sense" to each of them: just different sense.
One of the skills of creative writing is leaving gaps in description so that readers WILL kick in with their imaginations. It's a device that helps to keep them interested.

WE need to be aware of what we add to wisdom readings when we try to understand them.

--------

The Bible is reasonably understood as a collection of narratives that, through the shifting filters of a Judaeo-Christian approach to the mystery on the infinite (people whose cultural story includes nomadic pastoralism, theocracy, slavery , imperial subjugation), psychological and social good health) can tell us a lot about the experiences we may undergo by virtue of "the human condition".
The narratives have the capacity, when we read/hear them and relate them to our own unique life experience, to bring us into a healthy relationship with the mystery of the infinite. It feeds our spiritual development and helps us make our own life decisions. It reveals some of the dangers and it reveals some of the rewards that generations of experience have shown to generally hold good. The Bible is like nourishing food that enables us to maintain healthy practices; it is not a "how to" for healthy practices. That is a crucial distinction to make.
Studying the Bible from a perspective that's shaped by the society in which we live is very difficult. The Romans and Greeks found it strange, even those who found it attractive. They introduced their "heresies" (as many have since) out of cross-cultural mis-hearings and out of clinging to cultural baggage they may not even have been aware of possessing. We tend to think our own culture describes everything, is formed from universal understandings and from our own take on what is and what is not "human nature". So approaching the Bible takes great humility as well as considerable reflection, study and (dare I say it) prayer. Many of us baulk at the essential first step of trying to understand who and what we are when we approach the Bible.

I am unsure of why there would be a need to change the bible to something else.

Ther are tons of spiritual books and authors and I think most ministers avail themselves of lots of reading in preparing for sermons.  And sacred texts of other religions may very well be part of that.

However, that use of other books doesn't mean that the book we use should be changed.  While some parts of the bible seem out of touch with our times, they are part of our past.  They carry messages still, it is just that perhaps we are missing the message.

Add books to your library, but don't change one to accomodate others. 

First thing, you need the fear of God in you and also some of you that wrote some of these comments: my friend you do not have a relationship with Jesus or you would not even think about changing a thing in the bibile: I think you should and all that agree with you, should open your heart and your bible  and start  reading from John: so  go seek he the kingdom of GOD: I pray that the light of the Glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of GOD shine upon you:  my friend I fear for you.

When the "New Testament" was nailed down, there was, as I understand it, a question as to whether the "Old Testament" should be retained. The Choice was, of course, to keep it. Not as "gospel" but as reference. After all, if you don't know that when the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus say "the greatest commandment is..." that he's actually quoting Deuteronomy, you might think he was actually saying something original.

But of course, having the reference right there handy, we all know that he didn't say anything new at all don't we?

We all too often (well okay, always) try to make the Bible into a novel, with a beginning, a middle and and end with streets of gold for some and eternal damnation for others.

    It isn't.

     It's a collection of short stories. An anthology with a common theme. When you buy an anthology in a bookstore, do you expect Margaret Atwood's contribution to be Chapter 2 since it follows, Danielle Steel's opening offering? Of course not.

A new sacred anthology could be a good idea. Decide on your theme, "love and peace" is a good one. Personally, I prefer "Do unto others" since its already identifiable in every religion and moral code in the world. But that's just me.

Keep in mind though that the New Testement, the Quran, etc, came into existence in order to document and describe a new religion, not the other way around.

What new religion are you trying to document?

A lot of fear in you isn't there? Funny God you want people to hook up with.

Seriously though, do you consider the butchering and enslavement of the town who converted to Judaism (as I recall the men couldn't fight while they were recovering from adult circumcision and were easy pickins) to be part of the Glorious Gospel of Christ?

I could just see this one as a Sunday School lesson - What does Jesus teach us to do when confronted by a bully ?  Turn the other cheek?  No Sally, you .....   well, I think you get the picture.  And you know, I bet a book focusing on those stories would sell like hotcakes. Hmmmm..... thanks.

I appreciate your comment. But that is exactly what I am doing!!  I'm seeking the kingdom of God and finding that the bible, in its current form, is a barrier to that kingdom, or at least a barrier to my search - and at least some others agree.

For me, seeking involves questioning, including questioning the bible, and that's what this whole topic is about

That's a great question!   I was thinking of it as Christianity actually.  I can see how it could go beyond that, but  to me it is just a more expansive definition of christianity.

If (as christians claim) God is in everything, then clearly, God is in other world religions, so clearly, there would be value in the religious (and other) texts of other cultures.  So, including parts of the Qur'an is not  IMHO non-Christian.

I will have to think more about this one. But since all the ideas are not new, does this topic logically lead to the creation of a new religion???

To an earlier point you made, I have no problem with the OT as reference, and as you say, you could not understand some things without it.  I mainly object to having it read in church uncommented.  

Your example of the circumsized village (Genesis 34) is a perfect example.  Some people think we should have more drama in church, and I think if you dramatized that story it might .... I won't go there. 

Hello zephyr.......God bless you........

When reading the bible it is wise to ask for the wisdom of  the Lord God so He will tell you how to interpet it the way it is to be read......yes you are right...there is violence in the bible....I might suggest that you get a commentary and use it to understand the bible.....when Gods people were inslaved in Egypt they were treated very cruely....the pharo killed all babies under two years old so Moses(a deliverer ) would not be able to grow up and set his people free....this was slaughter plain and simple.....the Egyptians took women ...for their wives , raped them, degraded them, gave thier children away.....worshipped dung beatles, the sun the moon....men, women and children were beaten into slavery...most of them young men in their prime...not alllowed to have wives of family......all of this is in the bible....God sent Moses to the pharo not once but eight times and the last judgement of the first born was done by the pharo for God had said it would be by his own hand that the pharo would suffer....he cursed the first born of Gods peoples.....

So the blood of little babies , one month old, two months old, six months old....I hope you can see the picture here.......these babies were ripped from their mothers breasts and slaughtered with swords , knife, beatings.....this is why God wanted His people delivered....

In other parts of the bible where Gods judgement has fallen upon the wicked is when women were told to eat thier own children to survive ...because poverty was the call of the day...being enslaved they had no other choice....they also ate dung to stay alive....it was the Awesome God of Deliverence and Love that free them from this prison of the wicked....by the wicked I dont mean people like ourselves who try our best to be good and help others likewise...but these were a people....who murdered, raped, killled children, made harems of thousands of women, took their crops that they had grown to feed themselves.....

When reading the bible it must be read with God discernment and then you will come to a place of understanding why a lot of these things happened.....it is like the wicked who killed Jesus ....He never did any harm to anyone ...He preached the gospel....healed the sick...gave freedom to those in bondage....show the people miracles to give them hope and sacrificed Himself on the Cross for us to show us His Great and Awesome Love for us...so we would never have to be in bondage to anyone else on this earth and for eternity to come ...

The God of the Universe is Wise, Powerful, Gentle.....He is the Creator of all things....

The story of the fall in Gen....if Adam and Eve had of waited to God, He would of taught them about evil and how to defeat it by His teachings but pride and ego was the decision and thus here we are...God was then and is now the Deliverer of His People out of His Love and Purpose He has had for us since the beginning of time......

IJL:bg

Hello zephyr.........God bless you.....

Zephyr....Golden Rule........about circumsision in the bible......we must remember that back in the days of the old testament they were living on the land...in tents....men were not only circumsized for God but because of the health issues they had at the time...I learned this in some of my research and today it is not done for God but for health reasons...I could go into more detail...but I think you know what I mean....a baby was circumzised at eight days old ...as that was the time blood clotting would start in the babies bodies so it could be done safely....God knew this like He knows all things.....

We can question all things in the bible and I found with seeking Gods words out we must use all the resources available to us .....which helps us to understand the issues of the time...it isnt like living today ...where we have bathroom, showers , refrigerators to keep things safe....it was a difficult time living in tents...where mold and mildew were part  of everyday life....and in other chapters of the bible God tells His people  by rules to prevent most of the health issues that killed and made people suffer......surely a different time.....

IJL:bg

Actually, the whole circumcision for health thing fascinates me - two separate studies have shown in significantly decreases the transmission of AIDS for instance. 

But i'm afraid you missed the point my friend. Although we were making silly comments about the naughtyy bits, the story is from Genesis 34.  Where Jacob and the boys tel Sheckem that if the town gets circumcised they'll all live together as one big happy family.  Then, when the men are disabled because of the lopping, Jacob's gang kills the men, steals their goods, and enslaves their women.

Not exactly what Jesus had in mind I think.  Although I realize that there are those who simply must make this "okay" cause, well y'know, God don' do no dirt.

I've always appreciated the grace with which you present your perspective on faith. You and RevJohn represent the best of the "old" tradition. But i'm afraid that there's just no rationalization for episodes like the one we're talking about that are very convincing to me.

Thanks for your comments.  But we're not quite on the same page yet.  I don't understand the reference above. You seem to be saying that the Egyptians did cruel things, so it was ok for God to do the exact same thing to them.  Is that your point?

Even children know that two wrongs don't make a right (they don't always live it out, of course). What am I to do with a God that doesn't understand this basic premise?

Besides - are we not all "God's people"?  Clearly, to the person who wrote this story, we are not - but that only raises more problems for interpreting the text.  Surely God is not racist, is God?  Why would I worship a racist God?  Therefore, in order to make sense of this, I maintain a God I can worship, but have to ditch the story as simply written by a racist (tribalist would likely be more accurate, and not really their fault, given their context).

Sorry, bygraceiam, I can't respond to all of your interesting comments.  But the critical one is here.  But Thank you.

All comments appreciated.

Sorry - one more point (I need to learn to edit better).

We should all remember when we pity the poor slaves in Egypt that it was Joseph, the Israelite, that brought massive slavery to Egypt in the first place:

When pharoah changed, and the new pharoah didn't know Joseph, the Israelites were just treated like everyone else - not worse.  They were victims of the system that Joseph established.

So, for those who support the 2 wrongs make a right theory, when the Israelites are enslaved, they are just getting their just desserts.  The score is already "even" before God starts a-killing.

Any other interpretations people want to share on the whole slavery thing?

Hello zephry.......God bless you........

It was violent times.....no not all people were Gods peoples.....although God could not change this ...He decided to pick a nation (Israel) to become His people as others of the time were not interested in following the basic principals that make us people of God for example the Ten Commandments....why did God make them...they were written down so we would have a set of principals to follow to love God...and to love others.....but those who worship ...beatles, sun, moon, leaders etc...did not want to have any control in their lives and wanted to live the lives of doing what ever pleased them...murder, rape, sexual immorality, greed, selfishness...they had no love for others...not even those in their own lives.....it was turburulent times....as in the story of Moses.....the pharos' and their  followers were  given the choice not once but many times to stop the violence against the Israelights....but they chose not too...they wanted to be accountable to no one....so God had to make a choice to get His people out of Egypt at all cost..what else could He do....only when they were trapped at the Red Sea did God hold them back and it was human choice for them to persue Gods people thus drowning etc....

As today, people have the same choice when it comes to choosing God in their lives....so we want to live a life of no rules , no prinicples, no love for others....and today...others still live the life of greed, selfishness, murder, sexual immorility......but since Jesus came to free all who want to change and have Him in their lives....God has opened His heart to all peoples ..even those who have committed these unbelieveable things can now be forgiven by God and have the chance to change thier lives into love, peace, happiness, healing...etc...it is our free will that allows us to make the choice of what we want in our lives....anyone who knows the Lord God......has been given this chance and it has changed their lives.....that is why there are millions of people in the world who are christians....it does work....but it takes faith and work to become a child of God....and God leaves this up to us...He no longer has to choose who His people are .....for He offers freedom to all who want it....God does not punish His people....but back in the times of the Old Testament He had to make a choice to save all who would know Him....others of the time would just continue on being unaccountable for themselves and living life the way they wanted ...no rules or principals...like the story of Sodom and Gamorha .....

God is not a punishing God.....He does not punish His children...but sent Jesus...to end the volence against He people.....He offers us love, protection, wisdom and knowlege (because of Jesus sacrifice on the Cross) He offers to lead and guide us through this life....loving all who come into our lives.....He blesses us and answers prayers when we call upon Him...He prepares our lives before us ....He restores our souls and rescues them from the violence and hatred of this world and receives us into His heart no matter what we have done to ourselves and too others.......it is evil and the things of this world that keep us steadly moving towards evil.....God through His guide book (Bible) teaches us wonderful principals and yes boundries we need to follow to love others the way we want to be loved....

But the Lord God is a gentleman.....He wont force His way into our lives ...it is us who makes this choice and when we do ...life is never the same....although I sometimes wait for a lightning bold to hit me when I swear out loud LOL LOL .....

I dont always understand Gods reasonings for some of the things that happen in the old testament ....or the new ......why was Jesus sacrificed.....He layed down His own life for us...God did not force Him to come to earth and die on the Cross <  Jesus made the choice Himself from His own free will as the Son of God.....Praise the Lord God for He is all things...was all things and will be to come all things....

I understand zephyr....that you are seeking answers and well you should....there are so many different paths to God and God knows our heart....God bless the journey you are on.....and I hope some of the answers you receive here on wondercafe help you on your way.....those of us who love God dont always have all the answers either....but I found the more we seek the more answers we get....

IJL:bg