VonNoble Posted July 26, 2008 Report Share Posted July 26, 2008 Some (in every faith) believe the sacred book is to be taken literally. No variation allowed. Others believe it is helpful daily - at a variety of levels but only one of many tools. Others think it to be a reference book....mostly of a historical nature. Good for determining the a reference as to how we got where we are with a sprinkling view of where we might go in the future but not particularly necessary for day to day faith-filled living. Relationship with the Almighty far outweighs THE BOOK (no matter what the book).Your thoughts. Are sacred texts, in general a cookbook for how you live?You get the basics there but then season the information to taste?Are the sacred texts a history lesson to be applied guiding us towards the future?Are they are written record of our past only?Are they infallable?If not - of what value are they as opposed to a common text?What makes them sacred exactly?Do we take up arms if another disrepects the text? If we were to do so - does that elevate the text to the level of being a god/God?Do we the people, by our actions and reverence cause them to be sacred?Is it possible for one God to have insipired so many sacred texts?Is it a matter of when written history entered the scene in a given culture?When do people opt to switch from oral tradition to enscribing the messages?(Totem pole, papyrus, printing press) At a certain level of development of a religion? Or simply when that tool becomes available?Lots of thins to ponder.When so many of any faith justify and define themselves by THE TEXT - is that really a valid approach to things spiritual? Your thoughts?Von Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawzo Posted July 26, 2008 Report Share Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) I see scripture as more of a roadmap instead of a cookbook.It shows one the general layout of the land and the directons one needs to take. It is useless if one just sits there and studies it. One has to get off their duff and walk the paths given.The maps aren't going to show you all the pitfalls, barriers or downed trees, bandits etc etc one will encounter on their journey and how to deal with them. One will have to use common sense and live the through the experiences. If you just sit there reading and studying the map, what will you achieve in life? Edited July 26, 2008 by Fawzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark 45 Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 Some (in every faith) believe the sacred book is to be taken literally. No variation allowed. Others believe it is helpful daily - at a variety of levels but only one of many tools. Others think it to be a reference book....mostly of a historical nature. Good for determining the a reference as to how we got where we are with a sprinkling view of where we might go in the future but not particularly necessary for day to day faith-filled living. Relationship with the Almighty far outweighs THE BOOK (no matter what the book).Your thoughts. Are sacred texts, in general a cookbook for how you live?You get the basics there but then season the information to taste?>>>if you think about it,sacred texts are just like cookbooks.good for a guideline,but can always be improved on.Are the sacred texts a history lesson to be applied guiding us towards the future?Are they are written record of our past only?>>>in some cases,depending on your beliefs,both.but for those who learn to live in the moment,the past is a lesson we have hopefully learned,and the future hasn't happened yet.Are they infallable?If not - of what value are they as opposed to a common text?>>>again this depends on your beliefs.to me,nothing man does is infallable.if it was it would be perfect and therefore not exist.value is in the eye of the holder.What makes them sacred exactly?Do we take up arms if another disrepects the text? If we were to do so - does that elevate the text to the level of being a god/God?>>>personal prespective.no i wouldn't,it's just a book.for some people,yes.Do we the people, by our actions and reverence cause them to be sacred?>>>see above.Is it possible for one God to have insipired so many sacred texts?Is it a matter of when written history entered the scene in a given culture?>>>since i don't believe in a diety,it isn't improtent to me how they were written.it is a question of wether i can find truths within it.a book of shadows is a personal written history of someones discoveries.yet,truth can be found within it.When do people opt to switch from oral tradition to enscribing the messages?(Totem pole, papyrus, printing press) At a certain level of development of a religion? Or simply when that tool becomes available?>>>or both?keep in mind that the more something is rewritten or translated,the further from the original meaning it gets.Lots of thins to ponder.>>>lots of fats too When so many of any faith justify and define themselves by THE TEXT - is that really a valid approach to things spiritual?>>>for them,mabye. Your thoughts?Von Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonNoble Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Mark45,Good catch! I totally missed that...Makes me think trying to lose weight is affecting me more than I know. Thanks for the chuckle. Von Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark 45 Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 sometimes it can.but like everything else,this to shall pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonNoble Posted July 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 I am really stuck on this one....Is there ANY NEED for a sacred text? Really?Jesus didn't seem to need one. Buddha didn't either. They founded religions that are WORLD-wide without a single written text that I am aware of .....no ten commandments in stone for either one......The great Native American teachers didn't need text to teach. Does having a text make it TOO complicted? Too easily causing divides?HmmmmmmmVon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawzo Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 I am really stuck on this one....Is there ANY NEED for a sacred text? Really?Jesus didn't seem to need one. Buddha didn't either. They founded religions that are WORLD-wide without a single written text that I am aware of .....no ten commandments in stone for either one......The great Native American teachers didn't need text to teach. Does having a text make it TOO complicted? Too easily causing divides?HmmmmmmmVonDo we need one no! God has already supplied all our needs. Our fleshly desires are another question.Do parents need a book to teach their children how to share, love and be compassionate? I think they may if they never received those things growing up as a child. I think even if they didn't receive them at home though if they encountered them in the society in which they lived they would be fine without a book.Also receiving instruction orally is more powerfull and revealing than reading from a book due to the energies and emotions behind the spoken word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 (edited) Is there ANY NEED for a sacred text? Really?Maybe. Needs are purpose oriented. If something is needed, it is needed for some purpose. This creates a difficulty in knowing whether or not some4thing is needed, because while it may not be needed for one thing, it may be needed for something else. You point out that Native American teachers did not need text to teach, but look how much of what they once taught is now lost because of social upheaval.... Had they known long ago what the future would hold for their peoples, they may have made different decisions about what was needed.... Edited July 30, 2008 by mererdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsawtelle Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 I am really stuck on this one....Is there ANY NEED for a sacred text? Really?Jesus didn't seem to need one. Buddha didn't either. They founded religions that are WORLD-wide without a single written text that I am aware of .....no ten commandments in stone for either one......The great Native American teachers didn't need text to teach. Does having a text make it TOO complicted? Too easily causing divides?HmmmmmmmVonYou have to remember that it wasn't until the middle ages that the general populace was educated enough to read, and that there was a way to mass produce the books that written texts became the mainstay in religion. It was either through an oral tradition to those selected to lead the church/religion, or the education to read the text and lead the congregation that the messages were passed to the common people. It was a two - fold reason. One - the message was intended to be delivered in a certain method/way and it would lead to jumps in logic if lay people were allowed to read sacred texts and perversions of the religion by people who did not have the training to understand the message that was being delivered.Hence the the arguments about whose interpretation is correct and the debate that was used to open this thread. (which I will get back to answer)Two - it was easier for the European church to control the people if they were dependent upon the parish priest for their lessons and not going out on their own with their beliefs and understandings.A good example of why non-traditional religions are viewed with slanted eyebrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts