Friday, June 16, 2006

Critiquing scripture

I tend to feel that the Bible contains the inspired wisdom of the Source of creation. I believe that this collection of writings contains the Way of attaining Oneness with God and all of God's creation... as taught to us by Jesus of Nazareth.

But I do not believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I see this body of work as written and assembled by human beings. I think that much of Scripture has long-term relevancy. Some of Scripture has already proven to have outlived its relevancy. Time will continue this process.

I think much of Scripture is extremely flawed or worse, and I do not think that it was God-inspired... And thus I think it should be thoroughly critiqued and certainly not observed. Personally, I have no doubt that you and I are just as enlightened or more so than many of the writers of Scipture. We've had the benefit of history and a wider sociological education.

One of the greatest dangers that exists is when we take a collection of work written by human beings and give it the status of God. Remember the story of the finger pointing to the Moon? Scripture is the finger. It is not the Moon. Thus, it should not be worshipped. It should be used to bring us closer to God. It is not God. Neither is the Koran. Neither is the Book of Mormon. Neither is any "sacred" book. In my view, they are wisdom on paper... some of the wisdom is good, some not so good.

Scipture has been used to justify some of the most horrendous acts perpetuated by one human against another. In some cases, Scripture has simply been mistranslated and(or) misinterpreted. In other cases, Scripture has just flat out been wrong... in my humble opinion.

1 comment:

Mystical Seeker said...

I agree completely. I think it is worth noting that Bart Ehrman, in his book "Lost Christianities", points out that there were many scriptures that were revered by early Christians but which did not make the cut into the finally established canon, and that the canon was fluid and unsettled for quite some time in early Christianity. The point is that there is nothing inherently divine about those books that specifically made the cut into the canon. Some books made it, others did not, and there was often debate about which belonged and which didn't. When you realize that, then it becomes clear that maybe the definition of "scripture" should be broader than just what is in the Bible, while at the same time, what is in the Bible is not a perfect work.

I think of the Bible as a record of the human endeavor at understanding God, and as such, it is as human as the people who wrote it.