I'm Speaking in Tongues: Comprende

[onan]

Sure, and always finding new fragments, better translations, different languages, etc. Still an important book like many others through out history. To claim that books don't matter or aren't relevant because they were written in the past is crazy. We would have no history, laws, science, philosophy, religion, or culture etc if we don't build on our past, retain and archive our stuff, etc and that was done primarily through books. Re: the Bible- you can't understand much of modern European and American history, lectures, social movements, wars, music, literature, political speeches without having at least some basic knowledge about it. To say "not relevant" is absurd. Even today people like Obama will use it in political speeches. If you don't get the reference than you miss the message.

I disagree with most of this. Certainly the bible isn't a font of knowledge that is being built upon. Quite the contrary, it is being used to stifle scientific endeavor.

Politicians have been misusing the bible since it was written. Obama is your boogey man and it is disengenuous to frame him as some isolated case.

To suggest the bible is necessary to understand current political thought is absurd. Perhaps to pander it plays a role; but those are different issues.

But all of this comes from weak minded individuals that think they are communing with a mythical figure so they can sleep better at night.

[albrecht]

I disagree with most of this. Certainly the bible isn't a font of knowledge that is being built upon. Quite the contrary, it is being used to stifle scientific endeavor.

Politicians have been misusing the bible since it was written. Obama is your boogey man and it is disengenuous to frame him as some isolated case.

To suggest the bible is necessary to understand current political thought is absurd. Perhaps to pander it plays a role; but those are different issues.

But all of this comes from weak minded individuals that think they are communing with a mythical figure so they can sleep better at night.

The point is not whether to believe it or not but to deny it has no influence or relevance on our culture is absurd. You won't be able to understand references in major literary works, political speeches, war, and history without having at least some knowledge about the Bible. Heck, most peoples NAMES are influenced by the Bible. To claim that the Bible had no influence and that books written the past "aren't relevant" to modern times is patently absurd. Books, including the Bible but certainly not limited to that book, are important. Even if most people don't read anymore. Simply because they are "old" doesn't mean they can be a source of information, inspiration, or even pleasure. One the main reasons humanity has reached a high level (or low level also occasionally) was the ability to record previous progress, ideas, etc in books and disseminate information down through generations or across the world.

My point about Obama is that even the so-called modern progressive politician (who you know I dislike) uses Bible verses and allusions all the time. Just one paper about him specifically:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/local/la-me-beliefs-obama-rhetoric-20100814

[Tarbaby]

Albrecht: I had already left this thread but I saw your name in the "last post" box and since I think so highly of your posts I came back to see what you posted. I am not sure why you ignored the vast bulk of my post and fixated on one tiny concept. And then hammered away at it for another post or two. But it does suggest a few things.
anyway, you misunderstoodd my post. I wasn't referring to all ancient books, justt the one in question (the Bible, the one he was citing  as thee  self referential source that wouldd provide the basis of his beliefs. the reference to a "2000 year old book" was made in a specific context. In reference to that particular book. Of all the things that might have troubled you with my post I'm surprised that that was the   red flag to the bull.;-)
As evidence I submitt that one of my favorite books is from the 14th  century..
And I agree with the fine posts by Onan and Yorkey.

[albrecht]

Albrecht: I had already left this thread but I saw your name in the "last post" box and since I think so highly of your posts I came back to see what you posted. I am not sure why you ignored the vast bulk of my post and fixated on one tiny concept. And then hammered away at it for another post or two. But it does suggest a few things.
anyway, you misunderstoodd my post. I wasn't referring to all ancient books, justt the one in question (the Bible, the one he was citing  as thee  self referential source that wouldd provide the basis of his beliefs. the reference to a "2000 year old book" was made in a specific context. In reference to that particular book. Of all the things that might have troubled you with my post I'm surprised that that was the   red flag to the bull.;-)
As evidence I submitt that one of my favorite books is from the 14th  century..
And I agree with the fine posts by Onan and Yorkey.

Thanks for your comments. I assert that the Bible, in all its various translations, fragments, and forms, is also an important historical work that clearly had/has a huge impact on history. To ignore this fact is either plain insanity or someone with a very odd agenda. I'm not saying you must believe it, or even believe in God, or that the US government should use it instead of the Constitution or something. But nobody can assert that it is worthless and has "no relevance" in our times. Even Obama, the ultimate progressive, references and quotes from it in his speeches. Not to mention many, many other Presidents throughout history. Allusions to it in literary works continue to this day. And the influence on history, architecture, art, and music are quite obvious!

[Tarbaby]

Yes. I understand your point and your reasoning. I don't agree with it.

[onan]

Thanks for your comments. I assert that the Bible, in all its various translations, fragments, and forms, is also an important historical work that clearly had/has a huge impact on history. To ignore this fact is either plain insanity or someone with a very odd agenda. I'm not saying you must believe it, or even believe in God, or that the US government should use it instead of the Constitution or something. But nobody can assert that it is worthless and has "no relevance" in our times. Even Obama, the ultimate progressive, references and quotes from it in his speeches. Not to mention many, many other Presidents throughout history. Allusions to it in literary works continue to this day. And the influence on history, architecture, art, and music are quite obvious!

I think you are conjoining religious culture, dogma, and in some instances religious law. Granted the keystone is the stories of the bible. But those stories are often copies of older stories from other religions.

As to actual history, the bible does reference many places. But the places are not proof of the bible's accuracy; rather that those writing the bible used references they knew and habitated.

I don't think anyone is saying the bible is useless. Well, I may be close. But religious talking heads are continually propagandizing the importance of the bible. So much so that to suggest otherwise is some form of heresy.

[albrecht]

Yes. I understand your point and your reasoning. I don't agree with it.

It is not really "my point" but just a fact. To claim the Bible, or other "old books", have, or had, no influence on history is absurd. For good or for ill that was the way much of our ideas were passed down through generations. To wit: even just yesterday ISIS put out some vids showing them sledge-hammering up the tomb, or supposed tomb, of Jonah. To think, in the middle of a way they would take the time out to do that. I dare you tell one of those, likely illiterate, "rebels" (as Obama would call them) them that ancient books, like the Koran, doesn't matter and is "not relevant."

[albrecht]

I think you are conjoining religious culture, dogma, and in some instances religious law. Granted the keystone is the stories of the bible. But those stories are often copies of older stories from other religions.

As to actual history, the bible does reference many places. But the places are not proof of the bible's accuracy; rather that those writing the bible used references they knew and habitated.

I don't think anyone is saying the bible is useless. Well, I may be close. But religious talking heads are continually propagandizing the importance of the bible. So much so that to suggest otherwise is some form of heresy.

Sure, but my point was that (even up to today as we see in Obama's speeches) the Bible has relevance because it is was and is still found/used in literary allusion, art, political speech, music, architecture, etc. And also other ancient books and "old books" have relevance- at a minimum for interpreting and understanding the people and history of the past. Heck, we are still having lawsuits about it every-time someone puts up a cross or a 10th Commandments somewhere! So obviously it still has "relevance" at least in court proceedings or in ACLU and Church solicitation fund-raising letters and campaigns!

[Yorkshire pud]

Sure, but my point was that (even up to today as we see in Obama's speeches) the Bible has relevance because it is was and is still found/used in literary allusion, art, political speech, music, architecture, etc. And also other ancient books and "old books" have relevance- at a minimum for interpreting and understanding the people and history of the past. Heck, we are still having lawsuits about it every-time someone puts up a cross or a 10th Commandments somewhere! So obviously it still has "relevance" at least in court proceedings or in ACLU and Church solicitation fund-raising letters and campaigns!

I take your point, and I would concur it has a great deal of influence in many aspects (As does the written work of all religions), although in my view they're used in a misguided and wholly perverse way to project the definitive correct way of how we should live..If we took the Bible literally, we'd have legal rape, murder, infanticide, incest and several other crimes advocated therein. It's used in an invidious way: Someone's fate in court depending on swearing on a book to give that evidence veracity? Name me one President or candidate who is openly atheist? It's so nauseating. It's the main reason I took the decision many years ago to not give organised religion my investment; the sheer hypocrisy of it.
Thankfully, no matter which religion our politicians in the UK subscribe to, they seldom use it as a selling point; although one arsehole in UKIP suggested the terrible floods we had in the UK last winter was god's anger at legalising gay marriage. 

Then there's the plagiarising by Christian scholars, using principally pagan festivals, sticking their label on it and selling it as their own, and then suggest paganism is the work of the devil! How better to scare the uneducated, gullible and oppressed. No money? Step this way and give whatever you have to the church.   

[Tarbaby]

The way I got dragged into this is a tangent from my post to Stellar. It's a digression that I'm just not interested in, sorry. I don't see where religious platforms (or secular platforms for that matter) have been successful in advancing civilization. I mean, look around, it's a shambles. And old books don't contain any particular wisdom as they are concerned with issues and values of their times. Including the bible.

But what I was aiming for in my post to Stellar  was an honest introspective answer from a devout believer as to why there is such an obsession among believers to convert others. I could understand it with the upper hierarchy of churches that are interested in getting more tax-free income. Tything the new converts. But I don't see why the "soldiers" (common members of the flock) become glazed-eyed obsessed about converting others. What unconscious mandate is it satiating? And when I ask a believer about this they absolutely do not even hear or understand the question, they just go back to something the Bible. It's like they're hypnotized. And are literally unable to think.

[Stellar]

The way I got dragged into this is a tangent from my post to Stellar. It's a digression that I'm just not interested in, sorry. I don't see where religious platforms (or secular platforms for that matter) have been successful in advancing civilization. I mean, look around, it's a shambles. And old books don't contain any particular wisdom as they are concerned with issues and values of their times. Including the bible.

But what I was aiming for in my post to Stellar  was an honest introspective answer from a devout believer as to why there is such an obsession among believers to convert others. I could understand it with the upper hierarchy of churches that are interested in getting more tax-free income. Tything the new converts. But I don't see why the "soldiers" (common members of the flock) become glazed-eyed obsessed about converting others. What unconscious mandate is it satiating? And when I ask a believer about this they absolutely do not even hear or understand the question, they just go back to something the Bible. It's like they're hypnotized. And are literally unable to think.

Then why this painting?

[Yorkshire pud]

And when I ask a believer about this they absolutely do not even hear or understand the question, they just go back to something the Bible. It's like they're hypnotized. And are literally unable to think.

I think you can rest your case Tarbaby.... :

Then why this painting?

[Tarbaby]

I can understand why the "church" wants to convert people, they want to Acquire tax-free dollars for the coffers. But I don't see why the members of the flock become glazed-eyed obsessed with converting  anyone they run into. What Intense subconscious mandate is being satiated? It's like they are hypnotized. Literally unable to think. When I ask them why they feel driven to proselytize they just stare blankly and thump  the Bible and mutter a cliché as if in a post hypnotic trance. As happened above between stellar and me. 

[albrecht]

I can understand why the "church" wants to convert people, they want to Acquire tax-free dollars for the coffers. But I don't see why the members of the flock become glazed-eyed obsessed with converting  anyone they run into. What Intense subconscious mandate is being satiated? It's like they are hypnotized. Literally unable to think. When I ask them why they feel driven to proselytize they just stare blankly and thump  the Bible and mutter a cliché as if in a post hypnotic trance. As happened above between stellar and me.

Of course, it isn't like the government isn't taking your money. I'm not sure what you mean by "church" (in general or a specific church, demonination, sect, or religion) but I would LOVE, if our modern church of Obama would only require a 10% tithe like, I think some churches do (or did.) Maybe the Papists have a good idea going. Flat tax! Interestingly the "church" (if you mean Catholic or some major other ones) are about the only ones supporting Obama in his open-border and "dreamer" strategy!

[Tarbaby]

Sorry about that. I think I had two similar posts because my system crashed when I was trying to save the first one. Looks like BellGab  saved it  during the crash.
When I say "church" I mean any standard church that passes the collection plate.
As for Obama, I am really not concerned with what politicians say. I have more interesting things to think about. They're generally lying. I don't belong to either party. You guys will just have to sort it out.

[b_dubb]

Then why this painting?

Cool painting of Detroit on a Saturday night