Anypony ever refer to scripture? (PLEASE READ OP)

[catnet 9,353]

'Search' seems to be down, so sorry if this has been done before.

 

Okay, this question isn't just for any Christians or religious followers out there, it's for anypony- atheists and agnostics included. By referring to scripture (it can be any religious scripture, by the way), I don't necessarily mean that you respect or believe the whole thing (I certainly don't respect some of what the Bible teaches), but that you find something worthwhile in it that you consider helpful for you or somepony you're trying to help.

 

In my case, though I'm an agnostic, I do find myself mentioning something from the Bible occasionally (17 years of being a Christian is hard to erase ) when I'm trying to help somepony. The part about everyone being in 'the image of God', for instance, I like a lot, even though I don't believe in God- the unity and inner sameness it seems to suggest we all have just feels comforting for some reason.

 

How about for you ponies?  Also, what do you think of the atheist versions of religion (Christian atheism, for instance)? Do you have a different opinion of them compared to what it's based on, and if so, in a good or bad way?

Edited January 7, 2015 by Edwardo_Brony

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

Being a devout Christian, I do indeed refer to Scripture. Quite frequently, in fact!

 

I will say, though—and I mean no offense by this—that it seems a bit foolish in my opinion to take a religious text such as the Bible, which is meant to be considered as a whole, and knowingly draw ideology from parts of it while ignoring the rest. If you happen to believe something that's similar to what part of it teaches, well that's different. But it just seems silly to take one part of it as the source of your belief or ideology, when anything less than all of it is incomplete. As I see it, no single ideology within the Bible can stand on its own without the rest of the Bible.

 

That's what I think, anyway.

[Invincible 2,090]

I do not. Currently, anyway. I was Jewish way back, so i referred to parts of what you would call the Old Testament.

 

After become an atheist, iv'e stopped. The way i see it now, relying on something which i hold no faith in makes me hypocritical.

[catnet 9,353]

I will say, though—and I mean no offense by this—that it seems a bit foolish in my opinion to take a religious text such as the Bible, which is meant to be considered as a whole, and knowingly draw ideology from parts of it while ignoring the rest. If you happen to believe something that's similar to what part of it teaches, well that's different. But it just seems silly to take one part of it as the source of your belief or ideology, when anything less than all of it is incomplete. As I see it, no single ideology within the Bible can stand on its own without the rest of the Bible.

 

That's what I think, anyway.

No offense taken! I'm not entirely sure if I'm really just drawing out pieces from it, though... Since I was raised a Christian and supported what I had seen for most of my life, I feel that becoming an agnostic has led to me simply rejecting the agreement I had with some of the Bible- belief in God, obviously, as well as some other moral issues that shouldn't really be discussed here. That doesn't mean I now cannot value anything it has to say, because it certainly has some good teachings independent of belief in God. I guess that, for me now, I'm not so much drawing ideology from the Bible, but rather agreeing with some of it. I have my own ideas about the world and life, and I use the Bible sometimes since it can help me express these ideas

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, I'd also like to know what anypony thinks of Christian atheism, or the equivalent of it for any other religion. Are your views on it any different compared to what it's based on, and if so, in a good or bad way?

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

Out of curiosity, I'd also like to know what anypony thinks of Christian atheism, or the equivalent of it for any other religion. Are your views on it any different compared to what it's based on, and if so, in a good or bad way?

 

I think C.S. Lewis said it well:

 

 

 

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.

 

If people happen to agree with certain things Jesus said, cool. But to consider Him, as portrayed in the Bible, as a good moral teacher but deny that He was truly the Son of God is nonsense. He may have happened to say some agreeable things, but to deliberately follow His moral teachings while denying His being God is roughly equivalent to following the moral teachings of someone clinically insane, or of a pathological liar.

[spits 70]

Although I can understand when someone quotes scripture, not so sure how good it would be when it's from the Bible, particularly since it's a book that dates a great number of centuries ago when life must have been quite different, people mostly illiterate.  Quoting scripture for the meaning of something that is universal, perhaps yes, but to prove that somethign is factual, I think would probably not work in our scientific age.

[NotoriousSMALL 1,984]

Yeah, I do actually. Some parts of it doesn't even have to be religious and can relate to everyday things.

[Brony Number 42 10,045]

I like the quote from Jesus when he said "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and render unto the Lord that which is the Lords." I think what he meant was the government does not run your life. Government is not god. I also like "was the Sabbath made for man, or was man made for the Sabbath?" which means you're not supposed to blindly follow religion just because it's religion. But my favorite is Book of Revelation. It says that every man, rich or poor, free or slave, cannot buy or sell unless he takes the mark of the beast, which is to be put on the right hand or forehead. There is technology already in existence that will implant a microchip into your arm. This chip can be linked with your bank account. Then the government can shut off your money whenever it wants. Also, the dragon has 10 crowns, and crowns represent kings or governments. The United Nations IS the New World Order, and guess how many nations are on the Security Council?

[Platium Red Tail 82]

ooo oooo ooo ooo ooo oo oo o o o oooo oooo oo oo o ooooo ooo ooooo ooo oooo oooo you don't even know.

 

I not saying I us it for every augment but when people talk about the bad and if people go off on a rant that there no god or any

other heretic argument. I mean I don't go over board with it but some are very powerful that they tower or some and there are just

some that gust help you get thought the day. so I guess to answer you question yes .... only when I need it.

 

My favorite : Evil will have it hour but Good will have its Day.      

[Sekr Gray 520]

I make a few allusions to the Bible, when they are actually more applicable than just my own advice. But I'm not Christian, nor have I never read the Bible fully, so it's fairly rare to finding me quoting the Bible at all.

The closest things I personally have to sacred texts are actually the Ancient Norse Sagas, particularly the Havamal. I don't tend to quote from them often though, due to having to explain the flowery translation into english and people not understanding what I've said. 

 

Example passage:

Wise in measure should each man be; 
but let him not wax too wise;
seldom a heart will sing with joy 
if the owner be all too wise.

 

AKA: Ignorance is bliss, but don't be completely ignorant.

[Guest90210 3,567]

How about for you ponies?  Also, what do you think of the atheist versions of religion (Christian atheism, for instance)?

 

Hmm... So after reading about that, you know, I've never actually heard of Christian Atheism before, but now that you mention it, I actually believe that described how I was back when I was a full-blown atheist. I didn't believe in a Higher Power, but I respected and admired Christ's teachings.

 

I went to a Christian school growing up, so I've always been familiar with scripture. Even when my beliefs leaned towards atheism, I have always revered certain scripture. I've pondered about God my entire life, and nowadays I have confirmed my belief in God. I don't follow any specific denomination per say, as I respect and see great knowledge, peace, and truth in lots of religious texts and philosophies.

 

Some of my favorite scriptures from the Bible are.

 

"When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the labor that is done on earth—people getting no sleep day or night—then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it." - Ecclesiastes 8:16-17

 

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by human design and skill." - Acts 17:29

 

"When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." - Matthew 9:11-12

 

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you are also to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” - John 13:34-35

 

I have also read the Quran cover-to-cover. Here are a couple of my favorites to refer to from there as well,

 

"And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of God would not be exhausted. Indeed, God is Exalted in Might and Wise." - Quran 31:27

 

"And do not walk upon the earth with arrogance. Indeed, you will never tear the earth [apart], and you will never reach the mountains in height." - Quran 17:37

If people happen to agree with certain things Jesus said, cool. But to consider Him, as portrayed in the Bible, as a good moral teacher but deny that He was truly the Son of God is nonsense. He may have happened to say some agreeable things, but to deliberately follow His moral teachings while denying His being God is roughly equivalent to following the moral teachings of someone clinically insane, or of a pathological liar.

 

But that's the thing. "Christian Atheists" believe that the things he said regarding morality - such as "love your neighbor as yourself", "all have sinned in some way", "love your enemies", etc. are noble and worth following. Just because they don't believe in his divinity doesn't mean the other things he said are automatically irrelevant.

[IcyHaze 593]

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

 

Raised Catholic, currently agnostic with more interest in Luciferianism than any other religion that I know of.

[sweetolebob18 724]

Jesus' comment "..then render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's".  Both God & Ceasar agreed that was a good idea & have been arguing ever since over where the dividing line is.

 

But seriously, I take that to mean that Jesus approved of the separation of church & state.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

But that's the thing. "Christian Atheists" believe that the things he said regarding morality - such as "love your neighbor as yourself", "all have sinned in some way", "love your enemies", etc. are noble and worth following. Just because they don't believe in his divinity doesn't mean the other things he said are automatically irrelevant.

 

Forgive me if I explained my point poorly. I do that a lot.

 

I'm not saying that it's wrong to think Jesus said good things without regarding Him as the Lord; rather, I'm saying that it's foolish to regard His teachings as good because He taught them, and yet to deny His Lordship. In the midst of decades of nonsensical babbling, someone clinically insane could certainly happen to say some things that seem agreeable, and a pathological liar may from time to time accidentally speak what seem to be deep truths, but to regard either as a good moral teacher because of this seems foolish to me. If one denies the Lordship of Jesus, he may certainly concede that He said and taught many agreeable things, but in my opinion, he must also concede that these teachings arose by chance from a madman or a liar, not as the wisdom of a "good moral teacher."

[VitalSpark 1,830]

I will say, though—and I mean no offense by this—that it seems a bit foolish in my opinion to take a religious text such as the Bible, which is meant to be considered as a whole, and knowingly draw ideology from parts of it while ignoring the rest.

 

Why? Isn't that precisely what most Christians do? For example most Christians tend to ignore the parts about not eating cheeseburgers (Exodus 23:19), and not wearing cotton-polyester blends (Leviticus 19:19).

 

I don't know many Christians who accept the whole Bible as literal truth, and follow every law laid out in it. Most use their own in-built good sense to pick out the parts that work in a modern setting, and ignore vast swathes of text that does not.

 

 

but in my opinion, he must also concede that these teachings arose by chance from a madman or a liar

 

Not necessarily. I'd agree that if you don't believe somebody is the son of god, but you believe they claimed to be the son of god, it's reasonable to also believe them to be dishonest or mad.

 

But none of the Bible is written in Jesus' own words. It's perfectly reasonable to belief he said a lot of sane stuff, but that the stuff about him being the son of god was tacked on by his biographers, perhaps in a bid to give Jesus' words extra weight to future readers.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Vital Spark

[Guest90210 3,567]

I'm not saying that it's wrong to think Jesus said good things without regarding Him as the Lord; rather, I'm saying that it's foolish to regard His teachings as good because He taught them, and yet to deny His Lordship. In the midst of decades of nonsensical babbling, someone clinically insane could certainly happen to say some things that seem agreeable, and a pathological liar may from time to time accidentally speak what seem to be deep truths, but to regard either as a good moral teacher because of this seems foolish to me. If one denies the Lordship of Jesus, he may certainly concede that He said and taught many agreeable things, but in my opinion, he must also concede that these teachings arose by chance from a madman or a liar, not as the wisdom of a "good moral teacher."

 

I think that, considering the context of Jesus' time and the current knowledge we have about him and his life, it'd be a lot easier to take him as a good moral teacher over some random madman going on about how he's God today. And besides, words are words, advice is advice, and truth is truth, regardless of who said it. Also consider the possibility that a Christian Atheist may not necessarily believe everything the Bible (or any other specific religious text) says about Jesus, especially the parts regarding his divinity. On a side note; interestingly, Thomas Jefferson edited and constructed his own version of the Bible which removes mention of Jesus' miracles and claims of divinity.

 

With all that in mind, in my view, it isn't a contradiction to take Jesus as a moral teacher and not necessarily a spiritual one.

[websterhamster 203]

I've never been particularly good at memorizing scripture, unlike many of my fellow Christians, but there is one LDS scripture that I bring up now and then when my friends or family are feeling depressed. It's Doctrine and Covenants section 122. It's long so I won't quote it here, but it's all about hope for good times after bad times.

 

 

Why? Isn't that precisely what most Christians do? For example most Christians tend to ignore the parts about not eating cheeseburgers (Exodus 23:19), and not wearing cotton-polyester blends (Leviticus 19:19).

You are referring to the Law of Moses, which Christians believe was superceded by the Law of Love when Jesus came to the earth.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

Why? Isn't that precisely what most Christians do? For example most Christians tend to ignore the parts about not eating cheeseburgers (Exodus 23:19), and not wearing cotton-polyester blends (Leviticus 19:19).

 

I don't know many Christians who accept the whole Bible as literal truth, and follow every law laid out in it. Most use their own in-built good sense to pick out the parts that work in a modern setting, and ignore vast swathes of text that does not.

Not at all. While not all Christians would know to put it in such terms, there are two different types of "law" in Scripture: the Moral Law, which is absolute and unchanging; and other laws, the term for which I can never recall, which are given to specific peoples at specific times. The Moral Law is absolute and unchanging because it is tied to God's very nature, which is itself absolute and unchanging. A fairly good rule of thumb is that if it is directly related to one of the Ten Commandments, it's probably Moral Law. Other laws, such as the prohibition of eating certain foods or wearing certain fabrics, were given to the people of Israel at that specific time. It's hard to say for what reason God gave such laws—perhaps because certain animals were more likely to carry disease at the time, perhaps to set His chosen people apart from the surrounding pagan nations, perhaps for any number of other reasons—but the point is that such laws do not inherently reflect His nature. It was still sin for the Israelites to break such laws, not because it was immoral in and of itself, but because it meant disobeying the command of God. To break a Moral Law (to worship an idol, for instance) is immoral in and of itself.

 

In short, no, Christians (at least legitimate Christians) don't ignore parts of the Bible in favor of others. In fact, it's because we take Scripture as a whole that we see no need to follow the non-moral laws of the Old Testament.

[Ridley Wolf 291]

I frequently find myself quoting Proverbs 13:24 ("Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.") while discussing parenting techniques.

[Mort 73]

In response to the original question, see signature below.

 

So what I'm about to say is a little different than what has been said so far... I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, or much more commonly [and might I add, incorrectly] known as the Mormon church). I served a two year mission in Mexico during the which I had long, long hours of scripture study and the chance to talk about my beliefs with many people with differing views. My beliefs as far as scriptural canon goes... need a bit of background. I believe that God is a loving Father to all who have lived on the earth, and that we are literally created in His image. He cares for us and has a desire to guide us in whichever circumstances we find ourselves in, with His final objective being that we all may return to His presence. For this reason, throughout the course of human history God has chosen prophets to work as stewards in guiding us.  Being authorized and inspired by our Heavenly Father, these prophets teach and write according to what God tells them (revelation).

Taking into account that God is an unchanging being whose love for us is constant, I think it would be unwise to consider that God said everything He needed to say in one book and then shut Himself in. I, rather, believe in a growing scriptural canon, that God continues to speak and clarify things through which are relevant today through living prophets.

I do believe the Bible IN ITS ENTIRETY (disclaimer : "as far as it is translated correctly", see LDS Articles of Faith 8), as stated earlier I don't think it's right to pick and choose . Either it's true or it's not. The book does not contradict itself. God's law does not change, it simply updates (or perhaps evolves). God's way of teaching us is "...precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." (Isaiah 28:10). We cannot comprehend, let alone live, a higher law without understanding the simpler concepts.

Here's an example of this process:

Exodus 21:23-25 (Mosaic Law)

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Matthew 5:38-42 (teachings of the Savior)

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain..."

Nothing is thrown out or disregarded, at least ideally. The Bible is pretty easy to misinterpret, though.

 

Anyway, feel free to ask questions, point out errors, PM me if you want. I like talking about this. [/obvious]

[Treble Bolt 1,122]

I'm a Bible Theologian. I strive understand the proper exegesis of Biblical Scripture.

[Linkuser 18]

I'm currently reading through the entire Bible, and am spending some time on my own reflecting on it. It's shaped a lot of my personal character and actions in my life, and I take a lot of the teachings to heart. 

[FeatherNight 35]

I would suspect that if an atheist needs an atheist religion to identify with, that they weren't over religion.

 

As for me, I was born Christian and am now an eclectic pagan lol, so I understand too that passing up and un-brainwashing yourself from your family's beliefs is hard.

[Eloquence 2,076]

I am not a Christian, but there is one biblical tidbit I do appreciate. There's one story in which God explains that those who he was saving would be saved because they cared for him, and when they asked when they ever were able to directly tend to his needs as he described he said something to the effect of "what you have done for the least of these, you have done for me". The idea of that story, the idea that how we treat those who are most trod upon by life and society and who we have the greatest power to abuse shows who we really are, is one that I deeply believe in and cherish. I have referred to the story in my explanation of this belief before, usually prefaced by "I'm not a Christian but..."

 

 

As for me, I was born Christian and am now an eclectic pagan lol, so I understand too that passing up and un-brainwashing yourself from your family's beliefs is hard.

 

Side note heyyyy fellow Pagan *high-fives*

[FeatherNight 35]

 

Oh, hihi there, What kind of pagan branches do you follow?

 

 

I think the Bible does have some pretty good moral teachings when you look into it.

What you posted is really nice.

I personally just can't even, considering what all is happening in it.