Something important for former Christians and non-Christians who are only familiar with Christianity to understand - holy texts do not have to be texts you take as 100% infallible and non-debatable.
A lot of us are used to thinking that holy means infallible and pure. But the actual meaning of the word, even in Christian contexts, is more nuanced than that. For example, the Pope is referred to as "his holiness." This doesn't actually mean that the Pope is considered incapable of sinning or of being wrong. The Pope is considered holy because he is consecrated for a sacred role.
If you'd like, consider The Free Dictionary's definition of "holy." Observe for yourself how many of these definitions do not actually mention infallibility or moral purity.
In other words, a text can be a holy text because it is considered special due to its perceived relevance to spiritual or divine matters, whether or not it's also perceived as infallible. The text can be acknowledged to come from a biased source, and it can be acknowledged that taking these author's biases into account is necessary in order to derive useful insight from it.
It's also possible to acknowledge (or believe, at least) that parts of holy texts are straight up wrong and still consider it holy.
I'd also like to point out that within many pagan tradition, divine beings aren't even necessarily expected to be correct or what you might consider morally pure all the time. They are frequently seen as complicated and capable of error. One could hypothetically read a text believed to contain the words of a god and go, "well, that's just your opinion."
(Also, those of you who are asking "well, why worship them at all, if they aren't perfect?" might as well ask, "well, why send your mother a birthday card if she's not a perfect saint? Why consider your uncle a role model if he's not infallible? Why ask your grandmother for help if she's not omniscient?")
Also, it's not an uncommon belief among some folks that those who receive divine messages often distort them because they project what they want to hear onto them, or interpret them through their own limited understandings. Under this line of thinking, you have to use your own discernment to decide what to take from the text.
Conservative Christians do not get to define what is and isn't a holy text for those of us who aren't conservative Christians, nor how we are allowed to read, interpret, and apply them. If you're out here insisting that we're wrong for doing it differently, you're basically doing the conservative Christians' work for them. If you disagree with these people, why are you volunteering yourself to defend their orthodoxy?
If I had the time, patients, or self discipline - I would love to take all of the worlds religions texts, arrange them by timeline. Even if it means splitting stories. Like genesis might be first but after might be another religious text. And so many text would obviously go in between the old and New Testament..
But then I would combine them in a way that shows that maybe.. just maybe.. all religions have the same deities. That Zeus is the Abrahamic god. And Catholics made Greek and Roman gods into saints
Or maybe they’re not all the same but they all exist and work together. And not in an Neil Gaiman “American Gods” way but in a real and true way
And I could take all the religious holy texts and made one giant book or text from in. It would be monstrous and seemingly impossible to read through. But I dream about it.
The Prince of Egypt is a beautifully designed movie and an example of good audiovisual storytelling, but the story it tells is horrific*.
Kids getting killed left and right, with an infanticide headcount that makes Game of Thrones look like Sesame Street. Someone being given as a sex slave. Literal rivers of blood.
How it passes as wholesome child-friendly content among conservatives, I'll never know.
* Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; horrific stories have their place just like warm and fuzzy stories do. But stuff like mass infanticide and sex slavery aren't usually considered child-friendly.
I may be late to the party but- as I studied Galatians 3 today, I realized something. i had an epiphany. I don't know why I didn't put 2 and 2 together earlier. So, you know that song that says,
"Father Abraham
had many sons.
Many sons has father Abraham.
I am one of them
and so are you,
so let's all praise the Lord!"
Do you know it, do you know it!? After reading Galatians 3:7, I realized that it doesn't mean SONS as in, his wife bore him many generations, even though yes, that is also true, BUT it means that whoever is a BELIEVER is a son of Abraham and that's why he has manyyyy sons (and daughters). Children of the FAITH. So whenever someone is introduced to the faith, they become a son or daughter of Abraham who was called, Father of the Faith! And that's also why it says,
"All nations will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:3)
Because the faith, believing in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that is a huge blessing. The greatest blessing of all! You have the opportunity to life in eternity with our God!
Too few people know that Thelema has holy books beyond the Book of the Law!
There is a collection of texts Crowley produced in his life known as the holy books of Thelema. These are channeled works, meaning Crowley was not the author of these. Crowley was simply the hand that wrote them down. The words are of the divine. What the divine is to you, I will leave that up to you to interpret.
A list of the holy books of Thelema:
Hi... Leafy, I think your name was? I've heard about you... heard from you... and I think there's a lot we can learn from each other. A long time ago I had a lot of friends, but that time is far gone now. I hurt one of my friends, and she hurt me back, and now math knows where she is. I feel guilty. Should I feel guilty? I'm sorry for pouring this all on you, but I just have a hunch you would know what to do.
@3foxv
Haha, guess I am pretty popular amongst these guys.
It kind of depends, you know. Did you hurt them a lot? Was she hurting you with a malicious, evil attempt, or was it purely from an impulsive act? But now that doesn't really matter because feeling guilty when someone is in a bad situation means that you deeply care about them already.
The bad thing is, though, even if they hurt you back, that still doesn't really justify what you've done (I'm assuming you haven't apologized to her nor have even been able to communicate with her after the incident so far). If you really want to make up and NOT feel really really guilty, the only way is to talk to her and actually express how sorry you are.
So I'd personally suggest going up to her and directly express all the stuff you've been thinking about (if possible) if you don't have wanna feel like that for a very very very long time. Because you know what, even if I tell you you shouldn't feel guilty of it, you know you still will deep down your heart.
How Do Religious Texts Work? | Crash Course Religions #14
Sacred texts mean different things to different religions—sometimes they’re essential to belief and practice, and other times, not much importance is placed on them at all. In this episode of Crash Course Religions, we dive into the different ways religious texts are used, debated, and venerated across various traditions.
I usually avoid YouTube these days for a multitude of reasons, but recently I discovered a channel called ReligionForBreakfast. The host, Dr. Andrew Mark Henry, is a Ph.D. of Religious Studies from Boston University. He covers a wide range of topics on his channel, but I'm going to focus on just one today: "What is the Best Bible Translation?"
I won't give you a play by play; that would be redundant at best and insulting to his work at worst. Please just give the video a watch--it's about an hour but it's worth it.
Let's lay some groundwork: Dr. Henry focuses primarily on the Protestant Christian Bible, given that there are a proliferation of English translations. By contrast, the Roman Catholic Bible contains one official English translation. He also mentions the major English translation of the Hebrew Bible, the JPS Tanakh.
I was raised in a Protestant Christian family. Therefore, my comments here will mostly reflect my opinions on the Protestant Christian translations. I lack the proper context for the Roman Catholic and Hebrew Bibles, so I won't be commenting on them here.
Okay, with the preliminaries out of the way, let's get started.
It's extremely interesting that Dr. Henry doesn't discredit any of the major translations. Instead, he makes a distinction between translations designed for critical, scholarly Bible analysis and translations designed to impart doctrinal teachings. I'll call these translation camps "critical" and "denominational" here.
No, Dr. Henry remains mostly neutral on the subject of critical and denominational translations. He points out clearly that--except for the KJV--the big modern translations, regardless of camp, were written by biblical scholars using wide-ranging critical techniques.
While Dr. Henry's neutrality is admirable (and definitely from a more experienced place than my own), I elect to be a bit biased on this topic.
Let me be clear: I think that any translation whose authors willingly sacrifice critical, ecumenical interpretation in favor of one or a few denominations' doctrinal teachings is invalid. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, the ESV and NIV.
And now we reach the KJV. Dr. Henry points out in his video that this translation is based on a much older set of scriptures--primarily the Bishop's Bible--and was revised based on the commonly accepted scholarly standards of the day.
While Dr. Henry essentially defends the KJV's existence as "doing the best with what you have", he does point out that it is one of the weakest in terms of accuracy. Again, his choice to remain neutral is admirable--and likely more correct--but I will not do the same.
The KJV is my least favorite translation of the Christian Bible by--at the very least--a country mile. I could devote an entire post to how disastrous the KJV and its consequences have been to global society. However, I'll constrain myself to the following comments: not only was the translation itself politically motivated, but it was based on translations that were also politically motivated. Further, in the last 400 years, our understanding of--and access to--biblical texts has greatly increased, such that the KJV is now an outdated relic.
So, what does Dr. Henry recommend as far as scholarly analysis goes? The NRSV. This is the preferred translation among biblical scholars of the Christian Tradition, whether Protestant or Catholic (the NRSV has editions with the deuterocanon).
The NRSV was translated by a diverse committee of different faiths--even including Harry Orlinski, who was the editor-in-chief of the NJPS Torah. The committee strove for an academic translation that was faithful to the meaning of the text as it existed within historical context while retaining modern scholarly discussion and consensus.
This is my favorite translation of the Christian Bible as well. However, it's not without its own quirks. For example, the move to use gender inclusive language wherever inferred is admirable--for example, when using language for God, or when Paul writes to the members of various churches. But, in some cases the translators erred a bit, obscuring what would normally be a clearer turn of phrase in ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek. But in all honesty, I'd take a translation that erred on the side of inclusivity than exclusivity any day.
At the end of the day, translations of the Christian Bible necessarily must take into account a polyglot's view. Finding the most ancient sources of a biblical text is critical, but most of our contextualization and explanation of these texts happen after the fact, usually through the study of major thinkers.
In the Christian world, that would be people like Augustine, Aquinas, and others; though I would argue that Christians should also read Maimonides and Spinoza, among others, as the Jewish context cannot be lost when reading these texts or else the whole exercise becomes moot.
All of that is to say, I'm cranky over how the Hebrew Bible has been bastardized over the years. To a lesser extent I'm cranky over how the Christian Bible--namely the Christian New Testament--has also been shredded and bastardized to fit narrow, bigoted viewpoints.
But as an armchair scholar, I'm so glad there are people out there like Dr. Henry who make centuries of biblical analysis and teaching easier to digest. They help me overcome several hurdles that I would have absolutely tripped over in my research--even to the point of wanting to give up (trust me, I've been there once or twice with Augustine).
Thank you for reading. As always, stay safe and stay tuned. Blessings to you and yours~
