Should the Bible be edited?

[Seattle]

It's also been suggested by some that he never lived and is just a literary devise that was inserted after the fact. It's also a good way to make predictions come true.

 

[timojin]

As is typical of your posts, that's all nonsense based on false premises. For starters, Buddhism is a polytheistic religion. Buddhists don't believe in a single god or a personal god. But that doesn't mean they don't believe in higher beings, because they do.

On my visit to China I visited at least 3 Buddhist temples, and in each one there was Giant happy Buddha statue were people donated flowers candles ete. ete.

 

[Seattle]

I went to a Buddhist temple in Thailand with one Buddha and many monkeys and the monkeys were eating pineapple on a stick. Is that a relevant fact that needs to be included here?

 

[timojin]

I suggest you read the Bible.

Did you read it ? I will suggest you , to read Exodus 20 the first 15 verses
and Matthew 22 : 37-- 40

 

[timojin]

I went to a Buddhist temple in Thailand with one Buddha and many monkeys and the monkeys were eating pineapple on a stick. Is that a relevant fact that needs to be included here?

Where the monkey part of the statute or where they live monkey

 

[Seattle]

Where the monkey part of the statute or where they live monkey

Live monkeys.

 

[joepistole]

Did you read it ? I will suggest you , to read Exodus 20 the first 15 verses
and Matthew 22 : 37-- 40

And?

 

[timojin]

And?

You are suggesting me to read the bible . So I did and pointed out to you . I noticed you don't have a meaningful responses but just playing with words.

 

[joepistole]

You are suggesting me to read the bible . So I did and pointed out to you . I noticed you don't have a meaningful responses but just playing with words.

And how in God's name does that make the least bit of sense?

 

[timojin]

And how in God's name does that make the least bit of sense?

Well you are the only one that makes sense in what you say.

 

[Yazata]

This question is like asking if stories from Greek (or other) mythology should be edited.

Right. I agree.

Regardless of what you believe, the bible is an existing document written a long time ago. What is the point of rewriting it?

I asked Xel that earlier and his response (post #71) was something to the effect that people take the Bible to be their religious authority. So Xel wants to re-write the Bible so that religious people will faithfully accept his personal opinions as authoritative.

Would you rewrite books about alchemy or merely claim that they are erroneous? I vote for the latter.

I think that perhaps the greatest value of historical texts (certainly the aspect that's of most interest to me) is that they open a window to thinking in earlier times. Our job is to understand the past, not to be some kind of Orwellian Ministry of Truth changing the past so that it conforms with present day desires.

If scholars today are successful, they might even start to understand how our contemporary thinking evolved over time out of the thinking that went before.

 

[Yazata]

As is typical of your posts, that's all nonsense based on false premises. For starters, Buddhism is a polytheistic religion. Buddhists don't believe in a single god or a personal god. But that doesn't mean they don't believe in higher beings, because they do.

I think that's probably a false premise. Like everything, it's complicated, and likely to trip up people who try to write about it without knowing very much about it.

Buddhists have traditionally believed in the existence of the supernatural. That includes a whole host of imagined sentient supernatural beings, typically taken from the religious pantheons that existed wherever Buddhism found itself. Buddhism arose in India at a time when India was hugely polytheistic, then spread to Central Asia, China and Japan, and eastwards into Southeast Asia. It encountered many local gods and spirits in the traditional beliefs in those places. The arrival of Buddhism didn't displace those traditional gods. It didn't insist that those gods are false. People went on worshipping them and sacrificing to them.

What Buddhism did (and this is important to understand) is argue that the traditional gods and spirits aren't relevant to or necessary for salvation. And Buddhism is first and foremost a religion of salvation. In Buddhism, the gods are in need of salvation just as human beings are.

So while people continued visiting the temples of their old gods, those gods had been subtly devalued. People still prayed to them and presented offerings to them for good fortune, abundant harvests and for healthy babies. But the gods were irrelevant to the ultimate goal, enlightenment and release from suffering. In Buddhism, the only being that can save you is you.

So we can probably say that while gods are found in the popular devotions of many traditional Buddhist ethnic groups in Asia, those gods are largely tangential to Buddhism. It's entirely possible to do away with them entirely, which we see happening with modernist Buddhism both in the West and in Asia. The supernatural beings go, but the essence of Buddhism remains.

 

[joepistole]

I think that's probably a false premise. Like everything, it's complicated, and likely to trip up people who try to write about it without knowing very much about it.

Buddhists have traditionally believed in the existence of the supernatural. That includes a whole host of imagined sentient supernatural beings, typically taken from the religious pantheons that existed wherever Buddhism found itself. Buddhism arose in India at a time when India was hugely polytheistic, then spread to Central Asia, China and Japan, and eastwards into Southeast Asia. It encountered many local gods and spirits in the traditional beliefs in those places. The arrival of Buddhism didn't displace those traditional gods. It didn't insist that those gods are false. People went on worshipping them and sacrificing to them.

What Buddhism did (and this is important to understand) is argue that the traditional gods and spirits aren't relevant to or necessary for salvation. And Buddhism is first and foremost a religion of salvation. In Buddhism, the gods are in need of salvation just as human beings are.

So while people continued visiting the temples of their old gods, those gods had been subtly devalued. People still prayed to them and presented offerings to them for good fortune, abundant harvests and for healthy babies. But the gods were irrelevant to the ultimate goal, enlightenment and release from suffering. In Buddhism, the only being that can save you is you.

So we can probably say that while gods are found in the popular devotions of many traditional Buddhist ethnic groups in Asia, those gods are largely tangential to Buddhism. It's entirely possible to do away with them entirely, which we see happening with modernist Buddhism both in the West and in Asia. The supernatural beings go, but the essence of Buddhism remains.

That's a distinction without a difference. The fact is, and contrary to the assertion, Buddhism has many gods. It isn't a godless religion. As I previously wrote just because they aren't like the Christian God, it doesn't make them any less godly.

 

[Yazata]

On my visit to China I visited at least 3 Buddhist temples, and in each one there was Giant happy Buddha statue were people donated flowers candles ete. ete.

Again, it's complicated.

Buddhists do treat the Buddhas and Boddhisattvas in ways that are very similar to theistic worship. Buddhists bow, or even prostrate themselves before Buddha images. They chant praises. They make offerings.

In Buddhism (and in Indian religion generally) this is referred to as puja.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puja_(Buddhism)

But there are subtleties in how people conceive of what they are doing puja to and even more importantly, in why they think they are doing it.

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans6.htm

Buddhists aren't petitioning a god for favors. Rather, they are expressing honor and devotion to the enlightened one(s) that made the path to salvation possible and who traversed that path themselves.

So puja can be interpreted as a kind of meditative practice that serves to refocus and rededicate the worshipper on the path.

 

[joepistole]

Again, it's complicated.

Buddhists do treat the Buddhas and Boddhisattvas in ways that are very similar to theistic worship. Buddhists bow, or even prostrate themselves before Buddha images. They chant praises. They make offerings.

In Buddhism (and in Indian religion generally) this is referred to as puja.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puja_(Buddhism)

But there are subtleties in how people conceive of what they are doing puja to and even more importantly, in why they think they are doing it.

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans6.htm

Buddhists aren't petitioning a god for favors. Rather, they are expressing honor and devotion to the enlightened one(s) that made the path to salvation possible and who traversed that path themselves.

So puja can be interpreted as a kind of meditative practice that serves to refocus and rededicate the worshipper on the path.

Actually, it's not at all complicated.

 

[Yazata]

That's a distinction without a difference.

I think that it's a vitally important distinction when one is trying to understand Buddhism.

If the gods that many Buddhists continue to believe in didn't originate with Buddhism but instead are native to whatever locality the individual happens to inhabit, it's hard to argue that they are Buddhist gods. And what's more, if the gods play no role in Buddhist salvation, and in fact can be eliminated entirely as we see in some modernist forms of Buddhist religiosity, it's hard to argue that they are in any way essential to Buddhism.

So it's probably most accurate to say that Buddhism can (and often does) coexist with preexisting forms of theistic belief. In that sense it isn't all that different from modern science. Probably a majority of scientists currently are (and historically have been) theists. But that doesn't mean that belief in gods is in any way essential to what science is.

The fact is, and contrary to the assertion, Buddhism has many gods.

Sure, but so does science. There are Jewish, Christian and Islamic scientists. There are Hindu scientists. All kinds of gods.

If you think that any gods are essential to Buddhism, such that Buddhism couldn't exist without them and Buddhists can't walk the path to enlightenment without them, can you name these essential Buddhist gods and say something about what you think their function is?

It isn't a godless religion.

It's obviously consistent with belief in gods. Though it's less clear whether it's consistent with belief in Christian-style salvation through Christ. Buddhism presents a very different concept of and path to salvation.

But in another sense it is a godless religion, if gods are irrelevant to salvation and if salvation is the whole point and the ultimate goal.

 

[Yazata]

Actually, it's not at all complicated.

It is if you factor in the role of Bodhissatvas in popular Chinese Mahayana or Yidams in Tibetan tantra.

The variety of things that serve as objects of Buddhist puja or meditative practice is vast, as are the ways that individual Buddhists conceive of them and the roles they play.

It's hard to generalize and requires a great deal of study.

 

[timojin]

It is if you factor in the role of Bodhissatvas in popular Chinese Mahayana or Yidams in Tibetan tantra.

The variety of things that serve as objects of Buddhist puja or meditative practice is vast, as are the ways that individual Buddhists conceive of them and how they fit into Buddhist practice.

It's hard to generalize and requires a great deal of study.

What about the Queen of heaven which was introduced in China in some early dynasty , willie attempting to penetrate into China from India

 

[Ted Grant II]

Should the bible be edited and or rewritten to make it correct and relevant

Yes.
The Bible has, of course, already been edited during it's evolution and there are many versions in use around the world.
But I think you mean a radical overhaul to remove bad bits (slavery, mass murder etc.) and add some science (pathology, physics, cosmology etc.).
Like any construction, it needs regular maintenance.

 

[Michael 345]

Yes.
The Bible has, of course, already been edited during it's evolution and there are many versions in use around the world.
But I think you mean a radical overhaul to remove bad bits (slavery, mass murder etc.) and add some science (pathology, physics, cosmology etc.).
Like any construction, it needs regular maintenance.

Problem(s)

As you indicated the bible has already been edited many times and we now have numerous "Chinese whispers" versions

So if you really intend to do a top job none of the current versions would be suitable

Go as far back as possible to get as close as you can to the original

Not really a solution as I doubt you will be close to the original

Next

The version you do settle on might be in a reasonably obscure language and need a expert for translation

As I am in the realm of guessing I guess such a expert would not be cheap

Guess three would be such a expert would not really be interested in editing ANY ancient text and further

... adding some science (pathology, physics, cosmology...

would be turning it into a text book subject to frequent adjustments as more knowledge is gained

Like any construction, it needs regular maintenance

If the bible was one of the early computer games Ping Pong

what you are now suggesting we translate it up to something which can run a Jumbo Jet

Really you might also consider the bible to be a early version of GIGO and

all subsequent corrupted translations same same

No matter how much you take out of a bovine dropping

it remains a Cowpat