Which of the following Religious Books do you read the most?

Siddhartha is his birth name and Buddha is an adjective/title given for his enlightened state.

Rex, Try Dalai Lama too. He is a real buddhist. Anyway, I like your passion. It is easy to love 'my' way, but that is no love at all. It is just vanity in disguise.

The only measure of true love is that it has no measure at all - St. Augustine

There have been a larger population of people attracted to the Christian Bible, whose writings are still in extent. This is why there is so much more of a drift. But that is exactly that, a drift. There are even Jewish writings that add to the drift, yet the Bible has remained unchanged. A simple reading of it is sometimes all one needs to see the drift.

I also mentioned that some people "study" the word and some just interpret it for their own purposes. This does not change the obvious meaning of the Biblical writings. This study could make someone a bit more knowledgeable about it. The Bible tells us to study it and to "rightly divide" it.

The problem is when people cling to religion or tradition over the written word. It is not a matter of the devil or whatever being... it is a matter of evil attacking that which is holy. The Bible is my personal guide to charity and peace.

I might add that all that Hesse did was compile the major events in Buddha's life and weave them into a novel. The historical story is the same in most Buddha stories. Hesse also got a Nobel Peace Prize for his writings.

It is not like Ben Hur where one vague name in a scripture was made into a an entire purely fictional story.

The story of Siddhartha was for the most part taken from the stories of Buddha.

Have you even read Siddhartha?

I have at least five times it is a beautiful story.

I am aware of what it says and I am also aware of some of the key events in "The Stories of Buddha". He did have a harem at one point... Now I was simply contrasting this to the life of Jesus and you brought up Gnostic texts... that is a typical response from a Buddhist.

Gnosticism is well known to have originated from Buddhism. Buddhism is the only religion of the world that bears resemblance to it. Gnosticism for the most part contradicts the written revelation of the Bible also.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

I am not a Roman Catholic but I have learned much from their encyclopedia.

There have been a larger population of people attracted to the Christian Bible, whose writings are still in extent. This is why there is seemingly so much more of a drift. But that is exactly that, a drift. There are even Jewish writings that add to the drift, yet the Bible has remained unchanged. A simple reading of it is sometimes all one needs to see the drift.

I also mentioned that some people "study" the word and some just interpret it for their own purposes. This does not change the obvious meaning of the Bible. This "study" should make someone a bit more knowledgeable about it.

The Bible tells us to study it and to "rightly divide" it. The problem is that people cling to religion or tradition over the written word. It is not a matter of the devil or whatever being... it is a matter of evil attacking that which is holy.

I might add that all that Hesse did was compile the major events in Buddha's life and weave them into a novel. The historical story is the same in most Buddha stories. Hesse also got a Nobel Prize in writing for his books.

It is not like Ben Hur where one vague name in a scripture was made into an entire purely fictional story.

The story of Siddhartha was for the most part taken from the stories of Buddha.

Have you even read Siddhartha?

I have at least five times it is a beautiful story.

I am aware of what it says and I am also aware of some of the key events of Buddha's life. He did have a harem at one point... Now I was simply contrasting this to the life of Jesus and you brought up Gnostic texts... that is a typical response from a Buddhist.

Gnosticism and Buddhism are quite similar... Gnosticism for the most part contradicts the written revelation of the Bible also. I do not belong to any religion I just read the Bible. That should qualify me to at least know what it says.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

I also am not a roman Catholic but I have learned much from their encyclopedia.

I didn't mean to post that twice

I think I've read all of Hesse. He's a fine writer, but "Siddhartha" is not source material for Buddhism. Hesse's prize was for "Steppenwolf", one of the most popular books within the SS. Does that mean that Hesse was a Nazi? There are many Buddhist texts in good English translation available, why not read them? Some of the Pali texts date from the lifetime of the historical Buddha, and there are even more Sansrit texts that date from the early Mahayana. Most of these texts that are in English were translated by competent scholars directly from the originals, so they are relatively "pure". BTW, most of the little details of the Buddha's life that make up popular legend appear relatively late, perhaps as much as 500 years after his death. The main points that we have from the earliest texts is that he was born a prince in a minor kingdom in Northeastern India. He married and had a son before giving up his kingdom to seek the cause and cure for human suffering. He wandered for many years trying many different disciplines practiced by Hindu Holy Men, without success. He sat beneath a tree, had an Awakening Experience, and shortly thereafter preached the Deer Park Sermon which is the foundation of all Buddhist doctrine. He had many followers and wandered India for many years before dying. Those are the basic facts from the earliest texts.

It appears that you misunderstand doctrinal drift. It is true that multiple translations of text can lead to alterations in the original message. However, more often doctrinal drift results when clergy and followers of a religion disagree on what the message was, or what was intended by a particular "teaching". The gulf between Christianity as interpreted by say the Roman Catholics and a small congregation led by a self-ordained minister is potentially very, very great. Christians slaughtered Christians by the many tens of thousands over the question of whether the sacramental wine actually and miraculously changed into blood. That's a pretty extreme reaction over a rather small amount of doctrinal drift, wouldn't you say?

How do you know that your particular version of Christianity is "Holy" and all others are "evil". The "obvious" meaning of the bible isn't really all that obvious. First, there are many translations and there are great variations in the text from one translation to another. The modern Christian New Testament is only a portion of those available at the time of the Council of Nicea. Christian texts that didn't suit the Emperor Constantine and his religious leaders were banned and burned. Those weren't texts weren't Gnostic, they were the sum total of the Christian writings up to that time. Gnostiscm isn't Buddhist, and Buddhism isn't Gonsticism, though there are similarities. Buddhism did come into contact with the Greek world, but those major contacts were long before the putative life of Christ.

If other "Christians" who read the bible and come to different conclusions than you do are "evil", then what does that make of us who reject out of hand all of the Abrahamic faiths? Why should Christianity according to RexRed be necessarily better than the religion followed by the Kachina Cults of the Pueblo Indians?

Asherman

I liked your last post it was sensible and was enlightening. I do not make judgments about other religions for the most part and I have friends who even seem to follow witchcraft and such. They have not tried to sacrifice me and I would say they actually have positive feelings for me as a Christian even though we differ in our beliefs. I have found great truth in many religions. This is why I have a fairly open mind. If I did not honestly tell you what I thought of Siddhartha then I would never benefit from your learning. I only spoke the truth according to the extent that I have been taught.

I liked Demian by Hesse too.

One story I learned about American Indians that I cherish is a story about a certain type of Indian brave. They were called staked Indians from the story I was told. They were considered the most fierce and feared Indians known. They would drive a stake into the ground and tie a leather strap around the stake and tie the other end to their ankle. If anyone stepped into their space that they guarded they would defend the space to the death. Well in the same manner I am staked to the word of God. That does not mean that I would kill anyone who dares to disagree but it is the lesson that I revere that I have learned from the staked Indian. It means I will debate and compare spiritual matters yet I am committed in a like manner staked to the word of God.

About the Roman Catholic church I am in agreement with you. I do not agree with what they did to people who disagreed with the doctrines of the Eucharist or any other doctrine of that type. This was a governing body flexing it's muscles. Many wars have been waged due to the fears of religious doctrines being obliterated by so called heathens. The Romans did it to the Christians too. They did not have to have a religious creed so to speak they just did it out of savagery and sport. This was why Jesus Christ came to the world at the time he did bring about a peace. Just because the Roman Catholic church did not adhere to this peace does not negate the message of Christ.

Concerning the books of the Bible... I personally believe we have the complete epistles of Paul and the four gospels.. they tell the story. Any other HOLY books would not have dared to contradict the revelation of these documents. As for the Gnostic books they were written by a cult that did contradict the scriptures and their message. They were not included into the Bible simply for that reason. I personally do not think they needed to be burned or destroyed though.

I did not live in those times and I am not sure how unruly the general populace was. I can imagine that the books were burned out of fear of future wars. I think this is not proper justification but I did not have to personally endure those times. I am sometimes grateful to the gypsies that helped bring about the end of the dark ages. Not to forget to mention the reformation which ultimately led to the freedom of religion we are given as a right in America. I think the message of the Bible is pure and uncorrupted by the cults of the times of Jesus and Paul. I do not totally trust what Constantine and pagans did with the message of scriptures which has created much of modern religion today but I do personally endorse their choice of books. I know the order is divine and they lead into one another which tells me they are complete. Now what has been derived from them to create "traditional faith" I believe is highly debatable.

I will continue to look for truth is various sources but in my heart I will always be staked to the Bible.

I don't read any religious books, but I am going to read some as there are always questions on them, with people quoting the passages and meanings for reference, and I would like to make an informed decision on the contents of the books. I don't particularly relish the idea, but don't feel like I can be too hard on them before reading them.

I mostly read books about Buddhism.

The Bible b/c it is God's inspired word.

Looks like the Bible is still very popular.

The Bible as well is my personal root structure. But, there is much to be learned from other texts. I also really love reading anti-nicene and post-nicene works, as well as extrea-Biblical works that never made it into the Biblical Canon.

Psuedopigraphical works?

Uh, not really, though I have a hand full of other targums that I occasionally glance through. Mostly Apostolic fathers and the works of questionable authority. Some parts of Nag Hammadi are interesting, but not historically accurate. Also try The Shephard of Hermes, Barnabas, The Infancy Gospels, The Gospel of Mary (very popular these days), Peter...

What about the Septuagint?

To be honest, I haven't ever read this.
How about Athanasius, Tertullian, Theophilius, and Augustine?

Athanasius is a good read. Josephus has some useful historical insights also.

Josephus is very interesting.
I quite often find myself reading Athanasius when trying to find information on the formation of Biblical Canon. His Easter Letter in 367 lists the books that he feels should be considered authoritative. It is interesting, esp being an evangelical, how easy it is as a culture to cast aside certain documents but drown in books like "The Prayer of Jabez". Anyway, this is a touchy subject for me. Would you be interested in joining a debate on the topic of authority in the scriptures or of the scriptures?? I would really like to run some issues I have an interest in with the present Canon by and see what reaction comes out of it. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of skepticism towards Christianity, but no one seems to discuss the issues within Christianity.
Any takers???

Sure, set it up and let's see what develops.

The Catechism Of The Catholic Church.

At least it is up to date.

Also The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler.

Also The Malleus Malificarum when I fancy having my hair stood on end.

Shakespeare's Complete Works for the deep sixers.

The King James Verision Bible.

I've been reading the Tanya and I will soon begin reading the tales of Nachman of Breslov -- he influenced Kafka somehow. (evil magic)

I know I don't read them regularly, but I wanted to add some variety. Tanya is consider basically canonical to ChaBaD, and Nachman of Breslov's stories hold a similar role for the Breslover Hasidim, also known as the dead hasidim because Nachman died and left no heir, telling each one of them that through contemplation, sometimes in solitude, and living righteously they could become a Tzadik like him. (weird Buddha parallels weeoo weeoo. Sorry I'm on no sleep. I was vomiting on and off from 9 in the evening til 5 in the morning and couldn't keep water down. There was something sensual about vomiting all of that water up. It felt good and warm. I need sleep. Nobody should have had to read that.)

Dauer