Self-help books

815 quotes found

"The thought of the Gita is not pure Monism although it sees in one unchanging, pure, eternal Self the foundation of all cosmic existence, nor Mayavada although it speaks of the Maya of the three modes of Prakriti omnipresent in the created world; nor is it qualified Monism although it places in the One his eternal supreme Prakriti manifested in the form of the Jiva and lays most stress on dwelling in God rather than dissolution as the supreme state of spiritual consciousness; nor is it Sankhya although it explains the created world by the double principle of Purusha and Prakriti; nor is it Vaishnava Theism although it presents to us Krishna, who is the Avatara of Vishnu according to the Puranas, as the supreme Deity and allows no essential difference nor any actual superiority of the status of the indefinable relationless Brahman over that of this Lord of beings who is the Master of the universe and the Friend of all creatures. Like the earlier spiritual synthesis of the Upanishads this later synthesis at once spiritual and intellectual avoids naturally every such rigid determination as would injure its universal comprehensiveness. Its aim is precisely the opposite to that of the polemist commentators who found this Scripture established as one of the three highest Vedantic authorities and attempted to turn it into a weapon of offence and defence against other schools and systems. The Gita is not a weapon for dialectical warfare; it is a gate opening on the whole world of spiritual truth and experience and the view it gives us embraces all the provinces of that supreme region. It maps out, but it does not cut up or build walls or hedges to confine our vision."

- Bhagavad Gita

0 likesHindu textsMahabharataNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"The Bible depicts a world that, seen through modern eyes, is staggering in its savagery. People enslave, rape, and murder members of their immediate families. Warlords slaughter civilians indiscriminately, including the children. Women are bought, sold, and plundered like sex toys. And Yahweh tortures and massacres people by the hundreds of thousands for trivial disobedience or for no reason at all. These atrocities are neither isolated nor obscure. They implicate all the major characters of the Old Testament, the ones that Sunday-school children draw with crayons. And they fall into a continuous plotline that stretches for millennia, from Adam and Eve through Noah, the patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, the judges, Saul, David, Solomon, and beyond. According to the biblical scholar Raymund Schwager, the Hebrew Bible “contains over six hundred passages that explicitly talk about nations, kings, or individuals attacking, destroying, and killing others. . . . Aside from the approximately one thousand verses in which Yahweh himself appears as the direct executioner of violent punishments, and the many texts in which the Lord delivers the criminal to the punisher’s sword, in over one hundred other passages Yahweh expressly gives the command to kill people.” Matthew White, a self-described atrocitologist who keeps a database with the estimated death tolls of history’s major wars, massacres, and genocides, counts about 1.2 million deaths from mass killing that are specifically enumerated in the Bible. (He excludes the half million casualties in the war between Judah and Israel described in 2 Chronicles 13 because he considers the body count historically implausible.) The victims of the Noachian flood would add another 20 million or so to the total. The good news, of course, is that most of it never happened. Not only is there no evidence that Yahweh inundated the planet and incinerated its cities, but the patriarchs, exodus, conquest, and Jewish empire are almost certainly fictions. Historians have found no mention in Egyptian writings of the departure of a million slaves (which could hardly have escaped the Egyptians’ notice); nor have archaeologists found evidence in the ruins of Jericho or neighboring cities of a sacking around 1200 BCE. And if there was a Davidic empire stretching from the Euphrates to the Red Sea around the turn of the 1st millennium BCE, no one else at the time seemed to have noticed it."

- The Bible

0 likesNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"What sets the sixty-six books apart from and over all other human texts and makes them suitable to “rule” (“canon”=rule) is their being uniquely “of God.” Evangelicals concur with the Bible’s own claim to be “breathed out” (theopneustos) from God (2. Tim 3:16). Typically translated as “inspiration,” this notion speaks directly to the nature of the Bible and its divine origin. Evangelicals concur with the Great Tradition in viewing the Bible to be the product of God’s own authorship through the words of human witnesses who nevertheless used their own wits to compose under the Spirit’s supernatural supervision. Evangelicals put great emphasis on the Bible’s self-attestation (e.g., Ps. 119; Rom. 3:2; 2 Pet. 1:20-21) and especially on Jesus’ attitude toward the Old Testament Scriptures (e.g., Mt. 5:17-19; M. 7:6-8; 12:36; Jn. 10:35). If Jesus recognized the Scriptures as God’s own word, surely his followers should do no less. That God spoke “by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1) meant by their writings as well, and hence, by extension, the New Testament documents, too. Indeed, most evangelicals came to associate inspiration with the words rather than the authors of Scripture (or their ideas). Inspiration is thus “verbal” and “plenary” because each and every words pulls its weight in communicating God’s word. The inspiration of Scripture is the means whereby God preserves in writing his revelation in the history of Israel and Jesus Christ. The primary emphasis is on god’s providential guiding of the process of the texts’ composition. BB. Warfield defined inspiration as “that extraordinary, supernatural influence…exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of our Sacred Books, by which their words were rendered also the words of God.” Though it is common for outsiders to associate verbal plenary inspiration with the so-called “dictation” theory, such a view fails to do justice to what evangelical theologians actually have said and believe. What matters to evangelicals in the inspired result, not a detailed knowledge or uniform understanding of the process."

- The Bible

0 likesNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"It is one thing to say elevated things about Scripture, quite another to let scripture have its say. Evangelicals are not content to admire Scripture. To acknowledge the supreme authority of the Bible is to let it have the final word in matters concerning Christian faith and practice-indeed, in all areas of life to which it speaks. The Bible’s authority is the medium by which God exercises his own authority, that is, his rightful power to determine belief or command action and to expect obedient assent. The Reformers took a decisive step in proclaiming the final authority of Scripture over tradition. ‘’Sola scripture’’ means that neither oral traditions, nor the magisterial teaching authority of the Roman Catholic church, nor new Spirit-given revelations can supplement the Bible (“it is written”). On the contrary, Scripture, as the product of God’s authorship, is sufficient, authoritative, and infallible-the later concept signaling its utter trustworthiness in guiding the church to knowledge of God and salvation in Christ. Since the Reformation, evangelicals have tried to balance the supremacy of Scripture alongside other authoritative sources of theology with varying success, with some favoring church tradition, others personal experience, and still others the leading of the Holy Spirit. In modern times, the most precarious balancing act involved revelation and reason, especially when the Bible became a document of the university and began to be read “like any other book.” Confronted with an academic tide of historical criticism, some evangelicals modified their position on biblical authority, arguing that the Bible speaks reliably only on matters off faith and salvation. As to history, geography and cosmology, the Bible is as weak as any other human text. Others, such as the Princetonian theologians Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield, responded by attacking head-on this skeptical attitude towards the Bible’s historical reliability. They developed the doctrine of infallibility further, making the Bible’s utter truthfulness in matters salvific and scientific alike more explicit by speaking of inerrancy and claiming that thought “the word [inerrancy] sis 19th century... the belief it expresses is as old as Christianity.” Contemporary inerranists typically acknowledge ancient literary conventions (e.g., nonchronological narration) and phenomenological language (e.g., the sun “rising”), recognizing the assertion of the Bible’s utter truthfulness presupposes right interpretation."

- The Bible

0 likesNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"If the Bible is God’s word, then there is no more important mandate for the people of the book than to understand and respond to what God is saying. The authority of the Bible must be not only professed but lived out. All the treasures of divine wisdom count for nought unless the church knows how to make withdrawals from the deposit of truth in order to formulate its doctrine and apply its life-giving light to new issues and contexts. Evangelicals have tended to follow the Reformer’s principles that, first, the authoritative sense is the literal sense, and second, Scripture interprets Scripture. Debate has centered on the meaning of the literal sense: is the most relevant factor the human author’s communicative intention, determined by grammatico-historical exegesis that recovers linguistic meaning by reconstructing the author’s historical context-of the divine author’s intention, which is best determined in light of the canonical context? The second principle is handy for resolving any ambiguities: read unclear passages in light of those that are more clear. The overall aim is to recover what the authors, as commissioned mouthpieces for God, are saying rather than to read one’s own ideas and interests into the text. Because evangelicals believe that God’s message for the church is applicable to every age, there has been a tendency to apply apparently time-bound passages by isolating the universally valid principle behind the text in order to find its equivalent present-day cultural clothing. The same principles thus get applied to new particular cases. Here, too, the main impulse is conservative or, better, ‘preservative’’: namely, preserving divinely revealed truth. Yet evangelicals also want to bring biblical authority to bear on new problems, and some are looking for ways of interpreting the Bible with creative fidelity that go beyond “principlizing.”"

- The Bible

0 likesNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"Does being a people of the book preclude being a people of a tradition? The Reformers set their principle of the priesthood of all believers in contrast to the older Roman Catholic notion that only official church officers could authoritatively interpret the Scriptures. Some evangelicals, perhaps under the influence of the modern notion of individual autonomy, misappropriated this principle, claiming “No creed but the Bible,” thereby confusing one’s personal responsibility to read Scripture with one’s right as an individual to say what one thinks it means. In response, some so-called “postconservative” evangelicals gave gone post-modern, emphasizing the rationality of community traditions rather than of autonomous knowers, and pointing out that the Bible itself represent “the self-understanding of the community in which it developed.” Others, too, in order to avoid collapsing the voice of the Spirit into that of the Bible, acknowledge that the Spirit guides individuals into the truth precisely by guiding the whole church. The open question, then, is whether, and how, evangelicals should affirm the priesthood of all believers, the authority of the Great Tradition or, somehow, both. Stated differently: Is “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures” functionally equivalent to “the Holy Spirit speaking to the church as she ‘’reads’’ the Scriptures”? The Spirit’s illumination is related to the clarity of Scripture as well: Is the perspicuity of the Bible an objective property of the text or the result of the Spirit’s work in readers? At any rate, there is renewed interest in recovering ancient traditions of interpreting Scripture, at least in part because of a recognition that, first, reader’s interpretive practices are formed by traditions and, second. Such traditions may be the Spirit’s work."

- The Bible

0 likesNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"The evangelical intuition is correct: the Bible is what it says it is, namely, God’s word. The God of Scripture speaks, and Scripture is a result of that divine speaking. The grounding theological insight of an evangelical doctrine of Scripture is that God himself is doing things in and through the human discourse of the Bible in order personally to relate to his people. Indeed, God so invests and identifies himself in his words that to fail to respond to the word of God is to disobey God himself. The Bible, then, is itself one of God’s mighty acts, a form of God’s own communicative presence. Without these scriptural acts we would have no reliable means of interpreting god’s acts in history. According to the Scriptures, however, God’s revelatory words always accompany God’s redemptive deeds. We can go further: according to the Scriptures, God often acts in the world by speaking. When God speaks, he is also doing thing with words (e.g., commanding promising, warning etc.). It follows that Scripture is a medium of God’s communicative activity and thus an extension, as it were, of his personal presence. To view the Bible as composed of diverse divine speech acts is to overcome the long-standing dichotomy in evangelicalism between propositionalists, for whom the Bible is a book of divinely revealed information, and pietists, for whom the Bible is primarily a means of personal address and spiritual sustenance. The way out of this head vs. heart cul-de-sac is to recognize that God relates personally to his people precisely by doing various things with propositions beyond merely informing. The Bible is the God-ordained means of communicating the terms, and the reality of the covenant whose content is the God-ordained means of communicating the terms, and the reality, of the covenant whose content is Jesus Christ. What is God saying/doing in Scripture? He is administering his covenant: promising, commanding, exhorting comforting, and in general presenting himself (and his Son) while simultaneously soliciting our response. God is relating to his people as Savior and Lord via the medium of written words. God is as agree to do this as he was free to relate to the apostles via the medium of the living Word, the humanity of Jesus. As to the Bible’s humanity,” it is fully buy not merely a human product. Like the church, Scripture is a fully human phenomenon subject to the contingencies of language, culture and society. There is therefore a place for reason to examine what the authors likely meant given their historical context. Yet the discourse of the discourse of the Bible is also god’s communicative work: God-voices, God-worded, God-breathed. The Old Testament prophets were “moved by the Holy Spirit” and “spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21). Those who deny verbal inspiration typically have diluted view of divine providence. But is it harder to move an apostle to write an epistle than to raise a man from the dead? Evangelicals believe that this “moving” is not oppressive but organic, an instance of god’s providential ordering and preparation of both author and situation. The human discourse has integrity, but is ultimately commissioned, enabled, and authorized by the divine playwright who coordinates diverse voice into a rich harmonic canonical whole.”"

- The Bible

0 likesNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"The Bible is the dramatic discourse: something someone (prophets and apostles; ultimately the Holy Spirit) says (Scripture) about something (the drama of redemption) to someone (the church) at some time (past; present) in some way (a variety of literary forms) for some purpose (faith, hope, and love). The infallibility of the Bible follows from the fact that God is the ultimate authorial agent who is doing things with the words of Scripture. “god has something to say and he is very good at saying it.” Specifically, God is speaking truth in many ways: presenting Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the law and promises the one through whom all things were related and are being recreated. The words of the covenanting god are trustworthy-utterly reliable-for God cannot deny himself (Heb 6:18; titus 1:2). Indeed, god’s truth is liked to his covenant faithfulness: his words can be relied on absolutely to accomplish the purpose for which they were sent/used (Isa. 55:11). The authority of Scripture derives from the authority of god as he speaks in and through the Scripture. To emphasize Scripture as the speech action of God, then, is not to forget the question of truth. It is, however, to situate truth among the other “perfections” of Scripture in the economy of communication. Everything that God does in Scripture with words is infallible in the sense that it will not fail to achieve its intended purpose. When God makes assertions, those assertions, when properly interpreted, are true and trustworthy, wholly reliable: they accomplish the authorial purpose for which they were sent. The inerrancy of Scripture is that quality of the biblical text that, as God’s communicative act, ensures that what is stated, when interpreted rightly and read in faith, corresponds to the way things in creation and history are. It is important to remember, however, that the Bible is an ingredient in the economy of divine communicative action, not a textual talisman with its own mystical power. It follows that the Bible’s truth serves specific communicative purposes, especially bearing witness to the reality of God, human beings, and the great redemptive work accomplished in Jesus Christ. The truth that the Spirit communicated in Scripture is not merely theoretical and historical, then, but practical, transformative, and relational: a truth that sets free, gives life, and promoted wisdom. It is one thing to say that a statement is true, another to say what it means. Inerrancy offers few interpretive guidelines other than affirming the overall consistency of the Bible’s claims."

- The Bible

0 likesNonfiction booksSelf-help books
"Now let us consider the other case which is called morality, the case of the rearing of a particular race and species. The most magnificent example of this is offered by Indian morality, and is sanctioned religiously as the “Law of Manu.” In this book the task is set of rearing no less than four races at once: a priestly race, a warrior race, a merchant and agricultural race, and finally a race of servants—the Sudras. It is quite obvious that we are no longer in a circus watching tamers of wild animals in this book. To have conceived even the plan of such a breeding scheme, presupposes the existence of a man who is a hundred times milder and more reasonable than the mere lion-tamer. One breathes more freely, after stepping out of the Christian atmosphere of hospitals and prisons, into this more salubrious, loftier and more spacious world. What a wretched thing the New Testament is beside Manu, what an evil odour hangs around it!—But even this organisation found it necessary to be terrible,—not this time in a struggle with the animal-man, but with his opposite, the non-caste man, the hotch-potch man, the Chandala. And once again it had no other means of making him weak and harmless, than by making him sick,—it was the struggle with the greatest[Pg 47] “number.” Nothing perhaps is more offensive to our feelings than these measures of security on the part of Indian morality. The third edict, for instance (Avadana-Sastra I.), which treats “of impure vegetables,” ordains that the only nourishment that the Chandala should be allowed must consist of garlic and onions, as the holy scriptures forbid their being given corn or grain-bearing fruit, water and fire. The same edict declares that the water which they need must be drawn neither out of rivers, wells or ponds, but only out of the ditches leading to swamps and out of the holes left by the footprints of animals. They are likewise forbidden to wash either their linen or themselves since the water which is graciously granted to them must only be used for quenching their thirst. Finally Sudra women are forbidden to assist Chandala women at their confinements, while Chandala women are also forbidden to assist each other at such times. The results of sanitary regulations of this kind could not fail to make themselves felt; deadly epidemics and the most ghastly venereal diseases soon appeared, and in consequence of these again “the Law of the Knife,”—that is to say circumcision, was prescribed for male children and the removal of the small labia from the females. Manu himself says: “the Chandala are the fruit of adultery, incest, and crime (—this is the necessary consequence of the idea of breeding). Their clothes shall consist only of the rags torn from corpses, their vessels shall be the fragments of broken pottery, their ornaments shall be made of old iron, and their religion shall be the worship of evil spirits; without rest they shall wander from place to place.[Pg 48] They are forbidden to write from left to right or to use their right hand in writing: the use of the right hand and writing from left to right are reserved to people of virtue, to people of race.”"

- Manusmriti

0 likesHindu textsReligion and lawNonfiction booksSelf-help booksReligious philosophy