Which books do you consider "holy books"?

I don't consider any books holy.

I don't really consider any books holy, I don't know if I even consider anything at all to be holy.

nearly every one ever written by Stephen King

my roommate insists i also put down Wuthering Heights

holy books, Batman!

Please chant:

HARE KRISHNA
HARE KRISHNA
KRISHNA KRISHNA
HARE HARE

HARE RAMA
HARE RAMA
RAMA RAMA
HARE HARE

Gosh, there's something familiar about this survey.

I haven't read all these books so I'll reserve judgement on some of them. I selected: Bhagavad-Gita, Bible (New & Old Testaments), Qur'an, Talmud, Tao-te-ching, Torah, Upanishads, & Veda.

For other, I would add: Srimad Bhagavatam, Bardo Thodal, Dharmapada, & the Buddhacarita...off the top of my head...there are certainly others.

Of the books on the list that I've read, and didn't make the cut: The Bible Apocrypha (I don't have strong feelings one way or the other). The Book of Mormon (I think this one's a joke, nothing against Mormons, but have you read it?) Dianetics (If you know anything about L.Ron.Hubbard, and some of the comments he made publicly about organized religion prior to publishing this dross, you hardly need to read it to come to the right conclusions). Egyptian Book of the Dead (this one is fascinating, I just don't think it is Scripture). Satanic Bible (I loved this one, I'm glad that Anton LeVey wrote it, more people should read it, the philosophy is much more in tune with the average person than any of them would realize. Not Scripture though.)

The rest of them I've never seen, but would probably enjoy reading.

I consider all books holy read in the proper light. Every word in the universe has cosmic meaning. The Sefer Yetzirah is my current study, but I've been through most of the stuff on this list to some extent. My friend recommends 'Paradise Lost'. She also recommended I not not mention some authors.

Zang: Yeah, the 'Satanic Bible' is almost 'new age'ey. The satanic rites, I observed as a teen, could only exist in the preexisting context of catholicism.

The Philokalia-a book describing the art of unceasing prayer

Given the definition in the explanation field I would say none. I believe in the non-existence of god(s). So I can't say anything is the word of god or anything he/she/they has chosen.

RIchard: No thank you. Do you actually think you will entice anybody with that tactic?

All of them. To each his own. Truth is whatever you believe, unless you disagree with me.

KR, satanists are some of the most devout Catholics out there. I'm pretty sure they're all going to heaven on the strength of their belief alone. Won't they be pissed.

I've seen many good chuches, Eastern & Western; But I've still seen so many that I would easily call satanic; Basically all those that teach the denial of god's creation here on earth and imply that a connection with god is sacrilegious. Conversely, teaching groups associated with witchcraft & satanism often turn out to be caretakers of ancient knowledge of creation & spiritual connections, in much the same fashion as those lone irish monks maintained our western historical heritage during the dark ages.

None of them are holy to me.

Nice set of options. Don't like your definition of 'holy book.' I predict most people will pick 'none' because of it.

I consider 'holy' to be 'full of inspired wisdom', so I marked all of the listed books I had heard of that I don't think are utter tripe.

Oh, yes, and I marked 'other', because I consider the works of Adams and Pratchett to be holy by my definition as well

micah: You have just nailed the pagan philosophy better than anyone I have ever heard.

The biography of my life...just kidding...the bible i guess

I don't consider any books to be holy. I think that there are very special books which provide inspiration about how to live life to many people, but I don't consider them holy, and some of them are not books that purport to be holy.

I've sometimes jokingly referred to the 'DSM-IV' as the 'Bible' of my profession, but even so I don't see it as an unerring classification schema. (Nor do I see the Bible as one - I mean more the connotation of 'Bible' rather than the literal entity).

Whew.

Avo: Do you have any problem with a book that classifies on behaviors without making an attempt at integral conciliation of perceptual experience and internal cause & effect response dynamics? There are at least a dozen major categories (or planes) of consciousness. DSM-IV doesn't even attempt to explain what goes on in the mind of people dealing with the mundane plane, unless you count receptor chemistry. (chocolate and marijuana for instance both affect the CB-2 receptor). I've tried to relive the phenomena expressed in an all holy books. DSM-IV was no exception.

K-R: Well, the DSM-IV refers to both behaviors and perceptual experiences, but you are right that it does not attempt to speak of cause and effect. It's meant to simply be a categorization system, based on empirical studies of symptoms that frequently 'hang together;' there are other writings on cause and effect.

I guess I don't have a problem with the fact that it doesn't attempt to go into cause and effect, given that the purpose of the book is simply to categorize. The DSM is all ready 600+ pages long; and there are so many and various writings on cause and effect; you could not put it all in one book.

The DSM is a piece of crap, is what it is. It classifies things such as teenage rebellion as a "disorder". It used to classify homosexuality as a disorder too. It is mostly a tool for psychologists and psychiatrists to medicalize what isn't medical and classify what isn't classifiable, and encourages mental health professionals to view human beings as objects.

*Ooo, soapbox time...*

First - There is no classification termed "teenage rebellion." There are things like conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, but the former involves mostly things that would be considered criminal acts, such as theft, violence, etc; and the latter specifically notes that "the criterion is met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level."

Second: Some psych dysfunctions are indeed medical, in the sense of having biological causes. A cut-and-dried example would be someone who takes meds that have side effects which cause depression, and when they stop taking the meds, the depression goes away. (I've seen this happen). Sometimes it is a chemical imbalance in the body that causes the depression, and when the chemical imbalance is rebalanced, the depression goes away. Sometimes, the cause of the depression is psychological or environmental.

Third - These disorders are indeed classifiable, in the sense that it has repeatedly been noted that some symptoms reliably 'hang together.'

Fourth - It hasn't classified homosexuality as a disorder since 1973. The DSM gets revised as new understandings of psych come about. We're currently on edition IV, which is actually the 5th edition.

The DSM is not, as I joked above, a 'bible' - it does get edited as we know more. What it is, is a tool. It can be a really useful tool - for instance, a person who goes to a psychologist often doesn't say, "I have X Disorder;" they say, "I feel blue, I can't seem to get anything done, and I have trouble sleeping lately." Then it's up to the psychologist to ask the right questions, based on the DSM symptom lists, to figure out whether it is possible to rule out each of the disorders which involve those symptoms. There are in fact several different disorders which might involve those symptoms - and there are considerably more conditions which are not disorders which might involve those symptoms, such as an abusive household, a medical illness, the death of a loved one.

The DSM, like any tool, can be used well, or it can be misused. Misuse of it would involve failing to consider alternative hypothesis - like, as you mention, teenage rebellion. Any therapist who is well trained would know this, and would know to treat their clients with the utmost of caring, respect, and genuineness. Obviously, there are poorly trained therapists out there... but that's not the book's fault.

I could not disagree more. But I certainly won't argue, as I can just picture you flipping through your manual trying to find out what "disorder" I must have. Just GREAT to know that when you graduate, there'll be one more DSM'er out there.

"A guillotine, like any tool, can be used well, or misused"
"A nuclear bomb, like any tool, can be used well or misused"
"A concentration camp, like any tool, can be used well or misused" (etc.)

My journal. (Just kidding!)

Holy is a term used for religious purposes. I am not religious, therefore nothing is holy to me.

No offense, but what about the Book of Mormon do you consider a joke? I've read it and it seems pretty straight-forward to me.

(No offense) None taken. I would never be offended by someone asking me to elaborate on my theological studies and belief systems. I think that this kind of dialogue is probably the most important thing that humans can do. I encourage debate.

I could go on at some length, but the two most striking things to me are:

Why did the Angel translate the Golden Tablets into a dialect of English that hadn't been spoken for a few centuries? Was it because most Americans in the 19th Century were used to reading the King James Bible? Perhaps the one you read was a Japanese translation, no?

Also, some of the moral decrees seem to be too pointed to the political situation in the States at the time, and make excuses for slavery. I just don't buy that. It seems to go against the other Revealed Scriptures. Although the Old Testament acknowledges slavery, and comments on it without denouncing it, I understand from my readings of history, that the type of slavery that was practiced in ancient times, differed considerably from that which was practiced by Europeans during Colonial times. (I'm not making excuses for any kind of slavery!) Incidentally, my ancestors were English and my grandfather came to Canada as a baby. I'm proud to say that the English were instrumental in putting an end to colonial slavery. (Although they were certainly involved in it earlier.)

My Calculas book

i've slowly been reading various books that are considered to be holy. i'm working on the gnostic scriptures at the moment.

Tough stuff, I imageine. I've only come peripherally into contact with gnosticism - it seems... complicated. I understand that's why it failed as a popular faith: no one could figure out what the hell was going on!

To reply to your two points:

1. An angel didn't translate the "Golden Tablets" (actually golden plates, as in really thin sheets of metal). Joseph Smith, Jr. did (it says so right on the title page). I would guess the reason he translated it the way he did was because most people were used to scripture sounding like that. An interesting note, though: if you read through the Book of Mormon, you can see many different styles of writing, depending on which ancient record-keeper was writing at the time. And no, I haven't read the Japanese translation completely, though what I have read is very similar to the English translation.

2. To which moral decrees are you referring? How does it make excuses for slavery? If you visit this page it lists all the references to slavery in the Book of Mormon, and none of them show support for it. (the last three references are to the Doctrine & Covenants, another book held as holy by the LDS Church. They show no support for it, either.)

The joy of sex

I think I've heard of other references to hidden scriptures in other religions. I take them all as metaphors for the ability to be awake, to hear, interpret, and understand different levels of the almighty speaking through all existing communications on our planet. Seeing gold (or other colors) as the energy manifestation of creation flowing from objects or through space is not rare amongst mystics either.

By cause and effect, I mean anyone might develop behaviors based on circumstances others are not exposed too. Suppose every single dang time you tried plugging in an electrical appliance ovor the course of two years, a neigbor would scream or a firetruck would wail by. A poor psychologist would say you had paranoia, an irrational fear of plugging in appliances. Of course an awake psychologist would say the same thing, while acknowledging the Spanda Karikas 'mirror universe' phenomenon.

...uh...okay...

That depends. I consider all those books holy, just not to me. But they are holy to other people, and I respect how they feel.

So, a woman younger than me is familiar with the treatise on cosmic fire, that's steep reading even for me. (though I've read enough to suspect much of it is an arbitrary formulation that works in the same fashion as one can describe personalities as being of the 'round' or 'square variety')
Anyone want to admit to that vote?

Re: Mormon doctrine. The Book of Mormon was supposed to be written by a people who escaped the holy land and established a civilization in the Americas, however, Joseph Smith claims the gold plates were written in "reformed Egyptian" - the language of their enemies! Joseph claimed that each symbol was translated one at a time, and that the next translation would not appear until the previous had been translated perfectly. Why then has there been a need for the Mormon church to make around 3000 grammatical and spelling corrections to this "divine" book?

The Doctrine and Covenants contains the words of Mormon prophets such as Brigham Young which the church regards as scripture. The D&C contains one passage from Young which states that anyone (white) who marries or has sex with the descendants of Cain (Blacks) will pay with their life, and that this is the way things will always be. Today the church does not believe this, although it is still part of their scriptures. It makes you wonder how much of the other statements made by prophets in the name of god are true.

Many of your questions can be answered at the All About Mormons site, and you can request answers to those you can't find there. This is a very good place to learn about what the LDS believe, as is the official LDS Church site.

Why use reformed Egyptian?

Why 3000+ changes?

The Doctrine & Covenants was written almost entirely by Joseph Smith. One section, section 136, was written by Young, and two other sections (135 and 138) were written by others. The section by Young contains nothing about Cain or his descendants. Please provide a reference to base your accusation.

Please also provide a reference for the claim that Smith said "that each symbol was translated one at a time, and that the next translation would not appear until the previous had been translated perfectly." This is the first time I've ever heard that one.

Ooh, I who never to get in an argument over facts and details with.

If you're talking about me, I only try to correct misinformation if I see it and it's a familiar subject. I'm very familiar with this subject, so I want to make sure people get the correct information instead of a bunch of non-facts parading as facts.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about the LDS church, which is either spread by people who know it's misinformation or who are just misinformed themselves. I'm assuming kaleb777 is one of the latter.

OK. Is it true that LDS teachings say good mormons will one day be a god of their own planet (which makes a certain sort of sense) or am I misinformed. (a victim of the Latter Saints Day church)

Yes. The LDS church teaches that God wants us all (as in everyone here on the Earth) to become like him.

Good, that's what I hoped.

Why?

It's close to my experience and goal which I would wish upon everyone, even Mormons.

"Even Mormons"? Are they so bad?

I'm sorry. Though I have nothing against the highest practioners of any religion, I've had a history of ribbing Mormons. I lived with one for awhile. Some of their customs strike me as humorous. Saving all the water bottles is both practical and makes a great metaphor, and I have high esteem for those doing missionary work, though I still joke about them.

mmmmm ribs

None of the above

For Mormons, The vocabulary I censored?, or are you still on the yummy kick?

yes...yummy kick....ribs......mmmmm...

Ah. That makes sense.

Twisty is a lemur.. Twisty is a lemur.. Twisty is a lemur..
Good choice they're dang cute.

I stand corrected. Some of Brigham Youngs racist comments are as follows;

"The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain (blacks)the Church must go to destruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed" (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated February 5, 1852, located in the LDS church historical dept.).

The progression to denying blacks any role in government is as follows;
"If the Africans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what business have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?" From the same source.

Young also spoke on "blood atonement"

I stand corrected. Some of Brigham Youngs racist comments are as follows;

"The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain (blacks)the Church must go to destruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed" (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated February 5, 1852, located in the LDS church historical dept.).

The progression to denying blacks any role in government is as follows;
"If the Africans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what business have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?" From the same source.

Young also spoke on "blood atonement" saying "Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?...

I stand corrected. The D&C does not contain the statement I refered to. Some of Brigham Youngs racist comments are as follows;

"The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain (blacks)the Church must go to destruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed" (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated February 5, 1852, located in the LDS church historical dept.).

The progression to denying blacks any role in government is as follows;
"If the Africans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what business have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?" From the same source.

Young also spoke on "blood atonement" saying "Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?" (Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857)

There are many other examples of words of the prophets that have been selectively ignored by the church, as well as temple ceremonies that have been 'toned down' to be less shocking.

Apparently truth changes with the attitudes of society, and only some of a prophets words are truth.

Having a problem with your submit button?

The "blood atonement" sounds a lot like the death penalty to me. There are several crimes that are considered worthy of the death penalty in today's society, so I don't see any problem with that.

As for the other comments, I would have to see them in context before I made any comments about them. Words that may seem shocking out of context can make perfect sense when seen in light of what surrounds them.

Lemurs are like a really really cute little monkey except funnier.
Not that I like them better than I like regular old non-fuzzy non-long tailed monkies....no no no...It's just lemurs make me laugh and I want to hold one and stroke it and pat it and take it with me to work.

In the Bible, the Israelites were forbidden from marrying people from a lot of other cultural/ethnic groups as well. Check out Deuteronomy 7:1-4; other groups are forbidden from becoming members of the Israelite religion (Deut 23:1-7). Why is this any less shocking than Joseph Smith saying that black people should be excluded? It really bothers me that Mormons get singled out for ridicule so frequently. Why are their tenets and miracles any more absurd than anyone else's? Especially in this case, where they have discontinued a practice when they realized its outmodedness, as many Jews and Christians have done with the Bible?

Meer Cats are way cool. I saw them at the San Diego Zoo w/ my daughter. They stand or sit on their butts, having fun and watching the humans, too 'lay back' to be thinxing "What's your problem"? I was going to quote from a pirate story I was writing about an ungodly creature with large black eyes and fur dripping like the mussels he subsisted on (the captain's monkey), but I think I lost the story along with my diary a few monts age. I'd been planning to send you a copy.

The only books that are holy seem to be the ones that claim to be.

I believe any religion is as real as the people who believe in them. Who are we to judge others and their religion. If one is right, then all must be right. The underlying principles are the same. It does not matter which religion you believe in, it only matters that you believe.

They underlying principles of all religions are not the same. Many religions have principples that are in great contrast to those of another.

The Mormons are hardly unique in considering that not all the words of a prophet are prophesy. I was about to cite the Catholic doctrine towards Papal infallibility but I think perhaps Alan Greenspan is a better modern-day example.

My point was that the Mormon church believe they have received the truth by revelation directly from God, yet Gods truth appears to change with societal attitudes. Currently the Mormon church is under pressure from gay members and their families to be more acceptable to the idea that people are born with their sexuality. Surely God already knows the truth. If the Mormons do receive revelation from God, why aren't they ahead of the trend towards tolerance and social justice? Why does God wait until there is pressure from outside the church before he contacts church leaders? Truth is truth. It should be eternal, and not be swayed by public attitude changes.

Truth is anything but eternal, and I doubt you will find any long-standing social institution, religious or otherwise, which actually considers it as such.

That only proves to me that all long-standing social institutions, religious or otherwise, are full of crap.

You can learn all about the LDS beliefs regarding sexuality here: http://www.mormons.org/daily/sexuality/.

For general responses to "anti-Mormon" accusations, you can visit this page: http://www.mormons.org/response/.

Read the whole site: http://www.mormons.org/. You'll learn a lot, and you may even find answers to some of your questions. You seem to have a lot of them.

The LDS belief is that truth is eternal, but man's understanding of truths is not always perfect. Therefore, some things we humans hold as "fact" may actually not be fact.

You wouldn't be Mormon would you?

I would. I suspect you aren't, though.

Not now.

hmm... i conser bible holy.. just because i'm christian, and i'm not supposed to find anything else right.

hmm... i consider bible holy.. just because i'm christian, and i'm not supposed to find anything else right.

Any books with holes in them.

I think the question is what books are holy to you. I'm not going to tell a devout Catholic the bible isn't holy, because it is- to that person. For me, none are 'holy', important sometimes though.