New Bible Format-God loves Morons Too! And Lip Gloss!

If they expect your average 12- and 13-year-old to learn calculus, that's a brilliant idea.

*ignores Curtis' post and mulls over Tep's post*

do Muslims (or those from any other faith) ever do this kind of thing or some sort of equivalent?

"In Your home."

Oh man I love me some bad Bible translations.

Tep, what do you propose for getting younger people [who are baptized in the Christian faith] more involved spiritually, then? I'm totally about open-mindedness here. And what would you say to a young teen who wanted to bring in a Bible to school or to some other public place to read but would be thought of as weird? I do think whatever you propose would probably be a great idea and will make me change my mind about the whole "glossy teen magazine" thing.

I'll put it another way: even forgetting the Old Testament, if the New Testament were really reducible to a form that short and that shallow, it's how it would have been written originally. By and large -- Revelation is an exception, if I remember right, but don't quote me on that -- the books of the New Testament are written in the simplest form of Greek in use at the time. They were written specifically to be understandable by the widest possible audience, and the Gospels were written in large part to be understandable to people who weren't already familiar with Christian ideas. (Paul's Epistles, less so.) So arguably, it's already in the simplest form it can take without losing a lot of its meaning -- and presumably that meaning is important to anyone who wants to present Christianity positively.

I've argued on the Holy Bible thread that that simplest form is still too simple because people today no longer have the same headspace and understanding that its intended audience did; just as Shakespeare is best understood in a context where you have some grasp of how plays were done at the time, and with notes explaining historical references and his use of language, so too the Bible loses a lot if you don't take in any additional information outside of it. Reducing it further than that ... I just don't see how anything useful or interesting will come through beyond bland platitudes that are already present in television shows and magazines.

cross-post ... good question, Dee, and I don't have a pat answer, so let me think it over during dinner :)

But also I really hate it when Christians try to immitate a current form of media or art and use it just to present Chrisitanity, because almost certainly the media or art is just awfully done There is no quality put into it. They don't care as much about that and they just want to tell a message. That's why Christian Contemporay Music sucks sooo much. And I think children can tell quality much better than accuracy of information.

i remember going to a less active members home and being invited in by his parents to cook pancakes (do you cook or bake or do something else with pancakes)

now in some ways this is as shallow as the teen mag bible. but i also remember deep prayers and fighting over what a bible verse meant and lessons that were complex.

i think that the lds church is wrong in many ways b ut the level of engagement they gave to teens was impt.

First things first: 1) I don't believe in pre-adult baptism and think it's completely contrary to everything Christianity should be about, if it wants to present itself as a continuation -- however loose -- of Jesus's teachings; 2) I'm not exactly anti-church, for other people, but it isn't something I would bring my children to, and I consider churches social institutions, not religious ones.

Together, those two things are enough to discount my opinion in the eyes of many people. I often don't call myself Christian because I don't like the title "Christ," and think that naming a religion after that word misses the point of everything good about its beginnings. But there's no label that would fit me better, so when the water tangoes into the ice cube tray, that's where gravity leads me.

In order to answer the question, I need to pretty much ramble around my feelings on religion, at least in general terms. The answer emerges from there.

Ultimately, some of the most important things about Jesus's teachings -- the things that aren't repeated all over the place, the things you aren't going to find just flipping pages or channels -- are difficult. They're good, they're important, because they take effort. Faith, to the extent that I prioritize it, shouldn't be a condition, it shouldn't be a default, and it shouldn't be a gene: it should be a present participle. It should be a verb, something constantly happening, constantly taking effort. Faith shouldn't be an answer, it should be a method for asking questions. Faith shouldn't be certainty, it should be curiosity. It shouldn't be numbered footprints on a map, it should be a rhythm.

For example: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's." This is one of my favorite examples, not because it's the most important of Jesus's teachings, but because it's both well-known and frequently misrepresented.

Just as a quick reminder, Jesus said that in response to a question about whether or not to pay a tax: he was pointing to the engraving of Caesar on the coin at the time. It's possibly relevant that the inscription on Roman coins at the time proclaimed Caesar the Son of God, a phrase more common in Roman usage than Jewish. Generally the story is presented with the assumption that Jesus is saying, "Look, they've got C's head on the coin, so just kick it back to him." But he never actually says that: the most important thing about the quote is the fact that he really doesn't say anything. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ... but what's Caesar's? He doesn't say. He never says -- he never answers the question. He just implies more questions.

How do you reduce that down? I have to assume any teen-magazine version of the Bible is going to do one of two things: present the quote in a vacuum, maybe in a modern English translation that gets rid of "render unto" in favor of "give to"; or simply present the common interpretation, a la things of the world belonging to man and things of the spirit belonging to God. Neither of these things is useful or interesting.

Forget the arguments various people make about Christianity's longevity being credited to Roman imperialism or etc., etc. -- Christianity survives because of the vast amount of seemingly simple questions which invite complex thinking and solutions. In times when learning was not otherwise encouraged, a man could always find an intellectual challenge in the Church. For a long stretch of time, for better or worse, many of Europe's best and brightest did their thinking for the Church (and not the other way around).

A good Christian must necessarily be a thinking Christian. A good Christian cannot simply accept a typed up sheet of beliefs and tenets and follow them any more than a good student can simply memorize specific facts without context. It isn't enough to know that three times three is nine, nor that Napoleon was French; to claim intelligence, to ascribe any sort of importance to any facts in your possession, you must be able to make connections, to infer patterns, to become epiphany-compatible. This is certainly what Jesus wanted for his disciples; this is the approach and thinking that he encouraged with the style and content of his teachings; this is most likely one reason why he never started a church, but simply moved among people outside churches.

Blast. I'd had a sermon written a few years ago about my thoughts on Jesus, with special regard to Christmas; I thought it was on my web page, but it isn't.

Anyway. How do you take any of the above and apply it to the Christian instruction of teenagers?

Possibly you don't. I don't believe there can be any such thing as a 13 year old Christian, except in self-definition; no more than there can be such a thing as a 13 year old Republican, really -- if you're 13, you're not registered to vote, and so at the most you have some partially-formed sympathies which were probably acquired from your parents. Religion is much the same. It's a belief system, after all -- the idea that a teenager, someone who is still developing the tools that enable them to evaluate ideas before turning them into beliefs, should actually possess a static religious identity ... to me, that's blasphemy. That's sin. There's a reason Jesus never baptized children, nor directed them to be baptized, much less brought them with him.

But a teenager can learn about Christian ideas, beliefs, stories, etc., without needing to actually be a Christian. The thing to do is not to simply dilute the Bible. The Bible is only a fraction of a Christian belief system -- any Christian belief system. There simply isn't, anywhere in the world -- no matter what the individuals involved may think -- any Christian belief system that isn't composed of at least half extra-Biblical material. It just plain isn't possible to form a consistent belief system from the Bible without bringing some kind of extra material in, in the form of how you choose to read the material, how you choose to adapt it, and so on and so forth. Catholicism is wisely up front about this: the ever-changing canon law is the continued conversation with God.

This is not an easy post to write, with my small little window of what's visible :)

Back to point. Teenagers cannot and should not be taught specific religious beliefs, any more than they can or should be taught specific political ones: if they aren't yet ready to fully evaluate them, then they aren't truly beliefs. They're habits or reflexes. If God wanted reflex, Man would be nothing but knee.

But they can be encouraged to think about religious/spiritual/whatever issues. They can be pointed. They can be shown. They should not have interpretations done for them, but the issues which need to be addressed by interpretation can be pointed out to them -- as I did above with the "render unto" passage. A magazine about the Bible could be done well, but I doubt it would be especially interesting, to be honest, for the same reasons that a teen magazine about literature wouldn't be especially interesting to most teenagers: that's just not what teenagers are like. The ones who really want to think about this stuff are going to find it on their own. Such a magazine -- again, presenting issues, contexts, and so forth, not dogma or doctrine -- could be useful for those teenagers who would seek it out. It isn't going to convert anyone, but you were asking about teenagers baptized in the Christian faith ... which I'm going to read as "teenagers who are already disposed to think about Christianity," as opposed to wayward heathens who need to be brought to heel etc.

I'll bet this post is pretty long. I wonder how much I actually covered :)

"...and in this month's ish, Tara Reid stands naked before God! We have pics!"

*bookmarks thread and promises to read Tep's lengthy post when she has more time*

I must confess that my comic book Bible was the coolest Bible I ever owned. I mean, I actually read quite a bit of it! I wish I still had it. I would read it again!

But anyway, it's hard for me to imagine this magazine without feeling the need to poke a little fun. I'm imagining articles like ones on women's issues that remind you stay away from men and church during your time of the month as you are dirty then. Maybe a little Oprah-esque GO Girl! article on how when you get married it's your job to support your husband in his spiritual path as you don't really have much of your own. Articles on younger versions of Jars of Clay and a what's hot/what's not list.

HoT:
* WWJD bracelets
* Mustard seed necklaces

NOt HOT (SO 5 minutes ago):
* Evanescence
* virginity rings

Try not to hate me. I had a bad morning.

(obv this brings up the intriguing possibility of teens guiltily swapping soiled copies of Gideon's bible, or, for the hardcore perverts, the Apocrypha)

also, has anybody ever known a teenager to actually refer to themselves as a "teen"? "*giggle* I'm a TEEN!"

In fact, I kept considering myself a teenager for a few years into my 20s.

Part of what's odd about this glossy teen mag is that most mags like it tend to accentuate the physical. It is hard to imagine how they would get around that.

I wonder why this thread is catching on like wildfire like that Alabama thread is (that I'm afraid to open any more)?

It's not merely ineffective, it's insulting both to the audience and to any reasonable conception of God.

It's sickening how often religious groups will trivialize their own beliefs just to gain a larger following.
http://www.dancedanceresurrection.i12.com/images/good-dance.jpg

The next day he'd kick back and smile at everyone.

http://www.drugawareness.org/Images/justbear.jpg

"Mark Taylor and his family have created this Ten Commandments Bear to honor those students and teachers who died at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.

Mark Taylor created this Ten Commandments bear because it is Mark's belief that putting the principles of the ten commandments back into the school will help to alleviate the tragic problems in the public schools today."

http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/Miscellaneous/bear.html

Actually, I think the people who would make the bible comics wouldbe the ones not putting the action (that really is part of the story) into the comics.

If there were comics about CERTIAN bible stories it could be as crazy as anything out there. I was thinking about how surreal and awesome a movie based on Revelations could be. Or how pornagraphic a visual representation of Song of Solomans would be.

Worms eye view: HyperJesus is nailed to the Cross with glowing spikes. He flexes his muscles and dramatically wails
HyperJesus: "Must...Forgive...Sins...or else...the world is DOOOOOOMED!"
(loud, jarring sting of violins!)
Stan Lee Narration: "Gadzooks, True Believers! Is this the END of HyperJesus!" Come back in 30 days to see the thrilling conclusion of 'WHAT PRICE, SALVATION!' "
(loud, jarring sting of violins!)
John Wayne in Shield Costume: "For he truly was the Son of Odin!"

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jlatto/opimages/me1.JPG
Get Thee Behind Me, Satan!

A few thoughts about the John the Baptist trivia, and not being a disciple we know he said "Behold the Lamb of God" and "He must increase, while I must decrease". We also read about John's disciples taking back news about Jesus's ministry to him in prison.

Dec 28 is the feast day of the Holy Innocents considered Christian martyrs despite being a group of jewish children from the Bethlehem area who never knew Jesus on earth.

ALso many holy people from the OT who were never folowers of Christ(St DAvid, ST ADam etc) were presumed to have accepted salvation on Holy Saturday when Jesus went to preach for their souls in the "limbo of the fathers".

WHether this changes your original statement Im not sure but I guess it could be argued either way.

As far as John ... the Catholic Church probably considers him a Christian, essentially. I think the most interesting thing about his part of the NT is the fact that there is clearly a movement going on around him, and Jesus is involved in it to some extent, but there's neither a schism between them nor does John follow Jesus as a disciple (perhaps Jesus waited until John was arrested to start his ministry, but he still seems to be acting on his own, not following John's example ... he's mobile, for one thing, with no apparent concern for the River Jordan; and he drinks and doesn't fast, which is a radical difference).

Most likely their followers didn't disagree about anything major -- John's followers were probably not as strict about fasting as he had been, and Jesus's followers were not as loose as he had been, so they could meet in the middle -- but chances are that their contact with each other was pretty slim in life, and that the idea of the Baptist telling his followers to join up with Jesus is apocryphal.