The Bible, Benefit Or Harm

[GeorgeW]

Martin Luther King was a not only a Christian, but a Christian preacher. Jimmy Carter, an advocate for social justice, is a Sunday School teacher. Abolitionists were Christians. Pacifist Amish people are Christians.

 

Does this mean all Christians are humanists? Of course not. Does this mean that Bible belief (or religion generally) causes bad attitudes and behaviors? Clearly not.

 

George

[Kath]

"...I have a feeling that we would accept research that agrees with our position. My position is that how the Bible is used depends on the views that have risen to the top in any one era. The studies done in the 50's and 60's will have different results than any done to day. The fact I favor is that the more often one participates in church the less prejudiced one is. Those attend More than 11x are less prejudiced than those that do not attend churches..."

 

Dutch,

 

The reason I pointed that out is because it seems to me you were using that to support your position, as if it were proven in studies, which it was not.

 

I respect your point of view as I do others' on this, but I think there's a lot of dancing around the fact that the bible can, in fact, be influential in prejudice and mind-set whether or not they bring that mind-set to it.

 

Kath

[GeorgeW]

Regarding the effect of the Bible on attitudes, there is, I think, a continuum of possible influences which might be classified as follows:

 

Causal > strong influence > weak influence > no effect.

 

My view is that it falls into the ‘weak influence’ range. The causal or strong influence is clearly refuted by evidence. But, I would not go so far as to suggest no influence whatsoever.

 

The influence on negative attitudes, like homophobia, must fall in either a fertile field or an empty field. The fertile field is a general worldview which would accommodate a homophobic attitude. I find it unlikely that an adult with a humanist worldview (and stable personality) would be comfortable in a homophobic religious environment.

 

An empty field is that of children. There are many who grow up in a homophobic religious milieu and then with education and development reject that attitude. Is there some influence on a child raised in that environment? Probably yes, but absolutely not determinative. And even if there is some influence, it would occur within a conducive worldview.

 

George

[NORM]

Darn it Norm, I thought we were in agreement.

 

Close, but with subtle variations.

 

If it is correct that once a holy book is accepted, it becomes a cause (of bad behavior), please explain the many decent, caring Christians who accept the Bible. How could this explain Mother Teresa?

 

Well, for one thing, I was quite careful not to construct the sentence "it becomes a cause (of bad behavior)." There were provisos preceding my comments that you should incorporate into what I said. I said that once the Holy Book has been established as such, then all of the bad behaviors proscribed (such as prejudice against races, women, homosexuals, etc., etc...) will be caused by the veneration of such.

 

Until the Bible is seen as a Divine Instrument (I'm using capitals intentionally), it is only a book written by men. It can still be the cause of some bad practice if the readers buy into the program. But, when the book is elevated to god-like character, then; to disobey it's commands is to garner the wrath of the Supreme Author.

 

As for all of those loving, caring Christians? The explanation is simple: they are disobeying much of scripture. Most Christians who are normal (I know, I know...) are in direct violation of (mostly Tanakh) Biblical maxims. For example; how many parents do you know have their children stoned to death at the city gates for rebellion?

 

The explanation that explains the evidence (good and bad Christians, good and bad non-Christians) is that we bring our worldview and prejudices to the holy book and find what resonates with and justifies our attitudes.

 

Yes, I would agree that this happens also. But, there are those who are schooled that the ONLY source of wisdom is every "jot and tittle" of the Holy Word. For them, the prejudices are learned behavior.

 

I don't think if we removed the Bible from the world, the world would, as a result, become an ideal place with everyone loving and caring for everyone else.

 

George

 

Perhaps not, but it's a good start, IMHO.

 

NORM

[glintofpewter]

The reason I pointed that out is because it seems to me you were using that to support your position, as if it were proven in studies, which it was not.

 

The question for the study was, "Do churches create prejudiced people?" The data suggests that they don't. The more frequently people come to church the less prejudiced they are. Yes, the people who come only once or twice per month are the most prejudiced. The people who participated more than 11x per month were less prejudiced than even those who had never attended church. If churches create prejudice one would think that the more one attended church the more prejudiced one would become but prejudice decreases with frequency. These are gross data without any nuances.

 

the bible can, in fact, be influential in prejudice and mind-set whether or not they bring that mind-set to it.

When my daughter was quite young she first saw the animated movie Pocahontas and she acted like Pocahontas - not a bad role model. Then she saw Lion King and acted like - Scar. Mean and scary, growling, claws, angry voice. What connection had she made? Black hair. Pocahontas, Scar and she had black hair. In Cinderella she liked the step sisters because they wore pretty clothes and had the power to boss Cinderella. We recognized that she needed our commentary and suggestions to know how to interpret what she was seeing.

 

Although these movies tell stories in which we think we know where the good and bad are, based in the characters she chose to model, my daughter, naively, did not recognize good and bad behavior. Should Lion King be blamed for behavior she modeled after Scar? No, she should be held responsible for her behavior to the extent it is appropriate for her development. We, the parents, had responsibility to frame her perceptions according to our values.

 

My daughter's example supports your position that the Bible has agency. Naive people can get the wrong idea. Irenaus, in his effort to strengthen and unite the many small Christian communities first assembled a canon so everybody read the same books - but they didn't interpret it the same. So he concluded that only church leaders could provide a correct reading.

 

Words and books can be influential but these days I don't think there is anyone who could read the Bible naively, and so, it isn't what the Bible brings to us, but who brings us the Bible.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

Yes, I would agree that this happens also. But, there are those who are schooled that the ONLY source of wisdom is every "jot and tittle" of the Holy Word. For them, the prejudices are learned behavior.

 

But I don't think they learned from the Bible. They learned from those who were reading the Bible to them.

 

Because many of us have experienced an Exodus out of oppressive churches, oppressive religions, oppressive ways to read the Bible we seem to think categorically, in black and white. That practice, that creed, that faith-based moralizaton, or that-that-that Bible, is seen in lens that limits our view to that which arouses our ire. I have made more than my share of such statements

 

So, for instance, Does "every jot and tittle" include?

 

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

 

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[GeorgeW]

 

But I don't think they learned from the Bible. They learned from those who were reading the Bible to them.

 

Dutch

 

Great observation!

 

George

[Kath]

I don't know about any studies but it does seem pretty clear to me from self examination that prejudice feeds the egoic state. It also seems to me to be contagious. Therefore, any system of teaching or training including certain religious training that focuses on separation, us and them, saved and lost, believers and unbelievers, etc serves to feed such egoic states that we identify as prejudice and intolerance.

 

I would be in agreement with kath in principle that many fundamental teachings breed or magnify prejudice in people. While it is also obvious to me that certain people have more of a propensity for prejudice from birth traced to genetic or other possible reasons, that doesn't to me alter a conclusion that prejudice can be learned and taught quite easily as history seems to testify.

Just my 2 cents for consideration,

Joseph

 

Joseph,

 

Perfect. This is my point, extactly.

 

Kath

[NORM]

 

But I don't think they learned from the Bible. They learned from those who were reading the Bible to them.

 

Because many of us have experienced an Exodus out of oppressive churches, oppressive religions, oppressive ways to read the Bible we seem to think categorically, in black and white. That practice, that creed, that faith-based moralizaton, or that-that-that Bible, is seen in lens that limits our view to that which arouses our ire. I have made more than my share of such statements.

 

Those are some good points. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Bible is taught with the understanding that it is Divine Word. Herein lies the problem. It's not the Bible alone, but the Bible and someone telling you that it is G-d's Word. Kath earlier rightly pointed out that BECAUSE people are taught that the BOOK is infallible, then all the bad stuff is just as valid as the good stuff.

 

Again, it's not the Bible alone that I have a problem with as much as the Bible and the teaching that it is Divine.

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Bible, in and of itself, is somehow a demonic force. At least for me, that would mean a belief in the supernatural, which I do not.

 

 

So, for instance, Does "every jot and tittle" include?

 

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

 

Yes, indeed. One of my favorite sections of the Tanakh.

 

But, this one isn't:

 

Exodus 21:17 - "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

 

Or this:

 

I Samuel 15: 3 - Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

And this:

 

Numbers 31: 13 - 15 - Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. ¹⁴ Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. ¹⁶ "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. ¹⁷ Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, ¹⁸ but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

 

 

And, in the New Testament, there's this little gem:

 

Acts 5: 1 - 11 - Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. ² With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ⁴ Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God."

 

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. ⁶ Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

 

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"

 

"Yes," she said, "that is the price."

 

Peter said to her, "How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

 

At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹ Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

 

 

It's just that there is soooooo much of this kind of stuff all throughout the Bible that it ruins the whole thing for me.

 

Let's not call it censorship, shall we? How about a good, old-fashioned edit?

 

NORM

[Kath]

Those are some good points. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Bible is taught with the understanding that it is Divine Word. Herein lies the problem. It's not the Bible alone, but the Bible and someone telling you that it is G-d's Word. Kath earlier rightly pointed out that BECAUSE people are taught that the BOOK is infallible, then all the bad stuff is just as valid as the good stuff.

 

Again, it's not the Bible alone that I have a problem with as much as the Bible and the teaching that it is Divine.

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Bible, in and of itself, is somehow a demonic force. At least for me, that would mean a belief in the supernatural, which I do not.

 

 

[/font]

 

Yes, indeed. One of my favorite sections of the Tanakh.

 

But, this one isn't:

 

 

 

Or this:

 

 

 

And this:

 

 

 

And, in the New Testament, there's this little gem:

 

 

 

It's just that there is soooooo much of this kind of stuff all throughout the Bible that it ruins the whole thing for me.

 

Let's not call it censorship, shall we? How about a good, old-fashioned edit?

 

NORM[/font]

 

Norm, you're doing a great job of making my case for me, except if the bible would be edited, (and it won't be ) it probably wouldn't sell as many copies. (only kidding) I say collect them all and burn them! (only kidding again) In all seriousness, Sectioning the bible off with scholarly explanations might be an idea. As the Jesus Seminarians have been disecting and scrutinizing the bible for so many years, they might be chartered for an ad hoc assignment of re-writing the bible, and explaining just what was meant by the different passages according to the time, whether or not they were actually written by the person to whom they were attributed, and on and on.

 

Now THAT would be something that might make a difference, yet keep everyone happy. Okay, keep the bible, but let people know it ain't all what yer pastor sez it is. It could remain spiritually inspirational, give insight into how people thought and lived back then, yet make people aware of the scholarly conclusions of interpretations instead of local bible studies proliferating views of self-appointed bible interpreters.

 

Yes, I say let's give the Jesus Seminarians something of value to put their expertise into and let the bible readers reach their own understanding based on knowledge.

 

won't THAT p**s off the Jerry Falwells!

 

Kath

[NORM]

Sectioning the bible off with scholarly explanations might be an idea. As the Jesus Seminarians have been disecting and scrutinizing the bible for so many years, they might be chartered for an ad hoc assignment of re-writing the bible, and explaining just what was meant by the different passages according to the time, whether or not they were actually written by the person to whom they were attributed, and on and on.

 

Now THAT would be something that might make a difference, yet keep everyone happy. Okay, keep the bible, but let people know it ain't all what yer pastor sez it is. It could remain spiritually inspirational, give insight into how people thought and lived back then, yet make people aware of the scholarly conclusions of interpretations instead of local bible studies proliferating views of self-appointed bible interpreters.

 

Yes, I say let's give the Jesus Seminarians something of value to put their expertise into and let the bible readers reach their own understanding based on knowledge.

 

won't THAT p**s off the Jerry Falwells!

 

Kath

 

What a terrific idea! I love all of the Jesus Seminar spin-off books by Borg, Armstrong, Spong, et. al. I would most definitely buy a Spong-i-cized Bible!

 

NORM

[glintofpewter]

I would like to see a Bible written in the order it was written and having the prophets included in the history where appropriate, in their context. I would like to see included in this "historical account/narrative" our best knowledge about the bigger context for the development of ideas and changes in theology such as

 

The key period in the development of the Bible is from 586 BCE to 538 BCE. This is the time of Hebrew captivity and exile, by the conquering Babylonians. Prior to this period, the Hebrew religion followed a slow, gradual evolution from its roots in African tribalism, to a more sophisticated form that was strongly influenced by Hinduism. During the exile, the books began to take on a pessimistic tone, due to a feeling that Yahweh had abandoned them. After King Cyrus of Persia defeated the Babylonians, and gave the Israelites their freedom; Persian beliefs caused a profound change in the religion. Whereas evil had previously come from Yahweh, the post-exile period adopted a personification of evil, to mirror the Persian duality doctrine. Until the end of the exile, the Hebrew religion had always been polytheistic, but the introduction of Persian Zoroastrian monotheism began a shift toward the concept of one god.

 

A sample and partial order

 

• 
  
  • 
     
    
  • Genesis - Compilation written, by various contributers, during the period covering 900 BCE - 400 BCE; drawing on an oral tradition that may date back to 1100 BCE, or earlier.
    
  • Zephaniah - Most written between 640 and 609 BCE. Chapter 3, verses 14 - 20 added considerably later.
    
  • Leviticus - During the 400's BCE; but an earlier version likely existed in the 600's.
    
  • 1 Kings / 2 Kings - Originally one book. Compiled from the work of two unknown authors, one from around 609 BCE, the other from 550 BCE.
    
  • Deuteronomy - During the 600's BCE.
    
  • Habakkuk - Chapters 1 and 2 from 597 BCE, chapter 3 by a later unknown author.
    
  • Exodus - Around 550 BCE.
    
  • Lamentations - From the Exile period (586 - 538 BCE). Chapters 1-4 are by the same unknown author; with Chapter 5 likely by a second person.
    
  • Isaiah - Isaiah (56-66) shortly after the end of the exile in 538 BCE.
    
  • Isaiah - 2 Isaiah (40-59) 539 BCE,
    
  • Numbers - During the 500's BCE.
    
  • 1 Chronicles / 2 Chronicles / Ezra / Nehemiah - Originally one book written by an unknown author in 300 BCE.
    

 

[*]OLD TESTAMENT http://www.reasoned.org/kj/dates.htm

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Kath]

 

The question for the study was, "Do churches create prejudiced people?" The data suggests that they don't. The more frequently people come to church the less prejudiced they are. Yes, the people who come only once or twice per month are the most prejudiced. The people who participated more than 11x per month were less prejudiced than even those who had never attended church. If churches create prejudice one would think that the more one attended church the more prejudiced one would become but prejudice decreases with frequency. These are gross data without any nuances.

 

Taking a 'study' such as that at face value would suggest that you know who did the study, whether or not there was an agenda, or if those conducting the study kept accurate records, and if they used the same subjects in the 40's 50's and 60's. Therefore, I can't consider this as a credible study. To say these are gross data without any nuances, is to make an assumption which may or may not be true.

 

 

Words and books can be influential but these days I don't think there is anyone who could read the Bible naively, and so, it isn't what the Bible brings to us, but who brings us the Bible.

 

 

I am also going to have to majorly disagree with that statement, as you might imagine. You can draw your own conclusions, of course, but there are many, many people who read the bible not only with naivete, but rely on other people in many cases to interpret it for them.

 

I once had a friend who took his chldren to church on Sunday in the morning and then in the evening. He wasn't raised a Christian, but was indoctrinated by his wife. She made the statement once that if God wanted people to have pierced ears, we would have been born with them. Anyway, I had just read the DaVinci Code and was discussing Mary Magdalene and asked him whether or not he thought she was actually one of the disciples in the painting of the Last Supper. He became furious because he thought Mary Mag and Mary, the mother of Jesus were one and the same. Another time he began to cry when his father showed signs of passing because he was afraid he wouldn't go to heaven (since he wasn't a Christian)...

 

The fact that the bible is so ambiguous, poorly (and it seems hastily) compiled, and full of fire and brimstone makes it a very difficult book for the average person to digest. Therefore, one is pretty much on their own, with their own experiences and guidance and yes, I'd say more than most go into it with extreme naivete.

 

Also, their children were raised to absolutely take the bible literally and actually looked down on other people who were not Christian as being somehow 'uninformed' and naturally, "unsaved and special"

 

Kath

[GeorgeW]

I would like to see a Bible written in the order it was written and having the prophets included in the history where appropriate, in their context. I would like to see included in this "historical account/narrative" our best knowledge about the bigger context for the development of ideas and changes in theology such as

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

 

Yes indeed. That would be very helpful and should include the New Testament as well. I suspect many would be surprised to learn that Paul would be first (at least the authentic Pauline letters).

 

In real estate they say, 'location, location, location.' In Bible study it should be 'context, context, context.'

 

George

[NORM]

The fact that the bible is so ambiguous, poorly (and it seems hastily) compiled, and full of fire and brimstone makes it a very difficult book for the average person to digest. Therefore, one is pretty much on their own, with their own experiences and guidance and yes, I'd say more than most go into it with extreme naivete.

 

I would go a bit further and make the statement that the majority of Biblical Idolaters have never read the ENTIRE thing! Try to make it through Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers without experiencing mind freeze.

 

My parents thought it would be a good idea to read the Bible from cover to cover every year. KING JAMES version, to boot! I was the only kid in the first grade who could not only spell the word circumcision, but use it in a sentence!

 

Christians parents: this is a BAD idea. If you want to guarantee that your children will continue to be Christians for their entire life, make absolutely certain that they DO NOT read the whole Bible! Better yet, see to it that they learn the faith from a volunteer Sunday School teacher (who also has never read the Bible from cover to cover) who has no formal pedagogical training and derives the lesson plan from a publication called Gospel Light, Good News Lesson Plans, Jumpin' Jesus Jubilee or some such.

 

NORM

[glintofpewter]

but there are many, many people who read the bible not only with naivete, but rely on other people in many cases to interpret it for them.

Exactly.

 

I just don't like categorical statements. I think we demonize the "enemy". The Ranting Fundy Atheists deserve the Ranting Fundy Xians.

 

When I worked for a retailer who imported their own merchandise The buyers would tell us managers about incoming describe merchandise. We would ask how many. They replied with, "a few" or "several" or "lots" etc. The joke was that we knew exactly how many each word referred to.

 

So Kath, how much is "many, many"? Many² ? Is there a reliable study to support that number?

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Kath]

Exactly.

 

I just don't like categorical statements. I think we demonize the "enemy". The Ranting Fundy Atheists deserve the Ranting Fundy Xians.

 

When I worked for a retailer who imported their own merchandise The buyers would tell us managers about incoming describe merchandise. We would ask how many. They replied with, "a few" or "several" or "lots" etc. The joke was that we knew exactly how many each word referred to.

 

So Kath, how much is "many, many"? Many² ? Is there a reliable study to support that number?

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

 

Billions and Billions! (think Carl Sagan). BTW, what categorical statement did I make?

 

Kath

[glintofpewter]

Oops, I forgot to clarify - I use the word "naive" idiosyncratically. When I use naive, but not naivete, I mean that one has no prior knowledge and no context for what one is about to experience. In this sense I don't think there is anyone on the planet who could read the Bible without a prior idea about it. Certainly people do read it with naivete. A friend insisted that if God had written the Bible then that meant my friend could understand it without any help. And if the Bible was not 100% true then Jesus did not exist.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Kath]

In this sense I don't think there is anyone on the planet who could read the Bible without a prior idea about it.

 

Dutch

 

Not sure I'm following ya, Dutch. There are young children who might be reading the bible without a prior idea about it. I was one of those children. But what significance that has, I'm not sure. What exactly do you mean by prior idea? I remember trying to get through Genesis and all the begats and lost interest. Then later as an adult, still had no prior idea about it other than it was supposed to be the book to read, learn and follow. It confused me then. Much later, after joining a PC church to finally try to get my feet planted and find out what all the esoterics knew, I found instead much hypricocy and misunderstandings of the bible. I don't see that a prior idea about the bible in general other than it's supposedly being the 'word of God' could prevent people from forming other opinions once they read it.

 

Am I making sense? (not sure I am to me )

 

Kath

[glintofpewter]

Who gave you a Bible, Kath?

 

take Care

 

Dutch

[Kath]

Who gave you a Bible, Kath?

 

take Care

 

Dutch

 

I'm pretty sure I walked into a church and picked one up. Must've been divine inspiration What is the point of your question? would you mind answering my other questions?

Thanks.

 

Kath

[glintofpewter]

By asking who gave you the Bible,Kath, I am getting at the question of whether you were naive when you started reading the Bible? Even if you just found it the forest, it is hard for me to believe that you had never heard of it. If you had never heard of it and had never heard of the book of Genesis then perhaps you were naive.

 

Categorical: You seem to be absolutely positive that the world would be a better place if Bible was eliminated from the face of the earth and history.

 

To say that there is no one on the planet that has no prior (something that they have already experienced or been told) knowledge or exposure to the Bible is a categorical statement - mine.

 

other than it was supposed to be the book to read, learn and follow

I can't believe that this doesn't influence what you expect and how you read the Bible. Maybe you were disappointed, maybe you wished that someone was there to help you. I am only guessing. When I read the Davinci Code, I did have prior knowledge so, besides the fact that I think it is poorly written, I had prior knowledge that told me that some of the historical references were made in ignorance, perhaps purposefully. Examples: That the characters did not know that Leonardo wrote in mirror writing is unbelievable and that the plot relies on a document that is a patent forgery, knowledge of which has been available for years is a grasping for readership at the very least. The good that followed the publication of this book is that lots of people read the Gospel of Thomas and other books excluded from the canon.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Kath]

By asking who gave you the Bible,Kath, I am getting at the question of whether you were naive when you started reading the Bible? Even if you just found it the forest, it is hard for me to believe that you had never heard of it. If you had never heard of it and had never heard of the book of Genesis then perhaps you were naive.

 

Yes, I was naive as I'm sure billions and billions of others were when they first picked up the bible. I still don't get your point, so why don't we move away from this.

 

Categorical: You seem to be absolutely positive that the world would be a better place if Bible was eliminated from the face of the earth and history.

 

To say that there is no one on the planet that has no prior (something that they have already experienced or been told) knowledge or exposure to the Bible is a categorical statement - mine. I don't believe I said that on one on the planet has or had prior (yes, thanks, I know what 'prior' means ) has had prior knowledge. This is where problems occur in debate.

 

I can't believe that this doesn't influence what you expect and how you read the Bible. Maybe you were disappointed, maybe you wished that someone was there to help you. I am only guessing. When I read the Davinci Code, I did have prior knowledge so, besides the fact that I think it is poorly written, I had prior knowledge that told me that some of the historical references were made in ignorance, perhaps purposefully. Examples: That the characters did not know that Leonardo wrote in mirror writing is unbelievable and that the plot relies on a document that is a patent forgery, knowledge of which has been available for years is a grasping for readership at the very least. The good that followed the publication of this book is that lots of people read the Gospel of Thomas and other books excluded from the canon.

 

While I appreciate your book review on the DaVinci Code, I will only comment to say that it made me realize (naive as I was ) that there were other gospels which didn't make it into the bible, which opened my eyes wider than ever and led me to reading the Nag Hammadi Library and of course, Bishop Spong.

 

And I am sorry to disappoint you, but I had no expectations going in to reading the bible, as I'm sure many others did not. Someone could pick it up at a yard sale and be inspired by it or befuddled and turned off by it. That someone might be a teenager who was raised in a secular environment and picked it up out of curiosity, having heard it existed. Who cares? No, I wasn't disappointed, no I didn't wish there was someone to help me, sorry. You guessed wrong.

 

Again, you really seem hung up on this and I don't see the point. As Paul (McCartney) once said, "Let it Be".

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Nick the Nevermet]

Categorical: You seem to be absolutely positive that the world would be a better place if Bible was eliminated from the face of the earth and history.

 

To say that there is no one on the planet that has no prior (something that they have already experienced or been told) knowledge or exposure to the Bible is a categorical statement - mine.

I don't believe I said that on one on the planet has or had prior (yes, thanks, I know what 'prior' means ) has had prior knowledge. This is where problems occur in debate.

 

Kath,

 

For me, the problem in this debate, or at least one of the places where things started to get heated, is the comment by Dutch that I put in bold. From what I can tell, you do seem to believe that the Bible as we know it is a force for evil/corruption/oppression/etc in the world, which is both a causal and categorical statement.

 

Do you agree with that statement?

[Neon Genesis]

There have been attempts by Christians in the past to cherry pick the parts of the bible they like and jettison the parts they don't like. The Gnostics saw the entire OT as the product of an evil false god and they created gospels with their own preferred messages yet in many ways, the Gnostics were more dogmatic than the orthodox church. Like the Gnostics believed all sexual acts were sinful, even within heterosexual marriage, and believed physical pleasure was sinful. In this regard, the orthodox church was more progressive than the Gnostics as they at least allowed sex within marriage. In more recent times, Thomas Jefferson tried to create a bible that removed all the miracles of Jesus and any references to his divinity yet Thomas Jefferson was still racist and had no problems owning slaves. So if getting rid of the bad parts in the bible is supposed to somehow make the world a better place, it didn't work for those individuals.