The Bible, Benefit Or Harm

[Kath]

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?

 

Nick,

 

Let me reiterate, if I can, my initial thought process without having to retrace everything I have written.

 

I do, categorically, believe that the bible as we know it IS a force for evil/corruption/oppression/etc in the world.

 

I also acknowledge that some people can take from it those passages which can be spiritually uplifting and benevolent. However, I feel that they can be found in other books which do not share the fire and brimstone, scare straight, hate, and potential to influence people to adjust their mindset and carry out acts of evil upon others.

 

This is not to say that people can't of course, bring their mindset to the bible and use it as an excuse to carry out evil acts. But it most definitely does have an influence on people either way.

 

This is the BIBLE we're talking about. The BIIIII---BLE. No ordinary book. No ordinary circulation number among literature. The IT book. By sheer numbers alone, you can expect centuries of wars, crimes, prejudices, stoning, torturing in the name of this one book.

 

Do we really need a book to reference from our own interpretations in order to justify murder in the name of God? Do we really have to take the bad with the good because it is a historical book and might make some people warm and cozy reading it?

 

There are too many 'evil' acts comitted in the name of the bible and yes, if were privy to vote on whether or not it should exist, I would vote, NO.

 

I'm not trying to change any minds, it's just my opinion. I believe I am entitled to it.

 

Kath

[Kath]

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.

 

Hello, Neon~

 

I don't know who it was that said that getting rid of the 'bad' parts of the bible would make the world a better place. It was not me.

 

This discussion, as far as I'm concerned anyway, is not about cherry picking the bible. I believe the first cut was made by the Council of Nicea. After that, it was what it was.

 

It's a highly flawed, scribally altered, ambiguous, highly interpretive, influential book. I don't think it should be altered.

 

I think it should be eliminated. But that won't happen.

 

Kath

[glintofpewter]

I think it should be eliminated. But that won't happen.

 

Enough said.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

Kath,

If it were even possible to eliminate by vote , what other book or books should be next in line for censorship?

Joseph

[Kath]

Kath,

If it were even possible to eliminate by vote , what other book or books should be next in line for censorship?

Joseph

 

 

Hi Joseph,

 

I really have to watch my wording here

 

I'm not for censoring any books at all. I would never be part of a group designated to impose my thoughts and opinions on others.

 

So, please disregard the word, "vote". Substitute it for the phrase, "if I had my druthers".

 

But in answer to your question irregardless of the word 'censorship', I would have to be familiar with those books and take them on an individual basis to determine if they have the same influence that the bible does with regard to the level of potential harm it can cause others.

 

I realize that this is a Progressive Christian forum and that without the bible, most people would not have even known about Jesus. That is, until the other gospels had been uncovered and circulated.

 

As I wrote in another post, since the bible is here to stay, I'd love to see it become a book of religious study.

 

It would be very interesting to sell the original bible and the new book (which eliminates nothing from the bible, yet incorporates sections of scholarly 'opinions' and give alternate meanings to the scriptures so that everything in the bible wouldn't be taken so literally) side by side and see which sells better..

 

Kath

[JosephM]

Kath,

Thanks for the clarification. I am on my way back from Louisiana and have been enjoying the discussion here. (My brother is driving of course)

Joseph

[Kath]

Kath,

Thanks for the clarification. I am on my way back from Louisiana and have been enjoying the discussion here. (My brother is driving of course)

Joseph

 

Joseph, I'm happy you are enjoying it. I really like how this forum works and the people here are very good debaters. Respectful yet challenging.

 

Have a safe trip!

 

Kath

[Nick the Nevermet]

Nick,

 

Let me reiterate, if I can, my initial thought process without having to retrace everything I have written.

 

I do, categorically, believe that the bible as we know it IS a force for evil/corruption/oppression/etc in the world.

 

<snip for space>

 

I'm not trying to change any minds, it's just my opinion. I believe I am entitled to it.

 

Kath

 

Fair enough, and thank you for answering my question.

[Kath]

Fair enough, and thank you for answering my question.

 

yavelcom.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

It's a highly flawed, scribally altered, ambiguous, highly interpretive, influential book. I don't think it should be altered.

 

I think it should be eliminated. But that won't happen.

 

Kath

Getting rid of the bible didn't stop communism from committing its immoral actions even though the communist countries were militant atheist regimes. If we're judging the value of the bible based on body count here, communism has killed far more people than Christianity has ever had. The American government has committed dozens of immoral actions in the name of patriotism like the Iraq war, the slaughter of the Native Americans, the Japanese WWII interment camps, etc. I guess this means we should get rid of America too.

[NORM]

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.

 

Hi Neon,

 

You are absolutely right. The Gnostics have somehow become a cause célèbre these days in Biblical Scholarship. I've read most of them and agree with you - they are horribly sexist and weirdly platonic. But, so is the document that survived. I don't really view homophobic writing in levels of offensiveness. It's all offensive.

 

However, given your next paragraph, I would concede that there is an evolution toward the progressive in that a more "enlightened" sexual repression is evident in the finally constituted Holy Bible.

 

 

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.

 

Thomas Jefferson did indeed own slaves. I don't see how that has anything to do with his wanting to extricate the Bible of miracles and "nonsense." He wasn't necessarily concerned with the cruelty of the Bible; just the absurd fairy tales.

 

Evolution is a step forward. It is not always a sprint. Often it is a baby step. That's just the way evolution works. The important thing is to keep our minds open to change.

 

Michel de Montaigne, in his essay on hypocrisy, said:

 

Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.

 

By making a book Holy, the ideas and moral standards remain forever unchanging. To me, that's the problem I have with the Bible. If it were seen as just another book of fables and quaint religious writings, there would be no one worshiping it and killing in it's name. No one goes to war over the Acts of Achilles.

 

NORM

[Kath]

Getting rid of the bible didn't stop communism from committing its immoral actions even though the communist countries were militant atheist regimes. If we're judging the value of the bible based on body count here, communism has killed far more people than Christianity has ever had. The American government has committed dozens of immoral actions in the name of patriotism like the Iraq war, the slaughter of the Native Americans, the Japanese WWII interment camps, etc. I guess this means we should get rid of America too.

 

hmmm, well, since America is founded on biblical Christian principles, you might want to think that through a tad.

 

I didn't say that getting rid of the bible would eradicate other sources of atrocities in the world. The bible is here to stay, I'm sure. You're response assures me of that.

 

You say, "getting rid of the bible didn't stop communism...etc. etc......."

 

When did we get rid of the bible? And, how many people have communism murdered compared to those murdered in the name of Christianity? Also, are all communists Atheists? Are Atheists murders?

[Kath]

"....The American government has committed dozens of immoral actions in the name of patriotism .."

 

 

In the name of 'patriotism' they may want to call it. But in fact,

 

Conquest of the Americas

From the very first contact with Europeans in what would be called New Spain, Native Americans were compelled to become Christians or face death. Historian Howard Zinn, in his People’s History of the United States, cites examples from Columbus to Cotton Mather in Puritan New England. Native beliefs were forced underground but were never entirely eradicated.

 

 

 

Read more at Suite101: Christianity's Violent Past http://www.suite101.com/content/christianitys-violent-past-a250210#ixzz1Hft2BZ8K

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson did indeed own slaves. I don't see how that has anything to do with his wanting to extricate the Bible of miracles and "nonsense." He wasn't necessarily concerned with the cruelty of the Bible; just the absurd fairy tales.

 

 

 

The point is that getting rid of the nasty parts of the bible didn't make Thomas Jefferson a perfectly moral person or get rid of his own biased prejudices. This shows the problem is not solely just with the bible but with people and what people do with the bible.

 

hmmm, well, since America is founded on biblical Christian principles, you might want to think that through a tad.

America was not founded on biblical principles. The first amendment and separation of church and state explicitly forbid using religious principles to make laws. Contrary to the lies of the fundamentalist theocrats, the Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, George Washington, and John Adams were not devout Christians but anti-religious deists. Even the Southern Baptists were supportive of the separation of church and state at the time because they wanted government to stay out of religion and they were escaping from a tyrannical theocratic state in England.

[Kath]

The point is that getting rid of the nasty parts of the bible didn't make Thomas Jefferson a perfectly moral person or get rid of his own biased prejudices. This shows the problem is not solely just with the bible but with people and what people do with the bible.

 

America was not founded on biblical principles. The first amendment and separation of church and state explicitly forbid using religious principles to make laws. Contrary to the lies of the fundamentalist theocrats, the Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, George Washington, and John Adams were not devout Christians but anti-religious deists. Even the Southern Baptists were supportive of the separation of church and state at the time because they wanted government to stay out of religion and they were escaping from a tyrannical theocratic state in England.

 

 

You might want to inform George Bush.

[Neon Genesis]

George Bush was not a Founding Father nor is everything he ever said factually true last I checked.

[Kath]

".....The point is that getting rid of the nasty parts of the bible didn't make Thomas Jefferson a perfectly moral person or get rid of his own biased prejudices. This shows the problem is not solely just with the bible but with people and what people do with the bible..."

 

You obviously haven't read all my posts.

 

A. No one got rid of the nasty parts of the bible.

 

B. You obviously haven't read all my posts.

 

C. Our discussion is going nowhere.

[Neon Genesis]

How do you define "getting rid" of it? Will you not be satisfied until we burn every bible and ban Christianity completely?

[GeorgeW]

Getting rid of the bible didn't stop communism from committing its immoral actions even though the communist countries were militant atheist regimes. If we're judging the value of the bible based on body count here, communism has killed far more people than Christianity has ever had.

 

Exactly. Pol Pot, a communist raised in a Buddhist milieu, alone massacred around 2 million of his own people. Then we have Mao and Stalin. Christians have Hitler. Muslims have Saddam. Aggressive war predates institutional religion. Even a cursory review of the evidence shows no correlation between the Bible and heinous behavior.

 

If immoral behavior occurs with religious people of various stripes as well as secular people, just maybe there is a another or other common factors. It would be much more productive to identify and deal those factors than to make one book, one religion or religion generally the culprit.

 

George

[BillM]

You can water down the message of Jesus all you want. Just don't mess with the magic!

 

Ouch!

 

Personally, I believe in a creation that just is. It isn't good, perfect, corrupt, fallen, bad, sinful, whatever... It just IS. I still sense that there is an intelligence behind the beginnings, but it doesn't ultimately matter what I think. I exert my efforts in trying to enjoy my days on this rock and making it a little better off for having me around.

 

That's pretty much my POV also, Norm. Don't get me wrong, I am in awe of nature. When I went to NASA and saw "The Universe" in 3D, I cried through much of it, it was too beautiful for words. But the same Beauty that produced/produces life also gives us decay and death. It seems to be a package deal.

 

The Bible gives us this portrait of a perfect creation that falls and then needs redemption. To me, this is a very Greek notion. I tend to see creation as evolving, not as being redeemed (even if I do use the language occasionally). Because I don't hold to a literal "good" creation myth, I don't have to try to explain the problem of theodicy, why a good God would allow pain and death in this universe. To me, God is "good" in that creation has led us to this point where it can know and somewhat understand itself, even crying at its own beauty. But God is not "good" as to God's supposed agenda is to protect each and every person from harm, decay, and death. *We* have much more influence over the quality of our lives than some kind of supernatural intervention.

 

So I thank God for humanism.

[Kath]

How do you define "getting rid" of it? Will you not be satisfied until we burn every bible and ban Christianity completely?

 

You see, this is where things become distorted and ugly. If you read everything I have written and actually understood what I was saying you wouldn't be so reactive. Did I once say the bible should be burned? Did I once say we should ban Christianity?

 

Don't try to make something out of nothing, Neon.

 

This conversation is over.

[NORM]

The point is that getting rid of the nasty parts of the bible didn't make Thomas Jefferson a perfectly moral person or get rid of his own biased prejudices. This shows the problem is not solely just with the bible but with people and what people do with the bible.

 

Yes, this is exactly my point. For some reason, you don't seem to see that. You want to imagine that Kath and I believe that an inanimate object - namely; The Bible, - in, and of itself is responsible for all evil. This is NOT what we are saying.

 

So, for the last time, here is what we are saying in as plain language as I (a professional writer) can muster:

 

1. The Bible has been made into a supernatural Holy Book by its followers.

2. Because of this (see 1 above), the words MUST be obeyed be they good, bad or indifferent. That means that not only are they compelled to "love their neighbor as themselves," they are also compelled to "bring [their] rebellious children to the city gates that they may be stoned to death."

3. Beyond that, the Bible makes certain assumptions regarding the use of slaves (it's OK), the subordination of women (it's godly to do so), the obliteration of all people-groups who do not worship the G-d of the Bible (men, women, children, goats, pigs, chickens and bunny rabbits) and homosexuals (an abomination to G-d).

 

Now, just so it is abundantly clear: when I say Bible, I don't mean just the physical presence of it. I mean the totality of what the capitalized word means with all of its concomitant consequences. Further, without the supposed supernatural attributes associated with that meaning, it is just another leather-bound library fixture.

 

To summarize:

 

A. Bible as just another book written by men = OK

B. Bible as Holy Book written by the hand of G-d = Not OK.

 

Does that make my meaning clearer? I don't want to speak for Kath, but I believe this is what she is trying to communicate as well. Given some of your other posts in this Fora, I surmise that you would actually agree.

 

 

America was not founded on biblical principles. The first amendment and separation of church and state explicitly forbid using religious principles to make laws. Contrary to the lies of the fundamentalist theocrats, the Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, George Washington, and John Adams were not devout Christians but anti-religious deists. Even the Southern Baptists were supportive of the separation of church and state at the time because they wanted government to stay out of religion and they were escaping from a tyrannical theocratic state in England.

 

This is all mostly true (I wouldn't call them anti-religious), but I don't see how that undermines my argument.

 

NORM

[NORM]

Even a cursory review of the evidence shows no correlation between the Bible and heinous behavior.

 

Again, it's not the Bible alone. It's the Bible as a divinely inspired, worshiped and infallible Holy Book.

 

NORM

[NORM]

Don't get me wrong, I am in awe of nature. When I went to NASA and saw "The Universe" in 3D, I cried through much of it, it was too beautiful for words. But the same Beauty that produced/produces life also gives us decay and death. It seems to be a package deal.

 

Nicely stated.

 

I recall seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time. We traveled with our Great Aunt who had converted from Baptist to Catholic. When she beheld the sight before us, she began to sing the hymn How Great Thou Art. Before she finished the first stanza, nearly the entire platform was singing. It was a moving scene, and one that is embedded into my psyche to this day.

 

Later in life, I left the Christian Church and embraced my Jewish half. This awe of creation is foremost in Judaic expression. However, unlike my Christian brethren, the Jews (at least some that I know) believe that G-d is also the author of all that is evil in the world, having created everything. Therefore, it falls upon us all to join forces with G-d to redeem the planet before The World to Come can be realized.

 

Now, of course, my thinking is in line with your post above. I believe that the bad stuff is just part of the package deal. It is neither good, nor bad, evil or holy. There is no divine purpose to suffering, as I've witnessed in horror some well-meaning Christian try to use as a comfort to those grieving the loss of a loved one.

 

 

The Bible gives us this portrait of a perfect creation that falls and then needs redemption. To me, this is a very Greek notion. I tend to see creation as evolving, not as being redeemed (even if I do use the language occasionally). Because I don't hold to a literal "good" creation myth, I don't have to try to explain the problem of theodicy, why a good God would allow pain and death in this universe. To me, God is "good" in that creation has led us to this point where it can know and somewhat understand itself, even crying at its own beauty. But God is not "good" as to God's supposed agenda is to protect each and every person from harm, decay, and death. *We* have much more influence over the quality of our lives than some kind of supernatural intervention.

 

So I thank God for humanism.

 

I echo these sentiments. Although, I would use the word theo-idiocy.

 

NORM

[Neon Genesis]

You see, this is where things become distorted and ugly. If you read everything I have written and actually understood what I was saying you wouldn't be so reactive. Did I once say the bible should be burned? Did I once say we should ban Christianity?

 

Don't try to make something out of nothing, Neon.

 

This conversation is over.

You keep saying we should get rid of the bible but have yet to present any feasible solutions as to how this should be done. If not through force, then how should this be done? Magic? Evangelizing?