What Good is the Bible

[TraneWreck]

You've never had a wobbly table?

ETA: Blasted Lanzy.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

It's a convenient doorstop.

I've heard they make good rolling paper

Thuddy spanking implement when one feels the need to swat an ass, and nothing else is available in the hotel room (thank you gideons)

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Once when I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy, I was giving a guy ultrasound treatments to break up a ganglion, in this case a swollen jumble of nerve cells, not to be confused with the ordinary functional ganglia in the nervous system. The doctor who ordered the treatment told me that in the old days the cells were dispersed in a rather ungentle manner, namely that the doctor would clobber the ganglion with a large relatively heavy object - usually, particularly in frontier households, the family Bible. Hence, it was called the "Bible cure."

So, you see, there is - or at least was - a use for the Bible.

I've seen this done. It works, on a temporary basis. Once the inflamed joint capsule is torn open, the extra synovial fluid is able to disperse and be absorbed. As soon as the joint capsule heals again, the ganglion cyst usually returns. Not a lot of good treatments for them though, and certainly few that take so little equipment.

 

[HansMustermann]

Could you reference me something on that please?

Certainly. For example here you can find a pretty good summary of it and the arguments used:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/sierichs_13_3.htm

Apparently for some it was even a divine duty to defend slavery and oppose the abolitionism as "atheism".

I'd say at the very least, those morals that include not owning people weren't that obvious in the bible, if you wish to claim they came from the Bible, since really there was no shortage of ministers reading it the other way around. It seems to me that generally everyone found in it the morals they already had, and the keyword is: already.

ETA: have a couple more:

http://randiss.blogspot.com/2009/07/christianity-and-abolitionist-movement_09.html

http://randiss.blogspot.com/2009/07/christianity-and-abolitionist-movement_12.html

http://randiss.blogspot.com/2009/07/christianity-and-abolitionist-movement_15.html

 

[blutoski]

This is an idea that occurred to me reading and commenting on the slavery thread. The only time you would really need the Bible to justify anything is if you wanted to do something immoral. You don't need a Bible to justify being nice to people, not owning slaves, not engaging in sex acts with minors, not taking their stuff... In our present society the immorality of these things is self evident. So, we're left with not needing the Bible for moral guidance unless we want to do something that is self evidently immoral to most people.

I think that's a dubious claim.

For example, our society seems much more cavalier about war than the Amish are.

Anabaptists like the Amish, Hutterites, Dukhabours &c cite the Bible to explain why they're refusing to take up arms against their fellow men.

Or are you including pacifism as 'immoral'?

 

[blutoski]

I don't think people who claim to get their morals from the Bible really do so.

They get their morals from the same place as everyone else. They just don't realize it.

Morality is a complex interaction of societal expectations, innate human concepts, and the need to justify past actions.

But, to unravel how this all plays out gets rather complicated. So, the human mind will often like to think that there must be an Ultimate Source for where morality comes from.

Saying "Do this because The Book says so" is a lot easier than "Do this because the emergent behavior of human societies has lead us to think this is the best course of action for our own health and self-interests and such like that; though it could change as these factors continue to evolve."

That is what the Bible is "good" for.

Agreed.

Anybody who's taken even an introductory course in morals/ethics (this would be in the philosophy dpt) is drilled with the fact that within this field, there are no 'religious' morals or ethics. At least, nothing formal enough to be taken seriously.

The basic Abrahamic moral code is: "Whatever God says is right is the definition of right. Today it could be murder. Tomorrow it will be pacifism. Whatever."

 

[blutoski]

I also think that people in the past started questioning these biblical ethics, even when in danger of being persecuted or worse by authoritative figures. For example, medieval times.

Hard to say, because your statement is a bit sweeping. What period are you talking about?

My personal opinion is that at the timeframes where each segment of the Abrahamic Bible books were composed, they were probably progressive. ie: the people originally citing the Bible would have been bucking the trend, but toward our modern position.

I think these books have fallen behind the secular standard more or less recently.

For example, the 1st Century Christian Sermon-On-The-Mount ideals of pacifism, generosity to the poor, forgiveness of enemies, or even caring for lepers, were pretty unpopular within the Judean kingdom / Roman Empire. But not because they were reactionary: they were too progressive.

 

[SatanicSheep]

I always thought the whole 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a pretty darn good rule of thumb.

I don't want done unto me what I do unto my girlfriend.

 

[MG1962]

Certainly. For example here you can find a pretty good summary of it and the arguments used:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/sierichs_13_3.htm

Apparently for some it was even a divine duty to defend slavery and oppose the abolitionism as "atheism".

I'd say at the very least, those morals that include not owning people weren't that obvious in the bible, if you wish to claim they came from the Bible, since really there was no shortage of ministers reading it the other way around. It seems to me that generally everyone found in it the morals they already had, and the keyword is: already.

ETA: have a couple more:

http://randiss.blogspot.com/2009/07/christianity-and-abolitionist-movement_09.html

http://randiss.blogspot.com/2009/07/christianity-and-abolitionist-movement_12.html

http://randiss.blogspot.com/2009/07/christianity-and-abolitionist-movement_15.html

Ahh I see where you went wrong. I would start with William Wilberforce and follow the bread crumbs

 

[154]

Exactly, and this is why the bible mentions homosexuality maybe three times, yet evangelical Christians seem to think it's God's number 1 concern.

Really? What makes you think that?

I hardly think of homosexuals or homosexuality much at all until I come back to a place like this. If and when and where it's a point of consideration and discussion, I'll consider and discuss it. I'll respond, but I'm not, and we don't, initiate anything against gays. But you insist on portraying it otherwise.

I think you would agree and call me an evangelical here. You may have noticed that I speak of God a lot.. I defy you to show me my posts, or those of any Christian here, that somehow even come close to your typical dishonest mischaracterization that make it "seem to think it's God's number 1 concern."

Why is it so important to you to oppose Christians and Jesus Christ that such false portrayal seems good and fair to you?
You easily accuse they, them, but here I am, I'm they, I'm them, and what you say is simply not true.

You don't selfishness or excess showing up on too many ballot initiatives.

What do you mean by this?

 

[154]

<snipped to distill> This is an idea that occurred to me... You don't need a Bible... So, we're left with not needing the Bible.

That's all you really had to say. It's really all you always say anyway. It's your constant assertion. It's your constant concern. It's certainly your advocated conclusion. Sounds like you're getting close to persuading yourself.

...treat it as literature...

By this you mean?

 

[Resume]

I hardly think of homosexuals or homosexuality much at all until I come back to a place like this. If and when and where it's a point of consideration and discussion, I'll consider and discuss it. I'll respond, but I'm not, and we don't, initiate anything against gays.

Who's this we?

 

[I Ratant]

I think that's a dubious claim.

For example, our society seems much more cavalier about war than the Amish are.

Anabaptists like the Amish, Hutterites, Dukhabours &c cite the Bible to explain why they're refusing to take up arms against their fellow men.

Or are you including pacifism as 'immoral'?

.
History has a word for those that refuse to defend themselves.
Slaves.
The afore-mentioned sects rely on the rest of the nation to keep the enemy from their doors.
If push came to shove, I wonder how pacifistic they might be?

 

[I Ratant]

...
The basic Abrahamic moral code is: "Whatever God says is right is the definition of right. Today it could be murder. Tomorrow it will be pacifism. Whatever."

.
Shouldn't that be ""Whatever I say God says is right is the definition of right. Today it could be murder. Tomorrow it will be pacifism. Whatever."
.
As the silence from on high is universal, the human interpreters do the damage.

 

[I Ratant]

... I defy you to show me my posts, or those of any Christian here, that somehow even come close to your typical dishonest mischaracterization that make it "seem to think it's God's number 1 concern."

...

As god is universally silent on everything, it's those that take on the role of god's mouthpiece that dwell excessively on homosexuality.
God himself is silent.
Only the loonies with the 800 numbers, on Sunday morning tv seem to upset by sexual orientations.
People who say they hear god, need rubber rooms and lots of medication.

 

[154]

Who's this we?

The evil they them fundamentalist evangelical right-wing ultra conservative Xian extremist wingnutards, of course...

...that dwell excessively on homosexuality.

Who are such excessive dwellers?

 

[gph]

I always thought the whole 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a pretty darn good rule of thumb.

It's not bad but it relies on your idea of being well treated. Some people like being abused.

Paraphrased: "Do unto other as they wish to be treated" is, I think, an ancient Chinese idea that covers that weakness in the Jewish tradition.

 

[dio]

I always thought the whole 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a pretty darn good rule of thumb.

.
Most every culture on the planet runs starts at that square.
It was law before there were Hebrews.

So, like, it really is from God, then?

I don't want done unto me what I do unto my girlfriend.

This is a classic misuse of the rule.
It is not the disgusting details of what you do to your girlfriend that the rule is about, but the fact that she enjoys it (or she wouldn't be your girlfriend).
So there it is, you please her, she pleases you (of course the details differ since you are opposite sexes).
The rule stands.

 

[154]

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be read. It should only be read for the reasons you stated. I'm just saying it's of no moral value for someone living today.

What are the only reasons The Bible should be read?
What are the reasons The Bible should not be read?

Of what else have you and do you declare to be "of no moral value for someone living today"?
List them please.

 

[Resume]

The evil they them fundamentalist evangelical right-wing ultra conservative Xian extremist wingnutards, of course...

I think you're slighting pentecostalists and conservative catholics by omission.