The good book?

[Dave Ellis]

Wisdom.

He who has not read Proverbs, is far less the wise for it than if he had.

I've read the Bible cover to cover, there's some good advice in there, and some not so good advice. Nothing is mind shatteringly impressive though.

 

[Gottservant]

I've read the Bible cover to cover, there's some good advice in there, and some not so good advice. Nothing is mind shatteringly impressive though.

I don't need to excuse the Bible. If you don't remember anything, but go the extra mile, the extra mile alone you will go. If you don't remember anything but turn the other cheek, the other cheek you will turn alone. These things were told to you that you might live, if you want to keep it to yourself, you will live by yourself.

There will be more than enough people in future who will call the Bible impressive, without someone complaining that they don't like some of the advice it gives needing to be remembered.

 

[korvus]

Taking it into a (hopefully) undeterred perspective, the Bible is just it: The Bible.

It's made up of many books on a large range of topics, such as wisdom, love, statistics, accounts, letters, etc.

There are many opinions and facts and (depending on your views) truths that are presented from the perspective from which they were written. I don't believe that the Bible is 100% perfect as it was compiled by councils of >men< and put together depending on what they at the time agreed with, etc.

For me, there are a lot of good parts (Proverbs, Psalms, Songs of Solomon) that get into all the good wisdom and love bits, but of course there are the books such as Numbers and Deuteronomy that contain the various laws of the Jews and the like which can appear as cold and demanding.

It's hard to say, but I wouldn't call it the 'good book', despite it having some good parts here and there. I'd just call it the 'word' or 'the bible' as it's more normally called.

 

[JGL53]

I think the Jeffersonian bible is OK. Other than that - not so much.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't need to excuse the Bible. If you don't remember anything, but go the extra mile, the extra mile alone you will go. If you don't remember anything but turn the other cheek, the other cheek you will turn alone. These things were told to you that you might live, if you want to keep it to yourself, you will live by yourself.

There will be more than enough people in future who will call the Bible impressive, without someone complaining that they don't like some of the advice it gives needing to be remembered.

You missed the point. The point is for a book that claims to be divinely inspired, it would not be unreasonable to expect something unimaginably enlightened.

Instead it's a book with no original ideas that's pretty well in line with a first century take on morality and society.

 

[Elioenai26]

When I was a Christian (Anglican) I read the bible entirely (yes all the way through) at aged 13 and again when I was about 17 during my time in a Christian boarding school. I again made numerous attempts as a young adult but always gave up partway. Anyway it didn't matter to me about reading it entirely again as I believed it was the inspired word of God and I had read it entirely twice before. At least that was the reason I used to justify to myself why I stopped reading it. Now older with more wisdom I know why. Because I wasn't satisfied that is why. Everybody seemed to refer to it as the good book, but to me it was anything but. The best way to keep my faith was to actually avoid reading it and focus on the good parts my priest would choose for his sermons.

Anyway...

If you have read the bible entirely(honesty here please folks) what makes you conclude that the bible is a good book?

You essentially say that you stopped reading it because it had some sad or bad parts in it and that made it unsatisfying to you.

The question I have is: If a book came from God, why would you expect it not to have a record of the sad or bad in it? It seems to me that it would record the sad as well as the bad along with the happy and good about life. If it were a book from God, it would necessarily have to be a complete book, and of course we know that the book would not be complete if there were not therein recorded the good along with the bad.

 

[JGL53]

You essentially say that you stopped reading it because it had some sad or bad parts in it and that made it unsatisfying to you.

The question I have is: If a book came from God, why would you expect it not to have a record of the sad or bad in it? It seems to me that it would record the sad as well as the bad along with the happy and good about life. If it were a book from God, it would necessarily have to be a complete book, and of course we know that the book would not be complete if there were not therein recorded the good along with the bad.

Except some of the bad (actually a lot of it) is commanded by god. So the (in theory) all-good god does bad things.

That may be why many people read the bible and doubt its reputation of moral perfection.

 

[Elioenai26]

Except some of the bad (actually a lot of it) is commanded by god. So the (in theory) all-good god does bad things.

That may be why many people read the bible and doubt its reputation of moral perfection.

I am not aware of anything that God commanded that was bad. Are you?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am not aware of anything that God commanded that was bad. Are you?

How about orders to wipe out entire towns, murder the inhabitants and keep the virgin women as sex slaves?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I am not aware of anything that God commanded that was bad. Are you?

Stoning to death?

Deuteronomy 22-23-24 KJV

23 If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

 

[Elioenai26]

How about orders to wipe out entire towns, murder the inhabitants and keep the virgin women as sex slaves?

Do you have a specific passage in mind?

 

[Elioenai26]

Stoning to death?

Deuteronomy 22-23-24 KJV

23 If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Ok, now what is wrong with God putting into place certain laws and penalties for breaking those laws in a nation of people who He desires to be the paradigm of civil, righteous, and just harmonious living?

 

[quatona]

Ok, now what is wrong with God putting into place certain laws and penalties for breaking those laws in a nation of people who He desires to be the paradigm of civil, righteous, and just harmonious living?

Well, stoning people to death doesn´t sound like promoting the paradigms of harmonious living to me. To me it sounds like being concerned with the law being kept, more than it sounds like being concerned with harmony, civility, empathy, compassion, love etc.

Anyway, in case you are planning to pull the "God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants" card or your favourite "God determines what´s good and what´s bad - so who are you to..." script at any point your other arguments might fail, please do it right now. It could spare us all a lot of redundant discussion which at this point you are pretending to be willing to have.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Do you have a specific passage in mind?

1 Samuel 15:2-3 refers to God directly ordering the complete and total destruction of the amalekites, and killing everything in their civilization, including innocent livestock.

Numbers 31:1-18 says God ordered the killing of all the Midianites, except the virgin women who the soldiers were allowed to "keep for themselves".

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, stoning people to death doesn´t sound like promoting the paradigms of harmonious living to me. To me it sounds like being concerned with the law being kept, more than it sounds like being concerned with harmony, civility, empathy, compassion, love etc.

Anyway, in case you are planning to pull the "God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants" card or your favourite "God determines what´s good and what´s bad - so who are you to..." script at any point your other arguments might fail, please do it right now. It could spare us all a lot of redundant discussion which at this point you are pretending to be willing to have.

There can be no civility and harmony within a society without law.

 

[Elioenai26]

1 Samuel 15:2-3 refers to God directly ordering the complete and total destruction of the amalekites, and killing everything in their civilization, including innocent livestock.

Numbers 31:1-18 says God ordered the killing of all the Midianites, except the virgin women who the soldiers were allowed to "keep for themselves".

Ok, lets assume your paraphrases are accurate.

What is wrong with those commands?

 

[quatona]

There can be no civility and harmony within a society without law.

And stoning others to death would be among the first things that this law would have to prohibit - in order for this society to even only come close to something that deserves the term "civility" and "harmony".

 

[quatona]

Ok, lets assume your paraphrases are accurate.

What is wrong with those commands?

Applying your own paradigms: Nothing, of course. The picture painted there looks like an utopia of perfect harmony and civility.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There can be no civility and harmony within a society without law.

There can be no civility and harmony within a society without civil and harmonious law.

Stoning people to death for minor offences is not civil, nor harmonious. It's barbaric.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok, lets assume your paraphrases are accurate.

What is wrong with those commands?

What's wrong with completely destroying two cities, killing every living thing, human or not in the first case.... and in the second case keeping the virgins for the personal use of the invading soldiers?

Are you serious? What is right about those commands? There's nothing remotely good about ordering the rape and murder of two entire cities!