The place of the bible in modern society

Steve says:

11:24am | 26/07/10

The Bible is primarily about the heaven/hell/salvation issue. Everything else, even the moral teaching, is relatively unimportant.

While there is no need for the Bible to have a more significant role in public life than its effect on believers in public life, your call to exclude it seems to be based on prejudice and misinformation.

Peter says:

12:30pm | 26/07/10

@ Rob, science could be coming to the rescue of the bible..

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sex-the-bible-says-go-for-it-20100725-10qkt.html

Beside, the bible is not a scientific journal and was never intended to compete with science…

Rob r Charteris says:

12:40pm | 26/07/10

Steve says:10:24am; It is interesting how the religios argument changes to suit its own need. If someone disagrees with it then all of a sudden they’re misinformed or prejudice which completely misses the point. My call is based on relevance or more so irrelevance.

SkepDad says:

01:10pm | 26/07/10

The bible is an inconsistent, heavily edited and historically malleable collection of moralistic stories and mythology written by misogynist, racist and insular bronze- and iron-age anti-progressives.

It contains much in the way of simple reflection on the positive aspects of humanity, just as much hateful barbarism, and absolutely nothing which identifies it as the work of a deity with any insight not possessed by any human author.

Has civilisation gone nowhere in 2000 years that we continue to place our hands on this book?

Steve says:

01:13pm | 26/07/10

Rob, your prejudice and misinformation were evident in your claims that the Bible is a control tool and is somehow made less relevant by science.

Rob r Charteris says:

01:49pm | 26/07/10

Steve says:12:13pm; Why would such a book be written, telling people how to live if it wasn’t a control tool, it’s as simple as that and if you want evidence just have a read of the bible. People were killed for not believing in it.

John in Alice says:

02:35pm | 26/07/10

If one takes away the begettings, the heroes and poetry, the Bible is little more than a guide book for the ancient Jewish ancestors to survive.  The harsh penalties and and treatment of heathen was necessary at the time to prevent spread of disease and unhealthy practices,  which might otherwise have proven catastrophic,  even as the 10 commandments were similarly designed.  There is a practical reason behind each and every one and what better way to instruct an ignorant people than to offer moralistic stories that displayed common issues that apply even today.  You need to get over yourself and recognize the ancient wisdom that continues to guide us today.  While we no longer need to kill potentially infected people, we most certainly need to isolate and treat them to preserve our frail race.  The real question at hand is the source of such wisdom and guidance that surpassed human knowledge of the time. 
At least Rob is correct in one aspect.  The influence of the Bible is diminishing alarmingly. We only need to observe the growing incidence of violence, even among our young, along with increases of child sex, pregnancies and spread of STD’s within our population to see the effects of immoral behaviors.  Science doesn’t take coincidence lightly.

Rob r Charteris says:

02:42pm | 26/07/10

Peter says:11:30am; Nice try but no cigar, we had love and affection long before we had the bible son. The long history of the indigenous people of Australia is testament to this very fact. And that’s along with many other civilisations Jesus seemed to have forgotten to touch. Btw the bible was supposedly based on factual story and your right it will never be a scientific journal. But it was pushed upon people to believe such rot as Adam was made from sand, Eve from the rib of Adam, the Earth was made in seven days, half a dozen fish and a few loaves of bread fed thousands, Jesus walked on water, with the touch of his hand he could heal the blind…blah…blah… maybe insecure primitive believe were scared of that, I think we know better these days.

SkepDad says:

02:55pm | 26/07/10

@ John in Alice:

I’m not sure that you can logically correlate the “growing incidence of violence, even among our young, along with increases of child sex, pregnancies and spread of STD’s” with the reduction in the influence of the bible.  It is also correlated with a steady reduction in numbers of pirates on the high seas.

Of course, the reduction in slavery, mass murder, infanticide, disease, inquisitions and institutionalised child abuse is also correlated with the fall of the church. 

Actually, on STD’s, I rather think the catholic church’s position on condoms might have a direct influence, hmmm?

Peter says:

03:39pm | 26/07/10

@ Robert, the bible says we were made of sand and science says we are all made of star dust.. Not much difference between science and religion on that point.

Maybe Jesus did walk on water. There were eye witness accounts of it apprantly. Now in a court of law, i think the eye witnesses would win out over us, who just theorise about things…

Tedd says:

03:49pm | 26/07/10

Peter, quite a different between organic and inorganic chemistry, and the way the former can sustain life with a smidgeon of the latter.

Peter says:

04:33pm | 26/07/10

@ Ted. I guess there is inorganic/organic material in star dust as there definitely is in soil as well… Maybe the bible was not far off the mark when it said we were created from the land.

Take the dark matter/energy theories. Now if you said last year that there is no such thing as dark matter, scientists would have labelled you an idiot because they have already “theorised” that it is there and presumably fit in with their physics calculations… Now im hearing scientist say that it does not exist at all. So last year you would have been a looney, this year a genius… Just goes to show that no mind on earth is capable enough to understand their mysteries of the universe..

A Bob says:

04:45pm | 26/07/10

No, Steve. You will find that courts give greater credence to forensic evidence over eye-witness testimony every time.

Ken West says:

08:57pm | 26/07/10

Rob @7.17am
There is no separation of public and private life. The principles of democracy require us to vote in self-interest. That doesn’t stop us being altruistic, but that’s not democracy.

Matthew says:

04:56pm | 27/07/10

@John in Alice, maybe it’s just me but from all the medieval history (and before) that I’ve seen (albeit in a hollywoodised fashion) and read shows that violence was equally as bad 400-5000 years ago.  Of course, they did it for their religion/country so that makes it ok, right?  In those same times young children (younger than now) were getting pregnant but that too is ok, right?  People aren’t any different to what they were hundreds/thousands of years ago.  There’s simply more people, more media and people are getting caught more.

Paul D says:

09:00am | 28/07/10

Rob, you obviously don’t know much Science. The more we learn, the more the incidental truths in the Biblical account become revealed eg. When God said: “Let there be light” (Day 1), but didn’t create the Sun, Moon and Stars till Day 4, ignorant Scientists rubbished the idea and pushed the Scientifically impossible evolution theory. Yet recent discoveries of the Quantum nature of matter reveal that all solid matter is actually light in Gluon form, not Photon form.
So the Bible was way more accurate than anyone suspected. This happens all the time. How about the remains of Noah’s Ark on Google Earth? Mrs Noah’s grave robbed and items sold on Black Market? The chariot remains of Pharoah’s army from the exodus on the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba?
Evidence that demands a verdict…

Steely Dan says:

10:35am | 28/07/10

@ Paul D

“...yet recent discoveries of the Quantum nature of matter reveal that all solid matter is actually light in Gluon form, not Photon form. So the Bible was way more accurate than anyone suspected.”
That still leaves you without a source for the light, Paul D.  Why does the Bible only reveal amazing scientific discoveries after we’ve discovered them? 

“How about the remains of Noah’s Ark on Google Earth?”
That’s old news, Paul D. People are discovering the remains of Noah’s ark twice a year these days.

“Mrs Noah’s grave robbed and items sold on Black Market?”
Evidence?

“The chariot remains of Pharoah’s army from the exodus on the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba?”
An army’s worth?

darren says:

02:52pm | 14/09/10

you got a mention in the book so how can that be come irelevant

Ian says:

02:14pm | 26/07/10

Good call!

Lazy Jesus says:

11:21am | 26/07/10

They don’t conduct political debates/matters if parliament during church sermons, so no issue with that sort of change at all.

P R Green says:

12:53am | 27/07/10

As a Christian who takes seriously the injunctions of both Jesus and James against swearing oaths, I only ever give an affirmation anyway.

Perhaps it would be a positive step to obey the Bible in the matter of “swearing in.”

As to the Lords Prayer, it could be quite amusing to see what some politicians would do if they really took seriously its affirmation that there is an authority superior to themselves (or the polls!), and there are causes more important than their own re-election.

Steely Dan says:

04:03pm | 27/07/10

@ Polywatcher

Given that she’s refused to budge on gay rights, there’s nothing to say that having an atheist PM will change anything on issues of church and state.

But I hope she does get rid of the prayer.  Give some time for reflection on the nation and its people (time to reflect on those who have given their lives to the nation, perhaps?), and those who want to say a prayer to themselves can do it.  Voila!  Everybody’s happy.  Secularism works, people.

The Bible can stay, so long as nobody is bound by law to use it.  People can swear on what they want - if I was in that situation I’d swear on the Constitution (what text could be more appropriate than that?).

T.Chong says:

09:58am | 26/07/10

Lucky for the Kriol language group, that their life is now complete.
40,000years of culture / traditions just not enough without King James bible to tell the people how to live.

Steve says:

10:53am | 26/07/10

Although some people have doubted that the letter of James was actually written by James the brother of Jesus, there has never been any other name for it. It carries the name James every one of the extant Greek manuscripts.

DD Ball says:

07:07pm | 26/07/10

Steve, you are correct about the doubt. The name most associated with the book is Joseph. Are you reading a Greek translation version?
T. Chong, it is difficult to describe how you don’t get it better than you have. There are Aboriginal peoples who are committed Christians. One does not contradict the other. That forty thousand years of culture thingo is a bit overstated. There has been some 3.2 million years of culture from Lucy. Does that count too?

Steve says:

10:35pm | 26/07/10

@DD Ball
“Are you reading a Greek translation version?”
No, I read the Greek directly - not in translation.
Before posting I checked if there where any known textual variants for James 1:1, which names the author as “James”. There are none.

P R Green says:

12:45am | 27/07/10

Hebrew/ Aramaic Ya’akov or Ya’akob became Iakobos in Greek and was adopted into late Latin/ early Italian as Iacomo(s) through a linguistic rule by which -b- and -m- can interchange under certain circumstances.

From Latin/ Italian, the French also adopted the name but palatalised the initial sound from y- to a j-. In Norman French, this was a hard “dj-” sound. They dropped the m and retained Jacques.

We get both Jack and James from the same root, depending on whether we drop the -k- or the -m-.

So, King James was definitely named after Ya’akov, the writer of that little epistle, and not the other way around.

KH says:

10:26am | 26/07/10

I was thinking of the fireplace.  But the fiction section is fine too…...........

Muttley says:

01:43pm | 26/07/10

Easy to look down your nose at other peoples beliefs eh? Oh well, no need for that pesky “live and let live” outlook. And dont bother with the response that religious types dont feel that way. You are now sinking to their level. Must be nice to feel intellectually superior to those that believe. I’m athiest by the way but this kind of patronising throw away comment is unnecesarry and rude.

Sciling says:

01:30pm | 31/07/10

As an atheist, who has read the bible and now wants to read the Koran let me say this.
The bible is an historic document, recording changes in man’s changing attitudes and lifestyle over the past few thousand years. The new testament replaces the old which had become outdated.

xyz says:

07:25pm | 01/08/10

Sciling, good luck with reading the Koran. I’m also an atheist but I have to correct your post.

You said - “The bible is an historic document, recording changes in man’s changing attitudes and lifestyle over the past few thousand years.”

The bible is an historic document, however that doesn’t mean it is accurate… far from it. Also, how could it record any changes over the past few thousand years when the new testament was written from about 50 AD to 150 AD?

You said - “The new testament replaces the old which had become outdated.”

That’s not true. The old testament was wrtten by the Jews, and the new testament was written by the followers of Jesus’s new religion (Christianity). They cover different time periods with the new testament being a sequel to the old one. The old testament was written from about 13th century BC starting with the creation story and deals with the religion, politics, and culture of the ancient Hebrew people of Israel. The new testament was written to follow the old one and starts with the birth of Jesus and finishes with the second coming and the ‘end of the world’.

Most Christian religions follow both books to varying degrees, whereas Judaism only follows the old testament (or Hebrew Bible).

P R Green says:

11:57pm | 27/07/10

Comments like this always fascinate me, as they usually betray a profound ignorance of what the Bible actually says.

I am reminded of the German Communist playwright and social activist, Bertold Brecht, who, when asked what had most influenced him, said, “You will laugh: The Bible.” He rejected the God of the Bible, but clearly wouldn’t have described the book as a load of old cobblers.

Most, once they read it, realise that, even if they would dismiss some parts, they can’t condemn it in toto.

Steve says:

11:44am | 26/07/10

Would you then ban religious people from standing for public office?

Seano says:

12:09pm | 26/07/10

How is that relevant Steve?

Personal beliefs should be personal.

Steve says:

12:54pm | 26/07/10

Well, Seano, personal beliefs affect public policy. Religion affects the affairs of state whenever religious parliamentarians vote. That is most obvious on social policy matters, but there are also influences on economic and foreign policy matters too, amongst others.

Tedd says:

01:36pm | 26/07/10

Govt policy, whether it be social, economic or foreign policy, should be argued and decided for (or against) on the merits of each particular policy or policy area, not on the basis of doctrine or ancient texts.

Steve says:

01:47pm | 26/07/10

Tedd, it is the representatives’ understandings of the merits of those policies that is affected by their religious convictions. It is not possible to exclude that influence, without barring them from office.

Tedd says:

02:04pm | 26/07/10

Steve, your points are disjointed.  No-one needs bar themselves or be barred from office.  Convictions or influence can be put in context of the particular policy, rather than policy have to be framed around an individual’s or group’s conviction or influence.  A discussion takes place, then a vote - a vote by many people of many backgrounds and, er, convictions.

Seano says:

02:22pm | 26/07/10

I think Tedd sums it up pretty well Steve. Noone is suggesting the religious be barred from office but out society should remain secular and policy determined on the basis of it’s merits. If you let guide you in how you decide well that’s your choice but religion and religious propoganda should be kept out of our government and schools.

Steve says:

10:50pm | 26/07/10

The claim that society should be secular, and that decisions should be made on secular bases alone, amounts to a disenfranchisement of the religious.

Democracy is about each person, whether religious or not, expressing and arguing for their view in whatever terms they think best, and then everyone voting. The religious should be able to mount religious arguments if they think that those will persuade voters. Excluding religious arguments, just because they are religious, is anti-democratic.

P R Green says:

12:35am | 27/07/10

Steve’s question to Liz has not been answered, and the discussion so far has not really addressed it either. The fact is that we all bring our perspectives into our decision-making, and to say that religion has no place in the affairs of state is really nonsensical.

Part of the issue is that the distinction between personal belief and private belief has not been taken seriously in this discussion.

Tedd also over-simplifies matters when he talks about “doctrines or ancient texts.”

A good example of a real world situation was the challenge Tim Costello offered to the Coalition several years ago when he said it was at risk of forgetting that we live in a society, not just an economy.

Costello’s outlook was driven by his Christian conviction that social values are more important than economic ones. There are strong Old Testament bases for that judgment.

It is far from a universally accepted viewpoint: Mrs Thatcher, for example, explicitly denied it, and the USSR in the Stalinist era was often accused of taking the same position.

So, in one sense, Costello was informed by “doctrines and ancient texts” in making that comment; at the same time, it was an entirely pertinent contribution to a contemporary discussion.

Chris L says:

09:24am | 27/07/10

Green, you’re missing the point. The idea of secular government is to stop religious constraints being imposed on those who do not follow that religion. For example, laws against stem cell research, abortion and euthenasia. These don’t have to be automatically made legal, but the argument about whether to have them or not should be based on their practical effect and purpose, not on whether god allows it or not. Same with victimless “crimes” such as prostitution.

You do a good job of trying to say religion is what gives people morals but if you look at atheist-dominated populations like Denmark and Sweden you see almost no violent crime, especially compared to theocracies such as America. Pointing to Stalinist Russia as atheist is false since it was based on the dogma of obedience to the state, the population was mostly christian and Stalin himself kept waivering between religion and atheism.

Steve says:

11:59am | 27/07/10

No, Chris, I think it is you who is missing the point. Your insistence that issues be debated and resolved on only secular grounds actually excludes religious perspectives and persons from our democracy. That is disenfranchisement.

You don’t believe that religious perspectives are valid, or should be considered. Fine. Feel free to ridicule them whenever they are expressed. But please don’t tell me that I should not attempt to mount a religious argument at all. From my point of view religious arguments can be valid, and should be allowed to be part of the mix of debate.

Rossco says:

03:06pm | 27/07/10

Steve, let’s hypothetically say that tomorrow Indonesia has a mass earthquake and 50 million of its inhabitants are forced to move to Australia in safety. Five years down the track and most have become Australian citizens. A large section of these new immigrants field representatives with strong and “radical” islamic views calling for strict religious sharia laws and restrictions. There are 50 million of them, and 22 million of us. They easily win the majority of parliament and the power of government. Now the Christians and other are the minority and forced to live in a society where Sharia law rules. Now would you have been happy for these people to call for Sharia Law and enforce their religious views and laws on EVERYONE in the country, or would you call for a secular government where politicians cant shove their religion down your throat? Sure religion has a place in government albeit in some limited social community role and politicians have every right to be religious, but when we allow it into goverment to dictate policy then we are violating logic, reason and fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Steve says:

05:42pm | 27/07/10

Under current immigration rates, and if the religious profile of migrants stays the same, then it will take about 40 years (not just 5) before we are a Muslim majority country and the prospect of sharia law become realistic. Until then, this is just hypothetical.

Nevertheless, democracy give power to the majority. You don’t like the idea of living under sharia law. Muslims don’t like living under secular law. Making the switch once there are enough Muslims to be a majority is fair enough. If you are not willing to allow that, then you are really a secular bigot, not an open-minded democrat.

Tedd says:

06:23pm | 27/07/10

The main principle of secularism is that one religion does not dominate another, no matter their proportionate size.  Hence, Turkey has been secular with about 98% being Muslim, and the rest being Christian, etc. without suppression of the minority religions.

Another decade or two of secular democracy here, and it is unlikely more than 2-5% will want to live in a theocracy.

Steve says:

10:19pm | 27/07/10

Tedd, unless you subscribe to the Lewis Carroll school of semantics, your convenient definition of “secular” cannot stand.

To the rest of us, the idea of secularism is the absence, or exclusion of religion. My main dictionary gives the following definition:

“Of or relating to the philosophy that rejects religion and religious considerations”

Secularism is not equally tolerant of religions as you claim. It is completely intolerant of all of them. It disenfranchises the religious and proscribes religious argument.

Consider for example the treatment of Abbott’s religion in the current campaign. Labor, Get Up and Green people keep bringing it up. They describe his views as extreme, religious, out of touch with the community, and so on. But many people on both major sides of politics hold the same views. What they so intensely dislike about Abbott is not his views, but that he is religious. They want to reject him for that reason alone. His views would be OK if they were held by someone else.

Chris L says:

11:27pm | 27/07/10

Steve please point out where we said religious people should be barred from office. I am just saying that “it’s the will of god” is insufficient justification for any law and it impedes on the rights of anyone that doesn’t believe in that particular god.
How would you feel if blood transfusions became illegal because it is the will of the god of the Jehovah’s Witnesses? How would you feel if pork and bacon were made illegal because it is the will of both the god of the Jews and the god of the Muslims?
Religious people in office are fine. Religion in the affairs of state is not.

P R Green says:

11:28pm | 27/07/10

Chris L: I think you must have read someone else’s response here. Perhaps you might like to read mine and respond to it.

Nowhere did I say or imply that religion gives people morals. I believe that our morality comes from our creation in the image of God, regardless of whether or not we believe in him—but, of course, that’s a theological perspective. Put in secular language, morality is a common human trait. I could go into the relationship between community and morality, but that would be somewhat off topic.

Nowhere did I discuss Soviet Russia as atheist. I mentioned a charge commonly made about Soviet attitudes towards economics—at least during the Cold War era in the ‘60s. The entire context was attitudes towards society and economics.

Nowhere did I suggest that a country governed by people other than Christians might be a bad place to live. In fact, as a personal opinion, I would not particularly like to live in the US, though I think that describing it as a theocracy is a kind of bad-wishful thinking.

And nowhere did I suggest or even imply that any piece of legislation should be based solely on a passage of scripture or a theological perspective. I respect and value the Bible, but I definitely do not believe that any legislation should be passed without a clear examination of its likely impact and its proposed utility. In that respect I am probably close to the Evangelicals in the British Parliament who, in conjunction with Utilitarians, helped push through the early 19th century Reforms.

At the risk of repetition, my point was that we all bring personal perspectives to bear on how we approach any public issue, and while we may not quote chapter and verse, we will rank the importance of contributing factors according to those perspectives and beliefs, whatever they might be.

I should perhaps have gone on and said that we are probably safer with a Muslim in parliament than a secularist, because at least a Muslim’s views will be explicit and examinable.

P R Green says:

11:48pm | 27/07/10

Tedd makes a lot of sense in saying, “The main principle of secularism is that one religion does not dominate another, no matter their proportionate size.”

That is basic to the Christian idea of separation of Church and State (something Baptists and other radicals came up with 70 or more years before Locke thought of it.)

In the Australian model—which is close to what the early radicals sought, though perhaps not quite what they would have considered ideal—there is no reason why members of parliament should not have and exercise a religious faith, nor even that they should not all have one religion in common, as long as people are free to believe or not believe as they see fit.

However, to cite Turkey as an example of a secular state with a Muslim majority which does not suppress minority religions would come as a surprise to Armenians and formerly Turkish Greeks, though matters have improved since the inter-war period. Turkey’s treatment of minorities, including religious minorities, comes under periodic international condemnation.

Chris L says:

10:21am | 28/07/10

Fair enough PR Green, I see that I misunderstood your meaning. My apologies.

Steve, I don’t know what dictionary you are using but try this definition of secularism from wikepidia:

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.)

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus, medieval Muslim polymaths such as Ibn Rushd, Enlightenment thinkers like Denis Diderot, Voltaire, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, and modern freethinkers, agnostics and atheists such as Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll.

Steve says:

10:58am | 26/07/10

How the heck does one disprove a parable?

Peter says:

01:04pm | 26/07/10

@ Cinamin, are you suggesting that wars are fought over religion? What was Iraq about?

xyz says:

02:03pm | 26/07/10

Peter, what were the numerous Crusades about?

Peter says:

02:36pm | 26/07/10

@ xyd. All I can say about the crusades and the times when the church governed us, is that the church (being the governing body of the day) probably attracted the same kind of person that wants to be a politician in this day and age. They probably didn’t even believe in God, just like Tony Abbott saying he doesn’t believe in WorkChoices, and Gillard being tough on asylum seekers. Politicians will bend their beliefs if they believe it is popular to do so…

The church stopped running things 100’s of years ago, but we still have wars. Even George Bush spoke of God when we invaded Iraq, but we all know there was nothing religious about that conflict at all… although nothing would surprise me what the motivation was for that one. We can all assume it was only about oil…

Robert says:

03:13pm | 26/07/10

@Peter - You honestly believe the Church (in some form) is still not having a say of how Governments are being run. You only have to look to countries like the USA to see that while the Church bodies might not be in public view controlling people, they still have a massive impact in other ways.

Peter says:

03:33pm | 26/07/10

@ Robert. Yes, the church does have some influence, like feminist groups have, business groups, unions, athiests etc.. The church is just as entitled as these groups to be represented in Government..

Ken West says:

08:53pm | 26/07/10

Cinamin,

Religions have killed their thousands, while modern secular states have killed their millions. If you want fewer people killed, you want anarchy not atheism.

Tedd says:

07:45am | 27/07/10

@KenWest - not true. It has never been as black & white as that.

Matthew says:

05:43pm | 27/07/10

Ken West, work on percentages not straight numbers.  The world population has skyrocketed in the last 50-100 years so your ‘thousands’ probably equates to millions (or billions) when considered proportionately.

P R Green says:

12:28am | 28/07/10

The Crusades were fought over territory.

Europe was appalled by the swiftness of Arab Muslim conquests in Palestine, North Africa and even as far as central France, as well as the ongoing harassment of Mediterranean coastal settlements. Muhammad had been dead less than 80 years when the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain fell to Muslim forces and became al-Andalus.

While these Arab Muslim advances had largely stalled by around 1000AD, Byzantium, which was still dominant over Rome in European affairs, now found itself under attack from Central Asian converts to Islam, the Turks, expanding into Turkey in search of new places to settle. Western Europe couldn’t really tell the difference between the two groups.

The original intention of the first Crusade was to send reinforcements to Byzantium, but, rather similar to the transformation of Bush’s original intention of bringing the 9/11 attackers to justice into invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the original limited intention of the first Crusade expanded to take in a kind of military pilgrimage to Palestine to liberate Christian Holy sites from the Arab Muslims, who had begun restricting access to them.

As can be seen, the participants identified with different religions, but the cause of the wars was attempts to take or defend territory. Most wars are over such matters.

As to the more recent junkets, it is worth noting that, according to Jim Walis of the Christian Sojourners group, all the major US church bodies with the exception of the Southern Baptists (incidentally not a member of the Baptist World Alliance) advised Bush against the Iraq invasion. Bush refused to meet even representatives of his own Methodist denomination when they sought to advise him against invading Iraq.

That is some of the kind of behind the scenes manipulation that the churches get up to.

Jon says:

11:55am | 28/07/10

Ken West@ ” Religions have killed their thousands, while modern secular states have killed their millions. If you want fewer people killed, you want anarchy not atheism.”

Below some numbers on deaths attributed to Islam alone through out history. Mind you the killings are still going on.

Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa for centuries. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people.

120 million Africans

The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million - David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200. Rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:

60 million Christians

Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”

80 million Hindus

Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200,

10 million Buddhists

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by Isalmic jihad. Puts Stalin and Hitler (who was a Catholic) to shame.

Tedd says:

11:19am | 26/07/10

Oh gawd.  Do you know the name of the fallacy that applies to “[archaeological] digs that did not have one thing disproving any of the Bible Old Testament records” as a claim those records are valid?

Pointing the finger at other cultures or belief systems is also a fallacy.

The truths of the bible are as true as Noah’s flood - not.

Graham S says:

11:21am | 26/07/10

Methinks Irene you have too much time on your hands, what with all that happy clapping, tambourine waving claptrap you bible waving ignoramuses spout. How any thinking 21st century western world citizen can in any way continually refer to 2000 plus year old ,middle east fairy tales centered around some unwashed, bearded Palestinian flim flam artist to run their life is beyond comprehension. Then again all you happy clappers who have nothing in life except being entertained by tax exempt “Pastors” and other bunko con artists are easily deluded and sucked in to believe whatever you’re told to because you neither have the sense, initiative or wherewithal to think for yourself.
Besides your bible, you may wish to consider those other great life tomes; The Life & Times of Santa Claus or The Good Deeds of the Tooth Fairy.

James1 says:

01:58pm | 26/07/10

Irene,

I dare you to go and tell an Indian that British colonialism was good for them.

Since moving to Canberra, I have had two bikes stolen.  A friend in Indonesia has had none stolen, despite living there all her life.  Anecdotal evidence like this means very, very little.  Indonesia has a little thing called the Pancasila mandates “belief in one God”, not any god in particular.

Also, your last lines are quite revealing.  Because an old book tells us that people who did not believe in it were brutally drowned, we must believe in said old book.  Rather circular logic, I must say.

If the science and archaeology supporting the bible is as rigorous as your other arguments, it raises serious questions.

Ian says:

01:59pm | 26/07/10

Graham undoubtedly has other great minds to recommend or his own great thoughts to follow. Though the self-important mocking tone does not bode well for the second option.

Perhaps he is looking to Mein Kampf or Mao’s little red book or
Most likely, if anything like a mass of Australians, life is built on unquestioned inherited habits of the cultural past (including unacknowledged contributions arising from the bible’s influence) and the grand contributions of Masterchef, CSI, A Current Affair or Home and Away.

“Comments” under on-line articles should be re-named “Prejudices”

Baal says:

08:27pm | 26/07/10

Hey Irene they dug up the city of Troy, so I assume with your logic that Achilles and the Greek Gods actually existed including the Skyfather Zeus?

Andrew says:

10:19pm | 26/07/10

Here’s some extracts from your ‘holy book’ which is ‘more relevant than ever’..

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. Any Kiwis want to come do my gardening?

2. Exodus 21:7 clearly states that I can sell my daughter into slavery if I so wish.  Any idea on a fair price - I’m not totally sure if she’s 100% pure or not?

3. Exodus 35:2 says (in no uncertain terms) that I should kill anybody found working on the sabbath (let’s assume that’s sunday).  Well, I might have to go and rest now, busy weekend coming up for me with all the smiting and such..

4. Lev 11:10.  Read it.  Now go put your lobster down, it’s an abomination after all..

5. Lev 19:27 says that cutting your hair, especially that around the temples, is banned (naturally).  Oh, and punishable by death.

Well, I could go on all day with the stupidity contained within ‘the great and holy bible’, but I think it’s pretty obvious just how ‘relevant’ it is.

Oh yes, and the Greeks and Romans managed wonderful, democratic, free, and prosperous societies for many hundreds of years without the benefit of either the bible of christianity, and from all accounts did quite well.  Now if you’ll excuse me, Zeus is getting antsy and wants a sacrifice - do you by any chance know any virgins??

Peter says:

12:41pm | 27/07/10

@ Andrew. The Greeks and the Romans spent all their time planning their next war/conquest…. That’s right, before christianity and this bible apparantly which is the cause of a lot of wars according to some..

Steely Dan says:

03:55pm | 27/07/10

@ Peter

“The Greeks and the Romans spent all their time planning their next war/conquest…. “
Your point being?  Did Andrew claim it was the cause of all wars?

Peter says:

04:27pm | 27/07/10

@ Steely Dan. No he didn’t say that it was the cause of all wars. He said that the Greeks and Romans had these wonderful civilisation pre bible. That’s not true, they were both brutal. I’d rather be living in these christian times thanks…

Just Sayin' says:

05:57pm | 27/07/10

@ Andrew

“3. Exodus 35:2 says (in no uncertain terms) that I should kill anybody found working on the sabbath (let’s assume that’s sunday).  Well, I might have to go and rest now, busy weekend coming up for me with all the smiting and such..”

Heresy!  The sabbath is Saturday.  Furthermore, the bible is very clear that messing with the sabbath is evidence of the coming of satan, and some have concluded on this basis that the catholic pope, who changed the sabbath to sunday, is in fact the incarnation of satan.  Yes, I’m serious. 

So yeh, according to some interpretations of the bible, catholics are really satanists.  It is religious people that believe this, not atheists.  Atheists reject satan as well.

Mark says:

02:11am | 28/07/10

Irene, you should read 1 Timothy 2:12, as it has pertinent information regarding the Lord’s desire for you to shut up.

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

This is the word of the Lord: “Shut up, woman.”

Peter says:

05:03pm | 28/07/10

@ Mark, i tell my co-worker Kellie to shut up everyday (even when she’s not talking), and she loves it… Now she has started to tell me to shut up.. I might have to quote Timothy to her…

Barbara says:

11:26am | 26/07/10

Much like the tax cuts during Labor’s 3 years that were actually the last of the Liberal tax cuts.  Or the GFC averted because of the hard work done by the previous Government.  Just how would have Labor handled the so called GFC with a deficit of 96 Billion that was inherited by the Liberals 15 years ago?  They abvioulsy would have to cut short the massive bribery of the Australian public for starters.

Ian says:

01:26pm | 26/07/10

And yet various modern philosophies less than 300 years old or within the 20th Century have formed the basis of all kinds of evils, delusions, and indoctrinations. Mere chronology is not going to solve that problem. Humanity and human thinking was and is mixed at best. That there is something called pure Reason that gives us access to some wonderful ethics is, it seems, a cherished, sentimental illusion well and truly alive.

The Bible has most certainly had an important impact on Western culture but like all significant texts has been used and abused to further the ends of the powerful even though its message speaks against that very tendency.

Tedd says:

11:13am | 26/07/10

The Aboriginal beliefs are as valid as Christian beliefs, and more deserving of preservation that imperial or colonial overlays.  Be gone with your holier-than-thou tombs.

Jon says:

11:26am | 26/07/10

“Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were…more trouble than they were worth.”

Worf, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, “Homefront”

Peter says:

12:42pm | 26/07/10

@ Jon, i take it that you must know star trek well if you can pull out quotes from deep space nine.. You must also know that Worf in Next Generation was a very spiritual being… I take it your familiar with Kalles?

Jon says:

02:29pm | 26/07/10

Peter, I did watch many of the episodes of The Next Generation, Patrick Stewart was very good as Captain Jean-Luc Picard. You are probably right regarding Wolf. However my admiration for Star Trek was much about its creator Gene Roddenberry, who philosophy and ideas in the early series and later series have stood the test of time. It has been said that Roddenberry made it known to the writers of Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation that religion and mystical thinking were not to be included, and that in Roddenberry’s vision of Earth’s future, everyone was an atheist and better for it. However, Roddenberry was clearly not punctilious in this regard, and some religious references exist in various episodes of both series under his watch.

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”

Gene Roddenberry

Peter says:

02:45pm | 26/07/10

@ Jon. There are many great values that Gene Roddenbury built into Star Trek, which is one of the biggest reasons for its success. As a fellow Treker i think you know what i am talking about. (Jon, coming out as Trekers like we have might earn us some ridicule on these forums).

However, there are many great values that i admire in our major religions as well. You, me, The Pope, Gene Roddenbury have about as much idea about the mysteries of life (or lack thereof) as anybody else.

I know Star Trek tried very hard to keep religion or spirituality out of the series but it did not succeed. To me it is further evidence, that we are all naturally spiritual beings…

oldSkool says:

02:58pm | 27/07/10

@Jon: And yet even the Klingons had Gre’thor and Sto-vo-kor…

KingsHorseMan says:

11:32am | 26/07/10

“This murderous terrorist book ... ” - you think they pushed the dinosaurs off the Ark?

James1 says:

11:42am | 26/07/10

Where does it say that dinosaurs fell out of the ark in the Bible?  Where are dinosaurs mentioned at all?

Peter says:

01:10pm | 26/07/10

@ P. Darvio, is that the murderous book which says in its opening pages “thou shalt not kill”?

@ James1, I know your position on this and well done though on doing it from an educated and well researched point of view…

James1 says:

02:16pm | 26/07/10

I may not be a believer myself Peter, but I do tend to insist on accuracy.  And I believe that P. Darvio is being highly inaccurate for the sake of making a (questionable) point.

P. Darvio says:

02:36pm | 26/07/10

Which part is inaccurate? I have backed all my statements/conclusions elsewhere with “facts” where asked and with references/sources.

Cheers

P. Darvio

James1 says:

02:51pm | 26/07/10

P. Darvio,

The part about dinosaurs being in the Bible is inaccurate.  Also, the part where you implicitly equate belief in the claimed literal truth of the Bible with religious belief more generally.  I know plenty of Christians who actually accept evolution, and who think that the early parts of the Old Testament are more origin myths than literal truth. 

You may be correct that according to one, very narrow definition of Christianity, 90 percent-plus of Australians are not Christian.  But to make such an argument, you also ignore the vast diversity within Christianity and the varied nature of Christian beliefs.  Are you seriously arguing, for instance, that Catholics are not Christians?

Your point is questionable, because if you were to ban religion or religious books, how would you be any better than those who indoctrinate their children in whatever strain of religion?

Peter says:

03:03pm | 27/07/10

@ James1. You’ll appreciate this. This is apparantly the sound of the Higgs Boson or God Particle might make…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10385675

P. Darvio says:

11:18am | 26/07/10

64% ??? - this is a nonsense. Only 5 to 10% of Australians are Christians - the ones who literally believe in the word of the Bible/Old Testament - the others who claim to be Christian at the last ABS census are just confused people who really don’t know what to believe and are not Christians at all because they don’t actually believe in the word of the Bible. 5% are of other “faiths” - so 85% of Australians are actually Atheists by definition of what a Christian must believe in if they want to claim to be Christians.

Values in the Bible/Old Testament? There aren’t any. The Bible advocates the stoning of Women, murder, mass genocide (over 3 Billion Humans to be slaughtered by the Christian GOD), rape etc etc. These are clearly stated in the Bible/Old testament and are NOT subject to “interpretation” as true Christians claim. The Bible/Old Testament is therefore a terrorist manifesto that threatens the Planet and the long term survivability of humanity.

JPD says:

11:53am | 26/07/10

Not sure how P. Darvio would know that the 64% who identified as Christians in the last census were “confused people who really don’t know what to believe”. What a value judgment!
You may be right that many are not sincere, card-carrying believers but they still want to identify with Christianity rather than anything else. I would also be interested to know where your 5-10% ‘real Christians’ comes from. A source would be excellent, thank you.
I am certain you are wrong to say that 85% are ‘atheists’. Actually, the last World Values Survey - the most robust of its kind - found that 9.9% of Australians say they are atheists. Astonishingly, the same study found that when asked to rate out of 10 ‘How important is God in your life?’ (1 being ‘not important at all;’ 10 being ‘very important’) 57.4% of Australians selected 6 or higher; 28% selected 10. Church attendance might not be faring well in this country but unbelief isn’t so healthy either. Cheers.

P. Darvio says:

01:38pm | 26/07/10

Percentage of Australians who are actual Christians – one source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Australia
According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old

Cheers

P. Darvio

JPD says:

03:20pm | 26/07/10

Oh, dear. P. Darvio’s source for the number of ‘real Christians’ is a Wiki article that cites a PBS documentary about the percentage of people in Australia who believe in 6-day creation. That’s it? Has scepticism really come to this?
Please bring back the serious defenders of unbelief!
Cheers.

P. Darvio says:

04:22pm | 26/07/10

Quote “Oh, dear. P. Darvio’s source for the number of ‘real Christians’ is a Wiki article that cites a PBS documentary “

OK - Here’s another Wiki article for you to read ” PBS is the most prominent provider of programming to U.S. public television stations, distributing series such as PBS NewsHour, Masterpiece, and Frontline. Since the mid-2000s, Roper polls commissioned by PBS have consistently placed the service as America’s most trusted national institution”

“Most trusted National Institution” .......can’t say that about some religious “Institutions” at the moment - OK I’m really sorry – such an unrelaible source of information……... Actually you can watch it in Australia each weekday afternoon on free to air.

JPD says:

05:53pm | 26/07/10

Dear P. Darvio,
It just gets worse. Let’s unpack this. To establish the claim that only 5-10% of Australians are Christians you cite a Wiki article citing a PBS doco quoting a Young Earth Creationist as saying “5% of Australians believe in 6-day creation”. When I dispute your original claim, you tell me how widely respected PBS is. There are a two dodgy assumptions here: (a) that PBS’s credibility somehow makes the quoted creationist accurate (on what data?); (b) that the number of 6-day creationists equals the number of ‘real Christians’. Both of these are dubious. The last one is ridiculous. Hence my plea: please bring back the serious defenders of unbelief.

P. Darvio says:

06:46pm | 26/07/10

Quote”... the last World Values Survey - the most robust of its kind” - says who? Can you quote a reference for your statement of robustness? By what or who’s standard have you made this determination? The survey you quote has no relevance to the issue I have raised (ie what defines a real Christian and how many are there actually in Australia).  Which “GOD” are these people saying they is important in their lives? Even at 28% who claim GOD is “very important” does not then equate to those who are true Christians or even claim to be Christian, or do you have some more “robust” data to support your statements that it does?. As for the 57.4% that that selected 6 our of 10 for importance just proves my point that a large number of “Christians” who claim to be “Christians” are just confused about what they really believe – conversely 57.4% believe that 40% of the time GOD is not important?

I could actually successfully argue there is not one Christian in Australia, ZERO,  ZILCH, NOT ONE. Why? – because not one of them is actually practising what is in the Bible/Old Testament – period. I don’t see Christian death squads out actively killings gays as the Bible requires them to do, I don’t see Christian Stoning Squads out there stoning women who have pre-martial sex in their fathers house as required by the Bible/Old Testament, on and on….... Bong !! – the ball is heading back into your court….

Peter says:

09:42pm | 26/07/10

@ P Davio. Im only recall reading in the bible that God disappoves of homosexuality, i never read anything about rounding up lynch mobs to go out and kill them, unless someone care to point out the verse to me? Anyway, killing homosexuals, prostitutes and other sinners was not exactly Jesus’s style. It was the people that decided that a murderer be released over jesus when Pilate had his annual “pardon” for criminals. Pilate wanted nothing to do with this after that..

Steely Dan says:

04:57pm | 27/07/10

@ Peter

“i never read anything about rounding up lynch mobs to go out and kill them, unless someone care to point out the verse to me?”
Leviticus 20:13.

“Anyway, killing homosexuals, prostitutes and other sinners was not exactly Jesus’s style.”
Of course, Jesus could break any rule he wanted.  He was God/God’s son, or however your denomination wishes to view it.  But we’re not gods.  What does Jesus say about our own conduct?  He says that the old law stays, until “all be fulfilled”  (Matt 5:17-19).

Peter says:

03:52pm | 28/07/10

@ Steely Dan. Matt 5 17:19 as follows:-

17: Think not that i came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away (not long now with global warming), one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things accomplished.

19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these lease commandements, and shall teach men so, shall be called lease in the kingdom of heaven: but whosever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Hence, i say there is no mention of prostitution or homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, and nothing about rounding up lynch mobs..

Steely Dan says:

10:42am | 29/07/10

@ Peter

What makes you think he was referring to the decalogue alone?  The passages in the Book of Leviticus come AFTER Moses came down from Sinai - the Ten Commandments could not have replaced Levitican laws.

You can believe that the Ten Commandments are special laws that are held above the others - but that doesn’t escape the fact that God said that the punishment for homosexuality is death, and Jesus did not repeal that law.

Ian says:

01:32pm | 26/07/10

Or in 1000 years, post-post-post (x30) modernists will giggle at the delusions of ‘Reason’ and ‘Enlightenment’, and the willingness to invade other countries in the name of ‘liberal democracy’, the ‘free market’ and ‘modern civilization’.

People don’t need religion to be evil or deluded. Secular ideologies do just nicely as well.

grant says:

03:37pm | 26/07/10

@ Ian

I never suggested that religious people or people who are secular can exonerate their behaviour by either their belief or non belief.

I am mealy stating that I think believing in supernatural beings, mystical and paranormal incidences is a little silly.  For example I do not believe in any of the following:

Leprechauns
Omnipotent beings
Elves
Thor
Holy ghosts
Gaia
Zeus

Or any of the resurrected types:
Zombies
Resurrected humans, such as jesus
Vampires

Ian says:

10:27pm | 26/07/10

@Grant

Good for you. (No sarcasm there.) But I am surprised there is no link, though, between your two statements.

It’s quite tiring though to wading through exaggerated comments (from ‘believers’ and ‘unbelievers’) – and I reckon the “total moralistic control” comment is just one of those that, despite, I am sure, having many instances, hardly sums up the complexity of the history of the West (since you’re referring to Greg’s alleged ‘longing’). You certainly couldn’t get away with such a comment in university level history.

I’m not sure what function this list has, particularly as it erroneously equates all of these ‘entities’ to the same class. Some familiarity with the history of Western (and other) thought would make clear that these are not equivalents, even if (and I grant this) you could point to how they may function among some folk religions et al in this way. (e.g. Multiple omnipotent beings??)

Since the discussion of God in philosophy is on a whole other level to this kind of thing, it really doesn’t help. Supposedly a rational, secular person (so the advertising tells us) is very tolerant and able to make important distinctions.

Non-belief in God still leaves open the philosophical question of our present universe’s origins. An informed perspective on this would be much more helpful than a list of superhumans and bogeymen. (BTW Zombies and Vampires don’t fall under the class of ‘resurrected’.)

Whether or not we agree with this or that, it helps to get our descriptions right before criticising. That’s just plain good sense. Maybe even courtesy. But that there’s not much of either in our time or on the Net. But at least you strike me as courteous.

Anyway, these arguments go on forever and, frankly, we’re hardly going to solve such things in on-line comments. In fact, I am becoming more convinced we cheapen such discussions—politics too—through this medium.

Tedd says:

12:10pm | 26/07/10

WayneT, a few of the Ten commandments are about god, and most are general lawful requirements, such as not killing and not stealing.  The Golden Rule is more encompassing.

There is killing in the Bible, and the story of Jesus’s conviction is about sedition.

Muttley says:

01:48pm | 26/07/10

Well said. Finally a rational, measured response as opposed to the self righteous types posted above about how clever they are and how moronic believers are. Kudos

Chris L says:

07:33pm | 26/07/10

Actually Wayne laws against murder and theft predate the bible and were probably based on common sense. Also there are plenty of passages calling for people to be killed for various reasons (although I’ll admit I don’t know of any calling for the death of unbelievers).

Steely Dan says:

04:22pm | 27/07/10

@ WayneT

Chris L hit the nail on the head.  Of course there’s nothing wrong with people following the Ten Commandments.  The problem is that there’s more to being Christian than following Ten Commandments: 1) there’s a lot more Commandments than Moses could carry down a mountain in one hit; 2) not all of the Ten should ever be enshrined in secular law (Coveting is bad? Capitalism would implode!); and 3) of those that should and do overlap with secular laws (theft, murder etc) the penalties described in the Bible are often completely over the top.  Disobedient child?  You better believe that’s a stoning.

Of course most Christians you meet on the street aren’t nut jobs that want to ‘kill the infidels’ or ban shellfish.  The problem (well, one of them anyway) is that the state endorsing the Bible as a moral guide
provides validation for the minority fundie whack-jobs who think the Flinstones is a documentary.

Tim says:

01:25pm | 26/07/10

What about advocating the ‘stoning of Women’ or ‘murder’? Anyway, I digress…

A few examples:

Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2

P. Darvio says:

01:34pm | 26/07/10

Quote “You do not have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.” – are well yes you do !! – see Wikipedia entry for Christianity – sorry either you believe or you don’t – there is no middle ground on this “by definition.

Rape: See See http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

“Yet few people know that the Bible often condones and even approves of rape.  How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me.  Perhaps they have been lied to about the Bible and carefully detoured around all the nasty stuff in the Bible”

SkepDad says:

01:39pm | 26/07/10

Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2

Any questions?

Steve says:

02:06pm | 26/07/10

You are twisting the intent of those passages rather badly. Some of the incidents described are clearly condemned as wrong. Marrying virgins among captives was more akin to an arranged marriage, than rape, and it was merciful, given that the alternative was death.

SkepDad says:

02:16pm | 26/07/10

Please explain how to misinterpret this as the benign will of a just god:

“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.”

A choice of slavery or mass murder, with your wives and daughters to be treated as “plunder”.

Of course, that’s how the *people* of the time thought.  Which makes sense, as the bible was written by people.  Totally self-consistent in that context - right up to the point where you imagine a god to justify your barbarism.

Tedd says:

02:18pm | 26/07/10

arranged marriage & rape vs death.  twisting the intent?  satanic?

Tedd says:

12:25pm | 26/07/10

I agree, yet I would rather see the Aboriginal stories and culture preserved (in English and other languages) and presented to non-Aborigines.

Aboriginal beliefs are as a valid as any other, and more important to Australian heritage.

Infense says:

04:22pm | 26/07/10

Good point Tedd. It is paternalistic to have one-way traffic.

P R Green says:

01:06am | 28/07/10

Bible translation preserves cultures and oral histories as well as modifying them. It is impossible to translate something accurately without a knowledge of the ways in which a language is used, so Bible translators regularly transcribe the stories, traditions and histories of the culture in which they work as aids to their own linguistic understanding.

They usually also publish as many of them as they can so that people will have familiar materials as an aid in developing their literacy levels.

On the other hand secular influences (such as mining/ agricultural businesses) rarely have an interest in preserving these things: literacy is seen as justified solely by its economic utility, which means that the emphasis is usually more on getting indigenous people to learn the expatriate language rather than develop reading materials in their own.

Many languages have begun to develop once they have a Bible, because it provides a standard literary language and, in seeking to understand it and teach it, people develop their own language in fresh ways. This was true of the Authorised (King James) Bible translation; of Luther’s Bible translation; and in part, of Carey’s Bengali translation (only recently revised.) The pattern seems consistent in the cases of the many translations made in the 20th Century as well.

Furthermore, the Bible has often provided a liberatingly straight-forward set of beliefs compared to the complex web of spirits and deities to be appeased in many indigenous folk religions. Additionally, in its promise of acceptance to all who repent and trust in Jesus, for many it provides assurance and hope in place of fear and doubt.

Peter says:

01:23pm | 26/07/10

@ 6c. Rather then making me feel surperior, the bible quite accurately spells out my shortcomings..

Steve says:

01:42pm | 26/07/10

I’ve just scanned your list of “contradictions”. They are childish. They rely on NOT reading the Bible “properly”.

There are some real difficulties in the Bible such as Abram’s age when leaving Haran, Saul’s age when he began to reign, and the order of Peter’s denials of Jesus and the crowing of the cock.

Focus on the real contradictions, and I’ll discuss them with you, but if you twist things to pretend that there are hundreds of contradictions, then there is no point in trying to debate.

Tedd says:

02:13pm | 26/07/10

There are disagreements about the contradictions, Steve, (“contradictions about the contractions”) and there have been for centuries.  That is why people are criticised as “NOT reading the Bible “properly”.”

Referencing to the Bible every time creates dilemmas and often false dilemmas where there may be more than two solutions to a problem, some non-Biblical.  Peace.

SkepDad says:

01:59pm | 26/07/10

I am a university graduate, have a professional qualification, a mortgage and two kids, have been happily married for 10 years, pay taxes, own and run two businesses and vote.

I have also read all of the bible, including the numerous hateful parts, rather than mooing contentedly as the banal nice parts are read to me from the pulpit.

I feel no need to pray to an imaginary friend for confirmation-biased outcomes - I take responsibility for my own actions and hold others to account for theirs.  I am no pawn of the “devil”, I am no terrorist.  My eyes are wide open and I see the world by the evidence around me. 

Faith is wish-thinking grounded in fear of death.  I seek what is true, not what I would like to be true - even if an inescapable celestial moral dictatorship were what I wanted to be true, which it is not.

I’m sad that faith is enough for you GB.  That you will waste hours every weekend of your life in a church perpetuating myths rather than in the park with your kids.  They deserve better than that.

Battered Sav says:

02:14pm | 26/07/10

Yeah but does it bother you that god doesn’t exist?

That would bother me.

thomas vesely says:

04:38pm | 26/07/10

we atheists are quite capable of the above .in fact more as we are not doing it to get out of hell.we have purer motives,personally thought out..you are welcome to your beliefs,as long as they do not permeate our sectarian societis government,ergo tell your ACL mates to leave the internet alone.if they need to mount a moral campaign,the vatican needs their attention.

xyz says:

02:53pm | 26/07/10

GB, how could anyone love a vengeful God such as yours? To be sentenced to eternal damnation just for the simple ‘crime’ of not believing is a very harsh punishment… and one that you are obviously revelling in!

Thank goodness it’s not true and we’ll all be just fine when we die!

Peter says:

03:21pm | 26/07/10

@ xyd. The God i believe in is compassionate, understanding and forgiving. Yes, the bible says he is a vengeful God as well..

It is my belief that God will not punish good people who find it hard to believe in God. Even for me, this faith is difficult, although I don’t see “faith” as my ticket to the afterlife. I think my actions here on earth (good and bad) will ultimately decide my fate. It is my belief, that the worse fate will be reserved for people who do believe in God but continue to steal, kill etc..

SkepDad says:

03:22pm | 26/07/10

GB, what if Thor exists?  What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?  What if you got it wrong, and Allah is up there very very unhappy with you?  What if the gods of the Incas, who required daily human sacrifice, are the true gods, and it’s their wrath at losing their daily virgin blood that is causing all this descent into immorality around us?

What was the defining point in your investigation of all the world’s religions that caused you to stamp your foot and say “Finally, [insert religion here] is the true religion!”  That must have been some compelling evidence to reject the thousands of other gods and religions. 

Or did you just follow the religion of your parents?  The one you were indoctrinated in, as you now indoctrinate your own children?

It’s not “judgement” to draw attention to the logical fallacies in your belief system.  Humans have been inventing gods as ways to explain things since the dawn of civilisation.  You and I are atheists about thousands of gods.  I just go one more.

James F says:

04:57pm | 26/07/10

@GB

‘Pascal’s Wager’ was debunked in Blaise Pascal’s time. The fact that it is still being used today is just embarrassing.

Tedd says:

03:14pm | 26/07/10

Most of humanity is good, and while we all have our ups and downs, most people seek to help other people.

Fred says:

05:53pm | 26/07/10

Tedd,
Im not so sure about that, with out the rule of law Im fairly sure humanity would be chaotic at best and civil war worse. We know this by any time we see some sort of change or removal of power in the World today or in the past. Would you pay taxes if there wasnt a law that made you? would you speed, pehaps kill you neighbour if he killed your family member. I would say that all of humanity is not good in fact all of humanity has the potential to do very bad things.

Chris L says:

07:46pm | 26/07/10

Fred, good point but those laws are there by consensus. I personally agree with nearly all of them (I take issue with some of the more banal and pointless of laws and sometimes disregard them).
Fear of punishment is not enough to deter criminals as we can tell by prison populations. Mostly it is agreeance with law that makes us law-abiding.

Tedd says:

07:52am | 27/07/10

Fred, I made my comment in the context most societies live stability within the rule of law, and virtually everyone in those societies are happy with that.  Those societies that are not stable are theocracies.

james says:

06:02pm | 26/07/10

xyz,

your right it a very hard thing to accept. To accept that you are a sinner, that you have to submit to God is a very humbling expirence. If your not chosen / predestined by God you wont understand any way.

xyz says:

06:55pm | 26/07/10

James, I do understand. Like most older Aussie agnostics/atheists, I was indoctrinated into Christianity from birth by my parents… a normal upbringing. It has taken many decades and a lot of research and deep thinking to finally be free… and it feels great! Brainwashing in childhood is a powerful force!

Steely Dan says:

04:28pm | 27/07/10

@ xyz

“PS - I love the Book of Revelation.. it would make a block-buster of an action movie!”
Amen!  Chris Nolan to direct?  Or Guillermo del Toro?  How about Gilliam?

xyz says:

06:02pm | 27/07/10

Steely Dan, I’d love to see a Gilliam version… especially the scene where Jesus pulls the sword out of his mouth!

Chris L says:

09:34am | 27/07/10

The bible says any sinner (which I assume includes murderers, toturers and rapists) will be absolved of their sins if they repent (sounds easy) so it does look like god will overlook wrongdoing if you stoke his ego a bit.

You question on how humans develop moral non-physical conscience is answered in evolution. Those humans that worked together and helped each other survived. Those who did not tended to die alone and childless.

interloper says:

04:40pm | 26/07/10

My goodness. Such breathtaking ignorance on both sides.  The bible is a combination of myths, allegories, poetry, ancient societal rules and history. One can read it all literally, but one runs the risk of being considered a fool. One can dismiss the whole thing as merely ancient superstition, but one also runs the risk of being considered a fool. If one believes in God, it’s not hard to understand how His/Her actions came to be interpreted as the stories read in the Bible. If one doesn’t believe in God, it’s an interesting study into how the morality of an itinerant preacher came to have such an impact on the world. Yes, it may be that he was talking universal truths, rather than theological ones. They’re still interesting to consider. And there’s merit there.

xyz says:

04:52pm | 26/07/10

So what did people do before the bible was written… for example, those poor people that lived in was is now called Australia over 40,000 years ago?

the apologist says:

09:13am | 27/07/10

@xyz: well, if you read the historical accounts of the Bible, you would probably know the answer to that question…

the apologist says:

09:17am | 27/07/10

@interloper: If you read the Gospel accounts of Jesus, you’d realise that he doesn’t leave any space for fence sitters (such is the position you’re taking).

xyz says:

06:23pm | 27/07/10

the apologist,

How can the Bible have answers about people who lived over 40,000 years ago when it only claims the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

the apologist says:

03:23pm | 28/07/10

@xyz:
precisely. the answer according to the Bible is that there were no people 40 000 years ago (thus your original question becomes redundant). That’s certainly my belief and one aspect of the Biblical position on science/history/origins with implications for evolution of course (i.e. it’s a lie).

xyz says:

04:12pm | 28/07/10

the apologist,

Your creationist views are completely wrong… read about about Mungo Lady and Mungo Man?

the apologist says:

02:19pm | 02/08/10

@xyz:
Your Darwinian views are completely wrong. Ever read about where Darwin said that a lack of prolific remains of transitional species (e.g. half man half apes) would prove his theory wrong? ever read about irreducible complexity?
ps. hmmm, i’m not convinced that the dating methods used on mungo man (presumably carbon dating) are reliable. I’m no professional by any means, but I seem to recall hearing that the same method was once tested on a living snail shell, and apparently it’s shell was 10 000 years old.

xyz says:

06:38pm | 02/08/10

the apologist,

I understand that you are a creationist and I know you will not be swayed by any argument. However, my comment has nothing to do with evolution. The skeletons found at Lake Mungo have been dated at around 40,000 years old (this has been verified by a University of Melbourne-led study in 2003) and they are homo sapiens. So this is nothing to do with evolution, it’s to do with 40,000 year old homo sapiens (i.e. modern) skeletons found at Lake Mungo in NSW. Where does that leave your notion of a 10,000 year old Earth?

And why would you mention irreducible complexity? That argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.

Even the current Pope (begrudgingly) believes in evolution, but I assume, as a fundamentalist Christian, you think the Pope is going to Hell along with me… gee thanks!

Just Sayin' says:

06:34pm | 27/07/10

Good advice, iansand, and I don’t often agree with you.  We shouldn’t throw the baby (compassion, loving kindness, charity etc) out with the bathwater (organised religion).  Of course, we don’t need jesus specifically for these values, but if people get them from jesus, that’s great.  Buddha is also a pretty good source.

Forgotten Australian Genocide Descendants says:

06:05pm | 26/07/10

A wall with the names of all Forgotten Australians needs to be built.  This group includes indigenous australians, british child migrants, and many children of migrants with little English whose kids were forcibly taken and ‘assimilated’.  The husband and father in our family was taken, along with three older siblings, when their father, who was illiterate, was forced to sign them over to the State.  He was obliged to pay half his wage (the Basic Wage in the early 50s was 8 Pounds per week.  He had to pay four pounds weekly to the State so that they could remove his children from Townsville (where their mother was incarcerated in Ward 10B) out of their parents’ reach to Rockhampton Receiving Depot (State) and thence to St George’s Anglican Home.  The reason for moving the children away from any hope of their parents’ visits?  Townsville was getting overcrowded.  The files contain references to my father-in-law such as “We have never thought very highly of this man”, and “He is crying poor when in fact he is well off”.  Perhaps to the surprise of the State for an illiterate migrant, my father-in-law eventually paid the debt the family still owed, for many years after the children left care.  Because my father in law was declared a Maintenance Debtor, his wages were garnisheed.  All during the time after the children left care, during their entire teenage years, they starved.  Why?  Because the father and provider was on the run, from the State of Queensland.  He could not get to them and provide for them because the Qld State Welfare would pounce immediately about the money he’d paid for his kids to be incarcerated, tortured, humiliated daily and the list goes on.  The Commonwealth paid a deserted wive’s pension.  My mother in law could not get it, because the Commonwealth said she was being supported by her husband!  As a result, this woman who had spent ten years on shock treatment and drugs at Goodna was left unable to support her kids.  They roamed the streets to find enough food.  Some neighbours were helpful.  My husband, among very few, had the will to survive because of his amazing mind.  He knew he had to get to university.  His troubles weren’t over once he made it there of course.

Peter says:

09:48pm | 26/07/10

I don’t think it is insecurity. I think in the Ten Commandments he just told people to stop worshiping false idols and believe in him, the one and only god. Perhaps he was just enlightening them.

Ian says:

10:33pm | 26/07/10

Why would you think an all powerful God ‘needs’ worship?

Tedd says:

08:56am | 27/07/10

Perhaps the religious leaders were seeking to impose themselves as the all-powerful intermediary for their own gain?

Peter says:

12:22pm | 27/07/10

@ Ian. Maybe for the same reason a parent would want their kids to acknowledge them and love them?

James F says:

06:05pm | 27/07/10

@Peter

But I thought your god was above the pettiness of humanity? Why would he need acknowledgement for his doing, yet make absolute certain that it could not be attributed to him?

You can throw out all the “maybes” you want. That’s not going to make ‘God’ any more real or the Bible any more accurate.

Peter says:

03:54pm | 28/07/10

We are both throwing out maybe’s James. That’s the beauty of this debate…

Rain says:

08:57am | 27/07/10

Those basic rules do not need belief in the supernatural

Christian says:

11:48am | 27/07/10

If you have read Dawkins, you are clearly a person of some intellect. I challenge you, then. Get a copy of ‘Darwin’s Black Box’, by Michael Behe. Read it carefully. Consider the almost inconceivably amazing machinery present in every human cell, and do your best to posit that they came about by purely chance processes. Darwin himself admitted that if we could see inside the cell and see things that could not possibly have been formed by many random processes, his theory “would absolutely break down.” His quote, not mine. Read the book, and see if you believe so completely in Dawkins and evolution afterwards. There is a case for God, and you carry it around in every single cell of your body.

Jon says:

02:54pm | 27/07/10

Christian, Dawkins has answered this work in a recent review. Behe and his colleagues rarely if ever refer directly to God as being the supernatural instigator of all this, though it was shown in an analysis that God is believed by IDers to be the anonymous Intelligent Designer. So there does not seem to be much here to help the various religious brands if God is anonymous.

“We now hear less about irreducible complexity, with good reason. In Darwin s Black Box, Behe simply asserted without justification that particular biological structures (like the bacterial flagellum, the tiny propeller by which bacteria swim) needed all their parts to be in place before they would work, and therefore could not have evolved incrementally. This style of argument remains as unconvincing as when Darwin himself anticipated it. It commits the logical error of arguing by default. Two rival theories, A and B, are set up. Theory A explains loads of facts and is supported by mountains of evidence. Theory B has no supporting evidence, nor is any attempt made to find any. Now a single little fact is discovered, which A allegedly can t explain. Without even asking whether B can explain it, the default conclusion is fallaciously drawn: B must be correct. Incidentally, further research usually reveals that A can explain the phenomenon after all: thus the biologist Kenneth R. Miller (a believing Christian who testified for the other side in the Dover trial) beautifully showed how the bacterial flagellar motor could evolve via known functional intermediates.

The crucial passage in The Edge of Evolution is this: By far the most critical aspect of Darwin s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.”

Christian says:

04:19pm | 27/07/10

@Jon. Behe asserted without justification? Have you personally read DBB, or is this a quote from Dawkins? If the latter, please read the book carefully, and decide for yourself how not only the bacterial flagellum, but also the blood-clotting cascade, DNA, the cilium, the cellular transport system (and others) show amazing complexity that mere random processes would find it difficult to produce. And Dawkins himself skips around enormous logical hurdles with simplistic statements along the lines of “You might find it difficult to imagine that a a unicellular organism could evolve into humanity. It would be like trying to climb a sheer cliff face. But if you go around the back of the cliff and see a gentle slope it’s much easier.” Well, that sounds all well and good, but Dawkins lacks the biochemical analysis to back up such a sweeping simplification. Evolution and the facts simply do not agree on the microscopic level, something Darwin was afraid of.

To my mind, it is MUCH easier to believe in a supernatural designer and creator than not. I admire atheists for their intellectual discipline in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary. Simple child-like faith, not in the absence of careful analytic thought, but coupled with it, as so many Christian scientists have shown, is an excellent way to live life.

Science doesn’t disprove God. God INVENTED science. Science proves the awesomeness of God.

Moggy says:

05:52pm | 27/07/10

Christian, I was a devout practising Christian for many years but I got sick to death of praying to thin air because believe me I prayed hard for relief from a dreadful disease but nothing happened. I believed in the bibles promise that if I gave my pain to this god person I’d at the very least have some comfort from the pain. Nothing happened. I still have the pain. Then I started talking to other people who’d also become disillusioned with religion & I realised that we were all being conned by religion. My sister was horribly molested by a methodist minister as a little girl. The church knew this creep was a pedophile but they kept shifting him from parish to parish every time he got caught. As an adult my sister asked for compensation for all the pain (he raped her digitally & with other things) & the years of having to pay for psychiatric help.  Up until then I stuck to my certain knowledge that Jesus was the son of this god. The church made my sister grovel for her compensation. They said they had no money & they could only spare a little bit which she finally decided to take. Four weeks later this same church announced a massive billion dollar building project in the centre of the city. At some of the meetings my sister was reduced to tears by the attacks she endured from these “christians” as they tried to protect the church, yet again, from any scandal that might affect the bottom line….as in money…& this is a religion that claims it owns the son of god?? Then a friend got me reading Richard Dawkins & I was astonished at how clear his summations are. They made far more sense to me than the so called word of god.  I now believe in a world that is beautiful. I have let go of feeling dirty if I have sex with a man I desire but am not married to. I have learnt to love having plenty of money without feeling naughty; I even swear! And guess what buddy…..there’s no judgement. NONE!! ZILCH!! And when I die the worms will eat my carcass & that’s the end of the story!! Think about it. Eternal life? What a hoax!

James1 says:

06:40pm | 27/07/10

I have read Behe, and he poses no alternative theory to that of natural selection and evolution.  He establishes that many organisms are highly complex, determines that this has resulted from some kind of irreducible complexity, and says that evolution can not possibly account for their existence.

While I have turned off Dawkins since “The God Delusion”, his earlier work does not side step as you claim, Christian.  He, along with many other evolutionary biologists have taken apart the claim that there exists irreducible complexity, and has posed explanations for all the things you mention.  Try reading “The Selfish Gene” and “The Blind Watchmaker” for a fuller, and much, much better, treatment of natural selection and evolution.  If you think we lack evidence for our views, you need to read more than Behe on Dawkins.  There is clearly a world of evidence and scientific thought out there you are not aware of, Christian.

Happy reading!

Christian says:

11:40am | 27/07/10

Where do you think your morals came from? Or ethics? If humanity is nothing more than an evolution-based accumulation of random events, and if survival of the fittest governs our actions and lives, how did we get such a set of principles that supports the weak, the disadvantaged, the marginalised? How did the human spirit (a non-physical thing) evolve out of physical things? Where does conscience come from?

However broken the world is, @Moggy, the God I know does not ‘hide’ himself, nor does he NEED worship. He is no megalomaniac, and does not ask us to grovel (which presupposes fear). But he does ask us to seek and strive after him, just as we seek and strive after things on earth, because seeking and striving shows that we want something. Yes, the pedophile instance you have quoted is horrific. No, I don’t have an answer, although I wonder how the human spirit and condition would look if God prevented every single crime, stopped every war, intervened to prevent every single domestic dispute, halted every single divorce, gave everyone the best possible job, arranged so that every single playground dispute never happened, every single exam was passed, every single . . . What kind of people would we become?

Tedd says:

01:30pm | 27/07/10

Christian - it is always “the God I know”, or “if God ...”.

Morals and ethics come from society, from community; from “common unity” (except for the sociopaths and psychopaths amongst us).

Tedd says:

02:21pm | 27/07/10

You refer to traditions, that’s all.

James1 says:

06:42pm | 27/07/10

Charles Darwin wanted to be a pastor.

James1 says:

06:43pm | 27/07/10

Also, Look Deeper, don’t forget stalwart Christian nations like Uganda, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Brazil, South Africa, Ethiopia…

Chris L says:

11:56pm | 27/07/10

Perhaps all the people you mentioned were practising Christians, then again atheism was punishable by the death penalty throughout much of Christian history so maybe they were just protecting themselves in case anyone around them took this notion seriously.

Steely Dan says:

04:01pm | 28/07/10

@ Look Deeper

Remember the enlightenment?  Its no coincidence that the earth witnessed one of the the greatest eras of technological advancement once secular thinking was given room to move.

P R Green says:

01:03am | 29/07/10

Although I disagree with a number of your conclusions, Timmo, I think you have given the issues some serious thought. Here are a few things I think you might do well to consider.

First, while Christianity clearly has roots in Judaism, it is not at all so clear that Islam has as well. You might find it an interesting exercise to make up a table to compare and contrast what Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe.

Second, you say, “The Christian God is supposed to be loving but vengeful as well according to the spiel. “Thou shall have no other Gods before me” is a pretty full on and scary saying”.”

It may be scary if you don’t realise the context. The alternatives to the God of the Bible include gods like Moloch, who demanded the sacrifice of children (some of the graveyards have apparently been identified) or gods who demanded that all women in a town prostitute themselves to raise money for their temples.

But it is also about the fact that no one can really serve two masters.

Third, you talk about “...scaring people into superstitious belief.”  I agree that it is not the way I would want to follow something. In fact, the Bible is not about scaring people into belief. It’s a bit complex to go through the Old Testament for evidence, but keep in mind that what God says about not having any Gods before him was written to people who already believed. In the New Testament, the point is made that Jesus died to demonstrate just how far God, in his love, will go for us. It’s like two people who have a falling out, perhaps because one misunderstood the other, and the wounded party, instead of saying, “You did this to me, so you have to apologise to me,” instead goes to the wounder and says, “I still want your love, and I come to you to rebuild the relationship.” The wounded party has paid the price.

On the topic of “original sin” you confuse evil and sin. They are different things. Sin is a more like a character trait that inclines us against God, where as evil has more to do with behaviour and choices. Thus I am a sinner regardless of whether I do anything particularly bad.

For example, I helped a young woman get her stroller down the railway steps one morning and felt pretty good about myself. Then I realised that, among my motives of wanting to help were motives like wanting to be seen to be a “good helper”, hoping to be liked by an attractive woman, enjoying being appreciated… in other words, my good deed was pretty seriously tainted by selfishness.

Because I know I am a sinner, I neither ignore those motives (or pretend they don’t exist) nor become alarmed by them. It is to be expected that I will be like that—but God loves me, anyway, and still accepts me in Jesus; and it’s not a bad idea if I work on my attitudes towards helping when similar situations arise. But I doubt that what I did was evil!

As to literacy, it appears that the level of literacy among Israelite men around the time of Jesus, at any rate, was relatively high, and there is evidence that the kings of the time of Jeremiah (c 600BC) were literate. Scribes were the ancient equivalent to the laser printer (or carbon paper): they were employed to make multiple accurate copies in clear, legible writing.

In the New Testament, the Scribes referred to (usually in conjunction with Pharisees) were men whose job was to provide new copies of Biblical scrolls to replace worn or damaged copies in synagogues and in the Temple. Their job made them very well informed about the Biblical text, and they had well-developed techniques including letter counts to ensure accuracy.

In the synagogues, services were largely lay-led and any man could be called upon to read from the scriptures. The priests served in the Temple, but not in the synagogues.

Judaism was aware of the potential problems of priestly control, which is one reason why the prophets also existed, to provide a dissenting voice within the religion and challenge attempts to consolidate power in priestly hands.

At the same time, the king was (generally) prohibited from having any cultic role—this was preserved for the priests. An early form of separation of church and state, and influential in the development of the concept of separation of church and state in Baptist thinking at the beginning of the 17th century.

Historically, Christianity has leaped forwards about every fourth generation, often through “revivals” (which are different from evangelistic campaigns. It is unlikely that Christianity will be destroyed, as you suggest, but that it will once again transform itself.

Islam, on the other hand, does not seem to have a similar transformative tendency, and it would be interesting to live to see what happens there within the next half century or so.

Steely Dan says:

12:08pm | 28/07/10

Get off your own blind high horse, VS.  Greg has used the fact that there’s an exhibition to raise the issue of ‘the place of the bible in modern society’ (funnily enough).  That’s something that ‘aestheists’ and theists should discuss, and this is an appropiate forum.

And do you really think The Punch would give space to someone from the Christian lobby just so they could spruik a Bible exhibition (which the vast majority of Christians won’t even bother going to see)?

Peter says:

04:53pm | 28/07/10

@ Steely Dan. I think the Punch has given space to both religious people and athiests.. and to these people throwing out the tired old line about speghetti monsters….

Steely Dan says:

11:20am | 29/07/10

@ Peter

I don’t disagree, as you saw in my post. 

Followers of the FSM are of course theists.  Incidentally, they have an important place in modern society - the ‘tired old lines’ need to be trodden out to show the absurdity of some other tired old lines, Pascal’s wager being one of the most prominent.

Lee from WA says:

05:34pm | 28/07/10

No less than a white man or a yellow man or an olive man or a black man (Christianity rose in the Mediterranean and North Africa) needs to be told by a brown man. Race doesn’t matter because ‘all sin and fall short of the glory of God’ as Romans 3 puts it.

LisaS says:

07:33pm | 28/07/10

Lee, there are many belief systems around the world, and the majority of people in this world do not believe in the Christian Bible (New Testament). Therefore, quoting a piece of the New Testament has no meaning to those of us who simply don’t believe in it. So show some tolerance for those of us with different beliefs to yours.

P R Green says:

01:11am | 29/07/10

LisaS: as Infense has objected to the evangelisation of Aborigines, surely the intolerance is yours, when you do not want to allow Lee to respond with a reference to a key Biblical concept.

It would be a pity if you were so afraid of the Bible that you can’t let 10 words of it be uttered in a defence!

LisaS says:

04:56pm | 29/07/10

P R Green,

That’s a straw man argument… it’s impossible to be afraid of something that one doesn’t believe in.

Tedd says:

05:25pm | 29/07/10

Preaching to someone who alluded to not wanting preaching is very disrespectful.  Berating someone with pity and afraid is also disrespctful

Steely Dan says:

02:11pm | 30/07/10

@ Timmo

“Man has to look within himself for the answers to life because the answers lie within not without.”
Why do you say that?  This just limits where you can look for answers.

Steely Dan says:

11:04am | 02/08/10

“I wrote a long answer to your question but I deleted it as I didn’t want to appear arrogant. So although it was a good answer i decided not to put that one here.”
Don’t worry, I’m pretty hard to offend most of the time.  As long as it’s a good answer I want to hear it.
“I find that Meditation and relaxation helps me to balance pressures of life that arrive externally, by concentrating my mind and attempting to find the peaceful and natural state that arises by looking within.”
I also meditate – not in a conventional legs-crossed-eyes-closed way, but it is a form of meditation. 

“So because this is good to have I follow that and that is why I wrote what i did.”
I agree that meditation is good.  As is philosophy.  But for a philosophical or theological position to be valid it must be checked against reality for consistency.  This is why we have to look outside of ourselves as well, to help us differentiate between what could be and what is.

“I have found that Meditation makes me peaceful and closer to what is said to be the true nature. So that requires in practice to look within.”
Who said it?  Why do you believe them?

“None of us can say that the world events are balanced because we know they are not.”
What do you mean by ‘balanced’?

Timmo says:

08:48am | 02/08/10

LC. That would be a good idea. Probably save the kids which would be good. They should be allowed to make up their own minds about these things. Now that would be good. Good comment.