What is so good about the 'Good Book'?

This is a serious question, what is it that is so good about the Bible?Can it really be described as the 'Good Book' or should it be referred to as something else?One thing that makes me doubt the 'Goodness' of the Bible is the use made of passages in the Bible (e.g. Joshua and Judges)to justify a 'Holy' or 'Just War.'For example, ALL interpretations of a military conquest of Canaan by Joshua have been proven false, yet the conquest narratives have been used to justify all sorts of Christian atrocities, such as the Crusades. The suffering caused thoughout the centuries, all based on events that simply didnt happen, is incalculable.How can the Bible retain its title of the Good Book when it has been responsible for some of the severest examples of man's inhumanity to man?So what is it that makes the Bible 'Good' ?------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
This is a serious question, what is it that is so good about the Bible?
Can it really be described as the 'Good Book' or should it be referred to as something else?

---

It contains elements which make for good reading - Sex, Violence, and Mystery.

quote:

---

One thing that makes me doubt the 'Goodness' of the Bible is the use made of passages in the Bible (e.g. Joshua and Judges)to justify a 'Holy' or 'Just War.'
For example, ALL interpretations of a military conquest of Canaan by Joshua have been proven false, yet the conquest narratives have been used to justify all sorts of Christian atrocities, such as the Crusades. The suffering caused thoughout the centuries, all based on events that simply didnt happen, is incalculable.

---

People will justify war even if all they can appeal to is simple survival instinct.

quote:

---

How can the Bible retain its title of the Good Book when it has been responsible for some of the severest examples of man's inhumanity to man?

---

Is Origin of Species responsible for atheism? Is Mein Kampf responsible for World War II?
The Bible is only a book. It retains its title because the title fits.

quote:

---

So what is it that makes the Bible 'Good' ?

---

--------------------- Sex - Violence - Mystery and Antiquity ---------------------There's some really good erotic poetry, a lot of wise old sayings, ancient laws and chronicles of kings, a bunch of genealogies, a smattering of cosmological commentary, and at least one very bawdy tale. Too bad that modern producers have failed to translate it effectively; but it has been my hobby for more than forty years and frankly, despite all the trouble related to its use and abuse in the world today, and yesterday, and probably far into the future, . . . . . .I like it!db------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

Is Origin of Species responsible for atheism? Is Mein Kampf responsible for World War II?
The Bible is only a book. It retains its title because the title fits.Unlike these others the bible IS responsible for much because it is a thing of worship and justification for hundreds of millions for nearly 1700 years. It's a matter of scale.[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Unlike these others the bible IS responsible for much because it is a thing of worship and justification for hundreds of millions for nearly 1700 years. It's a matter of scale.

---

How did people justify aggression before there was a Bible?How do people justify aggression when they have no Bible?Is the constitution responsible for America? No. Those who support the constitution are responsible.Is Betty Crocker responsible for my wife's lousey cooking? No. My wife is responsible. She may blame Betty's recipes but I am not persuaded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
... hundreds of millions for nearly 1700 years. It's a matter of scale.

---

By this reasoning - If atheism is around 1500 years from now, then Origin of Species can be held responsible for atheism?I am all in favor of attacking abusers of the holy script. But the Bible itself doesn't hear a word I say. It just sits there, like it doesn't care. Maybe it's intellectually challenged. Maybe it's mentally incompetent. If that is true, then there is no court in the land which would hold it "responsible" for anything.I can understand why you link the Bible with the people who go off on it, but the next logical step would be to ban the Bible. That's already been tried. Banning books only makes them seem more important.So, how does one get rid of the evil Scripture-thumpers? Jews put rocks in their heads. Christians threw them on the Barbie. Muslims lift up their heads. But they keep on coming. I hear that Hitler had some success with gas. Oops! That's another story. At any rate, I don't need a book to tell me who my enemies are.db

Originally posted by doctrbill:How did people justify aggression before there was a Bible?

​

How do people justify aggression when they have no Bible?They used their religious writings, and/or myths.Is the constitution responsible for America? No. Those who support the constitution are responsible.They don't compare because it is not the same concept.By this reasoning - If atheism is around 1500 years from now, then Origin of Species can be held responsible for atheism?Atheism is not a belief system and the person who wrote it was a Christian.I am all in favor of attacking abusers of the holy script. But the Bible itself doesn't hear a word I say. It just sits there, like it doesn't care. Maybe it's intellectually challenged. Maybe it's mentally incompetent. If that is true, then there is no court in the land which would hold it "responsible" for anything.It is a means of justification.So, how does one get rid of the evil Scripture-thumpers? Jews put rocks in their heads. Christians threw them on the Barbie. Muslims lift up their heads. But they keep on coming. I hear that Hitler had some success with gas. Oops! That's another story. At any rate, I don't need a book to tell me who my enemies are.You may not, but a good many people do.[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
How did people justify aggression before there was a Bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482: They used their religious writings, and/or myths.

---

Writing was invented about 5000 years ago. Was there no war before that?doctrbill - Is the constitution responsible for America? No. Those who support the constitution are responsible.nos - They don't compare because it is not the same concept.How not? You assert that the Bible is responsible for war. I say people are responsible for war.doctrbill - ... If atheism is around 1500 years from now, then Origin of Species can be held responsible for atheism?nos - Atheism is not a belief system and the person who wrote it was a Christian.Darwinism is a belief system but I don't think one needs Darwin to know that Godidit isn't the answer. I don't think authorship is particularly relevent to this issue. The question is whether a book can be held responsible for a person's bad behavior. In this country (U.S.) it cannot. Freedom of Speech you know.doctrbill - ... there is no court in the land which would hold it [the Bible] "responsible" for anything.nos - It is a means of justification.I know what you are saying, but it won't stand up in court. In the real world one doesn't kill people with impunity unless he is ordered to do so by his country. In such case, "The British Are Coming!!" is all the justification one needs.doctrbill - ... I don't need a book to tell me who my enemies are.nos - You may not, but a good many people do.No one needs a book to tell him that Osama bin Laden is our enemy.In wartime the Bible is used to comfort those who are about to die. But it is one's commander who points him to the enemy. He may quote Sargon, Alexander, Patton, or Joshua, but it is military command which assigns the enemy.I believe we must recognize a difference between the Bible and various organizations which purport to know, "the Will of God as revealed in the Bible." Whether they know it or not, and probably not, the "God" of which they speak is a long dead hanging judge or some ancient war-mongering Emperor. The problem with their ignorance is that they don't know they've got it. A more effective tack is to know the Bible better than they do. If that doesn't work, then perhaps a well placed grenade (Oh Please God).db

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
This is a serious question, what is it that is so good about the Bible?...How can the Bible retain its title of the Good Book when it has been responsible for some of the severest examples of man's inhumanity to man?

---

--A lot of strong response to your question, Brian. Your question is actually answered by the Bible, so that exhaustive apologetics are redundant.
--Presently, the Bible lights in and out of my life via the Gospel -- a Christ's restorative death burial and resurrection for a cursed creation.--The Muslim-like Holy wars and human exterminations agree (in my conscience) to the wrath of a holy God who would avenge sin with eternal judgement (A.K.A. hell-fire) SANS redemption. Even the atoning redemptive Icon Isaiah ends with: "and there worm shall never die", for the "wicked".
Such is the way of sin under the law of Moses and the non-redemptive tablets of stone.--Punitive Justice is necessary and never enough for a desperately wicked Canaan, Sodom, Edom, Babylon, and by implication, China, USA, Haiti, Iraq, Israel, and especially for you and I, personally. Once our mischief-ful human nature is realized the Old Testament Law strips away its glamour and destroys the wretched beings that we are.--That everyone has had his day is a relative concept; the sun shined on us all, period.--God commanding then, the mass-extermination of sodomizers, molesters, murderers, torturers, rapests, etc. may be merciful compared to other human options of:
1) allowing OUR own raging sin to continue (unchecked) within the human race as a whole,
2) the problem of the nuclear-family falling prone to divorce and life-long blind rage therein,
3) the vicarious torment of a justly enlarging hell-fire for ungodly sinners who have sinned more voraciously over a longer life-span, etc.--Thus, the old testament begs no apologetics for its exterminations (in my conscience).--Blissfully for many (in both testaments), is the new contract of a Christ reconciling sinners and not imputing their trespasses, via the substitutionary vicarious chastisements he endured to free us, and then being seen (by faith) as raised from the dead on high in majesty and power, ready to forgive and forget your and my filthy mischiefs and sins in-toto, as a free gift, with Heaven proferred as well.--The Bible, i.e., via a Gospel-preacher therein, when it shines in my life or yours, is a beautiful pure and redemptive phenomenon. That redemptive phenomenon is certainly something I continuously long for.--Paradoxically, for many biblical believers, though every word of God operates collaboratively as irreducible members of the whole (a mega-IC if you will), scripture quotes work as stand-alone ICs, too. E.g., one quote like, "He will never leave nor forsake you", "The Lord is my shepherd", etc. might make your day. So might the whole totality of the gospel-word.Philip[This message has been edited by Philip, 11-06-2002]

Originally posted by doctrbill:Writing was invented about 5000 years ago. Was there no war before that?Recorded history started around 10,000 years ago And they still used the same excuses.How not? You assert that the Bible is responsible for war. I say people are responsible for war.I didn't say any such thing.Darwinism is a belief system but I don't think one needs Darwin to know that Godidit isn't the answer.Darwinism isn't a belief system either.I don't think authorship is particularly relevent to this issue. The question is whether a book can be held responsible for a person's bad behavior. In this country (U.S.) it cannot. Freedom of Speech you know.That is freedom of political speech.I know what you are saying, but it won't stand up in court. In the real world one doesn't kill people with impunity unless he is ordered to do so by his country. In such case, "The British Are Coming!!" is all the justification one needs.I didn't say that it did either. I had said that it was a means of justifing one's actions.No one needs a book to tell him that Osama bin Laden is our
enemy.It does when it is based on a jihad.In wartime the Bible is used to comfort those who are about to die. But it is one's commander who points him to the enemy. He may quote Sargon, Alexander, Patton, or Joshua, but it is military command which assigns the enemy."For god and country..."I believe we must recognize a difference between the Bible and various organizations which purport to know, "the Will of God as revealed in the Bible." Whether they know it or not, and probably not, the "God" of which they speak is a long dead hanging judge or some ancient war-mongering Emperor. The problem with their ignorance is that they don't know they've got it. "But they're not real Christians..."A more effective tack is to know the Bible better than they do. If that doesn't work, then perhaps a well placed grenade (Oh Please God).

​

dbThere is much in the bible which can be used to justify much evil as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by doctrbill:

​

Writing was invented about 5000 years ago. Was there no war before that?

​

Recorded history started around 10,000 years ago And they still used the same excuses.

---

Ah.... deja vu. I have pointed this out to you before, Nos, in the very first thread in which we butted heads. The earliest example of writing dates nowhere near 10000 years ago. No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stmSo how is it that you have been corrected and shown the evidence, yet repeat the same line of rhetoric? Is this akin in some way to the lying you are quick to see in others?

quote:

---

Darwinism isn't a belief system either.

---

Well Nos said it, so it must be true. Do you think you might be able to elaborate?

quote:

---

"But they're not real Christians..."

---

It is painfully obvious that this not the argument doctrbill was making.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Originally posted by John:Ah.... deja vu. I have pointed this out to you before, Nos, in the very first thread in which we butted heads. The earliest example of writing dates nowhere near 10000 years ago.

​

No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stmYou're speaking mainly of Egyptian history. They aren't the oldest civilization. Recorded history also includes certain cave paintings as well. I didn't say written history. There are many ways to record history other than your limited definition of just writing.Well Nos said it, so it must be true. Do you think you might be able to elaborate?It is a theory, a part of the theory of Evolution. Christianity is a belief system with rites, rituals and other such nonsense. Darwinism has none of this. Do you see the difference or do you just want to be contrary?It is painfully obvious that this not the argument doctrbill was making.Mary Mary quite....

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
You're speaking mainly of Egyptian history.

---

Where did you get the idea that I was talking about Egyptian history? Oldest is oldest. Nor is the article talking about Egyptian history. The fragment was found in a Harrapan civilizations settlement.

quote:

---

They aren't the oldest civilization.

---

Thoroughly and completely irrelavent. We are not talking about the antiquity of any civilization at all, but about the oldest known example of writing.

quote:

---

Recorded history also includes certain cave paintings as well.

---

There is a difference between archealogical evidence and recorded history. Writing is recorded history. We can translate and understand it. Paintings will always be debatable. They are subjective. There is no solid way to translate them.

quote:

---

I didn't say written history.

---

You might consider that in English 'recorded history' and 'written history' are synonymous.

quote:

---

There are many ways to record history other than your limited definition of just writing.

---

Like what? Little fat statues? Painted rocks? This isn't a record of history. It is evidence of a history.

quote:

---

It is a theory, a part of the theory of Evolution. Christianity is a belief system with rites, rituals and other such nonsense. Darwinism has none of this. Do you see the difference or do you just want to be contrary?

---

I always knew what you meant. I just wanted to make you define your terms. You were very terse with doctrBill and the issue is all semantics. A 'belief system' does not have to have rites and rituals. That is the nosfinition, but not the only possible one. I function within a set of beliefs yet have no rites and rituals (Is coffee a rite or ritual?). That could be considered a belief system. [quote]It is painfully obvious that this not the argument doctrbill was making.Mary Mary quite....[/B][/QUOTE]You are quick to snap, young grasshopper. Your gut reaction misled you. Hopefully doctrBill will explain things.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I always knew what you meant. I just wanted to make you define your terms. You were very terse with doctrBill and the issue is all semantics. A 'belief system' does not have to have rites and rituals. That is the nosfinition, but not the only possible one. I function within a set of beliefs yet have no rites and rituals (Is coffee a rite or ritual?). That could be considered a belief system.In this context a belief system does include what I had said. Contrary to what you are trying to do.[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
In this context a belief system does include what I had said.

---

Hint: Sometimes context exists outside of your head.Apparently the other participant in this discussion, dctrBill, did not assume the same context that you do and you dismissed him with a non-answer based upon your own internal subjective definition of 'belief system.' Hence my initial comment to you.

quote:

---

Contrary to what you are trying to do.

---

What, dear Nos, am I trying to do?Something you said in another post implies that you understand that language is not exact. Definitions vary. Usage varies. Arguing purely based on a definition is a fallacy. Debating definitions is different; often necessary, often painful and sometimes productive. At least the debatees learn to speak the same language.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
You enjoying yourself? Trying to get me banned again?

---

You don't need my help for that. But no, that is not what I am trying to do.I am trying to get you to fight like an adult and not like a whinnie-baby-name-caller. The ban must have done you some good because you finally seem to making an effort at it.Now can we get back to the thread?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
You enjoying yourself? Trying to get me banned again?

---

​

You don't need my help for that. But no, that is not what I am trying to do.

​

I am trying to get you to fight like an adult and not like a whinnie-baby-name-caller. The ban must have done you some good because you finally seem to making an effort at it.

​

Now can we get back to the thread?

​

---

You prove yourself a liar by somehow bringing this posting back after I had deleted it before anyone could reply to it just to get me into trouble. I'll probably get banned now forever and everyone will take your side in this since I'm such a terrible person and all, as you say. Well, at least I respect women.[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-06-2002]