A worse book than the bible?

[wittgenst3in]

I'm going to type this really carefully so I don't come across as a troll anymore than the above headline will automatically cause.

Before I start I want to define why I'd call a book good or bad:
Let's say I asked you to look over a small pamphlet and ask if it contained some good advice and was worth distributing. Stuff like

1. Get plenty of exercise

2. Drink 8 glasses of water a day

3. Don't let things worry you too much.

4. If a man and a woman commit aduly, put them to death. They had it coming

5. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now most people would think 5 was a good idea. They'd probably agree with 1, 2 and 3 more or less. No-one I know would agree with 4.

Now the way I see it, it dosen't matter how much stuff of type 1235 you have; if you have anything like 4 I'm going to call this pamphlet worse than another that didn't have it in there. Hell, I'd probably call it worse than an empty pamphlet.

The bible has some good bits and some very bad bits. Good bits include the above golden rule, reminding people that no-one is perfect etc. Bad bits include telling people that someone having a siezure on the floor is posessed by demons, saying races are not 'God's chosen people', killing somone for cumming on the ground, killing someone for trying to catch a falling box, various genocides, precise descriptions of animal sacrifice, killing the first born CHILDREN of a entire city because one man was being a dick, etc. In my view the good dosen't quite make up for the bad (That's why I respect Jefferson for trying to fix that).

Now I've sort of explained my rating system, my question is this: Is there a worse book than the bible? Is there some book that the worst bits are more dangerous advice than the bible?

Note: I'm not saying you can't have bad historical stories. If a charecter kills 10 people it dosen't count unless he is called good, etc.

[Scot C. Trypal]

How’bout The Malleus Maleficarum?

Lots of bad advice in there, particularly if you’re a lonely old and eccentric woman in the 15th century.

I could point to many redeeming qualities of the Bible--you pointed out some--but I see nothing redeeming in the The Malleus Maleficarum, save maybe a bit of gallows humor that can be found in the Monty-Python-esk discussion of witch handling.

Funny, in it’s day, I see it was a #2 best seller; the Bible being #1.

edited for a '

[Gestahl]

Anything by L Ron Hubbard?

On the surface, nothing too bad appears, but it sure is destructive and infantile...

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm certainly no Bible believer, but I don't think the Bible a bad book If you appraoch it as an anthology of ancient literature. Mythology, legend, fable, poetry, even a bit of real history if you're clever enough to extract it.



I really like ancient literature in general.



The Iliad, Anaeid, Metamorphoses, etc all have disgusting violence and cruel gods. And all are good reading.



None of it was written with evil intent and all of it is well written. That fundies today take the Bible literally is a separate issue.



In some cases, the fundies take the Bible more literally than the author. I don't think that the prophet Jonah spun his story to be taken as anything but a fable.



In other cases, the fundies actually take the Bible less literally than the author. I don't think that King Solomon's court poet meant the Song of Songs as a metaphor of God's love for His people.



If you want a really evil book, look at Mein Kampf or other deliberate evil propaganda.

[Doctor X]

My Life, William J. Clinton

--J.D.

[Yahzi]

Mein Kampf?

The Protocols of Zion?

But no, I would have to say, anything by L. Ron Hubbard takes the cake.

Not that the Bible isn't in the top 10 list. Rejecting life and making obedience the only moral virtue are hard to beat.

[Piscivore]

"Hart's Hope" by Orson Scott Card.

This piece of excrement is gratuitous brutality from Chapter One (at least up to Chapter Three, where I stopped reading because there was not one single character I cared about in the slightest.) The main plotline begins with a graphic description of child rape, and it's downhill from there.

[Max560]

Wuthering Heights

[Doctor X]

Indeed!

--J.D.

[wittgenst3in]

Interesting list, thanks guys.

I'm going to have to give The Malleus Maleficarum a read at somestage. I usually take a while to get through these kinds of books but I can whizz through technical manuals (and from what I've heard it sounds like one.)

I'm just wondering if because the bible already tells you not to suffer a witch to live, the MM could be considered a subset of the bible's bad list.

Any other bad books out there? I was kind of hoping for a comparison with stuff like the Gitas, or other religious texts.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Quote:

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
I'm just wondering if because the bible already tells you not to suffer a witch to live, the MM could be considered a subset of the bible's bad list.

Not really, though the authors of MM would agree with your assessment of their work being Biblical.

It is a witch hunter's manual.

There were no witch hunts is ancient Israel, nor in Christian Europe in the Middle Ages.

Witch hunting was a product of the Protestant Reformation. The Catholics were too busy hunting heretics.

BTW, "suffer a witch to live" really means "allow a necromancer to earn a living". If a death penalty were intended the canonical formula would be "shall surely die".

And witches in the sense of those in league with the devil are not even mentioned in the Bible.

The witch of Endor (the only witch mentioned in the Bible) was a necromancer, and she was practising openly.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" applied in modern times would be "don't patronize mediums". There is however an implication that mediums are for real.

[Piscivore]

Quote:

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
Interesting list, thanks guys.

I'm going to have to give The Malleus Maleficarum a read at somestage. I usually take a while to get through these kinds of books but I can whizz through technical manuals (and from what I've heard it sounds like one.)

I'm just wondering if because the bible already tells you not to suffer a witch to live, the MM could be considered a subset of the bible's bad list.

Any other bad books out there? I was kind of hoping for a comparison with stuff like the Gitas, or other religious texts.

You might want to check out the (East) Indian epic poem "The Mahabharata"- it is superficially similar to the OT, but I'll confess most of my familiarity with it is the film of the play by Peter Brook.

I'm not sure that it is "bad" by the standard you illustrate in your OP (the closest thing to a biblical "God" is Dharma, but it is impersonal- although there are a multiplicity of gods in the work)

[Scot C. Trypal]

Quote:

Any other bad books out there? I was kind of hoping for a comparison with stuff like the Gitas, or other religious texts.

I guess the Koran is the closest to the Bible that I can think of. It has its good parts: a strong focus on charity, care for orphans, and so on. But there is also death for homosexuals, cruel punishments for minor crimes, taxation for non-believers, unequal treatment of women, and so on.

An interesting case is the LDS literature. I’d say they fall more into the “good” or neutral category (though, not being a Mormon, I think the explanation for that is their being written by an author with a more modern and humane morality, Joseph Smith). Even there though, you’ll find unacceptable nastiness, like excusing the treatment and enslavement of African races.

Adding to Abdul’s comments, The Malleus Maleficarum was written from a Christian’s perspective and has many references to Bible passages, the writings of some saints, Jesus, and God (In fact, to keep God in His Heaven, they continually claim witches, though unsalvageable and vial, work with God’s permission). But their scriptural basis is often thin and strained.

Still, it seems to me the Bible does demand death for witches, even if “suffer a witch to live" means "allow a necromancer to earn a living". I’m thinking of Lev 20:27, "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them."

Also, I’m under the impression that the Leviticus laws weren’t in effect until after the Endor incident. I’ll have to look it up.

Anyway, MM does get wildly away from anything in the Bible. For example check out some of the chapter headings:

How Witches Impede and Prevent the Power of Procreation--Thank goodness we now have Viagra, as it seems one of the methods witches use to stop procreation is erectile dysfunction.

How, as it were, They Deprive Men of Their Vital Member--Relax, it’s not gone. They just made it invisible so that you can see and feel “nothing but your smooth body”. In this chapter you can read real life anecdotes! It must be true.

Here follows the Way whereby Witches copulate with those Devils known as Incubi--This is more complicated than you might think. There’s a whole bit about Succubus collecting semen from men, the devil sorting it, and Incubi putting it into a witch during a sex act.

Of the Manner whereby they Change Men into the Shapes of Beasts--They claim this has been “sufficiently proven”.

How they Raise and Stir up Hailstorms and Tempests, and cause Lightening to Blast both Men and Livestock--The proof for this is found in a weak connection to Job, and eyewitness testimony.

Doesn’t all the focus on sex and gender show what the witch craze was really all about?

Anyway, in Part 3 of the book the prescribed legal treatment of witches is discussed. Now, I probably shouldn’t have said I see nothing redeemable about it. For example, they do say a person’s mortal enemy shouldn’t be used as a witness to a person’s witchieness, and there are degrees of suspicion introduced with a range of punishments. But we are talking about a completely fictitious threat to their community, and once it gets to the discussion of torture and capitol punishment it’s tough to remain unbiased.

Check out this excerpt; it’s a good example:

Quote:

….while she is being questioned about each several point, let her be often and frequently exposed to torture, beginning with the more gentle of them; for the Judge should not be too hasty to proceed to the graver kind. And while this is being done, let the Notary write all down, how she is tortured and what questions are asked and how she answers.

And note that, if she confesses under torture, she should then be taken to another place and questioned anew, so that she does not confess only under the stress of torture.

The next step of the Judge should be that, if after being fittingly tortured she refuses to confess the truth, he should have other engines of torture brought before her, and tell her that she will have to endure these if she does not confess. If then she is not induced by terror to confess, the torture must be continued on the second or third day, but not repeated at that present time unless there should be some fresh indication of its probable success.

It’s incredibly barbaric, and all based on superstition, but you can also tell that they are wanting to be good and reasonable men about it. They simply have these superstitions, taken with next to no skepticism and a lot of faith, that pose witches, these abnormal women of the 15th century, as real threats to all good men women and children. It’s right to protect your community from being killed, cursed, losing their “male members”, and so on, if such crimes were real. That’s what they think they’re doing.

The road to Hell and good intentions I guess, but I can see some well-intentioned people doing the same things today. Thank goodness it’s not near as physically threatening.

I hope that wasn’t too much of a derail.

[wittgenst3in]

No, that was great.

I don't think the road was entirely well intentioned though. Wasn't one of the conditions of arrest that you had to buy the court a meal? Sounds like some guys who knew which side their bread was buttered.

[JJM 777]

Quote:

In some cases, the fundies take the Bible more literally than the author.

A good point: the only acceptable mainstream Christian claim is that the Bible is in its entirety, from the beginning to the end, infallible Word of God and not of humans, inspired by God, word for word.

Where in the Bible is such a claim made? Nowhere.

Two of the books, Song of Songs and the book of Esther, don't mention God or religion at all. In other words, THE AUTHOR seems to have intended the work for other kind of use, or at least other kind of religious status, than later generations gave to these works. What a surprise it would be, to be passionately writing a love song, only to later on find out that the people out on the market have taken it as inspired Word of God.

Some shorter passages in the Bible are given as "direct quotations of words spoken by God". For example, Moses makes the direct claim that what he has written, he has received directly from God.

These passages of "direct quotation of words spoken by God" form only a minority of the entire Bible text. Claiming the entire Bible to be divinely inspired from the beginning to the end has nothing to do with faith in the Bible and its writers: the claim has come from outside the Bible.

[Iacchus]

The Bible is all about human nature (or frailty). Perhaps this is why some find it so revolting? Then again, maybe this is why others find it so appealing?

[JJM 777]

The Bible is a code that tells you how you are EXPECTED to live your life.

THAT is the main reason why some find it so extremely revolting, and others find it so extremely secure and comforting.

[Piscivore]

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The Bible is a code that tells you how you are EXPECTED to live your life.

THAT is the main reason why some find it so extremely revolting, and others find it so extremely secure and comforting.

It IS "extremely secure and comforting" not having to do your own thinking, isn't it.

[wittgenst3in]

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The Bible is a code that tells you how you are EXPECTED to live your life.

THAT is the main reason why some find it so extremely revolting, and others find it so extremely secure and comforting.

I understand the bible is meant both as a historical book, and as a guidance.

Historical book:
That's why I made the point above that I don't care if there's a historical story there that involves a war etc.

On the other hand if you have a war, which is either commanded by a god, or something like genocide brought about by a divine 'miracle' then this gives a window into the mentatlity of god.

Guidance:

Quote:

The Bible is a code that tells you how you are EXPECTED to live your life.

After reading parts like leviticus I wouldn't call this a very good life to be expected to live. Telling people when they can be put to death, forbidding things without justifying them with a reason, when slavery is justified, etc. do not seem like good things to aspire to.

BTW, I'm not making the point that the bible does not contain anything good. Certainly todays christians know which parts contain good bits and which are best to ignore. But if there's one thing that people like to do, it's follow things without question, so if I was going to write a bible I'd try to make the whole thing as idiot proof as possible. But if someone who dosen't know which bits to ignore reads it, it can lead to horrible things. The bad bits more than cancel out the good.

[JJM 777]

I agree that the Bible would require some minor editorial work.

Many translation committees are actually doing this, even though they cannot stray from the original meaning of the words too remarkably, in fear of causing public protests.

For example, in original Greek text Revelation 22:15 says that gays will be left outside the gates of heaven. Do I smell some political correctness in the Bible that is found on my bookshelf, when I read from there that "dogs" (four-legged mammals with a tail) will be left outside the gates of heaven?

Yep, some editorial work has already been secretly done. Each new translation does it more courageously than the previous ones. Who knows what the Bible will look like in 2100 AD. Will Jesus be mentioned any more? And what about Buddha?

[wittgenst3in]

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I agree that the Bible would require some minor editorial work.

Many translation committees are actually doing this, even though they cannot stray from the original meaning of the words too remarkably, in fear of causing public protests.

For example, in original Greek text Revelation 22:15 says that gays will be left outside the gates of heaven. Do I smell some political correctness in the Bible that is found on my bookshelf, when I read from there that "dogs" (four-legged mammals with a tail) will be left outside the gates of heaven?

Okay, some editing work has aparrenlty been done, but my question is this: Jesus was well versed in the laws and the scripture. He often quoted them to back his position up. If you were the son of god reading this, knowing that people were going to take it seriously, wouldn't you grab a pen and start pointing out which bits were a bad idea? Since he didn't say the laws were full of it I would have to assume he supports them fully.

Editing any parts written before Jesus would then amount to censoring Jesus's position. (Editing the gospels and revelations, etc. would not be a problem because he obviously didn't read them).

Of course the question is, as some people belive, whether Jesus overturned mosaic law.

Arguments I have heard for it are the episode where he forbit people with sin to throw stones first at the woman who was sentenced to death. This would imply strongly that he dosen't think the law should be followed. He also overturns the dietary requirements and the holy rules about eating sacrafices, which would seem to back this position up.

On the other hand he specifically denied overturning any of the laws here:

Quote:

Originally posted by 'q' Mathew


5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Quote:

Originally posted by 'q' Luke


16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

This on the other hand would seem to indicate very strongly that the laws were considered ok.


As for revelations there's a bit in it that I love (this isn't really relevant but what the hell). You know when you're in a dream and you can start of in one place, and then suddenly end up in another. See if this reminds you of that. The bit where the angel hands him a measuring rod and he measures the sides of heaven. Someone once showed me a calculation that showed it was close to a cube that would cover 80% of the usa on it's base. The angel gives john the rod and he measures the sides and writes down the answer. It dosent say "and the angel handed me the rod, and four months later I had paced the edge" it just says he did it, as if he knew the answer dream like, instantly. (Also leaving aside exactly how he was supposed to measure something that tall).

I don't really see how christians can re-write the bible. The two choices would seem to be to be
1. Accept it and change your morality to match the bible.
2. Reject it, and use your own judjement to work out morality.

Accepting it and then changing it seems to be a contradiction, since you are changing the thing you are supposed to be accepting.

[JJM 777]

Quote:

Since He didn't say the laws were full of it I would have to assume He supports them fully. Editing any parts written before Jesus would then amount to censoring Jesus's position.

You make a bit too many conclusions at the same time.

Did Jesus honour the Law of Moses as infallible and divinely inspired word by word? Yes, apparently He did.

Did Jesus honour in a similar way the Song of Songs or the Book of Esther? We may think so if we want, but there is absolutely no evidence supporting such a view. There is no evidence that these two books would have even been included in the canon at the time of Jesus. They have been the subjects of much debate over the centuries, as they don't mention God at all.

But take yet a closer look at the Hebrew Bible: Jesus honours the Law of Moses as divine, but then, also the text of the Torah itself announces that the words of the Law were directly dictated by God, word for word. None of the historical books that come after Torah make any such claims. To me they appear to be free historical narrative written by man and not dictated by God word for word.

So, did Jesus honour the historical books of Hebrew Bible as infallible and divinely inspired -- including the first chapters of Genesis, which are not a part of the Law text written by Moses on Mount Sinai? Possibly not, but the evidence is lacking...

And anyway, Jesus commented about the Torah that some verses had been given "because of the hardness of people's hearts", such as the liberal divorce laws, which Jesus refuted totally.

[Doctor X]

Witt:

Quote:

Jesus was well versed in the laws and the scripture. He often quoted them to back his position up.

Or misquote them. Understand that we have no evidence that Junior actually said anything recorded in the NT.

Much of the contradiction comes from competing versions. Just as the author of Ester may not have expected to find it in a collection of other works, the NT authors certainly did not expect to be in the same book together.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler

The Bible is a code that tells you how you are EXPECTED to live your life.

THAT is the main reason why some find it so extremely revolting, and others find it so extremely secure and comforting.

Of course there would be something terribly wrong with that if it required you to be gullible don't you think?