h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd have to say that the Manifesto doesn't even come close. It hasn't had the nearly two thousand years of history of inciting hatred and violence that the others have had. Moreover, the Manifesto can be seen as a direct indictement (among other things) of religion and the sense of privilege it instils and one could, I suspect, make a case for those religions having inspired or at least contributed to and perpetuated the conditions that inspired Marx and Engels to have written the pamphlet in the first place.

Nice try, but it just doesn't have the history of the big ones.

"Mein Campf" would have to be another one in a similar league to the comunist manifesto, but I still recon that Holy books got in there first.
I read a quote once, allegedly from Jesus saying that some Jews that said they were Jews but lied, had read too many of the words of Satan. From where?....Scripture, possibly? It's perhaps not the words themselves that are evil but the way they are interpreted and the Bible is written in such a way as to alow many interpretations, which tends to conflict of opinion, which leads to physical conflict.

However diversity and alternative opinions are encouraged. If the Bible is wrong and evil then so too is some human nature.

I agree.

Anyone who thinks the bible is a good source of morality probably hasn't read it very carefully. It gives rules to govern slavery, which is *not once* condemned as an evil institution; It makes rules for rape victims to have to marry their rapists; It tells how God instructed the Israelites to carry out genocide against the Canaanites (just try replacing the words "Israelite" and "Canaanite" with "Nazi" and "Jew" when you read Exodus and Deuteronomy to get the full horror); God himself slaughters all the Egyptian firstborn males, an action that *must* include innocent children and babies; the very concept of original sin is HUGELY unethical - every person now living is cursed with the stain of sin, because of the "crime" of two innocents who were, by the bible's own admission, unaware of the concept of sin?

There are many good arguments against the existance of the Abrahamic God (the inaccuracy of bible claims compared with history, biology, physics, etc, internal contradictions within the bible, such as two differing orders of creation, two differing geneologies for Jesus, who in any case couldn't draw a paternal line from any human, and "The Problem of Evil) but, when you actually read the bible, the lack of any coherent ethical message should be clear to anyone not already indoctrinated.

I can see a not so clear ethical message in it, does that mean that I must be indoctrinated?
People get hung up on what it says actions took place, as if it were trying to give you some sort of History lesson, do we believe in the magical style miracles the way they are depicted in the Bible, I don't think so. It's easy to make blind men see for example but only if you are referring to it as a figure of speach. The Bible isn't a History book, it's trying to ask you something and tell you the stuff you need to get the answer too. Most people don't need it, and it seems to be the ignition point of a lot of explosive reaction.

<>

Understated, but, I agree.

"The Bible isn't a History book, it's trying to ask you something and tell you the stuff you need to get the answer too"

The problem isn't with those people who use it as a general cultural resource - there are good stories amongst the bad, available to atheists as well as Christians, Jews and those of other religions - but amongst those who either believe it is all, literally, true and those who believe it is 'inspired' by God and so expect to find moral instruction from every story within it.

Even taking the 'metaphorical interpretation for moral instruction' route, you end up with some very dodgy morals. It is *not* right for children to 'inherit' the guilt of their parents - but the bible gives several stories where this is the absolutely unmistakeable message; it is not right to treat women as second class citizens but, again, this is a pretty clear instruction in the bible; it is not right to clear land of its inhabitents in order to settle your favoured people, but what possible other message can be inferred from the 'invasion of Canaan' story?

The simple fact is that on many factual claims, the bible is demonstrably false; on many ethical issues, it is either vague, contradictory or plain wrong. But we are supposed to accept that the central claim of the bible, unprovable (and not even testable) by any other method, is true, PURELY ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.

I get where you get understated from, you are quite correct. To a lot of people it is a damned nuisance, and that's probably understated too.

But as a matter of genetic fact we do inherit some things from our parents, we also pick up memetic stuff too, like it or not. There's loads of stuff that we just know is wrong. The Bible tells us that more things are wrong. Surely our own moral compass should be used to decide, right from wrong, and you can see from that that some of the things in the Bible a down right wrong. Some people can't read thier own moral compass. Hence the problems that exist.

To lump everything that's wrong in the world on some book is a cop out, it's the people that read it that make it wrong and evil.

<>

I don't think anybody's suggesting that the bible is responsible for ALL the evil in the world. Just MOST of it. Or at least far more than its fair share. In fact that last conversation was dedicated to allowing other contenders a shot at the title.

And yes, of course, it's the people who actually do the evil. A book is an inanimate object, it can neither be evil nor can it be good. It's what people do in its name that counts. And that has traditionally been deeply, horribly, disgustingly evil.

I've just thought of a contender for the title then, and you ain't gonna like it.

The Sun (Not the newspaper but that big ball of gas in the middle of our solar system).

Without the sun light no one would be able to read the Bible so there wouldn't be a problem. But if you take away the bad things at source you also take the good things!

Tongue firmly pressed in cheek.

As long as you're on that track, you could go right to the beginning and blame God.

But God always maintains plausible deniability, and people don't recognise him, The Sun on the other hand.....

Just gets silly if you go to far I suppose.

Maybe if the human race accepted accountability for human actions we'd be in a better situation than if we all try to give blame and/or credit to imaginary friends.

This would indeed be a good idea, but the total denial of the possibility of an imaginary friend, glosses over a psychological phenomena (deliberately not using the word problem). People often come up with better solutions to problems if they try to look at problems from alternative perspectives, for themselves and that can be where an imaginary friend can help. The thing is people do this kind of thing especially, but not only, children. If it weren't given such a high profile, real deep thinkers with good intentions would be locked up in mental hospitals all too often.

Unfortunately if it weren't for the Bible and all the conflict it has caused, we probably wouldn't have the internet. Then again we may have had something better a lot sooner, but would that simply have fizzed out? We will never really know I suppose so putting the past behind us an staying accountable for our own actions sounds like a good plan.

<>

You can believe what you like, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to be factually correct. The bible hasn't been changed and altered "over the years", the bible we have today is translated from the earliest available sources, and the Christian Old Testament is the same as the Jewish scriptures.

If you wish to believe the bible has been changed, it would have to be right at the start, not "over the years".

I recall that the last entry in the Bible is a curse on anyone who endevours to alter the text of it. The penalty for doing so is worse than just death to the individual. So no I don't believe that anyone that's read it has changed it over the years.

However I do believe that various things here and there have been lost in translation, and also peoples interpretation of the scriptures has altered over the years, taking into account the prevailing political climate in which it was being read. This alteration in interpretation is not however exclusive to the Bible.

The potential for stuff being lost in translation and with not being native arabic is one of the reasons I have not read the Quran.

What a crock...

All you have to do is look at several new versions of the "BIBLE" and you'll find discrepancies, syntactical and factual contradictions, interpretative distinctions. Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that it is correct in ANY detail, let aloneEVERY detail!

When I read some of the recent posts here I was reminded of an essay I wrote a few years ago at art school. I've looked it up. The artist and Hebrew scholar Bracha Lichtenberg-Ettinger speaks about 'Exodus' She says the multiple meanings of Hebrew words have been translated into Latin and Greek with specific meanings that hide other meanings. For example, one of the names for God is, 'Ehie asher ehie', which is translated as 'I am that I am.' She points out this suggests a God of present and pressence. But in Hebrew, the verb, 'to be' is the same as the verb, 'to become.' She explains that God calls Moses to lead the people of Israel, out of Egypt. At the heart of Jewish thought is the idea of wandering, searching, (for the promised land), or as the term is often used, 'the wandering Jew'.

I believe this comes from her book, 'Travellers Tales, Narratives of Home and Displacement'.

I think this demonstrates how nearly impossible it is to translate from one language to another without distorting the meaning to some extent, or as has been said 'lost in translation'. Some concepts and ideas in a culture may not be present in another culture, so the language is necessarily to a degree inaccurate, once translated. I also rember reading somewhere that ancient Hebrew is quite different from some other Indo European languages such as English, in that the the 'verb' is primary element, rather than the 'noun'. Now I'm no expert on linguistics but if someone who is, points things out like this, I think it demonstrates how impossible it is to say the bible is the 'word' of God once it has been translated. Meanings change.

It would be good if anyone else who posts here has more information about the process of translation in linguistics, particularly with regards to the structure of ancient Hebrew, and how absolutely accurate translation into English is.

So, you have just said that the Bible is not correct in any detail?

So It's correct to commit murder?
It's correct to bear false witness?
It's correct to want what next doors got?

These are just 3, and to suggest that these might be worth pointing out is an insult to your intelligence.

What intelligence?

I did not say anywhere that the Bible was correct in every detail, just that we are warned not to change it. Of course there are discrepancies between different versions, they wouldn't be different versions if there weren't. Not too sure on the Hebrew translation, are you saying that it is likely to be accurate, I don't think so. Good that you spotted the lost in translation theme of the point I was trying to make.

<>

Wow!

Let me try to explain this to you in very small, easily understood words.

Since the bible is clearly a translation of a translation and continues to be translated by people with agendas and suspect linguistic skills, you can't be sure of any particular detail. That means that it is just silly to insist that those very same details are the literal word of ANYONE, let alone your god.

Surely such a god as the one you insist upon cooking up could find a better way to get his word out!

<>

Thanks for elevating the debate.