The book that changed my life
is the Bible. Sorry guys, I'm just sick of the typical anti-Bible slant that's out there. Want a free B3ta? How about both sides of the coin?

Thanks to the Bible I live in a wealthy society full of artists, poets, scientists, engineers, and technological advances. Thanks to the Bible I have hope, joy, love, and self-control. Who can say that any other book can do that for them?

Let the flaming begin! I think I would look best on a spit, put an apple in my mouth, and be careful with the spices - ginger just doesn't look good with flambe skin...
(satellite blows, Sat 17 May 2008, 15:01, 19 replies)

Don't apologise for your beliefs.

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sat 17 May 2008, 15:35, closed)

i am an atheist
and that suits me fine. however, one man's meat is another man's poison, or so they say. i would never flame you for your beliefs, i only ask that you respect mine as i respect yours.
( Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet, Sat 17 May 2008, 15:48, closed)

I don't have an issue with the Bible
It's peoples interpretations of it to suit their own prejudices that bothers me.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Sat 17 May 2008, 16:03, closed)

re: don't apologise
heh, I was just being a bit sarcastic is all ;)

I guess B3ta is a cooler place than other 'Internets'. If this was Digg this post would have been enough to crucify, hang, draw, and quarter me... :D
(satellite blows, Sat 17 May 2008, 16:23, closed)

heh
Thank you for posting this. The Bible has done all of that for me too! Life has never been better as far as I'm concerned. The Bible saved my life.

I refuse to respond to any flaming about my beliefs. All of you non-bible people have your right to not believing in it for whatever reasons, just as i have my right to favouring the bible for my reasons. If you're not interested, that's fine, but it's not going to change my opinion, if anything, any anti-bible comments are going to make me love it more.

Basically all I expect is common decency and respect because everyone is entitled to an opinion and respect for that opinion.
(brotagaia, Sat 17 May 2008, 16:49, closed)

I've always held the belief
that faith isn't harmful, people are just idiots.

I've got my own little beliefs and I sometimes wonder if I'm the only one left in the world with any sort of belief left..... which is often a scary thought.

So now I feel a bit better :)

Never made it all the way through the bible though, lightning bolts are undoubtedly headed my way....
( baw__bag contains traces of nuts on, Sat 17 May 2008, 17:12, closed)

no problem with the Bible
and no problem with spirituality. I am sure you can work out what I don't like and it has nothing to do with that particular book. Mind you editing out some of the stuff that was actually most interesting was a bad move in my opinion. Only my opinion of course..
(Siouxfan I'm not staring at you, I am just short sighted, Sat 17 May 2008, 17:43, closed)

The Bible is one of the greatest books in world literature
It has so many genres within one large volume - poetry, history, mythology....great, great literature...that has had (and continues to have) a huge effect upon humanity.

The Bible (the Old Testament) is the basis for the three great monotheistic faiths of the world - Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

These faiths and the Book have changed the face of the world.

Regardless of ones faith (or lack thereof) it has affected all of our lives more than any other book ever written.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Sat 17 May 2008, 17:58, closed)

I fail to see the connection
between your living in a wealthy society full of cool things, and the Bible, in fact, i fail to see the connection between your living in a Moral society and the Bible.

Personally, I have hope, joy, love and self control And I enjoy living in an intellectually free society, and I do this dispite thinking of Christianity and Religion in general in negative terms. You can be intelligent, happy and moral both with and without faith in God.
(Slyph, Sat 17 May 2008, 20:10, closed)

RE: connection between a wealthy society and the Bible
Simple, take a look at societies that haven't had the luxury of a strong Biblical heritage. Specifically, third-world and developing nations.

Voltaire himself liked it when his servants were religious, it meant he was less likely to get stolen from!
(satellite blows, Sun 18 May 2008, 4:06, closed)

A little simplistic perhaps.
Last time I checked it wasn't the lack of a strong Biblical heritage that caused the problems faced by the 'third world'.

At the dawn of the modern era the European and non-European peasantries enjoyed similar levels of economic development. In many cases it was the specific economic policies of the Western powers that destroyed the achievements of non-European societies and effectively created what we now term the third world. Whilst obviously this was not the only cause of the problems faced by these countries, it was of considerably more importance than their choice of mythological tradition.

Each to his own I say, when it comes to the choice between imaginary friends or favourite fairy stories. But don't come insulting my intelligence with this sort of twaddle and expect me to give you an easy ride.
(infantile disorder, Sun 18 May 2008, 15:14, closed)

if you want to credit the "tech advances" to a book...
... maybe Newton's "Principia" might be more appropriate.
(haberman is singing in the changes, Sun 18 May 2008, 23:51, closed)

Changed my life too
I didn't realise one book could contain so much filler.

The only thing I can't stand more than religious fundamentalists are irreligious counter-fundamentalists.

{edit} thank goodness for moderates
(Harleif Skankhammer II was killing time at, Mon 19 May 2008, 5:36, closed)

...
"Thanks to the Bible I live in a wealthy society full of artists, poets, scientists, engineers, and technological advances."

Ummm... so Golden-age Athens was devoid of all these, then? Or Rome?

And, while we're at it, no belief is entitled to respect. If a belief is true, no kicking that I can give it will dent it. If it's false, then any kicking it receives is unproblematic - and, if it's shattered in the process, the erstwhile believer ought to be grateful. No?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 19 May 2008, 12:36, closed)

I quote from your reply : "Voltaire himself liked it when his servants were religious, it meant he was less likely to get stolen from!"
So, you're basically saying that people who do not share your religious beliefs are more likely to be immoral thiefs? That only religion provides morality?

Bollocks - just look at the humanist movement. If anything, religion gives you a better excuse to be immoral - as long as you repent, your sins will be absolved. Whereas if you refuse to delude yourself, you are responsible for all your actions, and there is no easy 'forgiveness'.

Also, why do you need the bible to feel hope, joy, love and self-control? Are you really that empty a person?
(Pavlov's Frog figures no-one really reads sigs anyway, Mon 19 May 2008, 13:52, closed)

re:
@infantile disorder

yes, very simplistic. I could of course have probed in depth the complicated cultural and national problems facing 3rd world countries and their history. However, the truth remains that most countries which enjoy a lot of prosperity these days have a lot in common with their background. You could argue that Western economic policies destroyed some nations, but Western economic polocies did not destroy India, for example. The British built railroads and provided an unprecedented level of stability and technology to that region. Yet India is still struggling. I believe it has great potential but it has been sitting on its behind.

@haberman

Newton was a deist but had a Christian world-view as did most people of his time.

@harlief

Reading any book requires a certain understanding to appreciate it fully. I hope someday you can understand this one...

@Enzyme

Greece and Rome were both quite amazing - I'm not detracting at all. However, I think that both of them could have reached a far higher potential.

I also like where you're going with the 'belief' thing - shows you're not part of the post-modern crowd. However, what helps you judge whether a certain belief is right or wrong? External sources or yourself only? Is in yourself everything you need to know about any given situation?

@Pavlov

Religion does not provide morality. True belief (i hate the use of the word 'religion' as it implies rituals which is not true belief at all) should inspire morality... Coming full circle, true belief should also mean you don't WANT to cheat the system like you describe...

The Bible is not the provider of love, joy, hope da da da da - it is seen as the Word of an all-powerful Being. Through the Bible or Word you can receive those things but of course that's not the only way - even for disbelievers. What I'm getting at is the fact that unbelievers don't have the same level of hope and joy...

'are you really that empty a person?' - that does not sound very serious to me and sounds like a personal attack rather than a reasoned argument.
(satellite blows, Mon 19 May 2008, 14:17, closed)

'Unbelievers don't have the same level of hope and joy'?
Really? I'm assuming you have some basis for that opinion, because, unless you have personally experienced life as an 'unbeliever' (as you call it), then you are simply talking out of your arse.

And no, asking if you are that empty a person is not a personal attack - I'll clarify. If you hadn't read the bible, or if you were brought up with a different set of religious beliefs, would you be incapable of feeling joy, hope, love and self-control? Do you really base your feelings of self-worth on a book (regardless of how supposedly 'holy' that book is)? I, myself, have no such religious beliefs, yet I am capable of great love, joy and hope, and I have a great deal of self-control (although, having never felt the urge to rape, murder or steal, I probably don't need a great deal).

I'll respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I do NOT respect your beliefs that 'unbelievers' are somehow less of a person than you - less moral, less capable of feeling, whatever. It's patronising, and, quite frankly, it's a load of bollocks.
(Pavlov's Frog figures no-one really reads sigs anyway, Mon 19 May 2008, 14:41, closed)

Don't make me laugh...
'The British built railroads and provided an unprecedented level of stability and technology to [India]'

Contemporary and present day observers of the British Raj beg to differ.

It's a well-known fact that the mercantilist policies that Britain forced on India destroyed the old feudal support networks and fundamentally undermined her peoples' abilities to cope with the periodic crop-failures that are an unfortunate fact of life in the sub-continent. The result was a series of famines of mounting severity, made worse by Britain's refusal to intervene in any way, shape or form.

The death by starvation of a conservatively estimated 30 million Indians over the course of the 19th Century might be reckoned a rather high price to pay for a railway system.

Doubtless the trains proved convenient to the bible-wielding missionaries whose message in many cases I'll hazard was not dissimilar to your own: namely, that the Indians' unbelief was partly to blame for the charnel house their country had become.
(infantile disorder, Mon 19 May 2008, 18:17, closed)

@Satellite
I don't know what you mean when you say that Greece and Rome "could have reached a far higher potential". For what? Civilisations come and go - there's nothing particularly interesting about that. And I sure as hell can't see what the Bible has to do with it either way. (Note, of course, that the Roman collapse was the collapse of a Christian empire.) Greece and Rome were top of the class at the time. For sure, there are things we can do now that they couldn't then... but so what?

When it comes to assessing the correctness of a belief, I have sympathy with falsificationism: the idea that you can never tell whether a claim is correct. It's always possible that you're wrong. However, some claims contradict the best avaialble evidence, or are incoherent (either in their own terms, or alongside other beliefs). It's incoherent to say that this triangle has four sides, therefore the statement must be false. Other claims are empirically bogus. Finally, there are claims that we have no need to accept as true (because there's no evidence) and that we ought to believe to be untrue (because intellectual parsimony is a virtue and it demands that we accept the simplest possible account of the world). Religious claims often fail on all three bases: they're incoherent, they're empirically falsifiable, and they're needlessly complicated (inasmuch as they introduce into the world entities that are completely unnecessary for an understanding thereof).

What the PoMo crowd has right is the idea that there are often no "external" supports for some claims. Where they go wrong is in saying that "often" implies "always" and that any claim is therefore as good as any other. That's simply not true.
I also like where you're going with the 'belief' thing - shows you're not part of the post-modern crowd. However, what helps you judge whether a certain belief is right or wrong? External sources or yourself only? Is in yourself everything you need to know about any given situation?

BTW - I really don't see where you're headed with the "hope and joy" malarkey, either...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 20 May 2008, 9:32, closed)