I've commented before that the representatives of major religions get a much easier run here on OO than anyone else, and this is a case in point. Could anyone claiming to represent the union movement or even the Green Party hope to get published with such a rambling, evidence-free sequence of non-sequiturs? If there is any point to this article at all, I couldn't find it.

If OO wants to be taken seriously they need to apply the same standards of coherence and relevance to their religious contributors that they do to everybody else. "He's ordained, so he must have something to say!" just doesn't cut the mustard any more.

And I hope to demonstrate the theory that religious articles get a free kick with my next contribution: 'The Contemporary Relevance of Bolognese Sauce to conceptions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'.

My reading of Keith's article was more sympathetic than yours Jon J… for anyone who skipped the article, here is my abstract:

You know the Bible – well fundamentally it is wrong. In other words, it's not so much 'inerrant' as in error. Despite what you used to believe, you now need to think for yourself.

I wouldn't call the Bible a book. It's more akin to a collection of documents that I find fascinating.

One thing that makes it so interesting is the way it demonstrates the evolution of the worldview of a reasonably well-defined group of people. For instance the deity that destroys the world in a flood morphs into the deity of Isaiah 1 who says:

11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
[…]
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.

Or take this eloquent plea for justice from Amos 2:

6 This is what the Lord says:

“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not relent.
They sell the innocent for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor
as on the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed….

(Definitely relevant today)

The Bible is interesting because it covers a long period and contains many different points of view. It is not a sterile one time ejaculation from some supposed deity.

But what the Bible is not is an inerrant book of laws and morals dictated from on high. It is a collection of documents composed by people who thought deeply about topics that still interest us today mixed with legend and perhaps even a modicum of real history. Once you understand this all the problems associated with reading the Bible go away.

Of course Christians are not the only people who believe eternal truths are to be found in an ancient document. Look how economists cling to models that patently do not work

I sincerely hope hope someone in Govt reaches the same conclusion WmTrevor so our kids are spared this nonsense in their formative years.

Thanks for sharing...it is interesting to see how religious education creates schisms with reality that may or may not be overcome with knowledge.
The creeping nihilism that must accompany the realisation that the "great truths" you have been fed as an innocent child simply *cannot be* must be quite horrid...I assume this is why the likes of runner are so negative...does the prophet of Love *really* advocate such attitude?
God and religion do not solve any existential issues (from whence came God?), nor does it appear to solve moral issues: Christian morality ranges from Catholic over-lord government to snake handlers to "God Hates Fags"...it seems particularly deficient at finding and excluding reality trippers and those that would abuse the role of priest. I guess "mainstream" religion is bizarre enough that the step to waiting in the hills for the UFO pick-up is a small one.
So congratulations Keith for letting brains rule over indoctrination...what a shame it takes gay family members to really make "love thy neighbour" a viable concept.

stevenlmeyer: Economists...LOL! Spot on.