There is no doubt that the bible has some moral teaching in it. The ten commandments is an obvious example. But what about the rest? Why do we have all those historical chapters, the psalms, the book of Job and Ruth and the prophets? There is obviously more going on here than a teaching of morality. That attitude is a leftover from a time now far from us: the bible as a book that teaches us how to live. For example the teachings of Jesus is rarely on morality but more on the transformation of the individual and society, not by being better but by the existential death of the individual and subsequent resurrection to a different kind of life. This is why I go on so much about eschatology, we are entering into a different kind of time, the end time is now in the past on Golgotha.

You need some imagination to understand this. It is not reached using the often crippled kind of rationalism that is so about in our time.

David,
Why do you continue to miss the point? The statement by Paul is a statement about equality but not the kind that politics can produce but a radical kind that can only occur "in Christ." Yes you have to die to reach this. But that death leads to life and freedom of a more radical kind that can be imagined by philosophy or politics.

That's rather rude, Mr Sellick.

>>You need some imagination to understand this. It is not reached using the often crippled kind of rationalism that is so about in our time.<<

You are telling us that because we refuse to accept your interpretation of the concept of time, we are deficient in "imagination", and operate a form of "crippled rationalism".

Rather than be impolite in return - which, given the nature of your eschatological leanings would not be at all difficult - I would just point out that abusing those who differ from you in their opinion is more an admission of defeat, than an argument.

//As for the bible getting slavery wrong and a whole lot of other things, it is not a document of morality but of history, art, legend, song poetry etc.//

It is all those things and more, Mr. Sellick. But surely, to an enlightened mind - or at least one that has been illuminated from the right direction - so are the Qu'Ran or the Tao Te Ching or Star Trek or the Discworld novels. I for one have learnt more about history, art, legend, song, poetry and morality etc. from Terry Pratchett's (OBE, PBUH) magnum opus than I have from the Bible. That goes for Star Trek as well.

So why single the Bible out as special from all those other texts which occupy the same spiritual and philosophical niche? What's so good about it that makes it the Good Book and the others just good books (or TV shows as the case may be)? What can it teach me that other, better written, books can't?

Toni,
Because it introduces the historical into human consciousness. The culture of Israel was the only culture that brought humanity to self consciousness and for whom the past and future existed. It was able to do this because it broke with the cycles of nature and projected a future for the nations. The call to Abraham is an instance. This is where our culture got the idea of progress, secularism as it is. In short Israel was the first historical people and without that we would still be living in huts.

//Because it introduces the historical into human consciousness.//

Does it? Herodotus wrote The Histories in about 440 BC, well before anybody had thought about writing the Bible. So either Herodotus had a time machine, or the historical was already a part of human consciousness.

//The culture of Israel was the only culture that brought humanity to self consciousness//

No, self-awareness is a a basic facet of human consciousness and is exhibited by all cultures. Tribes people living in the heart of the Amazon jungle who've never seen a Bible or heard of Israel are self-aware.

//and for whom the past and future existed.//

No, spacetime exists for everybody.

//In short Israel was the first historical people and without that we would still be living in huts.//

No and no. Sumeria and Egypt are considered the first historical people and they pre-date the Israelites by a couple of millennia. And it's really the Romans that we have to thank for getting us out of huts and into houses, far more than any contribution from the Israelites.

Sells wrote:

David,
Why do you continue to miss the point? The statement by Paul is a statement about equality but not the kind that politics can produce but a radical kind that can only occur "in Christ." Yes you have to die to reach this. But that death leads to life and freedom of a more radical kind that can be imagined by philosophy or politics.

Dear Sells,

I did not miss the point at all. You are blind to the bigotry in that statement. l was exchanging emails with a man who wrote: "I would suffer unutterable joy if you came to Christ."

I told him I found his statement objectionable. I did not expect him to change his views to accord with mine, and I thought it unreasonable that he would be happy if I changed my views to accord to his.

It is your view that adopting your superstition leads to life and freedom. It may have been his also. You are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. I expect you to remain in the depths of your superstition. However, there is no reason to expect me to adopt it. It remains an obnoxious statement expressive of Christian bigotry.