Comments on: The Good Parts of the Good Book http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/ Atheism with Positivity Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:13:37 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: MTran http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/comment-page-1/#comment-12893 MTran Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:17:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/#comment-12893 Ecclesiastes, yeah, that's my favorite of the collection. Ecclesiastes, yeah, that’s my favorite of the collection.

]]> By: Saint Gasoline http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/comment-page-1/#comment-12729 Saint Gasoline Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:18:58 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/#comment-12729 Ecclesiastes is probably the best written of all the books, by far. That's basically the only book that I found somewhat poetic and unique. Ecclesiastes is probably the best written of all the books, by far. That’s basically the only book that I found somewhat poetic and unique.

]]> By: The Unbrainwashed http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/comment-page-1/#comment-11616 The Unbrainwashed Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:56:57 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/#comment-11616 Mike C: I assume his criteria for good include the parts of the Bible that don't advocate stoning people to death, rape, torture, murder, incest, killing one's own children, killing infidels, slavery, sexual slavery, and the list continues. Since that constitutes just about the whole Bible, I'd tend to agree with Mr. Wells' work. But moderates (like yourself) will hide behind their cloak of faith or philosophize about historical or literary context and misinterpretations. At the very best, this self-deluding behavior amazes me. Mike C:
I assume his criteria for good include the parts of the Bible that don’t advocate stoning people to death, rape, torture, murder, incest, killing one’s own children, killing infidels, slavery, sexual slavery, and the list continues. Since that constitutes just about the whole Bible, I’d tend to agree with Mr. Wells’ work.

But moderates (like yourself) will hide behind their cloak of faith or philosophize about historical or literary context and misinterpretations. At the very best, this self-deluding behavior amazes me.

]]> By: Mike C http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/comment-page-1/#comment-11493 Mike C Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:13:46 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/#comment-11493 So what are his criteria for "good"? He never really says. So what are his criteria for “good”? He never really says.

]]> By: J. J. Ramsey http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/comment-page-1/#comment-11449 J. J. Ramsey Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:33:47 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/#comment-11449 Why is the Song of Solomon listed among the bad books? Why is the Song of Solomon listed among the bad books?

]]> By: Brett http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/comment-page-1/#comment-11347 Brett Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:10:31 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/24/the-good-parts-of-the-good-book/#comment-11347 I'm not sure I like his method. The problem is that he's coming up with totals and percentages based on analysis of single verses, or at most a few at a time. For example, other less direct, or less obvious things aren't counted as "good." Some examples include Jesus' tendency to paint good pictures of minorities the 1st century Jews disliked (such as the good Samaritan, a Canaanite woman in Matt. 15, and the general fact that Jesus actually spoke to women and gave them respect). The good Samaritan, which is actually Luke 10:30-37, only counts as "one" verse/passage. Likewise, many repulsive sections (whole chapters on wars sanctioned by God) would "count" for more under the bad section as well. So while his method is amusing and points out good parts and bad parts, trying to quantify it or using it in comparison to other holy books seems a bit silly. This sort of reading of the Bible is as myopic as a fundamentalist's. Thoughts? I’m not sure I like his method. The problem is that he’s coming up with totals and percentages based on analysis of single verses, or at most a few at a time.

For example, other less direct, or less obvious things aren’t counted as “good.” Some examples include Jesus’ tendency to paint good pictures of minorities the 1st century Jews disliked (such as the good Samaritan, a Canaanite woman in Matt. 15, and the general fact that Jesus actually spoke to women and gave them respect). The good Samaritan, which is actually Luke 10:30-37, only counts as “one” verse/passage. Likewise, many repulsive sections (whole chapters on wars sanctioned by God) would “count” for more under the bad section as well.

So while his method is amusing and points out good parts and bad parts, trying to quantify it or using it in comparison to other holy books seems a bit silly. This sort of reading of the Bible is as myopic as a fundamentalist’s. Thoughts?

]]>