Thread: Recycling the Bible Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029225
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Apologies that this is a bit long, but the questions I would like to ask are: How do you react to what I talk about here? Do you think it was sort of sacrilegious, if so why? Do you think, 'So what?' I would be most interested to hear what you think.
today I did something I've been meaning to do for a while, that is, remove the covers (leather-type) from the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer I was given as a child, threw them away, separated the pages into chunks and threw them in the recycle bag. While I could still read, I had kept it as literature and reference - although I had hardly ever used it as such.*
The principal reason for this was that when I die, I aim for as little work as possible for my sons to do- I did not want them to feel obliged in any way to hold on to something they would not use which would use up space in their house. If by any chance they wish to find a quote or anything (family all atheists anyway), they can find it on the internet or in a Library. (Sons say, 'Good idea, Mum!')
One of the reasons I hesitated for so long was the vestiges of a feeling, instilled in childhood, when CofE beliefs formed the unquestioned backcloth of life in the 1940s, that this was somehow just not the thing to do. I knew this was daft - I don't put blinkers on myself for anything and had held the conversation with myself many times and understood well why I hesitated!
However, as I expected, I am completely certain that I feel not the slightest twinge of hesitation now.
*I read a book years ago called 'Secrets of the Lost Ark', which quoted the Bible quite often in support of a claim that gold could be turned in to 'white powder'! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Do what you like, the leather and paper isn't sacred - just the message they contain. God isn't going to judge you for being nasty to a book, he's going to judge you for rejecting the message. At least that's what the book you just destroyed says anyway.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
daronmedway
Thank you for your response. . What is the 'message', do you think? It is extremely mixed, isn't it?
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
Hi SusanDoris
I think your actions are entirely consistent with your stated beliefs, in terms of Christianity, recycling and leaving less for your sons to do.
I am a little concerned, however, with regard to people turning gold into white powder. I used to run a pub which was full of people who were always keen to convert their gold into white powder. Didn't do them much good, as I recall.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yes, and society is plagued with a fair number of people who want to turn their white powder into gold too.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
This gets a shrug from me in general. Bibles and the like are not magic objects. If these were nice editions (as the leather suggests) and in decent shape, then I would ask why you didn't sell them through one of the many online used book markets - or why you didn't give them to some charity to sell. For that matter, you could have simply asked here, on SoF, whether somebody wants these particular books / editions, and just passed them on that way.
While we are at it, if someone has a "Knox New Testament: Chanticleer Edition (1946)" or a full Knox bible which has both Psalters (Clementine Vulgate and the 1945 one approved by Pius XII) like for example the "Sheed & Ward three volume Knox Bible in hardcover (1950-1951)", then I would gladly rescue those from your recycling bin. I'm also looking for any Revised English Bible (REB) with Apocrypha that is bound in leather, from either Oxford or Cambridge. This includes the Oxford Study Bible.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Hi SusanDoris
I think your actions are entirely consistent with your stated beliefs, in terms of Christianity, recycling and leaving less for your sons to do.
I am a little concerned, however, with regard to people turning gold into white powder. I used to run a pub which was full of people who were always keen to convert their gold into white powder. Didn't do them much good, as I recall.
Thank you for your reply. I hadn't thought of the 'white powder' in terms of drugs; in the book, it is suggested that it was some magical substance which was all that was needed to feed the pharaoh or something!
[ 09. July 2015, 16:47: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
The bottom line - it's just a book. There's nothing magical or special about a Bible. It's paper (and possibly leather).
If there is any reason to think that this particular Bible is significant or rare, then by all means try and sell it to a collector or give it to some one who might be interested. But the vast majority of Bibles and prayer books are "bog standard". No-one really wants them and charity shops and the like are usually filled with second hand Bibles which never get sold.
So - recycle it!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Yes, and society is plagued with a fair number of people who want to turn their white powder into gold too.
Thank you for your post. Yes, of course. Very sad but true.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This gets a shrug from me in general. Bibles and the like are not magic objects. If these were nice editions (as the leather suggests) and in decent shape, then I would ask why you didn't sell them through one of the many online used book markets - or why you didn't give them to some charity to sell.
Thank you for your reply. The reasons are: I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god. The books themselves were a size and design very common at the time. Whatever money a charity would gain by trying to sell them I'd rather give them in cash, but, as I say, I would not have passed them on on principle. quote:
While we are at it, if someone has a "Knox New Testament: Chanticleer Edition (1946)" or a full Knox bible which has both Psalters (Clementine Vulgate and the 1945 one approved by Pius XII) like for example the "Sheed & Ward three volume Knox Bible in hardcover (1950-1951)", then I would gladly rescue those from your recycling bin. I'm also looking for any Revised English Bible (REB) with Apocrypha that is bound in leather, from either Oxford or Cambridge. This includes the Oxford Study Bible.
I'm afraid I'm certainly no help there, but may I ask why you would wish to have these items?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The bottom line - it's just a book. There's nothing magical or special about a Bible. It's paper (and possibly leather).
If there is any reason to think that this particular Bible is significant or rare, then by all means try and sell it to a collector or give it to some one who might be interested. But the vast majority of Bibles and prayer books are "bog standard". No-one really wants them and charity shops and the like are usually filled with second hand Bibles which never get sold.
Agreed. However, I thought it was interesting that the very, very faint vestiges of childhood strictures about not destroying books, particularly the Bible, still hun around somewhere.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
daronmedway
Thank you for your response. . What is the 'message', do you think? It is extremely mixed, isn't it?
There's an over-arching message which is about rescue. Take it or leave it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: I thought it was interesting that the very, very faint vestiges of childhood strictures about not destroying books, particularly the Bible, still hun around somewhere.
Well, if a book can still be useful to someone, I prefer giving it away instead of destroying it.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The reasons are: I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
See, now that is not "morally neutral". At that point you have gone beyond recycling, and engaged in a kind of anti-evangelism. Whether that is justified or not depend on how one views the world, and obviously we would not agree on that.
However, IMHO this still does not explain why you did not offer these books to some people who already believe in God, e.g., by advertising them here. It is unlikely that such a gift would have made a difference to their faith, other than by reminding them that atheists can be nice and tolerant.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm afraid I'm certainly no help there, but may I ask why you would wish to have these items?
Because the are relatively rare now, and I would enjoy seeing the artwork / design / typography of the artistic Chanticleer Edition, am intellectually and aesthetically interested in Knox' other Psalter translation (which I do not own so far), and because I would like to have the REB/A translation, which I enjoy reading, in a physical form that is pleasing (nice to touch and behold) and durable.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Don't really know why you've posted this, SusanDoris. If you're so happy in your atheism, why should what Christians might or might not think about what you've done bother you? And are you perhaps a little disappointed that we've basically just shrugged our shoulders and said 'sure, leather and paper is leather and paper'? Were you hoping, deep down, that we might be just a little bit shocked?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The bottom line - it's just a book. There's nothing magical or special about a Bible. It's paper (and possibly leather).
Agreed, but that wouldn't help me at all. I tend to treat all books carefully. I've never been able to bring myself to even write in a book (other than an inscription at the front), not even underlining text in a textbook. Or a Bible. Tearing the cover off is something I couldn't do to any book, I'm afraid.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
What a strange comment from someone who claims to value intellectual freedom and intellectual honesty. You do not want to be responsible for someone being exposed to information and being able to come to their own conclusions about that information?
If the goal is to keep others from reading the books for fear they might actually believe them, then perhaps a good old-fashioned book burning is what's called for.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
What a strange comment from someone who claims to value intellectual freedom and intellectual honesty. You do not want to be responsible for someone being exposed to information and being able to come to their own conclusions about that information?
The problem is, how far do you take this? As an example: At the time of his death, my father had, in his extensive book collection, a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I earnestly requested my mother to throw it in the bin, rather than take it to the charity shop along with his other books. Yet, on the whole, I would say that I see myself as someone who "value[s] intellectual freedom and intellectual honesty". There's allowing people access to information, and then there's providing people with access to a load of made-up tripe, written with a particular agenda in mind, the acceptance of which has arguably resulted in a great deal of unpleasantness for a large number of people. Now, although the preceding represents my opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it seems to me that it could equally apply to the Bible for someone with an atheist perspective.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's an over-arching message which is about rescue. Take it or leave it.
Thank you for reply. quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, if a book can still be useful to someone, I prefer giving it away instead of destroying it.
Yes, I do know what you mean actually, but this particular book of mine would only have cluttered up space if I had left it in the cupboard, and just possibly might have done harm.
I’ll add another post later to explain how I began splitting books up into bits - for a wholy rational reason, I assure you!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The reasons are: I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
See, now that is not "morally neutral". At that point you have gone beyond recycling, and engaged in a kind of anti-evangelism. Whether that is justified or not depend on how one views the world, and obviously we would not agree on that.
Yes, I suppose I am taking a moral stand here, but realise all too well that it is only a drop in the ocean, and that it will take vastly more than that to move religious beliefs into a minority position. quote:
However, IMHO this still does not explain why you did not offer these books to some people who already believe in God, e.g., by advertising them here. It is unlikely that such a gift would have made a difference to their faith, other than by reminding them that atheists can be nice and tolerant.
My conscience would not now allow me to have done that, as I would know I had taken a backward step, even at my stage in life. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm afraid I'm certainly no help there, but may I ask why you would wish to have these items?
Because the are relatively rare now, and I would enjoy seeing the artwork / design / typography of the artistic Chanticleer Edition, am intellectually and aesthetically interested in Knox' other Psalter translation (which I do not own so far), and because I would like to have the REB/A translation, which I enjoy reading, in a physical form that is pleasing (nice to touch and behold) and durable.
Yes, I thought it was probably for those reasons. The artistry and creative skills of those who produced such beautiful work are treasures indeed. The difference in our views there is that you might well give some of the credit to God, whereas I give it all to the amazing fact of evolution.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Books are tools. If you don't want it, it's nice to let someone else who does take it. If not, you could just quietly recycle it.
You seem to be hoping that your destruction will outrage and to take pleasure in destroying something that has made you unhappy.
All well and good, although I don't think many will be outraged. I think you give the book too much power in your life. A break up is best not if you're snarling at someone, but if you see them and can't quite place the face for a moment or two.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Don't really know why you've posted this, SusanDoris. If you're so happy in your atheism, why should what Christians might or might not think about what you've done bother you? And are you perhaps a little disappointed that we've basically just shrugged our shoulders and said 'sure, leather and paper is leather and paper'? Were you hoping, deep down, that we might be just a little bit shocked?
The reason for posting here is that I knew that the responses would be very interesting, that there would be varying view points which I could well not have thought of and from which i would learn. Whatever those views are, they do not 'bother' me, but add to the interest I have in discussions. Disappointment or shock in replies doesn't come into it - and that is one of the reasons I enjoy being a part of SoF, as a reader and occasional poster.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
What a strange comment from someone who claims to value intellectual freedom and intellectual honesty. You do not want to be responsible for someone being exposed to information and being able to come to their own conclusions about that information?
Good point! And yes, I do value intellectual freedom. However, I think I can claim that the throwing away of the two small items will have zero effect on that! In a minuscule way I hope the paper recycled will help towards less landfill. quote:
If the goal is to keep others from reading the books for fear they might actually believe them, then perhaps a good old-fashioned book burning is what's called for.
No, I wouldn’t go that far!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
As an example: At the time of his death, my father had, in his extensive book collection, a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I earnestly requested my mother to throw it in the bin, rather than take it to the charity shop along with his other books. Yet, on the whole, I would say that I see myself as someone who "value[s] intellectual freedom and intellectual honesty". There's allowing people access to information, and then there's providing people with access to a load of made-up tripe, written with a particular agenda in mind, the acceptance of which has arguably resulted in a great deal of unpleasantness for a large number of people. Now, although the preceding represents my opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it seems to me that it could equally apply to the Bible for someone with an atheist perspective.
Thank you for your post - very interesting points.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now, although the preceding represents my opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it seems to me that it could equally apply to the Bible for someone with an atheist perspective.
I think that is silly. Yes, much evil has been done with the Bible as justification. But so has much good.
The protocols are purely evil, plain and simple. They were created to engender hate.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
What would it take to change your mind Susan Doris? I remember my Dad about 3 years before he died reading through the OT. He was a committed catholic but said he did not want to die without reading it all. Interestingly he was fascinated by Ecclesiastes. At his age he could look back on all the" useless, useless, useless" stuff in his life.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, I suppose I am taking a moral stand here, but realise all too well that it is only a drop in the ocean, and that it will take vastly more than that to move religious beliefs into a minority position.
If you really thought it was insignificant, you wouldn't make so much ado about it.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My conscience would not now allow me to have done that, as I would know I had taken a backward step, even at my stage in life.
Well, I guess it is nice that you attribute such powers to the bible and prayer books. If the mere act of owning nicer editions of such books makes one more pious, then I'm surely on my way to sainthood.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The artistry and creative skills of those who produced such beautiful work are treasures indeed. The difference in our views there is that you might well give some of the credit to God, whereas I give it all to the amazing fact of evolution.
Mostly I give credit to people, craftsmen and artists. And when you destroy a fine bible, then that concerns me more as a bibliophile than as a Christian. Unless it is really a rare bible, we usually have tens of thousands of copies of the text that is getting destroyed. But we may not have many copies of that particular physical form, and even if we do, it is simply a shame to destroy something that was crafted well and with care out of good materials.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Personally, I'm not in favour of destroying books for moral reasons. In an era of freely available information - on the internet or in very cheap bookshops - this seems like a pretty petty activity.
But I do wonder if the OP is trying to provoke a reaction by posting about it here. We regularly throw out books (usually those we bought from a charity shop and read until destroyed). Would you be interested in my moral qualms about destroying Dickens or Tolstoy? I doubt it.
A few years ago I was talking to an Imam about the fashion in some parts of the USA (and elsewhere) to destroy the Koran in public. He said that it was a simple provocation and that destroying the book did not destroy the truth of the words.
To me that is the right way to think about it. You are not doing anything, SusanDoris, to affect those who believe.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
We have a HUGE and incredibly heavy old family Bible (my husband's family). The sham leather cover is falling off, and Mr.N has removed the family pages, with dates, photos, etc. as we were going to throw it away. But I kept it, partly because I didn't like to throw it away, and where would we throw it? partly because it has the most glorious black and white engravings on so many pages of various parts of the Bible stories - God in big white robe, angels with huge feathered wings, Israelites in voluminous white robes, you know the type, and partly because being so heavy, it acts as an anchor to a rather dodgy bookcase that would otherwise fall over.
All good reasons to keep it, I think!
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
All good reasons to keep it, I think!
You could have that bible rebound, for example by Leonard's. He may even be able to re-include the family pages (if you didn't chop them up too badly).
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
An interesting example would be to look at books that I find objectionable. For example Left Behind, I find its theology and morality despicable, and its writing horrendous. And the book may even be dangerous in that it has had influenced a swathe of population that carries weight in US politics.
What if I had a copy of the book and wanted to get rid of it (for obvious reasons)? Would I destroy it? Hmm, not sure. Apparently the objection to destroying books is rather deeply ingrained in me.
I might give it away to someone. But I would tell this person what I think about the book.
I don't think I would give it to a social project that has a library lending out books to its people though.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
If you have read your Bible, you will know that there is a wealth of wonderful wisdom within it, and you will know that reading its books does not necessarily lead one to believe in the existence of God.
If one did reach such a conclusion, the responsibility would not fall upon any previous owner of the book.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Bibles and the like are not magic objects.
Would you say the same if what SusanDoris was throwing out was old rosary beads ? Miraculous medals and brown scapulars ?
In other words, are you saying that the category "holy objects which it would be wrong to destroy" is empty ? Or that it just doesn't happen to include Bibles ?
I find myself in two minds on this.
On the one hand, I'm attracted to daronmedway's suggestion that the physical pages - the hardware - don't matter; what matters is the software, the information content, the message.
On the other hand, if we believe that, where does it stop ? Are we happy enough to see a church building that is surplus to requirements being bulldozed ? Or turned into a nightclub ? It's only a pile of stones, right ? What's important is the faith and worship of the congregation that used it. Which is unaffected by what happens to the building they no longer need. Like a soul that has no need of the body after death ? No reverence for bodies after death, then ?
I'm not at all convinced that I'm prepared to go all the way on this one. Or that you'd be with me if I did. But is there a clear stopping place somewhere between Bibles and bodies ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I find the attitudes toward physical objects which relate to ones faith interesting. I think it is well known that Muslims have a much more reverent attitude to physical copies of the Quran, and it would not surprise me if some christians felt the same, maybe also towards religious icons.
I suppose at root it's the idea that you throw out what is worthless, and so it could be taken as a statement that the Bible is worthless.
It's interesting that an Atheist may fear that someone reading it might be converted.
I'm reluctant to throw out books, on the basis that I wouldn't want to hand them on. The only two books I've done that to are Anton Szandor LaVey's Satanic Bible and a set of academic papers attempting to justify sex with minors!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I've found recycling the Bible through a postmodern compost heap most fertile.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
On the one hand, I'm attracted to daronmedway's suggestion that the physical pages - the hardware - don't matter; what matters is the software, the information content, the message.
On the other hand, if we believe that, where does it stop ? Are we happy enough to see a church building that is surplus to requirements being bulldozed ? Or turned into a nightclub ? It's only a pile of stones, right ?
But this happens all the time. I'm fascinated by what happens to abandoned church buildings. In my city I've seen them become nightclubs, mechanics' workshops, mosques, and gurdwaras. In other places they become homes, restaurants, shops. Many more are just demolished.
Some denominations are closing churches at a rapid rate, but I agree that there's a definite ambivalence about the process. Clergy who enunciate that 'the church is not the building' are not usually seeking to promote either a churchless or a tenantship Christianity; if necessary, they close one church building in a suitably respectful fashion, and move on to work in another. The Nonconformists have few restrictions on what they do with closed church buildings either. They happily sell them to the highest bidder, regardless of purpose.
I'm ambivalent about this issue myself. I've had to put readable Bibles out for recycling as part of my work in a charity shop. I've had to see my church closed and sold into the service of another religion. I suppose I see it all as part of the secularising environment in which we live. The sacred symbolism of books and buildings is hard to maintain in a fast changing world.
As for the sanctity of the body, most of us in the UK are now cremated, and archaeologists have no problem disturbing the graves of people who died long ago.
[ 10. July 2015, 13:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Would you say the same if what SusanDoris was throwing out was old rosary beads ? Miraculous medals and brown scapulars ? In other words, are you saying that the category "holy objects which it would be wrong to destroy" is empty ? Or that it just doesn't happen to include Bibles ?
To me it would make a difference if the items are blessed / consecrated, or perhaps known to have been "set apart for God" in the production process itself (like icons painted in a traditional prayerful manner). Perhaps I would also consider some items as "informally blessed". For example, a prayer book that was in continuous, daily use for a couple of decades by someone is to me not just a book any longer, even if that book was never formally "dedicated to God". To me the "spiritual work" of the former owner then has suffused this object.
As a general rule, I would either burn or bury such items I consider as having been "set apart for God" - if they can't be kept or passed on somehow, which is a better solution.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
I'm a volunteer in a charity bookshop. We are ruthless. Bibles are dispatched to the recycling sack with great regularity. If you want to save a bible don't send it to us ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Left Behind books would probably get the same fate but for their literary quality or rather lack of. Dawkins' polemics too though we would probably keep a missive on evolutionary biology if it were in good condition.
I can understand why you might want to put a book of something you disagree with beyond use. It is always a temptation. But I have to realise the £$ value of a book because our donors have entrusted it to us.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Books are tools. If you don't want it, it's nice to let someone else who does take it. If not, you could just quietly recycle it.
But words can often wield more power than tools. quote:
You seem to be hoping that your destruction will outrage and to take pleasure in destroying something that has made you unhappy.
It didn’t make me unhappy, nor did I take pleasure in throwing it away– it was the most sensible and practical thing to do. Nor did I do so to provoke outrage, but I thought and hoped – correctly I think – that the responses would be from a different and more interesting point of view from some on the other forums I visit. quote:
All well and good, although I don't think many will be outraged. I think you give the book too much power in your life. A break up is best not if you're snarling at someone, but if you see them and can't quite place the face for a moment or two.
I never snarl! Whatever my remaining time is, it is certainly too short to waste any of it on worry or snarling!
• When I first lost my reading vision, I bought a CCTV and, in a way that made people, particularly librarians, wince, I quickly found that the best way to read books using it was to separate the book into small sections, and that’s when I started carving up books! I hasten to add that I had paid for them!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
So many interesting ideas to think about and respond to - many thanks! I'll do so asap.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Forgive me, but I think I am missing something here.
Susan, as I understand it, you have had this Bible and Book of Common Prayer since you were confirmed. At one time, these possessions meant a lot to you. Confirmation, after all, is an (un)official passage from childhood to adulthood.
Throughout your adulthood, you have kept these symbols of that passage. You do not indicate when your doubts overcame your faith, but the symbols remained important to you for some reason as you did not dispose of them previously.
Now you are facing your end of life and want to make it easier for your sons once that happens. By giving up these symbols, you are now preparing for the next passage of life. I see this in my wife's desire to get rid of things though it is likely she will live another 25 years as healthy as she is.
To me, this seems like it is a little bit of a grief process you are going through. At confirmation, you received those symbols in anticipation of the life you were about to have. At the end of life, you are giving up those symbols of the life you have had.
I do hope your life has been fulfilling. There are always ups and downs in everyone's life. I hope the ups outweigh your downs.
[ 10. July 2015, 16:25: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
On moving to a new school to be head of RE, I inherited 60 KJVs full of graffiti. They went into the dustbion but a micro-managing head (Baptist) brought them back to me so I had to smuggle them back one by one.
He suggested I give them to a church but if ypou saw the nature of the graffiti you'd worry about the school's reputation.
As Ingob said, the Bible is not a magic book.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
SusanDoris - I cannot understand why you should care if a Bible makes someone believe in God. It does not affect you. Why care about it so much? Me believing in God has no impact whatsoever on your life, I can't see how it would change for Joe Bloggs to start believing in God.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I hope this comes out all right – I have responded to quite a few posts in this one.
…. quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What would it take to change your mind Susan Doris? I remember my Dad about 3 years before he died reading through the OT. He was a committed catholic but said he did not want to die without reading it all. Interestingly he was fascinated by Ecclesiastes. At his age he could look back on all the" useless, useless, useless" stuff in his life.
I cannot imagine anything that would change my mind about all gods being products of human imagination, and I certainly can’t put the books back together again!
As a matter of interest, since you mentioned it, I went to google and looked up the first chapter of Ecclesiastes! Certainly, common sense and co-operation have enabled our species’ survival!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you really thought it was insignificant, you wouldn't make so much ado about it.
Unfortunately, you are right – although I don’t think I’ve made too much of it! It just shows how I was ingrained with conventional do’s and don’ts when young. I count myself lucky that I was born with the need to ask if things are true andwas too long steered away from any non-belief opinions.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My conscience would not now allow me to have done that, as I would know I had taken a backward step, even at my stage in life.
Well, I guess it is nice that you attribute such powers to the bible and prayer books. If the mere act of owning nicer editions of such books makes one more pious, then I'm surely on my way to sainthood.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Go for it! No, I think it was the conventional upbringing that did it.
My two books were the standard design so the sort that The Midge says would be discarded.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Personally, I'm not in favour of destroying books for moral reasons. In an era of freely available information - on the internet or in very cheap bookshops - this seems like a pretty petty activity.
But I do wonder if the OP is trying to provoke a reaction by posting about it here. We regularly throw out books (usually those we bought from a charity shop and read until destroyed). Would you be interested in my moral qualms about destroying Dickens or Tolstoy? I doubt it.
No, because everyone knows they are novels. Of course the Bible is a set of stories too, but the centuries-old association with religious beliefs has given them a position of authority it can only maintain while people believe in God/god/s. quote:
A few years ago I was talking to an Imam about the fashion in some parts of the USA (and elsewhere) to destroy the Koran in public. He said that it was a simple provocation and that destroying the book did not destroy the truth of the words.
To me that is the right way to think about it. You are not doing anything, SusanDoris, to affect those who believe.
Yes, I know, but I am an incurable optimist, you know!
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
An interesting example would be to look at books that I find objectionable. For example Left Behind, I find its theology and morality despicable, and its writing horrendous. And the book may even be dangerous in that it has had influenced a swathe of population that carries weight in US politics.
What if I had a copy of the book and wanted to get rid of it (for obvious reasons)? Would I destroy it? Hmm, not sure. Apparently the objection to destroying books is rather deeply ingrained in me.
I might give it away to someone. But I would tell this person what I think about the book.
I don't think I would give it to a social project that has a library lending out books to its people though.
I think I understand that dilemma, especially since I’ve left it till now to finally decide!
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
If you have read your Bible, you will know that there is a wealth of wonderful wisdom within it, and you will know that reading its books does not necessarily lead one to believe in the existence of God.
If one did reach such a conclusion, the responsibility would not fall upon any previous owner of the book.
I agree with all that you
say here, but if by taking one small action – and I am fully aware this is a daft idea! - I can
prevent one person turning to blind belief, then I might have done something useful? …… Okay,
probably not!!
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I find the attitudes toward physical objects which relate to ones faith interesting. I think it is well known that Muslims have a much more reverent attitude to physical copies of the Quran, and it would not surprise me if some christians felt the same, maybe also towards religious icons.
I suppose at root it's the idea that you throw out what is worthless, and so it could be taken as a statement that the Bible is worthless.
It's interesting that an Atheist may fear that someone reading it might be converted.
I'm reluctant to throw out books, on the basis that I wouldn't want to hand them on. The only two books I've done that to are Anton Szandor LaVey's Satanic Bible and a set of academic papers attempting to justify sex with minors!
Some years ago I was involved in a discussion where I asked how anyone could tell if an object or a place was sacred or holy unless they were told so by another person, and of course there isn’t any way. Therefore all thoughts and attributed properties and values are those thought up by humans.
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I'm a volunteer in a charity bookshop. We are ruthless. Bibles are dispatched to the recycling sack with great regularity. If you want to save a bible don't send it to us
Left Behind books would probably get the same fate but for their literary quality or rather lack of. Dawkins' polemics too though we would probably keep a missive on evolutionary biology if it were in good condition.
I can understand why you might want to put a book of something you disagree with beyond use. It is always a temptation. But I have to realise the £$ value of a book because our donors have entrusted it to us.
Many thanks for that post – we have to be practical I think.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
1) believing in God =/= blind belief, 2) I have certainly felt that places are holy or sacred without being told so.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Forgive me, but I think I am missing something here.
Susan, as I understand it, you have had this Bible and Book of Common Prayer since you were confirmed. At one time, these possessions meant a lot to you. Confirmation, after all, is an (un)official passage from childhood to adulthood.
Thank you for your interesting and thoughtful post. I have been thinking about that and I don't think I gave it all any deep consideration. My sister and I went to Sunday School and followed the conventional path of middle-class children because that was the thing to do and would give us a good start in life. There was no great stress on the significance of baptism, confirmation, going to communion, etc but it was better to be able to say one had done these things. I don't mean that my parents behaved hypocritically, or that the matter was treated trivially - on the contrary, it was something we had to think about seriously, but there were no choices offered really. In fact my baptism had been done quickly because my grandmother wanted to be at it before we returned to Jersey where my father worked at the time. My father stood as my godfather and my grandmother as godmother and I didn't wear the family christening robe. (Actually, there's something about that on one of the Travel pages on my web site! ) quote:
Throughout your adulthood, you have kept these symbols of that passage. You do not indicate when your doubts overcame your faith, but the symbols remained important to you for some reason as you did not dispose of them previously.
Hmmmm, yes, odd that! I'll have to have a good think about that. quote:
Now you are facing your end of life and want to make it easier for your sons once that happens. By giving up these symbols, you are now preparing for the next passage of life. I see this in my wife's desire to get rid of things though it is likely she will live another 25 years as healthy as she is.
On that point I am absolutely clear. I am certain that when I die, that is the end, there is no more, nothing - and it is right and proper that this should be
so and I have no fears or concerns about that. quote:
To me, this seems like it is a little bit of a grief process you are going through.
I think you are right there, but not quite for the reasons you say. With several friends dying, my friends being of similar ages (around 80 or over), I have found it quite amusing to find sometimes that I am sort of grieving for my own death!! I do, however, quickly see the funny side of this, and realise how lucky I am to have a new aortic valve and to not have been killed last year by the car that knocked me down, even though I’m still having to work hard to regain my full fitness. I shall be continuing to tap dance until I can’t even do it with a zimmer frame or something! quote:
At confirmation, you received those symbols in anticipation of the life you were about to have. At the end of life, you are giving up those symbols of the life you have had.
Thank you for that interesting way of looking at things, although the symbols ceased to have importance a long time ago. quote:
I do hope your life has been fulfilling. There are always ups and downs in everyone's life. I hope the ups outweigh your downs.
Yes, the good parts have definitely outweighed the not so good.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Pomona
Thank you for your posts - I'm shutting down now, but back later tomorrow.[
[ 10. July 2015, 19:18: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Apologies that this is a bit long, but the questions I would like to ask are: How do you react to what I talk about here? Do you think it was sort of sacrilegious, if so why? Do you think, 'So what?' I would be most interested to hear what you think.
I think that if I'm ever on the lookout for a bit of the ol' pastoral wisdom to share with a non Christian pal, or some well framed apologetic arguments to support the Christian faith, I know I can always find them in responses to your posts. I've picked up loads of great stuff. In your own sweet little way you've turned into a real gold mine of real cool and useful apologetics.
Keep up the contribution to world evangelism and Christian mission me ol darlin'
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
SusanDoris - I cannot understand why you should care if a Bible makes someone believe in God. It does not affect you. Why care about it so much?
What I really care about is the education of future generations of children. They should of course be educated about religious beliefs, but should not be taught that any god is a true fact, that said imaginary being is real, that it loves them and watches over them, etc etc. What adults choose to believe is their own, adult, decision. quote:
Me believing in God has no imPact whatsoever on your life, I can't see how it would change for Joe Bloggs to start believing in God.
True, but in fact those with strong religious beliefs often have great power too and do not use it wisely. quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
1) believing in God =/= blind belief, 2) I have certainly felt that places are holy or sacred without being told so.
But it is your brain which chooses to interpret whatever sensations you have there as being connected with God/god. It is an entirely human emotion, isn't it?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Apologies that this is a bit long, but the questions I would like to ask are: How do you react to what I talk about here? Do you think it was sort of sacrilegious, if so why? Do you think, 'So what?' I would be most interested to hear what you think.
I think that if I'm ever on the lookout for a bit of the ol' pastoral wisdom to share with a non Christian pal, or some well framed apologetic arguments to support the Christian faith, I know I can always find them in responses to your posts. I've picked up loads of great stuff. In your own sweet little way you've turned into a real gold mine of real cool and useful apologetics.
Thank you for your post. As I said at the beginning, I knew I would get really interesting responses here.
I am of course delighted to be of service! But lack of belief is slowly gaining ground and will eventually be in the majority. I agree of course that there is quite a way to go! quote:
Keep up the contribution to world evangelism and Christian mission me ol darlin'
In the end, belief in imaginary beings etc will have to give way to the realities of scientific fact. Never entirely of course because, as my granddaughter was just saying this afternoon, there are always those who will derive comfort from religious beliefs.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
You keep posting shit like that but we both know when challenged you won't be able to actually back it up. I know this because the same scenario plays on these boards like clockwork every few months. Several years ago, I recognized religious fundamentalists and vocal atheists shared a mindset but with different beliefs. Your contributions on the Ship repeatedly confirm that observation. This OP is pure gold in that respect.
[ 11. July 2015, 17:07: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In the end, belief in imaginary beings etc will have to give way to the realities of scientific fact. Never entirely of course because, as my granddaughter was just saying this afternoon, there are always those who will derive comfort from religious beliefs.
There will also likely always be those who recognize that neither the existence of a deity nor the non-existence of a deity can be scientifically proven, and that saying scientific fact shows the concept of a deity to be an imaginary human construct is as much of a faith statement as is a claim of belief in God.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You keep posting shit like that but we both know when challenged you won't be able to actually back it up. I know this because the same scenario plays on these boards like clockwork every few months. Several years ago, I recognized religious fundamentalists and vocal atheists shared a mindset but with different beliefs. Your contributions on the Ship repeatedly confirm that observation. This OP is pure gold in that respect.
Well, I expect you will agree that your responses to what I have to say is very predictable too!!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There will also likely always be those who recognize that neither the existence of a deity nor the non-existence of a deity can be scientifically proven, and that saying scientific fact shows the concept of a deity to be an imaginary human construct is as much of a faith statement as is a claim of belief in God.
You are right of course, but my predictable response to this is to ask whether you agree that the liklihood of either is not 50/50, but far more weighted against proof of any god.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I'm proud to say my response to hypocritical nonsense is consistent no matter how often it's repeated.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
It's starting to get personal. Let's check that unless you all do want the discussion elsewhere.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There will also likely always be those who recognize that neither the existence of a deity nor the non-existence of a deity can be scientifically proven, and that saying scientific fact shows the concept of a deity to be an imaginary human construct is as much of a faith statement as is a claim of belief in God.
You are right of course, but my predictable response to this is to ask whether you agree that the liklihood of either is not 50/50, but far more weighted against proof of any god.
I'd say I think it's virtually 100% certain that science will neither prove nor disprove the existence of any god. Whether more people will choose to believe there is no god or will choose to believe there is a god is another question entirely, the answer to which will be influenced by many things. Proof will not, I suspect, be one of them. Popular opinion on the other hand . . . .
That said, I think that the trends, at least in much of the West, indicate that something like ietsism or "spiritual but not religious," perhaps coupled with true agnosticism, may outpace either theism or atheism.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If you have read your Bible, you will know that there is a wealth of wonderful wisdom within it, and you will know that reading its books does not necessarily lead one to believe in the existence of God.
If one did reach such a conclusion, the responsibility would not fall upon any previous owner of the book.
I agree with all that you
say here, but if by taking one small action – and I am fully aware this is a daft idea! - I can
prevent one person turning to blind belief, then I might have done something useful? …… Okay,
probably not!!
It is not blind belief if the person who reads the Bible encounters the living God that way. You might dismiss the possibility of this, but the reason the Bible is called Holy is because it brings us closer to God.
It is not useful to hold back anything that helps people to make up their own minds, imv. I want everyone to make informed decisions.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It's starting to get personal. Let's check that unless you all do want the discussion elsewhere.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
I'm sorry about that because, as always, I knew the responses from SoF members would be very interesting and thoughtful.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'd say I think it's virtually 100% certain that science will neither prove nor disprove the existence of any god. Whether more people will choose to believe there is no god or will choose to believe there is a god is another question entirely, the answer to which will be influenced by many things. Proof will not, I suspect, be one of them. Popular opinion on the other hand . . . .
That said, I think that the trends, at least in much of the West, indicate that something like ietsism or "spiritual but not religious," perhaps coupled with true agnosticism, may outpace either theism or atheism.
thank you - I don't think I disagree with any of that - I'm just sorry I shan't be around to see it all!
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
SusanDoris,
A question, if I may, about your belief-system.
Are you as happy for your body to be recycled as soon as you no longer need it ?
Or are you proposing that it shall be treated with some level of affection or reverence as a symbol of the lovable person who once inhabited it ?
IngoB wants to burn or bury old rosaries or well-loved prayer books ecause in Western culture these are considered more dignified or reverent methods of disposal than ripping to shreds or leaving to rot in the open air or feeding to animals.
Do you share this sense at all ? Is it the principle or just the domain of its application where you disagree with him ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
SusanDoris,
A question, if I may, about your belief-system.
Are you as happy for your body to be recycled as soon as you no longer need it ?
Interesting choice of words there 'no longer need it'! The implication appears to be that my spirit or something will have departed! This of course is absolutely not my belief. When I die that will be the end of anything that was me. Those who wish to remember me will do so with, I think I can safely say, affection; in the same way that I have affectionate, loving memories of those known to me who have already died. Whatever methods of disposal my sons choose, I hope it is the most simple, inexpensive and practical way of doing so. I'd happily leave my body to medical science, but I believe there are plenty available for the nearest teaching hospital.
quote:
]Or are you proposing that it shall be treated with some level of affection or reverence as a symbol of the lovable person who once inhabited it ?
There are, of course, laws and by-laws which must be followed, but the person who was me will be dead ... no woolly euphemisms wanted! I won't, for instance, have 'passed away', I'll have died! quote:
IngoB wants to burn or bury old rosaries or well-loved prayer books ecause in Western culture these are considered more dignified or reverent methods of disposal than ripping to shreds or leaving to rot in the open air or feeding to animals.
Do you share this sense at all ? Is it the principle or just the domain of its application where you disagree with him ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Thank you for that interesting post. Well, from a practical and historical point of view, I suppose that if nobody buried anything, there would be nothing for future people to dig up - and say, 'Ah, that was probably a religious symbol!!'
Seriously, though, space for burial is at a premium these days, isn't it, and the better ways there are of disposing of things, including dead bodies, the easier things will be for future generations maybe.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Susan Doris:
quote:
The reasons are: I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
I'm presuming then that you feel this way about all religious texts?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Susan Doris:
quote:
The reasons are: I do not want to be responsible for someone reading the words and, as a result, believing there is such a thing as a God/god.
I'm presuming then that you feel this way about all religious texts?
Thank you for your post. All religious texts are thought of and transmitted orally or written down by humans - always have been and always will be. Therefore, there is wonderful poetic creativity in all of them no doubt, as well as poorly composed unpleasantness; good, sensible, moral guidance, as well as corrupting violent provocation; truth and falsehood. None has ever, at any time, said anything which is objective proof of any god, and by that I do not mean 100%, but as near as can be while still leaving a very small space for the possibility that one day one might be proved. Do you agree?
I have seen quotes of some texts here and there, but I'm afraid I would find it very boring indeed to listen to good ol' Synthetic Dave reading them to me via the internet! About ten years ago, I did listen to a complete spoken word copy of the NT! I found it quite funny actually to listen to all of Paul's letters straight through - I'll bet you anything that the recipients of those letters used to dread the next one, and probably used the short straw method of deciding whose turn it was to reply this time.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'll bet you anything that the recipients of those letters used to dread the next one, and probably used the short straw method of deciding whose turn it was to reply this time.
None of us know whether that's the case: at this distance we can't know.
In any event, the letters had some impact otherwise the Christian faith would never have grown in the way it has.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
.... there are always those who will derive comfort from religious beliefs.
Possibly because it's the only comfort they get - and your atheism would seemingly be cruel enough to deny them that. It's also something and someone they believe in - in most cases not out of desperation and a kind of last resortism, but as the consequence of a rational choice and decision.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... those with strong religious beliefs often have great power too and do not use it wisely.
You are hardly being fair - those with beliefs may have power and some do choose to use it unwisely.
On the other hand, some with power and faith do use it wisely - otherwise schools, hospitals and our social provision system wouldn't have come at the time they did nor might they exist in the form they do.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Susan Doris:
quote:
All religious texts are thought of and transmitted orally or written down by humans - always have been and always will be. Therefore, there is wonderful poetic creativity in all of them no doubt, as well as poorly composed unpleasantness; good, sensible, moral guidance, as well as corrupting violent provocation; truth and falsehood. None has ever, at any time, said anything which is objective proof of any god, and by that I do not mean 100%, but as near as can be while still leaving a very small space for the possibility that one day one might be proved. Do you agree?
I have seen quotes of some texts here and there, but I'm afraid I would find it very boring indeed to listen to good ol' Synthetic Dave reading them to me via the internet! [Smile] About ten years ago, I did listen to a complete spoken word copy of the NT! I found it quite funny actually to listen to all of Paul's letters straight through - I'll bet you anything that the recipients of those letters used to dread the next one, and probably used the short straw method of deciding whose turn it was to reply this time. [Big Grin]
Thank you for your reply, but it doesn't really answer my question.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... those with strong religious beliefs often have great power too and do not use it wisely.
You are hardly being fair - those with beliefs may have power and some do choose to use it unwisely.
On the other hand, some with power and faith do use it wisely - otherwise schools, hospitals and our social provision system wouldn't have come at the time they did nor might they exist in the form they do.
But those with no strong religious beliefs always use power wisely.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Exclamation Mark
Thank you for your posts. quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Thank you for your reply, but it doesn't really answer my question.
Not quite sure why - could you elaborate, please?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Susan Doris:
quote:
Not quite sure why - could you elaborate, please?
I do apologise. I thought I had asked a fairly straight forward and uncomplicated question but I seemed to get a response about oral and written tradition and synthetic Dave.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
SusanDoris - I cannot understand why you should care if a Bible makes someone believe in God. It does not affect you. Why care about it so much?
What I really care about is the education of future generations of children. They should of course be educated about religious beliefs, but should not be taught that any god is a true fact, that said imaginary being is real, that it loves them and watches over them, etc etc. What adults choose to believe is their own, adult, decision. quote:
Me believing in God has no imPact whatsoever on your life, I can't see how it would change for Joe Bloggs to start believing in God.
True, but in fact those with strong religious beliefs often have great power too and do not use it wisely. quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
1) believing in God =/= blind belief, 2) I have certainly felt that places are holy or sacred without being told so.
But it is your brain which chooses to interpret whatever sensations you have there as being connected with God/god. It is an entirely human emotion, isn't it?
I fail to see how a Bible donated to a charity shop (or whatever) will have any impact on children learning about God/gods. Charity shop books are not exactly commonly used in terms of school curricula, are they? Someone buying a donated Bible is almost certainly going to be an adult. It seems like this is a big excuse for wanting to police people's beliefs.
Atheists also often have great power and do not use it wisely - but no non-atheist here has called for ripping up copies of pro-atheism books, even if they might lead to someone becoming pro-Maoist for example. Yes, that's very unlikely - but just as unlikely as reading a donated Bible is going to make someone join the Westboro Baptist Church. Also, the most powerful countries are the least religious ones.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point about it being entirely human emotion. It's also human emotion that makes someone think that a place isn't holy or sacred. What do you mean here? Does atheism now demand that we don't have emotions?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
No Christian on this thread has advocated destroying a Dawkins book.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I fail to see how a Bible donated to a charity shop (or whatever) will have any impact on children learning about God/gods. Charity shop books are not exactly commonly used in terms of school curricula, are they? Someone buying a donated Bible is almost certainly going to be an adult. It seems like this is a big excuse for wanting to police people's beliefs.
I thought I had made it fairly clear that I fully realise this was a drop in the ocean as far as influencing anybody was concerned. I hope, however, that when I die my sons will have one less small thing to do! quote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point about it being entirely human emotion. It's also human emotion that makes someone think that a place isn't holy or sacred. What do you mean here? Does atheism now demand that we don't have emotions?
Certainly not! But there are no places anywhere, no objects, no creatures of any kind which are inherently 'holy', 'spiritual', or any similar word you may choose, in its own right; the designation is 100% human. It's an empty set.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No Christian on this thread has advocated destroying a Dawkins book.
No, I did not expect they would! There is, though, a difference between RD's books and the Bible: the former contain checkable, obnjective facts and the latter contains constant references to a God which remains an idea only. I agree the former also contain opinions, but these are all open to challenge - and to change if more reliable evidence is submitted.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
Are many people converted to Christianity purely as a result of reading the Bible? No contact with other Christians, churches, books with a more consistent message, anything? What happens if you just happen to pick up SusanDoris's Old Testament? Will you convert to Judaism?
I'm sure it's possible to be converted to a particular religion by coming across a copy of their main book, but I don't think it's common. It may have been so when people had fewer books and no media access.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Downsizing my books, I had to put them on the narrowest shelf they would fit, irrespective of subject. I still wanted some organisation, though, so I decided that each shelf of miscellaneous titles should be ordered from fiction to fact. So novels were at one end, and books about birds at the other, economics somewhere in the middle. I decided bibles should go near the fact end. There is some poetry, but largely I read the bible as data: this is what they said, what they thought. It's fact because it's a human creation.
So I agree and disagree with you, SusanDoris. Of course there is no putative being called God, but maybe this human creation is at points true. When Paul says God made all nations from one stock and appealed to what he saw as the essential unity of human beings, perhaps he's right. I hope so. He was wrong about us all being descended from one man, but the point he wants to make, whatever the prehistory, is that we are one, and should be able to understand each other, and respect and trust in each other's worth and worthiness.
The bible gives us human words and beliefs: facts, but a bit dull. But we also see the hopes and longings of those humans, their convictions about what it all might mean: claim and conjecture, opinion rather than fact, but it might be true. And that's exciting. Is goodness really stronger than evil? Even if it isn't, is making the claim that it is, a fine way to live and die?
I don't want to get rid of the bible, though we could lose many copies, but I want to get rid of the way so many people read it, as if it was a message from a being, or an argument for that beings existence.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No Christian on this thread has advocated destroying a Dawkins book.
No, I did not expect they would! There is, though, a difference between RD's books and the Bible: the former contain checkable, obnjective facts and the latter contains constant references to a God which remains an idea only. I agree the former also contain opinions, but these are all open to challenge - and to change if more reliable evidence is submitted.
Sorry Susan. I tried The God Delusion it was rather short on checkable objective facts. Indeed I didn't even recognise the god it was talking about.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Well, I'm having an odd, but challenging, experience just at this moment! I turned on a little while ago, but although I can hear the screen reader and use the software, the screen is black, so I'm having to use sound only. I've left phone messages with Tech chap, so I hope he will rescue me some time today. Although I use the assistive software all the time, I am able to perceive the screen in my peripheral vision which helps me orientate myself on it. I have also listened to the latest interesting posts, for which my thanks. I'll be back asap!
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I fail to see how a Bible donated to a charity shop (or whatever) will have any impact on children learning about God/gods. Charity shop books are not exactly commonly used in terms of school curricula, are they? Someone buying a donated Bible is almost certainly going to be an adult. It seems like this is a big excuse for wanting to police people's beliefs.
Atheists also often have great power and do not use it wisely - but no non-atheist here has called for ripping up copies of pro-atheism books, even if they might lead to someone becoming pro-Maoist for example. Yes, that's very unlikely - but just as unlikely as reading a donated Bible is going to make someone join the Westboro Baptist Church. Also, the most powerful countries are the least religious ones.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I do find it odd that Susan didn't just give the Bible away to a charity shop, rather than this song and dance about 'not creating more work for her sons than necessary.' Sheesh, it's just one book, how much work would that be.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There is, though, a difference between RD's books and the Bible: the former contain checkable, obnjective facts ...
His science books, sure. I can respect him as a scientist. His bigoted diatribes about religion ... not so much.
But RD is more tolerant than you, Susan. He at least acknowledges the importance of the Bible in, for example, the history of Western literature.
There is, in all honesty, something rather unpleasant about wanting to airbrush something out of existence. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Are many people converted to Christianity purely as a result of reading the Bible? No contact with other Christians, churches, books with a more consistent message, anything?
In my experience, never.
Any conversion I've ever seen (or experienced, for that matter) has always required a community, however small. The Bible requires context in order to be understood. Outside the context of a particular church or community of believers it's going to be impenetrable at best, misunderstood at worst.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Er--I was. And I was about as pure a test case as you're going to get in a Western country.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Susan, thank you for your reply.
Just want to point out when I say the end of life is a passage, I am not necessarily implying an afterlife. It is just when you go from breathing to not breathing, that is a passage.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Er--I was. And I was about as pure a test case as you're going to get in a Western country.
Actually I was, sort of, too- the Gideon New Testament we were all given at school. Or at least that's what started me off. I found wwhen i read the Gospels that here was something really compelling that required some kind of response.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
. quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What would it take to change your mind Susan Doris? I remember my Dad about 3 years before he died reading through the OT. He was a committed catholic but said he did not want to die without reading it all. Interestingly he was fascinated by Ecclesiastes. At his age he could look back on all the" useless, useless, useless" stuff in his life.
I cannot imagine anything that would change my mind about all gods being products of human imagination, and I certainly can’t put the books back together again!
As a matter of interest, since you mentioned it, I went to google and looked up the first chapter of Ecclesiastes! Certainly, common sense and co-operation have enabled our species’ survival!
Ecclesiastes is really interesting in several ways. It seems to be an attempt by Solomon to sate all physical appetites as a kind of experiment to see if any lasting satisfaction can be attained. In an oblique kind of way the message is that physicality alone is futile. There is a kind of climactic moment at the end ch 12 I think where suddenly he urges the reader to remember that for all these actions God will require an account but the clincher is the injunction to remember the creator while one still can " before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl crushed" which is rather a beautiful metaphor for death.
You might have look if you are interested.
I did not realise your limitations and do admire your courage and determination. I think you are dreadfully mistaken in your convictions of God's absence but I live with someone just the same so am not surprised.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
I re-read Ecclesiastes recently. It's a great book. Astonishingly post-modern.
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Are many people converted to Christianity purely as a result of reading the Bible?
I have a couple of atheist/New Age friends who've read the Bible and were unmoved by it, but I also know a couple of people who read it and came to Christ as a result.
SusanDoris, I hope indeed that your technical problems are sorted out soon. Must be frustrating for you. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Susan Doris, I'm still quite puzzled by this thread. If you are completely convinced that you do not believe in any God, why is it still such an issue to you whether you destroy a Bible and Prayer Book or why and how you do so? And even more than that, why do you feel the need to come on a Christian discussion board to tell everyone about it and ask us what we think?
Are you saying 'Look at me'? Or have you got a secret fear that for destroying sacred objects, a great Monty Python like foot will descend from above? Are you hoping some Christians will say to you, 'no it won't' or, 'no, for doing this you won't go to hell when you die'? Because if so, we can't speak on God's behalf. We won't and shouldn't. It is not a request which one person can ask another or expect them to answer.
You say it's just so that your family will have two less things to dispose of when you are gone, but is that all there is to it. They're quite small. If it were, why write it up? Or does it represent something more to you?
It's probably cheek of me to say this, but your OP reads as one who isn't quite as comfortable in their atheist skin as they'd present themselves to be. A few years ago Professor Dawkins tried to kidnap the adjective 'bright' to describe his corpus of negative beliefs. From our side of that divide, 'brittle' feels a more accurate description.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Bibliolatry is no different from any other idolatry.
A book is paper pulp (or linen pulp, I suppose) with a sprinkling of chemicals. They are the hardware, the pattern of the ink chemicals being the software. They are alive all right. But they live only in the wetware -- when they are downloaded into our heads and hearts. All other manifestations are meaningless.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Brenda, that is why despotic regimes spend so much effort burning books they disagree with and persecuting artists and writers.
The pen is mightier.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And it doesn't work. Especially now. Mein Kampf is banned, but you can easily find it. A little googling and there you are.
The only way it does work is to mess with the language itself. (Orwell was right!) The Chinese government has simplified pinying, the written Chinese characters. The goal is to make Chinese easier to use in a modern setting, typewriters and internet and so on. But the actual result is to make all Chinese writings older than 1960 or so impossible for younger people to read.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
On recycling bibles:
Many many old KJV's get passed along to me because people know that 1) I am a dedicated recycler and 2) I am a dedicated Christ follower.
My first struggle with this issue happened when my father's Sunday school bible was given to me. Leather bound, with gold rimmed pages and inscribed as a gift from the Methodist superintendent in the 1920's - he never used it. Doubt it was ever opened. Just passed down to me as a "significant object" that had belonged to my dad. It sat on a shelf until the binding gave way, and then I decided to put it to use for a craft project. None of my kids would read it anyway.
Really lovely bigger bibles with engravings and a place for recording family history I keep as wedding presents (Something "old"). Even if the bride and groom are not religious, they don't seem to mind anything meant as a blessing to them. At the very least it is somewhere "safe" and "nice" to record family stuff.
Now I have no qualms about composting damaged bibles or putting them in the paper recycling bin. I happily burn them too, for the ash to be used on our garden. "Earth to earth and ashes to ashes". If "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it" then redistributing the molecules of such items doesn't really matter.
If the bibles I am given are a more modern version, I send them to one of the correctional centre chaplains. She gives them away all the time in her work, and is grateful for the supply.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't want to get rid of the bible, though we could lose many copies, but I want to get rid of the way so many people read it, as if it was a message from a being, or an argument for that beings existence.
There's a general point in there which I like. The free availability of written material of all sorts strikes me as right in principle, but only if our forms of education encourage people to develop both critical appreciation and confidence in their ability to think for themselves.
One of the issues demonstrated by the internet is that free availability of information may be misused to deceive and delude the unwary. But I think that says more about the variable availability of "think for yourself" nurturing and education than the dangers of free availability of text.
SusanDoris, I think you worry about a small risk. These days, it's pretty difficult even to get Christians to read seriously and really study the bible (rather than swallow hook line and sinker various pre-digested views).
To quote Edward de Bono, "people think in order to stop thinking". The predeliction for pre-packaged solutions is a kind of easy way out of genuine thoughtfulness. Whatever else may be said about the Bible, it's hardly an obvious pre-packaged solution. Making sense of its contents, from any POV, requires much hard work and thought.
[ 15. July 2015, 08:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I re-read Ecclesiastes recently. It's a great book. Astonishingly post-modern.
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Are many people converted to Christianity purely as a result of reading the Bible?
I have a couple of atheist/New Age friends who've read the Bible and were unmoved by it, but I also know a couple of people who read it and came to Christ as a result.
SusanDoris, I hope indeed that your technical problems are sorted out soon. Must be frustrating for you.
I think I'd have got about as far as half way through Genesis before chucking it away in disgust.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think I'd have got about as far as half way through Genesis before chucking it away in disgust.
Poetry - in the first chapter - and then a fair amount of sex and violence.
That would keep me reading.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think I'd have got about as far as half way through Genesis before chucking it away in disgust.
Poetry - in the first chapter - and then a fair amount of sex and violence.
That would keep me reading.
The problem is it keeps on implying that the violence is good and right, given most of it is apparently done by God. That's the issue there.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think I'd have got about as far as half way through Genesis before chucking it away in disgust.
A conference speaker once observed that Genesis was a useful case study of dysfunctional relationships and how not to bring up your kids.
I heard a story once re the late Randolph Churchill. Encouraged by one of his friends to read the bible (he claimed he never had), he did so. Returning to his friend, he observed that he'd read Genesis, stopped in disgust and concluded that God was "an absolute shit".
This kind of reveals the difficulties facing a 20/21st century mind coming across this stuff without any real background!
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it doesn't work. Especially now. Mein Kampf is banned, but you can easily find it. A little googling and there you are.
It may be banned in a few countries, but not generally. Certainly not in the US. quote:
The only way it does work is to mess with the language itself. (Orwell was right!) The Chinese government has simplified pinying, the written Chinese characters.
Chinese characters are hanzi, not "pinying"; pinyin is a convention for transliterating Chinese into roman characters. quote:
The goal is to make Chinese easier to use in a modern setting, typewriters and internet and so on. But the actual result is to make all Chinese writings older than 1960 or so impossible for younger people to read.
Reference? There's no reason older writings couldn't be reproduced using the simplified characters.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it doesn't work. Especially now. Mein Kampf is banned, but you can easily find it. A little googling and there you are.
It may be banned in a few countries, but not generally. Certainly not in the US. quote:
The only way it does work is to mess with the language itself. (Orwell was right!) The Chinese government has simplified pinying, the written Chinese characters.
Chinese characters are hanzi, not "pinying"; pinyin is a convention for transliterating Chinese into roman characters. quote:
The goal is to make Chinese easier to use in a modern setting, typewriters and internet and so on. But the actual result is to make all Chinese writings older than 1960 or so impossible for younger people to read.
Reference? There's no reason older writings couldn't be reproduced using the simplified characters.
Yes, but they would have to be re-written and reprinted first, and only that material of interest to authorities or businesses would have priority. This is a topic of much debate among Chinese Canadians-- some parents prefer the simpler characters as easier for children to learn, but most (at least those with whom I have spoken) want children to have access to a wider range of written material. I was suprised with the passion the topic raises and in 1997 IIRC a school board meeting in Richmond BC was disrupted by demonstrators (they were discussing which characters would be used in heritage language teaching in the board's jurisdiction). I was given to understand that home-country politics was behind much of this.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it doesn't work. Especially now. Mein Kampf is banned, but you can easily find it. A little googling and there you are.
It may be banned in a few countries, but not generally. Certainly not in the US.
AIUI the German government owns the copyright to the German-language version, and they will not allow anyone to publish it. The copyright will expire next year.
Moo
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
My favourite recycling artist can be found here: Susan Hannon makes angels wings from the pages of old bibles.
I particularly like the installation where you can sit in front of them and have a snapshot taken of yourself with wings. Bravo, Susan, bravo.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I fail to see how a Bible donated to a charity shop (or whatever) will have any impact on children learning about God/gods. Charity shop books are not exactly commonly used in terms of school curricula, are they? Someone buying a donated Bible is almost certainly going to be an adult. It seems like this is a big excuse for wanting to police people's beliefs.
I thought I had made it fairly clear that I fully realise this was a drop in the ocean as far as influencing anybody was concerned. I hope, however, that when I die my sons will have one less small thing to do! quote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point about it being entirely human emotion. It's also human emotion that makes someone think that a place isn't holy or sacred. What do you mean here? Does atheism now demand that we don't have emotions?
Certainly not! But there are no places anywhere, no objects, no creatures of any kind which are inherently 'holy', 'spiritual', or any similar word you may choose, in its own right; the designation is 100% human. It's an empty set.
But the designation of places as not holy or not spiritual is also 100% human.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
The home visit Tech man checked the monitor on a spare one - mine had packed up. Fortunately, I was able to order a new one from local computer shop which arrived yesterday. My clever neighbour plugged it in. So here I am this morning, much enjoying reading latest posts. Back soon with responses!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI the German government owns the copyright to the German-language version, and they will not allow anyone to publish it. The copyright will expire next year.
To be pedantically accurate, midnight on next New Year's Eve. It's author died in 1945, and in the EU works emerge from copyright at the end of the 70th year after the one in which the author died.
Also being pedantic, though, what is the basis of the German government's claim to copyright in the author's works? It might not stand up outside Germany. On the author's death, copyright would have passed to his next of kin. I don't think that would be the governments of either East Germany (where he died) or West Germany where his alpine holiday home was. Neither existed at that time.
I don't see how being head of state would make any difference to that.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it doesn't work. Especially now. Mein Kampf is banned, but you can easily find it. A little googling and there you are.
It may be banned in a few countries, but not generally. Certainly not in the US.
AIUI the German government owns the copyright to the German-language version, and they will not allow anyone to publish it. The copyright will expire next year.
Moo
Evidently they haven't been very effective since numerous recently published German language editions are available on Amazon.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
]I do find it odd that Susan didn't just give the Bible away to a charity shop, rather than this song and dance about 'not creating more work for her sons than necessary.' Sheesh, it's just one book, how much work would that be.
You are right of course, but, as I say, it was something ingrained - perhaps the correct word would be ‘indoctrinated’ – in childhood, so that I didn’t do it without thinking. quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49 Susan, thank you for your reply.
Just want to point out when I say the end of life is a passage, I am not necessarily implying an afterlife. It is just when you go from breathing to not breathing, that is a passage.
It is an odd thing to think about!! quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You might have look if you are interested.
Thank you for your interesting post. I shall enquire if there is an audio version – preferably in modern plain English, and see what I’ve missed! quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I re-read Ecclesiastes recently. It's a great book. Astonishingly post-modern.
Sounds good! quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
SusanDoris, I hope indeed that your technical problems are sorted out soon. Must be frustrating for you.
[Yes, it is! But thank goodness for the clever people who know what to do
I think there might still be a small hitch though - I have been typing this on a doc and when I went to listen to it back, I find it seems to be on two pages side by side. Hmmm.
[code]
[ 19. July 2015, 15:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Also being pedantic, though, what is the basis of the German government's claim to copyright in the author's works? It might not stand up outside Germany. On the author's death, copyright would have passed to his next of kin. I don't think that would be the governments of either East Germany (where he died) or West Germany where his alpine holiday home was. Neither existed at that time.
I don't see how being head of state would make any difference to that.
Doesn't the crown own the UK copyright in perpetuity on the Authorized Version? I think governments are likely to claim whatever copyrights they want, and since it's governments that make and enforce copyrights in the first place, who's to stop them?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Susan Doris, I'm still quite puzzled by this thread. If you are completely convinced that you do not believe in any God, why is it still such an issue to you whether you destroy a Bible and Prayer Book or why and how you do so?
Well, I was actually quite puzzled myself; only slightly, it is true, but I realise I’ve considered throwing both books away many times over the years and I wondered why I hadn’t! quote:
And even more than that, why do you feel the need to come on a Christian discussion board to tell everyone about it and ask us what we think?
If I knew nothing of SofF then the idea of looking for such a place would not even have occurred to me, but since I’ve been a mem ber here for quite a time, I thought it would be interesting to hear others’ views. I quickly learnt to value and respect the discussions here and knew I would not be disappointed this time either. quote:
Are you saying 'Look at me'? Or have you got a secret fear that for destroying sacred objects, a great Monty Python like foot will descend from above? Are you hoping some Christians will say to you, 'no it won't' or, 'no, for doing this you won't go to hell when you die'? Because if so, we can't speak on God's behalf. We won't and shouldn't. It is not a request which one person can ask another or expect them to answer.
No, none of those! I quite like the image of the boot though! I can assure you I had no hidden meaning. quote:
You say it's just so that your family will have two less things to dispose of when you are gone, but is that all there is to it. They're quite small. If it were, why write it up? Or does it represent something more to you?
And all these interesting questions provide food for thought and the more one understands what makes people tick and what motivates them, the more interesting life becomes..
quote:
It's probably cheek of me to say this, but your OP reads as one who isn't quite as comfortable in their atheist skin as they'd present themselves to be.
No, certainly not a cheek. I think there would have been a grain of truth in that 20-25 years ago. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I only did the recycling now. There is, however, no longer any doubt which I do find quite satisfying!
Like all pragmatic atheists, I do of course always leave room for the conclusive, objective evidence that I might be wrong.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
[/QB] This is a topic of much debate among Chinese Canadians-- some parents prefer the simpler characters as easier for children to learn, but most (at least those with whom I have spoken) want children to have access to a wider range of written material. I was suprised with the passion the topic raises and in 1997 IIRC a school board meeting in Richmond BC was disrupted by demonstrators (they were discussing which characters would be used in heritage language teaching in the board's jurisdiction). I was given to understand that home-country politics was behind much of this. [/QB]
How interesting – I hadn’t heard of any of that.
[
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Is there a reason you didn't put it in a book bank? That's what I do with all my unwanted books. We have a bookcase in each room - any new ones must be accommodated by taking unwanted ones to the book bank.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Doesn't the crown own the UK copyright in perpetuity on the Authorized Version? I think governments are likely to claim whatever copyrights they want, and since it's governments that make and enforce copyrights in the first place, who's to stop them?
It does, but I'm fairly sure it's unenforceable outside the UK.
Besides, although these days countries are supposed to respect foreign copyrights, you can't usually claim a copyright in a foreign country which is greater than the work would have had if it had been published there.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
The sincere desire to prevent wrong belief in others by destroying some meaningful symbol of their faith is what led to the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
For offense of a similar scale, SusanDoris would have had to recycle a Gutenberg Bible, but it seems to me the impulse is the same. It is a kind of fundamentalist intolerance which cannot recognize any positive value in the symbols of another's faith.
Since I don't think I'm above such impulses myself, I think I would have to consider such a resource to be unremittingly evil: books explaining how to molest children or commit mass murder. I find it hard to understand how the faith symbols of others - even if I think they are sincerely mistaken and should come on over to The Still More Excellent Way ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
- fall into the category of unremittingly evil.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
Can I just say how lovely it was to check in just now and see " 'Recycling the Bible' by Leaf."
[ 20. July 2015, 00:29: Message edited by: Banner Lady ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
A Bible can even be useful if you have a wobbly table (alright, it needs to be a very wobbly table).
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I've tried the NLB Talking Books dept and googled varius phrases, but have not yet found a suitable audio version of Ecclesiastes. I thought I might be able to listen line by line on line but, although this is possible, the voice reads numbers of verses every time and, if I use 'line view mode', it reads some of the punctuation too! The NLB has an audio of the OT, but not in plain English version. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas, or can help, with this/?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
David Suchet has recorded the whole Bible, it is available on MP3 cd. I'm sure his version will be much easier on the ear than one which keeps adding chapter and verse!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Thank you, Raptor Eye. I will phone the Library and see if they have a copy.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0