Dave Reed

The term "bias" has a little bit of "dark connotation" to it. "Mindset" on the
other hand does not. You may be biased toward the term "bias", in which
case you may favor emotional/cultural colorations, perhaps subconsciously.

Clivedurdle

Is this an example of mindset or bias?

http://www.billygraham.org/StatementOfFaith.asp

driver8

Cult of the split personality?

Clouseau

It has more than a little bit of darkness to it. Our friend Doug Shaver no doubt realised that when writing: 'Most people who take the Bible seriously believe you're supposed to read it with a bias.' No doubt you realised it when writing: 'In general, I agree.' So, because bias = falsehood, you both seem to think that serious Bible students advocate mendacity. But neither of you has produced a shred of evidence that any serious person has admitted to the opinion that the Bible should be read with bias. So how do you explain yourselves? Is the position of Bible sceptics so desperate that it has to blacken the reputations of Bible users? Can anyone be taken seriously who makes such a scandalous and absurd allegation anyway? I'm sure you can find something more intelligent to say that that.

Clouseau

Cult of the pagan, polytheist Roman Empire. Trinitarianism is the greatest testimony to the crass stupidity of mankind imaginable. This is not because intelligent people actually believe in a trinity- they don't. The stupidity is at a more subtle level than that. Maybe you can work out what it is.

Dave Reed

I don't know how you jumped to this conclusion. For the record, here's the
Wiki definition of "bias":

A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective.

Using this definition, I can safely say that most posters here are biased
in one way or another, when it comes to discussing the Bible. Is this really
surprising? As far as just reading it goes, only the individual would know
how biased he/she is. The Billy Graham "statement of faith" does show
bias in my opinion. How could you get around this, except to take virtually
no firm stand on any spiritual issue. Bias, however, does not equal "falsehood".

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Dave Reed;4495758]A very good definition, though that's no general recommendation of Wiki.

You don't know what a prejudice is? It means a pre-judgement, so how would you like to be tried by a prejudiced judge and jury, if their pre-judgement is that you are guilty when you are not?

You don't know what bias is? How would you like to play a team game where your team has to go uphill all the time? Because that is what 'bias' means.

Many of them seem to be drunk, unless they are deliberately changing the subject. What is your excuse?

Toto

This discussion is becoming pointless.

The OP introduced the word "bias" by asking if the term "Holy Bible" did not evidence some bias, as opposed to an unbiased title like "Miscellaneous collection of ancient near eastern, Greek and Roman texts."

Doug Shaver then said that the Bible publishers were marketing to people who had that bias.

So - is it not true that Christians read the Bible as holy literature? Are Christians instructed to read the Bible skeptically, looking for contradictions and improbabilities? Do they give equal weight to the text of the Qur'an or the Gita or the Book of Mormon? Does the Holy Spirit aid them in interpretation?

Clouseau

Whose bias might that be? That of Christians, or of publishers?

Is that unbiased?

What is wrong with just 'The Bible'? It's the term just about all Christians use.

The proposition was that 'Most people who take the Bible seriously believe you're supposed to read it with a bias.' Evidence for this allegation has not been provided, and it never will be, imv. Christians do not propose mendacity.

One must understand the ontology of Christianity. The gospel message comes first, then the Christian, then the book. It was the church, the foundation of truth, that made the book. The church would make the book again, if necessary. It is the church that recognises the book, that decides on its limits, that decides that it is to be its reference standard for belief and behaviour. Nobody has to accept it, nobody has to lap it up unquestioningly, and nobody should.

No, but they are not told not to, either. Christians are not afraid of Bible scrutiny.

In principle, yes. It's when they have read these books that they give them no weight at all.

Holy Spirit? Does one believe in a Holy Spirit?

Toto

The publishers, if you read the OP

Again, I am repeating the claim in the OP

The question is the OP's.

I would disagree with you. At least some Christians do propose mendacity in the service of a higher good, or that is how they seem to act, especially on television. One could quote Saint Paul, Eusebius. . .

If Christians in the USA took that attitude, we wouldn't be having the problems that we do.

As long as the results come out right

Probably because they have prejudged them

I don't, but many Christians apparently do.