MrDarwin

You're overlooking the fact much of humanity has gotten and does get along without it. Look at China, Japan, several other Asian nations, much of Africa, the Pacific islands. Many of these societies and governments have long histories in which the Bible was until recently almost entirely irrelevant, and some have remained largely unaffected by Christianity (or by Judaism or Islam, for that matter). Are these societies and governments any better or any worse than those in which the Bible has played a significant role?

Boro Nut

Don't be silly. If the bible had never existed someone would have been bound to make it up...erm...oh!!

Boro Nut

Tusitala

Ummm, hmm, let me see now. My idea of 'sin' is when we consciously do something we know we shouldn't (I know that sounds wishy-washy, but hey). I certainly don't think 'sin' has anything to do with a higher power - it's more to do with amoral behaviour and as I've said before, religions don't hold the mortgage on morality.

For my money, the best quotation from the bible was the one about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. (I'm sure we could find a myriad of suitable moralistic quotes from authors other than the bible )

I guess in my original post I may have been a bit flippant in associating the word 'sin' with selfishness, and sometimes I struggle to be able to explain myself. Perhaps the only way is to use an example:

E.g. John steals Janet's apple because he feels hungry. = selfish + amoral


Cheers,
Tusi

Tusitala

MrDarwin:

That was exactly the point I was trying to make!

Cheers,
Tusi

Oxidizing Material

I'd be a lot happier

Perchance

I don't think it sounds wishy-washy; that's about the only definition you can assign to "something wrong" or "a crime."

I suppose we just think in different ways- which is certainly not a crime .

Probably.

On the other hand, I'm too lazy to go look them up right now .

Hmm. That's interesting, because it would assert that morality is indeed an invention of humans, and animals are incapable of acting immorally (something I believe anyway). After all, eagles don't really scruple to steal fish from ospreys when they're hungry, but I don't see anyone sitting out there calling them on it .

Thanks for explaining. I've heard some people, even ones who describe themselves as non-believers, speak about "sin" and "morality" as if there were moral laws somehow inherent in the structure of the universe, god-derived or not. It never made sense to me from a non-theistic perspective, except as some kind of bulwark against the- to them- frightening idea that the universe isn't moral or immoral by itself, it just is, and rules are made up by humans. This is another of the innumerable areas where the theists seem to have the simpler explanation, being able to just point and say, "Goddidit."

Hmmm. If the Bible never had existed, I wonder what the people who find it impossible to be moral without it would have done? Find some other religious belief system, which could support their apparent need for a universe with purpose? Or managed to train themselves to accept human-derived morality? Or lived in a kind of constant haze of fear and panic?

Not that I don't know theists who do that last now...

-Perchance.

Sir Nevah Entitar

Well, the nonexistance of the bible(And I take it that by that you also imply lack of other religious texts, correct me if I'm wrong.) would have pros and cons... There would be no crusades, for one thing, no holocaust, no fundy emails, and religion would be a lot less organized. All pretty damn good things, in my opinion.

On the downside, we wouldn't have any of those fun hymns(There are a few really good ones, you have to admit it. Like the battle hymn of the republic. And without the battle hymn of the republic, we wouldn't have the battle hymn of students- mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school.). There would be no sistine chapel, for one, and far less paintings.

For a period, also, drama all but died out, and the church was the only thing that supported it, by letting people act out scenes from the bible. This, in effect, preserved drama. Nowadays, however, the church tends to crack down on modern drama(most movies- see CAPalert), so who knows.

Billy Joel would never have written "Only the good die young." We'd lack one very, very interesting subject- theology. Or mythology, if you prefer that term.

Shakespeare would have had far less inspiration.

And last but not least, we'd be missing out on some fairly good science fiction.

NOGO

We would still have religions to be sure.

What would be missing is a unique kind of religious zealotry.
Peoeple with exclusive hold on the truth willing to sacrifice everything to have it their way.

philechat

If the Bible never existed then the Quran would never existed. The religious system would be pluralistic if no new religions comparable to the Abrahamics were developed.

Like Oxidizing Material said, "I would be much happier". Religious tolerance in my native country (Taiwan) was incredible, and most people looked at the "one true God" claim of Christianity funny. Art would not suffer for there would be other religious and secular sources (Greek and Roman drama, Chinese poetry, Japanese painting, African dances, anyone?) And actually religious fundamentalism is detrimental to art...art suffered in the Middle ages compared to Greek and Roman periods.

Perchance

I think it is possible that a monotheistic belief system still would have developed. After all, human religious thought is extraordinarily varied. Why wouldn't one tribe or people- or even one person- develop monotheistic thought?

On the other hand, without the Bible and the ideas of divine revelation and Truth (tm) I think they could have:

-Possibly died out.
-Remained a small sect.
-Not been as influential.

I think the Bible's helped; I'm not sure it was the cause of monotheistic belief systems per se, only the monotheistic belief systems we currently know.

-Perchance.