The Bible by Various

[Philosophy Now]

Our reviewer Les Reid finds The Holy Bible to be wholly unreliable.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/The_Bible_by_Various

[morganna swish]

This article is what I got when searching for how PN might have covered the issue of 'paedophilia'.
Typing in 'pedophilia' got 2 results, one in 'Letters', the other related to homosexuality.

The nowness of PhilosophyNow appears not to be very.

There is a plethora of current news items - eg in the UK, Rolf Harris and other celebrities; the abduction of 100's of school girls, now 'married'. Also, the use of rape as sometimes 'right'...

Different cultures and perhaps a changing view of what is deemed acceptable or criminal.
What do current philosophers have to say...

Perhaps, a different search...

[This article is, of course, very informative in its own right ! ]

[morganna swish]

Problems with 'Revealed Truth'

The author makes distinctions between internal and external problems.

'External problems are those which arise when statements in the Bible clash with what we know or value on other grounds...

2.The moral code stated in the Pentateuch is supposed to have been delivered by Yahweh to Moses directly, by being etched by Yahweh on two pieces of rock. It is a primitive moral code, which demands that Yahweh must come first among gods, condemns misuse of his name, and orders Sabbath observance, for instance. While it prohibits trivial matters, it ignores serious moral offences, such as paedophilia. Therefore, as a moral code it is so deficient that any tales of its divine origin must be treated as fiction.

[morganna swish]

On questions of reliability:

Philosophers have long disagreed about the status of the Bible. John Locke, for example, accepted the orthodox religious view that the Bible records messages from God that are worthy of belief. But he did show some caution, distinguishing between ‘original revelation’ (direct communication from God) and ‘traditional revelation’ (commentary about or ideas derived from those direct communications).

David Hume disagreed with Locke by according the Bible no special status, finding it not so much ‘holy and reliable’ as ‘wholly unreliable’. Hume saw its fantastic tales as merely typical examples of ancient mythologizing. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume described the Bible as “a book presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts which every nation gives of its origin.”

[morganna swish]

On the Bible as literature:

Those who say that the Bible is poetry and fable have renounced all objective truth claims and shelved it in the ‘Literature’ section, where I agree it belongs. My argument is with those who say that the Bible is true, whether literally and entirely, or only partially, and who insist on its supernatural status as a text directly inspired by Yahweh. They want a special shelf, marked ‘Revealed Truth’, but they have no logical brackets to hold that shelf up.

The truths that fundamentalists use to justify horrendous criminal acts such as stoning to death - is still tolerated and encouraged by those who would see themselves as 'civilised'.

[madera23]

That is a demonic statement....

[morganna swish]

That is a demonic statement....

Please expand.

[Arising_uk]

...

The nowness of PhilosophyNow appears not to be very. ...

Or there is no philosophical argument for it.

[madera]

That is a demonic statement....

Please expand.

I was referring to this statement.
"Our reviewer Les Reid finds The Holy Bible to be wholly unreliable."

[morganna swish]

That is a demonic statement....

Please expand.

I was referring to this statement.
"Our reviewer Les Reid finds The Holy Bible to be wholly unreliable."

That is an introduction to the article; possibly written by the devilish Rick ? - such intros come up automatically when an article is chosen for discussion.

Have you read the article ?

[morganna swish]

...

The nowness of PhilosophyNow appears not to be very. ...

Or there is no philosophical argument for it.

to be current ?