I know for a fact that the land we live on is way more important than a book, even a history book.


Tikki

I've got a fairly strong NA background as well but wasn't raised in it. There's tremendous strength and reason there.

. . . many images of native American garments and blankets and stuff included the Christian cross in the design. Of course, this was after the arrival of the missionaries among them.

Is it smith who says he was on this continent then? i don't believe that at all. I don't believe the bible speaks of our indigenous Americans.

Later...yeah, there is a history...


Tikki

Between his death and resurrection, to arbitrate a dispute between two warring groups of lost Israelites who were the progenitors of American Indians, as well as to give a dude named Mormon a third book of the Bible. Also, to explain that the losers of that dispute would be cursed with black skin and forced to live in Africa, and that everything bad in the world since Jesus' death was caused by Jews.

seem plausible.

But then people are gonna believe what they are gonna believe even with evidence staring them in the face.

Tikki

Besides theologically, it is, sociologically, the first American religion. And although I do think it's a dumber religion than most, I feel really guilty for expressing that opinion, because most Mormons I know are lovely, wonderful people. Generous, kind, hard-working: it's like they're living the Boy Scout oath. There are notable exceptions, like Cliven Bundy, the bigots, the Fundamentalists, but the Mormons I know IRL are great human beings, in general.

Although The Banner of Heaven is written from a sceptic's point of view (which I happen to share but it's noteworthy) it is a remarkable and detailed history of quite the sect.

Christianity. at one point he got captured by a hostile tribe, got a finger chopped off with a clam shell... the Indian lady he was captured with had sex with a captor to distract him, then killed him with a piece of firewood so they could escape.

He managed to convert one large tribe to Christianity, then they became peaceful people, but the epilogue of the movie noted that due to their Christian ways (the old timey peaceful ones), within a few years they were all killed by the other tribes.. completely wiped out.

The Priest ended up back in Paris finally, only to realize it was all for naught

high enough for easier reach.

Then again, I have read it end to end a few times. Enjoyable fiction, actually. Pretty bloody and sexy, too.

Great, somewhat mind bending interpretation for this old head.

I have it and I love it, but it says as much about the illustrator as about the text.

He's got a whole lot of flaws too, the old misogynist, but there's no one else like him!

I knew a catholic monk once who was a christian, I havent met many more who are real Christians...

Not a judgmental bone in his body, didnt have an opinion on sin, wasnt his problem, he only loved and made sure he didnt harm the environment anymore than he had to.

There might be another REAL Christian out there, would love to meet them.


And there are some well meaning ones, i have met a few here, I like them, I believe THEY believe they are doing the best they can, maybe they are.

But the vast vast vast majority of self proclaimed Christians I have no time for at all

I think the book is just that, a book. But MAN what's been made of it, for good or evil. I am often in awe of that fact.

nor do they shove it in others faces.

For example, ...... when Moses went up the mountain and came back the next day with the 10 commandments carved in stone,......he may well have gone up the mountain. He thought up the 10 commandments and carved them in stone, himself, which took a whole lot longer than one day. When he finally came back down, he told the people, "Hey, look what g-d gave me, .....so shape up or ship out".

I'm not familiar at all, with the "new testament".

All of it should be taken with a large grain of salt, compared with other contemporary narratives (if there are any). Prior to the Middle Ages, there was no concept of "objective history" such as we have today. Even what passes for "history" today, you have to remember that "the historian" usually has a point of view that mitigates against "objectivity".

There's no telling how many fingers are in that pie.

That was what Clinton said, not 'most important'.

I can't think of any other book, and I love and am deeply influenced by many a book, that has engendered so much of the thinking in the Western world.

Remember, I'm not a believer in God, but the book has had extraordinary influence on me and many things that have in turn influenced me.

I only see what they do. They can say 'believe' or 'don't believe' all day. It's about what they do.

I eschew the idea of master texts in general. And, despite reading the entire thing, and growing up in a deeply Christian community, the Bible is not the core of my conviction at all.

But Buddhism isn't as text based and in the world in which we live (America, now) its principles aren't as actively influential.

I've read it too, and find it a fascinating text with some primitive cultural mores that I'm very, very glad I don't have to live under. "Do unto others..." isn't a bad bit of advice, though.

Often pointing to scripture that supports their views on particular activities engaged in by their neighbors, yet they completely eschew much of the teachings of Christ, all the while claiming to be "christian". It would be even more fascinating if it did not result in such misery and hate in society.

I think we would rather fight and use things like the Bible as an excuse than do the very hard work of trying to work things out so that there's enough for everyone and success is measured by good work rather than riches.

You know, that Jesusy stuff.

Especially if you're saying it's the most important in your entire life.

There's billions of books out there. A lot of them deserve to be very influential. Not all of them in the same place. I can cite a diversity; Karl Marx, Frank Herbert, Mircea Eliade, Paulo Bacigalupi, Larry Niven, Naomi Klein, Charles Darwin, Black Elk, Tariq Ali, Rumi, Howard Zinn, John Ajvide Lindqvist, Brian Jaques, Richard Dawkins, David Quammen, jack Horner, and hundreds of others.

How can I read as much as I do, absorb what I do, and pretend that one book, just one, is the be-all end-all formative text of my life?

I completely agree that having vast reading, learning and influences is desirable and vital. The Bible is such a small percent of the influential books in my life that I doubt I could calculate it. But as I said, its cultural influences here in the US, the emotion it evokes here and in other spheres, its influences on government (and I dislike that but can't deny its importance) and the fact that it was the book that was presented to me as "us" by people who were my family and culture makes it very important. Not beloved, not adhered to (except where I do, and I think it's because I like some things it says and agree with them, not because I think it's holy or the voice of law) but important.

So no, I don't think I'm ignorant at all. Not by definition, and not by aspersion.

That's what the adverb is there for. it's not just important - it's most important.

At any rate it's moot point - the Yale Law Journal was undoubtedly vastly more influential in Sec. Clinton's life than the Bible. She's genuflecting for the cameras.

let's say it has 100 books on it (There are far more). The Bible would only have to take up more than 1% to be the most important.

I don't know what Sec. Clinton is doing, but I'll keep watching as she does it and keep my opinion up-to-date.

You're reaching, I think. What Clinton wished to convey was certainly not that the Bible is a few tenths of a percent more important to her than "Moby Dick."

I think there's some truth in what she said and she's making a safe statement too. There's sausage making in politics no matter who you are, and it's up to the voters to decide if it's our kind of andouille.

more a nurturing God than the biblical one.

and took Christianity very seriously for almost ten years beginning in college.

The Bible is by no means the dominant influence in my life, but I can't think of another book that would come close. I love the Bible, but it takes a while to really understand it in something like its historical context.

It is predictable but troubling that the harshest criticism tends to come from the least hermeneutically aware people. So much of received cultural wisdom and psychology comes through religion that it is a shame to discard it with really nothing to replace it.