There's a significant difference between "not" literature, and "not just literature," but I'll tack that up to typo, or at least, not putting thought to paper; and standards of criticism do not correlate with how influential a piece of literature is, the Bible being no exception.

You say "if you treat a book in any way as divine revelation, it will shape your conception of god in a way that you do not fully control," but you do not take it as such, and look what it is doing to how you perceive God.

"*I still do not see the difference in breaking social pacts to those of God's- fear is still a driving force between them."

"What's different is what you are fearing."

But it is fear, nonetheless. Fear- if you are talking followers of a religion, and remembering it is not fear that shapes most of them- drives them and compels them in the same way the Law does. Punishment ensues unwanted action.

I'm pulling the assumption card on your statement that "The Bible inspires many Christians to be afraid of their thoughts- a lack of faith, specifically." The Bible doesn't condemn those who have the wrong feelings, outright; and there is nothing in the Bible that specifically would make a follower fear their thoughts. Many- and I daresay all- religious leaders go through doubt, despair, and uncertainty. Luther, Teresa, King, Gandhi, the apostles and Christ himself all went through doubt, and wrestled with their emotions. Again- this simply defends the position that in this way, too, religion and spirituality is no different than any other struggle of feeling or emotion in anyone's day to day life.

I am uncertain of what you mean by "We are not conditioned to be afraid of our own thoughts," as we are very capable of dealing with a plethora of stressors and emotional hardship. Part of this is identifying what is causing any given stressor; one of my profs counseled criminals, so it is simply untrue that those who have committed crimes do not suffer the same psychological hardships as anyone else, and it has very little to do with faith, or lack thereof.

"Changes in one's belief" happens all the time, and simply put, is a natural part of being human. There is nothing about this change that is necessarily tied to faith, or one's belief, it simply changes. People gain and lose faith in any given thing.

Again, your mind is bent only on the infinite damnation, when there is so much more. Again, I do not know why you only take this part as apart of Christianity, or why "[you] think that handling these questions openly and honestly can be difficult for many people. It sounds like you are mistaking "many people" for "you."

"*Congratulations. You just got done describing a Christian."

"I have described some Christians, I believe, but I have also described a fair number of Jains, Hindus and Buddhists, and many non-believers"

Exactly. And not "some,"--"most."

"I will concede that Hindu- and Buddhist-majority societies aren't qualitatively more tolerant and forgiving than any others, but I would argue that the societies which implement those values…"

Which values?

"Again, the point of the argument is not that Christians necessarily internalize the wrathful parts of the Bible, but that there is a strong danger that they will"

What "strong danger?" Where are you getting this?

"Moreover, while I believe that in the future some Christians will continue to use the Bible as the basis for a theology of tolerance and justice, there will usually be a reaction from others who are more drawn to the wrathful parts. Likewise, while some Christians will be rational and open to scientific inquiry, there will be others who are hostile to any inquiry which puts into question some of their beliefs."

Replace "Christian" with any other faith, organization- religious or no- and you have my point.


"So long as the Bible is used as the basis for a system of values, the "baggage" that it carries will resurface in our debates and in our public life."

Replace "Bible" with any other governing doctrine- spiritual or no- and you have my point.