Anonymous, in his rebuttal of John William's contention that the Bible is irrelevant when it comes to law, says (#85, p.22), "Modern Australia with its laws has existed two centuries... The Bible, however, spans time, place and language and offers guidance to all mankind."

The implication that Australia's "youth" somehow deprecates the integrity of its laws is fatuous. Although the continent may have only been settled for two centuries the laws governing it are much older.

With the exception of those laws to suit the particular requirements of Australian society, our laws are based on the common law of England, and many laws are identical with those laid down in acts of the British parliament.

The Australian legal system has, along with other modern Western legal systems, descended from ancient Roman law and ancient Germanic tribal law, and has been altered by various ecclesiastical, feudal, commercial and modem sociopolitical influences. Australian laws therefore are somewhat older than the two centuries averred to by Anonymous. In fact, they pre date the New Testament.

As society has evolved its laws have evolved along with it. Those in the Bible however, have stagnated for thousands of years and, as John Williams opines, are totally irrelevant. Take a look at those listed in my article "God knows what's best." (#84).

 

---

I argued (in #85) that societies come and go and new laws get thought up and many older laws get revised or discarded. Amidst such continual change in law in hundreds of societies, not just in Australia, the Bible remains relatively constant and widely available. And its guidance on ethics is often far ahead of what came afterwards.

My point, therefore, was not that, "Australia's youth somehow deprecates the integrity of its laws…(Edwards, #86 p.5) Rather the point was that the Bible is an enduring source of advice on right conduct when governments, legal institutions and the professions of medicine, religion and psychology fail.

The area of failure I focussed on was child sexual abuse. Despite the vast scope of the problem — probably a billion child victims during the 20th century — it was ignored by most authorities and most intellectuals in most places most of the time. The Bible, although not using the phrase "child sexual abuse", teaches clear principles that rule out this practice. (See #85)

I don't dispute Mr Edwards' short account of the origin of Australian law. His criticism of my statement "Modern Australia with its laws has existed two centuries" is a point of grammar. The "two centuries" is correct when considering both concepts together — modern Australia AND its laws. It also allows for the many laws modern Australia never had such as laws relating to trial by combat and interrogation of witches.

Edwards also reminded readers of his critique (in #84) of the Law of Moses.  That Law was a "covenant" or legal contract between God and Israel — "He has not dealt thus with any other nation." (Psalm 147:20) The New Testament teaches that the Law was "abolished" (Ephesians 2:11-16) Yet it also teaches that, "All Scripture [this would include the Law of Moses] is…profitable…for training in righteousness…for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16)

The question of how the Law of Moses can be both abolished yet profitable — profitable despite clauses in it that no one would want to follow now — is worth further investigation.


 

---

Re Anonymous' comments (#87) where he says, "…the Bible remains relatively constant … and its guidance is often far ahead of what came afterwards."


However, to claim that "its guidance or advice is often far ahead…" and that "it is an enduring source of advice on right conduct…" really needs some explaining.

Where in the Bible would I get guidance or advice on genetic engineering, IVF, euthanasia, vivisection, corporal and capital punishment, blood sports, the rights of minorities, homosexuality, multi-nationalism, Capitalism v Communism, terrorism vs freedom fighters, and nuclear weapons just to mention a few ethical controversies?

Anonymous concludes by suggesting that it is worth investigating "how the Law of Moses can be both abolished yet profitable?" Why bother? It's simply another of the Bible's litany of contradictions.


 

---

I showed in Investigator No. 85 that the Bible teaches many clear principles that rule out child sexual abuse. Harry Edwards (#88 p.5) now wants the Bible's conclusions on genetic engineering, vivisection and other ethical issues.

There are hundreds of conflicts between humans and the Bible in the areas of ethics and science. In each disagreement I wait until I either have a collection of information on it or until the disagreement seems settled.

The child abuse issue seems settled in that public and media sentiment and the law now harmonize better, than previously, with the relevant Bible principles. Hundreds of millions of child abusers in the 20th century who ignored the Bible were in the wrong and perhaps around 1,000 million children suffered.

The most scandalous aspect in this is that thousands of priests – who should have been shining examples of right conduct – betrayed God, misrepresented the Bible and betrayed children, and many religious leaders then protected the perpetrators.

 

---

In #89 p5 Anonymous replies to Edwards on child abuse. This appears to be a cop out as I have not entered into or in fact made any comment on the subject.

Although Anonymous has consistently argued that the Bible teaches many clear principles he now excuses himself by saying that he has to wait for more information to respond to the points raised in my letter. As that information won't be coming from the Bible it will have no relevance. His dilemma is that a book written in a pre scientific era cannot respond to questions whose ethical, technological, moral, cultural and philosophical origins post date it.

I adhere to my original statement — the Bible has no relevance today for obvious reasons.

 

---

Harry Edwards says the Bible has "no relevance" in ethics because it's "pre-scientific". (Investigator 90 p.5) He should tell that to the 1,000 million people sexually abused as youngsters in the 20th century who would have been spared had the perpetrators obeyed the Bible!

Anyone injured or otherwise wronged — whether with a "prescientific" method like a stick or a stone, or with a modern-day gun or bomb — understands that the perpetrator violated the command "Love does no wrong to a neighbour." (Romans 13:8-10) The command is relevant irrespective of the technology available to hurt others.

In #83 I showed that Australia's Governor General, Dr Hollingworth, disregarded the Bible when, as Archbishop, he let a priest who had sex with an underage girl stay in the priesthood. Bible verses he disregarded include:


Another Bible teaching is that Christians should obey secular authorities whenever God's commands are not compromised. The offending priest should, therefore, have been dismissed and also reported to the police.

Despite Australia-wide calls for Dr Hollingworth's resignation over statements (in February 2002) where he justified himself by blaming the girl more than the priest the GG chose to tough it out.

In May 2003 an additional finding surfaced, that the GG had also failed to dismiss a priest who abused boys. Amidst renewed public uproar and extensive debate in Parliament Dr Hollingworth at last resigned.

Some supporters defended the GG by arguing that his "errors in judgment" occurred when child sexual abuse wasn't a great public and legal issue — he had merely acted according to the times. However, as a Christian leader he should have known of the Bible principles that rule out child sexual abuse. (See #85) Rather than reflect public apathy he should have reflected the Book that was 1,900 years ahead of the times!

Most people lack clear notions of right and wrong. "Right" consists of actions and principles that promote life, health, soundness of mind, prosperity, peaceful relationships and the long-term viability of Earth as our home, and "wrong" promotes the opposite. The Bible gives many "right" principles — those that rule out sexual abuse are among numerous examples. 

The Biblical commands to do "no wrong to a neighbour" and to "do good to all" and to "be an example" would — when coupled with scientific information about risks — rule out smoking, dangerous driving and many other behaviors involving recent technology. Consequences of smoking include 300 million smoking-related deaths in the 20th century and the reduced fitness of thousands of millions. A number of religions used the Bible and taught life-promoting, health-promoting conclusions on smoking decades before the recent anti-smoking campaigns by governments.

Edwards listed other ethical issues in #88 page 5 which I may discuss another time. Meanwhile, there's The Encyclopedia of Biblical And Christian Ethics (R K Harrison 1987).

The Bible is an enduring source of guidance in 2,000 languages and is often ahead of today's laws. And that's as "relevant" as life, health and death!


 

---

Anonymous has painted himself into a comer by adhering to his contention that the Bible is relevant in the 21st century. I have argued that because the Bible doesn't and indeed cannot canvas issues that post date it, obviously it cannot be relevant.

In #89 p5 Anonymous postpones any comment until such time as he has a collection of information. This being the case this information will not be coming from the Bible and will not be relevant either.

In #91 p19 he attempts to support relevance by saying that the ‘one billion sexually abused youngsters in the 20th century would have been spared had the perpetrators obeyed the Bible.'

Perhaps Anonymous would be kind enough to provide a break down of the figure and its source.

As for observing the command in Romans 13:8-10 it is hardly consistent or in keeping with God's 'utterly repugnant' commands we read elsewhere in the Bible.


 

---

Edwards thinks the Bible is "irrelevant" on every issue that "postdates" it. (#92 p.5)

In contrast I maintain that ethical rules that promote health are "relevant" to people who want to be healthy — irrespective of how ancient the rules are. And this is the way the Bible is relevant in ethics — it gives information that promotes human health and welfare if obeyed. Conversely, if Edwards considers the teaching of health-promoting principles "irrelevant", in what way is it irrelevant?

We could, however, avoid talk of "relevance" and merely investigate what results different principles would produce if obeyed:

I previously estimated — by extrapolating from surveys  —that around 1,000 million people in the 20th century were sexually abused as youngsters. I showed that Bible principles and ethics rule out sexual abuse. Bible principles also rule out cigarette smoking, an activity that killed 300 million people in the 20th century.

Such investigations require getting statistical data — a "collection of information" — on the incidence of smoking and child abuse and on the consequences. Whether the Bible is correct in its claim to promote health, soundness of mind and peace is then assessed by the data. No debate about "relevance" is necessary.


 

---

I'm not quite sure where smoking comes in to the picture. (#93 p4) Smoking originated with the American Indians and was unknown in biblical times.

Alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than tobacco. Apart from the health aspects of alcoholism the disease, it causes death and destruction, breaks up relationships and is the cause of many forms of crime — rape, theft, murder, abuse and general anti-social behaviour. The Bible does not rule out alcohol, in fact it promotes it.

Anonymous attempts to avoid the issue of 'relevance' by changing tack. He suggests, "we merely investigate what results different principles would produce if obeyed" (#93 p4 para3). That's not the point. Let's stick to the subject of ethical rules, in particular, his claim that the Bible is relevant because it promotes health and welfare. We could then ask – whose health and welfare? Those who lived in slavery at the time? The Christians who were crucified? The women and children massacred at God's behest? Diseases 'cured' by driving out evil spirits?

Contrary to Anonymous' assertion that the Bible promotes health (for example, by telling us what to eat and what not to eat) the Bible is irrelevant because of the advances in food science, horticulture and animal husbandry. In Leviticus 11:1-42 we are told what one can eat and what one can't eat. There may have been good reasons in Biblical times why certain flesh should not be eaten, but they are not valid today. Hare rabbits, pigs, eels, crustations and snails are acceptable to most Europeans; and beetles, lizards and snakes to the Orientals. Some of the sea creatures recommended in Leviticus as edible are in fact poisonous and others to be avoided include a favourite food of the Pacific Islanders - turtles! Tell me pray, what's wrong with a tasty trout rich in Omega 3?  According to Leviticus it's a forbidden scaleless fish.

I maintain the Bibles' ethical rules are not relevant in this day and age. If Anonymous considers they are, then perhaps he can direct me to its views on abortion, euthanasia, genetics, organ transplants, animal experimentation, stem cell research and the death penalty. While he will find no mention of the first six in the Bible for obvious reasons, he should find the last a fascinating exercise in convoluted reasoning – on the one hand we have "thou shalt not kill" and contradicting it on the other, the sanctioning of and/or the commanding of mass murder!

Finally, I fail to see how assessing contemporary statistical data bears out Bible principles. Today, data on just about anything and everything is available and in the absence of any data from Biblical times no comparison can be made. Twenty-first century data on smoking is irrelevant for reasons already stated and statistics on sexual abuse from the same era confirm nothing in the Bible.

Incidentally, while on the subject of smoking, perhaps Anonymous can explain why is it that some long-lived and life-long smokers don't die of tobacco related diseases? Churchill (91), Freud, (87), and George Burns (100) to mention a few. And why do so many non-smokers die of lung cancer and heart disease?

 

---

TOPIC WAS FINISHED

In Investigator 83 to 85 I showed that Bible principles rule out child sexual abuse. Approximately 1,000 million youngsters in the 20th century were victims and politicians, law enforcers, religious authorities and the medical profession failed to address the problem.

Many countries have now modified their laws to better protect children and more effectively prosecute offenders. That should have been the end of that topic in Investigator. In #89 I wrote:


Although the topic was finished Mr Edwards has drawn it out for another year.

Suppose someone discusses child abuse with his Member of Parliament and argues: "Australian law is contradictory, therefore irrelevant. It allowed massacres of Aboriginals, and genocide at Hiroshima, practiced then opposed capital punishment, allows alcohol use which hurts as many people as child abuse, and killed Japanese in the 1940s and now invites them as tourists. Who's supposed to benefit from Australian laws? Massacred Aboriginals? Abused children?"
 
That's Mr Edward's style — bring together many unrelated topics, speak of "contradiction" when the concept doesn't apply, and keep going until simple conclusions lead on to so much confusion that readers give up. It's called "obfuscation".

ONE TOPIC AT A TIME

In my examination of the Bible I take one issue at a time, get the science on it, and form a conclusion. This procedure has shown the Bible to be correct in hundreds of disagreements in many areas of study. By sticking to the one topic of child sexual abuse, for example, I showed that the practice is wrong according to the Bible.

Edwards says, "Alcohol is far more dangerous [than tobacco smoking]" and "The Bible does not rule out alcohol." (#95 24) Actually the Bible DOES condemn drunkenness. And drunkenness has probably caused as much damage as child sexual abuse! But that's another topic!

The food rules to Israelites under the Law of Moses are also another topic.  I may examine the benefits to the Israelites, and what we today can learn from those food rules, another time. To link this topic to child abuse is obfuscation.

The Bible claims its principles promote health, peace, welfare, etc, but Edwards asks, "Whose welfare? Those who lived in slavery? The Christians crucified?" Australia has laws against drink-driving for the safety of the public. Do we dismiss such laws by exclaiming, "Whose safety? The massacred Aboriginals?" It's more obfuscation.

CHANGING TACK

Edwards also accused me of  "changing tack". (#95 p24) But I didn't. He was bogged down in notions about "relevance", so I simplified to exclude the concept of relevance — which readers can re-read in #93 p4.
 
For example consider the command, "Do not murder." People not murdered on a certain date live longer beyond that date than people murdered. We can come to this conclusion without arguing about whether being murdered or not-murdered is "relevant". By excluding notions of "relevance" we simplify, not "change tack".

Nowadays, with statistics available on seemingly everything, the effect in terms of health, longevity and peace of many Bible principles can be statistically investigated. We could investigate compassion, forgiveness, generosity, sobriety, love, hope, good-Samaritanism, etc. Edwards' comment "We don't have statistics from the first century" is another obfuscation since we don't need them. We do not, for example, need 1st century statistics to work out whether sobriety or drunkenness is better for health or whether child abuse helps or harms children.

MORE ON RELEVANCE

Edwards claims the Bible is irrelevant because it supposedly has no guidelines on "abortion, euthanasia, genetics, organ transplants, animal experimentation, stem cell research and the death penalty." (#95)

Firstly, the Bible does have principles that apply to "abortion, euthanasia, genetics, etc" but those are different topics whereas our topic is child sexual abuse.

Secondly, Edwards implies that for a document to be relevant it must discuss everything. By such a criterion every document ever written is "irrelevant".

Consider also that a document — or any other item — can be relevant in numerous ways and irrelevant in numerous other ways. Hence to call something "irrelevant", without refuting the sense in which it is relevant, is obfuscation.

In discussing child abuse I included some ways in which the Bible's counsel is "relevant":


CONCLUSION

Child abusers are being prosecuted by thousands and public attitudes now better reflect what's in the Bible. The Bible's principles which Edwards called "stagnated" (#86 p6) have therefore triumphed. If Edwards disapproves of child sexual abuse then he is in agreement with me and with Australian law and with the Bible. And agreement ends debate.

---

To accuse me of obfuscation, as does Anonymous in #96 p30 is the pot calling the kettle black. He labours under the erroneous impression that my contributions are about or concerned with child abuse. This is not so and never has been. Nowhere will he find any contribution of mine to that debate other than a request for him to support a statement with statistics.

My argument has been solely concerned with the relevance of the Bible today.

Anonymous has stated time and time again that the principles and guidelines in the Bible apply today, including topics such as abortion. Euthanasia, genetics, organ transplants, animal experimentation, stem cell research and the death penalty. (Page 32 Para 3). But he excuses himself from further comment by saying that these are different topics whereas our topic is child sexual abuse. I repeat — it is not.

As Anonymous likes to "take one issue at a time, get the science on it, and form a conclusion", let's take stem cell research as the next topic. What guidelines are there in the Bible and where will I find them?