St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[grumbler]

If I can convincing people that they ought not create public policy based on Leviticus has a lot more practical effect then convincing someone that Hans Solo shot first.

Depends upon the person, I suppose, but I am certainly not getting bogged down in a discussion of who shot first! 

My point is that one should start with the effect, and then trace it back to the cause, rather than trying to "study the Bible" to figure out its effects.  While there may have been cases in which a political leader changed his/her mind on a "Bible-based" policy by re-reading the Bible and, say, realizing that the caommandment to "judge not" meant that they shouldn't bash gays, I have never heard of such.

So, I would argue that Bible (or even general theological) studies are not an effective way to approach the "practical effect of the Bible." 

[Martinus]

No. It is EXACTLY the same thing.

Laws are not created based on the sayings in Yoda, so no, its not exactly the same.

The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho

If one madman is holding a gun to my head and another is safely locked up in the loony bin, I will focus my attention more on the former than the latter even though they are both equally insane.

Other than that I don't know what the discussion was about, so I may be totally off.

[Barrister]

Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.

Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.

I don't think anyone who has read it cover-to-cover would argue that it is a clear and complete guide to the "Word of God."  Everyone who uses it for "practical purposes" must (and does) add a lot of codicals that essentially replace the Bible's literal words with their own.  The latter are the things rewarding when studied, IMO.  The Bible itself is almost incidental.

You'd make a fine Catholic

What a terrible thing to say to someone.

[alfred russel]

My point is that one should start with the effect, and then trace it back to the cause, rather than trying to "study the Bible" to figure out its effects.  While there may have been cases in which a political leader changed his/her mind on a "Bible-based" policy by re-reading the Bible and, say, realizing that the caommandment to "judge not" meant that they shouldn't bash gays, I have never heard of such.

It doesn't go to what you are saying, because I don't know that he changed his mind, but Bush referred to that concerning his decision to not to go after gays politically.

Probably that was just justification for a political decision in a way that would appease his base.

[crazy canuck]

If I can convincing people that they ought not create public policy based on Leviticus has a lot more practical effect then convincing someone that Hans Solo shot first.

Depends upon the person, I suppose, but I am certainly not getting bogged down in a discussion of who shot first! 

My point is that one should start with the effect, and then trace it back to the cause, rather than trying to "study the Bible" to figure out its effects.  While there may have been cases in which a political leader changed his/her mind on a "Bible-based" policy by re-reading the Bible and, say, realizing that the caommandment to "judge not" meant that they shouldn't bash gays, I have never heard of such.

So, I would argue that Bible (or even general theological) studies are not an effective way to approach the "practical effect of the Bible."

I see your point and I agree.  I was assuming that if one studied the Bible in a rational manner then one would conclude that it was no basis upon which to create political policy.

My ideal world is one in which one day people will look upon debates about whether God exists in the same way we view the debates over the true nature of Jesus which occured in the First Millenium BCE - a debate which has no relevance to us now but is interesting when placed in its historical and cultural context.

But until that day comes Bible study is still important if for no other reason then as a way for those who consider themselves to be Christian to evaluate the validity of their beliefs. 

[grumbler]

But until that day comes Bible study is still important if for no other reason then as a way for those who consider themselves to be Christian to evaluate the validity of their beliefs.

I would agree with this.  As in all things, one can usefully study for the insight it brings to one's own thinking.  That kind of result isn't what i was referring to when discussion "practical effects," though (but maybe it was for others).