What constitutes a 'Holy Book'

The word Holy is a Latin word that means "set apart" now having stated that, it would appear that being set apart is a value. Well... there [typically] is a nonsubjective value to ascribe to that.

People who hold the scriptures set apart because there is a living "value" to its contents over a professed or coersed acceptance of a man made and [nonethemore] behaviorally convenient social doctrine or socio-religious codec is self evident. Just because you claim your doctrine is holy doesn't make it so... there has to be a manifestation of its univeral goodness none[being intellectually honest] can argue.


Liberals are liberals because they cannot be honest intellectually or otherwise... so that leaves those who live to push their social or military objectives off on others and rattles ther senses of the weaker minds by claiming some sort singularity. God's Word is a living truth that has internal and external values that cannot be contramanded by personal election. Catechism's and Torah's are true religion based on manmade objectives and dogmas. The Quran's is more cultic as it abates the sanctity of life in the pursuit of military or poltical objectives.

Religions typically preserve the life of their patrons. Dianetics... well? apparently can kill movie careers... Holy is just that Holy, our very natures inherently have no regard for our second best efforts. But is we are living in rebellion... we will throw it off, but it will still be venerated. The Bible is revered because in 1 John the Word is/was preexistent and then was made flesh. If the Bible is essense is diety... inspired and transcribed for our benefit. It kinda stands in a class all by itself don't you think?


Great blog...


Visit The CenterSwitch


http://www.centerswitch.townhall.com

You typed a lot of words and said very little. Try to clarify your thinking and your words so the rest of us don't have to try so hard to understand you.

A holy book is something you revere, but it is not objectively holy to everyone. You're simply wrong when you say that holiness has a "non-subjective" value. You may hold the Bible as holy, but many of us don't. To some, the Koran is holy.

As for Ellison, I think he's missing an opportunity to show that he holds the traditions of America to be valuable by following in the footsteps of great Americans before him. I honestly don't care if he uses the Koran for the ceremonial photo-op, but he is setting himself apart from other great Americans (I guess that makes him holy according to Chrystopher's logic).

I like the suggestion of swearing on the Constitution. Everyone should be able to make that oath.

-The Secular Conservative

I appreciate both comments.

The irony of the whole argument is this:

Members of congress swear-in in a large group.
When they place their hand on the bible or whatever they wish, it is just a photo-op, it really doesn't mean much. Obviously this year the photo ops may mean more especially to Ellison - I still don't see the problem with it, you aren't swearing to God, or Allah or the earth or the stars, you are PLEDGING to the country in theory. I think its been blown way out of proportion. Certain people in this country have Islamo-phobia.