If leaving Mormonism has taught me anything really significant one of those things is, "So let it be written, so let it be done" is a load of crap.

Proverbs is kinda interesting in The Bible. Ecclesiastes is my favorite Bible book. I love "Turn, Turn, Turn" by The Byrds. The Eastern Sacred Texts are interesting.

But who really follows "The Book" that is supposedly a literate representation of what they find meaningful and important in their lives, communities, identification with culture?

Seriously, Joseph Smith & Co made up a bunch of stuff and the living followers of their books can't keep inline with their teachings. If it weren't for their "continuing revelations" loophole well, I guess now thinking of the reversal on baptizing some kids versus others, they don't need that when they have "policy." So interpretations, policy, reactions to the texts, translations, retranslations, inspirations and on and on make following a book ridiculous unless it is how to solve a math problem.

I don't think a guidebook for human existence is needed or even very useful. Remember to wear sinblock or you will get a holy book thrown at you. The thrower won't be good at following their own rules but they will have a good time judging you and rationalizing themselves into heaven.

When you need to prove the point you are trying to make, sacred texts are invaluable!

Don't leave home without them!

"You have no idea how many debates I've won by referencing some obscure passage from some sacred text that only a minority of people have read, let alone understood."

Gregorian 4:16, "The Being Me Attitudes"

I think the books are valuable in a few senses.

First, they are history. You can't understand Western history or literature without an understanding of the Bible and, ideally, the myths that it took from other traditions and the myths it bestowed on other traditions.

Second, they are psychology and sociology. I don't think a person can understand what humans are about if you don't understand why religious texts mean so much to so many. Likewise, I don't think one can comprehend mass movements like Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism, the Khmer Rouge without a sense of what people collectively "need" emotionally.

Third, even if a person doesn't believe the stories told in scripture, they are still the medium through which humans address moral questions. They are not the only medium, nor always the best. But I find the Indian texts, the Taoist classics, the Koran, etc., meaningful. They stimulate thought about ethics and truth and in some cases are quite illuminating.

So I incline towards Thomas Jefferson's perspective. He, as you know, edited his own New Testament, removing all the supernatural stuff and leaving only the moral teachings. Even that doesn't eliminate all the bad stuff, but it leaves a volume that makes the reader think about moral topics--which in my view is a meaningful contribution.

"First, they are history. You can't understand Western history or literature without an understanding of the Bible and, ideally, the myths that it took from other traditions and the myths it bestowed on other traditions."

Historical they are worth preserving in my opinion. The Bible being the most printed book in the world doesn't mean it is the most valuable book in the world. Same goes for all the rest. To plumb their depths for otherworldly, afterlife or mystical knowledge seems just as useful to me as a rock in a hat.

"Second, they are psychology and sociology. I don't think a person can understand what humans are about if you don't understand why religious texts mean so much to so many."

I guess I don't so I don't agree that they are of psychological value. Sociological? Maybe but Mormon ones a solid no in my opinion.

The mystical leaning and magical believing mind can use all sorts of literature. There is more a placebo object - "the book" - power in my opinion than any kind of useful psychological content contained therein.

"Third, even if a person doesn't believe the stories told in scripture, they are still the medium through which humans address moral questions."

Aesop's Fables do that a lot more than many sacred texts in my opinion. Not that I'm endorsing those.

Biblical references sparkle throughout the American lexicon. There are ever so many references that someone not raised reading or being preached to from the bible would not understand.

As for the usefulness of a sacred text, any help you can get to proving a point or obtaining a result ought not to be turned down, just because one doesn't believe in a deity.

My personal favorite, when doing menial, repetitive work, and eating a lot of donuts, is to ward off criticism of my junk food debauchery with the biblical reference, "Do not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain."

Preach it.

I remember listening to late-night radio as I drifted off to sleep. It may have been Art Bell. The man may have been off his rocker (can you say "Y2K"?), but the voice was gold.

Anyway, it wasn't uncommon for somebody of the religious persuasion to call in with some complaint about a guest or the general state of the country; and they would invariably quote something from the Bible believing it to be a "drop the mike" moment.

Mr. Bell would often interrupt the caller with, "But, sir, what do YOU think? In your own words, please."

The caller would then proceed to quote the very same passage, and throw in another. Mr. Bell would make several attempts to get the caller to just make his point about chem trails (or something) without referring to the Bible before finally hanging up and taking the next call East of The Rockies.

When someone wants credibility, these books are useful tools to claim God agrees with their views. It's instant higher justification for whatever someone wants.

They are important like other literature to understand our culture but we should be able to see through it when people use God to try and validate whatever interpretation of scripture they want.

I keep coming back to this because it has had such an effect on my life.
I firmly believe that every human being that is able to should read Zeccharia Sitchen's translation of the Sumerian tablets titled "The Lost Book Of Enki"
Wheter or not you accept it as truth It is both mind bending and mind stimulatng.
It has been proposed that many of the legends and annals ot the "Old Testament" are directly traceable to these ancient cuneiform tablets.
Understand this is my not so humble opinion.

Yes, a lot of us are familiar with the notion of Hebrew borrowing from Mesopotamian sources. The Bible is a repository of earlier mythologies.

The Epic of Gilgamesh contributed greatly (the Flood) to the OT, as did Canaanite religion (Garden of Eden), Zoroastrianism (Job, Daniel), Egyptian religion, and in the later parts of the book Greek influences (the high shall be made low and the low, high). There really isn't much doubt about this stuff.

The beauty of the OT as literature is largely is syncretic approach: melding together different myths in order to create a super-myth that people found convincing. Unraveling the various threads is great fun.