Any event with feminist writer Germaine Greer and the Australia Party’s Bob Katter in the same room will be entertaining, especially if they are going to debate the Bible. At the Brisbane Writer’s Festival over the weekend, not only were Greer and Katter in the same room, but were on the same team – on the affirmative team arguing that reading the Bible is, in fact, good for you.

Accompanying Greer and Katter was Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway. On the defense, a formidable team of powerful and provocative thinkers – Jacqui Payne, the first Aboriginal to be appointed as a magistrate in Queensland; criminal defense investigator Rachel Sommerville, and local writer Benjamin Law.

The final result was a loss for the team arguing for the ‘goodness’ of Bible reading, hardly surprising in a public debate on religion these days. Yet there was still much to be valued about the debate.

Katter gave a passionate case for the significance of the Bible in European history while Greer, though calling the Bible “silly” and not possibly the word of God, also called it a “grand” book, urging the audience to consider its incredible literary (poetic) value.

Holloway took a different approach, agreeing with many of the arguments of the opposing team – that people have used the Bible to justify bigotry, homophobia, and atrocities. However, rather than discard the Bible, Holloway argued it should be reclaimed from those who abuse it.

Compassion, he says, is at the heart of its message; “the essence of what scripture is about”. Reading the Bible “brings out the best in us.” Yet, he warned of the dangers of putting religion before compassion and illustrated by way of the story of the Good Samaritan. Religion can stop you from helping your neighbour. But what Jesus teaches us is that compassion is at the heart of a good humanity.

Audience sentiment appeared biased towards the negative team from the start. For the opposing team, Payne recounted stories of injustices to the Aboriginal people by European missionaries. Sommerville based her arguments on the gross injustices seen, she says, in the American legal system, by “those who confess to live by this book”.

Law relegated more to slang than solid argument, unequivocally ridiculing much of its moral and ethical teaching. Yet, with religious scholars and teachers to guide you, he conceded that the Bible could be read with some value. The context, he says is most important. “If you pick up the book and read it, which is how most people read text, it is not going to necessarily be a healthy outcome.”

Was this a “great” debate? Not really. But based on the audience reactions, it was thoroughly enjoyed by all. It’s also possible that some of the audience got to listen to more of the Bible than they have for quite some time. That, in this writer’s humble opinion, was probably good for them.