Split- The Bible is Crap [Archive I]

spin

March 28, 2004, 07:34 AM

Sorry for the potential deraliment, but I find this claim to be ridiculous at best. Name one worthwhile thing that I can get from the bible that I can't get elsewhere.

1. The English translation has provided us with very many expressions which have come to be in everyday usage, showing that the underlying language and ideas are potent, "turn the other cheek", "an eye for an eye", "let there be light", "Jesus wept", "the lilies of the fields", "cast the first stone", etc.

2. Sources for such compact images such as a Judas, a Jezebel, a Doubting Thomas, a Philistine, a Delilah, a Pharisee, an angel, a devil, Satan, etc.

3. Explanations of why we have a seven day week, and why Jews are discriminated against in our societies, and other aspects of our modern society.

4. We get to see how a particular ancient society coped with a pre-scientific world and explained it.

5. Wisdom. Read Ecclesiastes for a very bleak wisdom that will give you an insight not only into the ancient world of the writers, but also of our own times.

6. Hebrew literature. You need to understand how it worked, because literature is very culture bound, but a simple passage like Isaiah against the king of Babylon shows a great deal of art. Have you read the book of Ruth as a socially aware novelette? (And Evil One, you need to know the literature before you can evaluate it.)

7. Literary history, due to the fact that the literature was constantly being worked on.

8. Aetiological mythology and social mechanics. The mirror relationship between society and its mythology.

9. History of early Jewish religious thought.

10. A complex window into the ancient world through Jewish eyes, as a kind of sum total of the various text types found in the bible.

People don't tend to read the bible for what it has to say, usually just for what one wants it to say. People who can't find anything of significant value in the bible may also have difficulty finding value in more contemporary literature.

spin

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 07:48 AM

1. The English translation has provided us with very many expressions which have come to be in everyday usage, showing that the underlying language and ideas are potent, "turn the other cheek", "an eye for an eye", "let there be light", "Jesus wept", "the lilies of the fields", "cast the first stone", etc.

Not particularly worthwhile or interesting.

2. Sources for such compact images such as a Judas, a Jezebel, a Doubting Thomas, a Philistine, a Delilah, a Pharisee, an angel, a devil, Satan, etc.

Again, if euphemisms are the best that the bible can offer, then I'll take an episode of Seinfeld over the bible any day.

3. Explanations of why we have a seven day week,

So what? If xianity had not existed, then there might've been a 10 day week. It matters little to me (as long as everyone agrees on the length of a week).

and why Jews are discriminated against in our societies, and other aspects of our modern society.

Oh, so crackpot conspiracy theories about Jews "owning everying" have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anti-semitism?

4. We get to see how a particular ancient society coped with a pre-scientific world and explained it.

Again, there are extrabiblical historical sources.

5. Wisdom. Read Ecclesiastes for a very bleak wisdom that will give you an insight not only into the ancient world of the writers, but also of our own times.

Give me one passage of "wisdom" from the bible that can't be found outside of the bible, please.

6. Hebrew literature.

Uninteresting to me, as I cannot read Hebrew. Moreover, I'm sure that the bible is not the only source of Hebrew writing.

7. Literary history

Ditto.

8. Aetiological mythology and social mechanics. The mirror relationship between society and its mythology.

9. History of early Jewish religious thought.

Ditto, and ditto.

10. A complex window into the ancient world through Jewish eyes, as a kind of sum total of the various text types found in the bible.

A restatement of 9.

People who can't find anything of significant value in the bible may also have difficulty finding value in more contemporary literature.

Care to back that up?

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin

March 28, 2004, 07:59 AM

I don't mind if you dont want to read either the bible or what I said about it.

spin

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 08:03 AM

I've read the bible (albeit a long time ago), and I read what you wrote, spin.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Edited to ask: Why the condescension?

spin

March 28, 2004, 08:12 AM

I've read the bible (albeit a long time ago), and I read what you wrote, spin.

Your attitude to the bible and your comments on what I wrote don't seem very convincing. You show little interest in the language you use, the images which are used in contemporary society, and little desire to understand the wealth of content in this relatively small collection of literature, which you palm off with so-whats. You showed no attempt to understand what I meant when I mentioned that it would help clarify "why Jews are discriminated against in our societies", dropping into lines about "crackpot" this or that.

So, forgive me if I don't believe you. You evince the sort of lack of insight that a person who was forced to study litricher at school (and rebelled) maintains for anything vaguely literary.

spin

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 08:17 AM

You show little interest in the language you use,

Then that is your misconception and your problem. I have no idea where you got such an idea. The bible wasn't originally written in English, remember?

and little desire to understand the wealth of content in this relatively small collection of literature,

Again, you assert that such content exists. I've read the bible, and I didn't find anything worthwhile whatsoever that wasn't already available other places.

You showed no attempt to understand what I meant when I mentioned that it would help clarify "why Jews are discriminated against in our societies", dropping into lines about "crackpot" this or that.

I indeed did attempt to understand what you were trying to say. However, I don't see a connection between a text written by a bunch of ancient, cowering sheep-herders and modern anti-semitism.

So, forgive me if I don't believe you. You evince the sort of lack of insight that a person who was forced to study litricher at school (and rebelled) maintains for anything vaguely literary.

Are you always this presumptuous about the childhoods of people that you know nothing about?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Johann_Kaspar

March 28, 2004, 08:22 AM

The bible, itself, is crap.No! Crap is what people are doing with it. It is very interesting as an historical document.

Kosh

March 28, 2004, 08:59 AM

The bible, itself, is crap.

I'm afraid that Answerer is correct.

The bible came from the Jews. And as everybody knows:

'If it's not Scottish, it's Crrrrrrrrrrap!'

spin

March 28, 2004, 09:06 AM

Then that is your misconception and your problem. I have no idea where you got such an idea. The bible wasn't originally written in English, remember?

This doesn't stop expressions and images coming into the language through translations, as it surely has in this case. I can only judge your interest in the language by what you display through it. Your rejection of the influence of the bible on our language as "not particularly worthwhile or interesting" doesn't seem to be perspicacious.

Again, you assert that such content exists. I've read the bible, and I didn't find anything worthwhile whatsoever that wasn't already available other places.

You are neither ready nor open to read the text, which you admit to having "(albeit a long time ago)". Are you unchanging and unwilling to give it another read given the extra experience you now have since you last read it? Does someone have to convince you against your will that you should read it?

I indeed did attempt to understand what you were trying to say. However, I don't see a connection between a text written by a bunch of ancient, cowering sheep-herders and modern anti-semitism.

Looking past your previous trivialising comments, you should read the way the xian books deal with the Jews, who are portrayed as rejecting the xian messiah and ultimately being resposible for his death, having Jesus' blood on their hands. . .

Are you always this presumptuous about the childhoods of people that you know nothing about?

I made no presumptions, but I'd guess you continued not to read what was written to you. I simply used a clearly indicated literary device.

spin

Postcard73

March 28, 2004, 03:39 PM

I split this discussion out of this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=80527). Please remember to keep it civil folks.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 09:20 PM

This doesn't stop expressions and images coming into the language through translations, as it surely has in this case. I can only judge your interest in the language by what you display through it.

Since we're communicating in English right now, it would stand to reason that I have an interest in the English language, wouldn't you say?

Your rejection of the influence of the bible on our language as "not particularly worthwhile or interesting" doesn't seem to be perspicacious.

Whether you think I'm a dimwit for not believing that the bible is worthwhile is irrelevant. The fact remains that you have yet to point out one thing that is worthwhile to me that I can take away from the bible and not readily get anywhere else.

You are neither ready nor open to read the text,

Wrong, and wrong. I have been ready to read the text since I did so about 14 years ago, and if I wasn't open to reading it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Are you unchanging and unwilling to give it another read given the extra experience you now have since you last read it?

Unchanging? No. Unwilling? Yes, at the moment, but only because I am very busy.

Remember that you were the one who started this tangent with an assertion (any nonbeliever can find something worthwhile from the bible). If I didn't know better, I'd swear that you're trying to shiftily push the burden of proof onto me.

Looking past your previous trivialising comments, you should read the way the xian books deal with the Jews, who are portrayed as rejecting the xian messiah and ultimately being resposible for his death, having Jesus' blood on their hands. . .

Fair enough, I guess there is a connection between the bible and modern anti-semitism. But why is this connection any more relevant or meaningful than the modern-day causes of modern-day anti-semitism?

I made no presumptions,

Then did I misread you, or are you a liar?

(originally posted by spin):

You evince the sort of lack of insight that a person who was forced to study litricher at school (and rebelled) maintains for anything vaguely literary.

but I'd guess you continued not to read what was written to you.

A ridiculous assertion, as if it were true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Godless Wonder

March 28, 2004, 09:38 PM

I'm with Goliath. Religion is crap. Christianity is a religion, and is crap. The Bible contains the main writings of Christianity, the Bible is crap.

By "crap", I mean, it's main thesis consists of assertions of the truth of statements which are not true.. Its main thesis is a lie. It is crap, every bit as much as the book of Mormon is crap, and as much as the Scientology writings of L. Ron Hubbard are crap.

Thugpreacha

March 28, 2004, 09:44 PM

Give me one passage of "wisdom" from the bible that can't be found outside of the bible, please.
Here are several gems of wisdom found only in the Bible:

Prov 10:8=The wise in heart accept commands,
but a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Luke 10:16

16 "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
(from New International Version)

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 09:47 PM

Here are several gems of wisdom found only in the Bible:

Prov 10:8=The wise in heart accept commands,
but a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Hardly wisdom! Wisdom does not imply the following of any commands.

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised that a xian thinks that it's wise to "just follow orders..."

Luke 10:16

16 "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

So what? Jesus (I presume) is telling someone to speak for him. Whoopty-freaking-doo. Why should I care?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Answerer

March 28, 2004, 10:20 PM

Oh my, all this arguments are happening because of my comment, sorry guys. :( :(

No! Crap is what people are doing with it. It is very interesting as an historical document.

Of course, the bible is not totally crap but still, I believe it is generally crap. It is a historical document no doubt, but covered with several mythical stories and historical inaccuracy. Reading the bible often give me the feeling of reading a original fantasy novel or ancient folktales. Therefore, I would largely prefer a non-fictional historical books than it.

And no, I don't spend my time worrying about bible, its my curiosity that prompted me to read and study it in the first place.

Answerer

March 28, 2004, 10:30 PM

spin

March 28, 2004, 10:43 PM

Since we're communicating in English right now, it would stand to reason that I have an interest in the English language, wouldn't you say?

There is no necessity of that at all.

Whether you think I'm a dimwit for not believing that the bible is worthwhile is irrelevant. The fact remains that you have yet to point out one thing that is worthwhile to me that I can take away from the bible and not readily get anywhere else.[/b]

I see no reason why I should start the arduous task of re-educating you.

[QUOTE=Goliath]Wrong, and wrong. I have been ready to read the text since I did so about 14 years ago, and if I wasn't open to reading it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.[QUOTE=Goliath]

Again, this doesn't follow. You might just like to say the bible is crap for whatever reasons you care to think, which need not be related to the text itself.

[QUOTE=Goliath]Unchanging? No. Unwilling? Yes, at the moment, but only because I am very busy.[QUOTE=Goliath]

OK. So am I.

spin

spin

March 28, 2004, 10:48 PM

I'm with Goliath. Religion is crap. Christianity is a religion, and is crap. The Bible contains the main writings of Christianity, the Bible is crap.

I get the idea you don't like religions and religious literature. Does this mean that, because you don't, you can't read a text for its literary merit because it conveys a religious message?

spin

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 10:51 PM

There is no necessity of that at all.

How so? If I had no interest in any aspect of the English language, I would have no interest in communicating in the English language, whence we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I see no reason why I should start the arduous task of re-educating you.

How supremely arrogant. I see no reason why I should take your word that the bible is anything but a useless book of bile, hatred, and bigotry written by scared, cowering, ancient sheep-herders.

Again, this doesn't follow.

And again with no explanation as to why. To quote one of my favorite movies: "Are you going to bark all day, little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?"

You might just like to say the bible is crap for whatever reasons you care to think, which need not be related to the text itself.

I might...but I didn't. I said that the bible was crap because it doesn't seem to contain a single thing that I find worthwhile and cannot find elsewhere. The fact that you still can't point out anything in the bible that I find worthwhile and can't find elsewhere is extremely telling.

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin

March 28, 2004, 10:54 PM

Sorry, missed this out.

You can get an insight into the worldview of an ancient people, much as you can from the Iliad, the Mabinogion, the Eddas, or Beowulf. Of course, those are all rather better literature than most of the Bible

And you would trust the bible to give you an accurate worldview? I would rather search the library for such details.

That is not what was being said. Note, "You can get an insight into the worldview of an ancient people". The original was not a discourse about accuracy of worldviews. It was about how groups of people dealt with the world in ancient times. This is of interest in itself, ie how people approached the world before they had "coherent" means of explaining the world through scientific observation and classification.

spin

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 11:00 PM

This is of interest in itself, ie how people approached the world before they had "coherent" means of explaining the world through scientific observation and classification.

Of interest to whom?? Your desire to assume that others' interests are your own makes you disturbingly similar to far too many xians.

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin

March 28, 2004, 11:11 PM

If I had no interest in any aspect of the English language, I would have no interest in communicating in the English language, whence we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You seem to be conflating two distinct notions of 1) the practical application of a language with 2) interest in the medium of communication.

How supremely arrogant.

I'd read it in the context of your previous statements.

I see no reason why I should take your word. . .

I never asked you to. I pointed at things which I considered showed merit in the bible, if you wanted to read them.

. . .that the bible is anything but a useless book of bile, hatred, and bigotry written by scared, cowering, ancient sheep-herders.

Vanity of vanities, says the preacher. All is vanity.

And again with no explanation as to why.

Your task is to understand your own reasoning and be able to demonstrate it. I can't do that for you.

To quote one of my favorite movies: "Are you going to bark all day, little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?"

Why don't you stick to movies? They seem to even supply you with linguistic tools.

I might {"just like to say the bible is crap for whatever reasons you care to think, which need not be related to the text itself"} but I didn't. I said that the bible was crap because it doesn't seem to contain a single thing that I find worthwhile and cannot find elsewhere. The fact that you still can't point out anything in the bible that I find worthwhile and can't find elsewhere is extremely telling.

If you haven't read the bible in 15 years, perhaps your memory is not particularly accurate, or, as I said earlier, your views have been changed through 15 years of experience. But to comment on the text, you have to open the book, otherwise you don't give yourself the chance of pointing out "anything in the bible that [you] find worthwhile".

spin

spin

March 28, 2004, 11:16 PM

Of interest to whom?? Your desire to assume that others' interests are your own makes you disturbingly similar to far too many xians.

It's all right. You don't have to find interesting things that other people find interesting. And remember the post wasn't directed to you, so you needn't feel forced to accept the view.

spin

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 11:21 PM

You seem to be conflating two distinct notions of 1) the practical application of a language with 2) interest in the medium of communication.

No, I am merely stating the obvious fact that if a person learns enough of a language to communicate in it, then said person must have at least a slight bit of interest in said language.

I'd read it in the context of your previous statements.

I did, and my remark stands.

I pointed at things which I considered showed merit in the bible, if you wanted to read them.

And I've pointed out why I don't consider said things to have anything interesting for me, whence you have failed.

Your task is to understand your own reasoning and be able to demonstrate it.

Ah, so you are trying to shift burden of proof. No, you have the task of naming one thing in the bible that I can find worthwhile and that I can't find elsewhere.

Why don't you stick to movies? They seem to even supply you with linguistic tools.

Your extreme condescension is noted. {Comment deleted}

If you haven't read the bible in 15 years

Fourteen years, not 15.

But to comment on the text, you have to open the book,

No I don't. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com)

otherwise you don't give yourself the chance of pointing out "anything in the bible that [you] find worthwhile".

Please stop projecting your failure of meeting the challenge I put forth onto me.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

March 28, 2004, 11:24 PM

It's all right. You don't have to find interesting things that other people find interesting.

Damn right, I don't.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Celsus

March 29, 2004, 12:10 AM

Damn right, I don't.
Funny then, the amount of time you've spent explaining why all this is uninteresting.

The Bible is interesting (to me) and even potentially useful the same way I find all ancient history and mythology interesting. As spin pointed out at the beginning, some people here can't seem to distinguish the ancient historical artifact from its Chosen Interpreters (tm). In other words, they're taking on very similar presuppositions to those Chosen Intrepreters (tm).

Joel

spin

March 29, 2004, 12:14 AM

No, I am merely stating the obvious fact that if a person learns enough of a language to communicate in it, then said person must have at least a slight bit of interest in said language.

What you call an obvious fact is merely conjecture, based on conflating medium with message. So, you can communicate in it. So what?

I did, and my remark stands.

This was you earlier comment: Whether you think I'm a dimwit for not believing that the bible is worthwhile is irrelevant. The fact remains that you have yet to point out one thing that is worthwhile to me that I can take away from the bible and not readily get anywhere else.

If you must be spoon-fed everything like this and you are not even prepared to open the book again which you show such aversion to, so does my remark stand.

And I've pointed out why I don't consider said things to have anything interesting for me, whence you have failed.

And how would you know if you haven't opened the book in (excuse me) 14 years?

Ah, so you are trying to shift burden of proof. No, you have the task of naming one thing in the bible that I can find worthwhile and that I can't find elsewhere.

Actually, I'm not constrained by your desires. As I said, "I pointed at things which I considered showed merit in the bible, if you wanted to read them."

If you want someone to force you into anything, you've got the wrong person.

Your extreme condescension is noted.

At least you watch films. You won't even open the book you're commenting on.

{Deleted}

Fourteen years, not 15.

When stuck for content, split hairs.

No I don't. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com)

Commenting on other people's opinions is no substitute for dealing with the text.

Please stop projecting your failure of meeting the challenge I put forth onto me.

You miss the use of logical consequence when you separate an "otherwise" from what preceded it, so you make illogical conclusions.

spin

Goliath

March 29, 2004, 12:24 AM

What you call an obvious fact is merely conjecture, based on conflating medium with message. So, you can communicate in it. So what?

So at some point, I had to learn the language. Thus at some point, I had to have a bit of interest in the language.

If you must be spoon-fed everything like this and you are not even prepared to open the book again which you show such aversion to, so does my remark stand.

Again, I need not open the book, when the book is online, and secondly who said anything about "spoon-feeding"? {Deleted}

And how would you know if you haven't opened the book in (excuse me) 14 years?

Just because I haven't opened the book, that doesn't imply that I haven't read some of it since then. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com)

Actually, I'm not constrained by your desires.

I never said you were. However, if you cannot point out a single thing in the bible that I'd find worthwhile and that I couldn't find elsewhere, then why are you still posting in this thread after being so soundly trounced?

As I said, "I pointed at things which I considered showed merit in the bible, if you wanted to read them."

And as I said, I found none of them to have any merit. Do you enjoy repeating yourself for no apparent reason?

At least you watch films. You won't even open the book you're commenting on.

See above.

When stuck for content, split hairs.

Who's stuck for content? Not I. I just prefer to battle on as many fronts as I possibly can.

Commenting on other people's opinions is no substitute for dealing with the text.

Apparently you've never been to the site. It is a copy of the bible. Thus I am able to read parts of the bible (or the whole thing, if I wish) without cracking open a single book.

You miss the use of logical consequence when you separate an "otherwise" from what preceded it, so you make illogical conclusions.

Since I've pointed out a few times now that I can read the bible without cracking open a book, my remark stands.

You seem like an intelligent enough person, and who knows? You might actually be friendly (or atleast not an arrogant curmudgeon). Why you are defending such a vile and disgusting book is beyond me.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

March 29, 2004, 12:27 AM

Funny then, the amount of time you've spent explaining why all this is uninteresting.

I haven't spent so much time on this thread doing that as I have been laughing at spin's inflated and arrogant statements.

The Bible is interesting (to me)

Good for you. Please realize that not everyone feels the same way.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Postcard73

March 29, 2004, 12:34 AM

Please remember that personal insults violate the IIDB rules, and complaints about moderation are not to be made in the discussion fora. Start a thread in the Bugs forum if you do not approve of moderator actions, and please tone it down. Additional problems may result in closure of the thread.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

spin

March 29, 2004, 02:00 AM

The Evil One

March 29, 2004, 05:41 AM

Sorry, missed this out.

Originally Posted by The Evil One
You can get an insight into the worldview of an ancient people, much as you can from the Iliad, the Mabinogion, the Eddas, or Beowulf. Of course, those are all rather better literature than most of the Bible

And you would trust the bible to give you an accurate worldview? I would rather search the library for such details.
No, no, not an accurate worldview. Heaven forbid! As a source fo factual knowledge about how the world works the Bible is worth significantly less than the paper it's printed on. But if I want to know what the ANCIENT HEBREWS thought about their world, then the Bible is the best, most extensive primary source.

Rymmie1981

March 29, 2004, 11:01 AM

Q: Can any bit of wisdom/knowledge/mythology/etc. in the Bible be gotten from extra-biblical sources?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it worthwhile to comb those sources in order to find the bits among the immense loads of other information?
A: Usually not.

Q: Is it worthwhile to know about from whence the Western worldview came?
A: Yes.

Q: Where did the Western worldview come from?
A: Many sources, though almost all sources have been greatly influenced or absorbed to fit the worldview of the Bible. Ref: Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and all their trappings to just scratch the surface.

Q: Is it worthwhile to get the views that have shaped your world from their source(translated or not)?
A: Only if you care to not make the mistakes of those who came before you.

I present this as a sort of proof. There is nothing logical about the Bible(except that it was written) or the way our world got from there to here(except that it happened), so I dispensed with the logical proof format. Sure, Western society does not condone the genocide of a group of people because their women were hot(Midianites), but it still looks down on women in many places. Why? Because of the Bible.

If you seek to break free from the social and political constraints imposed by the way of thinking brought about by the Bible, you must read it. Much like a fear of the dark or of heights, one overcomes it by facing it. The greatest weapon against ignorance is knowledge. How do you overcome your own ignorance unless you arm yourself with the knowledge of what you seek to resist? It is worthwhile to bring to light the atrocities and inconsistencies of the Bible so that others can live without fear and guilt from the Sky Fairy.

How does one do that unless they parrot the beliefs of someone else? They open the thing and read it. If you comment on the Bible and say this or that about Moses or David or Jesus or Peter, and you have not read it, then you are no better than the fundies. That's what seperates us from them mostly. We don't take another's word for it. We find out for ourselves.

And one last thing, which will be directed at a specific person...
Just because I haven't opened the book, that doesn't imply that I haven't read some of it since then.

Goliath, that is just semantics. Obviously, it must be worthwhile if you read it online(book or not).

Thugpreacha

April 1, 2004, 01:34 PM

Ah, so you are trying to shift burden of proof. No, you have the task of naming one thing in the bible that I can find worthwhile and that I can't find elsewhere.
This is a supreme example of the flaw in your logic. The fact is that I will never find one thing in the Bible that interests you only because you are already not open to it. In fact, it is the Spirit of God that you are not open to. You have rejected His existance already, and then dare anyone to prove Him to you. You will meet Him soon, and I pray that He understands why you rejected him. Your mere human intellect will never be able to create a worldview that is real. Only a worldview that avoids "taking orders". The fact is, you WILL take orders from one Spirit or the other. The refusal to believe in these "spiritual forces" will not pull you out of this hot water. Open your mind! All theists aren't ignorant!

Goliath

April 1, 2004, 01:37 PM

This is a supreme example of the flaw in your logic.

Impossible since I am not the one making a logical argument in this thread, remember?

The fact is that I will never find one thing in the Bible that interests you only because you are already not open to it.

Wrong. If I were not open to it, I would not have posted in this thread to give you an opportunity to find such a thing. Now, are you going to start an intelligent discussion, or are you going to continue to be a bigot by assuming that you know my every thought and intention?

You have rejected His existance already,

Wrong again. I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of any supernatural entity of any kind.

You will meet Him soon, and I pray that He understands why you rejected him. Your mere human intellect will never be able to create a worldview that is real. Only a worldview that avoids "taking orders". The fact is, you WILL take orders from one Spirit or the other. The refusal to believe in these "spiritual forces" will not pull you out of this hot water.

Save your threats for someone who fears you, thug.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Godless Wonder

April 1, 2004, 02:15 PM

I get the idea you don't like religions and religious literature. Does this mean that, because you don't, you can't read a text for its literary merit because it conveys a religious message?

spin Well, I haven't seen that the Bible has that much literary merit. Some parts aren't too bad, but mostly it just really isn't that good as I judge it strictly as literature. Alice in Wonderland kicks the Bible's ass. So does Huckleberry Finn. So does Cat's Cradle, etc. Greek Mythology likewise is more entertaining.

However, it doesn't really matter what I think about how well the Bible stacks up judged strictly as literature. The Bible wasn't meant to be read as literature. If the Bible had never existed and had never been seen before by anyone, and tomorrow someone wrote the Bible as it stands today with the disclaimer: "This is a work of fiction not meant to be taken as truth, to be judged only on literary merits" then I don't think it would receive a very favorable judgment by most folks.

Then again, "Finnegan's Wake" is today available for sale and in stock and on the shelves in the Barnes and Noble near me for some odd reason (I suppose because they must occasionally sell a copy), so what the hell do I know about literature? Literary merit is in the mind of the reader. (If the meaning of this paragraph isn't obvious, the next time you're at a bookstore or library, find a copy of Finnegan's Wake, and read the first page. (Thanks to someone on this board for pointing to this "masterpiece."))

seeker

April 1, 2004, 02:43 PM

Frankly the only thing I find interesting about the bible is it's use in controlling the minds of it's followers. It is a unique combination of carrot and stick type promises along with enough tales of cruelty to make most people afraid of the stick. Add to that the admonitions not to examine your beliefs and the demonization of atheists and other religions.

When you think about it the bible is the most refined bit of Stone Age technology we have. Obviously it still works or this forum wouldn't need to exist.

Kryten

April 1, 2004, 03:07 PM

The bible, itself, is crap.

Who edited this particular review? Whoever it was, was most thorough.

Personally I think the Bible is a very important work. Perhaps not for the quality of writing, but for its influence on the history of the world. I generally think a work that could inspire an Empire such as Byzantium must rank highly among the literature of history. Regardless of its actual content or any uniqueness in its lessons. Mein Kampf is also an important work in human history. Although I think we can all agree that as far as being a quality literary work, it does not rank highly. The Bible itself is also an important historical record of early Jewish history. No matter that its accuracy is suspect. One could say that it is better than nothing.

Having said that, as a philosophical work, I do not rate it highly

Kryten

April 1, 2004, 03:26 PM

This is a supreme example of the flaw in your logic. The fact is that I will never find one thing in the Bible that interests you only because you are already not open to it. In fact, it is the Spirit of God that you are not open to. You have rejected His existance already, and then dare anyone to prove Him to you. You will meet Him soon, and I pray that He understands why you rejected him. Your mere human intellect will never be able to create a worldview that is real. Only a worldview that avoids "taking orders". The fact is, you WILL take orders from one Spirit or the other. The refusal to believe in these "spiritual forces" will not pull you out of this hot water. Open your mind! All theists aren't ignorant!

I find this highly offensive. If you believe this kind of assertion will have an influence on atheists, you are sadly mistaken. All you have gone and done is show that while unable to make reasonable arguments in favour of your view, you will resort to hatred and anger. This is precisely one reason many atheists reject Christianity. Those who preach love for ones fellow man are often simply arrogant hate mongers who wish to force their will upon other members of the human race.
Now I wish you to back up everything you have said in a calm and lucid, and intelligent manner.

1. You must prove that your opponent is not open to the Bible. In order to do this you must demonstrate that you fully understand his attitude. If by doing so, he is able to refute you, you show your ignorance.

2. "In fact, it is the Spirit of God that you are not open to." You must now demonstrate exactly what this "spirit of God is" and that it in fact exists.

3. "You have rejected His existance already, and then dare anyone to prove Him to you" Even though you are simply reiterating something you stated previously, how about living up to the challenge? This is your opportunity. Don't waste it.

4. "You will meet Him soon, and I pray that He understands why you rejected him" You now need to back up this assertion with proof. If not, you will come across as an ignorant wind bag.

5. "Your mere human intellect will never be able to create a worldview that is real." Can you please be more specific and explain this in detail? Please then tell me, with proof of course, what exactly is "real"? It seems to be a very simplistic idea.

6. "Only a worldview that avoids "taking orders". I'm sorry, do you know your opponent personally?

7. "The fact is, you WILL take orders from one Spirit or the other. " Yet again you make an assertion without proof. Kindly back this assertion up. If you are unable to do this, I would thank you to remove it.

8. "The refusal to believe in these "spiritual forces" will not pull you out of this hot water." See # 7 above.

9. "The refusal to believe in these "spiritual forces" will not pull you out of this hot water. Open your mind! All theists aren't ignorant!" Perhaps you could offer proof? You seem to be very confident that you are correct. Please demonstrate to us unintelligent enquiring atheists just why we are so stupid. But beware, you had better make a good argument.
Also, have you met all the worlds atheists? I don't recall having met you.

Attonitus

April 1, 2004, 04:24 PM

I, personally, and following the advice of an old philologist, use gloves, mainly when I read the Paul Letters :)

spin

April 1, 2004, 04:52 PM

Literary merit is in the mind of the reader.

Actually, no it's not. It's in the eyes of the culture. Without those eyes you have no way to understand much of the literature. The best you can, if you have some understanding of the literature of one culture, you can project that knowledge onto the one you don't know about hoping that will suffice. Literary merit is fundamentally archetypal. The better grasp you have of the archetype the better grasp you have of the literature. You simply have some work to do to understand the arcane literature of the bible.

spin

Godless Wonder

April 1, 2004, 05:32 PM

Actually, no it's not. It's in the eyes of the culture. Without those eyes you have no way to understand much of the literature. The best you can, if you have some understanding of the literature of one culture, you can project that knowledge onto the one you don't know about hoping that will suffice. Literary merit is fundamentally archetypal. The better grasp you have of the archetype the better grasp you have of the literature. You simply have some work to do to understand the arcane literature of the bible.

spin In other words I should work until I change my mind about the literaty merits of the Bible? I'm not allowed to have the opinion that the Bible is overrated in terms of literary merit? Literary merit is in the "eyes of the culture?" So it can be established by what, a poll, to some margin of error?

That's one way to think of literary merit. I prefer to form my own opinion of the magnitude of literary merit which I should award to the Bible than to say, well, most people think the Bible is great literature, so, by definition, it is great literature, since great literature is defined by what people think is great literature. So, my opinion of the Bible is that it is enormously overrated in terms of literary merit. You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't tell me that I don't know what my own opinion is better than you know what my opinion is.

Edit to add: I think it's a mistake to dwell too much on the literary merit of the Bible anyhow. The primary purpose of the authors of the Bible was not to create great literature. Focussing on the literary aspects of the Bible is similar to focussing on the art of the automobile body designer when shopping for a used car. It can be done, but it's not advisable. The main point of the car is to get you from point A to point B, and any artfulness of it's appearance is of secondary concern. Same with the artfulness of the Bible. It's entirely secondary to the authors' central mission. The Bible is a Volkswagen Beetle covered in dayglo layers of Krylon graffiti in terms of artfulness, in my opinion. :)

Kilgore Trout

April 1, 2004, 07:18 PM

All theists aren't ignorant!

Yes, but according to christian beliefs, every theist who isn't a christian is ignorant. :eek:

The fact is that I will never find one thing in the Bible that interests you only because you are already not open to it. In fact, it is the Spirit of God that you are not open to. You have rejected His existance already, and then dare anyone to prove Him to you.

While atheists think every god is nonsense, christians think every god but one is nonsense. Don't talk about atheists being not open to god, when you are not open to any other god but jesus and his alleged father. Why don't you give zeus a try? There is just as much evidence that zeus is a god as there is that jesus is a god.

pope fiction

April 5, 2004, 06:51 PM

Evoken

April 6, 2004, 12:43 AM

Goliath

April 6, 2004, 01:57 AM

Honestly I think most atheist think that The Bible is a science book or a newspaper

This is profoundly absurd. I have never thought of the bible as a science book or a newspaper, and I don't know a single atheist who ever has.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Celsus

April 6, 2004, 02:01 AM

Perhaps the inability to understand metaphors explains the inability to appreciate literature.

Joel

spin

April 6, 2004, 02:56 AM

Would you read a 600-page book on Atheism and evolution? That's more worthwhile for a xtian than an atheist reading the bible.

I don't have such scales.

And such a subjective evaluation doesn't bear on the thread, does it? Perhaps you might conclude one more "worthwhile" according to your criteria, but is the other necessarily "crap" as per the thread subject?

spin

Goliath

April 6, 2004, 03:34 AM

Perhaps the inability to understand metaphors explains the inability to appreciate literature.

Oh, I can appreciate literature. I just don't think that the bible qualifies as decent literature.

Stop projecting your intolerant view of what is and isn't good literature onto me, please.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Hugo Holbling

April 6, 2004, 04:04 AM

I just don't think that the bible qualifies as decent literature.

Why do you suppose your view of the Bible differs so much from that of Matthew Arnold? What was he missing?

Stop projecting your intolerant view of what is and isn't good literature onto me, please.

Unfortunately, your remark does not follow.

Celsus

April 6, 2004, 04:12 AM

Oh, I can appreciate literature. I just don't think that the bible qualifies as decent literature.

Stop projecting your intolerant view of what is and isn't good literature onto me, please.
Intolerant! You crack me up Goliath. My view simply acknowledges that ancient literature be judged by standards different fom modern literature, something you continuously refuse to do, or to acknowledge. Since you have never read very much ancient literature, I suggest you're not in a position to judge it.

Joel

Weltall

April 6, 2004, 04:47 AM

Honestly I think most atheist think that The Bible is a science book or a newspaper and then attemp to read it a such, thus arriving to the conclusion that it is crap. Actually I read it as a work of fiction. The main character is very interesting; if I were a psych major I'd be tempted to write my thesis paper on his character. One big problem is that there's waaay too much suspension of disbelief required even for fiction and there's a whole lot of Deus ex Machina. That's not at good technique to use in quality literature. :D

Evoken

April 6, 2004, 08:55 AM

This is profoundly absurd. I have never thought of the bible as a science book or a newspaper, and I don't know a single atheist who ever has.

Well, good for you. I have meet them and I too was one of them.

Actually I read it as a work of fiction. The main character is very interesting; if I were a psych major I'd be tempted to write my thesis paper on his character. One big problem is that there's waaay too much suspension of disbelief required even for fiction and there's a whole lot of Deus ex Machina. That's not at good technique to use in quality literature. :D

That is another problem. The Bible is a collection of books written at different times by different persons and for different purposes. The Bible contains many things like history, poetry, prophecy, songs and many other all written in different styles and of different themes.

So considering The Bible as a single book of fiction or trying to read it as one is erroneous.

Goliath

April 6, 2004, 01:04 PM

Why do you suppose your view of the Bible differs so much from that of Matthew Arnold?

Who is Matthew Arnold?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

April 6, 2004, 01:06 PM

My view simply acknowledges that ancient literature be judged by standards different fom modern literature, something you continuously refuse to do, or to acknowledge.

I refuse to do so because I see no reason to do so.

Since you have never read very much ancient literature, I suggest you're not in a position to judge it.

Of course I'm in a position to judge it! Let me share a little secret with you: Everyone judges prettymuch everything.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

April 6, 2004, 01:07 PM

Well, good for you. I have meet them and I too was one of them.

How bizarre...what led you to believe that the bible was a science text or newspaper?

Oh, and do you have anything resembling evidence to back up your assertion that most atheists see the bible as such?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Evoken

April 6, 2004, 01:47 PM

How bizarre...what led you to believe that the bible was a science text or newspaper?

I used to read it as a newspaper because I only focused on what I found that supported my goal which was to find contradictions, errors and flaws in it. So I was jumping all around it looking for those and once I found them I would go and show them off at Christians and then attemped to find flaws in their explanations as well or blame God because he didn't write it right.

Then I decided to actually READ The Bible and I started to base my conclusions on facts and reason instead of arrogance which was what I was doing as an atheist.

Oh, and do you have anything resembling evidence to back up your assertion that most atheists see the bible as such?

Take a look at the three paid banners at the top of the page. It is not Atheism but Anti-Theism. With a predisposed negative view towards something you will always reject it and try to find errors and flaws in it even if there aren't any.

It is not a neutral view but a biased view..like everything else. Christians are ignorant and brainwashed people(the damned), atheists are smart freethinking people(the saved).

Nectaris

April 6, 2004, 02:18 PM

I used to read it as a newspaper because I only focused on what I found that supported my goal which was to find contradictions, errors and flaws in it. So I was jumping all around it looking for those and once I found them I would go and show them off at Christians and then attemped to find flaws in their explanations as well or blame God because he didn't write it right.

Then I decided to actually READ The Bible and I started to base my conclusions on facts and reason instead of arrogance which was what I was doing as an atheist.

How would the manner in which you read something change its actual content? I think you assume the position of the reader, i.e. as that of one trying to disprove something. You have no way to gauge my motives when I read a document. Maybe you read something in a certain way, but that doesn't mean that everyone has done it that way.

Take a look at the three paid banners at the top of the page. It is not Atheism but Anti-Theism. With a predisposed negative view towards something you will always reject it and try to find errors and flaws in it even if there aren't any.

Three questions: Why do you capitalize atheism and anti-theism? That out of the way, how do you feel the ads on a web page make a statement about people who post on the message boards or even the webpage itself? And what particularly do you find anti-theistic about the particular ads?

It is not a neutral view but a biased view..like everything else. Christians are ignorant and brainwashed people(the damned), atheists are smart freethinking people(the saved).

Isn't it a tad bit presumptuous to state what another person's position is, without asking first?

Dave

pope fiction

April 6, 2004, 06:28 PM

SO Atheism is a doctrine now? Who is the messiah? Darwin? Did he die for your apes? :D

Honestly I think most atheist think that The Bible is a science book or a newspaper and then attemp to read it a such, thus arriving to the conclusion that it is crap.

Saying that a Christian gains more by reading an atheism book than an atheist reading The Bible is obviously a biased statement.
We don't have a messiah, that's the point.

No, I don't think the bible is a science book, obviously. I don't consider a book with someone walking on water a science book. However, I do think the bible is crap as a source for historically accurate information.

Saying that a christian gains more by reading an atheism book than an atheist reading the bible is obviously not biased. Almost every atheist has come from a religious background and has read most or all of the bible (like myself). I don't know one christian that would read a book on atheism, yet they all try to get atheists to read the bible as if it would benefit them. I don't think it is I who is biased here.

PF

pope fiction

April 6, 2004, 06:31 PM

I don't have such scales.

And such a subjective evaluation doesn't bear on the thread, does it? Perhaps you might conclude one more "worthwhile" according to your criteria, but is the other necessarily "crap" as per the thread subject?

spin
What's your point?

PF

pope fiction

April 6, 2004, 06:43 PM

Since you have never read very much ancient literature, I suggest you're not in a position to judge it.

Joel
Oh, I guess you're the expert, then. :rolleyes:

PF

Goliath

April 6, 2004, 09:40 PM

Then I decided to actually READ The Bible and I started to base my conclusions on facts and reason instead of arrogance which was what I was doing as an atheist.

Guess what? I actually READ the bible as well, and that was one of the many things that turned me towards atheism.

Arrogance? Stop projecting your weaknesses onto me, please.

Take a look at the three paid banners at the top of the page. It is not Atheism but Anti-Theism.

I disagree, but even if you were right, so what? I have an intense, burning hatred of xianity.

atheists are smart freethinking people(the saved).

:confused: Huh? Saved from what?

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin

April 6, 2004, 11:10 PM

Would you read a 600-page book on Atheism and evolution? That's more worthwhile for a xtian than an atheist reading the bibleI don't have such scales.

And such a subjective evaluation doesn't bear on the thread, does it? Perhaps you might conclude one more "worthwhile" according to your criteria, but is the other necessarily "crap" as per the thread subject?What's your point?

1. That I don't come to the same evaluation as the statement you first give. ("I don't have such scales", ie I don't weigh it the same way as you do.)

2. That it is irrelevant whether you consider one more "worthwhile" than another, when the topic is not that, but the lovely proposition that "the bible is crap".

spin

Evoken

April 6, 2004, 11:41 PM

Guess what? I actually READ the bible as well, and that was one of the many things that turned me towards atheism.

Good for you thats a double for Team Hell. :D

Arrogance? Stop projecting your weaknesses onto me, please.

Hehe now I am weak because I accept The Bible?

I disagree, but even if you were right, so what? I have an intense, burning hatred of xianity.

And player Goliath steals Home! Team Hell Burns! :D

Evoken

April 6, 2004, 11:50 PM

How would the manner in which you read something change its actual content? I think you assume the position of the reader, i.e. as that of one trying to disprove something. You have no way to gauge my motives when I read a document. Maybe you read something in a certain way, but that doesn't mean that everyone has done it that way.

I didn't say everyone does it the same way. And yes I was talking about the possition of the reader so not about the actual content changing or anything.

Three questions: Why do you capitalize atheism and anti-theism? That out of the way, how do you feel the ads on a web page make a statement about people who post on the message boards or even the webpage itself? And what particularly do you find anti-theistic about the particular ads?

1-No purpose, really.
2-They are paid adds, they wouldn't be there if they weren't profitable would they?
3-"A Case Against The Bible and Christianity" and "America the vengenful and Christian nation" can't make it cleared than that.

Isn't it a tad bit presumptuous to state what another person's position is, without asking first?

Yes it is, if you don't ask first but I was not reffering to any person in particular. I am talking about the atmosphere of the forum.

Goliath

April 7, 2004, 12:06 AM

Good for you thats a double for Team Hell. :D

And player Goliath steals Home! Team Hell Burns! :D

So you've resorted to threats now? How about some substance for a change?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Evoken

April 7, 2004, 12:58 AM

So you've resorted to threats now? How about some substance for a change?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Nah..just kidding a bit with ya oh Goliath. What substance do you demand?

Goliath

April 7, 2004, 02:00 AM

What substance do you demand?

How about actually backing up your assertion that most atheists read the bible as though it were a science text or a newspaper? Anti-theism seems to have nothing to do with it, as I hate xianity, but have never read the bible in the way that you described.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Celsus

April 7, 2004, 05:33 AM

I refuse to do so because I see no reason to do so.
Perhaps then, a deeper understanding of the subjects is beyond your grasp.
Of course I'm in a position to judge it!
Sorry, I meant, "...judge it fairly." Two starter questions: Why do people read literature? Why do people study ancient literature?
Oh, I guess you're the expert, then.
No, spin is the expert. The point that has been made in this thread is that the Bible is simply an ancient historical artifact. Whether Christians read it in such a way that their interpretation of the Bible is "crap" is a separate matter. What the interested reader can glean from the Bible is the way ancient people perceived their social world. Whether or not this interests you is unimportant, but it does not follow then that the Bible is "crap." Goliath wants to claim the Bible is rubbish which says more about how deeply troubled he is about a mere ancient artifact than it says about the Bible. In the next episode, perhaps Goliath will explain why Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Borubador, Angkor Wat, and other ancient religious artifacts are crap. Or perhaps he'll do himself a favour and read up about how ancient literature (including the Bible) has contributed enormously to mankind's efforts at literacy.

Joel

Nectaris

April 7, 2004, 09:22 AM

I didn't say everyone does it the same way. And yes I was talking about the possition of the reader so not about the actual content changing or anything.

I was just wondering how a person's position would change things. I could see your point of if a person were reading a book with the presumption that everything is false no matter what or everything is true, regardless of the actual content. Although I would like to think that a fairly convincing argument supported by evidence could change a person's beliefs or thoughts on a matter. Sadly, that is not always the case.

1-No purpose, really.
2-They are paid adds, they wouldn't be there if they weren't profitable would they?
3-"A Case Against The Bible and Christianity" and "America the vengenful and Christian nation" can't make it cleared than that.

1. Just a pet peeve of mine, the newsletter for Michigan Atheists does the same thing (capitalized here because it is the proper name of an organization). If anything it would lead an otherwise neutral reader to think that atheism is a religion.
2. Or they aren't very good business people.
3. Christianity is only one flavor of theism, though. You could make an argument that there is an anti-Christian bias, though. I think that is more a result that most of the former theists and most theists who post in these forums were/are Christian.

Yes it is, if you don't ask first but I was not reffering to any person in particular. I am talking about the atmosphere of the forum.

Perhaps as the title of the post would lend credence to that. For what it's worth I think the Bible is an interesting cultural document that reflects the thoughts, ideals, history, and mythology of a group of people that was written over centuries. Although I find the Hebrew scriptures much more interesting in this regard.

Dave

pope fiction

April 7, 2004, 01:57 PM

No, spin is the expert. The point that has been made in this thread is that the Bible is simply an ancient historical artifact. Whether Christians read it in such a way that their interpretation of the Bible is "crap" is a separate matter. What the interested reader can glean from the Bible is the way ancient people perceived their social world. Whether or not this interests you is unimportant, but it does not follow then that the Bible is "crap." Goliath wants to claim the Bible is rubbish which says more about how deeply troubled he is about a mere ancient artifact than it says about the Bible. In the next episode, perhaps Goliath will explain why Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Borubador, Angkor Wat, and other ancient religious artifacts are crap. Or perhaps he'll do himself a favour and read up about how ancient literature (including the Bible) has contributed enormously to mankind's efforts at literacy.
If we come to common ground and say it's merely an ancient artifact, then anyone of any faith could read it. However, the nature of it suggests ways to live, people to worship etc. It's not just a book full of fairy tales and metaphors, it's a book that suggests a way of life. In this sense, I don't believe it to be good literature. I don't mind reading about some metaphorical fairy tales, but not if it's trying to get me to change my belief system throughout the entire book. Not that I'm closed minded to other ways of life and other beliefs, but I've already given that lifestyle a chance and didn't benefit from it.

PF

Goliath

April 7, 2004, 03:16 PM

Perhaps then, a deeper understanding of the subjects is beyond your grasp.

Since you don't know a thing about me, why should I attach any significance to such a prejudicial remark?

Sorry, I meant, "...judge it fairly."

Fairly according to whom?

Why do people read literature? Why do people study ancient literature?

The answer is a function of the person asked. I suspect that two somewhat common answers might be because the person in question enjoys reading literature (resp. ancient literature).

Goliath wants to claim the Bible is rubbish

Either point out where I made such a claim, or retract your accusation, please.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Celsus

April 8, 2004, 03:33 AM

However, the nature of it suggests ways to live, people to worship etc. It's not just a book full of fairy tales and metaphors, it's a book that suggests a way of life. In this sense, I don't believe it to be good literature.
So what if it suggests ways to live? The Qumran sect had an entire Community Rule with strict rituals and all, but it still is important in shedding light on the life and times of the people. No one seriously thinks the CR is a worthless document just because it is prescriptive. It may not be "good" literature by whatever subjective standards, but it is important literature nonetheless, and has fascinated scholars around the world. Ergo, it's not crap. Likewise, Hammurapi's law code was a list of rewards and punishments relating to specific breaches (and we would consider many of the punishments barbaric), but it is important nevertheless in that an early civilisation was trying to establish universal standards of punishment as a step forward for justice (i.e., someone who robbed wouldn't necessarily get his head chopped off while another robber was fined 30 shekels). The Bible is not altogether different in many ways, but the standards are barbaric to us (and similarly, our standards will probably be judged as barbaric to those people in the future who refuse to acknowledge that we be judged by the times we lived in).

Joel

Celsus

April 8, 2004, 03:46 AM

Since you don't know a thing about me, why should I attach any significance to such a prejudicial remark?
I'm judging based on your attitude in this and the other thread. You want to have your cake and eat it don't you? Isn't your dismissal of the Bible, perhaps, er, prejudicial, and people pointing that out to you is considered, "prejudicial"?
Fairly according to whom?
Scholarly consensus? Academic standards? Informed opinion? Certainly not "fairly according to standards set by bigots" (no I'm not refering to you).
The answer is a function of the person asked. I suspect that two somewhat common answers might be because the person in question enjoys reading literature (resp. ancient literature).
Very good. You're getting there (but there are a multitude of other reasons you've failed to mention, such as learning more about ancient societies, tracing the evolution of literature, understanding the context of mythology, etc.). Do you see the historical worth of ancient documents yet?
Either point out where I made such a claim, or retract your accusation, please.
No, I said you "want" to claim it's rubbish (and like you said, everyone makes judgements, right?). Right from the outset you challenged people to show one "worthwhile" thing you can get from the Bible. After spin explained it to you, your fallacy of accent comes through when you shift the emphasis from "one worthwhile thing [you] can get from the Bible" to "one worthwhile thing [you] can get out of the Bible". Since you have declared that none of the listed things interest you, then you get to win your little challenge. Very clever, but I'm posting in the hope that others read the thread and judge for themselves.

Joel

LP675

April 8, 2004, 05:29 AM

You know, if you really believed that, why spend so much time worrying about it?

It certainly isn't crap as I see it. And people who see it as crap are a bit like Luddites who attempted to destroy the machines, apparently not realising that it's not the machines' fault, but that of those who employ them.

The bible itself is a cultural artefact which in itself is a showpiece of cultural artefacts and it offers a lot to anyone who is willing to stop and look.
spin
I was at first a little surprised to see your posts Spin. I was actually going to ask you a while back why you have such a fascination with the bible. Now I would like to know if you have a similar fascination with Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist scriptures. And if not why not?

LP
(Genuine interest, not looking for a biff)

spin

April 8, 2004, 10:59 AM

I was at first a little surprised to see your posts Spin. I was actually going to ask you a while back why you have such a fascination with the bible. Now I would like to know if you have a similar fascination with Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist scriptures. And if not why not?

Nowadays I only have time for my specific field of interest, the period of the Dead Sea Scrolls and its background, and for slumming here. I have looked at both Quran and Vedic literature, but the sorts of necessary discussions (at least in English) weren't available at the time of reading. The RigVeda offers a mass of material that would yield fascinating philological study, though the historical side is unfortunately unavailable to help give some order out of the chaos. It's a matter of time, cultural bias (the texts are readily available, and every dogs and its fleas has an opinion) and interest (I've spent a lot of time in biblical studies and to get to a sufficient level of background knowledge in another literary base would require just as long, if not longer).

spin

pope fiction

April 8, 2004, 11:58 AM

So what if it suggests ways to live? The Qumran sect had an entire Community Rule with strict rituals and all, but it still is important in shedding light on the life and times of the people. No one seriously thinks the CR is a worthless document just because it is prescriptive. It may not be "good" literature by whatever subjective standards, but it is important literature nonetheless, and has fascinated scholars around the world. Ergo, it's not crap. Likewise, Hammurapi's law code was a list of rewards and punishments relating to specific breaches (and we would consider many of the punishments barbaric), but it is important nevertheless in that an early civilisation was trying to establish universal standards of punishment as a step forward for justice (i.e., someone who robbed wouldn't necessarily get his head chopped off while another robber was fined 30 shekels). The Bible is not altogether different in many ways, but the standards are barbaric to us (and similarly, our standards will probably be judged as barbaric to those people in the future who refuse to acknowledge that we be judged by the times we lived in).
It is important, yes, only because it has (unfortunately, in IMO) molded our society almost worldwide. It's a big part of history. However, this doesn't mean that what is says is right. You say the bible is important, and not crap, but you can also say the same thing about Mein Kempf. So what? We're criticizing the accuracy of the bible, not its impact on our society.

PF

spin

April 8, 2004, 01:40 PM

It is important, yes, only because it has (unfortunately, in IMO) molded our society almost worldwide. It's a big part of history. However, this doesn't mean that what is says is right. You say the bible is important, and not crap, but you can also say the same thing about Mein Kempf. So what? We're criticizing the accuracy of the bible, not its impact on our society.

Not in this thread, we aren't. We are dealing with the poorly expressed proposition that the bible is crap and as yet no-one seems able to speak in favour of the proposition.

Who other than you in this thread is talking about whether it is "right" or not? Is the Enuma Elish "right"? Or the Upanishads? Is what Beowulf says "right"? The Theognis?

You are shooting at the wrong thing. The cultural artefact is not your problem, but the way certain people use it.

Mein Kampf is a cultural artefact, illustration of the thought of someone who went through a cataclysm in a specific historical context and offers for those who are interested in that context vast insight, yet it has been used by a lunatic fringe for its own purposes. How can anyone really understand or appreciate Mein Kampf without understanding the turmoil of Europe which had been through the carnage of WW1, the economic hardships imposed on Germany as a result of that war. Isn't Mein Kampf an important book because it is a window into a disturbed brain? It isn't wonderful literature as much of the bible is, but it offers enough for the disinvolved reader to find interest.

Fascism implies the subjugation of a society under the fasces. Xianity and other religions imply the passivisation of a society. These are not the issues in this thread.

Whether the bible is true or not is irrelevant. Most people here don't think its contents is reflective of events in the real world as it is. If you really want to argue that the bible is crap, explain your argumentation, use logic.

spin

Goliath

April 8, 2004, 01:44 PM

Whether the bible is true or not is irrelevant.

Hahahahaha!!!! Tell that to the xians.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

April 8, 2004, 01:50 PM

I'm judging based on your attitude in this and the other thread.

And you have every right to do so. You aren't listening, however. I asked why I should care what you think.

Scholarly consensus? Academic standards? Informed opinion?

I'm a scholar (about a month away from a PhD), and I'm informed about the bible since I have read it.

(no I'm not refering to you).

I'll take you at your word, despite a nagging feeling that you are indeed referring to me.

but there are a multitude of other reasons you've failed to mention....

That's because there are probably about as many reasons to enjoy literature as there are people reading literature. Did you really expect me to list them all?

No, I said you "want" to claim it's rubbish

So you did. My apologies.

Right from the outset you challenged people to show one "worthwhile" thing you can get from the Bible. After spin explained it to you, your fallacy of accent comes through when you shift the emphasis from "one worthwhile thing [you] can get from the Bible" to "one worthwhile thing [you] can get out of the Bible".

No, I don't believe I've shifted the goalposts at all. If it seems that way, I apologize, but by "worthwhile", I of course meant "worthwhile to me".

And no one has yet to meet the challenge.

Sincerely,

Goliath

hammodius

April 8, 2004, 02:27 PM

And you would trust the bible to give you an accurate worldview? I would rather search the library for such details.

Talk about a primary source: we have evidence that the book of Isaiah hasn't changed in over 2000 years! Want to know what people 2000 years ago considered to be scripture? Read the Old Testament. You don't have to accept or reject its historical accuracy to learn from it something about the people who wrote it and read it. I submit that we have a better idea of the cultural identity of the Hebrew nation than any other people that old. We know what they considered their national history to be, their heritage, their moral code, their cultural heroes, their poetry, and their account of the origin of the world.

The library is a great place to research history. AND any library worth its salt will carry copies of the Bible.

Matt

spin

April 8, 2004, 04:49 PM

Hahahahaha!!!! Tell that to the xians.

I tell them lots of things as it is, as you might notice in other threads.

I can understand a disenchanted person pouring scorn on the trappings of xianity. You feel taken in, hoodwinked at a grand level, aggressed against, hence aggressive. This aggression, though understandable, clouds judgment. It won't help in dealings with xians, who will only see your aggressive state as example of your "fall". You won't communicate in such a state and merely venting will achieve very little other than temporary relief from the feeling of being taken in. If you have the desire to do more, you need to change strategy, become more in control, turn the aggression into mental agility.

spin

spin

April 8, 2004, 04:57 PM

I don't believe I've shifted the goalposts at all. If it seems that way, I apologize, but by "worthwhile", I of course meant "worthwhile to me".

Perhaps it might help with such an arbitrary benchmark that you explain to us your personal criteria for what is "worthwhile to" you. Once we understand them, we can decide whether we should bother dealing with your whims or not.

spin

Goliath

April 8, 2004, 06:00 PM

I can understand a disenchanted person pouring scorn on the trappings of xianity. You feel taken in, hoodwinked at a grand level, aggressed against, hence aggressive. This aggression, though understandable, clouds judgment. It won't help in dealings with xians, who will only see your aggressive state as example of your "fall". You won't communicate in such a state and merely venting will achieve very little other than temporary relief from the feeling of being taken in. If you have the desire to do more, you need to change strategy, become more in control, turn the aggression into mental agility.

spin

Are you directing this at me? Because neither I nor most people that I know in real life consider me to be a very aggressive person.

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin

April 8, 2004, 08:12 PM

Are you directing this at me? Because neither I nor most people that I know in real life consider me to be a very aggressive person.

Would I direct such a statement at you, umm, Goliath?

One of the things that many other languages have is a form for making generic statements that is unambiguous. In English the normal way to do it in English is to use "you" as the subject and hope the reader/listener understands that it is generic . . . I'm a believer of "if the foo shits . . ."

spin

Goliath

April 8, 2004, 08:51 PM

Would I direct such a statement at you, umm, Goliath?

If I knew, I wouldn't have asked.

One of the things that many other languages have is a form for making generic statements that is unambiguous. In English the normal way to do it in English is to use "you" as the subject and hope the reader/listener understands that it is generic . . . I'm a believer of "if the foo shits . . ."

Ah, so you didn't. Then why did you say it?

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin

April 8, 2004, 09:28 PM

Ah, so you didn't. Then why did you say it?

As a generic statement to those who might rail against the bible instead of the real target of misplaced feelings.

spin

Answerer

April 10, 2004, 12:23 AM

Talk about a primary source: we have evidence that the book of Isaiah hasn't changed in over 2000 years! Want to know what people 2000 years ago considered to be scripture? Read the Old Testament. You don't have to accept or reject its historical accuracy to learn from it something about the people who wrote it and read it. I submit that we have a better idea of the cultural identity of the Hebrew nation than any other people that old. We know what they considered their national history to be, their heritage, their moral code, their cultural heroes, their poetry, and their account of the origin of the world.

The library is a great place to research history. AND any library worth its salt will carry copies of the Bible.

Matt

Yawnz, please stop repeating and rephrasing what others had said. You are just wasting the bandwidth.

And research the Hebrews? Why should I do that? I prefer to 'waste' my time on science and the reading up on other great civilizations and their influence on minority race such as the Hebrew, than research on the Hebrew alone in such a great detail.

pope fiction

April 12, 2004, 06:16 PM

Ok, spin, so we're discussing the negative effects of the bible on society? If so, are we assuming the stories are crap also?

PF

spin

April 12, 2004, 07:09 PM

Ok, spin, so we're discussing the negative effects of the bible on society? If so, are we assuming the stories are crap also?
The bible doesn't have negative effects on society. People who insinuate it where it doesn't belong have negative effects on society. The bible is an ancient religious book and belongs with other ancient religious books, RigVeda, Enuma Elish, Book of the Dead, etc, as valuable reflections of people's attempts to deal with the world in various respects. Society has changed somewhat since they were written, so their social appeal is no longer there, despite the opinions of the people who claim that it should still be the basis of our moral and social life.

Why do you insist on looking at the wrong things? Do you destroy computers because employers prefer them to people for doing calculations and put your father out of work? The best analogy you can make is that the bible is a gun in the hands of monkeys, which means that someone is going to get killed; but the bible is not such a tool. It is merely a cultural artefact (of great complexity), not a weapon; it is along the lines of a teacher who uses Shakespeare as the standard for the English to be spoken in class. There is nothing wrong per se in Shakespeare's literature, but there is in the teacher who is abusing Shakespeare.

spin

pope fiction

April 12, 2004, 08:34 PM

The bible doesn't have negative effects on society. People who insinuate it where it doesn't belong have negative effects on society. The bible is an ancient religious book and belongs with other ancient religious books, RigVeda, Enuma Elish, Book of the Dead, etc, as valuable reflections of people's attempts to deal with the world in various respects. Society has changed somewhat since they were written, so their social appeal is no longer there, despite the opinions of the people who claim that it should still be the basis of our moral and social life.
Agreed.

Why do you insist on looking at the wrong things? Do you destroy computers because employers prefer them to people for doing calculations and put your father out of work?
WTF is your problem? Did I fart? I believe you're mistaking me for someone else. Please explain the root and nature of this statement, because I'm puzzled as to why you have this degree of haste towards me.

The best analogy you can make is that the bible is a gun in the hands of monkeys, which means that someone is going to get killed; but the bible is not such a tool. It is merely a cultural artefact (of great complexity), not a weapon; it is along the lines of a teacher who uses Shakespeare as the standard for the English to be spoken in class. There is nothing wrong per se in Shakespeare's literature, but there is in the teacher who is abusing Shakespeare.
Again, I agree.

PF

Celsus

April 12, 2004, 11:45 PM

It is important, yes, only because it has (unfortunately, in IMO) molded our society almost worldwide. It's a big part of history. However, this doesn't mean that what is says is right.
Fortunately, nobody was arguing that "what it says is right."
You say the bible is important, and not crap, but you can also say the same thing about Mein Kempf.
You lose. First one to mention the Nazis always loses remember?
So what? We're criticizing the accuracy of the bible, not its impact on our society.
And again, no one was defending the accuracy of the Bible.

Joel

Celsus

April 12, 2004, 11:49 PM

Goliath, you forgot to answer this question:
Very good. ... Do you see the historical worth of ancient documents yet?
Cheers,
Joel

spin

April 13, 2004, 12:18 AM

WTF is your problem? Did I fart? I believe you're mistaking me for someone else. Please explain the root and nature of this statement, because I'm puzzled as to why you have this degree of haste towards me.
Oh, is hurt, is?

I guess my problem is that I couldn't decipher the content of your statement I was responding to. It might be better if you make clear what you are saying instead of asking apparently leading questions, then being hurt when misunderstood. :)

spin

pope fiction

April 13, 2004, 12:30 AM

Oh, is hurt, is?

I guess my problem is that I couldn't decipher the content of your statement I was responding to. It might be better if you make clear what you are saying instead of asking apparently leading questions, then being hurt when misunderstood. :)
First of all, I wasn't hurt; I was just trying to bring to your attention that you were rebutting at no particular points I made, for no particular reason.

What do you mean clearify what I'm saying? I typed a clear response to the OP. What more do you want?

PF

spin

April 13, 2004, 12:49 AM

First of all, I wasn't hurt; I was just trying to bring to your attention that you were rebutting at no particular points I made, for no particular reason.

What do you mean clearify what I'm saying? I typed a clear response to the OP. What more do you want?

A bit more than a few loaded questions that require the reader to eke out what you are really talking about. The basic suggestion is "consider the reader", what might seem plain to you, might not be for your reader.

Ok, spin, so we're discussing the negative effects of the bible on society? If so, are we assuming the stories are crap also?

Well, no we weren't specifically discussing anything of the sort. Ideas may get touched on along the way, but the topic of the discussion has been and still is the proposition that the bible is crap, which proposition has been danced around but not defended other than from extremely subjective criteria that seem to be arbitrary when considered inthe light of other works.

And no, we weren't "assuming the stories are crap".

But I was assuming that the notion of "crap" was one that we all could understand, ie without merit.

If you have something to say rather than questioning based on fallacious assumptions, please, make a clear presentation of your ideas, otherwise you'll understand why you don't get any more responses.

spin

pope fiction

April 13, 2004, 02:02 PM

Well, no we weren't specifically discussing anything of the sort. Ideas may get touched on along the way, but the topic of the discussion has been and still is the proposition that the bible is crap, which proposition has been danced around but not defended other than from extremely subjective criteria that seem to be arbitrary when considered inthe light of other works.

And no, we weren't "assuming the stories are crap".

But I was assuming that the notion of "crap" was one that we all could understand, ie without merit.
So....it's not about the negative effects of the bible on society, but we're saying it's "crap"? O....k.

If you have something to say rather than questioning based on fallacious assumptions, please, make a clear presentation of your ideas, otherwise you'll understand why you don't get any more responses.
Fallacious assumptions? Point them out. A believe I gave my clear presentation of my ideas right here:
If we come to common ground and say it's merely an ancient artifact, then anyone of any faith could read it. However, the nature of it suggests ways to live, people to worship etc. It's not just a book full of fairy tales and metaphors, it's a book that suggests a way of life. In this sense, I don't believe it to be good literature. I don't mind reading about some metaphorical fairy tales, but not if it's trying to get me to change my belief system throughout the entire book. Not that I'm closed minded to other ways of life and other beliefs, but I've already given that lifestyle a chance and didn't benefit from it.

PF

PF

funinspace

April 13, 2004, 02:39 PM

However, the nature of it suggests ways to live, people to worship etc. It's not just a book full of fairy tales and metaphors, it's a book that suggests a way of life. In this sense, I don't believe it to be good literature.
PF
Not that there has been much substance for the length of this thread, but this last repeat, is something. So it can only be looked at in this way (literary value), and thereby only evaluated from this viewpoint?

And research the Hebrews? Why should I do that? I prefer to 'waste' my time on science and the reading up on other great civilizations and their influence on minority race such as the Hebrew, than research on the Hebrew alone in such a great detail.
This minority Hebrew race was at the fulcrum of a religious transformation probably with some level of Hellenistic mixing. How would one be able to understand the last 2000 years of European history without understanding Christianity and the Bible, and how people used it? Yes, if it didn't happen, something else would have shifted human thought. Then people would be studying that. Crap/trash would be the latest romance novel pumped that out by the big publishing houses where one would be hard pressed to differentiate 1 from a dozen others. It may be crap as literature, and as a book of philosophy. But I would hardly consider it crap in terms of social/political history.

Just my 2 cents after spending a while trying to figure out what all the arguing was about.

DK

spin

April 13, 2004, 05:20 PM

If we come to common ground and say it's merely an ancient artifact, then anyone of any faith could read it.

Guess so.

However, the nature of it suggests ways to live, people to worship etc. It's not just a book full of fairy tales and metaphors, it's a book that suggests a way of life.

At a particular time and place. Just as Star Wars does.

In this sense, I don't believe it to be good literature.

This doesn't follow from its antecedents.

I don't mind reading about some metaphorical fairy tales, but not if it's trying to get me to change my belief system throughout the entire book.

Did you refuse to watch Star Wars because of the hokey content in it?

People can appreciate the art and social importance of cultural artefacts without succombing to the weight of the message content. Much of Michelangelo's work was religious art; did it change the artistic content? Gerard Manley Hopkins was a poet who happened to write about religious experience; did the religious content change the artistic content?

The translation of the King James Bible is thought to be one of the literary classics of English. How could that be if we cannot make the separation between artifice and content?

I have talked about the literary side of an analysis of the merit in the bible. Others have talked about its impact on our society. Other comments, including some of mine, have been directed towards the bible as a reflection of ancient thought and at the same time an elucidation of how ancients confronted the world and organised society on what bases.

And you continue to hold to the notion that books have only one reason to be considered and you have discounted the bible because it -- not its authors -- wants to impose unwanted lifestyles on the reader.

I often maintain that religionists are unfit to read such works as the bible because they are incapable of giving its content a chance, unable to read the text for what it says or is attempting to do. Perhaps reactions to religionists can make you unfit to read such a text as well, with the religionists' having poisoned the well.

Not that I'm closed minded to other ways of life and other beliefs, but I've already given that lifestyle a chance and didn't benefit from it.

Baby and bathwater syndrome.

The content of your self-citation has already been dealt with. The closest it comes to dealing with the proposition that the bible is crap is its claim that the bible attempts to impose a lifestyle on its readers, which doesn't relation to the topic, but to your reason for not wanting to read it, which as stated is not about our topic.

spin

Valdemar

April 13, 2004, 09:49 PM

I'll take a stab at this. It was hard trying to catch up with five pages already finished. The topic is "The Bible is Crap." My Oxford dictionary says that "Crap" is nonsense, rubbish, or feces.

I can dispel with the "feces" notion. I have a bible on my table, and it smells like paper and ink, not feces. Is it nonsense? Hmmm... many parts of it SEEM to be nonsense: Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the whale. Jesus walking on water, feeding 5000, and rising from the dead. Rubbish? I'd say many parts of it are certainly wrong from a moral or philosophical standpoint. There are tons of contradictions. There are obvious atrocities; and women are demeaned.

So, I've now commented on the content of the Bible. How do I regard it as a piece of literature? As I assume it is fiction, I don't find it particularly compelling. It took me years to get through it the first time. Now, I simply just read bits and pieces that I find interesting. Maybe it's more interesting in Greek or Hebrew.

Now, to comment on what you said in this particular post:
Did you refuse to watch Star Wars because of the hokey content in it?

Yep, I sure do. I'm probably one of those rare people who actually thought that Star Wars was bad. I usually don't waste my time if I don't really enjoy something, no matter what the public sentiment may be at the time.

People can appreciate the art and social importance of cultural artefacts without succombing to the weight of the message content. Much of Michelangelo's work was religious art; did it change the artistic content? Gerard Manley Hopkins was a poet who happened to write about religious experience; did the religious content change the artistic content?

I agree. I listen to Bach, who was inspired by belief in God. He was, of course, brilliant. But lately I find my views of art (as in your example above) tainted by the painters, or authors, or composers religious viewpoints. I can look at Michelangelo and say "wow, he's a technical genius." But I find it increasingly difficult to separate the beauty from the religious content. Maybe that comes from my increasingly cyncial worldview that has been tainted by Christian culture.

The translation of the King James Bible is thought to be one of the literary classics of English. How could that be if we cannot make the separation between artifice and content?

I have a friend who is a movie lover like I am. He's funny in one way, though. If we see a movie and then it comes out on dvd -- say six months later -- and he remembers seeing it and liking it, he'll grab it off the shelf in the store and start wandering over to the book section with the movie reviews. He reads the review of the movie, and if the reviewer is negative about the movie, my friend puts the dvd back on the shelf! I don't find your statement about the King James Bible "thought to be one of the literary classics of English" especially compelling. It needs to stand on its own merits, from generation to generation. And the King James Bible being a literary classic of English says more about the culture reviewing it than the book itself, don't you think?

I have talked about the literary side of an analysis of the merit in the bible. Others have talked about its impact on our society. Other comments, including some of mine, have been directed towards the bible as a reflection of ancient thought and at the same time an elucidation of how ancients confronted the world and organised society on what bases.

It is a book with incredible insight into the superstitious mindset of the Hebrew people more than two thousand years ago. But does that make it good writing?

And you continue to hold to the notion that books have only one reason to be considered and you have discounted the bible because it -- not its authors -- wants to impose unwanted lifestyles on the reader.

But content is a very important part of art. So you are both right. I've read that art consists of Idea, Form, Idiom, Struture, Craft, and Surface. Idea consists of emotions and philosphy (the content). I think you are more interested in Form and Idiom. But the artform of the Bible is a combination of all these things, don't you agree?

I often maintain that religionists are unfit to read such works as the bible because they are incapable of giving its content a chance, unable to read the text for what it says or is attempting to do. Perhaps reactions to religionists can make you unfit to read such a text as well, with the religionists' having poisoned the well.

And yet, aren't you poisioning the well, too? You have dismissed the "Idea" aspect of art as being unimportant, when it is the very foundation of art!

The content of your self-citation has already been dealt with. The closest it comes to dealing with the proposition that the bible is crap is its claim that the bible attempts to impose a lifestyle on its readers, which doesn't relation to the topic, but to your reason for not wanting to read it, which as stated is not about our topic.
spin

And, of course, imposing a lifestyle is the "Idea" behind the Bible. So, it is very fair to analyze that aspect as well as the aspect that you are analyzing. I believe the key is to find the "balance" in the analysis.

spin

April 13, 2004, 11:57 PM

I can look at Michelangelo and say "wow, he's a technical genius." But I find it increasingly difficult to separate the beauty from the religious content.

This is of course an admission of your problem. How could you partake in the sensitive side of his art for the feeling's sake when you express a problem with his religion? Michelangelo's art is in the vigour of the feelings.

I have a friend who is a movie lover like I am. He's funny in one way, though. If we see a movie and then it comes out on dvd -- say six months later -- and he remembers seeing it and liking it, he'll grab it off the shelf in the store and start wandering over to the book section with the movie reviews. He reads the review of the movie, and if the reviewer is negative about the movie, my friend puts the dvd back on the shelf! I don't find your statement about the King James Bible "thought to be one of the literary classics of English" especially compelling.

You don't have to. It's sufficient that I find it a classic along with very many in the field of English literature. Art is not simply in the eye of the beholder. One requires training in the appreciation of the art. If you like films you may have seen Amadeus. If so, you can appreciate that it is only the composer Salieri who can truly appreciate Mozart (at least in the context of the film and the theme it develops).

It needs to stand on its own merits, from generation to generation. And the King James Bible being a literary classic of English says more about the culture reviewing it than the book itself, don't you think?

Appreciation of art is once again becoming the sport of only a few people. Fewer people receive the cultural background to appreciate Emily Bronte and a great piece of art has been left by the way, passing at one stage through the misfortune of being labelled a novel of romance suited to youngish women to be. How can something be perceived to stand on its own merits when the perceiver lacks the requisite technical know-how to understand the merits?

It is a book with incredible insight into the superstitious mindset of the Hebrew people more than two thousand years ago. But does that make it good writing?

Not by reason of the insight. (And the Hebrews were no more superstitious than anyone else during the period. Just think, without the benefits of science, you would probably be on a par with such a superstitious mindset.) But hopefully some of the comments on the literary and other content of the book has come out earlier in this thread.

But content is a very important part of art.

That is only your contention. Perhaps you should read the Rape of the Lock.

I've read that art consists of Idea, Form, Idiom, Struture, Craft, and Surface. Idea consists of emotions and philosphy (the content). I think you are more interested in Form and Idiom. But the artform of the Bible is a combination of all these things, don't you agree?

Sounds like you got this stuff from a Barron's Notes on how to appreciate litritchure.

And yet, aren't you poisioning the well, too? You have dismissed the "Idea" aspect of art as being unimportant, when it is the very foundation of art!

Art is always, and always will be, the how it was done, whatever it is. The "idea" could be entirely trivial as many 18th century poets discovered or it could be the depths of profundity, and yet, if it isn't "executed" well enough, it will not be art.

[QUOTE=Valdemar]And, of course, imposing a lifestyle is the "Idea" behind the Bible. So, it is very fair to analyze that aspect as well as the aspect that you are analyzing.

Here is some great art:

God's Grandeur

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge & shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs --
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast & with ah! bright wings.

-- Gerard Manley Hopkins

You will note that it is a deeply religious poem, but read it aloud, listen to the words as they leave your mouth, the way they reverberate with their sounds and correlate those sounds with the visual imagery. See and hear the sad people trudging through it over the generations, how they are bound, and realise that you have only scraped the surface of the poem. Yet it is still a deeply religious poem. That idea to me is like most ideas: you can take it or leave it. The art can be analysed through its merit, not by the idea it embodies. Just think of the list of artists who would go by the way if the critic couldn't separate the medium from the content. Giotto, Fra Angelico, Lippo Lippi, Masaccio, Paolo Uccello, Verrocchio, Leonardo, Piero della Francesca, Luca Signorelli, Michelangelo, Raffaello, Caravaggio and a list of more of the world's great artists. They are great artists because of the means of expression, not the content per se.

But to appreciate great art, you need understanding of the artform.

I don't like Bach at all, but I can appreciate his art and its, his, place in the history of music.

I believe the key is to find the "balance" in the analysis.
You may believe so.

But is it relevant to whether or not the bible is crap? I doubt it.

What concerns me is that many people stop using their critical facilities because they don't like the content of something, or they don't like who said it. What may be valuable -- even to our spectator -- in the artefact is totally lost and the loser is the person who cuts him/herself off from the possibility of appreciation because of closedmindedness.

spin