I have no patience with people who take the Bible as literally true. Obviously enough -- no chance. Does it even need to be said?

But I am equally impatient with people who equate it to the Book of Mormon (which means they still can't tell the difference between real -- the Bible -- and fake -- the Book of Mormon).

Nor do I have much time for people who damn it as evil. Oh please. It is world-class piece of literature and an important font of western culture. Even Richard Dawkins, who hardly the most even-handed of judges, grants to the Bible its proper place in the history of the world and acknowledges the power of some of the writing. (He describes it as good as it gets, which the Bible is.) It is no more "evil" than the Sistine Chapel or the cave paintings of France or the latest Batman movie. Literature is not about good and evil in such a heavy-handed interpretation of the words.

Instead you have a vast, sprawling, uneven work that sometimes plods, sometimes crawls on its hands and knees, and can unexpectedly rise, spread wings, take off, soar. It is not to be taken as a how-to book for living a good life. In fact, it is a surprisingly modern text that offers readers some of the finest, most mystical, moving ideas ever expressed by human beings (Do unto others...), short stories that have never been topped (Jacob and Esau) while interspersing those with directions for slavery or suggestions about killing your neighbor for having a barbecue on Sunday. When readers here encounter these absurdites and contradicts in contemporary texts, they understand how to handle it. For some reason, they start sounding like nasty, judgmental -- and clueless -- Puritans when they come across it in an ancient work.

Personally, my advice would be -- for heaven's sake, do not take it as a history of the world! Turn to science for explanations of how the world was created and so forth. For heaven's sake do not take it as the word of God (whatever that is supposed to mean). Do not read it cover to cover. That is a form of torture. Realize that beautiful things are found there -- as well as horrible things -- and yes, that means it is up to you to decide which is which. It is good practice for being human. Know it has informed everything from our justice system to the Civil Rights movement, and artists have drawn on it always. All Shakespeare's plot can be traced to the Bible. Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, and U2 are all fans.

If you ever get serious about the Bible, take a Bible as Literature class or a history class that traces out how the Bible has influenced our culture. If you realize it is not all THAT important to you, fine. But don't fall into the trap of the black and white thinking that has come to surround the Bible. You will lose something important if you do -- an open mind.

What she said.

“I am equally impatient with people who equate it to the Book of Mormon (which means they still can't tell the difference between real -- the Bible -- and fake -- the Book of Mormon).”

I’m confused - what is your criteria for the Bible being, as you say, “real?” You stated:
“Do not take it as a history of the world!...do not take it as the word of God...Realize that beautiful things are found there.” Being “good” literature makes it no more “real” than any other work of fiction.

Let’s define our term here. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “Real” as:

1. “Having an objective existence; actually existing as a thing.”
Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon exist as text and book, and thus neither is more “real” than the other.

2. “Actually existing or present as a thing; having a foundation in fact; actually occurring or happening.”
Here you may have a stronger case, because the Bible uses real place names and real events as the backdrop to its largely fictitious stories. Then again, so does First Nephi. Also, it seems clear that the last great battle of the Book of Mormon and the Hill Cumorah where Moroni deposited the plates were supposed to take place in upstate New York, a real place known to Smith and his associates. So perhaps your claim isn't as merited as you assert.

The Bible is a mishmash of wisdoms, myths, historical fictions and superstition that are often bizarre and abhorrent to modern sensibilities. It’s odd that you would say that the Bible “informed...the Civil Rights Movement” while acknowledging that it also advocates slavery, including, I might add, forced child-bride “marriages” from conquered peoples. I would really like to know why you think that this collection of books, which was used for more than two millenniums to justify subjugation and slavery of foreign peoples, had more of an impact on the progression of civil rights than, say, the more modern work and works of such social revolutionaries as Thomas Paine and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Additionally, you may “have no patience with people who take the Bible as literally true,” and you may not “take it as the word of God,” but a great many members of the Bible-believing public very much do, and they present a significant roadblock to the progression of human rights and liberties. The morality presented in the Bible is VERY MUCH relevant to our modern cultures, because many people still believe it to be the edict of God, and some of us “nasty, judgmental” critics of this work of toxic fiction feel obliged to publicly and loudly denounce it.

" . . . which was used for more than two millenniums to justify subjugation and slavery of foreign peoples . . . "

Have to totally agree on that one. The more I learn about American history outside of the American educational system, the less I want to celebrate Columbus Day. The Bible was definitely used as an anvil for geno/ethnocide.

On the other hand, the abolitionists used the Bible to fight against slavery.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:16PM by bona dea.

This thread is making me realize that the Bible is a double-edged sword. It promotes good and bad behavior.

Like most things. People find what they want in it.

You had me at Dylan and U2 :p

I wasn't trying to offend anyone if I did, and I'm not very smart about this kind of stuff. I'm here to learn.

I think I shy away from the Bible because I've had a lot of bad experiences (abusive, actually) with religion and religious people. I'm going through a phase where it's hard for me to trust anything associated with religion--including the Bible.

It took a Catholic priest to get me to start looking at the Bible critically. He told me not to take it too literally and too blindly, and to really understand it you have to understand the state of the world the Bible was written in like culture, society, etc.

I love the natural sciences so I've always been critical of some things from the Bible. Maybe it's my Mormon upbringing where you're told that either it's all true or it's the greates hoax in the world that's manipulating me into thinking either the Bible is all true or not.

I'm still recovering from Mormonism in ways I never noticed before.

Many religions, Catholic among them, are aware that much of the Bible is.myth.

The Bible is a real ancient document detailing the beliefs of a an historic people . A lot of it may be myth but there is some history there and it was written by real ancient people and reflects their worldview. The BofM is bad Nineteenth century fiction.It is made up and has no history in it whatsoever because the society it is supposedly about existed only in the mind of JS. Big difference

It's not as big a difference as you seem to think. Joseph Smith's company used contemporaneous popular stories, social and religious movements, biblical interpretation and mystical sentiments that were in already in the zeitgeist of early 19th-century New York in creating their book of religious fiction. The biblical writers did the very same thing. Many, if not most, of the books of the bible are deliberately frauds created decades or centuries after the events that purportedly took place.

We don't know to what extent Smith believed his tales; in fact, many mystical cultures don't draw a significant distinction between what is real and what is "spiritual," and we know that the Smith family was a very superstitious lot. Joe's purpose in creating or involving himself in the creation of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon was not always consistent or clear. He may have thought, at times, that he was perpetrating a great fraud while at other times fully believed himself to be a prophet with special access to God. The same can likely be said of the biblical writers.

The only significant difference I see between the creation of the Book of Mormon and the Bible's books is age.

I couldn't disagree more. The Bible is ancient mythology mixed with history. It is real in that sense whether the stories are true or not. The BofM is modern fiction purporting to be and ancient document, which it is not, and ancient history, which is ridiculous. It is purely fiction.If you can't see a difference, I doubt I can explain it to you.

Bona, I love your implied ad hominem that I'm not capable of understanding your reasoning.

So here goes the response you deserve: "I'm rubber, you're glue."

Whatever, you are being pretty obtuse on this subject, but have it your way. I do think you could understand my point and janeelliot's with a little effort, but you seem to have made your mind up.

No, I've read what you both have written and have largely rejected your assertions. It's useless arguing with you, because you clearly don't read with an open mind. It's strange to me that you don't see how pervasive the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is, especially in the United States. It's weird to me that you refuse to acknowledge that the Bible is still being used to advocate oppression and intolerance. That some Jews or Christians don't see the Bible as literally true is completely beside the point. They're not the problem. I'm not talking about those people when I speak of the harmful effects of Bible passages. If you really cared to understand where I and others like me are hoping to accomplish by pointing out flaws and atrocities in the scriptures I would hope you could in some way agree. But you only seem to want to recognize the nice, flowery parts of religion, which already gets plenty of attention from the various religious sects and their practitioners. We are a needed counterpoint.

I do see the danger of the fundies, but that is a different issue and not relevant to the Bible as literature or the definition of mythology.If you want to talk about that, start another thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:47PM by bona dea.

It isn't really that hard. The Bible is real literature -- as you say, myths, tales, writings produced by a real people -- the Hebrew. They really lived. They really produced the Bible. It is as real as the Changing Woman stories of the Navajo or Greek philosophy. It is as real as the plays of Shakespeare. It is neither a fake nor a scam.

That is not to say the stories literally happened. It is to say it is neither a fake nor a scam. It is the work of a people produced over a long period of time, refined, lost, changed, improved and destroyed in those long eras.

But no one invented the Hebrew. They lived. And no one put words in their mouths -- although of course that does not mean we can readily understand what they meant with the words that have come down to us.

Let's see now -- Book of Mormon. No such people ever existed. These people who never existed, needless to say, did not write this book. It is the mythology and wisdom of no people -- it is fake -- and frankly, I think it shows. While the Bible is tough sledding in some ways, the Book of Mormon is simply unreadable. Many people who are not believers cherish the Bible in many different ways. Most Mormons cannot read the Book of Mormon, let alone anyone outside the religion taking a literary interest in the book as a fascinating piece of writing.

I'm impatient with the destructiveness of the fundamentalists, too. But they are by no means the only destructive force in our culture. All anti-intellectualism bugs me. And I read plenty here. One form of anti-intellectualism is an anti-Bible school of thought that refuses to acknowledge its enormous -- and by no means completely negative -- impact on western civilization. It might be a more subtle form of anti-intellectualism than the creationists, but it is still quite destructive to *rational* thought -- which seeks to be just and to understand rather than indulge childish vendettas.

The Bible inspired the Civil Rights movement. Period. Yes, it has slavery in it. It is also a book about transcendence -- and about equality. "The Abolitionists" is now showing on PBS. If you don't believe me, just watch. Both whites and African Americans who opposed slavery were rooted in the Bible. In fact, nothing has been more influential on the character of the African American community -- which has turned again and again to the idea of transcending injustice rather than revenge. I think that character is one of the finest flowers of Christianity -- which heaven knows has produced enough weeds that we should treasure the rare blooms. That attitude, which is deeply rooted in the teachings of Jesus, has made life in this country possible. Anything else would have degenerated into endless war.


Did that answer your question? If not, I can try again.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:08PM by Raptor Jesus.

Geez, Raptor, you are smarter than that. Whewther you like the Bible of not, it is considered great literature by many and there are college courses on it as literature. As far as real, myths are real if they are believed by real ancient people., if the grew up over time and were part of the culture of the people they are about. They are not real if they are made up by modern conmen or fiction writers. The Bible, the Koran, The Bhagavad Gita, the Iliad and Odyssey are real myths. The BofM, Alice in Wonderland and TLOTR are fiction rather than myth.The BofM isn't even good fiction.
There is a reason why Twain called it chlorophorm in print. Nobody teaches classes in the BofM as literature except church schools. Got it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:22PM by bona dea.

Because I'm smarter than that.

I would NEVER argue that the bible as a whole is great literature or even IMPLY it.

Because to do so actually discounts the fact that the bible was never ever ever meant to be put together by the original writers the way it has been.

And I would NEVER argue the definition of myth that you or she has given.

Because it doesn't. Make. Sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:25PM by Raptor Jesus.

Really? How something was put together doesn't make it great literature or not. As far as myth, there are various definitions, but one definition is that it grew up over time and was believed by the people who wrote it. If JS believed in his "myth" he was psychotic. He was writing fiction and originally tired to sell it as fiction.I am pretty sure he knew that. It didn't gtow up over thousands of years. He made it up or plagiarized it over a short period. Myth doesn't work that way.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? How something was put together doesn't
> make it great literature or not.

Yes. Actually it does a great deal. Any writer knows this.

And when you jam lots of writers together who never meant to have their writing next to others - it becomes incredibly problematic.

Especially to call it "literature."

WHY DON'T YOU TALK TO A LITERATURE PROFESSOR. i agree t hat all of it isn't great, but a lot of it is.

" . . . the bible was never ever ever meant to be put together by the original writers the way it has been."

I've never thought about that before. I don't know much about the history of the Bible, but I know there's been a lot of translations of it. I wonder if it had an "original" form or structure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:34PM by liminal state.

Probably the Iliad and Odyssey were not meant to be put together the way they were either either. Homer may have been several people. However, they are still great literature regardless of how they came to be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:36PM by bona dea.

They put in the books that they liked. And chucked the ones they didn't. All political.

Which is why there exists conflicting doctrine.

exactly. And then rewrote a bunch of it to fit the agenda of the time. No more real or valuable than the bom.

That is partly true, but many of the books which were rejected were rejected for valid reasons



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:49PM by bona dea.

Concluding something is fake because it was written long after it supposedly happened makes no sense at all. None. And it shows little understanding of the history of mankind. Stories started out being told around campfires. That form of both history and fictions predated writing by quite a bit. That doesn't mean stories that were passed orally are fake. It means they came out of a different time and place. The poetry of the Trojan War has the same history. That does not mean it is in any sense "fake." Not only did the war really happen (most likely, as far as we know), the poetry has a power. It is real art. Real human beings were captured and portrayed for all time in all that impossible talk of gods and goddesses and wooden horses filled with an entire army.

People did not make the same distinction we make between fact and fiction. Why ever should they? They lived in another time. And it is not as though you could google something or run it through a fact-checking site. Yes, history and fictions were mooshed together in a way we moderns find uncomfortable. That does not mean all ancient writing is somehow "fake"! What an idea! It just means they lived in a different culture. Oh my. They also didn't have indoor plumbing. Feel superior to them if you like. Sounds shamelessly ethnocentric to me -- and proves conclusively that Christians are not the only people who sometimes judge others by their own value system -- a style of thinking that guarantees that those different from you will suffer in comparison.

You do get the difference between the Hebrew and the Nephites, don't you RJ? Oh -- never mind. I suppose that too is over your head and makes no sense to you. If you can get why Hebrew are real and Nephites aren't, you can move on why the Bible is real and BoM not so much.

Of course no one of any importance disputes if the Bible is literature. They also don't dispute if Shakespeare, the Tao de Ching, Middlemarch or Bob Dylan are literature. Certain things are beyond dispute and I don't condescend to do so.

I feel the same way about evolution. Beyond dispute.

He might want to read Keith Richard's autobiography where he discusses the Bible's influence on the work of the Rolling Stones too.I can understand people saying the Bible isn't their cup of tea. I dont care for some things that are considered great either, but the difference is that I don't put them down as trash simpley because I don't care for them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:42PM by bona dea.

I use logical fallacies? LOL. Look at yourself,

I've read a few bits from the New Jerusalem Bible that gives archaeological, historical, and social explanations about what is said in there. I guess I don't appreciate the Bible with as much candor as I should to treat it fairly.

Like I said, I've had a lot of bad experiences with people who show off about their religion in one hand while they take advantage of you and abuse you in the other.

My judgement of the Bible is a little muddy where I'm at in my life. I like some of the things you say, though. It puts it into perspective for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 06:43PM by liminal state.

I get what you are saying.