Yes. Of all the reasons to discard the Bible as literature, the strangest has to be it has come down to us in another form! How odd! Like concluding that petroglyphs are not "real art" because they have worn, chipped, and faded or that Shakespeare isn't "real art" because it was originally put on in open air theaters in the middle of the day by people speaking impossible quickly, and we don't see it that way now. Hmm. You might want to get the bugs out of that thought, JR. And you do know that were no "original writers" of the Bible. Mythology is produced by a people -- not individual writers. Certain books are attributed to individual writers (or not so much) but it is -- and has to be -- a group effort. These are tales, poetry, mythology, all woven with the beliefs and values of that people, sometimes a mix of a bit of history (usually distorted).

liminal state. PBS. Get to know it. They also have a good documentary on how the Bible arrived at its current form. Of course it has no "original form." It started life as tales told around the campfire, as stories passed from generation to generation. Much was clipped, added, and changed. And there are still various forms, quite aside from various translations -- the Torah, the Christian Bible, etc. The Mormons drop the Song of Songs, which is the best erotic poetry ever written so well worth looking up.

your reasoning, particularly about petroglyphs don't make logical sense to me whatsoever. And yes, before you jump to personal attacks and remind me how much more educated and brilliant you are than me...Yes, I've taken college level relilgious and history classes, I know what PBS is. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. See? this is what your great "piece" of "literature" does to people. I just don't think playing telephone for thousands of years= literature that everyone should admire and treasure.

No I do not.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. Of all the reasons to discard the Bible as
> literature, the strangest has to be it has come
> down to us in another form! How odd! Like
> concluding that petroglyphs are not "real art"
> because they have worn, chipped, and faded or that
> Shakespeare isn't "real art" because it was
> originally put on in open air theaters in the
> middle of the day by people speaking impossible
> quickly, and we don't see it that way now. Hmm.
> You might want to get the bugs out of that
> thought, JR.

Who argued that?

the writings of the profits being great wisdom, and literature to morgbots. Your belief is coloring your perception.

I know the poster and she is an atheist.Don't assume that only believers can find something worthwhile in the Bible. Richard Dawkins thinks it should be taught as literature and he is certainly no believer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 07:27PM by bona dea.

So why is it every time you lose a historicity of jeezus debate janeeliot shows up?

Personally I don't care what Richard Dawkins thinks about the babble. Atheists do not think alike, and you cannot appeal to atheist authority to prove gawd is great.

Teaching something as a key to understanding culture does not mean it is necessarily great or valuable. Mein Kampf will help you understand the Third Reich. Does this make them more glorious? To believers only.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 07:41PM by atheist&happy:-).

I didn't lose the historical Jesus thread. I have the weight of scholarship behind me and the Jesus /myth people don't, but don't let that stop you from believing in nonsense.

or a valid argument.

You have no primary sources. Nothing.

Good night. I do not need your crap, thank you very mnuch.

Wow! If I make up BS, I suppose that would be great?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so pointing out a lack of *ordinary* evidence is just the beginning, and you cannot even get past that.

I don't understand what you mean by "believe in" the bible.

I know the bible exists. There's one on my bookshelf right now. If you're asking whether I think the hillbilly superstitions being passed off as stories actually happened... well, I'd appreciate if you didn't insult my intelligence.

Also, in a previous thread you made the absurd claim that the bible is "real" while the book of mormon was "fake" simply because the hebrews existed and the nephites/lamanites/jaredites didn't.

That, Jane Eliot, is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site and it make me wonder just how grounded in reality you actually are. Are you getting paid to type these sorts of things?

Yes, the hebrews existed. But the stories in the bible about the hebrews are made-up fantasy.

Likewise, native americans existed. But the stories in the book of mormon about the native americans are also made-up fantasy.

Hebrews existed. But the hebrews in the bible are fake, not real.

Native americans existed. But the native americans in the book of mormon are fake, not real.

There is no difference between the bible and the book of mormon. The same kinds of people, with the same kinds of agenda put them both together.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 07:32PM by kolobian.

The Bible is a real ancient document. The BofM is a scam pretending to be an ancient document.

So in 2,000 years the book of mormon will reach "real" status?

Maybe, but I kind of doubt it.It isnt that good, has been completely debunked outside the church and only a tiny percentage of people on earth have even heard of it and the church is slowly dying.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 07:55PM by bona dea.

I'm sure the same argument could be made about the bible circa 400ad, only if you tried to debunk it back then you'd be killed for heresy.

If the book of mormon had been written by the council of nicea it would be as beyond reproach for Jane as is the bible. While you, Bona, have always been more or less objective in your historicity of jesus arguments, Jane obviously has an agenda.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 07:52PM by kolobian.

I suspect that the authors of the Bible really believed what they wrote. They were writing their own mythology down. JS wasn't.He was writing a novel and when it didn't sell, he turned it into scripture. If people have forgotten the origins of the BofM in 2000 years and consider it to have actually been written by Nephites then it will have acheived the status the Bible has now, but right now it has a hell of a long way to go.I think the odds of that happeneing are slim to none.

I find that to be an astonishing claim. How can you possibly pretend to know that those who wrote down their mythologies weren't doing so with political agendas in mind? Such as controlling a bunch of desert-dwelling tribalists and fleecing their pockets?

Certainly those in positions of wealth and power demonstrated by their actions that they didn't believe the myths. And there's no question that the bible in its current form was organized simply to consolidate an empire.

You're right about one thing, though: the mormon fraud came too late. Even 100 years earlier and this site might be very different, or non-existent.

I didn't say I know that, but since it was written at different times I would say that there were some believers there. The stories are relatively consistent. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been some political motives too. Belief and politics are not mutually exclusive.

The scriptures in the Bible were written in the form we have by people who wrote from sources they believed to be true but the BoM was written by a man (with help of others) without such prior sources except where he knowingly and without attribution copied. The Bible, for example, is rich in stories of heroic women where the BoM is not. The Bible was not written at the Nicene Council. The council only made it uniform as to which books were accepted. Try reading the books omitted and you will see a clear distinction in quality. Modern criticism enables us to get a better view of the Bible and the writers. But we cannot get such a view from the BoM as there are no documents from which it was translated and no archaeology to prove any of it.

Absolutely and in the case of the Gnostic gospels there were valid reasons for leaving them out. The late date is one and the fanstastical content is another. You think the 4 gospels are fantastic, read the gnostic ones. Baby Jesus kills other kids and raises them from the dead and the cross talks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&feature=share

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfFx9JTQl8

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies

It is derivative from earlier mythologies. It was edited according to the agenda of the moment.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:37PM by atheist&happy:-).

Like I told another poster, I have met Jane and she happens to be an atheist. I am not although I am not reqally religious either. Jane doesn't care for black and white thinking such as the Bible is evil.

Jewish archaeologists are in agreement that nothing in the ground supports historical claims in the Bible earlier than the time of 2 kings, or the events leading up to the exile. IOW, Solomon & David = Myth. Solomon's Temple = myth.

It's not hard to understand, Raptor: "Real" myths are fake stories that are old and "Fake" myths are fake stories that are new.

Goddamnit! I'm never going to pass this midterm!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 07:34PM by homo sapiens maximus.

I wasn't trying to come off as doubting the Bible as legitimate literature because I doubted its contents. Objectively it is great writing--from what little I have read of it.

I think religion and myths are one part of an expression of cultures, "Tweets" of the ideas and beliefs of what people were thinking in that place and time.

Edit: Sorry, wrong person. My apologies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 07:43PM by homo sapiens maximus.

I don't think anyone thinks you said that-at least not now. My comments and I assume Jane's were for RJ, HSM and a few others.

liminal state Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wasn't trying to come off as doubting the Bible
> as legitimate literature because I doubted its
> contents. Objectively it is great writing--from
> what little I have read.

Oh, that wasn't directed at you.

That was for me.


Hilarious.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:32PM by Beth.

That method might or might not produce great literature. It just happened to in this case.

Not that I love the Bible. But I do respect it. (I adore it in places and loathe others.) But my response to the Bible is not that important. What seems important is what bona dea was talking about -- maybe the Bible isn't someone's cup of tea. So what? Not everyone gets Bob Dylan. Not many westerners love Asian poetry. Contemporary poetry is famously not only an acquired taste, it is acquired by precious few -- and maybe the fault for that lies as much in the art as in the time.

But people don't attack those as "evil." They admit honestly -- I never could get into Dylan. I would rather get a root canal than go to a poetry reading.

The attacking of the Bible as "evil" is something else. And I find it troubling -- like the thinking of creationists. I don't think it is bad to examine the Bible critically. I encourage it. It does have sexism, racism, slavery -- it should be carefully read for messages we don't want to live by. But it also should be appreciated -- that is just intellectual honesty to me. It is a big, self-contradictory work -- and that is no reason to dismiss the mystical, lyrical, fascinating bits that are also there. Do unto others is not only great advice -- no one has ever given so elegant and perfect instructions for living a fundamentally moral life. There *is* a time and a season for everything under heaven -- a time to hate, a time to love, a time to sing, a time to weep. "As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste." If those don't resonate with you, how do you know you are a human being?

And I can't toss that because a bunch of people have worked themselves into a sweat about religion. That seems to me rather their problem -- a parallel problem to the intellectual dishonesty of the fundamentalists. The Bible has some great ideas -- justice, equality, thoughts about the rhythms of human life that are true.

I don't demand that people share that opinion, but I can't respect those who pretend that isn't obviously in the Bible any more than I can respect people who pretend that the enormous body of evidence behind evolution isn't there. These are to me equally dishonest positions.

<<The attacking of the Bible as "evil" is something else. And I find it troubling -- ... It does have sexism, racism, slavery -- it should be carefully read for messages we don't want to live by. But it also should be appreciated -- >>

What it must be like in your head :)

Rape isn't evil, you see, it should be appreciated and carefully examined as a lifestyle we don't want to live by. Right?

Jane, does anything qualify in your mind as evil?

There is rape in the Iliad, the Odyssey,Law and Order SVU,and many other forms of modern entertainment too. Are they evil? Do you ever watch anything that isn't rated above PG?If something isn't suitable for cjhildren is it evil? What is it like in your head, Kolobian? I am glad yopu aren't censoring my entertainment.

Your comparison is not valid or logical.

Good bye,

I tried to google any churches that use the Iliad and Odyssey as blueprints for eternal life: no hits.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Homer never claims that his god endorses rape. The bible does. The bible very clearly states that it's the god of the universe commanding the rape to be done. The bible claims that the god wants some of his creations to enslave other people.

I'm amazed that you don't see the difference.

Law & Order SVU? Definitely not evil. Wanna know why? Because they're trying to arrest the rapists, not force the rape victims to marry their rapists. Again, see the difference?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:09PM by kolobian.

Then I guess theIliad and Odyssey are evil because they condone rape in certain circumstances. The ancient Greeks used them as models so there really isn't a difference. Besides, I don't see many people saying rape is okay because it is in the Bible. If they did, they would be laughed out of court.

Hell, Kolobian, the Greek gods raped all the time. Zeus raped Ganymede and many others, Apollo tried to rape Daphne and on and on.Hephaestus even tried to rape the virgin Athena. Really, you need to read the myths. Happened all the time. When Achilles, Ajax etc do the same, they are following the example of the gods

And i would say those are evil myths, as well. I'll be quite pleased when people dismiss middle eastern myths as they have greek myths. They don't do any good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:52PM by kolobian.

> But people don't attack those as "evil."

Apparently you missed much of the context of history.

> The attacking of the Bible as "evil" is something
> else. And I find it troubling -- like the thinking
> of creationists. I don't think it is bad to
> examine the Bible critically. I encourage it. It
> does have sexism, racism, slavery -- it should be
> carefully read for messages we don't want to live by.

It's different than your average story, because people pattern their lives after its sexism, racism, slavery, etc., and not just the fundies.

> The Bible has some great
> ideas -- justice, equality, thoughts about the
> rhythms of human life that are true.

It promotes authoritarian hierarchy not equality. It promotes tyrannical pronouncements against reason not justice. Rhythms of life? All life was seasonal back then. They were tied to an agricultural way of life. That is not profound.

> I don't demand that people share that opinion, but
> I can't respect those who pretend that isn't
> obviously in the Bible any more than I can respect
> people who pretend that the enormous body of
> evidence behind evolution isn't there. These are
> to me equally dishonest positions.

If you don't agree with janeeliot your are dishonest.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:02PM by atheist&happy:-).

atheists&unhappy -- you really need to stop doing that. As you know nothing of my beliefs, you can't judge how they are coloring my perceptions.

Let's see -- Mormonism. I left over forty years ago. I've probably been an atheist longer than you have been alive. It would not surprise me. *Please revise your statement accordingly and get back to me.*

I've never regretted leaving for one minute. I abhor all Mormon writing. Even as a child was a critical of the fake voice and diction Mormons adopted when they walked in a church. I never read one piece of Mormon writing for which I had any respect. I always found -- even before I got a reasonably decent education -- that Mormon speech and writing was pompous, inflated, and affected. Everything from conference speeches to handbooks to prayers to Sunday school lessons hit me like nails on chalkboard. In many ways, I can say I never was a Mormon. I have never read the Book of Mormon. I am quite literal when I say I find it unreadable. That is why I never read it. (I only tried once and half-heartedly.)

My respect for the Bible comes from college. I was surprised to realize that some of it had actually penetrated (unlike the BoM, of which I happily know nothing). I also picked up a lot second hand because I was a English major and born reader. I am not kidding when I say that the Bible is like wine through the water of English literature. It is everywhere, and I know more from bits of novels that alluded to it than I learned in Sacrament Meeting.

The first profound influence on my view of the Bible came from a professor who had left the Catholic Church. He was brilliantly grounded in it. But then he was an admirer of James Joyce (as who isn't?). Joyce was also Catholic and also left the church. The Bible is the single most influential work on his masterpiece, Ulysses, the single most important work of the twentieth century. Phil talked about the Bible often. He taught me how to understand the Jacob and Esau. He taught Shakespeare and contemporary American literature -- both of which trace back to the Bible. Phil was simply brilliant -- and nothing showed that more clearly than how he had gotten to the heart of what he had learned as a Catholic child and how he had translated that into something real and useful (and perhaps not all that Catholic in some ways).

The next influence was a Jewish poet and scholar of international renown. She was a believer -- in fact, she reads the Torah in some service, a ritual I don't quite understand but I have always meant to go see her do it. It was frankly embarrassing. She knew more of the New Testament than the returned missionaries in the class, although she treated them with great respect as fellow scholars. She also understood the impact of the Bible on literature. Let's just say it is hard to get through a poem written in the English language without tripping over several references, allusions, take-offs, or send-ups on verses from the Bible.

Your humble apology will now be graciously accepted.

" I abhor all Mormon writing. Even as a child was a critical of the fake voice and diction Mormons adopted when they walked in a church. I never read one piece of Mormon writing for which I had any respect. I always found -- even before I got a reasonably decent education -- that Mormon speech and writing was pompous, inflated, and affected. Everything from conference speeches to handbooks to prayers to Sunday school lessons hit me like nails on chalkboard. In many ways, I can say I never was a Mormon. I have never read the Book of Mormon. I am quite literal when I say I find it unreadable. That is why I never read it. (I only tried once and half-heartedly."


You don't do compare and contrast without reading both.

I enjoy much of the new testament. No where else do I read of the teachings of selflessness and humility towards your fellow man. Maybe I just don't read the right books. I understood some of the OT can give a glimpse of what ancient cultures were like. Altogether I enjoy reading it on occasion. If you go into it as a piece of historical fiction I think you can get a lot more out of it than taking it all literal.

Oh yeah, the new testament's just lovely. My favorite part is when Peter has a couple killed because they don't give him all their money.

I thought I closed pretty clearly by stating it should be read as "historical fiction". I won't argue there is very disturbing actions and ideas in the Bible, but there are also very positive ones. If you are able to separate the wheat from the chaff (I had to sorry :P) than maybe you can benefit from it. Not that you have to. If you don't appreciate it, don't read it.

Edit @ kolobian - Just reread that part in Acts. Not quite how you make it out to be. At least don't let your opinion allow you to present facts that aren't correct.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:17PM by ballzac.

I think they dropped dead, supposedly struck by God.

After being condemned by god's so-called apostle. What's the difference?

@ ballzac, how did I misrepresent the facts? Is that not what happened?

As for the Bible being literature, I highly recommend two books:

The Great Code: The Bible and Literature.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/318117.The_Great_Code

and The Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/398085.The_Art_of_Biblical_Narrative

I am an atheist, and I have read the Bible and keep one handy. I think of it as the cornerstone of our literature, even though it wasn't written in English. If you write in English, knowledge of biblical mythology and biblical metaphors can enrich your writing.

Those ancient writings are in no way a blueprint for living, though. Just read Exodus chap 31; it's barbaric. And the stuff about Superman Jesus is ridiculous. Super heroes are still popular in our culture, it pains me to say.

But I like Psalms and some of the other poetic bits scattered throughout the greater text.

It is very important to know and understand. And parts of it are helpful for writers.

I just won't go so far as saying that much of it is "great literature."

Right, Raptor J. A lot of it is pretty clumsy in literary terms. One might think of it as proto-literature, a small step between stone age grunts and Shakespeare.

But even the allusions are clearly cherry picking themselves.

Bible went out the window a few months after deciding to leave TSCC

My belief in the bible broke first followed quickly by the rest of my religious teachings