Anyone read any?

[star blue]

I used the old testament for a napkin today to keep pizza grease from getting all over my new pants. you're probably thinking to yourselves, 'why on earth would he do that?' I'll be blunt: so as not to dirty the much more valuable paper plates.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Originally posted by star blue
I used the old testament for a napkin today to keep pizza grease from getting all over my new pants. you're probably thinking to yourselves, 'why on earth would he do that?' I'll be blunt: so as not to dirty the much more valuable paper plates.

You're so worthless...........seriously probably like 1/10th of your posts actually contribute to a topic.

Jonus

[star blue]

aw . . . why don't you go cry to your mummy, l'ttle cry baby.

[atiguhya padma]

Chateaubriand,

I am surprised your read the bible a second time. I would hope you at least skipped Chronicles and Kings!

I tend to only read the more interesting passages, like the ones where contradictions occur. I'm still trying to figure out how Judas died. And whether he bought the Potters Field with the 30 coins or whether he threw the coins at the feet of the priests.

I once discussed the death of Judas with one of those Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible. When I asked him which account was true, the one which says Judas hanged himself, or the one which says he burst his bowels open on a boulder, he replied they both were: he hanged himself, the rope snapped and he burst his bowels etc. The length some people will go to hold onto their beliefs!

[Stanislaw]

If star blue hates religion so much why is star coming to this section and throwing the beliefs of everyone in their face, If you despise it that much, then why does star even bother to "contribute" star's worthless comments to this thread?

[star blue]

I'm fascinated by it all.

[Andalus]

I've read both the Bible and the Koran, and they where both very good. It's a shame to see some people not respecting both books, and forming opinions with little or no information.

As far as the original question as to their value as works of literature. I think both books have had great influence on people’s language. But I think their principle value to religious people is in its message rather than the method of delivery.

[Dyrwen]

I've read a few chapters of the Bible, not the whole thing. I read it only when asked to for clarification on a certain issue.

Otherwise, it's like me reading any other poorly written fairy tale book. I just have better things to read.

[Andalus]

Chateubriand,
I’m not especially religious but even I can appreciate bits such as Matthew .5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+5&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) , 6, 7. Theses sorts of words might in today’s light seem ordinary but at the time they where revolutionary. A bit like Karl Marx works or any other revolutionary. What might have been revolutionary can sometimes seem ordinary in the light of modernism.

Your read something often enough or let an idea into your head enough times and it becomes ordinary.

As for the Quran it is held up as being constructed in perfect Arabic language and I understand it influenced the Arabic language in similar way that Shakespeare influenced the English language. Famous poets inspired by the book include Rumi and Gazali.

Both books to me had sections of great beauty. As to their religious merits I’ll leave that to others.

I think part of the problem is the approach people have to theses books. People always tend to find in them whatever they want. May be religious and not religious people are equally at fault in this.

[pretty eyes]

ew . . . nice.

[subterranean]

I like to read the books in the Bible which related to history and kings. I like the Proverbs also. I can't read Koran though when I was a kid i tried to learn Arabic at school, then one of the teacher forbid me coz I'm a Christian

[Cassandra]

Why, that's silly, surely as anyone, Christian or not, it's a good idea to know other languages and faiths. It helps you relate to people.

"They didn't like that I suggested that god is evil and that I could pull quotes to verify it."

Can you give examples, just out of curiosty Chateaubriand

[Cassandra]

I think both have a mixture of good and bad things, depending on your veiw of God and your translation. Anyway their main function is not as literature, it's to teach and help people (at least that's how I view the Bible, I haven't read the Koran though from what I've gathered in class it's similar in this extent).

[Cassandra]

Not similar. I meant that it is similar in that it teaches people how to live. I don't know whether it's supposed to be simbolic or not but some people will always take things the wrong way, it doesn't mean the text is wrong, just the people: many wars have been caused over religions that should/would not have wanted it.

[subterranean]

The background situation when the Koran was given to Mohammad was indeed really influenced the teachings (conflict and wars). That's why some of the techings are very hard and sounds cruel. As in Bibile I see that it's dominated by conflict between man or man and God, though the NT puts them in to softer forms

[Cassandra]

Both presumably had to meet people where they were I guess.

[mouaten horr]

I have read the bible three times till now, and i continue to do the same each day of my life. I am studying ancient languages in order to be more faithful to the text. No logical argument can push any person i invite to read him. It is only when a person's heart's has been changed, when his life was changed that he gains a conviction that no discussion can retrieve from him.

By the way chateaubriand, i find les "mémoires d'outre - tombe " fascinating. I read them in french coz i wanted to be as close to the author's thoughts. Great book.

[subterranean]

In order to be more faithfull to the text?

That's interesting.:rolleyes: I think contentment is dangerous.

[baddad]

Are you equating contentedness with conformity Mr/Ms 'Subterranean Home Sick Alian Blues'? One can be content with non-conformity as a driving force in one's life. But....Probably I'm waaayyyy off base here.
P.S... I think 'wanting to be more faithful to the text' is a denial of one's own perceptions, a dampening of self.......but again, I could be wrong. Won't be the first time.........

[subterranean]

Obviously not Mr. Baddad. I have a feeling that Mouten Horr reads the bible over and over again not because of conformity, but merely because of contendment. I sensed that from his/her post. But then again, same as you, I might be wrong.

[simon]

As a piece of literature I found the bible lacking in creativity and description, as history inaccurate and undetailed, with a biased point of view, and as areligous text unfuliflling.

[Cassandra]

Isn't it sposed to be biased?

It wasn't written as a novel or with that point in mind so the language and stuff isn't as important.

[atiguhya padma]

Its historical accuracy and detail should be though, shouldn't it?

[Isagel]

I actually read the Bible as literature, as well as other texts. I think that all religious texts are interesting because they write about the fundamental existensial problems the human race has to deal with, and they also show how people in different times have struggled with similar questions.

In the Old testament I find some of the worst cruelties side by side with kindness and care. In the same chapter where war is described you can read about that if you find your enemy on the road with more burden than he can handle on his own, you should help him carry it. Reading this paradox, and more like it, I think I find an understanding of humanity , and our capacity of both cruelty and care.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by simon
As a piece of literature I found the bible lacking in creativity and description, as history inaccurate and undetailed, with a biased point of view, and as areligous text unfuliflling.

As a piece of literature, the stories arn't meant to be creative. They were a record of the Jewish nation and it's significant characters (OT), and accounts of Jesus' life and the early Christian church under the leadership of his deciples. The poetry on the other hand is impeccable. Learn some Hebrew, figure out what chiastic structure (not sure if I spelled that right) is, and come back and tell me these weren't some of the best poets of all time.

As a piece of history, I don't think that there is any other historical record as old as the OT to compare it to, but I may be wrong. Keep in mind that the first 1500 years are written off in 8 chapters because an ACCURATE picture of history wasn't known by (?Moses?) the author of the Pentateuch (first 5 books). As for innacuracies in dates, which most athiests use as grounds for tossing out the entire Bible, specific years and dates were not important in an eastern society during that time period. Even today most members of nomadic Arab cultures can't tell you how old they are or when their birthday is. Many records of dates are off because of this. a generation is often recorded as 40 years, whether it was actually 40 years or not. ten thousand was used as an estimate for ALOT ect. ect. It wasn't the author's intent to record perfect accuracy in every aspect. The authors were accurate in what was important to them.

As a religeous text, well that's pretty subjective but if you really can't get ANYTHING out of the entire Bible, religeously or philosophically, I just feel sorry for you. There IS a reason that one of the worlds biggest religeons is based on it. Try listening to some academic seminars given by people who know it well before writing it off as a piece of crap. I've often thought the Bible was a boring cliche'd piece of crap, but this sememster I'm taking some classes from some VERY knowlegable Bible scholars, and I'm convinced that the Bible is the best collection of writings literary, historical, philosophical, and religeous that we have today. Even if you don't believe the Christian message, you can't deny that the Bible is an amazing piece of literature.

[subterranean]

Once I read that the Bible is recorded to be the best seller ever, yet it's one of the books which is often misinterpret. I think it's common to any religious texts, where intrepretation can be so diverse and in the end can make us think that they become so blurred to understand.

And I think it's creative enough..from the creation of the world, human rebellions, betrayal, violence,and competion among nations and family members, miracles, words of wisdom, Jonah and the whale, david in the lion'scave,..even the revelation tells you stories about dragons, beast with seven horns..and whole lot more..how can you say it's not creative enough?!

And for historical justification, well not only the bible which is lacking in historical accuracy..check out other religious tetxs..

[atiguhya padma]

Regarding the OT as the oldest literary work: I believe the Rig Veda and other vedic writings considerably pre-date it.

Regarding its philosophical value: would anyone care to point out an original piece of philosophy from the OT or the NT?

[IWilKikU]

Sub, hehe, you talk about misquoting/misinterpreting and than say "David and the lion's den". I think you mean Daniel ;).

AP, like I said I could be wrong about older historical books. I've never heard of the Rig Veda. What is it? When is it dated? Does it disprove OT historical accounts? What are "vedic writings"? Please! Educate me!!!

As far as philosophy, I'm terrified to even try to talk philosophy with you. You seem to be an expert where I'm hardly even a novice :). But the philosophy that I gleaned from the Tota Scriptura, can basically be summed up as (please don't hammer the same arguements down my throat. I know and respect your position much better than I know mine. This is merely an attempt to sum up the philosophy of the Bible)

1. God created you, me, and the universe. In return for the gift of life, he asks that you show him love and devotion through the following of his laws.

2. No one is perfect. Everyone messes up no matter how hard they strive for perfection. This includes the practice of following God's laws.

3. It's OK if you screw up. Even though "the wages of sin is death", God has redeamed us by sending his Son, Jesus Christ to die as our scapegoat so that even though we sin, he has already paid our pennance.

I don't know if there are similar philosophies predating the Bible or not, but thats the basic philosophy that Christianity is based upon. Of course most Christian denominations have been corrupted beyond recognition of these three principles. I know that philosophies regarding afterlife ect... have been around longer than the bible, but remember that the Pentateuch has been around through oral tradition alot longer than 3500 years, or whatever its dated as.

[amuse]

Bhagavad Gita: the Vedas

[subterranean]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Sub, hehe, you talk about misquoting/misinterpreting and than say "David and the lion's den". I think you mean Daniel ;).

O yes Mike..it was Daniel..DAvid was the small guy who fought against that giant right? Or was he the one who fell in love with Bathsyeba,,? Or was it the same person ? ;)


AP, like I said I could be wrong about older historical books. I've never heard of the Rig Veda. What is it? When is it dated? Does it disprove OT historical accounts? What are "vedic writings"? Please! Educate me!!!

Amuse said Bhagavad Gita is the same with The Vedas (Rig Vedas). If it's true, this is what i know so far (I have a copy of the english version), it was some words of wisdom said by Lord Khrisna to Arjuna, his disciple. It taught many things such as meditation, true knowledge, how to reach true happiness, reicarnation, etc. But I'm not sure about the date, but i suppose it was more ancient than the bible. And I'm not sure whether it disaprove the bible (OT) or not, but in the introduction part it is said that this book taught about the true faith which cannot be taken away. Christians can convert and become a Muslim or the other way around, but once you learned the Bhagavad Githa you'll achieved the true faith which cannot be converted to anything.

AP, can't the bible's teaching about loving ur enemy be considered as its original philosophy?

[IWilKikU]

Yes Sub, that was the same David. You can read all about him in 1st & 2nd Samuel, and I think 1st Chronicles, but he might have been dead by than. Can't remember off hand, and am too lazy to look it up.

[amuse]

the Bhagavad Gita is an ancient epic of/from India. the Vedas are sacred texts. Upanishads are the end of the Vedas, kind of a segue-type thing.
The Rig Veda (there are four) is the oldest Veda, written apparently between 10 and 4000 B.C.

i lumped the Gita in with the rest because we learned about them together in Eastern Religions, and those three texts are ancient and central to Hinduism.

there are also the writings of the Nacaal; they're old, to the point where it's hard to give credence to them if one has a set idea of the history of man and intellect etc. on earth.

[EAP]

I have read Quran but not Bible or any other Religious rext.

Quran was never meant as a part of literature, The Muslims believe it to be a collection of messages delivered to Prophet Mohammad from God by angels. Writing it in text was a mean of preservation of these messages and to avoid contradictions which may result from memory.

[Miranda]

I am not well read in other texts and could not possibly hold my own against clever theological arguments but I do think there are philosophies..if this is the word to describe them and I dont think it is - that are original to the bible.

The God of Israel is different from the other gods of the time when the Bible was written, in that what He really desires is 'mercy and not sacrifice'. When the Jews went astray from Him and served other 'gods' as well as Him, He showed that it wasn't actually the sacrifice that mattered, but the spirit in which it was made and without their real love.devotion and repentance, sacrifice was empty and worthless. What Israel's God wanted was the love and devotion of His people - their hearts and not empty ritual. At that time human sacrifice was common in the nations surrounding Israel, but it was not allowed in Israel.

I don't think there are other religions where the God of heaven and earth, sends His Son who is one with Himself, to be a suffering servant and die a criminal's death for the sins of the people He has created. The New Testament is inextricably linked to the Old Testament where the coming of this Saviour is prophesied. Both tell of a God who is ever present and who deals on a personal level with His people. The New Testament takes this further in a way that no other religion does, I think, because after Jesus's resurrection, and before his ascendance into heaven, He says 'I will be with you always until the end of the age'. The New Testament equates Jesus with God and His Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity. When Jesus ascends to heaven, He sends the Holy Spirit..and I believe this is the main difference between Christianity and other religions. The Holy Spirit comes to dwell in a person's heart once they have accepted Jesus as the sacrifice for their sins and He becomes their guide and motivation in a very personal way.

God therefore, in the person of the Holy Spirit, is not an 'outside' God' but one that lives in a person's heart and I think this is unique to the Christian religion.

The Christian really needs no 'muller' (can't spell it) or anyone to dictate his way. His way is determined by the bible and the guidance and revelation given by the Holy Spirit operating in his life. The God of the Old and New Testaments I think is very different in this respect to those gods of other religions, in that He has a personal relationship with those who follow Him.

This is how I see it anyway

[Liina]

I`ve read the bible and I think it`s pretty interesting as a book (I don`t think much of it as sometning else than a piece of fiction). I don`t like the language though that`s why I prefer retold stories of the bible. Myths are like good adventure stories, so are the stories of the bible although from time to time they are like fables - they teach you some kind of a moral lesson but that`s what bible is about.
I haven`t read Koran though...Is the story telling style similar ti the bible?