Reading the Bible

[Aurora]

This is probably going to sound like a stupid question but please bare with me. First of all, I'm an atheist who went to a very religious primary school so for a long time I had Christianity drilled into my head as history rather than an optional belief. I'm 21 now and I find myself thinking that I should probably read the Bible because of the amount of stories I remember hearing as a child and I suppose the stories in themselves are worth reading alone. I'm just wondering if anyone has any opinions on the stories in the Bible and whether or not their religious views were changed at all after reading the Bible?

[Emmy Castrol]

The basis of my Christian belief actually stems from viewing the Bible as a work of fiction literature, not fiction in the meaning that it is untrue, but in the sense that I have found fiction to be the best medium to convey certain truths.

Some of the characters found in the Bible are some of the most complex I have read out of ALL fiction literature I have read so far. The most complex is the character of Jesus. Proust’s Narrator and fictional D.H.Lawrence personas are about as unique, sensitive and eccentric as the human mind can reach, and yet even they would not have been able to form some of the original thought and philosophy that seemed to come so natural to Jesus, that is actually very alien to the natural development of human thought.

One story I found interesting is that of Job. It is such a complex story that I got quite a shock at the difference between what I remembered of the Sunday school version and the story that is actually written in the Bible. Other characters who I find interesting are King David, Moses, Paul (so dislikeable), and John (my favourite gospel). Stories I find interesting are the fall of man, Samson and Delilah, and Jesus and the prostitute woman (whether or not she was Mary Magdalene).

I was Christian before I read the Bible and remained Christian afterwards. However, my entire family is secular. I try not to take religion too seriously. What I did gain from my reading of the Bible, in its entirety, was a better understanding of the disobedience and trials of the Jewish people.

[Aurora]

Thanks so much for the reply, you've made me even more interested now! Definitely going to read the stories you mentioned.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear EC

I beg to differ on the characters being so complex. I can relate to a man who loses his temper in the Temple, chooses to mix with money lenders & is not up tight in conversing with fallen angels. It was that element of pure humanity in him that I found so fascinating. There is a goodness about some men that transends the visual, whatever their worldly faults that lie so lightly upon them.

Best regards
M.

[Cunninglinguist]

I don't suspect that the Bible will change (m)any of your beliefs unless you're prepared to reconcile all the internal and external superficial inconsistencies through interpretation. Generally the only people that have incentive to do this already have religious faith.

Its worth reading as literature anyways, even though some parts are hella boring and (to agree with Manichaean) most of the characters are flat as water just because it's been the most influential book in the western world.

[Emmy Castrol]

M., I agree that it is the pure humanity – the complete compassion and empathy he possessed – that makes him so fascinating but just because we can relate to a person does this necessarily make them any less complex? Perhaps it is our own understanding that has developed in the process.

I guess the complexity I speak about is the instinctual understanding of a simple truth. For example, in family relations, whilst siblings are children, a (good) child will put their loyalty to their sibling before their loyalty to a parent. No one has told them this, but an honest child will instinctively know that this is the right behaviour. However, not all children will do this. Some would betray their sibling to their parent - but observe that their motivation usually derives from unfavorable traits – spite, jealousy, pride, self-righteousness, etc. How does one explain to the betrayer that they did the wrong thing when all they have been doing, in their mind, is follow a strict code of righteous rules?

My definition of complexity arises in the difficulty that the average person may have in understanding, and being explained, simple and often instinctual truths.

In fact, if we analyse the New Testament in terms of literary themes, I would suggest that this would be one of them. The clash between the instinctual understanding (that comes more natural to Jesus than to any other human) and the common consensus of righteous behaviour, appears in many instances, examples being: the value of the individual vs. interest of the majority (John 11:45-55; Matt 12:14), equality vs. generosity (Matt 20:1-16), justice vs. forgiveness (Luke 6:29; John 8:2-11; John 12:1-8).

When a man is encouraged by the masses to take up the crown of his nation and is assured of their backing, wouldn’t he be inclined, or tempted, to take it? And yet, when this was offered to Jesus, he refused it, knowing that his refusal would spark resentment in many of the crowd, who previously followed him, and thus cause them to turn against him. I thought this indicated sufficient complexity in Jesus’ character, but perhaps I am a very simple person. I may be misusing the word ‘complexity’ where there may exist a more appropriate term (that I am unaware of) for what I am trying to describe.

I think reading the Bible as literature is enough without expecting a change in your belief, for the enjoyment of ithe stories or even just for the knowledge of why it’s so influential. I agree that some parts are very boring, especially Exodus 25-30, certain parts of Deutoronomy and Leviticus, Psalms, and the books of Paul.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear EC.
Interesting views. Indulge me if I just comment on a couple of them:

1. The “complexity” issue. Personally I find a person complex when they act in a manner, irrational to their own instincts and beliefs. But when someone says, “Oh he is a complex character,” when he is nothing more than devious or a manipulative type, then that is something else.

A quiet child on the other hand can keep itself to itself and yet the mother will understand it. There is nothing complex in the child. As you note in your first paragraph, it is this aspect of developing the understanding that is important.

I see you are a familiar with Lawrence. Remember the extract in “Women in Love?”

“Why is it art?” Gerald asked, shocked, resentful.
“It conveys a complete truth,” said Birkin.
“It contains the whole truth of that state, whatever you feel about it.”

Nothing complex there.

2. “Determining what is the right thing.” In my own experience I’ve found that members of religious orders & those with simple, submissive faiths, know by definition the answer to this and very happy they are therein. It’s left to more questioning mortals, and especially writers to; observe, comment & portray the complexity of the human condition. (Let me unashamedly give a plug for one of my recent threads “The Writer!”)

Thanks for your views. I found them churning around in my brain over the last 24 hours but in an enjoyable way.

P.S. Have just noted another line by Lawrence;
“He was like a Christ in a Pieta. The animal was not there at all, only the heavy broken beauty.”

Best wishes
M.

[Emmy Castrol]

M., yes I see what you mean (at least I hope I do!) regarding the complexity definition. I find that I do agree with you, especially in regards to a ‘devious or manipulative type’. That is why I find Judas Iscariot mainly a flat character. Though he betrayed Jesus, it was in his character that he was likely to do so. However, what I do find interesting about Judas Iscariot is why he killed himself afterwards. Was there a good person inside Judas Iscariot? Or was it the contact with the God-in-Jesus which enlightened Judas to the magnitude of his doing?

I guess it depends on whether Jesus is viewed upon as a ‘devious’ type. Jews and atheists may think so, and perhaps it is my faith that clouds me from being able to view him objectively as I read through the Bible.

Thank you for explaining your definition, I have since thought about it to better my understanding (and future usage!) of the word. Consulting the free dictionary I discovered that I use the word, complex, based on the following meaning:

Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated.

Perhaps what I mean is not that the character itself is complex, but the situations that he (Jesus) has been placed in. Still, in that case, I have misused the term.

I like your example of the quiet child and agree that there is nothing complex, especially in the structure of perfect harmony which exists between the mother and child. But what if the mother was suddenly lost to the child, who had to go and live with an extroverted aunt who couldn’t understand his behaviour? This would make up for a more complex situation. Further, may I suggest, for a character (or situation) to be complex, the necessity of conflict and tension.


… find a person complex when they act in a manner, irrational to their own instincts and beliefs.

The free dictionary also has another definition for the word, more closely aligned to your understanding (I think, you will have to confirm for me):

(Psychoanalysis) a group of emotional ideas or impulses that have been banished from the conscious mind but that continue to influence a person's behaviour.

Yay! Always happy to find another D.H. Lawrence reader…however, I do have to confess that I found Women in Love to be his most difficult work, so please bear with me when I ask what you mean when you say there is nothing complex in that scene between Gerald and Birkin.

Perhaps my understanding is only simple, but when Gerald is resentful of the art piece, it is only because he doesn’t like it. His feelings are repulsed against it. Whereas Birkin can view it outside his own feelings. Later on:

But Gerald resented it. He wanted to keep certain illusions, certain ideas like clothing.
'You like the wrong things, Rupert,' he said, 'things against yourself.'
'Oh, I know, this isn't everything,' Birkin replied, moving away.

I can see two applications of complexity:

1. Gerald was not aware that his judgement on the art piece was based on what he felt, rather than what he thought, until mentioned by Birkin. Gerald then resents Birkin for his insight.
2. Birkin can see the art in the piece, despite whether he likes it, and he is definite on what he thinks despite what he may feel. What he thinks has become what he feels.

But like my view on Jesus, my view of these characters in Women in Love may be biased because I always preferred Birkin (the D.H. Lawrence persona). I couldn’t help feeling a certain satisfaction at Gerald’s eventual, physical death.


It’s left to more questioning mortals, and especially writers to; observe, comment & portray the complexity of the human condition.

As to determining the right thing, do you not feel that writers, like Christians, take part in ‘judging righteousness’, perhaps not to a Christian moral compass, but to the moral compass of the writer’s individual gods? For e.g. In Women in Love, D.H. Lawrence can’t help but communicate his view on the wrongness in the kind of relationship that existed between Birkin and Hermione, in contrast with the natural state of compatibility in the relationship between Birkin and Ursula.

[MANICHAEAN]

18.4.11.

Dear EC
No, dig deeper with Judas. There are so many questions.

He was a disciple; therefore he must have qualified somehow for this role.

Motivation for betrayal?

Jealousy & recognition (possible)

Money (I find this hard to believe. Thirty pieces of silver was not exactly being given a kingdom.)

Predetermined by Jesus or God as a necessary element in the whole drama. For the words “Is it I Lord?” at the Last Supper & Jesus’ reply, indicate knowledge of this betrayal tendency from an early stage.

But in terms of drama from a writer’s perspective it is hard to beat. For a man kissing a man in such circumstances cannot but allude powerfully to the most famous male -to-male kiss in Western civilization: the kiss with which Judas betrays Jesus (Matthew 26: 48-9; Mark 14: 44-6; Luke 22: 47-8). The archetype of the false friend: Judas feigns affection in the act of betrayal. And the meaning of the kiss is: Take this one. Take him and crucify him.


Jesus being devious? Interesting! A Son of God in a man’s body with some of the human attributes. He had a temper, seemed to me to be irritable or disappointed in others sometimes. Love of close family members (his siblings and above all his earthly mother. No mention that I know of regards his relationship with his earthly nominal father).

Must finish now and will respond to the rest later.

Best regards
M.

[Buh4Bee]

I am a Christian and I have read very little of the Bible myself. It’s huge and not all of it is worth reading. I think the New Testament has a lot more to offer, if you were to consolidate your reading. I have read the New Testamnet and it helped me to understand the teachings of Christ. For you, if you are interested in developing a moral framework, understanding the New Testament may be worth your while. It can’t hurt, to say the least.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm not a Christian, and I read the Christian bible just because it's been such a big factor in shaping the world. Plus, when I argue with Christians I get cred because most of them haven't even read the book that their own religion is based on. As just a regular ancient text, the bible isn't actually that bad. It's not as good as Ovid or Homer, but the language is pretty and some of the stories are neat. When I read a book I talk like how they talk so for a couple of months I was "thou shalt"-ing everyone. Jersea's right though, it is long. There are pages and pages of just "blahblah son of yadda, yadda son of blippidy..." and some of the stories don't make a lot of sense. It's not just because of language or translation either, there are direct inconsistancies in the story telling. It'll say that something happened one way which led to something else happening, and then it'll say that that thing never even happened in the first place or that it happened differently or at a different time (this mostly happens in the old testement though, the new testement is a bit more consistant).

Want to know my favorite passage in the bible?

Ezekiel 4:12 - And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

Hahahahaha, poop jokes.

[Buh4Bee]

You may be surprised to meet many Christians who actually do read the Bible, at least most of my congregation that attends regular Sunday services.

[Emmy Castrol]

M., you’re absolutely right, the more I allow myself to think about Judas, his character, circumstances and choices, the more interesting it all becomes. I agree with what you said here



Predetermined by Jesus or God as a necessary element in the whole drama.


I remember, a few years ago, feeling really sorry for characters like Judas and Pharoah (of Moses' time) because it seemed to me that they were already predetermined to oppose God. I remember reading the line .. "God hardened Pharoah's heart"... and I thought, well if God is hardening Pharoah's heart then what chance does Pharoah really have of independently determining how the events folded out for him?



But in terms of drama from a writer’s perspective it is hard to beat. For a man kissing a man in such circumstances cannot but allude powerfully to the most famous male -to-male kiss in Western civilization: the kiss with which Judas betrays Jesus (Matthew 26: 48-9; Mark 14: 44-6; Luke 22: 47-8). The archetype of the false friend: Judas feigns affection in the act of betrayal. And the meaning of the kiss is: Take this one. Take him and crucify him.

Love how you worded this – really makes me appreciate the involvement of Judas in the Bible drama. I too find it hard to believe that money was a convincing enough motivator for his betrayal of Jesus.

I wonder if Judas betrayed Jesus out of a secret resentment he may have harboured against Jesus. Judas, status and position seeking, when first hearing of Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, hurried to be by Jesus’ side, to be one of his disciples who would stand to benefit when Jesus came into his kingdom (taking the widely held view at the time that it would be an earthly kingdom, possibly one where Jesus replaces Herod), only to eventually realise, by the time Jesus had offended the crowds following him, by rejecting their offer to proclaim him their king, the definiteness of no earthly reward for the disciples. But then the question arises: why didn’t he leave with the other disciples (not the twelve)? Had his resentment reached too far a point where he now needed some sort of retribution against this Jesus person, who Judas knew could discern his every hidden intention? Why were the other eleven able to humble themselves before Jesus, accepting their wretchedness, and why could not Judas bear to see himself as how Jesus saw him?


I'm not a Christian, and I read the Christian bible just because it's been such a big factor in shaping the world.

I always have a lot of respect for non-believers who still made the effort to read the Bible, makes me feel like that they have more foundation for their non-belief. I understand it can be very dry reading without the spiritual incentive so am happy to see you still could gather some humour from it :smilewinkgrin:


You may be surprised to meet many Christians who actually do read the Bible, at least most of my congregation that attends regular Sunday services.

Most of my church have read the Bible too, even if in topical order rather than cover to cover. They know the Bible very well, even if they aren’t aware of this. I think where non-believers may get the notion from that many Christians haven’t read the Bible is because many Christians haven’t read the Bible for the intention of forming argument with non-believers.

[TheChilly]

The basis of my Christian belief actually stems from viewing the Bible as a work of fiction literature, not fiction in the meaning that it is untrue, but in the sense that I have found fiction to be the best medium to convey certain truths.

Some of the characters found in the Bible are some of the most complex I have read out of ALL fiction literature I have read so far. The most complex is the character of Jesus. Proust’s Narrator and fictional D.H.Lawrence personas are about as unique, sensitive and eccentric as the human mind can reach, and yet even they would not have been able to form some of the original thought and philosophy that seemed to come so natural to Jesus, that is actually very alien to the natural development of human thought.

One story I found interesting is that of Job. It is such a complex story that I got quite a shock at the difference between what I remembered of the Sunday school version and the story that is actually written in the Bible. Other characters who I find interesting are King David, Moses, Paul (so dislikeable), and John (my favourite gospel). Stories I find interesting are the fall of man, Samson and Delilah, and Jesus and the prostitute woman (whether or not she was Mary Magdalene).

I was Christian before I read the Bible and remained Christian afterwards. However, my entire family is secular. I try not to take religion too seriously. What I did gain from my reading of the Bible, in its entirety, was a better understanding of the disobedience and trials of the Jewish people.

I liked the book of Esther the most. Second place being the book of Genesis for me.

[Buh4Bee]

Most of my church have read the Bible too, even if in topical order rather than cover to cover. They know the Bible very well, even if they aren’t aware of this. I think where non-believers may get the notion from that many Christians haven’t read the Bible is because many Christians haven’t read the Bible for the intention of forming argument with non-believers.

:lol::lol::lol:

[tonywalt]

Try reading the book of Proverbs, very good.

Also, the book of Matthew. Whether you believe or not, you can just read what the central figure is saying, and go from there.

[G L Wilson]

The Bible is a treasure trove, dig into it.