/lit/ - Literature

I'm sorry.

>>4889153
>>4889641
>Wow, that guys defense was so good.

It was essentially "Dude, it's all subjective, people should read it because they want to!"

But if I started the same thread and said "Guys, I want to read Harry Potter, but I find it so hard to get through, how do I do it?" Nobody would be using this defense.

That alone should be enough to show that this guy's defense isn't really valid either.

So why read the Bible? Why is it more worthy of defense than Harry Potter, or 50 Shades, or whatever /lit/ would normally hate. What *actual* arguments are worth being made for its substance other than "Do it 'cause you want to."

If I were to make that defense, the only thing I could say is that certain parts of the Bible make for interesting mythology. So if you like studying myths, and all of the reasons those myths may have arisen, the Bible may be interesting to you.

But otherwise, that anon was basically correct, the Bible isn't a particularly good read. I wouldn't call it elegant prose. It's just a mythology which stuck thanks to historical accidents. It won't even give you deep cultural insight, especially not the OT. So much of that remains unread and out of the public eye.

OP should just read the Divine Comedy.

>>4649818
>being Christian

I will tolerate cultural religious associations, but don't expect me to take you seriously if you actually believe the doctrine.

I want to read the Divine Comedy. Does anyone know a good translation of this work?