[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 300x275, bible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1892634 No.1892634 [Reply] [Original]

Why is it that The Bible, which is for all intents and purposes an anthology, constantly treated as a work in its own right?

Shouldn't we rather talk about its individual parts?

>> No.1892642

Obviously written by one omniscient author, dipshit. Ergo one complete work.

>> No.1892649

>>1892642
this

its the word of god

not the words of god

>> No.1892653

Some people talk about its individual parts. Smart people.

>> No.1892655

1. the important story is the same one told a couple of times
2. the rest of it is written exactly the same way and about pretty much the same things.
3. the whole nonfiction claim thing

>> No.1892661

what do you think of the authors latest work?

>> No.1892666

Dostoevsky is better.

>> No.1892668

>>1892642
Wasn't at all written by one omniscient author, doesn't even claim to be. You should be more careful before you call people dipshit.
Er...."Book Of Matthew", "Book of John"....

>> No.1892670

>>1892655

>1. the important story is the same one told a couple of times

But told differently. You could even go so far as to say most mythology is the same story, but told differently. We still treat them as different works.

>2. the rest of it is written exactly the same way and about pretty much the same things.

Written exactly the same way? No, that's not true at all. And the topics range all over the place. Creation, flood myth, Job and all that business. You could maybe say that it all gathers around a central theme, but it's not all the same stuff.

>3. the whole nonfiction claim thing

I really shouldn't even have to address this one. We're all grown-ups here (for the most part). I think we're capable of talking about the Bible as a collection of fictional mythology.

>> No.1892672

>>1892668
>>1892642

He was referring to God...

I don't understand why OP needs to clarify this as its commonplace.

Biblical scholars even understand this.

>> No.1892676

>>1892666
666 trips dont lie

>> No.1892681

Let's go back and ask the authors what they meant when they wrote what they wrote.
It would make for a good movie

>> No.1892693

Basically, because all the books of the Bible are the ones that were decided to be "true" - ie, divinely inspired, straight from God.

There were a bunch of other books which didn't pass muster, the apocrypha, and the Bible was collected as and considered as one complete work to differentiate between "God's story" and "fanfiction about God", basically.

>> No.1892703

Fair point.
In the KJV there are books which are pretty close to being unreadable.
On the other hand, there are Job, Isaiah and John: colossal, eternal, monumental and endlessly challenging.
before you ask yes i am christfag

>> No.1892714

If by "we" you mean "theologians and scholars of religion", we do look at it as individuals works that are part of a whole. Go take a look at the Anchor Bible series....

>> No.1893757
File: 82 KB, 626x800, Barocci,%20Federico2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1893757

well, honestly, it shouldnt' be.

But on the internet, everyone who wants to talk about it knows precisely nothing about it.

Job is boss, check that shit before you curse God and die.

>> No.1894520

>>1892634
>Shouldn't we rather talk
>implying people talk about bible
>average christian has never read the bible in his life and 'talking' is limited to 'hurr bibel gud'

>> No.1894533

>>1894520
>implying Atheists are any better.

Reading the holy book of a religion to annoy and belittle those who believe it instead of using it to understand them and their beleifs is much worse.

>> No.1894537

>>1894533
Why? I find that willfull ignorance and stupidity is much more despicable than being mean spirited.

>> No.1894544
File: 627 KB, 1283x719, quentin's-picks-The-Bible.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1894544

>> No.1894550

>>1894537
>willful ignorance
Like the willful ignorance of the fact that there is no definitive proof of anything relating to the origins of the beginning of the universe? Because that's atheism. Or is it just realizing that and having faith that the truth will not involve a deity?

>> No.1894551

This is silliness. Please stop debating religion. The topic of the thread was whether the book had literary merit for goodness sake. You will never convince anyone on the internet of your viewpoint on this matter as we have seen on countless threads.

Politest of sages

>> No.1894555

>>1893757

And Job is boss. By the way.

And David.

>> No.1894556

>>1894550
No, you imbecile, I meant following a religion and not having read the fucking book you dedicated your life to following.

Holy shit, how dense can you be.

>> No.1894561

>>1894556
Most of the time when people talk about willful ignorance and religion they're being cunts who think that everything is known and people just aren't paying attention.

>> No.1894571

>>1894561
How about you try reading the actuals posts instead of assuming shit? What do I care who you've debated with?

/lit/ is getting shittier this summer, I thought that wasn't possible.

>> No.1894580

>>1894571
the whole "summer" thing is just a go-to response for people who can't come up with an actual retort to something

>> No.1894582

The reasons behind why the Bible is treated as one work, as opposed to many works, is a long and sorted affair that would take far too much time and effort to explain on here. Suffice it to say that theologians view the Bible as telling one cohesive story, rather than many stories along a similar theme. Also, one thing you're forgetting is that it was extremely common to have books made up of multiple books. Somewhat in the sense of chapters, I suppose. Some good examples would be Augustine's Confessions (comprised of thirteen books), The Consolation of Philosophy (five books), or Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People (also, five books). Now, these are obviously all by the same authors, but to those compiling the Bible, it probably wasn't as big a different as it is to a modern reader.

>> No.1894583

>>1894571
Okay now you're just getting angry. You responded to a post in which someone said that reading a scripture to be a douche is a bad thing. Then you said that willful ignorance is more despicable. You're being very vague here by either implying that NOT understanding a religion and being a dick is bad, or by implying that you think religious people are ignorant and that it's fine to read a scripture to be a douche.

And really? Complaining about Summer? It was old four Summers ago.

>> No.1894593

>>1894551
sure you will, it happened countless times (both ways)

>> No.1894595

>>1894580
lol tripfags.

>>1894583
>You're being very vague here by either implying that NOT understanding a religion and being a dick is bad, or by implying that you think religious people are ignorant and that it's fine to read a scripture to be a douche.

I'm not implying anything, I said being part of a religion (maybe this part wasn't clear?) and while having the option to do so, not reading the book of the religion you supposedly follow. And that the people reading that book and making fun of the followers that haven't read are less despicable that said followers.

>Okay now you're just getting angry.

I don't like it when people reply to me with a complete non-sequitur based on some wild misrepresentation of what I said.

>Complaining about Summer? It was old four Summers ago.

I complain about the heat, too, every summer.

>> No.1894596

>>1894561
Dear summerfag. You mention one of the most popular and most often occuring fallacies in this kind of discussion. Knowing that, I will still point it out for all our summer friends.
So a little hint for you, but I doubt it will enlighten you in any way:
>we don't know everything about the origin of this thingie here
>therefore (judeo-christian) god did it

Think about it.

>> No.1894611

>>1894582
From a catholic church perspective it's simple: pope and his gang have a monopoly on dogma. Unifying shit is in their best interest because it covers raging inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdity of works making up the bible. It also makes it easier for hoi polloi to understand the basics and have a single authority in a form of single book.

>> No.1894614

>>1894596
Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't believe in any particular gods and your greentext isn't necessarily true, but it's not necessarily untrue either. I don't believe either until something is made truth. That may not even happen in my lifetime so I really don't care about belief itself, just when people are cocks about it.

>>1894595
Yeah that part wasn't clear. I agree with you there. Sorry for the disagreement.

>> No.1894639

>>1894614
This is such a great approach. Given that the problem of epistemology is not going to be solved in the centuries to come (ever?), you restrain yourself from taking a position until you are _certain_ (which will never happen). Living means dealing with uncertainy at every step. The best tool we know of bringing you closer to truth is rationality. Not wishful thinking aka religion and god(s)-did-it excuse type of knowledge. Agnosticism is foolishness.

>> No.1894640

>>1894611
What you just said is not only a complete lack of understanding or--more likely--lack of knowledge of church history, but also, an over-simplification of a much more complicated issue.

>> No.1894647

>>1894639
Why can't I just not think about it? Why is agnosticism foolishness when all it is is not caring in the least about such things?

>> No.1894659

>>1894640
You expected a book lenght, eloquent tyrade from a anonymous image board post, didn't you?

>> No.1894671

Agnosticism usually carries with it implicitly a kind of atheism. It seems to me something like "God doesn't play an active role in my life, but God will if God meets scientific methodological standards." I have yet to see this sort of statement cause any problems with logical consistency, which should be the main critique from any atheists. We'd talk the same way about, for example, homeopathic medications.

>> No.1894672

>>1894647
You ask why? Look at the world you live in. Look at the impact religions have. You may be plump, complacent, spoiled westerner but the time will come when religion shows up and punches you in the face in the full majesty of law and applause of crowd.

>> No.1894681

>>1894672
That's an appeal to consequence, and not, strictly speaking, anything to do with the truth or falsity of agnosticism itself. If I claim that I am a heliocentrist rather than a geocentrist alongside my friend Galileo, and I am threatened with execution, I don't change the truth of heliocentrism by renouncing my claim.

>> No.1894684

>>1894671
It doesn't cause logical problems because there is nothing one can say in response to it other than some offended remark about not choosing sides. At least that's all I've gotten out of anybody here.

>>1894672
Nonreligious people have existed forever. The only people who get publicized trouble from it today are people who live in awful Islamist countries. Religion is important culturally, so I respect it, but I don't care about following any of it right now. And if something bad enough to get me in trouble for not being religious comes here? I'll "convert".

>> No.1894700

>>1894681
>That's an appeal to consequence, and not, strictly speaking, anything to do with the truth or falsity of agnosticism itself
Of course it has nothing to do to 'truth' YOU seem to percieve as in CERTAINTY which is a false concept - totally unadoptable in real life, the life you, me, religious people live in. How do you even know truth is binary?

>If I claim that I am a heliocentrist rather than a geocentrist alongside my friend Galileo, and I am threatened with execution, I don't change the truth of heliocentrism by renouncing my claim.
In your example you take a position. As an agnostic you don't. You restrain yourself because your pointer of 'certainty' is not reached. As an agonostic YOU do not hold the truth because you dont know it, thats the whole point of agnosticism. So if you were threated with execution it would be because
>you are not our 'A'
not because
>You are neither our 'A' nor their 'B'

>> No.1894702

>>1894684
You are the reason there can not be nice things

Also its foolish of you to think you wouldn't be in queue to gas chamber as the rest of them, the 'nonconverts'.

>> No.1894719

PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE


Can we all just agree that religion is the opiate of the masses? We're all smarter then the rest of western civ, so we should just kinda, you know, ignore the bible for a while.