[ 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: 31 KB, 400x400, 9780195288803.zoom.a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2532472 No.2532472 [Reply] [Original]

hello /lit/.

pretty soon i will be undertaking the massive text that is The Bible; i have been putting it off for too long. my question to you gentlemen is: what texts should i read after i have gained an understanding of christian mythology and canon?

i have currently listed:
>The Divine Comedy
>Paradise Lost
>The Way of a Pilgrim / The Pilgrim Continues His Way

any other suggestions? any relations on your past experiences with The Bible? pic related, it's the version that i'm going to read.

>> No.2532479

>Paradise Lost
Pfffffft

>> No.2532482

Everything by Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.
Read up on the early Protestant leaders, Calvin and Luther in particular. Go through the CCC and read up on the changes in the Catholic church since the 60s.

Look into how Christianity shaped Europe, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Reformation.

Realize the the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible. Read Pirkei Avot and look into some of the heterodox Jewish offshoots.

Take a comparative religions course, it's better to study many religions than one.

>> No.2532483

>>2532472
unless you actually go to bible studies/seminars, you'll never full understand Christianity and the Bible.
Sure, you'll enjoy some stories and parables Jesus taught and the "philosophies", even as far as appreciate the Psalms, but that'll be as far as you'll go in understanding the Bible.

>> No.2532495

>>2532483
Yeah. Go to worship services, and not just one.
Go to Catholic Mass* and Lutheran Worship. Go to a black Baptist service. If you have some around you, go to a Quaker meeting.

*mass is highly ritualized. I highly suggest getting familiar with catholic practices before attending. If you got to Catholictv.com, they have televised masses.

>> No.2532499

>>2532482

i've been spending my time reading up on eastern philosophies (penguin's The Buddhist Scriptures, Tao Te Ching, and the Diamond Sutra, as well as some Watts and Katagiri), and currently i'm reading The Iliad/Odyssey.

i'm mainly reading The Bible as a literary work instead of as a religious text, as my motivation is to see the allegories and allusions present in western literature. i'm not too interested in western religion spiritually or philosophically to be honest, though that might change after i read The Bible.

>> No.2532507

>>2532499
to me, the "philosophies" only make sense after I see it as "religious", I dunno, maybe because I'm a christfag

>> No.2532509

>>2532507
Oh and if you are gonna read the Bible by yourself for nothing else other than lulz, skip the first 5 books, they weren't intended as literature. Start with the New Testament and I'd go Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and then whatever the fuck you want.
But don't read it in order if you don't care for the religious aspects of it.

>> No.2532511

>>2532507

i mean to an extent that's understandable, but there's still an obvious underlying message in all religious texts that can be seen even if you don't necessarily believe the words as holy. just like you can learn the moral of a fable without actually believing a tortoise raced a hare.

anyway i thank you guys for the advice even though it wasn't really what i was looking for. i know i'll read Aquinas and Augustine and Kierkegaard as i'm really interested in philosophy too. i've seen a couple quotes from St. Paul over my reading career and i really like them - is there any essential St. Paul book, or is that not how that works?

>> No.2532512

>>2532509
WUT

Genesis, from a literary perspective, is the most important book of the Old Testament. Even then, I'd still read Leviticus, etc. There's important symbolism that's referenced later on.

>> No.2532514

>>2532511
Paul wrote about half of the New Testament. I don't believe we have any of his other writings. (but you may want to check, there may be some stuff attributed to him that isn't canon.)

>> No.2532516

>>2532509

why not? i can't see any reason why i shouldn't treat it as any other text. if it's included at all it's bound to be important. it's the root of most of western thought, anyway. though i'm not trying to get closer to god or anything i'm not just doing it for the lulz either.

>> No.2532521

also uh, OP here, what i was really asking for was fiction/philosophy that isn't specifically religious but plays on an understanding of religion. maybe my examples don't really convey that, i'm not sure.

>> No.2532523

>>2532512
I've studied Genesis in 3 different study groups, unless you want a deep understanding and not just literary/scientific analysis, the only thing you need to know is: Even gave Adam fruit, they gtfo of Eden, Noah survives flood and begets Shem, from whom Abram comes out. Then Issac then Jacob (Israel) then Joseph.
That's it.

If you want to read Leviticus go ahead, it's not used by anyone other Jews and is completely obsolete in terms of Christianity.

>> No.2532527

>>2532521
In addition to the books you listed,
Errything by CS Lewis. The Screwtape letters are an especially fun read.

Les Miserables.

>> No.2532528

>>2532527
Mere Christianity is a must too.

>> No.2532533

>>2532523
The Tower of Babel?
The near-sacrifice of Issac?
Original sin?
The Flood?
Issac coming to power?
The enslavement of the Israelites?

There's some important goddamn stuff in Genesis. It's referenced more than anything else in the bible.

>> No.2532535

Do read Genesis and Exodus though, they are mostly story (although Genesis does have some boring genealogy aspects you could skip) the other 3 books are Jewish law so feel free to give them no more than a skim (just to see what they were like).

Next are the history texts. Joshua, Judges, Kings and Samuel are the easiest and most relevant. Feel free to skip them until later though, although they are interesting and relevant. (Promised land, David, Solomon, etc.)

Then comes Poetry, the best of the best. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Psalms; these books are as good as you can get, and many (Job in my particular opinion) are one of the best written works of poetry.

Then comes Prophets. The big heavy mayor prophets and the smaller minor prophets. Feel free to skip these as they are mostly for studying prophecy and even the most ardent of religious zealots understand it. You could maybe read the book of Jonah since it is such a popular story.

New Testaments starts with the gospels, stories of Jesus. Read those, they are as simple as you can get in the Bible and most likely the most relevant part of it. Go ahead and read these first.

Acts is next, but that's a really weird and confusing book and has very little relevance. Go ahead and skip it.

Then come Paul's letter's. Some of these are harder to swallow than others, but preference goes for Romans, Galatians, Corinthians and Ephesians.

After that are the general letters. Hebrews is most important here. The rest are short enough to read in five minutes so feel free to read them.

Last but not least is Revelations. A must-read just because it's really really weird.

Enjoy! I've read and studied the Bible so if you have any questions feel free to ask.

>> No.2532537

>>2532533
>deep understanding and not just literary/scientific analysis

they are important, and I've had countless discussions about them. If you are really interested in them, reading cannot fulfill everything, going to a bible study is a must, even online discussions (without trolling) can do wonders

>> No.2532543

>>2532535
And this is why I said to skip the first five books if you aren't prepared to delve completely into the religious aspect of it. It's useless background knowledge with interesting subplots which are useless unless you are actually interested in them and have someone there to help you along.

>> No.2532547

>>2532543
Implying that the first five books aren't the oral history of the Jewish people.

>> No.2532550

>>2532535

OK wow thanks a lot, i'll save this and refer to it when i'm reading. will probably take me at least a month or two.

what are your opinions about the Apocrypha? will i have a pretty solid understanding of catholicism or does that take much more than just reading their sacred text?

>> No.2532553

>>2532547
Which is why I gave a summary of Genesis here >>2532523
and Leviticus is basically thou shalt not do this and Levites are to do this.
The rest are about 40 years in the desert.

>> No.2532558
File: 7 KB, 191x234, Happy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2532558

yfw this hasn't yet turned into an atheism trolling thread

>> No.2532559

>>2532550

I have only really read apocryphal poetry (Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, which I highly recommend) so I would not really know, they are supposed to include several more references to angels, so that's interesting. You should be able to find a study Bible with the apocrypha included if you're interested.

>> No.2533128

The Brothers Karamazov

>> No.2533244

>>2532550

To really and properly understand Catholicism, you need to delve into the works of the Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Isidore of Seville, and St. Teresa of Avila. The last one, plus St. Ignatius of Loyola (not properly a Doctor, but still extremely important. Founder of the Jesuits), are fundamental in understanding the way the Church and Catholicism in general took form after the Reformation.

On a less theological level, G.K. Chesterton is probably one of the greatest Catholic apologists to have ever lived, and his writtings are enormously enlightening in regards to Catholicism.

Best of lucks with your reading. The Bible is one of those books that believers and non-believers alike should at least peak into to get a better understanding of how modern Western thinking came to be.

>> No.2533260

>>2532472
Read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/524142/Leo-Strauss-On-the-Interpretation-of-Genesis

or some other Strauss´ "religious" writings. Prior to reading the above essay I was never able to think of Genesis as a serious intellectual undertaking; truly eye-opening.

>> No.2533269

I'm not an atheist but reading the bible is huge waste of time unless you're coming form a background of faith. it won't make sense to you. it wasn't a book that was meant to be read like a novel or philosophical text. It's a manuscript of theology and the foundation for the christian creed. You can't evaluate it with conventional literary criticism. It's meant to be considered as the word of God and if you're not going to do that, you're wasting your time. You're probably only committed to this so you can say you're not one of those evangelical judgmental atheists. but it doesn't matter because you still read a holy text from the position of atheism so it makes no difference to how you are, only how you are perceived.

>> No.2533286

>St.John of the Cross
>Confessions
>Some Aquinas
>GK Chesterton
>De Chardin
>Teresa of Avila

Don't read any of the books you listed. At least not with the intent to link them with Christianity,

>> No.2533291

Your education will not benefit from reading christian texts as an atheist and the only reason to do it is feel superior to evangelical atheists.

>> No.2533299

>>2533269
>>2533291
Hugely wrong and stupid

religion is still a fascinating creation of the human mind, even as an atheist. it's obviously a thing that exists and we can evaluate and appreciate it without agreeing with it, in the same way that we can appreciate other philosophies or thinkers that we disagree with. they can still have enormous historical value and influence. and the works of christianity can still have artistic and literary value.

i mean, come on, you're dismissing the bible and other christian works as lacking in literary value because they're not novels. what an immensely dumb and close minded thing to say - as if all things of literary value were contained in novels (an extremely recent form in the scheme of things)

... and i just realized that your name is "Pleb" and therefore this is probably satire or something

>> No.2533304

There is no atheist. Only believers of the positive and the negative.

Plus, Pleb is... right.

>> No.2533309

>>2533299
He's not hugely wrong, it might not be a huge waste of time for atheists, but they won't have the same level of appreciation and understanding as a devout Christian.

>> No.2533310

>>2533299
yeah yeah I get it you're one of those joseph campbell atheists. You aren't appreciating religion. You are condescending to it as though it's a frog you can poke and prod in biology class. The only way to appreciate it is to take it up legitimately

>> No.2533409

>>2533269
>I'm not an atheist but reading the bible is huge waste of time unless you're coming form a background of faith. it won't make sense to you.

That's not necessarily true. As long as the reader recognizes that Biblical scripture (like all scripture) has multiple layers of meaning and he consults reliable exegeses, his knowledge of it will be sufficient for understanding most Biblical allusions in Western literature. I think that's all the OP is trying to gain from reading the Bible; I doubt that many intelligent atheists think themselves capable of attaining some sort of all-encompassing knowledge of scripture. That being said...

>>2533299

>religion is still a fascinating creation of the human mind, even as an atheist. it's obviously a thing that exists and we can evaluate and appreciate it without agreeing with it, in the same way that we can appreciate other philosophies or thinkers that we disagree with.

Your understanding of religion will always be defective if you insist on operating under the assumption that it's a 'creation of the human mind.' There's such a thing as religious philosophy, but treating religion itself as if it's merely cosmology or some sort of elaborate philosophy is a flawed approach. That isn't understanding religion, it's attempting to assimilate it into an atheistic worldview.

>> No.2533419

>>>2532472
>what texts should i read after i have gained an understanding of christian mythology and canon?

The first two books you listed are major works of Christian folk mythology. If you're interested in Christian religious thought and doctrine, I'd do as others have suggested and read stuff like St. John of the Cross, Aquinas, and Meister Eckhart. As far as early Christian stuff goes, read John Climacus ("Ladder of Divine Ascent"), Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus, Maximus the Confessor, and some hagiographies of the Desert Fathers. For Orthodoxy, read Palamas ("In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts") and maybe some more recent authors like Stăniloae.

The "Classics of Western Spirituality" series by the Catholic publisher Paulist Press is pretty great for the most part and probably has works from most of these authors. I've heard that their version of John Climacus' writings isn't the best, though.

>> No.2533437

>>2533310
Of course religion is there to be ridiculed, were you born a few centuries back? For me it has the same value as reading greek epics or Gilgamesh or whatever. A cute fable.

>> No.2533456

>>2533437

...lol, no wonder you're an atheist.

>> No.2533473

>>2533437
we can't advance through mythology towards something more real. Instead it's just replacing one mythology with another. Hellenism -> Judaism -> christianity -> liberalism ->??? -> ??? -> transhumanism???

Pick one that you think is more ethical, but it would a mistake to pick one on the basis that it is more 'real' than the others.

>> No.2533488

>>2533456
Atheism is actually bad on this board? Holy shit, I had no idea.

What's your reasoning, fool? How is any religion more probable than the other? How is believing in invisible blue intelligent watermelons different than Christianity, other than long tradition, which doesn't justify anything? I can respect faith when it's not covered with pointless dogma and outdates morals, but when I hear stuff like denying it's a creation of our minds, I lose my jimmies.

1. Christianity hates gays, therefore hates me, therefore it can fuck off. Mutual hate, as far as I'm concerned.
2. It also hates contraception and sex for pleasure, that is a very dangerous ideology, borderline insane in our age of diseases, and on the other hand, consciousness of our own sexuality and the potential dangers of celibacy
3. For it's all apparent love and understanding it thinks that atheists will burn in hell and pay for their sin

Enough for me, dude.

>> No.2533556

>>2533488
>Atheism is actually bad on this board? Holy shit, I had no idea.

No? /lit/ is probably mostly atheist. The atheists here run the gamut from intelligent and well-adjusted (the majority) to edgy teens who worship at the feet of Dawkins. Why would my post be representative of how an entire board feels?

>1. Christianity hates gays, therefore hates me, therefore it can fuck off. Mutual hate, as far as I'm concerned.

No religion unilaterally 'hates' homosexuals. Most traditionally disprove of homosexual intercourse, but some Protestant churches don't really seem to care and ordain openly gay ministers (I think the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Evangelical Lutheran churches have done this.)

>It also hates contraception and sex for pleasure, that is a very dangerous ideology, borderline insane in our age of diseases, and on the other hand, consciousness of our own sexuality and the potential dangers of celibacy

I'm not a Christian and am not familiar with the teachings of the various churches regarding sex and contraception, so I won't comment.

>For it's all apparent love and understanding it thinks that atheists will burn in hell and pay for their sin

It makes sense for a theocentric doctrine to disapprove of ideologies that deny its fundamental principle, does it not? Being loving and kind in your interactions with others doesn't entail believing that they'll experience eternal bliss in the afterlife.

>> No.2533568

>>2533556
>one post is representative of how an entire board feels


>atheist logic

>> No.2533617

>>2532483
>unless you actually go to bible studies/seminars, you'll never full understand Christianity and the Bible.

Is it even possible to fully understand the Bible as a text without knowing Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek?

>> No.2533661

>>2533617
Is it even possible to fully understand the Bible, period? (yes I'm well aware of the irony)

>> No.2533693

>>2532483
Until you go to Hindu gatherings, you'll never fully understand Hinduism.

Until you go to Muslim gatherings, you'll never fully understand Islam.

Until you go to Christian gatherings, you'll never fully understand Christianity.

Blah blah blah. I don't see how being around a bunch of people of one faith as they stroke each others' spiritual cocks is relevant to understanding their faith.

>> No.2533691

>>2533488
>Christianity hates gays
No it's the closet homosexual Christians that do that. The rest just disagree with casual sex with men and women and animals and so on.
>It also hates contraception and sex for pleasure
Only for premarital sex and Catholics
>For it's all apparent love and understanding it thinks that atheists will burn in hell
Two explanations: hell and heaven exists for those who believe in it, the people who refuse to won't experience either, therefore living in perpetual hell.
Or
Christianity does not make you a good person, and although Christ is the only way to heaven, there's no reason for good people to not get in heaven. This explanation is messy because you then have to define good and separate what is of Christ and not.

If you actually cared to argue or find out more about Christianity you would've read actual books or talked to actual Christians about these issues, it's apparently you haven't.

>> No.2533701

>>2533693
It's not, it's relevant to understanding what they are talking about.
Faith does not come from bullshitting and interpreting a piece of literature, you won't understand it until you believe it.
But you can get a better perspective of the Bible by reading and discussing it with Christians.

>> No.2533706

>mfw my girlfriend told me she stopped fucking women and repented because it's a sin.

>mfw my girlfriend has a bible verse tattooed on her side despite the fact that tattoos are sins just like wearing cloths made of more than one type of cloth and fucking people on your same sex according to Leviticus.

>mfw my girlfriend was genuinely surprised when she found out I believe in evolution.

>mfw I'm dating a fat idiot of a woman because I was single since I was 15 and I couldn't stand being alone anymore.

>> No.2533707
File: 38 KB, 485x482, derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2533707

>people thinking that understanding is something that can be achieved
Seriously, guys, we've been through this how many times?

>> No.2533719
File: 34 KB, 299x288, jimmies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2533719

>>2533707
>derrida.jpg

>> No.2533722

>That feel when you went through 13 years of Roman Catholic school and you had to study the bible since 2nd grade and you couldn't give less of a fuck about that piece of shit.

I was an Atheist by the time I was 9 (even though I didn't know what an atheist was until high school). I was horrified when they had us read the book of Job in 6th grade.

>> No.2533727

>>2533722
>>That feel when you went through 13 years of Roman Catholic school and you had to study the bible since 2nd grade

I guess that qualifies you to be especially edgy in your atheism

>> No.2533746
File: 10 KB, 191x234, 1333437299351.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2533746

>>2532558

yfw this turned into an athiest troll thread

>> No.2533763

>>2533722
>thinking that decisions made by the age of 9 and predicated on your understanding of life at the time - combined your likely retarded teacher's biblical exegesis - will remain valid into your adult years
>not rereading and appreciating job from the perspective of wisdom literature
>not reassessing your guiding assumptions at different points in your life

what a jimmy rustler