/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3830070]

Can we still take religious books seriously?

It seems like they are being watered down by western values and are being more and more metaphorical.

[Anonymous No.3830211]

Yeah all that science and progress is watering the fuck out of those wonderful books out of the ancient and medieval desert.

[Anonymous No.3830259]

>watered down by western values
Really? You're letting literature be watered down by other's perceptions of it? Read it for your own sake, in its own cultural context. Don't be an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3830288]

>>3830259
>Don't be an idiot.

How?

[Anonymous No.3830344]

You can take any book seriously if you're smart enough to read it radically.

[Anonymous No.3830350]

>>3830211
>medieval desert
Not just the desert! The Medieval Desert!

[Anonymous No.3830357]

Read it however the fuck you want. Reading is a creative endeavor.

[Anonymous No.3830608]

I went to a Catholic high school and the only religious book we read (aside from textbooks for the theology class where we didn't discuss anything about God and had inept propagandists try to drill Catholic doctrine about abstinence into our skulls) was called The Shack.
What a fucking awful book. Poorly written, internally confused in terms of theology, terrible in every way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shack
Never read this book.
>>3830288
Look at it on its own terms. Ignore the things you've heard people say about it. People I know tend to overlook any significance the Bible may have because 'HURR MUH DAWKINS' or 'Religion serves no purpose when we have science to explain the universe,' but there is a lot of culturally significant stuff in it, and it's also one of the greatest pieces of literature of all time.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3830668]

>>3830608
I think my mom read that book, would you not consider it a modern Pilgrim's Progress, then?
I was actually considering reading it tho so that's good to know

[Anonymous No.3830828]

>>3830608
akshuali a lot of atheists are former christians who read the bible and they (like hurr durr Dawkins) encourage people to read the bible because of its impact on history and culture. don't use the zombie settings though. you can read the Bible or any other hole-y text from a non-devotional perspective and still take it "seriously".

[Anonymous No.3830836]

>>3830070
>Can we still take religious books seriously?
No sane person ever took them seriously. Not now, not back int he days, not ever.

[Anonymous No.3830841]

>>3830828
WOW REALLY I DID NOT KNOW THAT SOME ATHEISTS WERE FORMER CHRISTIANS THANKS FOR THE "WAKE UP CALL"! CHANGED MY LIFE BRB DAWKINS.

[Anonymous No.3830862]

>>3830070
>watered down by western values

western values are founded upon the religious books you retard.

[Anonymous No.3830874]

>>3830862

>western values are founded upon the religious books you retard
For instance: misogyny.

[Anonymous No.3830895]

>>3830874
>the most important (normal) person of all time was a woman, Mary
>hurr the bible is misogynistic

[Anonymous No.3830907]

>>3830070
That's an ignorant comic panel, it doesn't understand the dual nature of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.3830908]

>>3830895

Here is clearly a moron who hasn't read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.3830929]

>>3830070
Of course. Pro-tip: Sola scriptura, Young-Earth Creationism and other "literal" readings of scriptures are mere latter, social-political reactionary movements disguised as orthodoxy. Thousands of years ago people knew Genesis' stories were myths, but today's uneducated Americans think they actually happened the way they were described.

[Anonymous No.3830934]

>>3830841

I'm so sorry your /lit/ penis was inaccurate and had to be corrected by another /lit/ penis.

[Anonymous No.3830972]

>>3830908
Here is clearly a moron that doesn't understand that European society was sexist long before the Bible was available to the European masses.

[Anonymous No.3831109]

>>3830972

Is this supposed to be a legit rebuttal to "the Bible is misogynist"?

[Anonymous No.3831129]

>>3830907
So what? We're sorry that every comic panel in the world isn't tailor made to conform to the mental gymnastics that have been created and accepted as canon to reconcile the text of the Bible with modern day theology.

[Anonymous No.3831144]

Watered down? As in changed? No, it's the same text.
And I'm not being overly reductionist. We can't answer your question without some elaboration. In what way are western values making the bible more metaphorical? The text remains the same. I think you mean the context, in which it is received. But in that case the question becomes a bit circular, as in the changing context is changing the context in which it's received. Can you give us some examples?

[Metatron !dBkgKirino No.3831162]

Has anyone ITT read Joseph and His Brothers by Thomas Mann?

[Anonymous No.3831668]

Picrelated, Jesuit Physics professor, Vatican told him to shut up.
He proved that information processing capability at the event horizon of a black hole tends to infinity, which means old smokey should be there in person. Funny guy, I would kill him last.

[Anonymous No.3831743]

>>3831109
Why do you think Christianity spread most quickly among slaves and women? If it's something like "they were just easily mislead i dont have to think about conditions" I swear I'll slap you through the internet

>>3831129
>modern day theology
the dual nature of Jesus is one of the oldest doctrines of the church you dumbass
what is it about the Bible that makes every moron think their opinion is worth something?

[Anonymous No.3832272]

>>3831743
I don't know, why DO you think your opinion is worth something.

Take your fucking theology and fuck off to /x you colossal summerfag, I don't know why every time the weather gets warm we have to endure a shit ton of threads about the only book you cunts want to think is important, but you can take your holier than thou attitude to some board who'll give a shit

[Anonymous No.3833611]

>>3830070
>more metaphorical.

Well thats the way they should be taken, but i dont think you know what that means...

A clue: you seem to be taking the expression "take seriously" as if it meant the same as "take literally". Check that distinction.

[Anonymous No.3833684]

>>3832272
>saging a response hours after the responder posted
embarrassing
are you this frightened of people challenging your onions in real life too?
who did you think would even read it?
I'm very fascinated by this now and I regret that you might not respond again, or at least that I have no assurance that it's you; you would make a fascinating case study.

I think the fact that "we have to endure a shit ton of threads" would imply that the board does indeed "give a shit," but I'm really much more interested in your butthurt here.

>>3833611
this is a shit thread and you shouldn't have bumped it, but I'm glad you did

[Anonymous No.3833698]

>>3832272
Not him, but please calm down.
Also stop with the >>>/x/ referencing. If you ever want your argument or opinion to be taken seriously don't be so short to completely dismiss an argument and use a board as rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.3833705]

>>3830608
I can second this. The Shack is fucking terrible.

[Anonymous No.3833706]

>>3830668
It's a modern Pilgrim's Progress in that it deals with the same themes. That's as far as comparisons go though as The Shack is nowhere near as good a work of literature.

[Anonymous No.3833716]

They were always metaphorical. Only moderns are disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt enough to think / assume the writers of the books (in majority) were fucking there.

[Anonymous No.3833718]

>>3832272
>tells someone to take theology to /x/
>accuses other of being a summerfag

Newfriends pretending to be oldfriends is just so sad.

[Anonymous No.3833726]

>>3833716
Is Jesus a metaphor?

[Anonymous No.3833743]

>>3833726
he's more like a simile

[Anonymous No.3833746]

>>3833743
How so? Did the dude exist or didn't he?

[Anonymous No.3833756]

>>3833746
Of course he did. What does that have to do with him being a metaphor?

[Anonymous No.3833757]

>>3833746
omg, stop being so literal.

the bible both is and isn't the word of god, it's true and untrue. in other words, only the nice parts matter, and everything bad that god said is untrue because fuck you literalist redneck scumshit. remember, don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you--that's all that matters

[Anonymous No.3833766]

>>3833757
"Everything bad God said" is irrelevant because it was written by war waging sand-dwellers thousands of years ago. That doesn't mean they didn't also have access to profound spiritual truths just as much as any other culture. Do you even fucking Campbell?

[Anonymous No.3833774]

>>3833766

What sort of 'profound spiritual truths" did Christiantiy reveal that weren't already know?

And what the flying fuck are "spiritual truths" anyway?

[Anonymous No.3833784]

>>3833774
> what are spiritual truths?

homos are evil don't ya kno

[Anonymous No.3833823]

>>3833766
well too fucking bad for you, because in that case it's not the word of god, which, as you ought to know, the bible purports to be. If the book would be read as, say, Homer's Odissey or the Gilgamesh, then we wouldn't have a problem; but alas there are people who think this is the word of god, and their action are far from being irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.3833841]

>>3833774
what exactly did we already know?

>>3833823
Please don't misuse semicolons like that.
Anyway, people still think the white race is superior and should eliminate all others but that doesn't mean we should eliminate all whites, should we?

[Anonymous No.3833850]

>>3833823
>>3833841
o, wait
>Odissey
I hope you're trolling and that your point is that these books were taken to be... if not the word of God, the word of gods, or certainly a truth about the gods

>>3833757
It upsets me when people act as though it's only the Bible that we "pick the good parts" out of, as if liking T.S. Eliot 'sincerely' means you have to be an antisemite. Not that most people who bash literature in this fashion are very well read, at any rate

[Anonymous No.3833854]

>>3831144
Genesis is way way more metaphor allegory than it ever was. Hell is seperation from god instead of people being burned alive

[Anonymous No.3833867]

>>3833850
>It upsets me when people act as though it's only the Bible that we "pick the good parts" out of, as if liking T.S. Eliot 'sincerely' means you have to be an antisemite. Not that most people who bash literature in this fashion are very well read, at any rate
People don't treat the works of T.S. Eliot as the word of a supernatural being or advice on how to live.

[Anonymous No.3833872]

>>3833854
At the very least, the "7 days" part in Genesis has been interpreted metaphorically or as eras for far longer than you imagine, ask a Jew.

I don't know why you think that there's any collective consensus on Hell, at any rate; plenty of people still think it's Dantean and plenty of people have thought for a long time that it's separation from God. You can look at the story of Lazarus for support on both arguments, honestly.

[Anonymous No.3833880]

>>3833867
So? You probably don't think that people follow the advice of the Bible anyway ("bad" Christians and all that), and you can't seriously be telling me that literature doesn't influence the way people live. You're addressing structural issues of the Church commanding certain parts of the Bible to be followed in certain ways rather than addressing the text itself. If you have problems with Christians, you have problems with Christians, but that doesn't change the fact that you're mystifying the text rather than engaging with it.

[Anonymous No.3833916]

>>3833880
As a set of rules (or examples/metaphors) to live by, it's pretty poor.
As a written work it's pretty poor.

[Anonymous No.3833990]

>>3833916
>as a written work it's pretty poor
Oh really?

>A shared joy is a doubled joy. A shared sorrow is half a sorrow
>Love covers a multitude of sins
>Grief often treads upon the heels of pleasure
>Actions speak louder than words
>Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden; it is forbidden because it is hurtful
along with "rise and shine," "see eye to eye," "eat, drink, and be merry," "safe and sound," and "by the skin of your teeth"

I hope you don't use any of these rubbish phrases in day to day conversation, LOL

[Anonymous No.3834053]

>>3833990
What fatuous nonsense. This is a perfect example of cherry-picking, leaving out the commandments to slaughter homosexuals; the condonations of slavery, genocide and rape; Jesus telling us to take no though for the morrow, introducing the idea of Hell. The Bible is a work of massive contradictions, and purports to be the word of God. Now, either it is, in which case we should be following God's commands; or it isn't, in which case it should be relegated to the same position held by other ancient epics.

[Anonymous No.3834080]

>are being more and more metaphorical.

Sounds like some ignorant person hasn't heard of the 4 levels of interpretation.

[Anonymous No.3834143]

>>3834053
Now look who's doing the cherry-picking

[Anonymous No.3834228]

>>3834143
I was merely balancing yours. Again, if this is the word of God, then those parts, repugnant though they may be, are just as important. It's only when the Bible is accepted as just a myth that we can start extricating the morally sound parts from the reprehensible ones.

[Anonymous No.3834307]

>>3834228
Precisely, the bible is merely a shotgun attempt at morality, if you preach enough, some of what you say might make sense to someone. War of the Worlds is more consistent in its moral messages.

[Anonymous No.3834322]

>>3834307
Yes, but there aren't millions of people in the world who think of The War of the Worlds as nonfiction.

[Anonymous No.3834345]

>>3834322
Which is a shame because then we'd be ready when the Martians arrive.

[Anonymous No.3834457]

>Taking fantasy seriously.

Chill.

[Anonymous No.3834471]

>>3830828
And there are also atheists who became atheists because they read the Bible and thought what the fuck is this shit as children and only grew more angry as they grew up (Penn Jillette, Ricky Gervais, etc.). In fact, I personally don't think I could ever accept The Bible as serious literature because I read it in the context of a kid whose parents were highly religious and I wasn't afraid to ask questions and realized very early on the whole religion is based on numerous contradictions. Ironically, religious people tend to know very little about The Bible but when I was younger I always enjoyed debating with those that had at least read it.

[Anonymous No.3834482]

>reading about Jesuits
These guys are so chill, was even debating becoming one

[Anonymous No.3834488]

A lot of our western values come from the Bible. And the Bible is not limited to just Jesus or the stories of Abraham. There are some pretty good books in there, like Ecclesiastes or Proverbs or Song of Solomon.

[Anonymous No.3834492]

>>3834471
Then you're a moron. The Bible isn't just one book.

[Anonymous No.3834509]

>>3834053
lololol half those quotations weren't even from the Bible
>Ironically, religious people tend to know very little about The Bible but when I was younger I always enjoyed debating with those that had at least read it.
it was a clever ruse and illustrative example of how unfamiliar atheists are with the work

but since your point still stands about violence in the Bible, I think this is a generation that is "reduced to eating cheese," as Bataille writes, and likes to pretend it doesn't implicitly support slavery genocide etc or have its own problems, which the violence of the Israelites offers a lens into. There are plenty of Jewish interpretations about the failings of human judgment in applying violence, in any event. It's as if people want a Book of Life that doesn't at all conform to the realities of life, although many atheists now fall into the trap of thinking religion is the reason why there's violence in the world at all (which of course leads to the implicit/accidental violence, cf Hitch's "Islamofascism" being a reason to slaughter Muslims)

Also, where does it say "slaughter homosexuals" in the Bible? I don't even understand why "take no thought for the morrow" is saying more than to live in the present unless you give an incredibly uncharitable interpretation, and it comes after the very beautiful "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin." You seem to have a poor understanding of the difference between something being in the Bible and something being a command from God as well.

[Anonymous No.3834511]

>>3834492
>a few good chapters =/= good book
All the good stuff is not what the religion is based on.

[Anonymous No.3834516]

>>3834511
What is it based off of?

[Anonymous No.3834524]

Religion is based of holy stupidity.

[Anonymous No.3834531]

Thinking for yourself is unholy, unless you're figuring out your tithe.

[Anonymous No.3834552]

>>3834531
Find in the Bible where it says you can not think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.3834563]

If the Bible tells me I can think for myself, I will. Until then I won't. Just in case...

I don't want to get in trouble for criticizing the Pope...

[Anonymous No.3834567]

>>3834516
Well, admittedly there is a little flaw in that the Old Testament is actually applicable to Judaism and not really relevant to the teachings of Christianity yet still packaged with their Bible. I know most people who like to point out flaws in religion just go straight to the Old Testament but the New was meant to fulfill and circumvent the Old. So that aside, the religion is based on the notion that this god who regretted the species he had created decided to send his emissary down in the form of a Jew and let everyone know this always-constant god had changed his message to that of love and peace and if you wanted to spend your afterlife eternally praising him, all you have to do is start singing his praises here on earth. Oh, and if you don't like that angle, you're going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity just because you were created to think differently then your peers. Also, there's demons that ruin people's lives but they can't hurt you if you accept god but if you don't accept him, you're fucked because even the eternal wellspring of love has its limits.

The one thing I will give Christianity is that Bibilically you merely taught to convert people and it has been twisted through millenia into what we have now (Christians trying to be the oppressors when they are meant to be the oppressed), whereas the more popular religion dictates violence to its unbelievers.

[Anonymous No.3834571]

>>3834509
You can't even get Hitchens' notion of Islamofascism right. What are you trying to say, that it's not okay to kill those who try to institute theocracies and who are violent against others? Or are you under the delusion that Hitchens was propagating for the slaughter of all muslims?

What you're basically saying is that it's okay to commit violent extravagances as long as you justify it with the Quran or the Bible, because we'd be bombing abortion clinics, practicing genital mutilation, etc. anyway?

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:13

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10

And, from the meek Nazarene himself:
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. - Matthew 18:7-9

A religious person can be good only insofar as he/she ignores the word of God.

[Anonymous No.3834586]

>mfw you always hear Christians preaching to you that they would be horrible sinners if it wasn't for God and describe all the terrible things they'd do and you take comfort knowing you don't need the fear of a supernatural being to avoid going on a killing spree

[Anonymous No.3834597]

Religion is for slightly self-aware people, knowing they would do horrible things if they didn't submit to greater control.

[Anonymous No.3834622]

>>3834571
OK, first of all with the "gouge the eye" there are other clear statements about how the hand can't be hateful to the foot so you'll run into some contradictions if you want to be an idiot and take it absolutely literally. The Leviticus passages are so refuted from a Christian perspective that I don't even feel the need to address them fully.

What I'm saying about Hitch is that his bullshit allowed the justification of the actual slaughter of Muslims
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=13097
if you're 100% in favor of the war in Iraq I guess I can't really argue with you.

>>3834531
>>3834563
I'd rather someone is ignorantly charitable than a selfish autist who criticizes religion to play the intellectual

[Anonymous No.3834625]

>>3834597
thisguygetsit.jpg

[Anonymous No.3834642]

Wanting people to be ignorant is evil. That's religion, for ya.

[Anonymous No.3834676]

>>3834552
Most of the Ten Commandments

[Anonymous No.3834683]

>>3834676
>implying 3/10 = most
Try again.

[Anonymous No.3834690]

The Ten Commandments are the most important thoughts you'll ever need!

[Anonymous No.3834698]

>>3834622
You forgot to mention that it was Jesus who introduced the concept of Hell, clearly not a very irenic idea. And the more 'peaceful' parts of the Bible, as uttered by Jesus, are even suspect. Turn the other cheek, love thy enemies, etc. Pacifism is a stupid idea, especially if lives other than your own are on the line.

And thanks for not providing any actual refutation of the vicious decrees of Yahweh of the Old Testament. Again, either this is the word of God, which it purports to be, or it isn't. If it isn't, only then is cherry-picking allowed.

Most of the killings committed in Iraq were and still are done by radical muslims. Just because the bombing of Dresden presents moral difficulties doesn't justify the actions of Hitler; similarly, war is always sanguinary, and if Saddam were still in power the situation would be much worse. Iraq now has a democratically elected president who's a Kurd to boot, one of the most important minorities in the area.

[Anonymous No.3834700]

>>3834676
the book of Job also.

[Anonymous No.3834712]

>>3834700
>implying it isn't a classic
Might be my favorite chapter.

[Anonymous No.3834724]

>>3834712
Because God acts like a paranoid schizophrenic autist?

[Anonymous No.3834735]

>>3834724
But God is always good! He only buggered Job to make a benevolent point.

[Anonymous No.3834740]

>>3834724
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm guessing you don't like fantasy though, Job would make a great piece in a fantasy anthology.

[Anonymous No.3834749]

Badly edited, poor continuity and internal consistency. Authors seem to change between books. Plot is cliched and thin, with virtually no character development save for Judas Iscariot. The main characters of Jesus and Moses are entirely one dimensional messianic figures. The novel opens with Adam and Eve, and then ignores them for the next thousand pages or so. The built-in bookmark was a nice touch, but a little pretentious.

Oddly, it wasn't shelved with the other fiction books.

[Anonymous No.3834754]

>>3834735
>always good
>fucked up someone's life to make a point to the embodiment of evil

[Anonymous No.3834756]

>>3834749
Then explain how it's the most popular book of all time.

[Anonymous No.3834759]

>>3834749
>Oddly, it wasn't shelved with the other fiction books.
Historical fiction to be precise. At least it uses the pretense of a historical context.

[Anonymous No.3834761]

>>3834756
>hurr durr, I know nothing about literature
It was the first book ever printed you fucking dipshit and was the most popular book back before anyone could read if that doesn't explain to you why it's popular now, you're beyond hope.

[Anonymous No.3834765]

Job summary:

Life isn't fair.

It's a good warning for idealistic youth who think, "We could all make life fair if we just decided to!"

[Anonymous No.3834771]

Popular =/= Good

rite?

Then Baywatch, Jerry Springer, Fox News, etc... are ... good?

[Anonymous No.3834864]

>>3834698
Good heavens, fine, I can throw you "I came here not to loosen (destroy) the laws but to fulfill them"
Jesus fulfills the OT requirements through purifying the world through crucifixion
if you were familiar with the Bible you should know Galatians, tho I'm sure Paul was "cherry-picking" as well

Jesus didn't preach impotent pacifism; read his flipping over the money changers' tables in the temple
Loving your enemies doesn't mean you don't do anything to them when you can stop them, but it probably means you shouldn't drone strike their children.

Vice is hipster garbage but here's how well our actions have been going in Afghanistan
heads of police forces raping children and so on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKHPTHx0ScQ
yikes, and they say the Bible promotes ignorance

[Anonymous No.3834932]

>>3834864
Flipping tables is literally the highest violence a christian should do...that and holding a whip and yelling at ppl in temples.

War and even self defense are anti Christ.

[Anonymous No.3834936]

The only violence religious people consider worthy is genocide.

[Anonymous No.3834990]

>>3834749
It's 2013. Step your troll game up.

[Anonymous No.3835005]

>>3834936
>secularists
>not responsible for the most horrific genocides in history

[Anonymous No.3835022]

Religionists childishly point elsewhere and say, "See, they do it too!"

[Anonymous No.3835151]

>>3834932
lol, try Constantine boiling his wife alive and so on.
early Christians were cooler than you'll ever be, deal w/ it

[Anonymous No.3835153]

>>3835151
constantine didn't convert till his deathbed tho

[Anonymous No.3835154]

Thinking Christians are cool?

Ho boy.

[Anonymous No.3835155]

>>3835005
> implying roman catholic conquest of the americas wasn't the most horrific genocide in history

[Anonymous No.3835159]

Proper perspective isn't necessary for the religionist, when they can fall back on, defer to "authority."

[Anonymous No.3835168]

Religion is inherently metaphorical.
Taking stories about some old wizard guy in the clouds literally is pretty stupid,
but that doesn't mean the stories are stupid and you can't learn from them.

[Anonymous No.3835178]

>>3835155
>implying the roman suppression of catholics wasn't the most horrific genocide in history

[Anonymous No.3835181]

Just because the stories are stupid doesn't mean you can't gain insight from them.

[Anonymous No.3835202]

>>3835181
They aren't really stupid.
They just lost relevance over time.

[Anonymous No.3835204]

>>3835153
yea but do you think the edgy atheists ITT know that?
flying into heaven on an eagle is cool and heathen as fuck tho

>>3835154
stylites sat on pole for most of their life, sounds like something you'd enjoy

the guy posting bad one-liners about Christianity is really amusing in a Fremdscham sort of way; I hope he continues

[Anonymous No.3835206]

Dated and stupid are slight variations of similar qualities.

[Anonymous No.3835209]

Why do religionists get stuck on buttsex.

Objectively, this is rather silly.

[Anonymous No.3835214]

>>3835204
>Fremdscham
Fremdschämen means that you feel vicariously embarassed for somebeody.
It's not amusing at all.

[Anonymous No.3835220]

Self-aggrandizement is the hallmark of the religionist.

When the atheists try it, it's looked down upon, though.

[Anonymous No.3835243]

He's feeling Fremdschämen in a gay sort of way, thus the vicarious excitement.

[Anonymous No.3835250]

>>3835214
yea but embarrassment is a response to incongruity in rather the same way humor is, and I certainly feel embarrassed for this person

[Anonymous No.3835253]

Fremdschämen is your fetish.

[Anonymous No.3835498]

That comic panel is hilarious. Once you read it it becomes obvious, but really why didn't God create Jesus like a new Adam? Adam was fully human and he came from mud.

Even John yells at the jews saying "if God wanted to he could create another son of Abraham from these rocks!"

[Anonymous No.3835503]

God lost his virginity with Mary

[Anonymous No.3835551]

The Bible has some of the most beautiful and powerful writing I've come across, and it has inspired even more.

Of course, there is also some stuff in there that makes you scratch your head.

As with anything, you should use your brain when you read it. If something doesn't make sense to you then question it or disagree with it, but don't act as if every part of the whole is invalidated.

[Anonymous No.3835559]

>>3834712
I didn't say it wasn't a classic but it is what it is. It's my favorite book of the OT I think.

[Anonymous No.3836068]

>>3835551
>The Bible has some of the most beautiful and powerful writing I've come across, and it has inspired even more.

You read the original text?

[Anonymous No.3836091]

>>3836068
Hes one of those guys who needs to make a point about being able to read between the lines about a book as stigmatized as the bible. Really its just another dude who like the idea of being seen as one of those open minded individuals who read the bible and sees it as having been written beautifully. Its the very definition of hipster.

Stop pretending youve read the bible because you think your open mindedness despite your lack of religion makes you look smart.

[Anonymous No.3836137]

>western values

You mean christian values, OP?

Also, the new testament is more inportant than the old testament.
Cherry-picking is justified since Jesus himself did it.

[Anonymous No.3836152]

I don't like Jesus' "love everyone, love your enemy" morality.

he says if someone hurts you, you can't hurt them back.
It used to be "eye for an eye, foot for a foot, blood for blood" but no longer, now it is "if someone strikes you let them strike you again".

it used to be if someone stole from you, you fight them or take them to court...Jesus suggests you give the thief more, if "they steal your shirt, give them your coat as well"...give your enemies goods, do not resist evil.

I don't like his "you have to hate your life to be my disciple" or "you have to hate your family and friends to follow me"
No. And I don't buy the silly idea that he meant "no just love me more than your family and your life, you can love them still..." no, he said hate, and in the context it makes sense for him to say it. Since one can not have 2 masters and everything of this world is nothing to value, since everything rusts and dies and so forth...."keep your treasures in heaven, not on earth"

I don't like his idea that simple sexual desire is a sin in itself..."if you simply lust after a woman you have already sinned" --- Thought Police go away.

Some of Jesus is coherent though, but not all. Don't even bother with Paul, he needed a good woman to straighten him out.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3836153]

>>3836091
I've read the New Testament in the original Greek—at least as far as my ability to read Greek allows—and yes, it is as beautiful as anon says, or as beautiful as anything I've read in Greek. From the plain speech of the Gospels to the rhetoric of the epistles, there isn't a single iota I haven't found satisfying. I'm sure Job would be better if I knew Hebrew, but certainly the more I learn—even little things, like the recurrence of "tohu-va-bohu" in the void of Genesis and the destruction of the Israelites in Jeremiah—the more beautiful it seems. Does this make me look smart? Does this fulfill your little sperg fantasy about being an intellectual? Should I be as much as a pathetic elitist as you are, criticizing those who only have a mediated access to its beauty? Turn around and call me a hipster, please.

Stop pretending you've read the Bible because you think your baseless criticism and lack of religion makes you look smart. Stop pretending.

ίθι εἰς ᾅδην

[Anonymous No.3836187]

>>3836091