/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4271255]

I put to you that Biblical Literalism has done more harm to Christianity than all its enemies combined.

[Anonymous No.4271259]

>>4271255

Okay how and with what measure?

[Anonymous No.4271283]

>>4271255
True nuff, but I would go one step further and say some bullshit like, "Well, it depends on how you look at it."

Seriously though, from a religious standpoint I think you're absolutely right. Literalism, viewing the Bible as historical fact, fundamentalism: these have all gone a pretty long way in hurting people and turning them off from Christianity (and by that same token other religions as well).

However, looked at from the point of view of those in power that very literalism which you decry has been a massive benefit. Need to keep the populace in control? Scare them into thinking that a fiery hell awaits them and unite the spiritual world with the physical. The fact is that political authority and power has always been reinforced by spiritual/religious authority and power. This is true even today, though you see it less and less, at least in the first-world or something.

But even then, the monarch of England rules both their country and church; the Pope is still a political leader, although vastly less so than in past centuries.

[Anonymous No.4271303]

Harm in what sense?

The concept of a literal word of God is much easier for Johnny Q. Heathen to understand. The massive amounts of historical, theological and philosophical knowledge needed to fully appreciate the reality of the Bible could have stunted Christianity's growth.

[Anonymous No.4271323]

>>4271255
>>4271283

I don't think the problem is literalism has caused as much harm as Biblical inerrancy. Which i think is what people are normally referring to when they speak on Biblical "fundamentalism" or "literalism."

I think we tend to place those last two terms on anything that is even slightly reactionary or on any interpretation that isn't to our liking. Historically, in every Abrahamic religion, there's always been an understanding that there's passages that are meant to be understood literally and passages in which there's a more cryptic, esoteric or poetic meaning. The idea that there's NO esoteric understanding or interpretation of the Bible, what you would call ABSOLUTE LITERALISM, is not a new idea, but it seems to have become a stronger current in the last century or so in every monotheistic religion, from Judaism to Christianity to Islam. We normally dub these reactionary movements, which have often been in response to the failure or even outright oppression of secular governments, "fundamentalist," regardless of whether they're views are even historical or actually traditional.

I think the concept of Biblical inerrancy has probably been more of the problem specifically than "literalism," because it presents the illusion that Bible is a collection of perfectly harmonious texts and perfectly historically accurate ones with no disagreements between each other and which are all one united perspective. Basically, i think the problem these last few centuries has been more of the idea that Bible sort of dropped out of heaven and isn't just a library of scattered religious texts that Jews and Christians compiled. Because of this, Christians are unlikely to say that something in the Bible that otherwise contradicts another part is actually contradictory and attempt to rationalize it, this rationalization in turn I think affects how they go about politics.

[FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I No.4271359]

I would argue that the existentialist safety net has increased particularly among first world societies hence this has damaged not only Christianity but other religions too.

[Anonymous No.4271365]

>>4271359
not that i'm trying to contradict you, but could you explain more fully what you mean?

[FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I No.4271402]

>>4271365
I call existentialist safety net to a group of factors that generate attachment to the "physical" world:

Better standard of living
Increased life expectancy
Social liberalism
Increased knowledge about reality (thing that were once called divine are fully or better understood in our days)
Increased individualism
etc...

Most of these are extremely prevalent on developed societies.

Ironically the only way that organized religions can fight this off is by weakening themselves aka: To partially accept these facts (see recent changes in the Catholic church)

[Anonymous No.4271425]

>>4271303
Except that the early church functioned in just that way and Christianity flourished. it wasn't until the peasants got a hold of The Book did a corrupt pope sit on the golden throne and the rest is history.

[Anonymous No.4271448]

>>4271402

That kind of goes with what I was saying here >>4271323

>We normally dub these reactionary movements, which have often been in response to the failure or even outright oppression of secular governments, "fundamentalist," regardless of whether they're views are even historical or actually traditional.

I think most religious fundamentalist movements have little that is religious, let alone fundamental, about them, but rather in many cases are reactionary movements to a conscious or unconscious perception that secular society, which draws quite a bit on existentialist ideals, particularly individualism, has either failed, abandoned or oppressed them. Fundamentalism is less about people "taking religion too seriously," in my opinion, and more an expression of the anger and resentment people have built up towards idealistic promises, worldviews and forms of government and social organization that they feel has brought them little true happiness for whatever reasons.

[Anonymous No.4271452]

>>4271255
thre problem is that the texts are not interpreted correctly, hence not literally.

Love thy neighbour oviously does not mean just the folks next door so it must mean society in large. This is something ignored by "fundamentalists" who are more preoccupied with forcing inane rules on others and not looking at their own behaviour .

[Anonymous No.4272244]

>>4271452

Sometimes I think the problem with Christianity as far as fundamentalism goes are some of the Jewish texts.

[Anonymous No.4272940]

/lit/

Recently, I've become interested in the bible. I have a King James copy and I've read excerpts from Genesis and Ecclesiastes that I really enjoy just for the extreme aestheticism of the work. So I'm thinking about trying to read the whole thing. How do you recommend going about reading the Bible as literature? Any secondary sources on this/ advice would be appreciated. I personally have no faith, but I still feel like I can get something out of it. I'm just not sure how yet.

[Anonymous No.4272957]

>>4272940
Just start reading it, and be prepared to plow some slow bits for the awesome stuff (Leviticus is a notorious example, but gives you good insight on the Jews and how they lived). I'm reading it too and made my way up to the New Testament Gospels so far, overall it's been really enjoyable and I'm glad I started.

[Anonymous No.4272969]

>>4272940
Check this out. I've been saving this for when I'm going to do it myself.

[Anonymous No.4273034]

>>4272969
Most modern bibbles have a year's reading plan in them which divides it up into smaller portions and and puts them in a more varied order so you don't have to wade through identical shit for a week.

[Anonymous No.4273038]

best version coming through.

[Anonymous No.4273057]

>>4272969

Reading the bible properly requires a hell of a lot more than reading it.

[Anonymous No.4273064]

>>4273057
Well one could argue that the process starts by reading it?

[Anonymous No.4273108]

>>4272940
>but I still feel like I can get something out of it
Your feelings betray you. It's a mishmash of Jewish folklore and outdated sermons on society and morality.

[Anonymous No.4273144]

>>4271255
Because it's not being read in the original Koine Greek.

[Anonymous No.4273151]

>>4272940
Read Josephus's Wars of the Jews and autobiography before, then read the New Testament inter-textually, prepare to be enlightened.

[Anonymous No.4273161]

>>4272940
becuz shakespeare wrote it

[Anonymous No.4273172]

>>4271255
Don't be ridiculous.
The enemies of Christianity, the Popperian "open society" anti-spiritualists, have effectively killed it off in many parts of the West.
Whereas Biblical Literalists have at worst made it more of a subject of mockery in parts of the west since visual media became a thing and carved out a few minor schisms.

[Anonymous No.4273184]

>>4273172
It was a mockery all along, the New Testament is a satire of Titus Flavius's campaign during the Jewish insurrection of the first century. The book is full of hilarious jokes, mocking jews and promoting anti-semitism.

[Anonymous No.4273191]

>>4273108
>outdated
historicism believer detected

[Anonymous No.4273205]

>>4271303
>fully appreciate the reality of the Bible

Honest question, why are there so many Christian Apologists on this board?

[Anonymous No.4273209]

>>4273205
Are there any?
Not immediately grabbing their fedoras when discussions of it pop up and asking actual questions doesn't mean they're engaging in apologia.

[Anonymous No.4273217]

Actually the worst religious criminals are not the ones with low IQ that believe in every single thing that the sacred texts contain, or the ones who cant understand metaphorical and symbolical thinking.

The worst religious criminals are the smart ones, the ones who realize that, using religion (using the need that the majority of people have to believe in something, to believe that their lives are not going to end in death and that they dead loved ones are not just emptiness), they can obtain money, power, respect and authority. These people are the worst, for they use the power of the many to fulfill they own egos, to obtain tehy own dreams and desires.

In the end religion is on its worst when some egotistical faggot use it to fulfill its ambition.

[Anonymous No.4273220]

>>4273217
Haven't you just described any big organisation?

[Anonymous No.4273272]

>>4273217
>they can obtain money, power, respect and authority.
Using religion to obtain 'money, power, respect and authority' is the dumbest idea ever.

There are a thousand more effective ways to achieve all four; you really have to be a total reject on the social ladder if your best attempt at getting rich is a religion.

[Anonymous No.4273333]

>>4273272
It worked pretty well for the Catholic Church for the better part of two millennia. And L. Ron Hubbard had a net worth of 600 million dollars.

[Anonymous No.4273340]

The idea that god exists and that his holy book should be taken as literal fact seem to go together. The idea that holy texts should be fudged, should be selectively interpreted, that the word of god should be treated as mere suggestion sounds practically heretical. Given, I'm incredibly thankful that most Christians are very inconsistent and that half of them haven't even read it. It's a very violent book that could very easily be used as the foundation for a completely miserable, impoverished, execution happy Theocracy that would slowly throw us back in the Dark Ages.

But it's still really awkward that people call themselves Christians and don't actually believe in the book that their belief structure spawned from.

[Anonymous No.4273368]

>>4273340
>heretical
I'll take "what is theology" for 500.

[Anonymous No.4273391]

no, dispensationalism has. congrats america, this is why we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous No.4273435]

Recommend me a book, where the author treats the world as an arena. Something akin to Might is Right is what I'm looking for.

[Anonymous No.4273437]

>>4273435
Are you familiar with Casparus Maximator Stirnerii?

[Anonymous No.4273443]

>>4273437
I'm embarrassed, because I meant to make a thread. However, this is what I'm looking for, anon.

[Anonymous No.4273446]

>>4273443
Glad to help.

[Anonymous No.4273451]

>>4273446
Could you repost?

>>4273449

I didn't get a chance to save your recommendation.

[Anonymous No.4273500]

>>4273064

No it begins by reading alongside scholarly and/or religious commentary.

[Anonymous No.4273522]

>>4273340

The belief structure spawned from the man Jesus Christ and his apostles. Much of the book was written by them (the epistles and apocalypse, not the gospels) with the expressed purpose of telling people how to be Christian in ways that aren't a part of the Gospels. The authority of the text comes from the people who wrote it and not from the words they wrote. They are said to have been divinely inspired. The same inspiration (of perhaps lesser type) is what inspires later Christian work. Hence revisions to Christian theology are sensible and consistent with what it means to be a Christian.

[Plato's ghost conducts the Ult(...) No.4274755]

>>4171425

You've never read the church fathers.

In my opinion, Christian Zionism has done the most harm to Christianity. The movement only started in the 19th century and yet its bizarre philosemitism, rejection of tradition and relationship with Talmudic Judaism have ravaged western Christianity. Catholicism and mainline Protestantism are getting a real beat down in America and Latin America.

[Anonymous No.4274765]

>>4271255
Agreed

[Plato's ghost conducts the Ult(...) No.4274769]

>>4271255

I would say that modern conception of what democracy means has birthed Biblical literalism in its most virulent form.

Have you ever heard those evangelical pastors say, "The Bible is a plain book written for plain folks," whenever they are pressed on the validity of their poor exegesis? It's lewd and insulting, but that's democracy as we know it at work. Many of these guys don't know a single church father and they possess no conception of Church tradition.

Indeed, I find the modern world to be genuinely depressing,

[Anonymous No.4274790]

>>4271425
Wasn't the first corrupt pope from way back in the Crusades?

[Anonymous No.4274799]

>>4271255
how are you supposed to not take it literally when it asks you to apply the concepts as if the book were your own abstract spiritual manifesto

[Anonymous No.4274807]

Well, no shit. You just have to look at the protestant schism to prove that.