How to not see through the Bible

[stamenflicker]

I mentioned several months ago a book by Miles called "Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God." Miles has an appendix entitled how to not see through the Bible that I found quite interesting. I'll try a summary, though this post will hardly do it justice.

First, Miles is comfortable with the term "myth" with regards to the NT and equally critical of those who on the one hand spin their wheels trying to make it a historical record and on the other, critical of those who want to dispense with the work for a lack of historicity.

Noting that,

"A work of literary art is like a stained-glass window: It exists essentially not to be seen through, but to be looked at.... There was a historical Hamlet, but Shakespeare criticism spends little time talking about him, nor does it compensate for the inadequacy of information about him by attempting a historical reconstruction of the Demark of his day.

Noting the trend since the Reformation to try and legitimize Christianity through textual criticism, one is left with a modern critical theory that seeks only to "de-auhtorize the authorizers." Regardless of the historicity of Jesus, the NT documents are historical documents. They paint a picture of the early Church and its desires, and a bedrock foundation of early Christian thought. He asks the question,

"What if another man thinks that a faith that confesses its origins in Peter and Paul as well as in Jesus is superior to one that would admit no source but Jesus? What reply can be made to such a man?"

To the premodern mind, the opposite of truth was not fiction, but falsehood: deception, fraud, the deliberate lie. The only meaningful external question about scripture then was whether or not it was an elaborate hoax. Once that question was settled in scripture's favor (and it was, of course, a question that after the first few Christian centuries scarcely arose), the mind was free to explore the bible from within as if it were a wondrous garden whose paths and glades and ponds and frottoes all intersected in enlessly surprising and delightful ways.

He goes on to criticize modern Christian historical method as one of idolatry, as the work of art itself assumes an elevation above its subject matter. This is no-where more evident than attempts to "fix" paradoxes and contradictions in scripture. Much of the bible is intentionally written in such a way as to require interpretation-- from the Creation to the parable of Jesus the work invites a reader to look at it, not through it. To the pre-modern mind, this was not only intentional, it was for the most part, all that truly mattered.

What attracts viewers, believing or unbelieving, to the great rose window of the Bible is neither what can be seen through it nor how the glass for it was stained and assembled, but what the window looks like in and for itself and what all those jagged fragments of light and color, working together, make happen behind the eye of the beholder.

The dismissal of the work is no less insulting than the dismissal of other literary works, all of which paint illuminating pictures of the human experience-- it's psyche, social constructions, and inherent value structures.

Flick

[evildave]

Yes, how DARE people claim that Star Wars is not a great literary work!

Some of it may not be literally true, but its pages have a lot to say about the human experience!

Basically, we agree that the bible is just a book. There are hundreds of thousands of other books at the library, should certain people wish to avail themselves of them.

[c4ts]

Yup. As a piece of literature the Bible's a darn good read. As anything else... it's crap.

[fidiot]

Originally posted by c4ts
Yup. As a piece of literature the Bible's a darn good read.

Personally, I don't think so. There have been tons of better literature written since the bible, I find it to be below average in the "piece of literature" sense.

[stamenflicker]

Yup. As a piece of literature the Bible's a darn good read. As anything else... it's crap.

Only gile and ignorance could make such a statement. Literature has been the way human beings have evaluated themselves and their situations for generations, and it will be for generations to come. The inability and unwillingness to grasp the artistic truth of religious literary art is what Wittgenstein called a "meaningless life."

Flick

[c4ts]

Originally posted by fidiot


Personally, I don't think so. There have been tons of better literature written since the bible, I find it to be below average in the "piece of literature" sense.

I know it's only a footnote to Plato, but below average? What's "average," the frikkin' Illiad?

[ImpyTimpy]

So what exactly are you saying? He's saying as a literary piece the bible is good but as anything else it is crap... You seem to be agreeing with him yet go forth on an insult rampage in the same breath?

Also saying human beings used literature to evaluate themselves for centuries sounds fairly false to me, considering large patches of population were in fact illiterate.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Yup. As a piece of literature the Bible's a darn good read. As anything else... it's crap.

Only gile and ignorance could make such a statement. Literature has been the way human beings have evaluated themselves and their situations for generations, and it will be for generations to come. The inability and unwillingness to grasp the artistic truth of religious literary art is what Wittgenstein called a "meaningless life."

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Also saying human beings used literature to evaluate themselves for centuries sounds fairly false to me, considering large patches of population were in fact illiterate.

Being illiterate has nothing to do with it. My two year old can't read a lick, but he loves a good story. Drama was by and large played out for the masses of non-readers. Oral tradition conveyed stories of old.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Personally, I don't think so. There have been tons of better literature written since the bible, I find it to be below average in the "piece of literature" sense.

I completely disagree. After all we don't have the church of Hamlet or Owen Meany or the church of the Leaves of Grass. The fact that the bible conveys more meaning than any of these works leaves us to the solid reality of a billion people admiring the stained glass.

Flick

[c4ts]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
So what exactly are you saying? He's saying as a literary piece the bible is good but as anything else it is crap... You seem to be agreeing with him yet go forth on an insult rampage in the same breath?

Also saying human beings used literature to evaluate themselves for centuries sounds fairly false to me, considering large patches of population were in fact illiterate.



Literature... good. Sex, violence, and some philosophy! It has some fascinating characters, too, like Abraham, God, and Judas. Couldn't stomach the King James Version, though. I found it too flowery, and there was quite a lot of writing on the parts that involved seed spilling.

What else is the bible besides literature?

Scientific account... crap. Look at Creationism.

Archaeological record... crap. Look at Creationsim.

Set of rules by which one should live one's life... crap. Notice how you get people justifying immoral acts with bible quotes taken out of context.

Self-help book... crap. There is no actual advice for disorganized people, nothing too helpful on the subject of time-management, (etc)... you'd have to take a quote out of context and pretend it means something else.

Anti-evil device... crap. It doesn't even keep goths from entering my side of the dorm room.

Prediction book... crap. What has the bible predicted that we didn't already know once we discovered the prediction?

Anti-lying device... crap. Look at the OJ trial.

U.F.O. record... crap. Look at New Age.

Projectile... crap. The spine opens in midair, creating wind resistance and pulling it away from its trajectory.

Doorstop... crap. There's just not enough friction between its cover and the floor, and it's too thick to wedge beneath the door.

Toilet paper... crap. The paper falls apart and sticks to your anus, yet manages to clog the toilet easily.

Hockey puck... crap. It's too heavy, causes too much friction, and sometimes the spine will open which can screw up your aim.

Boat to salvation... crap. I can't even fit in it!

[Yahzi]

Yup. As a piece of literature the Bible's a darn good read.

Ummm... nope. Page after page of "begats" is a terrible literay device.

It just sucks all the way around. I can't think of a single redeeming virtue.

Seriously. Not one.

The only truly good thing in the whole series is in the Torah, not the Bible. Asked to explain Judeaism while standing on one foot, Rabbi (sorry forgot his name) said: "The only law is, what you find hateful, do not do to others. All the rest is commentary."

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahzi


Ummm... nope. Page after page of "begats" is a terrible literay device.

It just sucks all the way around. I can't think of a single redeeming virtue.

Seriously. Not one.

The only truly good thing in the whole series is in the Torah, not the Bible. Asked to explain Judeaism while standing on one foot, Rabbi (sorry forgot his name) said: "The only law is, what you find hateful, do not do to others. All the rest is commentary."

Skip the KJV. I'm serious. And if the begetting thing gets to be a nuisance, skip it to. There are some really interesting parts afterwards involving talking donkeys and such. But if you want to call the first half "Torah" and the second half "Bible," sure, then the Torah is a good read and the rest is a big mystic footnote to Plato with a Hollywood ending.

[ImpyTimpy]

Way to jumble up your own points :)

So you in fact agree that literature had nothing to do with self evaluation of humans? Considering stories retold by others were altered over and over again usually including the author's own interpretations - they offer very little help in self evaluation...

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Also saying human beings used literature to evaluate themselves for centuries sounds fairly false to me, considering large patches of population were in fact illiterate.

Being illiterate has nothing to do with it. My two year old can't read a lick, but he loves a good story. Drama was by and large played out for the masses of non-readers. Oral tradition conveyed stories of old.

Flick

[Yahzi]

c4ts
The Torah isn't part of the Bible, it's part of the Penteuch - a series of five books, one of which is the Old Testament. (I think I've got that right)

There was another Rabbi who was asked the same question, and he gave a diametricly opposed answer - he said you could study the Torah for 50 years and still not understand it.

But I've never actually read the Torah, just a few excerpts.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahzi
c4ts
The Torah isn't part of the Bible, it's part of the Penteuch - a series of five books, one of which is the Old Testament. (I think I've got that right)

There was another Rabbi who was asked the same question, and he gave a diametricly opposed answer - he said you could study the Torah for 50 years and still not understand it.

But I've never actually read the Torah, just a few excerpts.

Thou shalt cast thine eyes before the Torah in the presence of the Lizard King!! For Judgement is upon you, Judgement, JUDGEMENT! Christ shall returneth, and there will be two bridges! One of paper, and one of steel! And thine faithful Baptists shalt take the bridge of Paper, and the smart people shalt take the bridge of Steel! Guess which one collapseth!!

[ImpyTimpy]

The one of steel? Cause it was heavy already so the added weight caused it to collapse...

:D

Originally posted by c4ts


Thou shalt cast thine eyes before the Torah in the presence of the Lizard King!! For Judgement is upon you, Judgement, JUDGEMENT! Christ shall returneth, and there will be two bridges! One of paper, and one of steel! And thine faithful Baptists shalt take the bridge of Paper, and the smart people shalt take the bridge of Steel! Guess which one collapseth!!

[Shroud of Akron]

if you do not want to see through the bible, do not cut holes in it.

[evildave]

Or use an X-Ray device of some sort, or soak it in vegetable oil for a month, or use it for target practice, or as a drill stop, or leave it in your roden'ts cage, or place it in a termite mound, or leave it on the freeway, or hide catnip in it and let the cats have it.....

[c4ts]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
The one of steel? Cause it was heavy already so the added weight caused it to collapse...

:D



Uhhh... suuuure. Take the paper bridge, like all the baptists, evangelists, KKK'ers, and Neo Nazis...

[Checkmite]

I must contest the assertion so flaunted by the group here that the Bible is absolutely worthless. It's impossible to hide, and difficult to deny, the fact that many people - including some of you - feel free or even obligated to trash the Bible for no other reason than because they despise Christianity as a whole. It almost seems as if they think that any complimentary comment regarding the Bible lends some amount of credence, however small, to Christianity; which, apparently, is something to be avoided at all cost!

Take, for example, c4ts's post comparing the different "qualities", or lack thereof, of the Bible. I'd hate to say it, but that's the most unintelligent and shallow post I've ever seen c4ts submit. Denying absolutely any historical value to the thing simply because of "Creationism"? As an amateur student of archaeology, I view with annoyance and contempt the notion that the bible holds no archaeological value.

Like it or not, the Bible has influenced more of modern history than any book...or any person, or even anything else, period. It defined civilization for hundreds of years. The printing press - one of, if not the most important invention in modern times - was inspired by and built originally for the primary purpose of copying and distributing that piece of "crap". For ages, people learned to read and write by studying and copying it. Quests to discover the truth or accuracy of events and places described in that book gave rise to modern archaeology.

The statement that the Bible is "literary crap" is, itself, crap. It's a virtual compendium of literary theory. The various books of the Bible contain drama, intrigue, action, satire, romance, and horror. They embody the Greek dramatic concepts of comedy and tragedy in an almost textbook-like fashion. They describe the worst acts humans can commit against each other, and also the best. The Three-Act format can be found there, the "Hero's Journey" can be found there. It is one of the earliest texts that uses mythological figures as actual developed characters, rather than the "deus ex machina" cut-scene cameos the Greeks employed. Different writing styles are evident amongst the books. The attitudes of the authors shed light on the times in which they lived - on economy, industry, religion, politics, the environment, and ethnocentrism.

All of the Bible's imperfections - which people here shout from the highest hills, as if they mean anything - are shared by every single literary work ever produced in the history of mankind, and in far greater numbers. If those flaws are the basis for the labeling of the Bible as "below average", then we have yet to see an average work. Those who fasten to such inconsistencies seem to, in my opinion, have completely ignored or missed the point expounded by stamenflicker in the opening post of this thread. And crowing about all the "bad things" done in the name of Christianity since its inception in no way damages or subtracts from the Bible's worth as literary art and a window into our past.

There...a non-Christian, describing the virtues of the Bible, without lending a single shred of credence to Christianity. Has the world ended? Absolutely not. Tunnel-vision is something that needs to be gotten rid of by a few people here.

[ImpyTimpy]

Actually, paper is pretty strong.. I guess if we make it out of enough sheets, we'll have a pretty sturdy bridge.

Originally posted by c4ts


Uhhh... suuuure. Take the paper bridge, like all the baptists, evangelists, KKK'ers, and Neo Nazis...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Actually, paper is pretty strong.. I guess if we make it out of enough sheets, we'll have a pretty sturdy bridge.



But this bridge is made like a big piece of origami. Just one big sheet, folded.

[ImpyTimpy]

Oh no, we make the bridge, not you, not your "God(dess)"... You can stick with your steel bridge Mr.. We'll stick with our paper!

Originally posted by c4ts


But this bridge is made like a big piece of origami. Just one big sheet, folded.

[kedo1981]

To get back to Flicks post
So are you saying “Flick” that the bible is “valuable” because so many people admire it (believe in it) and because so many people believe in it, that means it must have a “truthful” element and that it is somehow above scrutiny and criticisms? (sorry, run on sentence)

[hgc]

Yahzi:

The Torah isn't part of the Bible, it's part of the Penteuch - a series of five books, one of which is the Old Testament. (I think I've got that right)
Let me sort it out for you.

The Hebrew scriptures, Tanakh, which Christians call The Old Testament (and missing the book of Esther), is divided into 3 parts. They are the Torah (five books of Moses), Nevi'im (prophets) and Kethuvim (writings).

The word Pentateuch is sometimes used for Torah because the first ever translation from Hebrew was into Greek.

[Yahzi]

Torah (five books of Moses),
I knew there was a five in there somewhere. :o

I did a google search. It's Rabbi Hillel, in the Talmud.

[stamenflicker]

Josh,

There...a non-Christian, describing the virtues of the Bible, without lending a single shred of credence to Christianity. Has the world ended? Absolutely not. Tunnel-vision is something that needs to be gotten rid of by a few people here.

I'm not so sure it's tunnel vision as much as out right chauvinism. There's this absurd fundamentalist nature to humanity which totally escapes my grasp. One that says, "this, and only this." The idea of even a fissure in the structure produces such an immense fear of the whole thing toppling over so as to generate utmost disdain. This is true regardless of one's religious or anti-religious stances.

It's no wonder Potato Stew and a few others have given up on this place. The large majority of this body is the Taliban of Reason, constructed not from documentation or observation as is so often touted, but rather an a priori pseudo-intellectualism that leaves me with a pity-sickened feeling for the future of the human race. Ask any teacher what this current data-driven, measure it all, fundamentalist objectivism is doing to the human race in the American classroom.

I still find it highly ironic to see the Christians on this board display a higher degree of flexibility than the so-called Enlightened skeptics. This is hardly a skeptics board. It's a "made-up-my-mind-kill-the-deity" board. While there is sufficent reason to take the skeptic approach to a deity, there remains the utmost foolishness of certain individuals to apply the same skepticism to their own world view. Classic fundamentalism.

Most of the folks I see here make pretty pathetic attempts to seem as though they are somehow above the "herd." It's a "look at me" philosophy more than a debate regarding deep-seated human needs, helps, and hinderances. I think it's sad that so many here have to define themselves against something as opposed to leading the way in a direction of their own. They choose the weaker opponent and are thereby made weaker, as they are defined by the very thing opposed. How incredible and surprising it would be to see a sudden surge of goodwill in certain members of this forum community, arising from it's own philosophical roots and passion for life.

I'm not a big STNG fan, I like the old school Star Trek better, but that last film, Nemisis, was pretty incredible. The whole theme of the movie could be summed up in Picard's final statements to the Data clone: "Humanity is us striving to be better than we are." [summarized impromptu hopefully it's not too far off the origninal]. I suppose that's pretty much a good summary of the majority of the human religious experience: that you can be "better than you are." The problem with so many here is that would mean admitting "we are less than we could be" ... a concept that cannot co-exist in the presence of such unabashed arrogance and gile.

Flick

[Checkmite]

From an outside point of view, I read nothing more into it than prejudice, brought on by a need to show off or "wear the same shirt" as the group. I do not believe in the truth of Christianity, however I still find beauty in a cathedral, or see literary value in a Bible. I'm not ancient Indian, yet I think the Baghavad Gita is one of the most perfect epic poems ever written. But some people absolutely refuse to see anything of value in an item or idea that has some kind of "religious" baggage attached to it. It was invented by/used by/held in esteem by "x" religion, therefore it is bad.

Or maybe my calling it clique-ness or "need to show off" is a rush to judgement. The prejudice is still there, of course, but there may be other reasons - bad life experience dealing with "x" religion perhaps. Indoctrination, or intellectual laziness.

In my opinion, the state of "skepticism about everything" should place one outside the group frame of mind that leads to "us vs. them" schools of thought; but for some, it only creates another group which has pitted itself against all the others.

A little while back, I posted a piece of news regarding a church/state issue that had occurred in my home town. A Jewish board member of a public community action agency protested the board president's insistence on beginning every meeting with a prayer (the board president was a Baptist minister). The Jewish board member (let's call him John for the sake of simplicity) refused to attend any more meetings unless the practice was abandoned, basing his argument on the seperation clause. I started a thread regarding this, along with a poll. The poll had four options:

I agree with John's argument and would support him,
I don't agree with John's argument and would not support him,
I'm not sure whether I agree or would support John, and
I agree with John's argument, but would not support him because his objections are religiously based.

Most people chose the first option, but there were a few people who chose the last one. I didn't think of bringing it up in that thread, but I should've: how can one agree with John's argument from the First Amendment, yet refuse to support him because his objections are religiously based? Isn't that why the First Amendment was drafted - to protect minority religions and people of no religion? Time and again, on this board and elsewhere, you'll find an argument against mandatory school prayer that goes thusly: "Which God should be prayed to? The Christian or Jewish, or Muslim one? Should they pray to Shiva too, and Buddha? If the prayer is Christian in nature, what about those few religious minorities - the one Jew, or Hindu, or atheist? Isn't it unfair to them?"

That is a bulletproof and sound argument, and advocated unanimously around here...but when one such case actually arises - the lone Jewish board member protesting a Christian prayer at a public meeting - suddenly a few get queasy. Suddenly they'd find themselves on a particular religion's "side", even if only by superficial association, and that's a big "no-no". It makes their "what about the religious minorities" argument empty and hypocritical.

The idea that there is "absolutely nothing of value" to be found in the Bible is patently ridiculous. Its cultural anthropological value alone places it far above "less than average". But, it's associated with a religion, and so it must be "poxed" or untouchable - something to keep our distance from. What absolute silliness.

[evildave]

Bah.

I read the bible.

Lots of great stuff in there. The Pecker Chopper Massacre, and other classics. I also poke fun at it. So sue me. The problem here is people tend to claim that the Bible is "The Only" book anyone should ever read. Indeed, the some few of the greatest proponents of the Bible as "great literature" would be only too happy to burn the Baghavad Gita, and any Indian temples in which it was found, if only they thought they could get away with it..

Honestly, I liked Tolkien's works better. A lot of other authors better I'm not going to make a religion out of it.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by evildave
Bah.

I read the bible.

Lots of great stuff in there. The Pecker Chopper Massacre, and other classics. I also poke fun at it. So sue me. The problem here is people tend to claim that the Bible is "The Only" book anyone should ever read. Indeed, the some few of the greatest proponents of the Bible as "great literature" would be only too happy to burn the Baghavad Gita, and any Indian temples in which it was found, if only they thought they could get away with it..

That's true, and undeniable; but that's not the context in which the Bible was referred to in this thread's opening post, and it doesn't take away from the fact that the Bible does, indeed, have literary, artistic, and cultural value.

Originally posted by evildave
Honestly, I liked Tolkien's works better. A lot of other authors better I'm not going to make a religion out of it.

Understand, though, that Judeo-Christianity is not based on the Bible, but rather it is the other way around. The Bible was compiled to describe and pay homage to Christianity, not to start it. It's obvious that many Christians these days appear to base their religion on "the book", but also recognize that this isn't "the book's" fault, nor was it the original intention of the people who compiled it.

To be honest, I absolutely hated "Catcher in the Rye" - it was the most boring book I've ever read, and a crappy medium for carrying the "messages" about society it was meant to convey. Some 15 year old whining to a shrink about how he hates his parents and can't get a date? I listened to enough of that in the school lunchroom. But I cannot and will not deny that "Catcher in the Rye" has some cultural value, as is painfully evident considering the book's initial popularity.

[Graham]

Like it or not, the Bible has influenced more of modern history than any book...or any person, or even anything else, period. It defined civilization for hundreds of years. The printing press - one of, if not the most important invention in modern times - was inspired by and built originally for the primary purpose of copying and distributing that piece of "crap". For ages, people learned to read and write by studying and copying it. Quests to discover the truth or accuracy of events and places described in that book gave rise to modern archaeology.

(snip)

There...a non-Christian, describing the virtues of the Bible, without lending a single shred of credence to Christianity. Has the world ended? Absolutely not. Tunnel-vision is something that needs to be gotten rid of by a few people here. [/B]

While I am broadly in agreement with the rest of your comments, Joshua, I find it a little ironic that you follow this comment:

the Bible has influenced more of modern history than any book...or any person, or even anything else, period. It defined civilization for hundreds of years. with this one:

Tunnel-vision is something that needs to be gotten rid of by a few people here.

Influenced more of modern history than anything else? Period?

If you had restricted these comments to the so-called Western World than you might have some justification but, IMO, considering the entire world, this simply is not true.

For instance, what proportion of Chinese people historically learned to read and write by studying it?

Unfortunately I haven't time to write further now (I just this second got landed with a big fat mess to sort out before 5 o'clock!) but I would like to hear your further comments on this issue.

Thanks,

Graham

[Checkmite]

Quite right....Western history. A glaring error; thanks for pointing it out, Graham.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

I still find it highly ironic to see the Christians on this board display a higher degree of flexibility than the so-called Enlightened skeptics.

I suspect this is more of a reflection on general discussion board population dynamics than any increased flexibility in one group over another. The minority will be more flexibility, in general, because they are the minority. Visit a Christian message board and check out the flexibility of the Christians vs. the atheists/non-Christians.

I could, of course, venture that there are far more Christian message boards than atheistic ones, so the flexibility doesn't quite balance out, but that is likely to be an artifact of general (read: American) population dynamics.

Anyway, on the topic at hand: It's absurd to say the Bible has no literary value. Perhaps its a counterbalance to those who blow its importance out of proportion.