NationStates Jolt Archive

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

Sure, as long as you analyze it as a work of fiction.

It would make for weird literary analysis, though--multiple, contradictory authors and all that....

Which translation?

No.

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

no all those lower school projects where shit and a waste of my time. simple enough

Sure, as long as you analyze it as a work of fiction.

I imagine that would have to have a bit of a disclaimer at the beginning,

"Now, I understand that this is a sacred book to certain Religious groups. However, whether it is true or not, it will be treated as though it were a work of fiction for the purposes of literary analysis."

When discussing world history and religion, of course.

I don't think any side would receive that well.

But then again, controversy is always fun...

seems to me that somewhere along the line i had to read JOB for an english class.

I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.
Well, yes, but not for its own literary value; it needs to be a work of literature in order to fit into the domain of the English classroom. Dialetical theory, for instance, has been of great influence in how we view literature, but that doesn't mean we have English students reading Hegel. I mean, they do, and probably should, but not in an English class.

Click Stand;13445540']I don't think any side would receive that well.

But then again, controversy is always fun...

Of course! Life without controversy is apparently too boring for some people. :P

I imagine that would have to have a bit of a disclaimer at the beginning,


"Now, I understand that this is a sacred book to certain Religious groups. However, whether it is true or not, it will be treated as though it were a work of fiction for the purposes of literary analysis."

I don't know that something along those lines would ever fly, but points for the politically correct disclaimer. But I don't think the Bible would ever be examined in schools simply due to politics. Other religious denominations will feel discriminated against, if not demand their religious texts are examined as well. The ACLU would be all over this one. <<;

no all those lower school projects where shit and a waste of my time. simple enough

Well, that's a given. Most of school life is busywork. Though some of it does relate to real life! I promise.

Sure, as long as you analyze it as a work of fiction.

It would make for weird literary analysis, though--multiple, contradictory authors and all that....

Don't forget all the multiple translations as well. It's all pretty interesting, but again. Controversy and such. It'd be interesting to see if any of the dominant Christian populations would actually treat their own text as fiction for a while.

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

It could be, but I doubt it ever would due to ACLU, differing religious conflicts, all that jazz. The whole separation of church and state issue, and all. If someone could actually get it going, cheers!

ONLY in a comparative religion class.

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

Yes. So much literature has biblical references that a knowledge of those stories are needed to understand said references.

I would just photocopy the relevent story and have the kids read and discuss it before we read the book.

If any athiests had a problem with it, I would tell them my personal views that its a work of fiction and we are treating it as such because I belive its nothing more than that, and I cant imagine it being a problem since Im not pushing it on them.


If Christians had a problem and wanted me to treat it as more than fiction, Id tell them that was unrealistic. If they continued to be a problem, Id kick them out of my class;)

Im kidding about the kicking out part...kind of.

If Christians had a problem and wanted me to treat it as more than fiction, Id tell them that was unrealistic. If they continued to be a problem, Id kick them out of my class ;)

Im kidding about the kicking out part...kind of.

I would enjoy seeing that, actually. It'd be pretty entertaining to watch them get the boot. ^^ And, for the sake of controversy to be furthered, I'm getting annoyed with the Christian faith. The whole "Believe this way or be damned forever in eternal hellfire" thing annoys me. If you're a generally good person, and you sin without going to a Christian confession, but you're generally remorseful, you still go to hell?

I would enjoy seeing that, actually. It'd be pretty entertaining to watch them get the boot. ^^ And, for the sake of controversy to be furthered, I'm getting annoyed with the Christian faith. The whole "Believe this way or be damned forever in eternal hellfire" thing annoys me. If you're a generally good person, and you sin without going to a Christian confession, but you're generally remorseful, you still go to hell?

From talking to random priests I have met, I have learned that that is untrue. From how I understand it, being an overall good person will get you into heaven. Or it could just be that they didn't want to damn me to eternal hellfire.

I guess it depends on who you talk to.

I would enjoy seeing that, actually. It'd be pretty entertaining to watch them get the boot. ^^ And, for the sake of controversy to be furthered, I'm getting annoyed with the Christian faith. The whole "Believe this way or be damned forever in eternal hellfire" thing annoys me. If you're a generally good person, and you sin without going to a Christian confession, but you're generally remorseful, you still go to hell?

I would enjoy doing it aswell.


Too bad after Im done student teaching Im teaching history rather than english or both (I have a double major and am teacher certified in both).


Oh well, shouldnt complain. At least Ill have a job after I graduate. Connections rule.

In a religious education class, certainly; in an English literature class, possibly.

The Bible, especially the King James version, is immensely influential in Western literature and thought, so an understanding of it’s impact at the very least would be useful to anyone studying Western literature.

That, and a basic understanding of the tenets of major religions isn’t harmful per se. As long as there’s no preaching.

I don't know that something along those lines would ever fly, but points for the politically correct disclaimer. But I don't think the Bible would ever be examined in schools simply due to politics. Other religious denominations will feel discriminated against, if not demand their religious texts are examined as well. The ACLU would be all over this one. <<;


In my English class in tenth grade we read part of the Bible and also read things from other religious texts...

Click Stand;13445634']From talking to random priests I have met, I have learned that that is untrue. From how I understand it, being an overall good person will get you into heaven. Or it could just be that they didn't want to damn me to eternal hellfire.

I guess it depends on who you talk to.



According to Christian doctrine, you must be a Christian. Any other belief is considered heretical.


Im a former insider. Take it from me.

According to Christian doctrine, you must be a Christian. Any other belief is considered heretical.


Im a former insider. Take it from me.

I guess they were just being polite.

That or as I said, beliefs defer from person to person, and each side to every doctrinal (is that even a real word?) debate can find quotes out of the Bible to support whatever they feel like.

Edit: Timewarping mods is 1337.

In religious schools, of course it has a part in the school, both as literature and as a religious text.

In public (government) schools in the U.S. it can be studied in conjunction with other religious texts through the social studies department.

In public (government) schools it can be referenced when historical events are discussed.

In public (government) schools, it can be studied as a work of literature (i.e. The Bible as Literature elective) or can be referenced in other English classes (which I have, occasionally, especially when the work of literature we are reading alludes to various stories in the Bible).

In my public (government) school, there is also a Christian Club, a Muslim Students Club, and a Jewish Club, all of which meet after school to discuss their various belief systems.

So yes, it can be studied in public schools without bringing the "separation of church and state" into play.

I imagine that would have to have a bit of a disclaimer at the beginning,

"Now, I understand that this is a sacred book to certain Religious groups. However, whether it is true or not, it will be treated as though it were a work of fiction for the purposes of literary analysis."

That's kind of daft, when the elective is called, "The Bible as Literature". Also, those taking the elective should understand some taking it will believe and treat it as a sacred text and look for the deeper meaning, and those taking it should understand some will NOT believe and are looking at it for the political/historical/literary meanings.... and that those two groups may well overlap. BOTH sides need to be respectful when discussing what they do and don't believe -- both sides may learn something valuable if they open their minds and shut their mouths long enough to understand what the opposing viewpoint has to offer. They don't have to believe it -- but merely understanding and arguing intelligently against the opposing view can strengthen yours.

Click Stand;13445634']From talking to random priests I have met, I have learned that that is untrue. From how I understand it, being an overall good person will get you into heaven. Or it could just be that they didn't want to damn me to eternal hellfire.

I guess it depends on who you talk to.

Definitely depends on the branch of Christianity you talk to.

Of course! I don't know that something along those lines would ever fly, but points for the politically correct disclaimer. But I don't think the Bible would ever be examined in schools simply due to politics. Other religious denominations will feel discriminated against, if not demand their religious texts are examined as well. The ACLU would be all over this one. <<;...The whole separation of church and state issue, and all.

You don't know what you're talking about, clearly. The Bible as Literature has been taught in many school without the ACLU stepping in -- as have the religious texts of other groups. It is only when it is preached at students as "the one true religion" that it violates the separation of church and state (You know, government NOT establishing a state religion).

Funny enough people get their knickers in a twist over the possibility of looking at the Bible as a piece of literature, yet "the Devil and Literature" hardly raises a complaint.

According to Christian doctrine, you must be a Christian. Any other belief is considered heretical.


Im a former insider. Take it from me.

In the Catholic Church, however, it explicitly says in many passages of the bible that if you have the opportunity to know Christ and reject him, you are spiritually in trouble, but if you are a good person who was ignorant of his teachings and that of the church, you may be saved. One would assume that if you are a follower of another belief or never had belonged to or studied a religion, being a conscientious person would therefore be enough.

Many Protestant sects disagree with this assessment.

In my public (government) school, there is also a Christian Club, a Muslim Students Club, and a Jewish Club, all of which meet after school to discuss their various belief systems.

isn't that a tad weird :confused:

I wouldn't argue that it should be treated as a work of fiction, or non-fiction, rather, it should be treated as other similar religious documents are (or at least were at my high school), as historical primary sources.

Is that the way we treat Greek myth? Do we really want to treat Adam and Eve etc. as "historical" anything?

Certain parts of the Bible do fit, admittedly... but not the parts most people care about.

Sure, as long as you analyze it as a work of fiction.

It would make for weird literary analysis, though--multiple, contradictory authors and all that....

I wouldn't argue that it should be treated as a work of fiction, or non-fiction, rather, it should be treated as other similar religious documents are (or at least were at my high school), as historical primary sources.

Because to treat it as a work of fiction (or fact) would be to cast a decision, and influence people's beliefs in one way or another, thus the appropriate treatment is to not cast a judgment either way.

Kat pretty much covered it, but yes, it does have a place as a source text for many Western myths, sayings, stories, and likewise (And makes a handy starting point when referencing like stories or stories that were adopted by the Bible later). Where you get into trouble is teaching it as Truth in school, THEN you have issues.

Noting that various kings claimed divine right to rule due to XX passage in the Bible isn't doing that though. :)

I don't have a problem with it being discussed as literature in HS levels, It has influenced writers throughout western civilization.

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

Absolutely, it is one of the most significant literary works in Western Civilization. Senior year we did research on Greek Mythology. In fact, my High School had a class much related "Bible as Literature" which explored the Bible, and what it said, but more of as a literary tradition, rather than dogmatic instillment.

I actually liked the class a lot, we learned quite a bit about both literature, and culture, as well as Bible history.

Short answer: So long as it isn't a class to form children to the Christian worldview, and is simply instructional, absolutely.

I don't know that something along those lines would ever fly, but points for the politically correct disclaimer. But I don't think the Bible would ever be examined in schools simply due to politics. Other religious denominations will feel discriminated against, if not demand their religious texts are examined as well. The ACLU would be all over this one. <<;

My High School (in America) offered this course exactly, see my above post.

I never knew of anyone who had a problem with it (except the masses of fools who, not understanding the point of the class, would use the old 'seperation of church and state' adage, and quite inappropriably).

Yes, yet it should not be dissected and provided as a moral model for our entire lives.

Is that the way we treat Greek myth? Do we really want to treat Adam and Eve etc. as "historical" anything?

Certain parts of the Bible do fit, admittedly... but not the parts most people care about.

I was actually thinking of the treatment that Native American (especially Iroquois and Sioux) stories received. Rather than discussion of their truth or fiction, we dealt with them in the societal context of the time, to help a bunch of hormone-driven, over-caffeinated adolescents understand different ways of life.

I think a similar approach should be taken towards the Bible, our literature books in 9th and 10th grade both had passages from the Bible, (both OT and NT), passages from the Qu'ran and stuff from Hindu books. We didn't touch any of these things, rather, focusing on these feel-good stories that resulted in my listless appearance until I finally convinced the admin that I should be in advanced English. I think that had we felt like really doing something useful and bettering in English class, we'd have looked at those and discussed their cultural contexts, without concern as to their truth or fiction.

I was actually thinking of the treatment that Native American (especially Iroquois and Sioux) stories received. Rather than discussion of their truth or fiction, we dealt with them in the societal context of the time, to help a bunch of hormone-driven, over-caffeinated adolescents understand different ways of life.

I think a similar approach should be taken towards the Bible, our literature books in 9th and 10th grade both had passages from the Bible, (both OT and NT), passages from the Qu'ran and stuff from Hindu books. We didn't touch any of these things, rather, focusing on these feel-good stories that resulted in my listless appearance until I finally convinced the admin that I should be in advanced English. I think that had we felt like really doing something useful and bettering in English class, we'd have looked at those and discussed their cultural contexts, without concern as to their truth or fiction.

Absolutely. One of the best ways to breed wisdom is to be able to openly, but with a critical eye, examine various religious texts from a cultural, historical, and social basis. People who outright said no to this thread lack exactly that wisdom, lol. In my AP History class, one of the first group projects that we did found me in the company of idiots, my group had to do ancient Middle-east, when I brought up Jesus, as an honourable mention a girl in my class asked the teacher if we were allowed to talk about such taboo subjects as Christianity, when a lot of our project had to do with other various religions, it was sad.

The Bible (regardless of your personal belief) has merit as non-fiction literature, it shouldn't be taught in public schools as the bottom line truth, but rather examined openly for it's cultural, historical, and social merit, and influence on so much of what is happening in the world around us. Just like the Qu'ran, or the Bagavad Gita.

isn't that a tad weird :confused:

Why would it be? MY public High school had a Bible Study (it did not, however have enough diversity to have anything else, but that's only because all clubs/groups, especially of a religious nature had to be student organized, and student led, we had a teacher as an advocate or chaperone, but the teacher was not allowed to participate).

Which translation?

The King James Bible is an amazing piece of writing, whether you look at it from a religious, literary, or logistic (translating ain't easy) point of view. It should definitely be taught.

Of course, the entire Bible is huge, and many of the books in it are only loosely related. It would make sense for an English class to teach maybe the Creation myth, or the Gospel of John, or maybe Revelation.

Click Stand;13445634']From talking to random priests I have met, I have learned that that is untrue. From how I understand it, being an overall good person will get you into heaven. Or it could just be that they didn't want to damn me to eternal hellfire.

I guess it depends on who you talk to.

The Bible is very clear that that belief is untrue. Being a good person has it's own merits, none of them eternal. The Bible makes it extremely clear that one must believe in the saving Grace of Christ's death to have eternal life. It's not cruel or terrible at all, the Perfect and loving God cannot abide sin, or the presence of sin, and so allowed us to be cleansed by the death of Christ of our sin, by believing, and receiving His Grace.

Which is why the idea of purgatory does not actually fit into Jesus' teachings... then again, very little Catholic doctrine is derived from the Bible necessarily, look at the Catholic idea of Sainthood, or the blessed virgin, can on get any closer to appeasing meditteranean polytheism, and North European goddess worship than with these two practices, and still be a monotheism?

Yes. So much literature has biblical references that a knowledge of those stories are needed to understand said references.

I would just photocopy the relevent story and have the kids read and discuss it before we read the book.

If any athiests had a problem with it, I would tell them my personal views that its a work of fiction and we are treating it as such because I belive its nothing more than that, and I cant imagine it being a problem since Im not pushing it on them.


If Christians had a problem and wanted me to treat it as more than fiction, Id tell them that was unrealistic. If they continued to be a problem, Id kick them out of my class;)

Im kidding about the kicking out part...kind of.

Wouldn't doing the bolded get you fired? Teachers are eplicitly forbidden from sharing personal religious views, regardless of middle-ground they are.

Though you would indeed have every right to have students read relevant passages in the Bible, and explain to them why, for literary relevance, not conversion purposes. Tell them to read it not as the sole truth of the world, but likewise not as treacherous lies, but rather it should be read from the perspective of literature, in this case it would be a story, nothing more, nothing less.

I was actually thinking of the treatment that Native American (especially Iroquois and Sioux) stories received. Rather than discussion of their truth or fiction, we dealt with them in the societal context of the time, to help a bunch of hormone-driven, over-caffeinated adolescents understand different ways of life.

Ah, I see what you're saying... using them as an illustration of a cultural perspective.

That's not a bad idea, but why would it go in English class?

Ah, I see what you're saying... using them as an illustration of a cultural perspective.

That's not a bad idea, but why would it go in English class?

The relation to English literature.

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

No. However, it does have a place in school libraries as a significant piece of literature and in theology classes if a school offers it.

English literature would not be an appropriate place for it as it was not originally written in English.

Ah, I see what you're saying... using them as an illustration of a cultural perspective.

That's not a bad idea, but why would it go in English class?

For some reason, at my high school we did a lot of that. I'm not entirely sure why, but it obviously worked, because it was one of the best in the state, and the country. We tended to look at the relation of literature to the broader culture in general.

And as to the Bible, if nothing else, its influence on literature and history cannot be ignored, especially the role the King James Version had in influencing English-language literature. The allusions that are derived from it, that can be found throughout the great English works, are fascinating.

isn't that a tad weird :confused:

Why is it any weirder than "Craft club", "Step club" or the athletic teams?

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

No. It's character development, plot structure, narrative structure, and cohesion and continuity are all abysmal. It is not a work of literature. It's a collection of folk tales/ propaganda.

It is not a work of literature. It’s a collection of folk tales/ propaganda.
That doesn’t stop it from being hugely influential to literature.

Many of the Norse, Hellenic, Roman, Egyptian, Asian etc., collections of folk tales are not terribly cohesive, or have major plot or characterisation problems. Doesn’t mean we don’t or shouldn’t study them.

Moreover, the Bible in particular has ha a massive influence on Western culture and literature for the last 1,500+ years. It’d be pretty naïve to ignore such an influence, especially considering books such as the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost, or the necessary aspect of the Christian God in the philosophy of thinkers such as Aquinas or Descartes.

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.
I echo Kat and NERVUN on this. Big surprise, the English teacher triumvirate of NSG tends to agree on this. And we all probably cringed at that alliteration.
The Bible has had significant impact upon English and Western literature, and forms one of the basic foundations (Judeo-Christian, Greek, Roman, and mythology)

ONLY in a comparative religion class.
Why only? It has significant literary value: it is one of the few texts that unquestionably forms the foundation of the Western Canon, and is referenced in thousands of works, from Milton to Toni Morrison

No. However, it does have a place in school libraries as a significant piece of literature and in theology classes if a school offers it.

English literature would not be an appropriate place for it as it was not originally written in English.
It may not have been originally written in English, but it is impossible to deny that the various translations throughout history, particularly the KJV, have had enormous influence, and are significant works.
Also consider the fact that mythology, old English, and the Greek and Roman works of the Illiad, Odyssey, Metamorphoses, and Aeneid are all taught in English classrooms. None of these were originally English, but have had clear and significant impact upon the English canon.

In my opinion, given the nature of the Western canon, the Bible (or atleast selected stories) should be required reading as forms of literature. They are sensitive, but are important to understanding many stories. Can you fully understand Paradise Lost without having read the text it is based on? Can you fully appreciate the Indians trapped in a circle of fire in Reservation Blues without having read Daniel 3:1-30? Do the names Ahab and Ishamael mean the same thing if I don't know what their Biblical implications are?

No. It's character development, plot structure, narrative structure, and cohesion and continuity are all abysmal. It is not a work of literature. It's a collection of folk tales/ propaganda.

Folk tales and propaganda can both be literature. To deny its impact upon the canon is to stick your head in the sand.

I believe so, but it does not deserve any more time than other great books of history, such as literary masterpieces...(yes, I do believe the Bible to be a literary masterpiece)

I echo Kat and NERVUN on this. Big surprise, the English teacher triumvirate of NSG tends to agree on this. And we all probably cringed at that alliteration.
It's an English teacher thing. :D I was so happy when I read that someone had come up with a Shakespeare karuta (Japanese card game) and when I shared this joy with my wife I got one of THOSE looks that reminded me that only English teachers get this excited about things like this. :p

It may not have been originally written in English, but it is impossible to deny that the various translations throughout history, particularly the KJV, have had enormous influence, and are significant works.
Also consider the fact that mythology, old English, and the Greek and Roman works of the Illiad, Odyssey, Metamorphoses, and Aeneid are all taught in English classrooms. None of these were originally English, but have had clear and significant impact upon the English canon.

Er, Sarkhaan, that IS an LG post... anything said should be taken with a whole salt mine! ;)

It's an English teacher thing. :D I was so happy when I read that someone had come up with a Shakespeare karuta (Japanese card game) and when I shared this joy with my wife I got one of THOSE looks that reminded me that only English teachers get this excited about things like this. :pTry being excited about Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, telling your students it is the most bloody interpretation of Macbeth, and having them stare at you and only say "It's black and white and in Japanese"

"Yes, but look at all the blood! Come on! You kids love violence!"

"It's still in black and white. And in Japanese"

"Delinquents"

Or venting to my roommates that I have to teach the abridged version of Great Expectations (mind you, I hate the book, but still, abridged? You have to be joking.) I was told "Only you would be this upset about having to spend less time on something you hate"


Er, Sarkhaan, that IS an LG post... anything said should be taken with a whole salt mine! ;)
The response is for those who might accidentally take him seriously.

Besides, it was a long day filled with me being attacked by a tennis ball.
Oh, how I adore my little delinquents.

I suppose by rights it should be English AND Literature class, as some of the literature I teach (The Stranger, Beowulf, The Sound of Waves) were not originally in modern English. (The Stranger and Sound of Waves are translations from French and Japanese respectively.) Let's also not forget Les Miserables and Hunchback of Notre Dame, anything by Chekhov, Guy de Maupassant... etc. etc. etc.

“It’s still in black and white. And in Japanese”
The poor fools...

Step outside of literature for a moment, how the hell would you explain works like Leviathan or Second Treatise on Government or Theory of Moral Sentiments without recourse to the Bible? Each of these are foundational documents in our constitutional and economic systems; you can't understand why our government is how it is without consulting these works. You can't understand these works without understanding the numerous references to the Bible; just today when we discussed a passage from Smith's TMS, I brought in a reference to the Garden of Gethsemane to explain a particularly difficult passage. How do I do that if I don't know what the significance of Gethsemane is?

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

No, not as part of the English curriculum. I wouldn't really view it as a work of English literature. Some translations are in English, but the original source languages aren't.

Yes, as a part of a non-compulsory comparative religion course.

I suppose by rights it should be English AND Literature class, as some of the literature I teach (The Stranger, Beowulf, The Sound of Waves) were not originally in modern English. (The Stranger and Sound of Waves are translations from French and Japanese respectively.) Let's also not forget Les Miserables and Hunchback of Notre Dame, anything by Chekhov, Guy de Maupassant... etc. etc. etc.

The Stranger (L'Etranger) - I studied that one in my French class, not English.

Which translation?The original Greek (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/index.htm), of course.
The bible does have a place in school and it should be thoroughly reviewed in classes, but not as a source about Jewish history but as a source about history as Jews would want it to have been. ;)

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

Absolutely. Ignoring the book and its influence on world history would be idiotic, especially in an European country. Its influence on politics today is also not to be underestimated - just look at how many US presidential candidates emphasise they are Christian.

That of course does not mean one should teach the contents of the book as fact.Just that it should be treated.

It should definitely be included in English courses, but in big bold letters at the top of every page should be printed "This is a story, it is not real". There are a huge number of phrases that we use every day that have relation to biblical stories, the the influence it's had on European and western culture is mind blowing.

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.Nooo... Bible shouldn't be used for learning in schools unless they're Sunday schools or religious studies in College.

it has a place, in social studies, provided it is a no more then equal place, beside the sacred texts of ALL religeons, in understanding the roll all beliefs have played in the evolving of human cultures and society.

it has an OPTIONAL place in extracuriicular after school club activities in one persuing sprituality generally.

it certainly has no place in determining curriculum, nor as any sort of acid test, one it would fail itself, of moral values, nor standards, neither accademic nor of behaivour.

=^^=
.../\...

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

It's more appropriated in a "history of philosophy" course, maybe, because it's mainly about ethics, morals, and politics. As for English... well, no... it's a translation after all. "Foreign literature" maybe, although it would be better to read the original, or at least the alexandrine greek translation (the Bible of the 70).

Absolutely. Ignoring the book and its influence on world history would be idiotic, especially in an European country. Its influence on politics today is also not to be underestimated - just look at how many US presidential candidates emphasise they are Christian.

That of course does not mean one should teach the contents of the book as fact.Just that it should be treated.You confuse the influence of the book with that of the church. The book itself was virtually unknown to the bulk of the population.

Ancient history classes maybe, within a historiographic periodic analysis, but taking it out of context in our own time frame distorts the message by taking it out of material context. A correct understanding of 'the Bible' is only possible by viewing through the analysis of history and the Hebrew oral traditions. Taking into an abstract fantasy-based environment is dangerous because it restricts people from knowing all the facts.

I suggest when children learn about the Exodus they are asked 'Did you think the Hebrews thought murder was good before they got the commandments?', and also to show them the conclusive Israeli archaeological evidence which in any case completely destroys the exodus story.

Education is about facts, if parents want to pay for private fantasy lessons, let them, but public money shouldn't pay for garbage.

You confuse the influence of the book with that of the church. The book itself was virtually unknown to the bulk of the population.

A fair point. Then again, many works of art do depict scenes from the book in question.

But your statement should definitely be included and explored in the classes.

Ancient history classes maybe, within a historiographic periodic analysis, but taking it out of context in our own time frame distorts the message by taking it out of material context. A correct understanding of 'the Bible' is only possible by viewing through the analysis of history and the Hebrew oral traditions. Taking into an abstract fantasy-based environment is dangerous because it restricts people from knowing all the facts.

I suggest when children learn about the Exodus they are asked 'Did you think the Hebrews thought murder was good before they got the commandments?', and also to show them the conclusive Israeli archaeological evidence which in any case completely destroys the exodus story.

Education is about facts, if parents want to pay for private fantasy lessons, let them, but public money shouldn't pay for garbage.

Israelite ≠ Israeli

Btw in the Bible the Israelites thought murder was good with or without the commandments. They never had problems killing anyone who was no part of their group.

Why is it any weirder than "Craft club", "Step club" or the athletic teams?

because these are also scary and unusual too me...though bible study is more so because children should be out smoking or something instead of reading the same book over and over in many wrong ways

especially athletic clubs, we had sports clubs :p

When I was an undergraduate in university (nearly 20 years ago), I had a class on pre-modern Western Literature that included the very tricky book of Job as representing the bible in the basic Western canon, and we also skimmed over Vergil, Sophocles, and Homer.

Given the potentially problematic theological implications of Job ('sure Satan' sez God, 'go ahead and make the life of one of my most faithful servants an utterly cataclysmic misery'), to this day I can't help but feel that the lecturer concerned had a sense of inner mischief.

But what caused the greatest commotion with Job was the not unreasonable suggestion (and I write this as a Russian Orthodox Christian) that the book might have had at least three different authors, or have been compiled from three different traditions. The evangelical fundamentalists just couldn't cope with that one.


But my short answer to the original question is, yes, as a formative influence on Western art and literature, the Bible has a place in the secular classroom so long as it's handled sensitively rather than as an attempt to proselytise.

Well, one could always use bibles to heat the school building.

The bible has the same place in school as other low-quality works of fiction (the library).

It may not have been originally written in English, but it is impossible to deny that the various translations throughout history, particularly the KJV, have had enormous influence, and are significant works.
Also consider the fact that mythology, old English, and the Greek and Roman works of the Illiad, Odyssey, Metamorphoses, and Aeneid are all taught in English classrooms. None of these were originally English, but have had clear and significant impact upon the English canon.

In my opinion, given the nature of the Western canon, the Bible (or atleast selected stories) should be required reading as forms of literature. They are sensitive, but are important to understanding many stories. Can you fully understand Paradise Lost without having read the text it is based on? Can you fully appreciate the Indians trapped in a circle of fire in Reservation Blues without having read Daniel 3:1-30? Do the names Ahab and Ishamael mean the same thing if I don't know what their Biblical implications are?

Uh...

<.<

>.>

*tosses a container of Crazy Purple Knockout Gas and runs* ((Okay, you win this round. :p ))

Yes of course it does. Isn't school about learning?

Yes of course it does. Isn't school about learning?Yes it is. But is the bible?

Yes it is. But is the bible?

Is the Bible about learning? Well I guess that depends on your belifes. But we should learn about religoin in school, and religous differances should we not?

...As part of the English curriculum?

Sure, as an example of poor literature, contents- and rereretranslationwise.

It's more appropriated in a "history of philosophy" course, maybe, because it's mainly about ethics, morals, and politics. As for English... well, no... it's a translation after all. "Foreign literature" maybe, although it would be better to read the original, or at least the alexandrine greek translation (the Bible of the 70).
You know... the first English translation of the Bible was back in the 14c, the King James version came out in 1611, trying to say that makes it a foreign lit piece is REALLY screwy. It's the English version that has had a profound impact, not the Latin.

You know... the first English translation of the Bible was back in the 14c, the King James version came out in 1611, trying to say that makes it a foreign lit piece is REALLY screwy. It's the English version that has had a profound impact, not the Latin.German version had the biggest impact. :D

The book itself was virtually unknown to the bulk of the population.
Uh... no, no it wasn't. After the vernacular translations came out, recognized or not, many people either learned to read on them or were read to from them.

I know you just HATE that notion, but it has had a very profound impact on English lit. I don't know how many times the Bard himself referred to it or used it in his plays and poems.

because these are also scary and unusual too me...though bible study is more so because children should be out smoking or something instead of reading the same book over and over in many wrong ways

especially athletic clubs, we had sports clubs :p

....what an interesting childhood you must have had if dance, making things, and discussing one's culture are scary and unusual...

German version had the biggest impact. :D

That darned Gutenberg! :D


And go Martin Luther!

*nails some theses to the General Forum door*

That darned Gutenberg! :D 30 years of war are pretty hard to beat, impact wise.

And go Martin Luther!

*nails some theses to the General Forum door*I've lost a lot of respect for him. He hated jews and the common man. Speaking out against being able to buy yourself into heaven and creating competition in the faith market is about the only good he really did.

Yes it should be taught in advanced literature classes. Take for example the Count of Monte Cristo. The true purpose of the story and it's actual theme can only be understood with a deep knowledge of the Bible. Otherwise without such an insight attempts to understand or interpret the piece will fall short of satisfactory. Since the author Alexandre Dumas had a penchant for Christian themes as one can see in all his poetic metaphors. For someone lacking knowledge of the bible attempts to fully understand what the author is trying to express will fail.

Since often something as small as giving the character in question a certain name, such as Ishamael is the author giving you a treasure trove of insight into the deeper sense of the character by relation to the actions and deeds of the Biblical Ishamael. However you will be lacking this insight if you never read the Bible. Then for you all you see is someone named Ishamael and fail to see the actual correlation the author attempts to make.

The same is true of the Count of Monte Cristo's themes of betrayal, vengeance, hatred and then finally the Christian concept of forgiveness. The actual motive for the final forgiveness will be lost on you if you do not know Corinthians.

"Now, I understand that this is a sacred book to certain Religious groups. However, it will be treated as a work of fiction for the purposes of literary analysis."

Fixed
:p

I don't see any reason to treat the bible any differently from another book of equal literary value.

Wouldn't doing the bolded get you fired? Teachers are eplicitly forbidden from sharing personal religious views, regardless of middle-ground they are.



I would do so in private if complaints were brought up. I wouldnt announce it to the class.

Which translation?

In a literature class? KJV. It's not the most accurate translation, but it's the best read. Take 1 Kings 14:10 for example:

New International Version: Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel—slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone.

King James Version: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

All religions should be taught in history class. They do teach them in history, but I don't think they go in depth enough for something so important. They also rarely allow real religious discussion because they don't want feelings hurt.

In a literature class? KJV. It's not the most accurate translation, but it's the best read.

It is also an excellent example of a translation that was twisted for political purposes; which makes it useful in a class on politics.

And perhaps psychology, considering so many people still love it today despite knowing it at the very least is a direct rape of Gods words ;)

No.
The only place the bible belongs is the fireplace, burning to give off a nice heretical glow.
No bibles.

The original Greek (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/index.htm), of course.

Eh? The Septuagint is the earliest copy of the Tanach that we have, but the originals were in Hebrew.

It is also an excellent example of a translation that was twisted for political purposes; which makes it useful in a class on politics.
The story of the translation of the Bible from Latin to English, and subsequently the story of the KJV is fascinating.

The introduction to the Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV is a good place to start as any.

No.
The only place the bible belongs is the fireplace, burning to give off a nice heretical glow.
No bibles.

You do that.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.jpg?t=1202927953

Eh? The Septuagint is the earliest copy of the Tanach that we have, but the originals were in Hebrew.What originals? Single texts may have existed prior, but no compilation.

The Bible should absolutely have a place in schools, whether it is a complete pile of bullshit or not. It's probably the most influential book on western culture ever written, and needs to be understood properly and how it relates to current affairs and culture.

You do that.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.jpg?t=1202927953hey now, there is a difference between Nazis burning books and burning bibles. burning of bibles is for the benefit of people.

The Bible should absolutely have a place in schools, whether it is a complete pile of bullshit or not. It's probably the most influential book on western culture ever written, and needs to be understood properly and how it relates to current affairs and culture.schools are not capable of making the bible properly understood. school is too superficial for that.

Does the Bible have a place in schools...

Only if the desks aren't level ;)

What originals? Single texts may have existed prior, but no compilation.

You seem pretty certain of that UB, have any proof to back up your claim?

schools are not capable of making the bible properly understood. school is too superficial for that.

I don't follow. What can make a Bible properly understood that a school is missing?

schools are not capable of making the bible properly understood. school is too superficial for that.

I wouldn't like to go to your school...

hey now, there is a difference between Nazis burning books and burning bibles. burning of bibles is for the benefit of people.

the wind makes loud sounds
whist'ling through empty caverns
the wise heed it not

The L.O.E. resolution in Spain states that to study religion in the Public Schools's system is not needed in order to obtain a diploma. I did study the Bible when I was in school as a requisite for graduation, but I studied in Catholic schools all my life and it was interesting. But I don't think it should be imposed.

Why would anyone want the Bible taught by public schools? So it can be twisted and perverted?

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.

Sure. While they need not read the Bible itself, Biblical themes run throughout Western Literature, and students should be able to recognize them - so it would at least be discussed.

What originals? Single texts may have existed prior, but no compilation.

The Torah existed well as a whole well before the Septuagint, as did the Deuteronomistic histories. That's a fair chunk of the Tanach.

The Torah existed well as a whole well before the Septuagint, as did the Deuteronomistic histories. That's a fair chunk of the Tanach.prove it.

Why would anyone want the Bible taught by public schools? So it can be twisted and perverted?

It needs not be perverted. As someone else expertly stated on another post, the Bible has a myriad of topics that are discussed, wether one likes it or not, in school, and at college level and the students should be able to recognize them. Not giving historical importance to the Bible, as record of a certain human group, regardless of religious views and the like, is being completely ignorant. I don't mean to be rude, but I feel I must write it like this.

Maybe for to replace natural gas, but for anything else, no.

I recall a grade 8 humanities study on the major religions... it involved a field trip to the places of worship in our area. The prettiest was the buddhist temple, and we got lunch at the Sikh temple ^-^

I'd think that a deep study of the bible would take way way way too long to be introduced into any high school class, especially since equal time would have to be given to the other religions as well. Perhaps a few passing glances would be better. Generally though, I don't think the bible should be 'taught' in school. Analyzed, possibly, depending on the curriculum and relevance to the lesson.

Why would anyone want the Bible taught by public schools? So it can be twisted and perverted?

Or honestly judged ?
I mean... do you fear that so ?

prove it.

Well, the Torah shows signs of having been written by multiple authors over several centuries, before being compiled at about the time of Ezra's return from exile. The Deuteronomistic histories were all written by one person and there's no evidence to suggest that they were separated immediately after writing.

the bible has a place right next to virgil, plato, dante, and shakespeare. it's an influential and important body of writings, though it probably shouldn't be taught until they start teaching the rest of those, because it's a horrible book for children to read.

burning of bibles is for the benefit of people.

That's a little bit like what the Nazi's said about the books they burned. You know, for the greater good and all that.

Well, the Torah shows signs of having been written by multiple authors over several centuries, before being compiled at about the time of Ezra's return from exile. The Deuteronomistic histories were all written by one person and there's no evidence to suggest that they were separated immediately after writing.

*sigh* No, don't actually prove it, that completely defeats the purpose of the request! Honestly, some people...;)

...As part of the English curriculum? I mean, it has had a significant impact on the way Western culture views literature and stories.
Yes. Most of Western literature will contain Biblical allusions or references of some kind, so if you're going to teach about this lit then you're best off teaching about the Bible as a literary work.

Plus, I've found that the fastest way to get somebody to abandon their dogmatic Christian beliefs is to actually require that they read the Bible. ;)

It isn't that the Bible's a horrible book to read. It's just that we, throughout the centuries, haven't been able to properly read it. For example, the Apocalypse.

Apocalypse was a normal way to end a book during Pre-Christian eras. Apocalypse actually means "end", the end to a text, the final chapter of a book. It was common for codexes to end with an "apocalypse", what we call nowadays an epilogue all the way to the Middle Ages. But it doesn't necessarily mean the end of all Creation as we commonly believe. The Apocalypse was, actually, the last chapter of the Bible.

When I took Medieval Art, in order to understand an era that was alien to me, obviously, I was born in 1980, the Apocalypse, nay, the whole Bible was a key element in my comprehension of the art. I read the entire book, and more than once for Philosophy of Religion, Paleo-Christian Art, History of Paleo-Christianity, and both Medieval History and Reinaissance History.

The topics that are discussed in the Apocalypse also pertain to the mentallity of an era and the behavior of a group of people. To try and apply it to our circumstances today is pointless. To instill fear because the imagery of the text is disturbing is sponsoring ignorance. And please, don't let children read this text without properly explaining it. Of course, that's my take on this topic.

Nanatsu no Tsuki-hime

Thirty years ago I had a Biblical Literature class my senior year in high school. It was a very eye opening class, taught in the Bible belt of all places. My teacher spent the semester covering the basic things in the KJV that could not have been possible in ancient times. Things like translations that were not correct etc. It was an amazing class and made me know that while it is a work of some historical reference it is also a work that was produced by man and thus is full of the same flaws that plague man. We also studied the types of writing in the Bible, from first person narratives to the prose and poetry in it. The literary aspects of it are amazing.

As a Christian I was not offended, nor threatened by the class. Though many pastors in our community hit the ceiling trying to stop the class. It was fascinating and sparked a lifetime of study for me. In many ways I think it should be used in English class so that students might realize that it is ok to question the Bible and study it. That all things are not literal in it and that too is ok and can be embraced by the faithful. If we are expected to analyze and understand things like 'The Great Gatsby' as great literature, why in the world should we not want to understand the most influential book in all of recorded history? Ignoring it is just as blind as those who read it literally.

Well, I've read parts of the Quran for an Arabic Literature class. It is immensely poetic, with complex rhythm, rhyme schemes,etc. regardless of people's opinions of it.

So, I suppose the bible could be used for English Literature... I'm not sure what my point is anymore.:D

That's a little bit like what the Nazi's said about the books they burned. You know, for the greater good and all that.

Just because the nazis did something doesn't automatically make it bad.

Post Hoc ergo Propter hoc, the nazis have done bad things before therefore all things nazis do are bad.

In fact that could also come under the slippery slope, You want to burn bibles, nazis burned bibles, nazis also did horrible things, if you burn bibles we will end up in nazi germany.

Sure, but book-burning?

C’mon!


Well, they were Nazis. Figures.

Just because the nazis did something doesn’t automatically make it bad.
Sure, but book-burning?

C’mon!

Sure, but book-burning?

C’mon!

Only in the case of the bible, besides it's environmentally friendly, getting rid of all those pieces mindless chatter. If i wanted a fictional story i'd go to the library not a church for one, and to base your religion on one book is destined for failure.

In fact what would have been better is artwork burning, utterly pointless having artwork worth so much money when even a toddler could paint something more interesting.
That's not to say art is bad, but paying millions or even thousands of $ for a piece of paper with a metal border is the height of insanity.

Does the Bible have a place in schools...

It's definitely played a major part in the history of "civilization" so to totally ignore it academically would be unwise imo. However I certainly don't think it should be preached and refered to as the indisputable word of god in a public school environment.
As a matter of fact, as an atheist, I'm all for the actual "study" of the bible. It's one of the main activities that led me to have a lack of belief in deities.

Only in the case of the bible, besides it's environmentally friendly, getting rid of all those pieces mindless chatter. If i wanted a fictional story i'd go to the library not a church for one, and to base your religion on one book is destined for failure.

In fact what would have been better is artwork burning, utterly pointless having artwork worth so much money when even a toddler could paint something more interesting.
That's not to say art is bad, but paying millions or even thousands of $ for a piece of paper with a metal border is the height of insanity.


I beg to differ. Burning artwork is just outrageous. And to me art is priceless, but the reason why it's worth so much is because the great masters deserve this type of recognition. And not everyone can appreciate the true value of it, that's why great art is either in a museum or in posseission of someone that can truly appreciate it.

And following along the line: Why don't we start burning CDs, iPods and computers? Now, those are true pieces of junk. They only serve to alienate us.

And following along the line: Why don't we start burning CDs, iPods and computers? Now, those are true pieces of junk. They only serve to alienate us.Because of hazmat directives.

I beg to differ. Burning artwork is just outrageous. And to me art is priceless, but the reason why it's worth so much is because the great masters deserve this type of recognition. And not everyone can appreciate the true value of it, that's why great art is either in a museum or in posseission of someone that can truly appreciate it.

And following along the line: Why don't we start burning CDs, iPods and computers? Now, those are true pieces of junk. They only serve to alienate us.

Burning expensive artwork wouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't like to burn all of it, just the mind numbingly expensive pieces.
The great masters deserve this recognition?(i am much confused by this statement) Art isn't made by God's it's made by people.

Appreciate art? As much as i like watching paint dry i like looking at art.

I paid a visit to the Louvre and there were so many pictures of long dead fat men with lots of money, it was incredibly boring even the Mona Lisa seemed pointless. Mind you there might have been some better paintings but i was almost tired with boredom to notice them.

There are a couple of pieces of art i like e.g. the painting of Guernica bombing by Picasso, at least it actually was about something real, something important.

CD's have a practical use, to transfer information, or hold information for business companies or even for personal use. Ipods are practical for carrying large amounts of music with you without taking a huge stack of CD's instead. Computers are useful for communication.
I could say art alienates people too, i don't recall where it's helped anyone other than make money.

Does it have a place? Well, unless your school is different from the public one that I went to, it already has a place. This was explained to us by our Literature and Composition teacher my senior year.

When studying literature, there are countless allusions made. In order to properly do literary analysis, you have to be familiar with these allusions. The second highest source of allusions are from Greek mythology. The highest? The Bible.

Now for this reason, I'd find it odd if you objected to the Bible being used. People who are athiests would find the Bible fundementally no different than Greeks myths, and they don't object to the latter.

PS I hate literary analysis, and think its a load of crap. My regressions always boil down to suicidal/homicidal sexual deviants, which apparently is rarely the right answer. Subjective subject my ass.

I think it should be. Western history would not be the same without it, whether or not you agree with the teachings in the Bible. You would not have to treat the class as an indoctrination, but rather as just a class to show how the basic principles of Christianity and Judaism (found in the Bible) relate to the history of the Western world.

As a fictional, in some cases based on true events, and as a remarkable part of the history of literature, yes. But as a fact book, no. It is not acceptable to teach children something that can not be scientifically proved. It would be the same as teaching Romeo and Juliet as a true story.

Burning expensive artwork wouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't like to burn all of it, just the mind numbingly expensive pieces.
The great masters deserve this recognition?(i am much confused by this statement) Art isn't made by God's it's made by people.

Appreciate art? As much as i like watching paint dry i like looking at art.

I paid a visit to the Louvre and there were so many pictures of long dead fat men with lots of money, it was incredibly boring even the Mona Lisa seemed pointless. Mind you there might have been some better paintings but i was almost tired with boredom to notice them.

There are a couple of pieces of art i like e.g. the painting of Guernica bombing by Picasso, at least it actually was about something real, something important.

CD's have a practical use, to transfer information, or hold information for business companies or even for personal use. Ipods are practical for carrying large amounts of music with you without taking a huge stack of CD's instead. Computers are useful for communication.
I could say art alienates people too, i don't recall where it's helped anyone other than make money.

When I mentioned the great masters, I wasn't refering to God. Have you heard of Michaelangelo, Raphael Sanzio or Alessandro Botticelli? I imagine you haven't, or you wouldn't be writting things like this. I will not discuss anything further with you. It's like reasoning with a brick wall. I'll keep my ideas and you keep yours. Have a good day.:rolleyes:

Only in the case of the bible, besides it’s environmentally friendly, getting rid of all those pieces mindless chatter. If i wanted a fictional story i’d go to the library not a church for one, and to base your religion on one book is destined for failure.
I still don’t see any decent argument for burning Bibles.

Just a rather ignorant, “I don’t believe in it therefore nobody should read it”.

I still don’t see any decent argument for burning Bibles.

Just a rather ignorant, “I don’t believe in it therefore nobody should read it”.

Because it hurts the environment to print new bible books?
Because the bible is a really boring book?
Because the bible would be better off on the internet.
Because so many people take the bible as real when it's fiction?
Because it's so poorly written?
Because it tries to lay down arbitrary rules, with no real justification for them?
Because it contradicts itself in a number of places?
Because it doesn't relate to modern life, it's an echo of the past, only useful for looking at history from a biased point of view?
Because it has driven people to do cruel acts?
Because if someone wrote something like that now, they'd be passed off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about?

Of course my view is quite biased so my comments are meaningless when discussing the bible.

I believe that people should just lead fair lives, and help those who might need it. The Bible does have some interesting points but its dangerous to take it too literally i.e extremist groups. It could be valid but I think the meaning in the Bible is often metaphorical. Plus I also hate these extreme religious people as well "oh you will go to hell for this that and everything".... They are a minority, and dont speak for the Christian faith as a whole; trust me :)

Just because the nazis did something doesn't automatically make it bad.

Post Hoc ergo Propter hoc, the nazis have done bad things before therefore all things nazis do are bad.

In fact that could also come under the slippery slope, You want to burn bibles, nazis burned bibles, nazis also did horrible things, if you burn bibles we will end up in nazi germany.

Same action, same justification. Different target.

Burning books is just a bad idea. Period.

The bible only really has a place when comparing it to other religious texts, and maybe when looking at the history of the English language it being one of the first mass printed books, but even then it's not that useful, the grammar of the original English translations of the bible are nothing like the "proper" grammar of the time, when it was translated into German and later English the word order was never changed from the Latin word order so the grammar was warped. Other than that it has no place at all in schools of any kind...state, private, public and I wont even start on how wrong religious schools are.

Well, I've read parts of the Quran for an Arabic Literature class. It is immensely poetic, with complex rhythm, rhyme schemes,etc. regardless of people's opinions of it.

So, I suppose the bible could be used for English Literature... I'm not sure what my point is anymore.:D

That studying a text and analyzing it is not the same thing as teaching the religion? ;)

Burning expensive artwork wouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't like to burn all of it, just the mind numbingly expensive pieces.
The great masters deserve this recognition?(i am much confused by this statement) Art isn't made by God's it's made by people.

Appreciate art? As much as i like watching paint dry i like looking at art.

I paid a visit to the Louvre and there were so many pictures of long dead fat men with lots of money, it was incredibly boring even the Mona Lisa seemed pointless. Mind you there might have been some better paintings but i was almost tired with boredom to notice them.

There are a couple of pieces of art i like e.g. the painting of Guernica bombing by Picasso, at least it actually was about something real, something important.

CD's have a practical use, to transfer information, or hold information for business companies or even for personal use. Ipods are practical for carrying large amounts of music with you without taking a huge stack of CD's instead. Computers are useful for communication.
I could say art alienates people too, i don't recall where it's helped anyone other than make money.

So in other words, because you personally find no interest in it, you would destroy various artworks and books so the rest of the world can't enjoy it.

Pretty ridiculously selfish attitude.

I believe that people should just lead fair lives, and help those who might need it. The Bible does have some interesting points but its dangerous to take it too literally i.e extremist groups. It could be valid but I think the meaning in the Bible is often metaphorical. Plus I also hate these extreme religious people as well "oh you will go to hell for this that and everything".... They are a minority, and dont speak for the Christian faith as a whole; trust me :)

You do realize you're quite off topic?

Just because the nazis did something doesn't automatically make it bad.

Post Hoc ergo Propter hoc, the nazis have done bad things before therefore all things nazis do are bad.

In fact that could also come under the slippery slope, You want to burn bibles, nazis burned bibles, nazis also did horrible things, if you burn bibles we will end up in nazi germany.

That isn't a post hoc argument. That would be something like, "Shortly after Roosevelt was elected president, Hitler became the fuhrer. Thus, Roosevelt's election put Hitler in power."

I could have posted pics of the asinine Harry Potter book burners, but the pic I chose was more iconic, doesn't violate anyone's copyright, and is instantly recognizable for its historical context. Besides, google "book burning" and see what images come up most.

I can't help it if you're for censorship and against freedom of expression, Hatters.

I could have posted pics of the asinine Harry Potter book burners, but the pic I chose was more iconic, doesn't violate anyone's copyright, and is instantly recognizable for its historical context. Besides, google "book burning" and see what images come up most.

I can't help it if you're for censorship and against freedom of expression, Hatters.

I'd like to sometime publish a book titled Burn This Book, just to see how censors would respond to it.

I'd like to sometime publish a book titled Burn This Book, just to see how censors would respond to it.

Heh. I wonder how much Abbie Hoffman made from Steal this Book. He is reputed to have said he was embarrassed that it made it to the best sellers list.

Click Stand;13445634']From talking to random priests I have met, I have learned that that is untrue. From how I understand it, being an overall good person will get you into heaven. Or it could just be that they didn't want to damn me to eternal hellfire.

I guess it depends on who you talk to.

I don't know which priests you've been talking to....but being a good person will not get you into heaven. The whole point of God providing salvation for us was because we couldn't earn it ourselves. Doesn't matter how good you may be, but it falls short of heaven's standards.
And no-one wants to damn anyone to hell. Hell was never meant for humanity. But now, every person is faced with a choice.
Thats the theology anyway...

Only in the case of the bible, besides it's environmentally friendly, getting rid of all those pieces mindless chatter. If i wanted a fictional story i'd go to the library not a church for one, and to base your religion on one book is destined for failure.

Because it hurts the environment to print new bible books?
Because the bible is a really boring book?
Because the bible would be better off on the internet.
Because so many people take the bible as real when it's fiction?
Because it's so poorly written?
Because it tries to lay down arbitrary rules, with no real justification for them?
Because it contradicts itself in a number of places?
Because it doesn't relate to modern life, it's an echo of the past, only useful for looking at history from a biased point of view?
Because it has driven people to do cruel acts?
Because if someone wrote something like that now, they'd be passed off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about?

Of course my view is quite biased so my comments are meaningless when discussing the bible.

Sucks you feel that way. :(