'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'

[Nocapszy]

This is the reason I never listen to one.
I prefer watching it.

It is, for the most part, unbiased.

 

[Venom]

After all, ones view of eternity tends to influence ones views of everything else.

If i take it you still maintain that religion is the ultimate source of art inspiration....

you're using a false equivalence: "Being inspired by a gut level emotion that often leads one to ponder on his religion", is not equivalent to "religion is the basis of inspiration". Death, love, life etc all are often sources of great human pondering. So it is true that many humans have ended up turning to religion to answer their questions and build a reference point for thinking.

so for example. A man has a loved one die. He then paints a very religious painting. I would propose this chain of inspiration:

thoughts of death --> his beliefs regarding eschatology --> his religion. To then claim that religion is the source of inspiration for the art this man creates is somewhat misleading. Did the relgion have a large part in the art? yes. To claim that that same inspiration origin, "death", could never be expressed through a different, dare i say, secular paradigm is kind of presumptive.

Here is what some would call a beautiful song (in its musical form at least). the lryrics are very much dealing with death. This would be an example of the strong inspiration of "emotion" regarding death (like our earlier example) being expressed through secular means.

Fade To Black

Life it seems, will fade away
Drifting further every day
Getting lost within myself
Nothing matters no one else
I have lost the will to live
Simply nothing more to give
There is nothing more for me
Need the end to set me free

Things are not what they used to be
Missing one inside of me
Deathly lost, this can't be real
Cannot stand this hell I feel
Emptiness is filing me
To the point of agony
Growing darkness taking dawn
I was me, but now He's gone

No one but me can save myself, but it's too late
Now I can't think, think why I should even try
Yesterday seems as though it never existed
Death Greets me warm, now I will just say good-bye

 

[Kangirl]

Sorry bible guys; no one cares anymore.

But do you think this is good or bad, or neither? Do you consider a person 'educated' if they have no knowledge of the bible?

 

[Ezion]

Knowledge of the Bible is useful when analyzing literature, but as more and more of the world becomes secular and diverse it will become less important.

What will remain useful is knowledge of common themes (many of which the Bible addresses) that reoccur in literature (life, death, love, etc).

It seems like Peguy has a personal stake in defending religion as a cornerstone of culture and art inspiration. If you use a broad enough definition of religion, this is inevitably true.

 

[CrystalViolet]

You know this is going to sound some what ignorant (or sheltered). There are western people who can't pick up bible references in western literature? "Educated" people? (Don't get me on the Shakespeare tangent either), greek classics are maybe understandable (not really though)...How could you analyse anything really, of literary note without a basic understanding of the above?
I mean even The Matrix movies give a not so subtle note to Christianity. It would be like walking round with blinkers on.
I have a fair working knowledge of all the above, and I've never studied literature. How could you not just absorb it?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, as you probably know I think that Bible has a lot of incorrect information.

Personally I am not suprised that things are going in this direction. Bible survived for so long because it gave good philosophical ground for our ancestors.

But I the world where grandmother can give birth to their grandchildren.
In the world when mankind can cause global armageddon during one afternoon if they feel like it. Or in the world where you can talk to a person on the other side without any problems etc. the wisdom that comes from the bible bacomes useless by a large degree.
It sounds harsh but this is the truth. I am sure that many will disagree with me.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Yes, that doesn't really change the fact that a fair amount of literature is inspired and uses biblical symbolism. Even modern day stuff and the odd t.v. program (without, with out the Christian agenda.)

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes, that doesn't really change the fact that a fair amount of literature is inspired and uses biblical symbolism. Even modern day stuff and the odd t.v. program (without, with out the Christian agenda.)

But what is so important about that literature?
The literature is becoming obsolete in many cases as well.
Had an honour to read some 150 year old texts and I got bored. Since reading that was a complete waste of time. But it had to be done.
(for school)


In the case that it is inspiring TV program we should get rid of it as quickly as possible.

 

[ajblaise]

Unless you're a theology major, knowledge of Christianity isn't required for someone to be educated. Under what could be considered a "well-rounded" or "general" education, I don't think one needs to know any specific bibles verses, but a general knowledge of history, which would include some knowledge of the major religions, would help.

Learning the Bible from a fundamentalist perspective can actually damage one's potential to become educated. If the world is 6000 years old, why learn about evolution? It contradicts them. Instead of taking an inquisitive and scientific approach when understanding the world, one can simply tell themselves "God did it".

 

[Totenkindly]

Not so, one must simply have an inspiration, I do not see how eternity is required. Perhaps a simple illustration will help. Much of what is viewed by many as great "art" is and was inspired by the beauty or hope of a desired lover, for example and not by religious themes.

Interestingly, a lot of Christian music in the last twenty years is the impression of human love/romance laid overtop of spiritual yearnings. (i.e., God has been redefined in romantic terms, whereas for many decades it was more patriarchal/authoritarian).

It seems that each generation reinvents God by overlaying the issues of importance to them. On a broader scale, cultures do this as well.

The bottom line to me has always been, "Is it true?" The opening post complaining about "what has been lost" means little to me, if what was lost was never true to begin with. A mistake perpetuated for centuries, even if it happened to catalyze some good things, is still a mistake and catalyzed a bunch of wrong things as well.

I think education is good, and I think since the United States still has a large faction that claims loyalty to the Christian God even to the point of endlessly stirring up conflict and fighting cultural wars over it, it should really have some knowledge of the point of view it's defending. But again, the "faith" in practice seems to be more about people justifying what they already believe by laying claim to convenient religious doctrines, rather than the other way around, at best. The most conflict intellectually that I've had with people has been with those of dogmatic religious views, and that's because those faiths are designed to provide all the answers -- the goal is not to learn how to think and weigh options in an ambiguous world, it's about conforming to an already expressed ideal and to otherwise consider yourself "fallen away" if you break the rules.

I don't see religion as practiced as that positive, although people who already were of good moral character and intelligence throughout the centuries found something of value in it to which to attach their flame.

Finally, if the Bible is no longer part of the conversation, that's less the fault of the culture at large and more the fault of the people who claim to adhere to its standards. It has rather disenfranchised itself over time because the followers were unyielding, unreasonable, and unable to apply general principles to adjust to the valid needs of a shifting culture.

 

[lowtech redneck]

The bottom line to me has always been, "Is it true?" The opening post complaining about "what has been lost" means little to me, if what was lost was never true to begin with. A mistake perpetuated for centuries, even if it happened to catalyze some good things, is still a mistake and catalyzed a bunch of wrong things as well.

The importance of knowledge is not always proportional to its "truth"; for instance, I think some basic knowledge of Marxism is absolutely essential for someone to understand modern history (and society in general), despite my conviction that the theoretical paradigm highly exaggerates one aspect of complicated reality and has done far more harm than good overall. I'm also not very fond of orthodox Islam, but attempting to understand world history or modern events without basic knowledge of it is likewise impossible. On a more advanced level, knowing the history of ideas and society is important in understanding the formation, advancement, and retention of knowledge in general.

 

[Totenkindly]

The importance of knowledge is not always proportional to its "truth"; for instance, I think some basic knowledge of Marxism is absolutely essential for someone to understand modern history (and society in general), despite my conviction that the theoretical paradigm highly exaggerates one aspect of complicated reality and has done far more harm than good overall. I'm also not very fond of orthodox Islam, but attempting to understand world history or modern events without basic knowledge of it is likewise impossible. On a more advanced level, knowing the history of ideas and society is important in understanding the formation, advancement, and retention of knowledge in general.

Well, I did not mean to say I don't believe in education to help you "frame" the information you DO have. It's always good to understand the gist of something, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. i actually think general Bible knowledge should be taught... along with Islam and other mainstream religions, to help people integrate better into a multi-cultural society and actually understand their own backgrounds in context of something bigger.

I'm coming from a conservative evangelical background where I've had to listen to lots of illogical crap being spouted off as "objective truth" without any firm evidence of the sort, it's all really just personal belief given a facade of legitimacy; and so to me, in regards that that particular exchange, the bottom line is, "Is it TRUE?" Not, "Do you think it's good?"

 

[Journey]

Jennifer, when you serve a Sovereign God whose rules of faith and obedience (as revealed in His Word) are immutable, it is very hard to "adjust to the needs of a shifting culture" which is "shifting" into a more and more sinful direction. I'd rather be damned by my culture than by my God. If that "disenfranchises" those of us who believe as I do then we must as needs be thought "unyielding, unreasonable and uable to adjust." I think it is just being thought of by God as a reasonable and true Christian. The Bible continues to be the number one best seller in the world because it is relevant to the day.

 

[Geoff]

Jennifer, when you serve a Sovereign God whose rules of faith and obedience (as revealed in His Word) are immutable, it is very hard to "adjust to the needs of a shifting culture" which is "shifting" into a more and more sinful direction. I'd rather be damned by my culture than by my God. If that "disenfranchises" those of us who believe as I do then we must as needs be thought "unyielding, unreasonable and uable to adjust." I think it is just being thought of by God as a reasonable and true Christian. The Bible continues to be the number one best seller in the world because it is relevant to the day.

The bible is still the number one best seller? Are you sure? Are you talking about ongoing sales?

 

[lowtech redneck]

so to me, in regards that that particular exchange, the bottom line is, "Is it TRUE?" Not, "Do you think it's good?"

Gotcha. I'm somewhat in the middle there, because much as I'm compelled to seek "truth," I'm also pretty convinced that objectively establishing truth is impossible, and IF in fact truth=nihilism, then whether or not something is "good" (in the utilitarian sense) is really all the truth that matters (either way, (societal) knowledge of everything, good and bad, is very important). I also often worry that Western culture has too thoroughly obliterated the "sacred canopy" without having anything to replace its most essential utilitarian elements, though I am very glad that religious dogmas can no longer block the individual pursuit of happiness without strong, reason-based opposition.

 

[Owl]

Gotcha. I'm somewhat in the middle there, because much as I'm compelled to seek "truth," I'm also pretty convinced that objectively establishing truth is impossible, and IF in fact truth=nihilism, then whether or not something is "good" (in the utilitarian sense) is really all the truth that matters (either way, (societal) knowledge of everything, good and bad, is very important). I also often worry that Western culture has too thoroughly obliterated the "sacred canopy" without having anything to replace its most essential utilitarian elements, though I am very glad that religious dogmas can no longer block the individual pursuit of happiness without strong, reason-based opposition.

If it is impossible to objectively establish the truth, then what is the point of opposing dogma with reason-based opposition?

Why not physical opposition?

I ask because reason is usually seen as objective, whereas dogma (usually) isn't, and this why reason based opposition is a good thing.

?

 

[Journey]

The bible is still the number one best seller? Are you sure? Are you talking about ongoing sales?

Just checking one source, ALLBOOKSTORES.COM there are 11,680 versions of the Bible listed under Bible, General. This doesn't include all the entries for each individual Bible Version, Bible Story Books, Study Bibles, Bibles in other languages... One "source" on the net claimed 100,000,000 sold per year--but that cannot be verified. (And I think that is way low.) Of course, Geoff, there is no way to track all these versions of the Bible and get a cumulative ongoing sales figure. WikiAnswers.com does not have an answer to the question "How many Bibles are sold in the world?" for this reason. You are asking for the impossible. I think any reasonable person would say that the Bible is still the number one best seller, hands down, upon looking at the evidence. More and new versions are published every year, just look for yourself.

 

[Jeremy]

Sales figures are one thing though (and we don't even have those). How many bibles are purchased and then never read? To be honest, in today's world, I'd say the number is quite high. People barely take time for things that they actually want to read, let alone things that they're told they must read if they wish to escape eternal damnation. It's not an accurate barometer.

I should probably stop there, but to be honest, I do agree with the idea that a basic knowledge of the Bible helps to understand the English literary canon more than anything else - so much of the literature is based on, either through inspiration or in defiance of, the bible. My lack of knowledge about much of the bible often hurts me in my British literature classes - I don't really understand where many of the ideas in the text are coming from, and these must be explained by someone else.

On the other hand, I have no problem understanding most of the modern / present day literature that I have read, because the bible really is no longer the key center of the conversation. Indeed, while the bible may be necessary to understand earlier texts, modern day texts are more reality and "truth" based - getting a message out and appealing to the sensibilities of people. That's probably one reason that my favorite classes in literature have been about African American literature - though often rooted in faith, there is no requirement to know the fables in the bible in order to understand the text. The text can stand on its own as a modern cultural invention.

 

[Geoff]

Just checking one source, ALLBOOKSTORES.COM there are 11,680 versions of the Bible listed under Bible, General. This doesn't include all the entries for each individual Bible Version, Bible Story Books, Study Bibles, Bibles in other languages... One "source" on the net claimed 100,000,000 sold per year--but that cannot be verified. (And I think that is way low.) Of course, Geoff, there is no way to track all these versions of the Bible and get a cumulative ongoing sales figure. WikiAnswers.com does not have an answer to the question "How many Bibles are sold in the world?" for this reason. You are asking for the impossible. I think any reasonable person would say that the Bible is still the number one best seller, hands down, upon looking at the evidence. More and new versions are published every year, just look for yourself.

Any reasonable man can look at the best seller lists, right now, and see no bible version in the top 100 even....?

Edit : the best selling "religion" book is one that talks about contradictions in the bible (no 34)
the best selling version of the bible is currently no 182

(source, best selling books currently on amazon.com)

So, I'm struggling to get it as being the ongoing best selling book in the world, hands down? It doesnt sell as many books as, say, that rather horrid creation the da vinci code.

 

[lowtech redneck]

If it is impossible to objectively establish the truth, then what is the point of opposing dogma with reason-based opposition?

Why not physical opposition?

I ask because reason is usually seen as objective, whereas dogma (usually) isn't, and this why reason based opposition is a good thing.

?

It is much easier to establish that something is wrong (through both reason and empiricism), or at least highly uncertain, than to establish that something is true. Besides, just because something can't be established as true (empiricism is limited and dependent on the senses, and logic can only establish the consistency of a theoretical framework based on specific assumptions), that dosn't mean certain claims cannot be backed up by more objective evidence than others.