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

[Totenkindly]

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.

Dude, you need to take a step back.
I understand your mindset.
I agreed with it when I was living in that lifestyle.
I understand it's quite the conundrum.

The only problem is that it's not actually a "given" like you are portraying it, it's a choice.

You've chosen to align yourself with something that demands that level of subservience from you. You haven't been forced to follow it because it's been proven true, it's a choice on your part to ACCEPT it as true. Thus, you're stuck in that hard place where now you can't shift along with the culture.

I realized eventually that (1) there was no proof that particular position was true, it was all a choice on my part and (2) my experiential knowledge had accumulated to a large enough degree that I concluded my original interpretation of spiritual reality was wrong.

You can believe what you want, but honestly, yes, the culture will dump you behind if you don't find a way to deal with it. It's happening now, the Boomer Christian leaders are bitching over the "downfall of America" and post-modern thought. Well, get used to it. If you're going to cling to a rock and not move, then you WILL get left behind. And not in the good sense. Christians used to think they are politically relevant. Well, that's been changing, and the conservative Christians are becoming more and more irrelevant, more of a pocket faith and minority. Eventually that's what it will end up as -- a curiosity.

The Bible is still being sold and is "relevant" because it's got a lot of deep insightful stuff in it. It's also the sort of text that can accommodate a lot of different experiences and philosophies. But each culture reads it and makes it its own. There is no "standard" interpretation. So it looks like the Bible is being relevant for centuries... but it's not what is being suggested in this thread, that a particular INTERPRETATION of the Bible is relevant throughout the centuries, no, not at all. each culture has its own interpretation... and each generation... and its that interpretation that is relevant and why the Bible sticks around.

If you stick to your particular interpretation without focusing on the broader applications, you'll get sloughed off. No way to avoid it. Times change. The concepts don't, the specifics do. a lot of evangelical thought is based on specifics that lose relevancy over time.

 

[professor goodstain]

It's a givin.

 

[Anonymous]

I'd say the Bible itself isn't the best source for study when it comes to Christianity. It's full of mixed messages, various myths which have lost their context, and read by itself, paints a picture nothing like what Christianity has taken from it. For instance, the Roman Catholic church itself has always considered the teachings coming from their people to take priority over those in the Bible, no? That's why it wasn't even canonized until the Protestant Reformation.

Essentially, the Bible itself isn't nearly as important as what mainstream religion has interpreted from it, or just made up. That's what should be studied if you want a cultural background. For instance, you would never find the full extent of the effects of the Inquisition on Europe from reading the Bible.

 

[professor goodstain]

I'll use myself as a testrat here. True...all my actions are done out of choice. Certain actions are chosen by a strong belief in karma. The existence of influential literature (influential as in something to base my belief on....or not) is good to have handy and in abundance. Maybe nowadays people read/buy it to reenforce their belief in karma. Or at least reenforce that karma has a history.

 

[Feops]

The bible is no longer a literary cornerstone.

Our world of information is so much larger than it once was. With many religions and many cultures interacting.

 

[professor goodstain]

The bible is no longer a literary cornerstone.

Our world of information is so much larger than it once was. With many religions and many cultures interacting.

And reading the bible to further their understanding of that other culture for maybe the sake of tolerance. Since computers aren't found as prevolent in other 3rd world countries as they are in the 1st and maybe 2nd world. Which leads the first world to buy the same book as the 2nd and 3rd world to further their understanding of the tolerance that the 2nd and 3rd world have.

 

[01011010]

If you stick to your particular interpretation without focusing on the broader applications, you'll get sloughed off. No way to avoid it. Times change. The concepts don't, the specifics do. a lot of evangelical thought is based on specifics that lose relevancy over time.

The coming evangelical collapse | csmonitor.com

I'd say the Bible itself isn't the best source for study when it comes to Christianity. It's full of mixed messages, various myths which have lost their context, and read by itself, paints a picture nothing like what Christianity has taken from it. For instance, the Roman Catholic church itself has always considered the teachings coming from their people to take priority over those in the Bible, no? That's why it wasn't even canonized until the Protestant Reformation.

Yes.

I've found many adherents of the Bible know nothing or very little of authorship theory, historical inaccuracies, and gloss over what directly contradicts itself.

It was an acct, probably fiction for the most part, by a few people that wanted to illustrate the social mores and rules of the time. Similar to Greek mythology, but for that period of time. It's philosophical, and certainly interesting. By no means a true history, or even accurate portrayal of Christianity itself.

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.

Succinctly stated.



OP: I think educated people especially, should read the Bible. In Greek if possible, but I also think that about the Quran and the Tanach in Hebrew. It's like ingesting any classical literary work. Yet, it's not even remotely necessary for art and culture to continue to thrive. Evolution is human nature.

 

[Kangirl]

The literature is becoming obsolete in many cases as well.

The bible is no longer a literary cornerstone.

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG! WROOOONG!!!

*******************

Y'alls, one need not be Christian to believe that part of being educated is knowing the bible. The bible is a work of literature - great, timeless literature, upon which so many parts of our consciousness and our culture are based. Arguing that knowledge of the bible isn't important sounds to me like arguing that neurosurgeons should go into their first surgery without ever having dissected a human body/brain before. It's a basic - a cornerstone of our civilisation. You are not an educated person, especially in the liberal arts, without broad/deep knowledge of the bible!

You don't read Romeo and Juliet and question whether or not it's 'real' do you? The question of personal belief isn't relevant here. It doesn't matter how many whackjob Christians you know (or whackjob atheists!).

Great works of art (and the bible is one) never become obsolete. You say that again A.S. and I beat you with the philistine stick.

 

[Geoff]

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG! WROOOONG!!!

*******************

Y'alls, one need not be Christian to believe that part of being educated is knowing the bible. The bible is a work of literature - great, timeless literature, upon which so many parts of our consciousness and our culture are based. Arguing that knowledge of the bible isn't important sounds to me like arguing that neurosurgeons should go into their first surgery without ever having dissected a human body/brain before. It's a basic - a cornerstone of our civilisation. You are not an educated person, especially in the liberal arts, without broad/deep knowledge of the bible!

You don't read Romeo and Juliet and question whether or not it's 'real' do you? The question of personal belief isn't relevant here. It doesn't matter how many whackjob Christians you know (or whackjob atheists!).

Great works of art (and the bible is one) never become obsolete. You say that again A.S. and I beat you with the philistine stick.

I disagree, in part. The part being that if so much of the Bible's culture is entwined with the mainstream culture, then we are taught it by being taught the mainstream culture. Example : thou shalt kill doesn't come as a surprise if we are passed the bible.

Detailed study of the bible is a history lesson, it helps with referencing an awful lot of quotes, that are frequently referred to in cultural contexts. Is someone ill educated without detailed bible study? No. They may choose, for example, to spend that same time on another area of cultural importance, like the history of law, or science or some equally important reference.

 

[Feops]

bible

tolerance

Honestly?

 

[Sniffles]

You can believe what you want, but honestly, yes, the culture will dump you behind if you don't find a way to deal with it. It's happening now, the Boomer Christian leaders are bitching over the "downfall of America" and post-modern thought. Well, get used to it. If you're going to cling to a rock and not move, then you WILL get left behind. And not in the good sense. Christians used to think they are politically relevant. Well, that's been changing, and the conservative Christians are becoming more and more irrelevant, more of a pocket faith and minority. Eventually that's what it will end up as -- a curiosity.

"A dead thing goes with the stream; only a living thing can go against it."
-GK Chesterton

It's certainly something worth repeating.

Boomers may bitch about post-modern thought, but that's largely because they're not too aware of recent developments within Christian thought which take into account post-modern themes. This is especially true in regards to the "Radical Orthodoxy" movement.

And Christians may indeed become a minority in this country, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as Philip Jenkins notes on the current situation in Europe:

"In fact, the rapid decline in the continent’s church attendance over the past 40 years may have done Europe a favor. It has freed churches of trying to operate as national entities that attempt to serve all members of society. Today, no church stands a realistic chance of incorporating everyone. Smaller, more focused bodies, however, can be more passionate, enthusiastic, and rigorously committed to personal holiness. To use a scientific analogy, when a star collapses, it becomes a white dwarf—smaller in size than it once was, but burning much more intensely. Across Europe, white-dwarf faith communities are growing within the remnants of the old mass church."

Politics Forum .org - View topic - Europe’s Christian Comeback

And this certainly is in line with Pope Benedict's call for Christians to become the "creative minority" that will spearhead the revival of Western culture. The notion of a "creative minority" is borrowed from the historian Arnold J. Toynbee, who noted the importance of such small but determined forces upon the course of history and civilizations.

The most famous example were the "white dwarf" communities that kept civilization alive during the Dark Ages and later provided the foundation for the rise of Western civilization in the subsequent centuries.

 

[Sniffles]

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.

There's already considerable amount of debate among scholars and sociologists about how society is actually moving towards a Post-secular direction now.

In fact I posted a thread discussing this:
The Post-Secular as the Post-1968 Generation

As I noted, it's rather interesting to have two of the leading Marxist thinkers in the world today actually defending not only religion, but even traditional religion(in the case of Zizek).

As Jürgen Habermas(another Marxist) remarked:

"Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."


So it seems more and more each day scholars are actually embracing, not rejecting, the important role of religion in society.

 

[Journey]

Dude, you need to take a step back.
I understand your mindset.
I agreed with it when I was living in that lifestyle.
I understand it's quite the conundrum.

The only problem is that it's not actually a "given" like you are portraying it, it's a choice.

You've chosen to align yourself with something that demands that level of subservience from you. You haven't been forced to follow it because it's been proven true, it's a choice on your part to ACCEPT it as true. Thus, you're stuck in that hard place where now you can't shift along with the culture.

I realized eventually that (1) there was no proof that particular position was true, it was all a choice on my part and (2) my experiential knowledge had accumulated to a large enough degree that I concluded my original interpretation of spiritual reality was wrong.

You can believe what you want, but honestly, yes, the culture will dump you behind if you don't find a way to deal with it. It's happening now, the Boomer Christian leaders are bitching over the "downfall of America" and post-modern thought. Well, get used to it. If you're going to cling to a rock and not move, then you WILL get left behind. And not in the good sense. Christians used to think they are politically relevant. Well, that's been changing, and the conservative Christians are becoming more and more irrelevant, more of a pocket faith and minority. Eventually that's what it will end up as -- a curiosity.

The Bible is still being sold and is "relevant" because it's got a lot of deep insightful stuff in it. It's also the sort of text that can accommodate a lot of different experiences and philosophies. But each culture reads it and makes it its own. There is no "standard" interpretation. So it looks like the Bible is being relevant for centuries... but it's not what is being suggested in this thread, that a particular INTERPRETATION of the Bible is relevant throughout the centuries, no, not at all. each culture has its own interpretation... and each generation... and its that interpretation that is relevant and why the Bible sticks around.

If you stick to your particular interpretation without focusing on the broader applications, you'll get sloughed off. No way to avoid it. Times change. The concepts don't, the specifics do. a lot of evangelical thought is based on specifics that lose relevancy over time.

Culture may change, but God does not.

 

[Mole]

So it seems more and more each day scholars are actually embracing, not rejecting, the important role of religion in society.

It's true. There has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

Atheists tend to elide this issue. All except for one, Julian Jaynes, who wrote, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

And even he may be wrong.

 

[Oberon]

For the record... I'm one of the people you describe... I've never read the Bible - and have never had any desire to read it, either. I'm not religious, and my interests simply lie in other directions - so take that how you will . At the same time, I'm sure that there are books that I've read and liked that took inspiration (or simply paraphrased) parts of the Bible - but in that case, it's the components of the story that I liked - not the fact that they were Biblically inspired (and I'd suspect that most of the elements of stories in the Bible were taken from earlier traditions anyway).

You have consigned yourself to qualitative ignorance of nine-tenths of the literature of Western civilization up to the 19th century.

Yes, it's your right to do so... but make no mistake, it's what you're doing. You can't understand Tolstoy or Swift or even Tolkien properly without a general familiarity with the Bible, because that's the framework out of which the authors were working.

 

[Sniffles]

Yeah it's funny how so many today forget that Tolkein was a devout Catholic.

 

[Totenkindly]

Culture may change, but God does not.

lol. you guys.
Way to address my points.
My point is you have no idea who God is, objectively, whatsoever.
(But you talk as if you do --that's the discrepancy.)

It's all based on assumption, based on what you accept as authoritative.
There is nothing that can be known with certainty.

It doesn't matter, you know; you can believe what you want.
It's a free country.

PS. Hi Obey!!! :hi:

 

[Oberon]

Hi Obey!!! :hi:

Hey.

What do you think? Can you really grok, say, Ursula LeGuin's work without at least a passing familiarity with the Bible?

 

[Oberon]

Yeah it's funny how so many today forget that Tolkein was a devout Catholic.

Yes.

And even if the author is working counter to the tradition, they're still working in reference to it... like Stephen King or Harlan Ellison, for example.

 

[kelric]

You have consigned yourself to qualitative ignorance of nine-tenths of the literature of Western civilization up to the 19th century.

Yes, it's your right to do so... but make no mistake, it's what you're doing. You can't understand Tolstoy or Swift or even Tolkien properly without a general familiarity with the Bible, because that's the framework out of which the authors were working.

I won't bother to contest the point. It's completely true that I don't much care for classic literature of any sort - never have - I'd much rather read something lighter, or non-fiction. I find many of the Tolkien derivatives much more satisfying reading than Tolkien himself, for instance.

Frankly, for me, reading the Bible just isn't worth it (I've tried - briefly, maybe twice - and I'll admit my nonreligious leanings are strong enough to have that aspect of it alone be a major turnoff). Even if a large percentage of classical Western literature assumes a knowledge of it - most of that's stuff that I don't enjoy anyway, and even if I can read something and say "well, this is very well written - but *yawn*" (my usual response to "classic" literature), it's not something that really makes me want to spend time on it - there are other things I'd enjoy more. Most (if not all) "new" stories are old stories in new wrappers - and have been even before and including the Bible - things that appealed to people thousands of years ago still appeal now - when presented in a context that you can appreciate. For me, the Bible isn't that context, and I've never felt much connection to "culture" anyway.

"Educated" is a pretty meaningless generic term nowadays, I think. There's SO much out there to know that none of us can really handle any reasonably large chunk of it. We can be educated in a topic, or even a lot of topics - but why should I choose to be educated in the Bible, for instance, instead of nuclear physics, or genetics, or geography, or geology, or economics?