spin

They're as bad as each other.

Joan of Bark

Even I wouldn't go that far. But then, I don't believe in the concept of an antichrist anyway.


You must hang around very enlightened people.

Nope, it's for everybody. But there are far more less able than able.

Species? Where did I use that word?

Languages go into disuse for complicated reasons having to do with political power and cultural and linguistic superiority. I don't think there is any way for "humanity" as a whole to control such things.

sotto voce

One does not need to, merely in order to believe in the simple concept of opposites.

It could seem like that.

Not for enlightened people, evidently.

You didn't.

It's been interesting to talk.

Joan of Bark

Certainly for enlightened people. They might draw different conclusions, but I can live with that. We'll never get 100% agreement with my obviously correct beliefs:Cheeky:

andrewcriddle

What is the objection in Reykjavik to allowing the Gideon's to distribute Bibles in schools ?

Andrew Criddle

Toto

The objection was to missionaries coming to schools and giving literature to children that their parents did not like. The Gideons objected that they were not missionaries, just giving out free books.

sotto voce

But the parents are not falling for that one.

anethema

The problem is of course, one of genre. To use the bible for anything else than a literature course is tantamount to lying to children. To paraphrase Hitch "nice way to make a living". "History" IMHO demands more than this.

sotto voce

Certainly, no public educational organisation should be used to promote acceptance of any religious, political or philosophical text. Arguably, no private school should be permitted to do so, either, as part of a basic education.

But religious, political and philosophical texts have had profound effects on human societies (as have oral traditions that have not always survived in written form). So knowledge of these texts is necessary to understand historic events. The Bible is certainly essential to the understanding of history of the last two millennia, and of course current events, even in China. One does not necessarily need to read it all, any more than one needs to read all of Das Kapital or On the Origin of Species, but one needs to know its purport as much as one needs to know the purport of those other texts. That meaning should be learned from accurate quotes from the very best translations, suitable to the age of the students, which renderings should always be regarded as somewhat pale imitations of the original texts.

This is far more important than the survival of phrases like 'through a glass darkly' which might be supposed to sound attractively quaint now, but they didn't sound attractive to their original hearers. This one is anyway now an absurd translation that could pass out of use without loss. Dawkins presumably wants to retain archaism precisely because it is incomprehensible to most ordinary people.

It is probably important that students of English literature realise the influence of the Bible on that literature, particularly poetry, but it's a minor role in comparison to the general significance of the Bible on history. It is also a modern myth that the Bible is poetic. It isn't, except in parts, and much of the Bible is not particularly good literature. It was not intended as literature, to entertain, like a novel; so people who value a particular translation because it is 'beautiful' are a touch silly, far from reading the Bible as intended. Anything written needs to be read as its author intended.

andrewcriddle

From my experience of Gideons in the UK I suspect that the Bibles would have been given to the children with little comment.

The issue seems to be whether giving Bibles to children without parental consent is in itself objectionable.

Andrew Criddle