spin

Oh, is hurt, is?

I guess my problem is that I couldn't decipher the content of your statement I was responding to. It might be better if you make clear what you are saying instead of asking apparently leading questions, then being hurt when misunderstood.


spin

pope fiction

First of all, I wasn't hurt; I was just trying to bring to your attention that you were rebutting at no particular points I made, for no particular reason.

What do you mean clearify what I'm saying? I typed a clear response to the OP. What more do you want?

PF

spin

A bit more than a few loaded questions that require the reader to eke out what you are really talking about. The basic suggestion is "consider the reader", what might seem plain to you, might not be for your reader.

Ok, spin, so we're discussing the negative effects of the bible on society? If so, are we assuming the stories are crap also?

Well, no we weren't specifically discussing anything of the sort. Ideas may get touched on along the way, but the topic of the discussion has been and still is the proposition that the bible is crap, which proposition has been danced around but not defended other than from extremely subjective criteria that seem to be arbitrary when considered inthe light of other works.

And no, we weren't "assuming the stories are crap".

But I was assuming that the notion of "crap" was one that we all could understand, ie without merit.

If you have something to say rather than questioning based on fallacious assumptions, please, make a clear presentation of your ideas, otherwise you'll understand why you don't get any more responses.


spin

pope fiction

So....it's not about the negative effects of the bible on society, but we're saying it's "crap"? O....k.

Fallacious assumptions? Point them out. A believe I gave my clear presentation of my ideas right here:
PF

funinspace

Not that there has been much substance for the length of this thread, but this last repeat, is something. So it can only be looked at in this way (literary value), and thereby only evaluated from this viewpoint?

This minority Hebrew race was at the fulcrum of a religious transformation probably with some level of Hellenistic mixing. How would one be able to understand the last 2000 years of European history without understanding Christianity and the Bible, and how people used it? Yes, if it didn't happen, something else would have shifted human thought. Then people would be studying that. Crap/trash would be the latest romance novel pumped that out by the big publishing houses where one would be hard pressed to differentiate 1 from a dozen others. It may be crap as literature, and as a book of philosophy. But I would hardly consider it crap in terms of social/political history.

Just my 2 cents after spending a while trying to figure out what all the arguing was about.

DK

spin

Guess so.

At a particular time and place. Just as Star Wars does.

This doesn't follow from its antecedents.

Did you refuse to watch Star Wars because of the hokey content in it?

People can appreciate the art and social importance of cultural artefacts without succombing to the weight of the message content. Much of Michelangelo's work was religious art; did it change the artistic content? Gerard Manley Hopkins was a poet who happened to write about religious experience; did the religious content change the artistic content?

The translation of the King James Bible is thought to be one of the literary classics of English. How could that be if we cannot make the separation between artifice and content?

I have talked about the literary side of an analysis of the merit in the bible. Others have talked about its impact on our society. Other comments, including some of mine, have been directed towards the bible as a reflection of ancient thought and at the same time an elucidation of how ancients confronted the world and organised society on what bases.

And you continue to hold to the notion that books have only one reason to be considered and you have discounted the bible because it -- not its authors -- wants to impose unwanted lifestyles on the reader.

I often maintain that religionists are unfit to read such works as the bible because they are incapable of giving its content a chance, unable to read the text for what it says or is attempting to do. Perhaps reactions to religionists can make you unfit to read such a text as well, with the religionists' having poisoned the well.

Baby and bathwater syndrome.

The content of your self-citation has already been dealt with. The closest it comes to dealing with the proposition that the bible is crap is its claim that the bible attempts to impose a lifestyle on its readers, which doesn't relation to the topic, but to your reason for not wanting to read it, which as stated is not about our topic.


spin

Valdemar

I'll take a stab at this. It was hard trying to catch up with five pages already finished. The topic is "The Bible is Crap." My Oxford dictionary says that "Crap" is nonsense, rubbish, or feces.

I can dispel with the "feces" notion. I have a bible on my table, and it smells like paper and ink, not feces. Is it nonsense? Hmmm... many parts of it SEEM to be nonsense: Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the whale. Jesus walking on water, feeding 5000, and rising from the dead. Rubbish? I'd say many parts of it are certainly wrong from a moral or philosophical standpoint. There are tons of contradictions. There are obvious atrocities; and women are demeaned.

So, I've now commented on the content of the Bible. How do I regard it as a piece of literature? As I assume it is fiction, I don't find it particularly compelling. It took me years to get through it the first time. Now, I simply just read bits and pieces that I find interesting. Maybe it's more interesting in Greek or Hebrew.

Now, to comment on what you said in this particular post:
Yep, I sure do. I'm probably one of those rare people who actually thought that Star Wars was bad. I usually don't waste my time if I don't really enjoy something, no matter what the public sentiment may be at the time.

I agree. I listen to Bach, who was inspired by belief in God. He was, of course, brilliant. But lately I find my views of art (as in your example above) tainted by the painters, or authors, or composers religious viewpoints. I can look at Michelangelo and say "wow, he's a technical genius." But I find it increasingly difficult to separate the beauty from the religious content. Maybe that comes from my increasingly cyncial worldview that has been tainted by Christian culture.

I have a friend who is a movie lover like I am. He's funny in one way, though. If we see a movie and then it comes out on dvd -- say six months later -- and he remembers seeing it and liking it, he'll grab it off the shelf in the store and start wandering over to the book section with the movie reviews. He reads the review of the movie, and if the reviewer is negative about the movie, my friend puts the dvd back on the shelf! I don't find your statement about the King James Bible "thought to be one of the literary classics of English" especially compelling. It needs to stand on its own merits, from generation to generation. And the King James Bible being a literary classic of English says more about the culture reviewing it than the book itself, don't you think?

It is a book with incredible insight into the superstitious mindset of the Hebrew people more than two thousand years ago. But does that make it good writing?

But content is a very important part of art. So you are both right. I've read that art consists of Idea, Form, Idiom, Struture, Craft, and Surface. Idea consists of emotions and philosphy (the content). I think you are more interested in Form and Idiom. But the artform of the Bible is a combination of all these things, don't you agree?

And yet, aren't you poisioning the well, too? You have dismissed the "Idea" aspect of art as being unimportant, when it is the very foundation of art!

And, of course, imposing a lifestyle is the "Idea" behind the Bible. So, it is very fair to analyze that aspect as well as the aspect that you are analyzing. I believe the key is to find the "balance" in the analysis.

spin

This is of course an admission of your problem. How could you partake in the sensitive side of his art for the feeling's sake when you express a problem with his religion? Michelangelo's art is in the vigour of the feelings.

You don't have to. It's sufficient that I find it a classic along with very many in the field of English literature. Art is not simply in the eye of the beholder. One requires training in the appreciation of the art. If you like films you may have seen Amadeus. If so, you can appreciate that it is only the composer Salieri who can truly appreciate Mozart (at least in the context of the film and the theme it develops).

Appreciation of art is once again becoming the sport of only a few people. Fewer people receive the cultural background to appreciate Emily Bronte and a great piece of art has been left by the way, passing at one stage through the misfortune of being labelled a novel of romance suited to youngish women to be. How can something be perceived to stand on its own merits when the perceiver lacks the requisite technical know-how to understand the merits?

Not by reason of the insight. (And the Hebrews were no more superstitious than anyone else during the period. Just think, without the benefits of science, you would probably be on a par with such a superstitious mindset.) But hopefully some of the comments on the literary and other content of the book has come out earlier in this thread.

That is only your contention. Perhaps you should read the Rape of the Lock.

Sounds like you got this stuff from a Barron's Notes on how to appreciate litritchure.

[QUOTE=Valdemar]And yet, aren't you poisioning the well, too? You have dismissed the "Idea" aspect of art as being unimportant, when it is the very foundation of art!

Art is always, and always will be, the how it was done, whatever it is. The "idea" could be entirely trivial as many 18th century poets discovered or it could be the depths of profundity, and yet, if it isn't "executed" well enough, it will not be art.

Here is some great art:

You will note that it is a deeply religious poem, but read it aloud, listen to the words as they leave your mouth, the way they reverberate with their sounds and correlate those sounds with the visual imagery. See and hear the sad people trudging through it over the generations, how they are bound, and realise that you have only scraped the surface of the poem. Yet it is still a deeply religious poem. That idea to me is like most ideas: you can take it or leave it. The art can be analysed through its merit, not by the idea it embodies. Just think of the list of artists who would go by the way if the critic couldn't separate the medium from the content. Giotto, Fra Angelico, Lippo Lippi, Masaccio, Paolo Uccello, Verrocchio, Leonardo, Piero della Francesca, Luca Signorelli, Michelangelo, Raffaello, Caravaggio and a list of more of the world's great artists. They are great artists because of the means of expression, not the content per se.

But to appreciate great art, you need understanding of the artform.

I don't like Bach at all, but I can appreciate his art and its, his, place in the history of music.

You may believe so.

But is it relevant to whether or not the bible is crap? I doubt it.

What concerns me is that many people stop using their critical facilities because they don't like the content of something, or they don't like who said it. What may be valuable -- even to our spectator -- in the artefact is totally lost and the loser is the person who cuts him/herself off from the possibility of appreciation because of closedmindedness.


spin

Answerer

No, it isn't. You are just repeating(something)



What? Fulcrum? Come on , Christianity didn't come from the Hebrew, it came from the Roman empire. The Hebrew rejected it from the start. Moreover, their interpretations of the bible and worldviews(the christians and Jews) were different from one another.

Also, the European civilization differed a lot from that of the Hebrews' culture and beliefs.

Valdemar

I agree. At least I'm willing to admit that it is my problem, unlike you.

That was totally uncalled for, now wasn't it? I happen to have a bachelor's degree in English. Instead of trying to have a decent discussion with me, you choose to insult and berate me instead.

I was willing to learn from you. I read your posts and valued your insight, but now, I'm afraid, you can kiss my ass. "litritchure," indeed.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

And to appreciate those speaking with you on these forums, you need to understand their intent.

Prove it. Please refer to your litritchure.

As you closed yourself off from me by being condescending. There is irony in your statement about people who stop using their critical facilities. And there is even more irony in you saying it "concerns me."