Is The Bible Still Relevant Today?

[loveboof]

I just watched quite an interesting debate on youtube:

Is The Bible Still Relevant Today? with Richard Dawkins - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evIn00lhq8Q&feature=g-high-rec)

I was baffled by the way it was eventually (dismissively) conceded that humans have a moral code completely outside of specific religions & the Bible, but the conclusion about the Bible as a relevant moral authority was still in question...

It does make me think that religious people will never accept any fact or logic which does not simply reinforce the opinion they already hold!

[loveboof]

Here's a 'lower ability' question for people who don't want to watch an hour long debate. In the first few minutes of the video the pretty lady talks about the truth of bible stories (namely that most are completely false).

Any opinions on that?

[Quiet Reflections]

It will always be relevant as long as there are people that hold those words to be true

[loveboof]

It will always be relevant as long as there are people that hold those words to be true

Yeah.. well those people who believe it all to be true are just plain wrong. However, as a piece of literature it has been immensely significant, so on that basis it is still relevant today. But only on that basis.

As Richard Dawkins said, why should the Bible be given such a revered status?

When you have to cherry pick which parts are still relevant, or even simply not horrendous for our modern sensibilities, we are applying our own moral understanding to the bible and not the other way around.

If we are filtering which parts of the bible to listen to and which to ignore, why not use any complex work of literature as a guide?

There were lots of interesting opinions in that debate, but I suppose it was a bit unrealistic of me to assume you guys would want to spend an hour watching it.

[Prospero]

Whether or not you believe in God, it is certain that the book is very relevant - as the key cornerstone of Western civilisation, as the source of our moral and ethical universe, and as a book which millions still believe to contain the truth. It is also a beautiful work of art.

And Dawkins himself recently advocated that the King James translation should be taught in every UK school - in literature classes.

[trish]

If we are filtering which parts of the bible to listen to and which to ignore, why not use any complex work of literature as a guide? Good idea. From here on out let's use CUJO. It has about the same moral tenor and literary value as the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran and the Book of Mormon combined.

[Willie Escalade]

As literature, yes.

As the definitive way to live YOUR life, not so much.

[loveboof]

Whether or not you believe in God, it is certain that the book is very relevant - as the key cornerstone of Western civilisation, as the source of our moral and ethical universe, and as a book which millions still believe to contain the truth. It is also a beautiful work of art.

I don't agree with this. It is not the sole source of our morality! What about the moral teachings from before Christianity (like the ancient Greek philosophers for example) - these are the things which were the source of the bible morality... Then consider the societies which predate the bible; they had their own systems of ethics. As I said, we are the filter for what is moral in the bible! There is so much that is immoral and disgusting in the bible we have to ignore it in order to be moral ourselves...

And I would argue that millions of people believing it to be true does not automatically make it relevant. What if they are mistaken? (I think they are)

Having said that, I do think it still holds relevance - but not as a source of authority. As Willie just said, it is relevant as a work of literature - That's it.

Good idea. From here on out let's use CUJO. It has about the same moral tenor and literary value as the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran and the Book of Mormon combined.
lol.. You could be right! (I've only seen the film)

Was the dog just evil or possessed or something? can't remember :)

[Prospero]

You cannot deny the relevance to the modern world if millions believe in it. Does not mean it is right. Just like the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita. These beliefs - for good or ill - have shaped the world we live in - and still do. As does the knowledge revealed by science.

Nor can you deny that the moral universe we inhabit was - largely - shaped by Judaeo Cristian values. For good or ill. Yes Greek philosophy helped shape that world too - though Aristotle more than Plato I'd argue.

I'm not talking about cherry picking the book. It's influence is everywhere.

And to dismiss it as "a work of literature" is simply wrong. It's impact and continuing influence is immensely greater (forgood or ill) than any work of literature. The Bible has in profound ways played a major role in shaping the world in which we live.

[loveboof]

You cannot deny the relevance to the modern world if millions believe in it. Does not mean it is right. Just like the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita. These beliefs - for good or ill - have shaped the world we live in - and still do. As does the knowledge revealed by science.

Nor can you deny that the moral universe we inhabit was - largely - shaped by Judaeo Cristian values. For good or ill. Yes Greek philosophy helped shape that world too - though Aristotle more than Plato I'd argue.

I'm not talking about cherry picking the book. It's influence is everywhere.

And to dismiss it as "a work of literature" is simply wrong. It's impact and continuing influence is immensely greater (forgood or ill) than any work of literature. The Bible has in profound ways played a major role in shaping the world in which we live.
I'm not dismissing the bible by referring to it as 'a work of literature', I am actually paying it a compliment. There are vastly superior examples of writing, story telling, drama, (or art) - but the bible is still interesting as a collection of works.

I am not denying the affect it has had on our society. However, the morality of Christianity can most aptly be summarised in the golden rule - which is a much older concept than the bible! So I do not concede that the moral universe I inhabit is largely shaped by Judaeo-Christian values!

Actually I find those values quite insulting when I properly consider their implications. On face value those areas of the Bible which we have deemed acceptable for our (relative) morality sound great, but when you consider that every moral commandment or virtues (as you favour Aristotle in this example + Thomas Aquinas for Christians) should be obeyed on the counterbalance of eternal damnation! What does that say about our morality?

Our moral code comes from us - not some external authority! The bible, insofar as it is a collection of writings by man, contains morality and systems of ethics. They are not divine though! They are man-made.

When considering it's relevance today, I'm talking about the Bible as a source authority.

[Stavros]

To begin with, the Bible is not 'a book' but a collection of books written hundreds of years apart. Secondly, it is an edited collection of books, because other texts from the same period have been deemed to be 'false' or of doubtful authorship. The New Testament in particular owes its current form to the Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus who in 180 AD declared that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the gospels and any other text heretical. Also known as: YOU MUST NOT READ THEM!! Thirdly, the literary beauty of the King James Version owes as much to translators such as William Tyndale as it does to whatever the original Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew text says, about which there are volumes of exegesis as withering to deal with as the Hadith in Islam, and the commentaries on the Hadith and the commentaries on the commentaries. In effect, in many celebrated passages of the King James version, what one is admiring is Tyndale's gift at writing/translating in English, the original is something else.

Looked at in terms of the history of ideas, the Bible, as with most sacred texts, suggests a commonality across humanity in its concerns with the origins of life, the purpose of life, the rules that govern kinship and marriage, property rights, dietary regimes, sexual behaviour, the theory and practice of sacrifice, and so on. On this basis, the Bible is a social and political document, because it is undoubtedly written by human hands. The Bible can be deeply problematic, not least because it is a collection of different narratives, sometimes differing accounts of the same event.

The Bible is relevant as a literary text, as a source book for anthroplology, and as a means of undermining the claims that some people make to live their life by it, as the Bible offers in total, a confusing set of rules and regulations, and the reality is that the same people who claim to live by it, pick and choose the rules and regulations that suit them.

For what it's worth, I prefer Shakespeare,who most likely used the Geneva Bible published in 1560, possibly the Great Bible of 1539 and the Bishop's Bible of 1568.

[trish]

No doubt the Bible has had enormous literary influence and continues to have some literary influence (though considerably less so) on Western writers. The Bible was the first book published by the very first printing presses. It was often the book that children learned to read from, often because it was the only book in the household, sometimes the only book in the entire community. Milton, Shakespeare, Dickens and Melville are just some obvious examples of great writers who have borrowed biblical stories or been driven by biblical themes.

But as a work of literature in and of itself... well just try reading it sometime. The plots are confused, characters are largely undeveloped, it jumps into stories without providing background...it’s a miracle anyone can follow it. Except for a few books, it was not written with style or presentation in mind. It was written by amateur historians and moralists jotting down their memories and conclusions as briefly as possible on a limited supply skin or papyrus for safekeeping. At least that’s the way it reads. A literary accomplishment it is not. To say that it is would be like saying “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” is a masterpiece of musical composition.

But yes, it is necessary to know the Bible if you want to understand much of Western literature. I suspect, however, it’s influence is diminishing.

As a source of moral authority, Americans still turn to the Bible, even though few Americans actually have read it. Yet as others have said in this thread, there was morality before the Bible and morality seems to spring from a source independent of religious feeling and spirituality. From nearly the time of Gutenberg up to about the twentieth century The Elements of Euclid was the second most published book in the world. There were years when it outsold the Bible. Philosophers, ethicists, moral thinkers, just plain thinkers took the axiomatic method and the rules of logical inference to heart. It might be argued that in some ways The Elements has been more influential than the Bible. From our space probes to our practical appliances, from our science to just the way we think and apply everyday reason, the logic and geometry of Euclid is the real source of Western genius. The lunatic ramblings of a Middle Eastern desert god have been a centuries old detour.

[loveboof]

To begin with, the Bible is not 'a book' but a collection of books written hundreds of years apart. Secondly, it is an edited collection of books, because other texts from the same period have been deemed to be 'false' or of doubtful authorship. The New Testament in particular owes its current form to the Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus who in 180 AD declared that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the gospels and any other text heretical.

Yeah that's an interesting fact that is almost always overlooked. Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou (the biblical scholar from the debate I posted) mentioned a story of Jesus striking someone to the ground, killing them, and then resurrecting them - from one of the non canon gospels.

This is one of the reasons it is so crazy to accept the bible literally. How can something like 45% of Americans believe in the Adam & Eve story? This is scary to me!



But as a work of literature in and of itself... well just try reading it sometime. The plots are confused, characters are largely undeveloped, it jumps into stories without providing background...it’s a miracle anyone can follow it. Except for a few books, it was not written with style or presentation in mind. It was written by amateur historians and moralists jotting down their memories and conclusions as briefly as possible on a limited supply skin or papyrus for safekeeping. At least that’s the way it reads. A literary accomplishment it is not. To say that it is would be like saying “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” is a masterpiece of musical composition.

But yes, it is necessary to know the Bible if you want to understand much of Western literature. I suspect, however, it’s influence is diminishing.


Exactly. That is why I meant it as a compliment when I referred to it as an influential work of literature. The bible is quite infantile compared to other influential works of literature!

[broncofan]

It might be argued that in some ways The Elements has been more influential than the Bible. From our space probes to our practical appliances, from our science to just the way we think and apply everyday reason, the logic and geometry of Euclid is the real source of Western genius. The lunatic ramblings of a Middle Eastern desert god have been a centuries old detour.
I think us people of the book have won a convert. You admit he authored the book in all its forms but you attempt to shroud this admission in libel about his mental state. We have a veritable fallen hungangel on our hands.

I think what is valuable about the bible is its insights into the human condition. This is what makes it valuable as a matter of literacy and not necessarily morality. We see allegories that demonstrate the jealousy of one brother towards another, a father favoring one son but being willing to sacrifice him based on other considerations/hallucinations, people overcoming bitter oppression by holding onto a system of belief however unbelievable. On this latter point, many an oppressed nation has used the same tactic when facing a situation where they have no other hope. It is not necessarily the belief that there is a supreme being that is significant but that there is a source of good, a source of reason in the world.

But there is the problem. Even the few stories I've told require the submission of one's ability to reason to this Middle Eastern lunatic. If he commands you to murder your son, you have failed as a man of faith if you hesitate. And the morality that is consistent with secular morality relies on falsely invoking the authority of an omniscient being rather than standing up to our mind's critical processes.

Would we say that in order to make a point we were sure was correct we could cite to sources that did not exist? The use of the almighty is that kind of ruse; what's more because it achieves these ends without any burden to appeal to our common reason, people must accept all of its dictates. The Abraham story, even though I know it has many interpretations, seems to me an appeal to man to abdicate his skepticism. Why then should anyone get to choose what parts they like and don't like?

[trish]

Touche’. I should have said, “The imagined ramblings...” but I didn’t and you got me. :)

[trish]

I think what is valuable about the bible is its insights into the human condition.Perhaps. But it is not unique in this capacity. There are hundreds of thousands of histories, novels, poems and plays that that are well written, more engaging, deeper than the bible that give us insights into the human condition. I am not convinced the bible owes it's position of past influence in western literature to any intrinsic literary merit other than the mere happenstance of the hold Christianity itself had on the West from the time of Constantine.

[Prospero]

Now if you'd said that..."When considering it's relevance today, I'm talking about the Bible as a source authority."

And to Stavros -yes I certainly prefer the iterary qualities of Shakespeare too.

[broncofan]

Perhaps. But it is not unique in this capacity. There are hundreds of thousands of histories, novels, poems and plays that that are well written, more engaging, deeper than the bible that give us insights into the human condition. I am not convinced the bible owes it's position of past influence in western literature to any intrinsic literary merit other than the mere happenstance of the hold Christianity itself had on the West from the time of Constantine.
Yeah it was certainly well promoted! But we have to remember these are very old stories and I am a believer in evaluating things in their context because man has limits. I don't have nearly the biblical literacy I should have but I've sat down with the Gideon's in a cheap motel room and the stories have an eery resonance at times.

The language in the Old Testament is sometimes terse, there is an obsession with geneology and family trees, but when we get to actual stories we feel the dilemmas of the characters as they would have felt them had they actually experienced the events. And the invocation of God, though dubious in terms of morality, might well be seen as a very good literary device. It's only a shame because I've always liked tales where the tyrant is slain at the end, but let's just say it doesn't have a feel good ending. Yes, I see what you're saying though that it gets a great deal of benefit from its broad dissemination and force-feeding to the masses.

[trish]

And the invocation of God, though dubious in terms of morality, might well be seen as a very good literary device.True enough. It worked for Charlton Heston, and millions of viewers.

[broncofan]

Now if you'd said that..."When considering it's relevance today, I'm talking about the Bible as a source authority."

You're right that this means nothing as far as its literary merit. I think it has a good deal considering when it was written, the psychological conflicts of the characters, the infusion of a message through symbolism.

I think it has some relevance to its moral authority though because the bible must at some level take itself as a serious nonfiction document if it is to appeal to believers. The source authority is God and cannot be questioned. I'm just saying in terms of morality, I don't think we can accept the proposition that something is inherently right even if we agree with it. It has to be right with some relationship to its support in fact or reason. We have no other way of determining that.

Edit: I'll also say in terms of its relevance it is quite good if it is the first systematic defense of a lot of its commands against theft, murder, adultery. I don't know if it is. If Jesus was the first to promote "turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbor" or he instilled a passive stance with regard to conflict that permeated his and other cultures. Even if it leads to post facto justification, if it created a consensus against some of the proscribed things in the Old Testament and led people to respond to conflict by turning the other cheek I wouldn't quibble over the methodological problems. I think the problems I have with accepting authority speak more to those instances where the bible takes a stance that is counter to modern wisdom or where it leads to stances on things the bible did not address but that can no longer be dealt with in purely logical terms because of the way it justifies them.

[loveboof]

Now if you'd said that..."When considering it's relevance today, I'm talking about the Bible as a source authority."


That's meant to be 'source of authority' - but I assume everyone still understood what I was saying.

Yeah, I'm more interested in all the facets and the implications of various stances in this debate than simply a yes/no response.

But you are right that the question is about the bible's general relevance.

[Stavros]

Some interesting ideas floating around -there was a time when literacy was power, when the Church did not want biblical texts translated in case ordinary people could read them; the early translator of parts of the Vulgate into English, John Wycliffe, an early anti-Catholoic, died in 1384 -in 1428 his remains were exhumed on the orders of Pope Martin the Fifth, burned and the ashes scattered in the river. In order to learn Hebrew and thus translate books of the Bible in that language, William Tyndale had to travel to Germany where there were Jewish communties, as Jews had been expelled from England at the time. Another anti-Catholic, he was arrested in a town outside Brussels in 1535, and a year later strangled to death and his body burnt at the stake. Ok so they were considered heretics opposed to the Church, but the attempts by both Wycliffe and Tyndale to make the sacred texts available to all were deemed to undermine the authority of the Church of Rome -which was part of their intention.

Abraham and Isaac, along with Cain and Abel are two accounts of sacrifice which I think is one of the most complex subjects. In Violence and the Sacred, Rene Girard argues that Cain killed Abel because he was a farmer with no animals to sacrifice whereas Abel as a pastoralist had sheep or goats: the issue of rage, or anger expressing itself in violence thus suggests Cain had no other outlet for a ritual display of anger, motivated by jealousy -so he killed his brother. Isaac is spared because the option of killing a ram instead of a human is preferred -thus these narratives could mark a moment in human society when human sacrifice came to an end: this makes the crucifixion even more compelling, as Jesus is possibly arguing that all violence against the person should end, and he will offer himself as the last sacrifice -the belief being that after him, people will learn to love, and not to kill.

But I agree with Trish that many of the biblical stories are not that compelling; but I can't understand why people assume the Middle East is desert -the snow-capped mountains of Lebanon, the olive groves and plum trees of Palestine, the rolling wheat fields of central Jordan, the verdant valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates....there is so much more to the place than camels, sand dunes, and hairy men with apocalytpic messages...

[LibertyHarkness]

no its not relevant imo

[martin48]

Good idea. From here on out let's use CUJO. It has about the same moral tenor and literary value as the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran and the Book of Mormon combined.

A bit hard on the works of Stephen King! I'd go for this The Dead Zone

[mrtrebus]

I wish Richard Dawkins would just fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[martin48]

I wish Richard Dawkins would just fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A very meaningful and insightful contribution to the debate, methinks

[Prospero]

Dawkins is actually a hugely nice guy - just a bit fixated.

[martin48]

No doubt the Bible has had enormous literary influence and continues to have some literary influence (though considerably less so) on Western writers. The Bible was the first book published by the very first printing presses. It was often the book that children learned to read from, often because it was the only book in the household, sometimes the only book in the entire community. Milton, Shakespeare, Dickens and Melville are just some obvious examples of great writers who have borrowed biblical stories or been driven by biblical themes.

But as a work of literature in and of itself... well just try reading it sometime. The plots are confused, characters are largely undeveloped, it jumps into stories without providing background...it’s a miracle anyone can follow it. Except for a few books, it was not written with style or presentation in mind. It was written by amateur historians and moralists jotting down their memories and conclusions as briefly as possible on a limited supply skin or papyrus for safekeeping. At least that’s the way it reads. A literary accomplishment it is not. To say that it is would be like saying “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” is a masterpiece of musical composition.

But yes, it is necessary to know the Bible if you want to understand much of Western literature. I suspect, however, it’s influence is diminishing.

As a source of moral authority, Americans still turn to the Bible, even though few Americans actually have read it. Yet as others have said in this thread, there was morality before the Bible and morality seems to spring from a source independent of religious feeling and spirituality. From nearly the time of Gutenberg up to about the twentieth century The Elements of Euclid was the second most published book in the world. There were years when it outsold the Bible. Philosophers, ethicists, moral thinkers, just plain thinkers took the axiomatic method and the rules of logical inference to heart. It might be argued that in some ways The Elements has been more influential than the Bible. From our space probes to our practical appliances, from our science to just the way we think and apply everyday reason, the logic and geometry of Euclid is the real source of Western genius. The lunatic ramblings of a Middle Eastern desert god have been a centuries old detour.

Ah, Euclid's Elements!! How I imagine our commensurability. Don't be too hard on God. His only son must have been a big disappointment to him - no grandchildren, got into trouble with the authorities, etc, etc

[martin48]

Dawkins is actually a hugely nice guy - just a bit fixated.

These fanatics are all the same :dancing:

[broncofan]

Dawkins is actually a hugely nice guy - just a bit fixated.
I agree with that and he's a great scientist though I've only read the first three chapters of the Blind Watchmaker. Although I am an atheist myself I always felt he was wasting a great deal of time on the lecture circuit talking about how he thinks there isn't a God. I mean he could have gotten his point across about the damage he thinks intelligent design and creationism have done to science generally, and that he thinks evolution explains the humble origins of mankind and then gotten back to his very important work. It's not that there aren't important issues ancillary to theism and atheism, it's just that a great scientist is wasting a good deal of his precious time proselytizing his non-belief.

Again, I say this as an atheist that I actually think the idea of non-belief is not that interesting or stimulating. It's worth a discussion or two but since it's non-belief, even my own non-belief, I don't think it is a way of life, a philosophy or a culture. I still hold to it though:)

[zerrrr]

It is very relevant as a text and guide but the writings were written in parables and we tend to translate it inside our minds as a literal piece of text.

We have a hard time comprehending how ancient civilizations like the Mayans and Egyptians could be so advanced when they had none of our tools. That is a massive amount of hubris on our part to think that only we could have created such sophisticated societies.

But when you look back on what we have created it is not something to be proud of. A history littered with abuse, wars, politics, and other implements of destruction. We are so advanced indeed that our greatest accomplishments are new and creative ways to destroy each other.

[Prospero]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:
I agree with that and he's a great scientist though I've only read the first three chapters of the Blind Watchmaker. Although I am an atheist myself I always felt he was wasting a great deal of time on the lecture circuit talking about how he thinks there isn't a God. I mean he could have gotten his point across about the damage he thinks intelligent design and creationism have done to science generally, and that he thinks evolution explains the humble origins of mankind and then gotten back to his very important work. It's not that there aren't important issues ancillary to theism and atheism, it's just that a great scientist is wasting a good deal of his precious time proselytizing his non-belief.

Again, I say this as an atheist that I actually think the idea of non-belief is not that interesting or stimulating. It's worth a discussion or two but since it's non-belief, even my own non-belief, I don't think it is a way of life, a philosophy or a culture. I still hold to it though:)

[danthepoetman]

I can’t remember which member posted this, a few months ago. I just love it.

[yodajazz]

no its not relevant imo

The Bible is full of allegorical, and human stories which can be applied to today's living, when you start to see how little human behavior has changed over the centuries. Bill Clinton had sex with someone outside his marriage. King David, had the husband of a woman he was attracted to, sent into battle where he was killed. Joseph was wrongly convicted, yet he went on to become the second most powerful man in Egypt. Yes today, people are wrongfully convicted too. But a most important example, that Jesus, a man who literally performed miracles, (according to the Word), was executed. Yet we expect everyone to like us, and are deeply disturbed, if someone does not like us. Using this example, teaches us that the most important thing is not for everyone to like us, but to do good things and treat others right.

One striking example of Biblical allegory is Jesus story about three men who were given a valuable coin, which at that time was called a talent. The lesson of the story becomes super clear, when one substitutes the coin called talent, for the meaning of what we call 'talent' today. The master of the house, (an allegory for God), gave the three different amounts. He was most displeased with the one who buried his talents, rather than bringing it out into the marketplace. He took the one talent from the man who had buried it, and gave to one who used what he was given. And thus, this is still an essential lesson for all of us today.

I think that today many people dont understand the relevance of the Bible, because so many people who claim to believe it's word, don't live by the lessons it teaches, or don't understand what teachings are the most important for today's world. Jesus said nothing about 'gay marriage', yet he had lots of negative things to say about the people that thought they were better than others, because they knew more religious texts, or were wealthy.
If Jesus were to return to earth, and come to the US, he'd be restricted from a host of activities, depending on the state he resided in, due to his prior felony conviction. Forgiveness is a very important Biblical principle. Yet I never hear it being related to social policy. So called 'Christian values', are more about general things in life, where as many people think it only applies to sex and related activities.