T Nation

Teach Bible in Public Schools

The Case for Teaching The Bible

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html

Awesome article on teaching the Bible as a literary work in public schools. I recommend everyone take the time to read it.

[quote]Ren wrote:
The Case for Teaching The Bible

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html

Awesome article on teaching the Bible as a literary work in public schools. I recommend everyone take the time to read it.[/quote]

Who has stood against teaching the bible as literature? Ever?

Any ways, good article. I will probably end up in Bible Lit. next year, so I’m hoping it will be interesting.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Any ways, good article. I will probably end up in Bible Lit. next year, so I’m hoping it will be interesting.
[/quote]

Start with 1 Chronicles 1-9. Then the worst part is out of the way.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Any ways, good article. I will probably end up in Bible Lit. next year, so I’m hoping it will be interesting.

Start with 1 Chronicles 1-9. Then the worst part is out of the way.
[/quote]

I would have picked the entire book of leviticus myself.

I’m an athiest and yet I have no issues with the bible being taught in school. I have issues with school prayer in non private schools though

Nothing will drive people away from religion faster than a literary analysis of the Bible.

In college, I had a friend who was raised in a non-religious home and was basically an atheist himself… he felt the bible should be taught because it was such an important part of history/politics and he didn’t know anything about it.

He said he tried reading it, but it made no sense without someone to put it in context.

It’s like living in ancient Greece and not knowing about the Iliad.

[quote]haney1 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Any ways, good article. I will probably end up in Bible Lit. next year, so I’m hoping it will be interesting.

Start with 1 Chronicles 1-9. Then the worst part is out of the way.

I would have picked the entire book of leviticus myself.
[/quote]

Try a majority of the old testament, and about half of the new one.

The bible has a few diamonds of wisdom hidden in a pile of filler a whole lot that offends me.

I’ve read a good portion of it. I started skipping around books after exodus. Some of it is surprising, and truly shocking. For instance, even looking at a woman who is having her period is considered a MUCH worse offense than sleeping with another man. As well, the anti-gay thing was put in mostly to stop priests from taking advantage of altar-boys and servants of the church. Ironic, isn’t it?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

As well, the anti-gay thing was put in mostly to stop priests from taking advantage of altar-boys and servants of the church. Ironic, isn’t it?[/quote]

Really? Is that a personal conclusion or is that supported?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
haney1 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Any ways, good article. I will probably end up in Bible Lit. next year, so I’m hoping it will be interesting.

Start with 1 Chronicles 1-9. Then the worst part is out of the way.

I would have picked the entire book of leviticus myself.

Try a majority of the old testament, and about half of the new one.

The bible has a few diamonds of wisdom hidden in a pile of filler a whole lot that offends me.

I’ve read a good portion of it. I started skipping around books after exodus. Some of it is surprising, and truly shocking. For instance, even looking at a woman who is having her period is considered a MUCH worse offense than sleeping with another man. As well, the anti-gay thing was put in mostly to stop priests from taking advantage of altar-boys and servants of the church. Ironic, isn’t it?[/quote]

While I won’t touch your exegessis of the text. I will say I think you missed the point of Pookie’s post as well as mine.

The parts we pointed out are very very very boring reading even for the most dedicated Bible scholar.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

As well, the anti-gay thing was put in mostly to stop priests from taking advantage of altar-boys and servants of the church. Ironic, isn’t it?

Really? Is that a personal conclusion or is that supported?

[/quote]

Supported conclusion, or supported by some major theologians anyway.

The line just after the “if a man lies with another man, he has done what is detestable…” line absolutely forbids consorting with a woman during her period. The punishment is also a bit worse, if I remember and interpreted correctly.

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
haney1 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Any ways, good article. I will probably end up in Bible Lit. next year, so I’m hoping it will be interesting.

Start with 1 Chronicles 1-9. Then the worst part is out of the way.

I would have picked the entire book of leviticus myself.

Try a majority of the old testament, and about half of the new one.

The bible has a few diamonds of wisdom hidden in a pile of filler a whole lot that offends me.

I’ve read a good portion of it. I started skipping around books after exodus. Some of it is surprising, and truly shocking. For instance, even looking at a woman who is having her period is considered a MUCH worse offense than sleeping with another man. As well, the anti-gay thing was put in mostly to stop priests from taking advantage of altar-boys and servants of the church. Ironic, isn’t it?

While I won’t touch your exegessis of the text. I will say I think you missed the point of Pookie’s post as well as mine.

The parts we pointed out are very very very boring reading even for the most dedicated Bible scholar.

[/quote]

Not using exegessis is (IMO) impossible to actually do.

Anyway, I didn’t realize that. (Shrug)

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
haney1 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Any ways, good article. I will probably end up in Bible Lit. next year, so I’m hoping it will be interesting.

Start with 1 Chronicles 1-9. Then the worst part is out of the way.

I would have picked the entire book of leviticus myself.

Try a majority of the old testament, and about half of the new one.

The bible has a few diamonds of wisdom hidden in a pile of filler a whole lot that offends me.

I’ve read a good portion of it. I started skipping around books after exodus. Some of it is surprising, and truly shocking. For instance, even looking at a woman who is having her period is considered a MUCH worse offense than sleeping with another man. As well, the anti-gay thing was put in mostly to stop priests from taking advantage of altar-boys and servants of the church. Ironic, isn’t it?

While I won’t touch your exegessis of the text. I will say I think you missed the point of Pookie’s post as well as mine.

The parts we pointed out are very very very boring reading even for the most dedicated Bible scholar.

Not using exegessis is (IMO) impossible to actually do.

Anyway, I didn’t realize that. (Shrug)[/quote]

I agree. My point in saying I won’t touch it is that I disagree with your exegessis of the text.

only if we can teach it along with cultural dissemenation, the sumerian religions, the zorostrians and how each transformed in to the religion of the jews, who shared the geographic region and borrowed the religions of past societies, adapted certain names and claimed it to be the true religion, much like the greeks and romans.

[quote]texasguy wrote:
only if we can teach it along with cultural dissemenation, the sumerian religions, the zorostrians and how each transformed in to the religion of the jews, who shared the geographic region and borrowed the religions of past societies, adapted certain names and claimed it to be the true religion, much like the greeks and romans. [/quote]

Thats called Global History, and it’s a required course.

[quote]texasguy wrote:
only if we can teach it along with cultural dissemenation, the sumerian religions, the zorostrians and how each transformed in to the religion of the jews, who shared the geographic region and borrowed the religions of past societies, adapted certain names and claimed it to be the true religion, much like the greeks and romans. [/quote]

The problem is it becomes speculation to draw those conclusions. Since Archeaolgy in its best forms can’t even provide that link. Even a Biblical minimalist can’t fully come to that conclusion, it is mere speculation.

The idea that polytheism eventually evolves into monotheism is such a flawed idea. Look at Hinduism. It is believed to be the oldest practiced religion, and it is still a full polythieistic religion.

[quote]haney1 wrote:
The parts we pointed out are very very very boring reading even for the most dedicated Bible scholar.[/quote]

Yup, that was the point.

I defy anyone to actually read 1 Chronicles 1-9 without skipping any part of it.

It makes a vroom post look insightful and witty by comparison.

[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
The parts we pointed out are very very very boring reading even for the most dedicated Bible scholar.

Yup, that was the point.

I defy anyone to actually read 1 Chronicles 1-9 without skipping any part of it.

It makes a vroom post look insightful and witty by comparison.
[/quote]

I read it once pookie… once

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
texasguy wrote:
only if we can teach it along with cultural dissemenation, the sumerian religions, the zorostrians and how each transformed in to the religion of the jews, who shared the geographic region and borrowed the religions of past societies, adapted certain names and claimed it to be the true religion, much like the greeks and romans.

Thats called Global History, and it’s a required course.[/quote]

except the religion is kept out of it, which leads people to develop skewed world views as they learn about history in one context and religion in another, usually not making the connection that all religions have in one way or another transformed in to every new religion.

this is why people believe one religion is better than another.

religious development should be taught with the history, but for now, that is not a required course at all. nor is it one that can be legally taught.

[quote]haney1 wrote:
texasguy wrote:
only if we can teach it along with cultural dissemenation, the sumerian religions, the zorostrians and how each transformed in to the religion of the jews, who shared the geographic region and borrowed the religions of past societies, adapted certain names and claimed it to be the true religion, much like the greeks and romans.

The problem is it becomes speculation to draw those conclusions. Since Archeaolgy in its best forms can’t even provide that link. Even a Biblical minimalist can’t fully come to that conclusion, it is mere speculation.

The idea that polytheism eventually evolves into monotheism is such a flawed idea. Look at Hinduism. It is believed to be the oldest practiced religion, and it is still a full polythieistic religion.
[/quote]

drawing any conclusions about religious beliefs is purely speculation in nature as well. no religous belief can be proven at all. if this is taught in schools, the more rational study of cultural and religious dissemenation should be taught with it.