I don't think this post indicates that he's religious. If you read some of his other stuff, he's clearly a person with philosophical interests. There are lots of people who read the Bible out of a philosophical/mythological/anthropological interest rather than a religious one.
The author read the bible first (or maybe he was read to as a child), then subconsciously recited stories from it in his writings. That's my explanation. No the Biblical mysticism he proposes.
> "I'm 100% atheist but I've considered reading the bible because it's culturally significant. But isn't just a bunch of boring and inconsistent tales? is there really anything to be learned from the bible? "
The bible is not a single book; it's a collection of dozens of books written at very different times. Just reading it front-to-back is not a very productive way to read it. Genesis and Exodus are okay, but Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are just dreadful.
The best place to start is the gospels, at the start of the NT. That gets you right to the heart of what Christianity is about, they're good stories, and there's quite a bit of wisdom in there. Absolutely worth reading.
If you want a philosophical treatise about the meaning of life, read Eclessiastes. The stories of David in the books of Samuel are exciting adventures as well as the most central part of the history of ancient Israel. It's also worth reading a couple of psalms (23 probably being the most famous) but if you read them all in one go, they might get a bit repetitive. And of course there's the erotic Song of Songs. For more adventure stories, Judges also has a couple of good ones.
And that certainly doesn't mean the bible doesn't subjugate women and condone slavery and child murder (which you can easily verify by reading it yourself), it simply means he's steered clear of addressing those points (which is a pity).
His primary interest lies in the patterns, structures, and the mathematical beauty of the scriptures, rather than in theological or moral interpretations, which are still there and deeply influence and corrupt society, despite his ignoring them.
And that shows that expertise and rigor in one field doesn't necessarily translate into expertise and rigor in another field.
I think he's saying all forms of media including books are rubbish. Except for of course the bible.
Sort of proves my point. This guy likely spent more time decoding, analyzing and reading the Bible then he has spent time on almost anything else other than sleeping.
If he spent the same amount of time doing the same for the Koran both biases towards the bible and the Koran would neutralize each other allowing him to become atheist.
> For a thought experiment (though this may be hard for atheists to stomach), imagine if the author had suggested that the only reason to still read the Bible today was to understand "how" Jesus acted the way he did, or "how" God did what he did. That would be ridiculous. Of course there is more reason to read the original text than that. And Bible is a very old text indeed.
The Bible is not a philosophical text in any way remotely like Nicomachean Ethics. The Bible is a series of stories, genealogy and poetry, not an argument, or a dialogue that attempts to illuminate the truth, or at least points of disagreement over the truth. The Bible is not about how Jesus or God did anything in the way that the Ethics is about how you think about what is good. The Bible is why. If you believe that the reason to live a righteous life is that there is a righteous God and his son was born, died and rose again the Bible is that story. It does not tell you how, except in the very barest details. That's what the Church is for, the community of believers.
I'm an atheist; I've read and studied the Bible as part of my catholic education 25 years ago.
Not that I'm strongly against it, but my attention is challenged by many things, and a man who starts an article about becoming a father with a clear sex-is-for-procreation Bible quote makes it sound like his experience of life is not relevant to mine.
He reframes religion (specifically Christianity and the Bible) as a symbolic guide to living as opposed to a historical text that should be taken at face value. i.e. God is a symbol for the greatest good. Christ is a symbol for the human ideal of that greatest good.
In his view, the value of the Bible is not as a pre-scientific historical account of the world. Instead, it's a survival guide for generations of people (who had no concept of science anyway) told in story form.
When I look at his religious metaphors in that light, they seem relevant and meaningful in the context of his 12 Rules.
> I'm 100% atheist but I've considered reading the bible because it's culturally significant. But isn't just a bunch of boring and inconsistent tales? is there really anything to be learned from the bible?
I went to a school that taught ancient Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. With that came loads of bible passages to translate. Having grown up a non-believer (many people tried to literally "cure" that during my lifetime, I'm sure they'd be thrilled to know there is a simple drug I could take to make me normal) I can honestly say it's about what you'd expect from religious texts of those time periods. I found it less relatable than, say, Greek mythology.
What I found interesting is how many parts modern Christians habitually ignore, either because they'd be arrested if they'd follow them, or because those parts don't fit in with their personal beliefs. Of course, the entire corpus of text has also seen numerous redactions, in an effort to streamline it and make it more coherent (with mixed results).
Is it culturally significant? Honestly, I'm not sure. The Bible as an idea sure is, and certain famous passages are. But a given group's or individual's interpretation of it seems more informative, and that's often only losely based on those ancient texts.
Needless to say, I don't think there is anything in there to convince a non-believer of the existence of dieties, much less that one specific pantheon. And to be fair I don't think that's what the authors had in mind. It was probably intended as a shared folklore for groups that already strongly believe. Conversion, I suspect, comes through missionaries, not through the text.
No, I have never been religious. I did, however, read the entire Bible in high school for a literature class. Well, okay, except for all those pages of "this dude begat that dude, and so on...." I just mentally substituted "uh, yeah, Methuselah was old and Jesus was descended from King David and all those dudes."
That's not nearly as strange as it sounds, because one really does need to understand the Bible to really grasp the nuances of much of Western literature.
Wow, I love this edit, I’m agnostic myself but that seems rather neat. I remember reading about how Warren Buffet, despite not being particularly religious, has read the Bible like 7 times or something. I always found that rather interesting. Thanks!
I've read 3 different versions of the bible and it converted me from an agnostic to an atheist. I think GP may have been predisposed to religion (or at least to the social aspects of joining a church) as the bible, as interesting as it is, is only as interesting as any other selected and vetted collection of philosophy and story telling. Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam also have very interesting texts worth reading.
This isn't meant to be insulting or dismissive, I have nothing but good will to GP, but statistically just reading the bible doesn't usually lead to joining a church. If it did, you could lose the rest of the evangelism and missionary practices and not really see a dent in the population of Christianity.
Well, the bible is a great literary work and there is no doubting that. Many writers have borrowed from its themes, styles, and prose throughout history (Shakespeare a prominent example).
The reason I say my comment (and my view of the bible) is non-religious is that when one begins to study the bible in detail, he realizes that it is critical of all organized religion, even nominal Christianity.
I don't blame rw for lumping me in with the majority, but he did lump me in, which is generalizing.
I mean, imo he very clearly meant the frequency was mental; I guess I just interpret his reply to someone saying that Christians read that frequently as mental, rather than it being mental itself to read that frequently.
reply