Bible as literature

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you all think about the Bible being taught as liturature in the public schools?

I know that when I tutor kids, there are so many different literary allusions to the bible in liturature and history. And the kids don't get them because they do not have a background where Bible is taught.

I think that regardless of our being a secular state, this is pretty much a chrisitan country -- chrisitans of various sorts, catholics protestant and eastern orthodox, make up the overwhelmingly largest block in the country even in the day and ages of "Nones." We cannot deny that this is still essentially a christian cuulture, and to understand western civ and the liturary classics, a baseline of biblical knowledge is needed. So I'd like to see the bible be taught as literature in teh high schools, maybe even in junior high. For all kids.

Teachers would have to be trained so that they don't confuse teaching about the Bible with teaching the religion of Christianity (or Judaism). But such training was already there when I went through my teaching certification way back in the day.

Notice that I'm jewish, yet I think my children need to be familiar with the basic stuff about jesus, even though we don't believe it. It just being culturally enriched.

 

[eik]

I think that regardless of our being a secular state, this is pretty much a chrisitan country -- chrisitans of various sorts, catholics protestant and eastern orthodox, make up the overwhelmingly largest block in the country even in the day and ages of "Nones." We cannot deny that this is still essentially a christian cuulture.....

We can deny a secular state to be a christian culture. The promotion of any religion not of the Christian God is no part of a genuine Christian culture.

A world governed by atheism and by sin encroaches on everyone's life. Satan knocks on everyone's door by the State insistence and permission. Mere tolerance of christianity does not make for a christian culture or a christian state. Such is a delusion, although the founding fathers of the constitution, including George Washington, were under no illusion that the US state was not based on christianity.

That said, the bible and specifically the Christian doctrine should be taught wherever possible. The onus is on those who believe it to preach it, because the command of God is to universal repentance:

Act 17:30
“God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him."

 

[firedragon]

What do you all think about the Bible being taught as liturature in the public schools?

I know that when I tutor kids, there are so many different literary allusions to the bible in liturature and history. And the kids don't get them because they do not have a background where Bible is taught.

I think that regardless of our being a secular state, this is pretty much a chrisitan country -- chrisitans of various sorts, catholics protestant and eastern orthodox, make up the overwhelmingly largest block in the country even in the day and ages of "Nones." We cannot deny that this is still essentially a christian cuulture, and to understand western civ and the liturary classics, a baseline of biblical knowledge is needed. So I'd like to see the bible be taught as literature in teh high schools, maybe even in junior high. For all kids.

Teachers would have to be trained so that they don't confuse teaching about the Bible with teaching the religion of Christianity (or Judaism). But such training was already there when I went through my teaching certification way back in the day.

Notice that I'm jewish, yet I think my children need to be familiar with the basic stuff about jesus, even though we don't believe it. It just being culturally enriched.

I honestly respect your thought. I think its a fantastic suggestion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We can deny a secular state to be a christian culture. The promotion of any religion not of the Christian God is no part of a genuine Christian culture.

I The secular state created (inevitably) by Chrisitan culture ha freedom of religion --- it is not out there giving preferential treatment to religions other than Chrisitanity. Remember, its just good, old majority rule with minority rights protected.

I think actually that the US does a pretty good job of keeping the first amendment. Oh, the pendulum will swing one way an then back the other, of course. But any time we go too far in either violating the establishment clause or the not prohibiting the free exercise, the tide eventually turns. For example, we have been in an era of "no establishment" for a half a century, an now we are swinging back to favoring the "not prohibit the free exercise of" clause again.

I of course disagree with the idea of teaching chrisitan doctrine in the public schools, unless its some sort of elective -- it is good for chidren and young adults to learn of different faiths, and not just chrisitanity. I'm thankful that the common core curriculum in my state incudes teaching a bit about the major religions of the world.

 

[exchemist]

What do you all think about the Bible being taught as liturature in the public schools?

I know that when I tutor kids, there are so many different literary allusions to the bible in liturature and history. And the kids don't get them because they do not have a background where Bible is taught.

I think that regardless of our being a secular state, this is pretty much a chrisitan country -- chrisitans of various sorts, catholics protestant and eastern orthodox, make up the overwhelmingly largest block in the country even in the day and ages of "Nones." We cannot deny that this is still essentially a christian cuulture, and to understand western civ and the liturary classics, a baseline of biblical knowledge is needed. So I'd like to see the bible be taught as literature in teh high schools, maybe even in junior high. For all kids.

Teachers would have to be trained so that they don't confuse teaching about the Bible with teaching the religion of Christianity (or Judaism). But such training was already there when I went through my teaching certification way back in the day.

Notice that I'm jewish, yet I think my children need to be familiar with the basic stuff about jesus, even though we don't believe it. It just being culturally enriched.

I think it is essential for the understanding a Christian culture (its literature, art and history) to have some knowledge of the bible. So yes, I agree.

In the UK, comparative religious studies are part of the curriculum. This has the advantage of teaching pupils a bit about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and so on as well. The idea is to provide some basic understanding of these different religions, so that we can show one another a bit of understanding, in a multicultural society, even if we don't share the same beliefs, or lack of them.

I suspect one consequence of teaching a bit of all these religions is that pupils will learn to be a bit sceptical that any one of them is "right", while the rest are all "wrong".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think it is essential for the understanding a Christian culture (its literature, art and history) to have some knowledge of the bible. So yes, I agree.

In the UK, comparative religious studies are part of the curriculum. This has the advantage of teaching pupils a bit about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and so on as well. The idea is to provide some basic understanding of these different religions, so that we can show one another a bit of understanding, in a multicultural society, even if we don't share the same beliefs, or lack of them.

I suspect one consequence of teaching a bit of all these religions is that pupils will learn to be a bit sceptical that any one of them is "right", while the rest are all "wrong".

The UK does sound like it has its act together.

I understand how the interfaith education might increase skepticism. But I think the advantages of an educated, more tolerant society offsets the disadvantage. One would also hope that the differences between the religions would lead to further discussions within fmilies, houses of worship, and with friend, which would deepen the faith lives of many.

 

[eik]

I think it is essential for the understanding a Christian culture (its literature, art and history) to have some knowledge of the bible. So yes, I agree.

There's no such thing as a Christian culture. Society must be near 100% Christian for it to be so. If there was it died out some centuries ago. Christianity is a faith, not a culture. There is such a thing as a tolerance culture which allows Christianity to flourish, but in this age, it is increasingly intolerant of Christianity.

In the UK, comparative religious studies are part of the curriculum. This has the advantage of teaching pupils a bit about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and so on as well. The idea is to provide some basic understanding of these different religions, so that we can show one another a bit of understanding, in a multicultural society, even if we don't share the same beliefs, or lack of them.

I suspect one consequence of teaching a bit of all these religions is that pupils will learn to be a bit sceptical that any one of them is "right", while the rest are all "wrong".

The very teaching of "alternative" faiths is a denial of Christianity. It is not surprising that this religious "education" is only producing more and more atheists.

Christianity denies the validity of "other" faiths, where other faiths deny the validity of Christianity. I don't think it is in the least valuable for children to be taught other faiths than the Christian one. That is gnosticism: the promotion of knowledge over faith.

 

[exchemist]

There's no such thing as a Christian culture. Society must be near 100% Christian for it to be so. If there was it died out some centuries ago. Christianity is a faith, not a culture. There is such a thing as a tolerance culture which allows Christianity to flourish, but in this age, it is increasingly intolerant of Christianity.


The very teaching of "alternative" faiths is a denial of Christianity. It is not surprising that this religious "education" is only producing more and more atheists.

Christianity denies the validity of "other" faiths, where other faiths deny the validity of Christianity. I don't think it is in the least valuable for children to be taught other faiths than the Christian one. That is gnosticism: the promotion of knowledge over faith.

I disagree profoundly. All of us in Europe live in a Christian culture. The whole of European history since the end of the Roman Empire is the history of Christendom. Christianity suffuses the structures of our society, our art and our literature, the buildings - and even our speech.

The teaching of basic knowledge about the beliefs of other religions is, quite obviously, not a "denial" of anything. That is absurd. If I learn Spanish, is that, somehow, a "denial" of French?

But I am most certainly all in favour of knowledge. In my opinion anyone who is not is an idiot. The reference to gnosticism is ridiculous. Gnosticism was a set of religious beliefs.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I kinda think that if you really wanted to study it as literature, you kinda have to question a lot of the religion in it. The religious students or their parents may actually have a problem with that

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I disagree profoundly. All of us in Europe live in a Christian culture. The whole of European history since the end of the Roman Empire is the history of Christendom. Christianity suffuses the structures of our society, our art and our literature, the buildings - and even our speech.

There was the enlightenment where they go back to the ancient greeks, and there were the norse who last 500 more years than that. Those two things might be taken to represent science and individualism

I don't really know if language gets a pass here. When I hear people give etymological explanations, and discuss the general shape of this language, it's not entirely clear that only christian concepts are getting the importance. I can't discuss this in the greatest detail myself however

An example might be how some concepts in english might be translated radically different from the hebrew. it seems like the Jewish followers often speak of this. Overall, isn't this thought to be because there isn't an actual translation error, but because a lot of things actually don't translate that well. If the latter is true, then there is a true linguistic difference at play, at the foundation, and that means that the english language might not really share the same values as the bible, because it can't

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why stop at one religion? In such a format, one could say learn the basics of all religions and all non-religions and the arguements for and against them.

 

[eik]

I disagree profoundly. All of us in Europe live in a Christian culture. The whole of European history since the end of the Roman Empire is the history of Christendom. Christianity suffuses the structures of our society, our art and our literature, the buildings - and even our speech.

No, Europe is no longer Christian, if it ever was. Roman Catholicism is not necessarily Christian as Roman Catholicism has always accomodated non-Christian behaviours. That is defamatory of Christianity. I strongly suspect you don't even understand true Christian values; and are confusing deism with Christianity. E.g. Christianity does not promote or allow LGBT under any form of Christian law. Christianity does not tolerate Islam.

The teaching of basic knowledge about the beliefs of other religions is, quite obviously, not a "denial" of anything. That is absurd. If I learn
Spanish, is that, somehow, a "denial" of French?

Why does a child need to know "basic knowledge" about the "beliefs" of other religions? How do you even know that other religions have any beliefs as such? Many do not and are just philosophies. What is belief versus tradition versus culture versus law versus imperial decree versus philosophy? How do you distinguish? How can a child be expected to understand the subtleties of heretical religion, when he doesn't even know true religion?

In this day it is politically incorrect to teach other religions as wrong, which makes them unfit to be taught to children.

But I am most certainly all in favour of knowledge. In my opinion anyone who is not is an idiot. The reference to gnosticism is ridiculous. Gnosticism was a set of religious beliefs.

Gnosticism is to teach children the way of heresy. It's different when you're an adult. When you're a child, you need only to be taught what is true, not heathen nonsense, as to which, the whole world is full of it.

 

[Cooky]

Why stop at one religion? In such a format, one could say learn the basics of all religions and all non-religions and the arguements for and against them.

The thing is, there are centuries worth of poetry, literature and music, written the English language, that might become lost upon a total evaporation of Christian knowledge.

Not that it's good to know Christianity, but that it's good to know history and be able to understand it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Why stop at one religion? In such a format, one could say learn the basics of all religions and all non-religions and the arguements for and against them.

I'm not sure that religions, outside of a forum, really want to be treated as forum content

 

[syo]

What do you all think about the Bible being taught as liturature in the public schools?

For twenty years the Bible puzzled me. I couldn't make heads or tails. But... With a lot of TRIAL AND ERROR, I THINK that the Old testament is the real deal. From the New testament, the three last gospels are the real deal. the matthew gospel is fiction and it's literature. Generally, the new testament is more complicated. Whatever Mark, Luke and John wrote are the real deal. Matthews account is fiction. I am still searching the New testament actually.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What do you all think about the Bible being taught as liturature in the public schools?

In our country it already is taught as literature (despite strong secularism and some remaining effects of former communism).

Also sacral music (gregorian chant, mass and motet) is part of the curriculum.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you all think about the Bible being taught as liturature in the public schools?

I know that when I tutor kids, there are so many different literary allusions to the bible in liturature and history. And the kids don't get them because they do not have a background where Bible is taught.

I think that regardless of our being a secular state, this is pretty much a chrisitan country -- chrisitans of various sorts, catholics protestant and eastern orthodox, make up the overwhelmingly largest block in the country even in the day and ages of "Nones." We cannot deny that this is still essentially a christian cuulture, and to understand western civ and the liturary classics, a baseline of biblical knowledge is needed. So I'd like to see the bible be taught as literature in teh high schools, maybe even in junior high. For all kids.

Teachers would have to be trained so that they don't confuse teaching about the Bible with teaching the religion of Christianity (or Judaism). But such training was already there when I went through my teaching certification way back in the day.

Notice that I'm jewish, yet I think my children need to be familiar with the basic stuff about jesus, even though we don't believe it. It just being culturally enriched.

These days, "Bible as literature" courses in public schools are mostly dishonest attempts to inject Christianity into public schools. For that reason, I don't think they're a good idea.

Even if you addressed that problem, the fact that people - especially Christians - approach the Bible with so much baggage would make it nearly impossible to effectively teach it as literature. I mean, how can you talk about a passage in terms of the author's intent and historical context if a significant chunk of the class can't even agree on who the author actually was... and not only that, but will take extreme and vocal personal offense at the idea that the author was anyone other than their god?

Teaching about history or English is generally as much about training in communication and critical thinking as it is about teaching facts. These goals are better met using material that the students don't have heavy personal investment in.

And to top it all off, I think you'd need some pretty compelling justification to use a book as sexist, racist, and homophobic as the Bible in a public school, especially at the junior high or high school level. You'd not only need to show that the book is useful for achieving worthwhile educational goals, but also that those goals can't be achieved any other way and that they outweigh the harm associated with pushing the material on kids. I don't think that the Bible meets that threshold.

If your concern is that kids should have a better understanding of where aspects of our modern-day language has come from besides Shakespeare, that's fine: you can teach them Robeet Burns. If you want tbem to know about the foundations of their society that they might not be aware of, that's fine: teach the English Civil War... or even better, indigenous or African-American history. Let them be exposed to something they won't be inundated by anyhow.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do you all think about the Bible being taught as liturature in the public schools?

I know that when I tutor kids, there are so many different literary allusions to the bible in liturature and history. And the kids don't get them because they do not have a background where Bible is taught.

I think that regardless of our being a secular state, this is pretty much a chrisitan country -- chrisitans of various sorts, catholics protestant and eastern orthodox, make up the overwhelmingly largest block in the country even in the day and ages of "Nones." We cannot deny that this is still essentially a christian cuulture, and to understand western civ and the liturary classics, a baseline of biblical knowledge is needed. So I'd like to see the bible be taught as literature in teh high schools, maybe even in junior high. For all kids.

Teachers would have to be trained so that they don't confuse teaching about the Bible with teaching the religion of Christianity (or Judaism). But such training was already there when I went through my teaching certification way back in the day.

Notice that I'm jewish, yet I think my children need to be familiar with the basic stuff about jesus, even though we don't believe it. It just being culturally enriched.

What age level? Parts of it are somewhat explicit. Also if you have a crummy teacher then its a crummy subject. Take it from someone who took a course on Psalms from someone who knew nothing about Psalms. It was a trying experience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why stop at one religion? In such a format, one could say learn the basics of all religions and all non-religions and the arguements for and against them.

When a world religion course is taught by Christians, it tends to devolve into a "why all these religions are wrong except Christianity" course.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From May, 2007 ...