Is studying the Bible at a university and maybe even learning Hebrew or Greek worth it?
>>7366802
>studying made up children's fairy tales
>being this irrational
>>7366802
Probably not. But if it makes you happy till you die, fuck it tbqhwyf.
>>7366802
If you need to ask you're probably physically unattractive.
Yes, it can be a good idea
If you're worried about job prospects, I studied Ancient Greek and Latin at uni and now I'm working in investment banking.
>>7366802
Yes.
>>7366802
Just be aware that religious studies has one of the lowest average IQs of any sort of major. Your classmates will be pompous idiots who ramble on about the good old Middle Ages when theology was the queen of the sciences. You will not get laid ever and you will, at the very best, learn a lot about one out of the thousands of outlets humans have found for their overgrown social intelligence and pattern recognition.
That you would even consider such a waste of life and resources suggests that you'd fit right in.
>>7366802
My girlfriend has a "biblical wordview" class and a New Testament class.
She enjoys them because she's an evangelical freak but from her description theyre absolute shit and pure indoctrination.
I wouldn't do it unless you're confident in your professors. Definitely study up on your professors before you enroll in anything if you actually want to learn and don't want some ideology.
>>7366878
>Just be aware that religious studies has one of the lowest average IQs of any sort of major.
I was a Philosophy of Religion major before I transferred to a state school and just did History, but I somewhat agree with. I took classes in the philosophy and religious studies departments; the later had a lot of cooks, students and professors. What is odd is in studies I think theology, and philosophy, are always near the top for things like LSAT and GRE scores, but then religious studies, a discipline somewhat near these two in terms of content, is normally found near the bottom with the other social sciences. Odd.
>>7366802
I'd go for it. Learning ancient languages can be a really enjoyably experience.
>>7366802
That picture is so fucking cool man, good find.
>>7366986
>I was a Philosophy of Religion major
>What is odd is in studies I think theology, and philosophy, are always near the top for things like LSAT and GRE scores, but then religious studies, a discipline somewhat near these two in terms of content, is normally found near the bottom with the other social sciences. Odd.
About the LSAT: "Administered by the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) for prospective law school candidates, the LSAT is designed to assess reading comprehension, logical, and verbal reasoning proficiencies"
These things are highly prized and trained in philosophy (reading and interpreting/reasoning) so that's not surprising. I know not the difference between theology and religious studies so idk.
About the other social sciences [what you mentioned were humanites] , they usually try be as empirical as possible where useful and so have less emphasis on reading comprehension.
About your experience (I wish not to be a dick but it may be necessary) with Philosophy of religion, it isn't philosophic in any sort of meaningful way as evidence is completely void from the debate. I do philosophy and I did a module called "philosophy of religion" and it was just a discussion about various author's interpretations of religion. It was interesting but there was no metric by which one would evaluate validity so in the end it was all baseless claims about what could exist.
Also every question asked about something which we were really in no position to comment on: "If god exists, would he value all humans equally?" We know nothing of value about god, we don't even know that he exists, so how can we create any answer about something which can only be referred to in terms of what god means to other people? People would answer with such spurious bs like: "Well, god is all loving, so he loves everyone equally" but how did anyone establish that god exists on a solid basis, let alone that he exists but also that we can try comment on his supposed character when.
Every question is the equivalent of: "If unicorns were real, would their horns be made of gold or silver?" with the answers being: "The imam down the road said that silver is less corrosive to his asshole than gold and as unicorns are known for their asshole puncturing capacities, silver is the logical answer."
Please, please tell me why i'm wrong and i'll consider not dismissing all religions as unbeknownst charlatans
>>7366802
Only if you find value in impressing Christposters and memers on /lit/.
>>7366802
>Is studying the Bible at a university and maybe even learning Hebrew or Greek worth it?
No. Hebrew i know nothing about. Greek is only worth it if you're reading the classics. The bible is only worth it if you're an idiot who has dedicated his life to fairytails.
I'm sorry I had to be so blunt but frankly it's the truth.
>>7366878
this post is the best
>>7366870
If it's anything less than 300k starting I know you're lying.
>>7367189
>it isn't philosophic in any sort of meaningful way
Where the fuck did you take a philosophy of religion course that didn't teach Plato and Aristotle and basic metaphysics.
Of course religion doesn't have an empirical metric. But it's not like it's a totally unsupported system, even if that support is metaphysical.
And why are you studying philosophy when you're obviously a fedora?
>>7367211
>fairytails
kek
Islam is the only religion still vital enough to have any future.
You'd better look into Arabic and the Quran.
>>7367256
Yes, but the Qur'an is mostly about Biblical stories, so study of the Bible would have utility in studying the Qur'an as the Qur'an often makes Biblical references without explanation because it was assumed that seventh century Arabs would have a basic idea of what was being referred to.
>>7367249
>Where the fuck did you take a philosophy of religion course that didn't teach Plato and Aristotle and basic metaphysics.
It was one half module and only taught for 10 lessons. To be fair, they couldn't teach much of substance in that time frame.
> But it's not like it's a totally unsupported system, even if that support is metaphysical.
and metaphysics provides nothing valuable to people of the scientific persuasion which is basically everyone not religious.
>And why are you studying philosophy when you're obviously a fedora?
I am an atheist but philosophy isn't just religious people spouting bullshit, it's about logic, ethics, knowledge and ideas. Pretty similar to a literature degree in some respects i'd imagine (im sure lit will clarify this)
>>7367252
well, there's no evidence of any of these tales actually happening, on the contrary much evidence against the fairytails happening.
I'd believe the brothers Grim over the bible anyday
>>7367264
indeed
>>7367291
I was making fun of you for not being able to spell, you prat.
But now that you've opened that can of worms, there is ample evidence for most of the events in the Bible occurring. Do you realize how much of the Bible is composed of historical chronicle? Of course there is mythical, exaggerated, or distorted material, but that's true of Greek histories as well.
>>7367278
Just read a decent Bible translation and move on to the Quran then.
>>7367300
Fair enough. It's not often that I spell fairy tales or in fact talk about fairy tales but I see that you do quite a lot.
> there is ample evidence for most of the events in the Bible occurring.
I'm not going to argue. There's almost no point if someone literally believes the world is ~3000 years old.
> Of course there is mythical, exaggerated, or distorted material, but that's true of Greek histories as well.
How can it be the word of god then? Why would a god who wishes to expand his religion put in parts which are obviously lies? How can it be an objective source of anything if we know it is distorted even in the slightest way let alone the thousands of contradictions in of itself and against evidence?
In many countries and among the oldest universities in the world theology and religion studies are very challenging and prestigious degrees. In the college I went, students are required to learn liturgy, Christian Latin, Biblical Greek, Patristic Greek, Hebrew, German, canon law, philosophy, ethics and history in addition to the usual truncus communis. It's definitely worthwhile if you have both the dedication and the financial ressources to assume a professionally dead-weight degree.
>>7367354
>I'm not going to argue. There's almost no point if someone literally believes the world is ~3000 years old.
Young Earth Creationists (who are a tiny, tiny group) believe the earth is 6000 year old. The Bible never states the earth's age. YE creationism is based on Ussher's estimates.
>How can it be the word of god then?
I never claimed that the Bible is the word of God.
>>7367381
Wow I completely misread the situation. I'll admit I haven't read the bible at all desu so if it was just describing what happened before it was written [much like a history textbook] then i could well be wrong about not believing: "there is ample evidence for most of the events in the Bible occurring"
Even if it were a literal history textbook with the myths thrown in, how could anyone take it's source seriously since it has so much falsifiable and wrong material? Is it that all other sources are just as unreliable as the bible?
Also, when you say that it's a historical chronicle do you mean that it's actually accurate (contains dates/stories of real events verified by trusted sources) or "accurate" in the sense that it mentions specific things happening (say, pompeii?) but it says god did it because he was angry with the world (when we know it was because of geophysical shit)
>>7367453
You're obviously very unfamiliar with what's in the Bible in general and I find it funny that you're wanting me to summarize the historical material contained in a massive tome.
You also just sound stupid as fuck in general.
God is almost a mere background character throughout most of the Bible.
>>7366802
If it will lead you into the kingdom of heaven it is worth it 100%. If you want a comfortable material life and family then probably not
>>7366802
Seriously, studying the Bible all depends on WHO is teaching it. My Bible as Lit prof. treated it like a simple Bible study. Wouldn't look at the symbols as anything that could be taken as remotely negative or blasphemous. I was fucking miserable and probably the only non-Christian in the class.
>>7366802
I have a phd in logic and I must say you are fagget.
>>7367476
>You're obviously very unfamiliar with what's in the Bible in general and I find it funny that you're wanting me to summarize the historical material contained in a massive tome.
No. I'm asking a basic question about it's characteristics and yes I don't claim to be a biblical expert.
I don't care about the history the bible has to offer me specifically (as its proved itself unreliable), but generally you claim it has some historical significance and i'd like you to back that up with argument. Anything other than : "people read the bible, therefore it's significant"
I find it funny that you think I want a description of biblical history (which I most certainly don't want nor trust) when really I want to know whether it's supposed historical knowledge is anything worthwhile or is it covered by all other history books.
>God is almost a mere background character throughout most of the Bible.
Now this is something fruitful.
>>7367551
Not him but “people read the bible, therefore it's significant” is a completely legitimate argument. Once hundreds of millions of individuals hold it as the very foundation of their faith and moral code, this becomes one of the most significant text ever written.
>>7367568
The Bible is one of the most important pieces of literature ever written, but that faggot only thinks it should be read if it's "historically accurate."
Go to /his/ with that shit.
>>7367568
Yeah, I completely get that it has significance because lots of people read it and value it so much. Reading it would be the best way to understand their mentality, no doubt. I do consider that a genuine argument.
>>7367589
Sure, it's one of the most influential pieces of literature written but I only care about its historical significance because someone claimed that it has lots of objective historical facts in it and can be used as a tool for learning history. I didn't say that I'd only read it if it's accurate, i'm asking if its historical "knowledge" is close to the truth or if it's history taken from whomever wrote (that certain part) its perspective.
I didn't even claim that its value is in history, someone else did and I challenged that assertion. That is why were now discussing it.
learning ancient greek is worth it, but not if you're just going to read the bible. a lot of the nuance in ancient greek texts is untranslatable and you'll get more out of aristotle/plato/sappho if you can read the original yourself.
tangentially, the bible is also worth it, because it's been western civilizations go-to jack-off book since it began.
>>7367654
The Bible also has a great historical value. You won't find anything remotely complete regarding this era, and honestly, you just have to study it critically and cross-check multiple sources to extract the truth. Even so-called historians in the early ages had a big bias. The way the Roman historians describe Carthage is miles away from objectivity.
Depends on what you want to do. It depends on your opportunity costs. It would certainly be really cool to do that stuff and extremely literary as well, but you should ensure that it fits in with everything in your life properly
>>7367713
Oh and reading the Bible at least in translation is definitely worth it for pretty much everyone circumstance. If you're a Westerner I think you should read the Bible.
