Should I read the Bible and the Quran, even if I'm atheist?
cool jpg
Start with the Torah.
>>7818448
>reading books that only conform to your world view
>not identifying and reading primary works that formed the modern world'
Fox News Babyboomer tier desu
>>7818448
As an ex muslim, no. Read something good.
>>7818448
Yes to the bible because western civ is practically founded on the bible especially in considering the entire medieval era united platonic and aristotlean philosophy to christian concepts and develop their doctrine, and its not like the enlightenment 'just' happened and suddenly secular societies everywhere. It's a pretty important bit of history. I'd imagine the same is done with the quran if youre ever interested in a deeper understanding of the social history the literature comes from, idk lol.
Also, it could be fun to recognize biblical allusions that go farther than fruits = sin, I mean beowulf completely reinterprets Cain's character so its like, woah, wow
>all these life deniers in enlightenment tier
>mfw
>>7818461
This guy gets it, read it chronologically
>>7818474
Don't listen to this /r/atheism shill, its good literature
>>7818448
You could do, but I wouldn't bother. The Bible was a waste of time.
>some guy begat another guy who begat another and so on repeatedly
>stories with literal deus ex machina events or no logic at all
>morals that are mostly outdated or easily found in other texts
>a slow change from God as a dick that lucks fucking with people, to one that never gets seen and is just referred to
>terrible attempts at black and white morality
>>7819262
>some guy begat another guy who begat another and so on repeatedly
honestly reading this was probably worse than the christian hell
No, but you should read an annotated bible with commentary, historical context, etc. The bible is dense, boring, and poorly composed. But it is the foundation of the Western canon, so it's mandatory if you want to call yourself learned.
>>7818969
I liked the koran and old testament better than the new testament desu. The old testament is probably the best of the sandpeople trilogy.
>>7819427
Yeah, this is basically true though. Think of it this way, from about 400AD until maybe 1900AD the bible was so fucking fundamental to western thought that literally anyone who had any education at all was exposed to it. All literate men knew the bible and most knew it very well.
Cicero should be read for a similar reason, up until Latin fell out of use as a language of learning, Cicero was almost universally read as well.
>>7818966
what would be the proper order?
1.Torah
2.Bible
3.Quran
??
>>7820529
U got memed, the Torah is just a part of the Tanakh which is just the hebrew word for the 'old' testament.
So read the books in order for the bible, consider that before writing, the Tanakh was orally transmitted and the greek scholars are what finally 'perfected' the myth by carefully choosing the words and stories the oral tradition brought. Depending on translations, it can be very dry or you can find it very poetic and lyrical.
The New Testament is a mess made out of letters by one man and a bunch of biographies of Jesus, its pretty genius and I dont remember anything particular about it that stands out sorry.
The Quran is special though because it more or less stands on its own
>>7819262
You clearly haven't read the Bible
>>7820559
The Hebrew Bible achieved its form prior to 'perfecting' by Greek scholars.
The NT letters are from at least five people, probably six, although most are by Paul.
A familiarity with the Old and New Testament is helpful before reading the Qur'an, since many characters come from Judaism and Christianity (Jesus for example being mentioned more than anyone else).
