For most of us that would be straight introductory because we know nothing about it, so it should probably be broken out into another thread, but that would be interesting and might attract some people who know more about it. Make the SDMB more diverse, and fight ignorance.
Honestly, I wouldn’t see a problem starting with the Creation story. It’s beautiful literature and it has a lot of interpretations. And neither atheist nor Christian is going to argue that it is literal, so it might work well without the threadshitting.
It would be nice if the mods would mod on the individual level more than the thread level, though. Instead of shutting down the thread, tell threadshitters early on to stop or risk a warning. And this would be a good idea for any thread that is especially prone to invite threadshitting. It may be a bit more work, but isn’t it good to be able to have these types of threads? Plus, I’m sure tom will want to participate, so it wouldn’t require going out of his way.
I have no trouble starting with Creation. I’d rather take the time to explore each section fully, though, than try to get through six chapters in a week.
I’m not sure why you would assume that. Making fun of some random guy because he’s bald looks more like a child’s behaviour than a young adult’s
My suggestion would be to go by section or story. The first Creation story is in Gen 1, the second in Gen 2. You could do a thread on each creation story and a thread on the comparison. Or one thread on both chapters. But my thought is: the whole of Genesis is too much, find some meaningful division into topics/sections.
My other suggestion: emphasize that this is “bible as a text of literature.” The truth or fiction is not what’s being discussed, nor how well a 3000-year old story corresponds to modern astronomy and physics, but the story itself. God as a “character” in a work of literature. Any other route will, as noted, lead to constant efforts to mock. I think there’s plenty to talk about in terms of just understanding what the story is saying, finding verbal connections, noting differences in translations, etc.
I also think it should be in Cafe Society, another way of making clear that we’re discussing literature, not religion.
I like this and think that this should be explicitly stated at the beginning of each thread.
A fine example on how not to do Bible study.
How do you think it should be done?
See the suggestions in post #45, and compare it to your attack(it can’t really be called Bible study) in your thread. You’ve brought up that verse before and demanded that “liberal Christians” tell you if they believe if it was a true story and that they justify it-your “Bible study” is just more of the same.
I think this is absolutely the way to go about it.
“God as a character” is cool, like Darth Vader maybe, well I guess more like the Emperor.
I’m sorry if I think killing children with bears is contemptible, both literally and even if it’s just an allegory for a more central truth. You should really take this to the other thread.
Case in point. This is clearly going to be difficult.
I agree with all of this, and would be very interested in contributing to a series of threads like this. If there is to be debate, it ought to be about interpretation and exegesis, not truth v fiction.
I, too, would be interested in a thread structured in this way, if primarily to see if it is even possible because of the subject matter.
I imagine it would be very difficult to allow (or promote) discussion on interpretation without veracity inevitably, and almost organically becoming part of it.
It could be possible. I suppose there would have to be a strong OP that set clear guidelines as to the purpose and proposed nature of the discussion. Such an OP would identify certain issues as beyond the purview of the present discussion and would invite anyone interested in those certain issues to start threads of their own elsewhere. Essentially, and I have the sense that this is in the spirit of the current OP, the question underlying the general discussion would be ‘what is being said?’, not ‘do you agree with it?’. The way I imagine such potential threads, one could be involved in a number of these threads and never know at least about some of the participants whether they were devout believers or convinced atheists. Having a strong boilerplate OP that identifies the boundaries for weekly or whatever discussions will make it pretty clear who is contributing to the discussion and who is threadshitting.
How does this type of intro for the Cafe Society thread sound?
Welcome to the SDMB weekly Bible Study (SDMBWBS). This week we will be discussing *Genesis 1-2. * Since the discussion can turn into a very broad and hijackable thread, we would like the following rules to be adhered to:
- These SDMBWBS threads are to deal with the books and stories in the Bible as literature.
- While it is up to the individual to choose to believe or disbelieve any portion, that is not to be the discussion of the thread. If you must, please choose to witness/anti-witness in Great Debates.
- The intention is to go through the Bible from front to back in order. While different books are needed to be referred to in order to understand context, please try and keep the focus on the thread’s selected chapter(s)/verse(s).
4)Since different religions have chosen which books to include or omit, the threads will use the Catholic version of 46 Old Testament Books and 27 New Testament Books. It’s encouraged to discuss why a book was included/omitted during the applicable threads only. - Hopefully we can get through these threads with little to no moderation. A gentle reminder that if a poster comes in and ignores these rules, please use the “report post” function instead of responding.
Very well put.
Very nice. Perhaps mention that violation of these guidelines is guaranteed* to result in bears mauling up to 42 of your children? Or maybe not - it’s up to you. In any case, I’m excited about participating in these threads - I’ve never actually read the bible, although I’ve often meant to.
*not a guarantee.
For background (pre-work?) you could link to the Straight Dope Staff Reports Who Wrote the Bible?. It’s not so much an analysis of the text but a summary of the scholarly consensus of where the various Biblical books came from and how they were compiled.