Start with the Bible

Start with the Bible.

The bible is shit. Just a meme book that is somehow relevant because muh ancient jewish cult

wew

Fedoras stay out.

> open bible
> stupid shit starts happening
> close
How do you deal with this?

See

Recognize it was written almost 2000 years ago. Theory of germs and a sensible psychological model were unknown, palace economy was reality, history was myth, and Jewish rabbis were stuck between loyalty to their people and to the Romans. It was a different world, accept it as such. There is great beauty and wisdom in it still.

>try reading the quran
>>lol you need to read the bible first
>try reading the bible
>>lol you need to read the torah first

fuck that i ain't reading no jew book. Im also not ganna read the other two anymore because they both stem from the roots of evil

the torah is just a few books from the OT.

"Sensible psychological model" is humanist twaddle anyway, developed to generalize motivations and wants instead of confronting the immense diversity of them. The Bible is really a very psychological work anyway, it's driven largely by inner conflict, with outter conflict taking a backseat.

Memes and bait aside, the bible is legitimately boring. Some of the stories are interesting just because of how outlandish they are and the fact that a disturbing amount of people actually are convinced any of it happened as written.

The Bible wasn't written to entertain, so you're probably reading it for the wrong reasons.

Oh fuck off to your failed thread. My statement was correct. There was no Freud or Jung in 33 AD. There was only the tribal shaman, the haruspex and the signs of the gods. These people knew only what the book said, and made judgments WRT what ought to be for the common good.

It certainly wasn't written to inform, so if it can't manage to entertain then it's useless.

Freud and Jung fucked up Western thought. They didn't advance our knowledge, they warped it and mislead us. You will be better served reading the Bible, Shakespeare and Dostoevsky to learn psychology, than reading those two astrologers.

Stop being atheist.

Why would I start with the bible when there are far better works that exist prior to it and build the foundation for the literature I'll read thereafter? The Greeks are the bedrock of Western Civilization.

It's a work of theology. The poetry, for instance, of Psalms, aims to please God, not humans.

The Greeks were the ones who were so taken by the Bible they made it the main book of Europe

What virtue is there in reading the Bible for psych if you don't understand what you're reading? Or if the part of you that needs to hear the message is asleep? Freud had some insights, but Jung especially did create a useful structure for understanding the hidden part of human psychology. Your brain is always on, always listening, and it speaks in dreams. Understanding this language is important, you can't deny this. Even the ancients knew dreams were important, or messages from the gods.

>Shakespeare
>Dostoevsky

Who's the humanist now, eh? Science works towards the good friendo.

The Greeks were good at promoting fiction. Just look at the Illiad and the Odyssey.

Why would an omnipotent being care about poetry? Why would it need to convey its will through cryptic messages in burning bushes and angels when it could simply program every creature knowing everything with perfect clarity?

Shakespeare is generally humanist (but see King Lear and Macbeth and Titus). Dostoevsky however is anything but.

Does anyone have the New Jerusalem Bible for download? The only thing I can find is not seeded.

You're one of those who trusts in mistaken medieval Catholic theologians. Go back and read Plato, then Jung, then Plotinus. The One loves the beautiful, because it is good. The Psalms are beautiful and good. The One loves the Psalms, and so Man does also. Their beauty, however, was most definitely meant for Man's ear.

The Greeks didn't see those as true except in a rough sense. Like how we see Shakespeare's histories

I'm not interested in debating theology with you, at least not itt.

No, I'm getting baptized Orthodox next month. I think Medieval Catholic theology is shit.

Because an omnipotent being is not merely it's omnipotence. It is the Many and the One. It can only explore itself. This is also the answer to

>Their beauty, however, was most definitely meant for Man's ear.
They're prayers. You seriously think Psalm 51 is meant to appease men?

God bless user. And you're right, I think. I have no animosity towards them except the deserved. How long has your conversion taken? Months? Years? What were your beliefs before?

>You seriously think Psalm 51 is meant to appease men?

Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.


>Me me me, my my my

Yes. It is a prayer for comfort, with a promise of service as currency. It is absolutely meant for Man.

I'm blown away by how seemingly intelligent people just hand-wave religion away because they assume that ancient man was trying to explain the same things we do with empirical investigation. I don't believe this to be the case at all...
Looking at the Bible from a psychological perspective, rather than as an account of what "literally" happened, is a much more functional method. At least, it's worked for me.

Incidentally, I don't mean to suggest the comfort of Man in his prayers is not simultaneously God giving comfort to itself. Merely that the prayers themselves are for Man.