board77

Quote:

(And even if you think you've "never" listen to Bach or Handel or Mozart...you'd be surprised at how much of their music has crept into everything we listen to today. Classical music is the foundation of most of western music. Also, pictures of the David statue and the Sistine chapel are part of the zeitgeist ...you've seen pictures even if you've not seen the real thing.)

Hence my point about Pachobel's Canon in D Minor. I have seen pictures. I don't consider my life better for seeing them, but then I don't consider my life worse. They don't have any conscious influence on my life.

jewelsong wrote:

River, the story of the "writing on the wall" is from Daniel 5 and the feast of King Belshazzar.

It seems that the saying that "someone's days are numbered" might originate from that same story.

Michelangelo's David is nude because Michelangelo found the nude male form incredibly fascinating. It's hard to find a work of his that doesn't emphasis musculature in some way. However, seeing the repressive role religion played during Renaissance times (see, it all ties back together so neatly...) you couldn't make a naked statue just because you thought the human body was beautiful, it had to be tied to some myth or allegory or religious figure. Add to that the fact that you had to find someone to pay for these massive projects, and it's not surprising most art is religious in nature - the Catholic Church were often the only patrons with enough money to commission artists.

Of course, that doesn't really apply to Michelangelo's David, which was made for the city of Florence, who liked to consider themselves an independent David in the face of various would-be conquering Goliaths. But it makes a decent point in any case.

River wrote:

ETA: I know the story of David and Goliath. However, for some odd reason, I've never really made the connection between the story and the statue. Probably because, in the kiddie books at Sunday School, David was always portrayed as a skinny, pre-pubescent boy in a knee-length tunic and all the adults around him were wearing baggy robes that hit the floor. So my mental image of David of Old Testament fame had ever been one of a skinny, pre-pubescent boy in a knee-length tunic. And sandals.

If it makes you feel better, that's what most other statues of David at that particular moment resemble. Heck, Donatello's David is outright girlish. Michelangelo's is definitely an exception from the norm.

jewel wrote:

If you know next to nothing about the Bible, you are at a disadvantage in the study of art, music, literature and history. You won't "get" many references and subtleties - and this includes modern literature and the arts as well. It will prevent you from fully enjoying or fully understanding much of what you read, hear or see. This is one of the reasons I think a class in the Bible as literature is a great benefit to students.

In my case it was exactly the opposite - like Maria, I grew up without any religious influence or knowledge, and have come to my understanding of Biblical stories and themes through studying literature and particularly art (my college minor was art history; can't get through that without looking at a ton of Biblical figures). In my case I think knowing the stories beforehand would have annoyed me as then you have your own preconceptions of a scene, like when movies get made from your favorite books. Coming at these works without fresh eyes lets you see the art first, then get interested (or not, depending on the quality of the painting and one's personal taste) in discovering the story behind it. I enjoyed the Sistine Chapel ceiling just as much before I could explain every one of the panels in it as I do now.

So are these Texans also clamoring for mandatory electives on Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology? That would be the logical conclusion of their arguments.

In either case, learning the Bible stories and references behind our culture, art, music, history, literature, etc. enhances one's understanding of it all. I'm not saying it should be a required study or anything, but it does have its merits.

And I'm constantly learning new things, even though I've grown up in a Baptist church. I was reading to the girls the parable of the vineyard owner who hires workers all throughout the day and afternoon and pays them the same wage regardless of how long they worked.

Quote:

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

"So the last will be first, and the first will be last." (Matthew 20:1-16)

What jumped out at me this time I read it was the reference to the eleventh hour. Duh! It has to be where we get our phrase about waiting till the eleventh hour, i.e., the last minute to get something done.

(The 11th hour was 5pm, nearly the end of the day as the Jews reckoned it.)

Dave_LF wrote:

So are these Texans also clamoring for mandatory electives on Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology? That would be the logical conclusion of their arguments.

Yes, that would be a logical argument. However, it's a law that probably doesn't need to be written. I certainly learned at least enough of those mythologies in school to be "culturally literate." IOW, I think it's already part of most school's curricula.

I never learned a thing about any of them in school (lots about the Bible, though). I disagree with making it mandatory, but a "Literary Roots of American Culture" class that combined the Greek, Roman, and Norse myths and the Bible would be a decent elective to have (though that's probably too much material for a single course). Heck; I might take a class like that right now if I could.

We had religious studies at school in the 50's and early 60's together with religious daily assembles. I've never felt any harm was done to my capacity for free thought but then we don't have either the legal divide between the secular state and religion here nor the ferocious and unprincipled religious right involved with politics.
If we did I would think differently.

Yes, I doubt the PRR would stand for having the Bible taught alongside classical mythology as if it were in the same category. But they _are_ the ones who started it. Sounds like a nice bit of poetic justice to me.

*sigh*

It takes a serious act of will on my part to read Bible stories. The format drives me nuts. I just glanced at all those numbers in the bit you posted, Jewelsong, and thought, "I really don't need this!" and skipped over it.

Poetry affects me the same way. I habitually skip over anything written in verse. If it turns out to be important, I'll go back and read it word by word, but my brain has the same cut out built in for poetry as for Bible stuff.

Now, poetry written as prose, such as Louis L'Amour sometimes acheived is readable to me. Some of his descriptions add up to more than the words describe and the result is beautiful. But it's not in that stupid chopped up format. The words flow in sentances, paragraphs and pages and are wonderful to read.

Not so with real Poetry or Bible "verses". The format seriously annoys me.

Maria, the numbering of verses is all done for reference. And I know it seems off-putting to some. That's why having someone tell you the story sometimes works well. Same with poetry - it is often much more effective when someone reads it out loud.

But there ARE an abundance of translations. You might be more able to read a translation like "The Message." Here's that same story (the verse numbers would appear in the left-hand margin; I just removed them):

Daniel 5

King Belshazzar held a great feast for his one thousand nobles. The wine flowed freely. Belshazzar, heady with the wine, ordered that the gold and silver chalices his father Nebuchadnezzar had stolen from God's Temple of Jerusalem be brought in so that he and his nobles, his wives and concubines, could drink from them. When the gold and silver chalices were brought in, the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines, drank wine from them. They drank the wine and drunkenly praised their gods made of gold and silver, bronze and iron, wood and stone.

At that very moment, the fingers of a human hand appeared and began writing on the lamp-illumined, whitewashed wall of the palace. When the king saw the disembodied hand writing away, he went white as a ghost, scared out of his wits. His legs went limp and his knees knocked. He yelled out for the enchanters, the fortunetellers, and the diviners to come. He told these Babylonian magi, "Anyone who can read this writing on the wall and tell me what it means will be famous and rich—purple robe, the great gold chain—and be third-in-command in the kingdom."

One after the other they tried, but could make no sense of it. They could neither read what was written nor interpret it to the king. So now the king was really frightened. All the blood drained from his face. The nobles were in a panic.

The queen heard of the hysteria among the king and his nobles and came to the banquet hall. She said, "Long live the king! Don't be upset. Don't sit around looking like ghosts. There is a man in your kingdom who is full of the divine Holy Spirit. During your father's time he was well known for his intellectual brilliance and spiritual wisdom. He was so good that your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, made him the head of all the magicians, enchanters, fortunetellers, and diviners. There was no one quite like him. He could do anything—interpret dreams, solve mysteries, explain puzzles. His name is Daniel, but he was renamed Belteshazzar by the king. Have Daniel called in. He'll tell you what is going on here."

So Daniel was called in. The king asked him, "Are you the Daniel who was one of the Jewish exiles my father brought here from Judah? I've heard about you—that you're full of the Holy Spirit, that you've got a brilliant mind, that you are incredibly wise. The wise men and enchanters were brought in here to read this writing on the wall and interpret it for me. They couldn't figure it out—not a word, not a syllable. But I've heard that you interpret dreams and solve mysteries. So—if you can read the writing and interpret it for me, you'll be rich and famous—a purple robe, the great gold chain around your neck—and third-in-command in the kingdom."

Daniel answered the king, "You can keep your gifts, or give them to someone else. But I will read the writing for the king and tell him what it means.

"Listen, O king! The High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar a great kingdom and a glorious reputation. Because God made him so famous, people from everywhere, whatever their race, color, and creed, were totally intimidated by him. He killed or spared people on whim. He promoted or humiliated people capriciously. He developed a big head and a hard spirit. Then God knocked him off his high horse and stripped him of his fame. He was thrown out of human company, lost his mind, and lived like a wild animal. He ate grass like an ox and was soaked by heaven's dew until he learned his lesson: that the High God rules human kingdoms and puts anyone he wants in charge.

"You are his son and have known all this, yet you're as arrogant as he ever was. Look at you, setting yourself up in competition against the Master of heaven! You had the sacred chalices from his Temple brought into your drunken party so that you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines, could drink from them. You used the sacred chalices to toast your gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone—blind, deaf, and imbecile gods. But you treat with contempt the living God who holds your entire life from birth to death in his hand.

"God sent the hand that wrote on the wall, and this is what is written: mene, teqel, and peres. This is what the words mean:

"Mene: God has numbered the days of your rule and they don't add up.

"Teqel: You have been weighed on the scales and you don't weigh much.

"Peres: Your kingdom has been divided up and handed over to the Medes and Persians."

Belshazzar did what he had promised. He robed Daniel in purple, draped the great gold chain around his neck, and promoted him to third-in-charge in the kingdom.

That same night the Babylonian king Belshazzar was murdered. Darius the Mede was sixty-two years old when he succeeded him as king.

Dave_LF wrote:

I never learned a thing* about any of them in school.

*Referring to Greek and Roman myths.

I'm really surprised. I thought you were American? Most American elementary schools have a whole year (maybe more!) in the curriculum about the ancient Greeks and Romans, because that was the foundation of democracy. The Founding Fathers deliberately based their government on the style of government of Ancient Greece and Rome. Also, if you take a history of theatre class, you'll learn tons about the Greeks.

Nope; not a bit. I went to private Christian schools (4 altogether); the Bible classes were probably at the expense of some of that stuff. We learned about Greece and Rome in history class, of course, but never studied their mythology.

jewelsong wrote:

vison once stated that the Bible was the most influential book in the Western world (I can't find the post, but I think it was a conversation with her grandson!) and I think she is right. If you know next to nothing about the Bible, you are at a disadvantage in the study of art, music, literature and history. You won't "get" many references and subtleties - and this includes modern literature and the arts as well. It will prevent you from fully enjoying or fully understanding much of what you read, hear or see. This is one of the reasons I think a class in the Bible as literature is a great benefit to students.

I completely disagree that having lack of knowledge of the Bible would prevent someone from really enjoying religious works and do not agree that having that knowledge would gain someone any more enjoyment depending on their view and experiences with religion...especially for people who have had negative experiences with organised religion.

The thought of having to study the bible is very offputting to me (I can handle studying the history of Christianity and the general idea of it but don't make me study the actual stories). I also do not believe that more knowledge of the Bible would help me enjoy religious classical music any more. Actually it would have the reverse affect on me. I don't much like Bach, Handel or Mozart but enjoy earlier music from composers such as Des Prez, Dufay, Gesualdo, Monteverdi, or Palestrina and I think I kind of block out all the religion and just concentrate on the beauty of the music.

Actually I remember something I found quite cool when staring off Music History. I remember learning that some Renaissance composers stuck the French secular song L'homme armé into a Mass. I thought that kind of dig at the church was awesome.

All in all, I am completely and utterly against anyone being forced to learn about the Bible all on it's own. If any sort of religious class is required, all religions should be given equal time and all talked about in a detached and scholarly manner.

Erunáme wrote:

Actually I remember something I found quite cool when staring off Music History. I remember learning that some Renaissance composers stuck the French secular song L'homme armé into a Mass. I thought that kind of dig at the church was awesome.

They didn't exactly hide it - they published them with the title of the song they were based on. (eg. "Missa L'homme Armé", "Missa Nasce la Gioia Mia", "Missa Laetatus Sum", etc.)

Lots of masses from the time were based on pre-existing songs - some sacred, some secular. The practice was so widespread that nobody would bat an eyelid when they heard snatches of current pop songs in this week's devotional music. Case in point: Forestier's "Missa Baises Moy" (e.g. the "Kiss Me" mass!)

I never had an entire curriculum on Greek and Roman mythology, and I went to public school in both Queens, NY, and Westchester, NY. We covered them in our history classes, but never an entire course dedicated to both. On the flip side, I have never had an entire course on the bible either. I was forced lutheran at the time, so I learned about the bible at church. Hasn't prevented my knowledge, or enjoyment of western culture.

I disagree that the logical argument in the Texas would be to have a course about Greek and Roman mythology. Since it is a state populated with evangelical types (unlike NY for instance), it would not cross their logic to include other mythologies in their law to include the bible in public school. I doubt many states in the bible belt would come to the same conclusion as well. This isn't a knock on those states, but the reality of the power of christianity in those states.

Erunáme wrote:

I completely disagree that having lack of knowledge of the Bible would prevent someone from really enjoying religious works and do not agree that having that knowledge would gain someone any more enjoyment depending on their view and experiences with religion...especially for people who have had negative experiences with organised religion.

What I am talking about has very little to do with organized religion. And I wasn't referring to the enjoyment or appreciation of religious works, but of art, music and literature in general. Many, many, many popular composers, artists and writers use Biblical references - both overt and oblique - in their works. Similarly, they use references to Shakespeare, Greek mythology and other important foundations of our Western culture. ALL of them should be studied, because they are the building blocks of our culture today.

Quote:

The thought of having to study the bible is very offputting to me (I can handle studying the history of Christianity and the general idea of it but don't make me study the actual stories).

The stories are what are most important as they relate to history and culture. The religious aspect is not, at least from a cultural and historical viewpoint.

Quote:

All in all, I am completely and utterly against anyone being forced to learn about the Bible all on it's own. If any sort of religious class is required, all religions should be given equal time and all talked about in a detached and scholarly manner.

Study of the Bible as literature and a class in World Religions are two very, very different things. In a class about religions, you would learn about the beliefs and practices of adherents to various faiths. In a class about the Bible, you would learn about the context and history of the events recorded in the Bible. The stories, in other words. Because the Bible is a book of stories and these stories have had a profound effect on our culture, our values and our lives. A class in the Bible as literature would not be a class in religion at all.

It has nothing to do with what you actually believe or whether you are an atheist, a Christian, a Jew, or anything else. It's a reference, a window into our past and also a way to better understand the present.

I agree with Jewelsong. The stories in the Bible, at least in the Old Testament, are very important in Western culture. Those stories are also found elsewhere, of course, in the epic Gilgamesh, etc.

The Greek and Roman gods are not important in our culture as GODS. What was important about Greek culture - to us - has almost nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their civic society. Likewise with the Romans. Roman deference to any god was rather perfunctory and you simply don't find any religious fanaticism among them.

That came with the adoption of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine. Things went downhill from there.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

I disagree that the logical argument in the Texas would be to have a course about Greek and Roman mythology. Since it is a state populated with evangelical types (unlike NY for instance), it would not cross their logic to include other mythologies in their law to include the bible in public school. I doubt many states in the bible belt would come to the same conclusion as well. This isn't a knock on those states, but the reality of the power of christianity in those states.

Except they aren't arguing that the Bible should be taught because it's popular or true and wholesome; they're arguing it should be taught because knowing the stories is important for understanding references and allusions in US history and culture. And I'm saying if we accept that, then it follows that we should teach the Greek and Roman myths for the same reason.

vison wrote:

The Greek and Roman gods are not important in our culture as GODS. What was important about Greek culture - to us - has almost nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their civic society. Likewise with the Romans. Roman deference to any god was rather perfunctory and you simply don't find any religious fanaticism among them.

But our language and literature is filled with references to those stories, just like the Biblical ones. e.g. Pandora's box, the word "clue", Yule and Easter traditions, the names we give to the days of the week, etc.

I don't see any reason why anyone NEEDS to study the stories of the bible. "Building blocks of our culture today" doesn't do it for me. Morality can be learned without religion.