Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Whoa! I'm back!

Darn dissertation!

Of course, this blog was created to vent, and lately I have found myself less angry. Instead I just have a low level disgust aimed at the unthinking knee jerk liberalism of my fellow students.

Anyway - interesting experience:

So, we're discussing St. Augustine for whatever reason (I'm not sure, as no one in the class understands any of the scriptural allusions he makes and all they want to do is insult him for not being clever enough to see through the sham of Christianity),


I quote a verse from the Bible from memory. One that Augustine alluded to but didn't fully quote.

Someone actually said "I didn't think there were people who could quote the Bible at the drop of a hat. At least not among educated people, anyway."

Do I even have to explain the problem with that? The assumption that "educated" people don't need to be familiar with the Bible?

The Bible is the oldest book in existence. It has kept its accuracy through out the ages, and its statements have be proven through archealogical digs and scientific discoveries.
How can one be educated and not study it?
I don't think it's so much whether it's "true" or not, or if it's claims can be proven. It is the most influential book in the history of Western Civilization.

Even if you don't believe in it, I would expect some familiarity with the contents (no need to have large chunks memorized like I do). However, I am appalled at the ignorance among my fellow grad studnets and professors - many don't even know what it actually contains.
Along similar lines, Jane Galt put up an interesting post on "evangelical atheists."

It's pretty good.
It isn't quite the oldest book in existence, but it is definitely the most ancient that is still read by the populace.

On a side note: In a British Literature I survey, my professor assigned bits of the Bible printed in the Norton Anthology. His particular angle was that the various versions (KJV, Tyndale, Douay-Rheims) should be studied as great, influential works of English literature. So despair not: some of the academy still has respect for Christianity.

On another side note: How do these people hope to understand Milton and Chaucer (and I presume they must, if they're pursuing English degrees) if they don't understand the Christian Scriptures?
tim -

well, I've actually had teachers claim you don't really need to know the Bible to understand Chaucer, etc.

Why? Well, if you're just looking for ways to say that the authors are racist, sexist, homophobic (or vice versa, that they are "enlightened", proto-feminists or secretly gay) why bother to read the Bible?

Or something like that.
To his credit, on the first day of the first English class I ever took at the university level, the professor handed out a sheet listing works of classical literature that the authors we were about to study would have assumed their readers were familiar with. Half the list - the entire back of the page - was Bible references.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?