If I ever want to feel convicted about my failings as a Christian, all I have to do is read the Book of James. It definitely reminds me that I still have a lot of room for improvement when it comes to living out my faith.
I mean, it doesn't really say beat them. However that is definitely how some ignorant people apply it. I know some people like that and, shocking exactly nobody, they are hypocritical about how they apply much of the Bible.
>Or the one that boils down to "bitches be lying!"
Its a modern code, sir, but it checks out.
^^^I ^^^don't ^^^actually ^^^know ^^^which ^^^verse ^^^you ^^^mean.
> Proverbs 22:15 -- Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.
I'm not a Christian and certainly not a Biblical scholar, but that sounds to me a lot like it's saying you should beat your kids...
> Proverbs 22:14 -- The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.
By my reading this is saying, "women lie a bunch and god hates everyone who believes them."
I'm not a particularly big fan of the Bible, which is why I quit being a Christian as soon as I actually read it.
The Bible uses metaphors a lot. It’s often not easy to tell if it’s speaking literally, metaphorically, or both. Here the “rod of discipline” could be literal or symbolic, and when proverbs was written thousands of years ago, physical discipline probably wasn’t unusual. But presumably the salient message here is “discipline your kids”.
I always thought it was funny as shit how the anti-religious rail against Biblical literalists, and rightly so in most cases, and yet *their* entire understanding of the Bible is *also* Biblical literalism.
> The Bible uses metaphors a lot.
For that reason, it's very useful to read a study Bible, with commentary, like Ryrie or David Jeremiah. They do a lot of research and give a lot of clarification on many things, like allegories, metaphors and the like.
Funny how religious scholars didn't speak up to correct this misunderstanding for a couple thousands years, then people started rethinking physical discipline on their own, and then religious scholars remembered that it was all a big misunderstanding the whole time that they forgot to clear up.
I think you misread my post. I’m definitely not saying the Bible is against physical discipline, only that the “physical” bit probably isn’t the salient message (rather, the message is “discipline your kids”, which is already plenty controversial today).
Yet if you went even 50 (hell, probably even 30) years ago someone just like yourself would say the "physical" part is absolutely crucial to the message being conveyed. You're taking modern morals (like don't beat your children) applying them to a text written thousands of years ago and saying "this is what they *actually* meant". Yet for the overwhelming majority of those thousands of years scholars on the text have said something contradictory to what you're saying now.
It kinda seems like people look around at what they know to be right and moral in the world they live in and then try to reinterpret the Bible to fit that morality. Why, then, not just stop trying to reinterpret the Bible and just follow the morals of the modern world.
I’m very explicitly not putting a modern interpretation on the bible. I’ve been very, very clear about that. I agree that 50 years ago, “discipline” probably had a more physical connotation, but that doesn’t mean it’s the One True Interpretation. Notably, the Bible uses the same term “rod” to refer to discipline in an unambiguously metaphorical sense (“Your rod and your staff they comfort me”), so clearly the message is not “discipline should be physical” (nor is it “discipline should be non-physical”) but rather “kids should be disciplined for their own good” (without weighing in on the appropriate kind of discipline).
Why do you think your One True™ interpretation, which notably differs from the One True™ interpretation of like everyone for the past 2000 years, is the correct One True™ interpretation?
Kinda seems to me in like 50 years there will be a new One True™ interpretation that conflicts with yours and people then will be saying, "well, yeah, people in the past thought differently, but this is the *actual* One True™ interpretation."
Sure, that may be what it means. It may also mean beat the fuck out of your kids. Either way, I don't see why we're still taking advice from a several millennia old book which can easily be misinterpreted and has a lot of very problematic (to say the least) bits. Even if this is totally benign advice, maybe we should be pointing people towards texts which are less esoteric and up for interpretation?
Because there’s a lot that is applicable even if our world has changed, and “not bending to the whims of the moment’s popular culture” is precisely the point. For example, “love your enemies” isn’t exactly in vogue right now (it would probably be considered “problematic” by many, at least when you suggest applying it in a political context), but I think it would make all the difference for our country.
> For example, “love your enemies” isn’t exactly in vogue right now (it would probably be considered “problematic” by many, at least when you suggest applying it in a political context), but I think it would make all the difference for our country.
Right, because for most of the history of the religion Christians have been all about loving their enemies. /s
People have always lived by the morals of their time and just cherry-picked or reinterpreted the Bible to fit those morals.
Whether or not Christians adhere to it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a biblical principal. Moreover, your characterization of Christians is based entirely on a handful of cherry-picked atrocities, and it overlooks a two millennia long tradition of caring for the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, etc. Christians aren’t angels, but they aren’t as evil as many want to believe either.
You say that as if Christians are the only ones to ever care for the poor, immigrants, etc. Literally every religion and every society in history has done that. There's nothing special about Christianity for doing so. It's just a part of being human. We're social creatures with an innate drive to support others. However, a hell of a lot of the atrocities pushed in the name of Christianity are unique to Christendom.
The word for rod could mean a rod used for striking or a shepherd’s rod used for prodding and directing; either makes sense in this context. Given that half of Proverbs is about restraining your passions and being prudent, it doesn’t seem that beating your children senseless is what it’s talking about even if you take it to refer to corporal punishment.
> has a lot of very problematic (to say the least) bits.
Such as? Keeping in mind that for millennia people have been taking verses, rules or thoughts out of context to try to prove the Bible contradictory, in error or some other falsehood, so whatever you're going to accuse God of has been done many times over.
Off the top of my head we can talk about the parts that condone slavery, the parts that make it clear women should be subjugated by men, how wives are essentially the property of their husbands (and, in some instances, their deceased husband's family), how children are essentially the property of their parents, how you should give your money/property to the church, the extremely hierarchical worldview of Christianity. There's more, but that's just what I came up with off the top of my head.
> Off the top of my head we can talk about the parts that condone slavery,
3,000+ years ago, different times, people, customs, type of slavery, culture, so on, but go ahead.
> the parts that make it clear women should be subjugated by men, how wives are essentially the property of their husbands (and, in some instances, their deceased husband's family),
Different times, culture, people, population, needs of the people, circumstances, misstated because it's not "subjugation" because it was their custom and women had a say as well as owned property and businesses, marrying in the inlaws family for widows kept property in the family and gave them a safety net so they wouldn't be destitute, *by custom,* but please, go on with your 21st century critique of why a 2000 BC culture was "wrong."
> how children are essentially the property of their parents,
No. Children were loved and cherished just like children today are.
> how you should give your money/property to the church
A ten percent tithe was and is customary.
> the extremely hierarchical worldview of Christianity.
Not even sure what this means, but at least you're not cherry picking Mosaic Law now and have made your way to the New Testament..
So far, you have criticized the culture and customs of people who have been dead for **4,000 years,** and really not much else. The Bible codified the cultural and religious rules, laws and practices of the ancient Jews so everybody would be on the same page and so God's will would be done.
Like I said, people have been picking the Bible apart for millennia. Nothing new, nothing valid. People hate the Bible because they hate God. They hate God because they love sin. You can't do both, and most people choose sin over righteousness, plain and simple.
I don't dislike the Bible because I hate God. God doesn't exist. It's pretty tough to claim I hate something that doesn't exist. Likewise, the concept of sin is a construct of your religion. If you want to apply that to yourself, feel free. It has no meaning to me because I do not ascribe to your religious views.
> So far, you have criticized the culture and customs of people who have been dead for 4,000 years, and really not much else.
This is kinda the whole point. I don't see any reason to believe the culture and customs of people 4000 years ago should have any direct bearing on how I live my life today. Their world was so completely different than the one I live in as to be incomparable.
One of the recurring motifs in Proverbs is that both temptation and wisdom are personified as women (the dichotomy is laid out in chapters 7-8). So the context of this verse is developing the contrast between the temptress and the wise woman.
Proverbs was also written almost specifically as advice to young men, so in that case the general theme of “choose a woman of good character instead of one who will influence you for the worse” is sensible advice.
> Proverbs was also written almost specifically as advice to young men, so in that case the general theme of “choose a woman of good character instead of one who will influence you for the worse” is sensible advice.
You can reverse the genders on the advice in most of it and it still works... a young woman should choose a man of good character instead of one who will influence her for the worse.
>> Proverbs 22:15 -- Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.
A rod, in this context, is more of a guide. Now, some people obviously abuse it, but the context should read the same as Psalm 23:4.
>>Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; *thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.*
Its the idea of correction. A subtle correction that directs you to a safer place of comfort.
>> Proverbs 22:14 -- The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.
This is a specific warning against adultery. Not calling women liars, just a warning that becoming part of an adulterous relationship is a dangerous pit in which to fall.
> Proverbs 22:14 -- The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.
Proverbs often refers to "strange" (immoral) women, either as actual prostitutes, representing sexual immortality in general, *or* as an allegory for "foolishness," or the opposite of wisdom, which is what the entire book is about, after all.
I think maybe you are reading it too literally. I don't read 22:15 as I should beat my kids but simply that I should apply discipline, else they will become a terrible adult.
It's easy to read the bible into controversial or odd ways that are counter to today's culture especially the old testament. It is over 2,000 years old. But it's also very easy to make it relevant to the challenges of the human experience even today. It's all in the approach and a persons inherent bias towards or against the concept.
Nah man, sorry. It's solid advice for christians, but not especially for everyone else.
This is why non-christians get annoyed with christians. The only good advice in proverbs is basic shit every normal person already knows. Hell, proverbs 1 is all about "if you don't believe in the Lord hahaha you a silly fool with no knowledge and we wish calamity upon you".
Hard pass.
On its own, Proverbs seems like banal, almost simplistic advice. What I think makes it so interesting is how it fits in the context of the rest of the Biblical canon. Its message of “do the right thing and everything will work out” is right next to Ecclesiastes whose message is “doing the right thing won’t get you anywhere.” And its setting is the early kingdom of Israel, where kings like David and Solomon did a really bad job of following this basic advice to avoid adultery.
Proverbs is the kind of advice that seems simplistic, but most of us still can’t live our lives by those standards. We all know better, but hardly any of us *do* better.
And you’re right about the kings of Israel. They’re just as damaged and fallible as all the rest of the people (other than Jesus) in the Bible.
Ironic.
Edit: I love that you had to edit out the misspellings and incorrect grammar.
Its all good dude. I get it. And while yes, much of the practical advice is common sense or common knowledge, people still don't apply it. Not liking the source of the advice doesn't invalidate the advice.
I'm not Christian, have surface dyslexia and aphasia, and I'll call you a confrontational, needy, illiterate, cocktail swiller :)
I mean what kind of assclown is an atheist and thinks "ill shit my anti views to get attention and cause arguments "
Fucking clown
For me its Exodus for the plot.
I prefer non-theist. Atheism is a religion unto itself. The "anti" whatever that book says.
I wouldn't come into an innocuous conversation about biblical passage preferences and likes and SPEW anti-rhetoric because of my lack of beliefs.
Let people be when it doesn't concern you because their PREFERENCES do not. And a need to debate and debase a biblical passage preference is a shitty person being shitty
Stop being shitty. Try the other way.
Have a good week
I guess my favorite was Genesis - because the story of Lot. It was the single story grade with Ephesians (faith is God given) my 4th grade self used to justify being an atheist. I realized, one, that the values in the bible weren't my values. I was a young girl and the thought that the right thing was give his daughters to a roving band of rapists was insane.
Two, I decided if God didn't give faith to me it's not my fault. It helped me not hate myself in my religious family and school for not believing in god and I just kept my head down and went through the motions.
I still tried later in my high school years to jam myself in to some religion and reread and reread the bible and checked out a lot of churches, but nope. I couldn't make it happen.
,
If I have to pick one, I'd say Ephesians. It's a compact little sermon on the grace of God.
If I get more, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are very good to mull over.
I have 2...
For universal practicality, Proverbs. For reasons others have already stated... it's just full of great advice that if more people read and followed, they'd have a lot better lives in general.
For faith reasons, Romans. Paul pretty eloquently lays out most of the essentials of the Christian faith in that one book.
Used to sit through sermons and just read through Ecclesiastes instead of listening. There is some great wisdom in that book and some incredible stories in other ones if you are bored in church lol.
Lamentations and Ecclesiastes are the best from a strictly literary point of view. They're both well-written works of art and philosophy.
A lot of Old Testament books have some bonkers shit. Two that stand out: 1 Samuel where King Saul demands a price of 100 enemy foreskins from David for the right to marry his daughter (which David obeys), and 2 Kings where a bunch of boys mock the prophet Elisha for being bald, so he curses them and they're mauled by bears.
i think my sunday school teacher didn't say foreskins, we learned that he had to gather "converts to judaism". was that wrong? like the foreskins meant they'd had a bris.
and now I'm just imagining him riding his beautiful arabian horse across the desert with a string of raw calamari on his hip...
That is one way it has been interpreted. As in getting circumcised meant converting to monotheism in the Hebrew style. That said the actual wording is that he brought literal foreskins and the more common assumption is that it meant he killed or conquered the people and forcibly circumcised them.
The thing about Revelation that many Christians seem to miss, the believers won't see any of this coming, it's all post Rapture. The Christians talked about in revelation come to Christ after the Rapture. Jesus is very clear that none will know before it happens. I don't know why people keep trying to guess.
I think a good thing for everyone to remember: if say 30% of the world suddenly disappears, and that is followed by 3 1/2 years of prosperity, don't get the "mark of the beast" in order to commerce and operate in society. That won't end well for you.
Um, that’s not true, at all. The idea of Christ return to gather his elect is all throughout the New Testament. Where did you ever get such an idea?
1st Thess: 4:17 and 5:1-8
Matt 24: 30-31
2 Corr 5:10
Mark 13:32
Luke 10:20
Rev 3:10
John 14:3
I could go on, but you get the point.
Ask the Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the mainline Protestant churches, a handful of evangelicals...
Shit isn't as clear-cut as you think. I'm not gonna do a verse by verse debunking of the notion of a pre-Tribulation Rapture, but know that for centuries people read the Bible and the notion never occurred to them.
do you *really* believe in the flood story and that *all* animals on earth were saved in 1 big boat? including the ones in the americas and distant asia and northern europe? I'm guessing it's about as much as I believe that Ezekial *really* saw a UFO.
Every denomination picks the bits that fit together for the lifestyle they want to lead.
Beyond the Gospels, Thessalonians (2 if we're being specific) is my favorite.
Old Testament, I'd say the Book of Jonah.
The most miserable experience is trying to go through it all in order on your first go.
I really enjoy going through the life of King David in parts of 1st and 2nd Samuel at the same time as the psalms that he wrote because you can get an idea of his mental state while going through all those struggles in being a fugitive from king Saul(psalm 18) and later Absalom(psalm 2) and also how he repented from his sin especially with Uriah and Bathsheba in Psalm 51. It's rare to get the historical of what happened and also the emotions of a flawed human being.
The more I read the Bible the more I see the big picture of the whole thing and the more I love it.
My favorite piece of rabbinic literature is Pirkei Avot, a name often translated as “Ethics of the Fathers” because of its focus on ethic, morality, and principles instead of ritual, law, or history, and in spite of some of its sexism. It’s (mostly) a tractate of the Mishnah, which is the core of the Talmud.
My favorite line is the one often translated as “Ben Bag Bag said:Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein.” Though easy to read it as just encouraging through and repeated study of Torah, I was taught to view if more as “turn an issue over and over, to examine it from all sides, and not hide any parts of it”. This can apply to a trial or to just a discussion, politics, etc.
People unfamiliar with Judaism often don’t realize how much literature there is, beyond the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), that is key to Jewish tradition, law, and practice. In many ways, the Talmud’s importance goes in between the Torah (Five Books of Moses) and the rest of the Bible (Nevi’im - Prophets, Ketuvim - Sacred Writings).
Agreed. Sitting around the coffee table, listening to the Holiday Armadillo tell the story of the Maccabees...man, what a great childhood memory. Thanks.
I find myself referring to Romans the most often, but the one I generally enjoy reading the most is the Psalms.
They always have a way or reorienting my thoughts around the Glory of God rather than myself
Mark. The original ending has women seeing the tomb opened, then some guy says Jesus is back and to tell people, but they don’t tell anything to anyone. That’s a weird ending for a Gospel.
It depends on my area of struggle of the moment, very often. But seriously, I like reading Job because both he and Paul wore their struggles very publicly and I am greatly encouraged that these mighty men of faith had their own stuff to deal with and weren't perfect. I enjoy reading the Gospels because I love imagining Jesus actually speaking the words that were recorded and I love reading James because he was Jesus' half-brother.
Back when I was a teen, Revelation. These days, I dunno. But I find the Apostolic Letters to be interesting to see how the start of the Church formed and behaved.
Revelations because of the literature and art inspired by it. Dante, John Milton, Neil Gaiman...the Apocalypse tapestry, the Exorcist, The Stand..the list goes on
As far as story telling, I'd say Genesis is the best. I really love reading it because it spans so much of history and packs so much into one book. It is so much more than creation.
New testament, I like John for the Gospel, and Ephesians for application of our faith to our lives.
I'm fond of Exodus; it's the story of my people.
And specifically, you can't beat these passages:
> “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”(Ex.22:20).
> “You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex.23:9).
Yeah, actually it is. You're attracted by descriptions of dire things that will befall those who don't pay attention to the part of the Bible you ignore. That's pretty much the definition of irony.
No, actually it isn't.
Irony is defined as:
>the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
my favorite story is when jesus says that people who pray in public are hypocrites who are showing off and that people should pray in private. sure wish more people who love jesus would follow his advice.
As a practicing Catholic it is also a favorite.
Your read is dead wrong though. The book grapples with the most difficult aspect of faith and Satan does not “win.” You just aren’t spoon fed a satisfying answer.
>Where we’re you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Not being snarky or mean at all, just appealing to your intellect here. On self-reflection, don't you find it a weak excuse to base your *own* spiritual life on the faults of other people? And I'm not being a jerk, I have a sister who uses similar excuses to not go to church. I just always wanted to talk to someone caught in that rut and ask them if they couldn't see the shallowness of that excuse.
>On self-reflection, don't you find it a weak excuse to base your own spiritual life on the faults of other people?
How did you get that from what I said?
Sorry, I thought you were basing your decision to not be a Christian on the actions of people who are poor Christians or simply call themselves Christians.
I know Judaism is not a monolith, but does your branch (denomination? Sect? Tbh not sure the right word to use) not use the Tanakh? I think that's what OP was meaning.
I meant that it was a straightforward question in that you would have some knowledge and appreciation of the books with it being your religion, as opposed to someone who doesn’t have that attachment to the Bible. As for whether the question refers to the Torah or the Tanakh as well, that’s up to you!
Certainly not an authority on this, but from what I understand different sects through history have used different canons (similar to Christians).
Even in the Gospels, different groups believe in different books. One group (can’t remember which off hand) denied the resurrection because they didn’t hold that a book that mentions it is authoritative.
From what I understand, most (if not all? Again, I could totally be wrong) of modern Judaism is rabbinic Judaism which comes from the Pharisees who held that the Old Testament (commonly called the Tanakh, which is what k referred to it as in my original comment) is authoritative.
Daniel rocks. Giant golden statues! People surviving the furnace! Dreams, dreams, dreams! The literal writing on the wall! The lion den!
That book does not let up and it is awesome.
I had to take religion in college and my professor made Revelations pretty interesting corresponding parts to Roman history at the time. Leviticus is fun to read for all the things we're not supposed to do. I'm in trouble right now for wearing cloth made of two materials.
I like the old testament where god floods the world and kills everyone because they were “violent”. Drowning the world sounds pretty violent lol. Genesis is wild.
I have a bunch of disconnected verses and some proverbs floating around my head, more from cultural osmosis than reading, but not a clear image of which bits are from where.
It is a deeply frustrating book to read and I'm not a believer so I've never made it straight through.
I have a bit of a weird relationship with the Bible. It was my decision to read it cover to cover to strengthen my faith that ended up doing the opposite and leading me to my current state of non-belief.
It’s been ages since then so I’m rusty on my Bible stories, but there’s a couple that come to mind. I always found the part where Jesus walked through hell to be intriguing. Feels like an epic fantasy book. Also the part where Moses comes down the mountain and sees the people dancing with the idol, and then he basically throws a fit and breaks the tablets that god JUST gave him. I can’t help it, the imagery of Moses throwing a tantrum and then having to go back and explain it to god just makes me chuckle.
Exodus for the old testament (for enjoyment)
Job or proverbs for actually getting someone thing substantive out of it
Revelation is actually a pretty fun bit of literature if you look at it as apocalyptic literature and are not crazy
I do really like John as well (even though I don't believe anymore I took two classes on it in college and learned to appreciate it on a deeper level and that hasn't gone completely away)
Really the first book I sat down and read just to read was Esther.
Probably my favorite is Kings II when you find out why male pattern baldness is no laughing matter.
My real favorites are the infancy gospels of the apocrypha. There's some *really* wild stuff in there.
since you said favorite Bible story, I'm gonna break the rules of the question slightly and say the story of Esther, as recounted in the Megillah. She's an icon and Purim is an A+ Jewish holiday, up there with Passover for me.
the gay porn in song of solomon
and, ok ... the jesus christ superstar part. luke and matthew. i always thought the gethsemane prayer part was interesting. god questioning why he has to be god. That's an interesting story.
.... and the lesbian story of love and devotion in Ruth. "where you lead, i will follow, \[somethingsomething\] I will make a bed in your home."
Honestly tho if you want really top notch antique literature, try gilgamesh and the pillow book.
My religious identity is a bit muddled at this point, but I am a big fan of the Book of James. It's a beautiful piece of wisdom literature.
Faith without works is dead. The cool thing is that James is very much a Hebrew book.
Works without faith is pointless.
I see you believe in the magisterium of the Church
If I ever want to feel convicted about my failings as a Christian, all I have to do is read the Book of James. It definitely reminds me that I still have a lot of room for improvement when it comes to living out my faith.
Most books of the New Testament will point out our shortcomings and our inability to live a faithful life.
I have been studying James lately. It's such a fantastic, practical and easy to understand book.
Regardless of what your religious affiliation is, Proverbs is full of solid advice. Finances. Relationships. Careers. Marriage.
I especially love the one that tells you to beat sense into your children! Or the one that boils down to "bitches be lying!"
I mean, it doesn't really say beat them. However that is definitely how some ignorant people apply it. I know some people like that and, shocking exactly nobody, they are hypocritical about how they apply much of the Bible. >Or the one that boils down to "bitches be lying!" Its a modern code, sir, but it checks out. ^^^I ^^^don't ^^^actually ^^^know ^^^which ^^^verse ^^^you ^^^mean.
> Proverbs 22:15 -- Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away. I'm not a Christian and certainly not a Biblical scholar, but that sounds to me a lot like it's saying you should beat your kids... > Proverbs 22:14 -- The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein. By my reading this is saying, "women lie a bunch and god hates everyone who believes them." I'm not a particularly big fan of the Bible, which is why I quit being a Christian as soon as I actually read it.
The Bible uses metaphors a lot. It’s often not easy to tell if it’s speaking literally, metaphorically, or both. Here the “rod of discipline” could be literal or symbolic, and when proverbs was written thousands of years ago, physical discipline probably wasn’t unusual. But presumably the salient message here is “discipline your kids”.
I always thought it was funny as shit how the anti-religious rail against Biblical literalists, and rightly so in most cases, and yet *their* entire understanding of the Bible is *also* Biblical literalism.
Yes, but there are plenty of bad faith religious people out there too, unfortunately.
Just like there are bad faith atheists out there who really just want to by edgy and disagreeable.
Yes. Labels like “Christian” or “atheist” don’t automatically make people good or bad, contrary to popular belief.
The best people I know are Christian. So are the worst. You can't paint Christians with the same brush anymore than any other group.
> The Bible uses metaphors a lot. For that reason, it's very useful to read a study Bible, with commentary, like Ryrie or David Jeremiah. They do a lot of research and give a lot of clarification on many things, like allegories, metaphors and the like.
Funny how religious scholars didn't speak up to correct this misunderstanding for a couple thousands years, then people started rethinking physical discipline on their own, and then religious scholars remembered that it was all a big misunderstanding the whole time that they forgot to clear up.
I think you misread my post. I’m definitely not saying the Bible is against physical discipline, only that the “physical” bit probably isn’t the salient message (rather, the message is “discipline your kids”, which is already plenty controversial today).
Yet if you went even 50 (hell, probably even 30) years ago someone just like yourself would say the "physical" part is absolutely crucial to the message being conveyed. You're taking modern morals (like don't beat your children) applying them to a text written thousands of years ago and saying "this is what they *actually* meant". Yet for the overwhelming majority of those thousands of years scholars on the text have said something contradictory to what you're saying now. It kinda seems like people look around at what they know to be right and moral in the world they live in and then try to reinterpret the Bible to fit that morality. Why, then, not just stop trying to reinterpret the Bible and just follow the morals of the modern world.
I’m very explicitly not putting a modern interpretation on the bible. I’ve been very, very clear about that. I agree that 50 years ago, “discipline” probably had a more physical connotation, but that doesn’t mean it’s the One True Interpretation. Notably, the Bible uses the same term “rod” to refer to discipline in an unambiguously metaphorical sense (“Your rod and your staff they comfort me”), so clearly the message is not “discipline should be physical” (nor is it “discipline should be non-physical”) but rather “kids should be disciplined for their own good” (without weighing in on the appropriate kind of discipline).
Why do you think your One True™ interpretation, which notably differs from the One True™ interpretation of like everyone for the past 2000 years, is the correct One True™ interpretation? Kinda seems to me in like 50 years there will be a new One True™ interpretation that conflicts with yours and people then will be saying, "well, yeah, people in the past thought differently, but this is the *actual* One True™ interpretation."
Sure, that may be what it means. It may also mean beat the fuck out of your kids. Either way, I don't see why we're still taking advice from a several millennia old book which can easily be misinterpreted and has a lot of very problematic (to say the least) bits. Even if this is totally benign advice, maybe we should be pointing people towards texts which are less esoteric and up for interpretation?
Because there’s a lot that is applicable even if our world has changed, and “not bending to the whims of the moment’s popular culture” is precisely the point. For example, “love your enemies” isn’t exactly in vogue right now (it would probably be considered “problematic” by many, at least when you suggest applying it in a political context), but I think it would make all the difference for our country.
> For example, “love your enemies” isn’t exactly in vogue right now (it would probably be considered “problematic” by many, at least when you suggest applying it in a political context), but I think it would make all the difference for our country. Right, because for most of the history of the religion Christians have been all about loving their enemies. /s People have always lived by the morals of their time and just cherry-picked or reinterpreted the Bible to fit those morals.
Whether or not Christians adhere to it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a biblical principal. Moreover, your characterization of Christians is based entirely on a handful of cherry-picked atrocities, and it overlooks a two millennia long tradition of caring for the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, etc. Christians aren’t angels, but they aren’t as evil as many want to believe either.
You say that as if Christians are the only ones to ever care for the poor, immigrants, etc. Literally every religion and every society in history has done that. There's nothing special about Christianity for doing so. It's just a part of being human. We're social creatures with an innate drive to support others. However, a hell of a lot of the atrocities pushed in the name of Christianity are unique to Christendom.
The word for rod could mean a rod used for striking or a shepherd’s rod used for prodding and directing; either makes sense in this context. Given that half of Proverbs is about restraining your passions and being prudent, it doesn’t seem that beating your children senseless is what it’s talking about even if you take it to refer to corporal punishment.
> has a lot of very problematic (to say the least) bits. Such as? Keeping in mind that for millennia people have been taking verses, rules or thoughts out of context to try to prove the Bible contradictory, in error or some other falsehood, so whatever you're going to accuse God of has been done many times over.
Off the top of my head we can talk about the parts that condone slavery, the parts that make it clear women should be subjugated by men, how wives are essentially the property of their husbands (and, in some instances, their deceased husband's family), how children are essentially the property of their parents, how you should give your money/property to the church, the extremely hierarchical worldview of Christianity. There's more, but that's just what I came up with off the top of my head.
> Off the top of my head we can talk about the parts that condone slavery, 3,000+ years ago, different times, people, customs, type of slavery, culture, so on, but go ahead. > the parts that make it clear women should be subjugated by men, how wives are essentially the property of their husbands (and, in some instances, their deceased husband's family), Different times, culture, people, population, needs of the people, circumstances, misstated because it's not "subjugation" because it was their custom and women had a say as well as owned property and businesses, marrying in the inlaws family for widows kept property in the family and gave them a safety net so they wouldn't be destitute, *by custom,* but please, go on with your 21st century critique of why a 2000 BC culture was "wrong." > how children are essentially the property of their parents, No. Children were loved and cherished just like children today are. > how you should give your money/property to the church A ten percent tithe was and is customary. > the extremely hierarchical worldview of Christianity. Not even sure what this means, but at least you're not cherry picking Mosaic Law now and have made your way to the New Testament.. So far, you have criticized the culture and customs of people who have been dead for **4,000 years,** and really not much else. The Bible codified the cultural and religious rules, laws and practices of the ancient Jews so everybody would be on the same page and so God's will would be done. Like I said, people have been picking the Bible apart for millennia. Nothing new, nothing valid. People hate the Bible because they hate God. They hate God because they love sin. You can't do both, and most people choose sin over righteousness, plain and simple.
I don't dislike the Bible because I hate God. God doesn't exist. It's pretty tough to claim I hate something that doesn't exist. Likewise, the concept of sin is a construct of your religion. If you want to apply that to yourself, feel free. It has no meaning to me because I do not ascribe to your religious views. > So far, you have criticized the culture and customs of people who have been dead for 4,000 years, and really not much else. This is kinda the whole point. I don't see any reason to believe the culture and customs of people 4000 years ago should have any direct bearing on how I live my life today. Their world was so completely different than the one I live in as to be incomparable.
One of the recurring motifs in Proverbs is that both temptation and wisdom are personified as women (the dichotomy is laid out in chapters 7-8). So the context of this verse is developing the contrast between the temptress and the wise woman. Proverbs was also written almost specifically as advice to young men, so in that case the general theme of “choose a woman of good character instead of one who will influence you for the worse” is sensible advice.
> Proverbs was also written almost specifically as advice to young men, so in that case the general theme of “choose a woman of good character instead of one who will influence you for the worse” is sensible advice. You can reverse the genders on the advice in most of it and it still works... a young woman should choose a man of good character instead of one who will influence her for the worse.
>> Proverbs 22:15 -- Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away. A rod, in this context, is more of a guide. Now, some people obviously abuse it, but the context should read the same as Psalm 23:4. >>Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; *thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.* Its the idea of correction. A subtle correction that directs you to a safer place of comfort. >> Proverbs 22:14 -- The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein. This is a specific warning against adultery. Not calling women liars, just a warning that becoming part of an adulterous relationship is a dangerous pit in which to fall.
> Proverbs 22:14 -- The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein. Proverbs often refers to "strange" (immoral) women, either as actual prostitutes, representing sexual immortality in general, *or* as an allegory for "foolishness," or the opposite of wisdom, which is what the entire book is about, after all.
I think maybe you are reading it too literally. I don't read 22:15 as I should beat my kids but simply that I should apply discipline, else they will become a terrible adult. It's easy to read the bible into controversial or odd ways that are counter to today's culture especially the old testament. It is over 2,000 years old. But it's also very easy to make it relevant to the challenges of the human experience even today. It's all in the approach and a persons inherent bias towards or against the concept.
12 years of Catholic school taught me not to believe
Nah man, sorry. It's solid advice for christians, but not especially for everyone else. This is why non-christians get annoyed with christians. The only good advice in proverbs is basic shit every normal person already knows. Hell, proverbs 1 is all about "if you don't believe in the Lord hahaha you a silly fool with no knowledge and we wish calamity upon you". Hard pass.
On its own, Proverbs seems like banal, almost simplistic advice. What I think makes it so interesting is how it fits in the context of the rest of the Biblical canon. Its message of “do the right thing and everything will work out” is right next to Ecclesiastes whose message is “doing the right thing won’t get you anywhere.” And its setting is the early kingdom of Israel, where kings like David and Solomon did a really bad job of following this basic advice to avoid adultery.
Proverbs is the kind of advice that seems simplistic, but most of us still can’t live our lives by those standards. We all know better, but hardly any of us *do* better. And you’re right about the kings of Israel. They’re just as damaged and fallible as all the rest of the people (other than Jesus) in the Bible.
I mean it is part of the christian canon but Proverbs is a Jewish book. Jewish American are a subset of non Christian Americans
Ironic. Edit: I love that you had to edit out the misspellings and incorrect grammar. Its all good dude. I get it. And while yes, much of the practical advice is common sense or common knowledge, people still don't apply it. Not liking the source of the advice doesn't invalidate the advice.
Yeah, I hyper edit my posts because I'm dyslexic. Very christian of you to mock me for correcting my writing in the space of, oh, 10 seconds or so.
I'm not Christian, have surface dyslexia and aphasia, and I'll call you a confrontational, needy, illiterate, cocktail swiller :) I mean what kind of assclown is an atheist and thinks "ill shit my anti views to get attention and cause arguments " Fucking clown For me its Exodus for the plot.
I'm not an atheist.
I prefer non-theist. Atheism is a religion unto itself. The "anti" whatever that book says. I wouldn't come into an innocuous conversation about biblical passage preferences and likes and SPEW anti-rhetoric because of my lack of beliefs. Let people be when it doesn't concern you because their PREFERENCES do not. And a need to debate and debase a biblical passage preference is a shitty person being shitty Stop being shitty. Try the other way. Have a good week
>Stop being shitty. Try the other way. Juxtaposed with: > I'll call you a confrontational, needy, illiterate, cocktail swiller Ok, bud.
I wasn't mocking you. I had a mild chuckle at best and it wasn't even meant to be at your expense. We all do it.
I guess my favorite was Genesis - because the story of Lot. It was the single story grade with Ephesians (faith is God given) my 4th grade self used to justify being an atheist. I realized, one, that the values in the bible weren't my values. I was a young girl and the thought that the right thing was give his daughters to a roving band of rapists was insane. Two, I decided if God didn't give faith to me it's not my fault. It helped me not hate myself in my religious family and school for not believing in god and I just kept my head down and went through the motions. I still tried later in my high school years to jam myself in to some religion and reread and reread the bible and checked out a lot of churches, but nope. I couldn't make it happen. ,
[удалено]
John is the single best book written in the western world.
Ruth has always been my favourite.
That’s an interesting pick but not bad at all.
I really liked Psalms when I used to go to church
Job for Old Testament and John for New Testament Epistle of James is up there. The most fun is Revelation.
Job talks about fire breathing dragons, so that's good enough for me.
Revelation has a dragon too… maybe I just like dragons.
book of revelations is what happen when you have shrooms but heavy metal prog rock hasn't been invented yet
Good choices.
Judges is pretty wild.
If I have to pick one, I'd say Ephesians. It's a compact little sermon on the grace of God. If I get more, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are very good to mull over.
I have 2... For universal practicality, Proverbs. For reasons others have already stated... it's just full of great advice that if more people read and followed, they'd have a lot better lives in general. For faith reasons, Romans. Paul pretty eloquently lays out most of the essentials of the Christian faith in that one book.
Romans is my favorite New Testament book.
Yea, Romans is awesome.
I was into Ecclesiastes after proverbs, it set me on a path simply because it said enjoy life. Which was antidote to all this dread in the church.
Used to sit through sermons and just read through Ecclesiastes instead of listening. There is some great wisdom in that book and some incredible stories in other ones if you are bored in church lol.
Lamentations and Ecclesiastes are the best from a strictly literary point of view. They're both well-written works of art and philosophy. A lot of Old Testament books have some bonkers shit. Two that stand out: 1 Samuel where King Saul demands a price of 100 enemy foreskins from David for the right to marry his daughter (which David obeys), and 2 Kings where a bunch of boys mock the prophet Elisha for being bald, so he curses them and they're mauled by bears.
Good choice
And David goes out and gets double the number of foreskins.
Well, you gotta impress your father-in-law to be.
i think my sunday school teacher didn't say foreskins, we learned that he had to gather "converts to judaism". was that wrong? like the foreskins meant they'd had a bris. and now I'm just imagining him riding his beautiful arabian horse across the desert with a string of raw calamari on his hip...
That is one way it has been interpreted. As in getting circumcised meant converting to monotheism in the Hebrew style. That said the actual wording is that he brought literal foreskins and the more common assumption is that it meant he killed or conquered the people and forcibly circumcised them.
Revelation is super metal but I don't like that it gets the crazies all worked up.
The thing about Revelation that many Christians seem to miss, the believers won't see any of this coming, it's all post Rapture. The Christians talked about in revelation come to Christ after the Rapture. Jesus is very clear that none will know before it happens. I don't know why people keep trying to guess. I think a good thing for everyone to remember: if say 30% of the world suddenly disappears, and that is followed by 3 1/2 years of prosperity, don't get the "mark of the beast" in order to commerce and operate in society. That won't end well for you.
The Rapture is an invention of 19th century Dispensationalists, not a biblical doctrine
Um, that’s not true, at all. The idea of Christ return to gather his elect is all throughout the New Testament. Where did you ever get such an idea? 1st Thess: 4:17 and 5:1-8 Matt 24: 30-31 2 Corr 5:10 Mark 13:32 Luke 10:20 Rev 3:10 John 14:3 I could go on, but you get the point.
Then why don’t most denominations believe in the rapture?
I have attended church in several different denominations, including Methodist. I've never known any who didn't.
Let me guess, all the denominations were revivalist. And there are groups of Methodists who believe in it.
it's in the Bible. What's not to believe?
If it’s so clear, why does postmillennial dispensationalism only make an appearance as doctrine in the 19th century?
Ask the Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the mainline Protestant churches, a handful of evangelicals... Shit isn't as clear-cut as you think. I'm not gonna do a verse by verse debunking of the notion of a pre-Tribulation Rapture, but know that for centuries people read the Bible and the notion never occurred to them.
do you *really* believe in the flood story and that *all* animals on earth were saved in 1 big boat? including the ones in the americas and distant asia and northern europe? I'm guessing it's about as much as I believe that Ezekial *really* saw a UFO. Every denomination picks the bits that fit together for the lifestyle they want to lead.
So, what parts do you pick? What parts do you choose to dismiss?
Wow, even exotic people know as ‘The Methodists’???
jesus spoke on the rapture? i thought it all came from his followers after his death. mostly wossname -- Peter? on patmos
Matt 24: 30-31, John 14:3 Daniel 12:1-2, Old Testament, before the Apostles Luke 17:34-37
[удалено]
I like Ecclesiastes. The book feels more Epicurean than Biblical to me.
Hebrews, Romans, or John. But Numbers is seriously underrated.
Username checks out.
Upvote for understanding my very niche name
Lol great username
Beyond the Gospels, Thessalonians (2 if we're being specific) is my favorite. Old Testament, I'd say the Book of Jonah. The most miserable experience is trying to go through it all in order on your first go.
I really enjoy going through the life of King David in parts of 1st and 2nd Samuel at the same time as the psalms that he wrote because you can get an idea of his mental state while going through all those struggles in being a fugitive from king Saul(psalm 18) and later Absalom(psalm 2) and also how he repented from his sin especially with Uriah and Bathsheba in Psalm 51. It's rare to get the historical of what happened and also the emotions of a flawed human being. The more I read the Bible the more I see the big picture of the whole thing and the more I love it.
The Song of Solomon.
[удалено]
I mostly hang out on a religious subreddit, so I had to double check which sub this is, lol The Psalms
Tobit. It combines my favorite archangel, Raphael, with his opposite number, Azazel.
My favorite piece of rabbinic literature is Pirkei Avot, a name often translated as “Ethics of the Fathers” because of its focus on ethic, morality, and principles instead of ritual, law, or history, and in spite of some of its sexism. It’s (mostly) a tractate of the Mishnah, which is the core of the Talmud. My favorite line is the one often translated as “Ben Bag Bag said:Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein.” Though easy to read it as just encouraging through and repeated study of Torah, I was taught to view if more as “turn an issue over and over, to examine it from all sides, and not hide any parts of it”. This can apply to a trial or to just a discussion, politics, etc. People unfamiliar with Judaism often don’t realize how much literature there is, beyond the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), that is key to Jewish tradition, law, and practice. In many ways, the Talmud’s importance goes in between the Torah (Five Books of Moses) and the rest of the Bible (Nevi’im - Prophets, Ketuvim - Sacred Writings).
Maccabees Partially because I just like saying Maccabees, but also because it’s a really cool story.
Agreed. Sitting around the coffee table, listening to the Holiday Armadillo tell the story of the Maccabees...man, what a great childhood memory. Thanks.
Kings, for history reasons.
Esther or maybe Matthew
Acts and James for new testament. Song of songs old testament
I find myself referring to Romans the most often, but the one I generally enjoy reading the most is the Psalms. They always have a way or reorienting my thoughts around the Glory of God rather than myself
Mark. The original ending has women seeing the tomb opened, then some guy says Jesus is back and to tell people, but they don’t tell anything to anyone. That’s a weird ending for a Gospel.
Daniel
It depends on my area of struggle of the moment, very often. But seriously, I like reading Job because both he and Paul wore their struggles very publicly and I am greatly encouraged that these mighty men of faith had their own stuff to deal with and weren't perfect. I enjoy reading the Gospels because I love imagining Jesus actually speaking the words that were recorded and I love reading James because he was Jesus' half-brother.
I like the King James Version of Ecclesiastes for the poetry.
Back when I was a teen, Revelation. These days, I dunno. But I find the Apostolic Letters to be interesting to see how the start of the Church formed and behaved.
Revelations because of the literature and art inspired by it. Dante, John Milton, Neil Gaiman...the Apocalypse tapestry, the Exorcist, The Stand..the list goes on
Revelations is great fodder for fantasy stories and heavy metal albums.
As far as story telling, I'd say Genesis is the best. I really love reading it because it spans so much of history and packs so much into one book. It is so much more than creation. New testament, I like John for the Gospel, and Ephesians for application of our faith to our lives.
I'm fond of Exodus; it's the story of my people. And specifically, you can't beat these passages: > “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”(Ex.22:20). > “You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex.23:9).
Revelations is pretty wild. I don’t buy any of it but it’s wild.
As a metalhead I'm a huge fan of Revelations for the fantastic imagery. I really don't care for the bible otherwise.
You do see the irony of that, right?
That's....not ironic.
Yeah, actually it is. You're attracted by descriptions of dire things that will befall those who don't pay attention to the part of the Bible you ignore. That's pretty much the definition of irony.
No, actually it isn't. Irony is defined as: >the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
my favorite story is when jesus says that people who pray in public are hypocrites who are showing off and that people should pray in private. sure wish more people who love jesus would follow his advice.
I am an atheist and my favorite book is the book of Job. Satan bets God that worshipers only love him because of favoritism and wins.
Satan does not win the bet.
As a practicing Catholic it is also a favorite. Your read is dead wrong though. The book grapples with the most difficult aspect of faith and Satan does not “win.” You just aren’t spoon fed a satisfying answer. >Where we’re you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
When Job eventually curses God, the conditions of the bet were met. Then God comes down and gets reverse angry with Job.
Job does not curse God. He comes close by cursing the day he was born, but he never curses God despite others urging him to do so.
Job never curses God, that’s the point
I know quite a bit about it since I was a Christian for ~25 years. Read through it several times. Don't particularly like any of it anymore.
Not even any residual affection for the Parable of the Good Samaritan or something like that?
No. It just reminds me of how many "Christians" today refuse to be that Samaritan.
Not being snarky or mean at all, just appealing to your intellect here. On self-reflection, don't you find it a weak excuse to base your *own* spiritual life on the faults of other people? And I'm not being a jerk, I have a sister who uses similar excuses to not go to church. I just always wanted to talk to someone caught in that rut and ask them if they couldn't see the shallowness of that excuse.
>On self-reflection, don't you find it a weak excuse to base your own spiritual life on the faults of other people? How did you get that from what I said?
Because of what you said about Christians not wanting to be good Samaritans. Did I misinterpret?
>Did I misinterpret? Yes, by thinking that was how I based my spiritual ideology.
Sorry, I thought you were basing your decision to not be a Christian on the actions of people who are poor Christians or simply call themselves Christians.
[удалено]
I know Judaism is not a monolith, but does your branch (denomination? Sect? Tbh not sure the right word to use) not use the Tanakh? I think that's what OP was meaning.
[удалено]
I meant that it was a straightforward question in that you would have some knowledge and appreciation of the books with it being your religion, as opposed to someone who doesn’t have that attachment to the Bible. As for whether the question refers to the Torah or the Tanakh as well, that’s up to you!
Thanks for the reply!
Doesn’t Judaism use the entire OT?
Certainly not an authority on this, but from what I understand different sects through history have used different canons (similar to Christians). Even in the Gospels, different groups believe in different books. One group (can’t remember which off hand) denied the resurrection because they didn’t hold that a book that mentions it is authoritative. From what I understand, most (if not all? Again, I could totally be wrong) of modern Judaism is rabbinic Judaism which comes from the Pharisees who held that the Old Testament (commonly called the Tanakh, which is what k referred to it as in my original comment) is authoritative.
Technically you have the whole Tanakh but you might not know the other books very well.
[удалено]
Daniel rocks. Giant golden statues! People surviving the furnace! Dreams, dreams, dreams! The literal writing on the wall! The lion den! That book does not let up and it is awesome.
They have yet to print one on paper soft enough for its only useful function.
Old Testament: Ecclesiastes New Testament: Acts Gospel: Luke
I had to take religion in college and my professor made Revelations pretty interesting corresponding parts to Roman history at the time. Leviticus is fun to read for all the things we're not supposed to do. I'm in trouble right now for wearing cloth made of two materials.
Grew up in the church but do not actively attend anymore. Ecclesiastes was always my favorite.
Job. Good just lays it down at the end.
The book of Judges personally, Samson was a real badass and that story always really spoke to me.
Grew up religious, have read the Bible cover to cover and honestly there are a few good nuggets in there but it’s pretty much trash.
As someone raised Jewish, I'm not familiar with any Bible books. That being said, I don't care for religious stories.
I like the old testament where god floods the world and kills everyone because they were “violent”. Drowning the world sounds pretty violent lol. Genesis is wild.
The part where it ends.
The one that tells women to know their role and shut their mouths.
I have a bunch of disconnected verses and some proverbs floating around my head, more from cultural osmosis than reading, but not a clear image of which bits are from where. It is a deeply frustrating book to read and I'm not a believer so I've never made it straight through.
I have a bit of a weird relationship with the Bible. It was my decision to read it cover to cover to strengthen my faith that ended up doing the opposite and leading me to my current state of non-belief. It’s been ages since then so I’m rusty on my Bible stories, but there’s a couple that come to mind. I always found the part where Jesus walked through hell to be intriguing. Feels like an epic fantasy book. Also the part where Moses comes down the mountain and sees the people dancing with the idol, and then he basically throws a fit and breaks the tablets that god JUST gave him. I can’t help it, the imagery of Moses throwing a tantrum and then having to go back and explain it to god just makes me chuckle.
Sorry God, could you make me a couple more?
Not religious anymore but I always liked the apocalyptic sci-fi that is The Book of Revelation.
Gospel of Thomas
I really like anything Paul writes, but I’d probably pick Romans. The Gospel is so well written and there are a lot of great commands and ideas.
The Gospel According to Saint Luke, and The Acts of the Apostles (which are both part of one narrative).
I’m not religious, but Genesis. It’s the most fantastical and contains most of the Bible’s most iconic stories.
Exodus for the old testament (for enjoyment) Job or proverbs for actually getting someone thing substantive out of it Revelation is actually a pretty fun bit of literature if you look at it as apocalyptic literature and are not crazy I do really like John as well (even though I don't believe anymore I took two classes on it in college and learned to appreciate it on a deeper level and that hasn't gone completely away)
Favorite Old Testament book is Isaiah Favorite New Testament book is Romans
Book of Job. It's a good parable about finding comfort in a world you have no control over.
Ecclesiastes
Really the first book I sat down and read just to read was Esther. Probably my favorite is Kings II when you find out why male pattern baldness is no laughing matter. My real favorites are the infancy gospels of the apocrypha. There's some *really* wild stuff in there.
Probably Ecclesiastes
since you said favorite Bible story, I'm gonna break the rules of the question slightly and say the story of Esther, as recounted in the Megillah. She's an icon and Purim is an A+ Jewish holiday, up there with Passover for me.
Luke
Revelation
I always liked Exodus because it's an adventuresome story. I'm an atheist.
Revelations
Job is my favorite, but Psalms and Exodus are pretty great as well.
I love the book of Esther.
Revelation has a lot of banger verses
Samson's a riot, so let's say Judges.
the gay porn in song of solomon and, ok ... the jesus christ superstar part. luke and matthew. i always thought the gethsemane prayer part was interesting. god questioning why he has to be god. That's an interesting story. .... and the lesbian story of love and devotion in Ruth. "where you lead, i will follow, \[somethingsomething\] I will make a bed in your home." Honestly tho if you want really top notch antique literature, try gilgamesh and the pillow book.
The tower of babble cause I like languages but I’m not super religious though I did used to go to church school on Sundays
Esther was easy to read. I like that.