As someone who supports reading the bible by choice (whether you’re religious or not, it’s a really interesting canon), what they’re mandating is like requiring students to read specific passages from Animal Farm or Hamlet.
In what way does a few out of context passages from a book that’s part of an assembled collection of works central to one religion, that’s then grouped with a collection of letters from a secondary religion, teach students anything except dogma overlaid over the passages without appropriate context?
I mean, they could have at least selected things like the beattitudes or the parable of the Good Samaritan or the book of Philemon if they wanted something Christian; instead they picked out of context passages from works from the Jewish canon. And I doubt they’re teaching why Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh in the first place, OR the end of the story that sums up its point.
whether you’re religious or not, it’s a really interesting canon
As someone who has read the entire Bible more than once due to a strict religious upbringing: what the fuck are you on about. There’s nothing in any way interesting about it. It’s simplistic, barbaric - and worse - BORING - and loathsome from front to back. It’s not particularly original or novel nor does it in any way recommend itself unless you are a fan of misogyny, slavery, murder and outright genocide.
in this interesting canon you will read about the God that murdered a baby because its father committed
adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12:1-24). The God that snuffed out the lives of 42 children for calling one of His prophets “old bald head” (2 Kings 2:23,24). The God who kills people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) and for trying out of reflex to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling off an oxcart (2 Samuel 6:6,7).
The same God who commands His followers to slaughter every living Hittite without mercy, women and children slaughtered in a bloody rampage (Deuteronomy 20:15-18). The God who destroyed the lives of everyone in the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, though sparing the life of the “righteous” man Lot, who was so “tormented” by the “lawless deeds” and “loose conduct” of the Sodomites that he got completely shitfaced one night and knocked up both his daughters. (2 Peter 2:7,8; Genesis 19:30-38). The God who consigned all of humanity to live in misery and suffering until their pathetic death ends it all because two people ate a piece of fruit they were told not to eat (Romans 5:12). The same God that had His favorite Son murdered by torture, nailed to a piece of wood in order to restore what He took away in the first place (Genesis 3:22).
What the article fails to mention is these passages supplement and contextualize a primary text.
The tower of Babel, along with Prometheus, help illustrate the themes in Frankenstein.
There is value in reading the Bible as a work of historically relevant literature. I’m not sure if this curriculum is doing that, but its not doing indoctrination either. And if they are, I think it helps demystify the book and place in a time and place relevant to some people through the time.
I would take a bigger issue with seventh grader having to read A Wrinkle in Time as a primary text. It’s a good book, but it is a very Christian book.
As someone who supports reading the bible by choice (whether you’re religious or not, it’s a really interesting canon), what they’re mandating is like requiring students to read specific passages from Animal Farm or Hamlet.
In what way does a few out of context passages from a book that’s part of an assembled collection of works central to one religion, that’s then grouped with a collection of letters from a secondary religion, teach students anything except dogma overlaid over the passages without appropriate context?
I mean, they could have at least selected things like the beattitudes or the parable of the Good Samaritan or the book of Philemon if they wanted something Christian; instead they picked out of context passages from works from the Jewish canon. And I doubt they’re teaching why Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh in the first place, OR the end of the story that sums up its point.
As someone who has read the entire Bible more than once due to a strict religious upbringing: what the fuck are you on about. There’s nothing in any way interesting about it. It’s simplistic, barbaric - and worse - BORING - and loathsome from front to back. It’s not particularly original or novel nor does it in any way recommend itself unless you are a fan of misogyny, slavery, murder and outright genocide.
in this interesting canon you will read about the God that murdered a baby because its father committed adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12:1-24). The God that snuffed out the lives of 42 children for calling one of His prophets “old bald head” (2 Kings 2:23,24). The God who kills people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) and for trying out of reflex to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling off an oxcart (2 Samuel 6:6,7). The same God who commands His followers to slaughter every living Hittite without mercy, women and children slaughtered in a bloody rampage (Deuteronomy 20:15-18). The God who destroyed the lives of everyone in the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, though sparing the life of the “righteous” man Lot, who was so “tormented” by the “lawless deeds” and “loose conduct” of the Sodomites that he got completely shitfaced one night and knocked up both his daughters. (2 Peter 2:7,8; Genesis 19:30-38). The God who consigned all of humanity to live in misery and suffering until their pathetic death ends it all because two people ate a piece of fruit they were told not to eat (Romans 5:12). The same God that had His favorite Son murdered by torture, nailed to a piece of wood in order to restore what He took away in the first place (Genesis 3:22).
SO INTERESTING!
What the article fails to mention is these passages supplement and contextualize a primary text.
The tower of Babel, along with Prometheus, help illustrate the themes in Frankenstein.
There is value in reading the Bible as a work of historically relevant literature. I’m not sure if this curriculum is doing that, but its not doing indoctrination either. And if they are, I think it helps demystify the book and place in a time and place relevant to some people through the time.
I would take a bigger issue with seventh grader having to read A Wrinkle in Time as a primary text. It’s a good book, but it is a very Christian book.