Greatest Work of All Time?

Moby Dick

Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?

Twelfth Night

The Madness of George III

Fourth Movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony

Madame Bovary

Peyton Place

Valley of the Dolls

Fifty Shades of Grey

Vanna Speaks

James Joyce's Ulysses

Debbie Does Dallas

Jeez, was there a world outside of Europe?

Tao Te Ching? Pali Canon? Ramayana? The Epic of Gilgamesh?

The stunning and brave poetry of oppressed trans artists

Which version/translation of the bible, OP?

OP, you've neglected the great Ming-Qing novels

From a literary standpoint, the Bible, no question.

r12 of ficiton.

10. Fuck My Ass, I’ll Suck Your Cock (Raging Stallion, 2007)

9. The Crystal Tunnel (Stable, 2000)

8. Bonerable (Factory, 2002)

7. Skuff 4: Downright Fierce (Hot House, 2009)

6. Super Barrio Brothers (Latino Fan Club, 2006)

5. Dangling Chad (West Hollywood, 2001)

4. Guess Who’s Cummin’ To Dinner (Chocolate Cream, 2009)

3. The Twink Whisperer (PZP, 2008)

2. Farts! (Lucas Entertainment, 2008)

1. Das Butt (West Hollywood, 1996)

The Epic of Gilgamesh

The Tales of the Genji

Gilgamesh doesn't have many literary merits. It's just ... very old.

A few of my favorites:

Pop: Smile, by the Beach Boys

Classical: Mahler 3, Abbado with the Vienna Philharmonic

Jazz: Kind of Blue, Miles Davis

Painting: Ocean View from Window, by Richard Diebenkorn

Food: Lasagne alla Bolognese

R17 Wrong. Greatest food is meatloaf.

"Scarlet Dawn Over Boca Raton"

I like meatloaf, too, r18, with mashed potatoes and green beans (or maybe asparagus).

OP and R12, what exactly is it about the bible that merits calling it the "greatest work of all time"?

Do you remember the classic 'Star Trek' episode, 'A Piece of the Action'? About how a 20th century book titled "Chicago Mobs of the 1920s" had been left behind on Sigma Iotia II by a visiting starship, and the Enterprise visits a century later, only to find the planet's entire society modeled on mobsters?

The bible's influence has been like that, but much more malign and damaging - incessantly copied, read, imitated, and used as the basis for a worldview and how society and human morals should be modeled. It has kept mankind developmentally retarded for the past two millennia, in many ways frozen in a late Iron Age/early Common Era viewpoint. But for the bible, we would be traveling to the nearest stars by now.

More like "Most Harmful Work of All Time."

While you're enjoying that meatloaf, peruse Marcel Proust's unsurpassable masterpiece, IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME.

The Angels in Chains episode of Charlie's Angels.

Xavier Hollander- The Happy Hooker

If the Bible wasn't a religious book NO ONE would ever consider it great, let alone even mediocre, it is difficult to follow and to read, it is full of contradictions, and too unbelievable.

The Song of Songs is beautiful though, r25, as is the Gospel of John. But I can't read Greek or Hebrew.

Do not go gentle into that good night -- Dylan Thomas

The U.S. Constitution

Song of Myself

R21 I disagree with you. I think The Bible is a very written book. Genesis, The Psalms, Proverbs, The Book of Job, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), and Revelation are all extremely poetic texts that have been proven historically.

I grew up Presbyterian and have seen firsthand both the good and the bad of the church. Remember the church is full of imperfect sinners who are people just like you and me.

This is also the United States where you are entitled to your belief (or unbelief), so carpe diem!

R29 "biblical criticism" can be so many things... so first is the "content" or the plot.... like other great religious source documents (Koran, Tao Te Ching) you really can't analyze it as literature, but the King James Version was written in the same English as Shakespeare, and there are passages that not only are in achingly beautiful language (the books you list, and others) but have also been foundational to the literary English with have today.

[quote] I think The Bible is a very written book.

[as dryly as possible] Yes. Written.

[quote]Genesis, The Psalms, Proverbs, The Book of Job, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), and Revelation are all extremely poetic texts that have been proven historically.

In what sense have any of those books been "proven historically," OP/R1/R2/R18/R29? (The same account which has posted threads such as "𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝟕𝟎 𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬? DL is primarily, if not all, Democratic. Know let's discuss the other side," "𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐧'𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬," "𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬?," and "𝐋𝐞𝐭'𝐬 𝐛𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝-𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐅𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 - I'm the meatloaf and mashed potatoes made from scratch and served on Mondays.")

R31 So I am a far leftist socialist, old hippie, veteran of the long struggle for justice, who thinks organized religion is a source of violence and oppressions. AND, I think the current American disease is "if I disagree with anyone about anything I must disagree with everything they say or do or think no matter what and forever treat them as my enemy." Your "research" helps this discussion in what way?

Run, Tip, Run

[quote]Your "research" helps this discussion in what way?

With anonymous posters, it's helpful to get a grasp on who's speaking, what else they've been posting.

[quote]So I am a far leftist socialist, old hippie, veteran of the long struggle for justice, who thinks organized religion is a source of violence and oppressions. AND, I think the current American disease is "if I disagree with anyone about anything I must disagree with everything they say or do or think no matter what and forever treat them as my enemy."

Quit with the dodge and simply answer the question you were asked: 𝐈𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 "𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲"?

Actually, I find your question the dodge. The topic of the thread is "greatest", and while the poster you reference may be assuming or asserting "historic proof", that is also irrelevant to topic at hand. I think the assertion is better understood as to the "historic positioning" these works have in human history - political, cultural, ethically, economic, the history of ideas... and certainly literary. I think there's little question that such "historic" importance and influence is clearly evident.

I do understand that the question you want to ask is the question you want to ask. All good wishes to you.

I did not mean to create a conflict. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. He disagrees with me. No need to get upset.

Also, this is a DISCUSSION board. I would rather have intelligent discussion on disagreeing views than name calling and being dramatic.

[quote]Actually, I find your question the dodge.

R35, I find your intervention inexplicable except in terms of the behavior of a sock. When I replied to your R32, I thought I was replying to the person to whom I'd directed the question. Let OP answer for himself.

[quote]Also, this is a DISCUSSION board. I would rather have intelligent discussion on disagreeing views than name calling and being dramatic.

I haven't called you any names, OP/R36. I simply asked for you to explain a claim you made. As far as intelligent discussion goes, the ball is in your court.

If you can't support the claim or explain what you meant, then just say so, and I'll let it go, without prejudice.

The lyrics to Chaka Khan's I feel for you.

Nancy Drew Mysteries

R24 -- didn't know anyone still knew who the Happy Hooker was.

My uncle lived with her for some years.

R37 Fair enough. There is historical evidence that Jesus, Job, Moses, and John the Baptist were real person. There is no disputing that.

I also will echo what R30 and R35. The Bible has been a significant work of text for eons. There is no disputing that either. Just because you personally do not agree with the contents of The Bible does not mean it is not a historical and cultural work. Other religious works can be included, too.

Even if you view the Bible as fiction, there is no denying that it has had a major impact on people's lives.

I also do not understand what my other posts have to do with this topic? What were you trying to say, that I am not your milieu? Okay, then move on.

[quote]Even if you view the Bible as fiction, there is no denying that it has had a major impact on people's lives.

Yes, a damaging impact, as I remarked at R21.

[quote]The Bible has been a significant work of text for eons.

That was pretty much my complaint at R21.

[quote]I also do not understand what my other posts have to do with this topic? What were you trying to say, that I am not your milieu?

I explained that succinctly at R34. To wit, 'With anonymous posters, it's helpful to get a grasp on who's speaking, what else they've been posting.'

[quote]There is historical evidence that Jesus, Job, Moses, and John the Baptist were real person. There is no disputing that.

Yes, that is perfectly disputable. It's a faith-based assertion, without any foundation in fact. There's an opportunity for an exchange of ideas here (you could post links to some of that supposedly indisputable evidence, and I could show you what's wrong with the claims) if you want to have that discussion, but since you're telling me to "move on," it sounds like you're not able to do that.

Be well, then.

R42 So we are both in concurment that the Bible is one of the greatest works of all time, you just do not like it.

R42 I grew up Presbyterian and still believe in the Bible. I'm not forcing you to do anything. I feel like you are acting like I am trying to convert you.

It sounds like you 𝑑𝑜 still want to talk about it, OP/R43/R44.

You put the bible at the top of your 'greatest' list, and I offered some pushback to that, at R21, which seems to have upset you. At R29, you named books of the bible which you claimed were "proven historically" - and also that they were "extremely poetic," an observation somewhat incongruous with the historical claim. (Characterizing a work as 'poetic' is frequently a way of saying that it's non-literal, which tends to separate it somewhat from 'history'. Also particularly exercising is the claim that 'Revelation' has been proven historically. SMH)

Take Genesis, for instance. It's the Hebrew version of Hesiod's 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑦, offering a mythological explanation of mankind's origins, none of which can be characterized as "proven historically." The gospels are all anonymous literary works, with "Mark" being the earliest (that being mid-2nd-century). The other three copy it, and constitute polemical responses to it and to each other ("John" is the most combative, taking issue with all three of its predecessors).

[quote]I grew up Presbyterian and still believe in the Bible.

No one can help where or how they were raised. But 𝑤ℎ𝑦 do you 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 believe in the bible? It's as though you've endeavored to never subject your beliefs to any kind of critical analysis, to keep them exactly as you learned them in Sunday school, and to accept uncritically the claims of apologists. That's pretty dysfunctional. It's a form of handicap. If you try to go through life with these childlike beliefs, you're going to get pretty bruised up along the way; I am 𝑛𝑜𝑡 the only person you will ever encounter who will try you on these issues.

It's one thing to like the bible from a literary or storytelling standpoint, and entirely another to regard it as reflective of factual reality, or permit it to inform your morals. The book is completely untethered from reality. This is not the Iron Age, or the early Common Era. Reasonable people don't live that way anymore.

I've probably listened to Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2 more than a hundred times throughout my life and it never seems old or passé. It's just as beautiful and exciting as the first time.

One Hundred Years of Solitude

My dad was a religious studies scholar. (And, interestingly, an atheist). He would always say the Koran is a gorgeously written book

[quote] Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?

R1 You should be afraid of your misspelling.

These threads consisting of mere Lists are as annoying and frustrating as those List songs by Cole Porter.

Very few have any intellectual content.

The lists look suspiciously like lists cut-and-pasted from Reader's Digest.

Easy!

Is r51 a Dead or Alive troll imposter??

No, just a fan. I was disappointed the actual Dead or Alive troll never showed up to his own thread.

[quote]the King James Version was written in the same English as Shakespeare, and there are passages that not only are in achingly beautiful language (the books you list, and others) but have also been foundational to the literary English with have today.

R30, if you're finding it so beautiful that you're aching, try Head On. Apply directly to the forehead.

The influence of the King James was the result of a confluence of Protestantism in England, and the fact that there were, since the invention of the printing press, relatively few works printed in English; the popularity KJV benefited from these circumstances. The language serves the version ill these days, since most pew potatoes now have difficulty understanding Elizabethan English.

But the KJV is guilty of worse than that, what could be called 'theological malpractice,' resulting in needless suffering for generations of homosexuals, by popularizing the term "sodomite" (for example, 1 Kings 14:24a, "There were also 𝑠𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠 in the land...") It isn't even a biblical word, but rather a term dishonestly introduced into the 1611 KJV by its translators, attempting to link the word 𝑞ā-ḏêš (literally 'holy one' [male]) in passages like Deuteronomy 23:17¹ and 1 Kings 14:24, with the story of Sodom in Genesis 19. There's no textual basis for doing so.

The term 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑚 referred to temple functionaries serving the larger Hebrew/Canaanite pantheon - El the Most High, father of the gods; Asherah and Anath, goddesses; and the Seventy Sons of El (of which Yahweh was one), sometimes called 'the Divine Council.' During the Hasmonean Era, there was a cultural purge conducted by a party of strict Yahwists, and Zerubbabel's Temple was stripped of its images, anything to do with the larger pantheon, and its priests were driven out or killed (recalled in passages like 1 Kings 15:12, "He (Asa) banished the ℎ𝑎𝑞-𝑞ə-ḏê-šî𝑚 ('holy ones') from the land and removed all of the idols that his fathers had made"). The accounts of the purge were related in what scholars refer to as the 'Deuteronomic history,' or texts by the 'Deuteronomists,' characterized by strict Yahwism and allegations that proscribed forms of worship were the result of foreign influences, rather than older Israelite practices. To the mindset of the Deuteronomic scribes, all such worship was characterized as 'prostitution,' even though there was no literal sexual activity involved; the invective found in texts like Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel referring to idolatry and to political alliances with nations thought to be idolators was, though hyperbolically over the top (for example, the Oholah and Oholibah discourse, Ezekiel chap. 23, especially v.20), purely metaphorical. Later expositors, such as the anonymous priestly authors of Leviticus and Christian authors, tended to read the metaphorical Deuteronomic language literally, and thus the myth of the "male shrine prostitute" was born. That it took off the way it did is a measure of how compelling lurid stories about pagans were to them.

To be continued...

¹ Deuteronomy 23:17-18: "“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑎ℎ ('holy one,' feminine), and none of the sons of Israel shall be a 𝑞𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠 ('holy one,' male). You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of YHWH your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to YHWH your God.'" Again, it bears repeating that the only sense in which the 'holy ones' were "prostitutes" was metaphorical, the Deuteronomists' way of referring to idolatry or of political alliances with nations considered idolators.

Continued:

But back to 1611, the translators of the King James bible, and the term "sodomites." Why did they place such a word in the bible without any textual support? Partly because medieval Christian and Jewish expositors had so imaginatively enlarged on Deuteronomic texts, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 also because it was widely rumored that King James I of England had male 'favourites' at court, which scandalized the translating committee. Embellishing passages they believed condemned such behavior was their way of admonishing or preaching at the king, without calling him out in person, something which would otherwise have likely cost them their heads.

The KJV just ain't that beautiful.

The Bible is the creation of tons of people over hundreds of years. It's contradictory and incoherent at points, just like the Koran. It doesn't really belong on this list. Of the books listed in the OP, I enjoy War and Peace the most.

^^ R54, 'the popularity 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 KJV benefited from these circumstances."

"My Neck, My Back" by Khia Shamone.

I Ching

Some fragmentary selections, which I’m not sure count for the purpose of this question—

- there is a small moment in Book 1 of the Aeneid when Aeneas, a Trojan soldier who has fled Greece after the loss of the war, come across a mural depicting the war while in Carthage:

[quote] Behold! he sees old Ilium's well-fought fields in sequent picture, and those famous wars now told upon men's lips the whole world round. There Atreus' sons, there kingly Priam moved, and fierce Pelides pitiless to both. Aeneas paused, and, weeping, thus began: “Alas, Achates, what far region now, what land in all the world knows not our pain?’

To me this has always summed up the importance and meaning of historical knowledge.

- Walt Whitman’s “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry,” for similar reasons, about the human solidarity between generations of people who inhabit the same land.

- There’s a passage in Mark Twain’s The Innocents Abroad (a strange, outdated, and wonderful book) where he reflects on the compression of history over time:

[quote] After browsing among the stately ruins of Rome, of Baiae, of Pompeii, and after glancing down the long marble ranks of battered and nameless imperial heads that stretch down the corridors of the Vatican, one thing strikes me with a force it never had before: the unsubstantial, unlasting character of fame. Men lived long lives, in the olden time, and struggled feverishly through them, toiling like slaves, in oratory, in generalship, or in literature, and then laid them down and died, happy in the possession of an enduring history and a deathless name. Well, twenty little centuries flutter away, and what is left of these things? A crazy inscription on a block of stone, which snuffy antiquaries bother over and tangle up and make nothing out of but a bare name (which they spell wrong)—no history, no tradition, no poetry—nothing that can give it even a passing interest. What may be left of General Grant’s great name forty centuries hence? This—in the Encyclopedia for A. D. 5868, possibly: “URIAH S. (or Z.) GRAUNT—popular poet of ancient times in the Aztec provinces of the United States of British America. Some authors say flourished about A. D. 742; but the learned Ah-ah Foo-foo states that he was a cotemporary of Scharkspyre, the English poet, and flourished about A. D. 1328, some three centuries after the Trojan war instead of before it. He wrote ‘Rock me to Sleep, Mother.’”

OP's list is like a parrot that learned a bunch of words reciting them.

Greatest work?

Khufu's Pyramid!

Some one above only said part of it, but I’d go with the whole of Leaves of Grass.

The Bible has some beautiful poetry and other stuff in it, but much of it is badly written (or perhaps I should say badly edited).

It’s odd that someone here chose Genesis and Job as examples of well-written books in the Bible because those are two clear examples of bad editing at work. Job is an absolute mess with a kind of philosophical text stapled on to a folk tale. In the folk tale, Job suffers silently and patiently while his friends come to sit with him in silent solidarity. Then you move into the second author’s take on the story, and suddenly Job starts complaining and demanding to basically sue God, while Job’s friends no longer comfort him but instead start blaming him for his suffering. And the ending is a real head-scratcher. The whole thing is a mess in the version we have in the Bible.

There were multiple authors of Genesis, and the redactor doesn’t always successfully harmonize the different versions of the story. So we end up with two versions of the creation story and two versions of the Noah’s ark story, for example. And that hurts the literary quality of the piece because the meaning of the story changes if, for example, men and women are created together in the image of God and given dominion over the world, or if man is created first and woman is created as an afterthought for the benefit of the man.

And whoever suggested that Gilgamesh doesn’t have great literary qualities needs to read it again. It’s a wonderful meditation on the meaning of life and death, on friendship, etc.

Agree or disagree with them but all the gospels were written in the first century not the 2nd.

The Bible is not a "great work." It's a religious text like the Quran or the Vedas. It's a cultural artifact. It's not well written or even internally consistent; it's quite famously inconsistent, in fact. It was written by Iron Age nomads. You'd have to be seriously brainwashed to consider it a "great work."

I'm so tired of batshit trolls with an agenda in every thread. Praising the Bible on a gay website? GTFOOH.

The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby

[quote]R65: Agree or disagree with them but all the gospels were written in the first century not the 2nd.

Mmm, a pristine account, with no other posts to its history. Okay, I'll play along.

So, do you believe also that the Book of Daniel was written in Babylon in the 6th-5th centuries BCE by an exiled Jewish prophet?

If not, why not?

[quote] The Catcher in the Rye

Maybe I’ve never matured behind Holden’s age, but his hatred of phonies and exhaustion with a world filled with them resonates with me still.

Without a doubt, the Bible.

No other single book has had a greater impact on humanity.

Tolkien created multiple languages for The Lord of the Rings, in addition to an entire other world. He wrote songs and poetry in those languages.

[quote]R71: Without a doubt, the Bible. No other single book has had a greater impact on humanity.

From the same poster who said in the 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐰 thread:

[quote]The real trouble makers are the likes of BLM.

R73 And since you have no valid argument, that's the best you can do.

John Waters’ “Female Troubles.”

More posts like R60 please.

Also, a work being a "religious text" has no bearing on whether or not it can be said to be "great" (or partially great) in a literary sense. There are some undeniably beautiful and profound passages in the bible. That does make them literally true or somehow justify Christian beliefs. It also doesn't mean that men have not used the bible as justification for persecution.

Psalms 103:15 -16

15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.

16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.

Job 38:1-18

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

...

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

I am agnostic, was not raised religious, had to study certain passages of the bible as part of my degree and these are just a couple of passages that always stood out to me as beautiful. The second, from Job, seems to speak to the need for humility, it is certainly a decent response to anyone bloviating on on DL is it not? And the psalm always makes me cry: "And the place thereof shall know it no more."

This threads getting very Churchy.

^ All of that is something that our resident idiot at R73 will never comprehend.

The Bible is the best selling book of all time. It was the very first book to be mass produced. It has been translated into every language. It is the most quoted. It has been read by people of all races, in all countries. It has inspired great art. Wars. Liberation. Oppression. Revolt. NO other book has had such a profound affect on humanity. None.

And as a hat tip to PoisonedDragon, one of the clearest, most resonant anti-organized-religion messages in literature, which I'm sure you will know already. It is from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake

[quote] Let the Priests of the Raven of dawn, no longer in deadly black, with hoarse note curse the sons of joy. Nor his accepted brethren, whom, tyrant, he calls free: lay the bound or build the roof. Nor pale religious letchery call that virginity, that wishes but acts not! . . . For every thing that lives is Holy.

OP is fat, but yet so narrow.

And she doesn't know shit about the great work of all time.

Ramayana

Sun Tzu's The Art of War

Luo Guanzhong's The Romance of Three Kingdoms

My god that Blake passage is powerful.

Stop insulting each other. If you really want to be taken for an intellectual you will take on the manner of one, which is curiosity rather than "anyone that disagrees with me is a stupidhead."

Also, R81 has not absorbed the message of the excerpt from Job, above.

"For William Blake, the Bible was the greatest work of poetry ever written, and comprised the basis of true ar"

^"true art"

I am the one quoting the bible and the one who quoted Blake, R84/R85. I do not need convincing re: the bible's literary merit. It does not make the bible factually true. It also does not mean William Blake was in favour of organized religion. If you understand the passage above, you will see he most definitely was not.

R79 The Bible was the first mass produced book in the WESTERN world, China was doing that much earlier.

R86 Are you drunk?

I have made no comment about you. Made no comment about organized religion or whatever. Who cares about convincing you about anything?

I have never read the Bible. I don't give a shit about it. I'm not religious. I haven't been to a church service since who knows when.

The Bible as a literary work has a center that does not hold. There isn’t a coherent single author and it was assembled after the fact. It’s like a work of art by committee.

I love Anne Carson’s translation of Sappho. Fascinating.

[quote]The Bible was the first mass produced book in the WESTERN world, China was doing that much earlier.

To a limited extent.

Not drunk, R88. Just mistook you for the another poster. Sorry.

The point is even William Blake, unfavorable to religion, recognized the greatness of the Bible.

[quote]And since you have no valid argument, that's the best you can do.

R71/R74, my "valid argument" on the issue of the greatness of the bible was back at R21. Your own statement at R71 was not an argument in the sense that it needed an argument to answer it. But it is relevant that you, as one of this thread's bible promoters, also happen to be a far-right troll.

Gidget Goes Hawaiian

Nice Girls Don't Explode

[quote]The point is even William Blake, unfavorable to religion, recognized the greatness of the Bible.

Of course he thought highly of the bible, R93/R71/R74/R79 - he was a fervid Christian believer, a fanatic, even. And mentally ill, to boot. He was not "unfavorable to religion," but only to organized sects like the Church of England; he was raised in Swedenborgianism.

I'm not sure where "organized religion" entered the thread as being objectionable preferably to the bible, seemingly as a way of deflecting criticism from the bible, but it's a poor defense of it. The disagreeable features of organized religion (and of William Blake) come from the bible.

To the extent that people continue to revere it and obsess over it, it is an unceasing source of evil.

[quote]R80: And as a hat tip to PoisonedDragon, one of the clearest, most resonant anti-organized-religion messages in literature, which I'm sure you will know already. It is from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake

[quote]R82: My god that Blake passage is powerful.

Observe as R82 trips over his own socks, and fails to change accounts before praising R80; they are from the same user.

[quote]Which version/translation of the bible, OP?

How in the world can Blake or R29 or R77 or Poisoned Dragon have a clue in hell, let alone an accurate clue in hell, about what is written in the Hebrew Bible, since they can't read the original text and are reduced to depending on poor to horrific translations that have little to nothing to do with the original. What R77 posted "in translation" has nothing to do with the original text.

The first two lines of Tehilim 103, 15-16 in the original:

אֱנוֹשׁ כֶּֽחָצִ֣יר יָמָ֑יו כְּצִ֥יץ הַ֜שָּׂדֶ֗ה כֵּ֣ן יָצִֽיץ:

כִּ֚י ר֣וּחַ עָֽבְרָה־בּ֣וֹ וְאֵינֶ֑נּוּ וְלֹֽא־יַכִּירֶ֖נּוּ ע֣וֹד מְקוֹמֽוֹ:

And the translation in English:

As for a human, his days are like grass; he sprouts like a flower of the field.

Then wind passes over him and he is no longer; and his place no longer knows (recognizes) him.

All those thous, haths and adding 'th' to words are Xtian translation horseshit.

{quote] To the extent that people continue to revere it and obsess over it, it is an unceasing source of evil.

People who cannot read the original text can make of it what they want based on their own peculiar agenda, obviously because those who listen also cannot read the original text. Of course one has to wonder what a bunch of Xtians are doing quoting text from a book of Jewish history, law and poetry.

^^ A Matt sock has arrived.

R99 "Matt" is a figment of your sad imagination. Exactly like your belief in Hebrew Bible knowledge.

[quote]To the extent that people continue to revere it and obsess over it, it is an unceasing source of evil.

You are confusing greatness with goodness.

The fact that through the centuries people have revered and obsessed over it, and continue to this day....for all the wrong reasons and all the right ones....for good and for evil...is a testament to its greatness.

R101: Okay, so according to you, 'most awful' = 'greatest.' Got it.

R102 Do you understand English?

Great: remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness, of major significance or importance, remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect.

[quote]Okay, so according to you, 'most awful' = 'greatest.' Got it.

And you are so typical. Note your straw man argument.

Play girl

R105 = low IQ.

Hollywood Babylon

[quote]Do you understand English?

Do you, R103? You certainly don't seem to understand what I've said about the bible.

[quote]And you are so typical. Note your straw man argument.

R104, you don't even know what a 'strawman argument' is.

I said what I had to say about the bible at R21. Nothing I said about it in any way diminished its influence; I simply said that its influence, however great, was bad.

Beethovens 7th Second Movement...gorgeous and dark

The Bible/Anti-Bible crowd ruined this thread.

Although, extra-points to the Swedenborgian reference....

R109 Well, thanks for that. The 7th has always been better to me than the more familiar/famous 5th and 9th. All four movements with the range of emotions they demand: the somber and mysterious second movement, to the drunken release and destruction of the fourth movement. The greatest symphony of all time....

R111, his 9th has always been his most popular yet the second movement of his 7th seems to be used more in the background of movies and TV. I'm surprised it isn't mentioned more

The funny thing is the first time I ever heard it was on OLTL before Tina Lords wedding LO (Elder gays will remember)...it took me yrs to find out what symphony it was

R112, I liked the use of Beethoven's 7th, 2nd Movement in 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐂𝐚𝐭 (1934). Very effective.

I even have it on my gym playlist but I do have a dark and depressed side..here is an OK example of it used in film

I prefer Liszt for piano works.

Wagner’s Ring Cycle and Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings

Tagore’s poems for which he won the Nobel Prize

Me.

Why are you getting so shirty, Poisoned? My "hat tip" to you wasn't sarcastic. If anything I was trying to make it clear that my finding some passages from the bible to be beautiful wasn't intended to be in support of the poster who was claiming it somehow justified religion or made the bible literally true or whatever that person was saying. And I didn't forget to log out of my account, I just forgot to add that comment about the Blake passage to the original post. I've always loved it.

These threads always end up in the dumpster as everyone falls all over themselves to prove how interlekshual they are. Just say what you like and why.

Faust

R120 Faust was not a "work", rather a character (real, then mythic).

Goethe? Mann? Marlowe? Wagner? Turgenov? Berlioz? Heine?

Do tell....

Chaka Khan’s I’m every woman

R121 Gounod's Faust.

Puccini's Madama Butterfly, or La Boheme

Verdi's La Traviata, Otello, Flalstaff, Rigoletto, or Aida

Mozart's Don Giovanni or The Marriage of Figaro

Gounod’s Faust?? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

That work even make the top 100

[quote]Why are you getting so shirty, Poisoned? My "hat tip" to you wasn't sarcastic.

I never said that it was, and I haven't been "shirty." You had posted the Blake quote at R80, and then came back at R82 to compliment it, as though pretending to be another poster. The most charitable interpretation of that is that you were using socks, and lost track of which one you'd used to post R80, accidentally using it again at R82.

All the sockplay on these threads is tiresome (like all the voices that cropped up mentioning Blake, and "organized religion"). Why can't you simply let what you've said stand on its own, without trying to manufacture support? Are you that threatened by other opinions? If you simply want to defend the bible against criticism, that's not an honest way to do it.

^^ @R119.

This is the stupidest thread of all time.

You cannot compare novels with symphonies with religious texts with movies with operas.

St. Matthew Passion, by Johann Sebastian Bach

[quote]Are you that threatened by other opinions? I

Said the person who posted at R73

What a troll.

And music videos, r127!

R1 You have missed the point of the play.

George teaches Virginia Woolf. And some of his students are scared of her prose.

A streetcar named desire

East of Eden

I actually agree with Poisoned Dragon on the supernatural, religion, etc. So why am I on the verge of blocking him after his multiple posts on this thread? (Maybe this should be a poll.) Some of my greatest college teachers were outspoken, confirmed atheists who were sensitive to the greatness of Genesis, Mark, the Platonic dialogues, and other theist texts; they opened a dialogue with them and their cultures. Maybe their example immunized me against shrill, ham-handed dogmatism on this topic.

Anyway, I would definitely put "When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloomed" above "O Captain My Captain."

I’m in the middle of rereading Conrad’s Lord Jim (I’ve only read it once before, in 1975, in AP English, and it is now obvious I was too young to appreciate it). I’m now the age my teacher was (it was her favorite novel) and she was disappointed I didn’t love it. She was a superb teacher, but, in this case, was so blinded by her live of the book that she didn’t see it was a novel for, as Jung called it, the second half of life (we responded more to Joyce, Forster, and Woolf). I now am “getting” the novel, realizing it is as much about the experiences of its narrator (Marlow) and his wise counselor Stein, as it is about its titular hero. I also appreciate Conrad’s prose style more—not for everyone, to be sure, but less opaque than that of his friend Henry James. Yes, Conrad's colonial View can be hard to take at moments and there are instances of language that today cannot be uttered in public spaces ;he was a man of his time and places. But, all said, it is an extraordinary book and one I am grateful for the chance to revisit. Thank you, Miss Barclay, who would 111 if she were still alive.

Yes horrible, horrible things were and are done in the name of religion. But I wouldn't be surprised if the world was even worse before them.

R127 On DL we can do anything we damn well please.

I'll say The Mikado.

R134 Conrad’s Lord Jim

I understand that Jim went 'troppo' but is it true he was sodomised by the Malayans?

Once Is Not Enough

by Miss Jacqueline Susann

'The Bible as a literary work has a center that does not hold. There isn’t a coherent single author and it was assembled after the fact. It’s like a work of art by committee.'

Which makes it very contemporary.

Valley of the Dolls

R126 I agree.

I love 'The threatening clouds have passed away' and its rising crescendo in the chorus between 2.15 and 3.40.

I didn’t read the whole thread but has anyone nominated Mame. I thought not.

Lace II, by Shirley Conran

The opening sentence: "They must be the most expensive breasts in the world, thought Lili as she soaped them."

Brendad's autobiography

Yes these lyrics are astonishingly good:

Is it but a world of trouble —

Sadness set to song?

Is its beauty but a bubble

Bound to break ere long?

Are its palaces and pleasures

Fantasies that fade?

And the glory of its treasures

Shadow of a shade?

R18 is sooo basic.

Magna Carta

The Declaration of Arbroath

Pride and Prejudice

Voltaire’s Lettres sur les Anglais (Lettres Philosophique)

Aida.