The gift that keeps on giving and giving...

[Pariah113]

One of the many things that has made the WoT my favorite books, if the fact that they a literary masterpieces IMO weren't enough, is the vast amount of theories, forums, opinions and reading in general available above and beyond the novels themselves. (How's that for a run on sentance) They stand out in my mind as the standard for, among many other things, the perfect example of 'the gift that keeps giving'.

I've read Stephen King, Piers Anthony, Terry Goodkind, Isaac Assimov(?)-(may have spelled that wrong, I'm sure I did), among other authors. Whereas all of those forementioned authors are great in their own way and I could only dream to aspire to be as prolific, talented and successful as them. Robert Jordan smokes them all. I could only dream to dream to aspire... One of my favorite ways of describing the series, when trying to get other people to pick up it up, is to tell them "It's better then the Bible". All of the people I know that have read the series tend to agree.

If TOOL is known for "Perfect music for an imperfect world." Then WoT is the perfect story... It has been an inexhaustable source of escapism for me throughout the years.

For that and so much more Mr. Jordan, I thank you. May you rest in peace

[socom-delta]

"It's better then the Bible". All of the people I know that have read the series tend to agree.

 

I think you're referring to the plethora of scholastic lessons that the book offers, with regards to its views on politics, interpersonal conflict, warfare, economics, logistics, love, family, agriculture, and the like? If that's what you're referring to then I agree 100% :)

[Sid]

I have to agree.

Also, though Wheel of Time is among my favorite reading material of all and Tool is among my favorite music artists of all, I never listen to Tool while reading Wheel of Time.

[randsc]

I'm not a religious guy, but the Bible is one of the world's great works of literature. And without question the most influential book in human history.

 

Whereas the Wheel of Time is a (considerably) better-than-average fantasy series.

 

So let's not be silly buggers, eh?

[daveq65]

The series certainly stands out as having some of the most devoted fans. There are possibly more sites dedicated to the WoT than any other series. The fact we are always discussing differing parts of the series, challenging theories of others while putting across ours is what separates this series from any others, and most likely will continue to do so even after Tarmon Gai'don is fought. Most of us I think have read the books at least three times maybe more.

Personally I am always finding new bits I had forgotten - not helped by short term memory issues - that take me to think of events and characters in a new light which is what makes them so deep and enjoyable there is just so much in them trying to remember it all is not easy.

[rsahae]

the Bible is the most influential book in the Western world, and the Western world is important in the scheme of things but there are billions of people in this world who couldn't care less about the Bible.

 

and I wouldn't call the Bible a great work of literature. While it contains much good literature, stories and things like poetry, there's also a lot of just boring laws. Boring laws don't make for good literature I know because I'm a law student. There's also a lot of sanctimonious preaching...although I guess if you asked Terry Goodkind he'd say that IS good literature.

 

Fact is, I have to totally agree, I do in fact consider the WoT to be Scripture. I've read a lot of books, and there are very VERY few authors whose writing is as well done as RJ's. And then he died before finishing his work...martyrdom.

 

That's too religious. Let me just put it this way. Because I know that no more of that flawless writing is going to be produced, the value of what he wrote is increased that much more to me. It's no stretch to put that value at the level of the Bible. Not just how many people value the book highly, it's how much they value it.

[randsc]

The most influential book in the Western world is, in fact, the most influential book in the world. You don't need to care about a book, have read a book, or even have seen a book to be influenced by that book.

 

The Christian Bible greatly influenced the creation, development and promulgation of a great many ideas that hold sway over basically the entire world, not just the West. Our economic systems, our conceptions of human rights and individual autonomy, and our systems of government (even to the level of our modern notion of the nation-state) were greatly influenced by Christianity.

 

And, by the way, our notion of the rule of law is also of Christian origin.

 

To deny the influence of the Bible is idiocy. You don't need to like it to acknowledge its influence.

 

As for the relative value of the the Bible and the WOT as literature...well, I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion. I feel quite confident that if we were to poll all of the world's professors of literary criticism...

[rsahae]

I do apologize that this post has so little to WoT but I would like to respond to randsc:

 

huh? Give me a break sir. Our democratic government is based on the democracies that existed in Ancient Greece (Athens, in particular) and Ancient Rome...both of those governments existed before the Bible was written.

 

You say our concept of human rights was greatly influenced by the Bible. I disagree. For centuries upon centuries, people devoted to the Bible nevertheless committed untold numbers of inhuman crimes. And, it was the Bible in fact that was the motivation for them to commit these acts at the opposite end of the spectrum from the idea of human rights (e.g., Spanish Inquisition, Protestant Reformation, etc.).

 

Are you referring to MLK Jr? It's true he was a minister, but his view of human equality, and his methods to achieve it, were based on a gentleman by the name of Mahatma Ghandi. Ghandi has little or nothing to do with the Bible.

 

It's true that MLK Jr's message was infused with religious concepts. That was because he was religious, and because making equality seem in accordance with the Bible was his best chance at reaching the majority of Americans.

 

Fact is, as much as the Bible talks about treating each person nicely, etc., what's going on there is really just setting out a code (laws, if you will) of human conduct, designed to keep the peace. And that's no different from the holy book of other religions, say Islam for example.

 

Economic systems? I think currency instead of barter was going on long before the Bible showed up. And what does the Bible have to say regarding usury? Our modern economic system is all about credit and loans. You'll have to explain that one.

 

Notion of the rule of law? I don't know what you mean. If you mean that the Bible came up with the concept of a system of laws that govern conduct, well again you are wrong. Our first example of such a concept is a Sumerian (a pre-Biblical civilization) code of laws.

 

I'm not denying the influence of the Bible, I'm pointing out that it mainly has such influence in Western society. You and all (or most of) your would-be polled professors, you are all members of Western society, it's no crime that you view this from your perspective, but the fact is, the Bible has had zero or close to zero influence in a place like China, the most highly populated country in the world.

 

You go ahead and read the Bible, Old Testament and New, every single book, every single chapter and verse, and then tell me it was a better read than WoT. More significant historically, yes. Better literature? No way.

[randsc]

huh? Give me a break sir. Our democratic government is based on the democracies that existed in Ancient Greece (Athens, in particular) and Ancient Rome...both of those governments existed before the Bible was written.

 

I certainly didn't say that the Bible was the only influence on modern democracy. But to deny that Christianity was a major influence on the development of mmodern democracy is ahistorical. It just is. Read a book.

 

You say our concept of human rights was greatly influenced by the Bible. I disagree. For centuries upon centuries, people devoted to the Bible nevertheless committed untold numbers of inhuman crimes. And, it was the Bible in fact that was the motivation for them to commit these acts at the opposite end of the spectrum from the idea of human rights (e.g., Spanish Inquisition, Protestant Reformation, etc.).

 

 

Are you referring to MLK Jr? It's true he was a minister, but his view of human equality, and his methods to achieve it, were based on a gentleman by the name of Mahatma Ghandi. Ghandi has little or nothing to do with the Bible.

 

 

Incredibly foolish. Why, exactly, did our current concemption of human rights arise in the West, and only in the West? Do you know?

 

Oh, and I suggest you review what Ghandi said about Christianity. It was, in fact, a major influence on him.

 

Economic systems? I think currency instead of barter was going on long before the Bible showed up. And what does the Bible have to say regarding usury? Our modern economic system is all about credit and loans. You'll have to explain that one.

 

You clearly don't have any idea what is meant by the phrase, "economic systems." I'm not going to explain it; you're starting from too low a baseline and it would take forever. I'll just point out that maybe there is a a reason that capitalism became the world's dominant economic system after its development and refinement in Western, Christian countries.

 

Notion of the rule of law? I don't know what you mean.

 

And you're a law student? Alarming. An undergrad, I sincerely hope?

 

If you mean that the Bible came up with the concept of a system of laws that govern conduct, well again you are wrong. Our first example of such a concept is a Sumerian (a pre-Biblical civilization) code of laws.

 

No, I mean that the Bible "came up with" the basis for OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF LAWS. No the first, just the most important and influential.

 

the Bible has had zero or close to zero influence in a place like China, the most highly populated country in the world.

 

I'm sorry, but this statement ^^^ is simply stupid. Even if no one in China had ever read the Bible, simply by existing in a world largely dominated by cultures that WERE influenced by the Bible, China is greatly influenced by it. Fact.

 

You go ahead and read the Bible, Old Testament and New, every single book, every single chapter and verse, and then tell me it was a better read than WoT. More significant historically, yes. Better literature? No way.

 

I have read every chapter and verse of both the Bible and the WOT. You're entitled to your opinion. It's silly, though.

 

I like the WOT. Obviously, or I wouldn't be here. But it is to literature as the Beach Boys are to the music of the 1960's. Bubble-gum pop. Good bubble-gum pop, to be sure, but still just bubble-gum pop. Read some serious literature, and see the difference.

[rsahae]

You pooh-poohed all my arguments but didn't explain yourself. "It just is. Read a book" is no explanation (and would never fly before a judge). So I will have to deduce. But let me first point out this.

 

The Bible actually held back development of modern government. Modern government is modern, for that reason. Many of the Founding Fathers of our country were Deists - rejectors of organized religion and religious texts. You see, the Renaissance was an uprising against the Bible. Proponents of the Bible did not like then idea that people would be reading anything else. That they would be reading works written by pagan Greeks and Romans, however, was awful. For centuries, the dominance of the Bible restricted human access to the mathematical and scientific texts, the philosophical texts (there's more human rights)...

 

 

...Do you see what I am saying? The Bible retarded the development of our modern, enlightened world. What does the Bible think about Darwin?? Nothing positive.

 

Since you won't explain yourself, I have to look at what you are saying, and my conclusion is that your argument boils down to, "Well almost all of the important events and things that happened in this world was done by people who were Christians."

 

Well, I can't argue that. But that's not what we're talking about. Believe me that a lot of those Christians were more influenced by non-Biblical sources.

[randsc]

I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand the history of your own culture. It's sad, but don't feel bad, it certainly isn't unusual. ANd yes, you will need to read a book. Maybe even two.

 

Question, has there ever been an equivelent of the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment, in the Muslim world? In the Eastern world as a whole? Why not? Do you have any idea? That the Enlightenment, while a rejection of orthodox Christianity in some ways, has Christian roots is not even seriously disputed. Hell man, "influence" isn't even necessarily a POSITIVE thing. Even if you think that Christianity held back the development of modern democracy (absurd and ahistorical, but whatever) that "holding back" is itself, "Influence." The Holocaust had great influence on the Jews, right? And on the development of the modern state of Israel?

 

Your arguments, so far as I can tell:

 

Modern democracy was not developed over history, with a great many influences contributing, including (significantly) Christianity, but is simply a direct legacy of Ancient Greece and Rome. (Flat wrong).

 

Our conception of human rights doesn't have it's roots in the Bible. (OK, where, then?)

 

Gandhi was not influenced by the Bible/Christianity. (Simply not true. I recomend a decent biography of the man. A man who called Jesus "history's greatest prophet of non-violence", by the way).

 

The Bible had little or no influence on the development of modern law, and legal systems. (False)

 

The Bible has had no influence on non-Christians. And since there are a lot of non-Christians, it can't have been that influential. (False, and false)

 

No one, and I mean no one, who has seriously considered the question disputes the importance of the Bible, and Christianity in general, to the development of the modern world. Not even those most opposed to Christianity, or religion generally. Not Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Pinker, not Christopher Hitchens, not Freidrich Neitsche, not Bertrand Russell, not Darwin himself. Chistianity is the most important philosophical tradition in the history of this world, and the Bible is its founding text.

[sfgiantsfanmike]

...Do you see what I am saying? The Bible retarded the development of our modern, enlightened world. What does the Bible think about Darwin?? Nothing positive.

 

As this is only my second post and I don't have ready access to the internet I'm not going to get into a full fledged debate on this but maybe if people actually read and followed the Bible medically and scientifically we'd be better off than what 'Christianity' and those who had the reigns of the religious structure did with it. It wasn't the Bible that held us back so much as the people in charge of 'Christianity' that dropped the ball on distributing the knowledge therein.

 

Main thing: those laws are there for a reason. You may poo-pah the morals and the supernatural events that take place don't take the laws lightly; for instance, the need to wash with an anti-septic after touching a dead body (the forerunner to washing hands with anti-bacterial soap). We now know that's common sense but it the law was in place roughly 3500 years before proper handling of the dead was figured out.

 

There are many other little things like that I could point out, LOTS. The Bible was way ahead of it's time scientifically and much destruction and loss of human life could have been prevented if those boring laws were read and taken seriously over the centuries.

[rsahae]

randsc, twice now you've just categorically stated that you're right and I'm wrong without giving any proof, or any evidence to back up your claims that our government and economy exist thanks to the Bible. This is your last chance, otherwise this is my last post on the subject and yours will be the last word of the argument.

 

So your "influence" includes all the negative results of the Bible's existence. You have characterized the Holocaust as "influential" on the Jews. Very well, you've increased the scope of events which would make the Bible influential. That still has little bearing on the specific points I asked you to justify. For example,

 

I'm confident that even without the Bible we'd have a similar concept of human rights. Think of all the cultures that valued human rights without ever a sniff of Judeo-Christian theology. Native Americans, for example. This is because, every person (without some sort of mental deficiency) is capable of determining right from wrong, without needing to read it in some book.

 

Your argument ("OK, where then?") means you think, "the idea of human rights HAD to come from the Bible, because it couldn't have come from anywhere else." I disagree, I think that our conception of human rights comes from many sources, the Bible only a small part, the major part being an internal moral compass stemming from a person's natural desire to be treated fairly.

 

And let's not forget what we're arguing about. You originally called a "bugger" someone who said the WoT is a better read than the Bible. Apparently, your contention was that the most "influence" makes something a better read. My response was two-fold: (1) I agreed the Bible was the most influential book only in the Western world (so stop acting like I don't recognize the importance of the Bible), and (2) I argued that the compendium of laws and preaching made the Bible a worse read than WoT.

 

Your responses have been (1) asserting without proof the influence of the Bible beyond the Western World, and (2) tabling the matter for a vote of professors. You've never addressed the book I claim is far more influential in the eastern world, the Quran. You haven't explained how the Bible has affected modern law. You haven't explained how the Bible has affected modern economy. Without a response containing explanations, I can't waste my time on this anymore.

 

Alright, there you go. Here's your chance. If you respond to this with anything as sparse as "I'm right, you're wrong," this argument is over.

[sfgiantsfanmike]

Well, let me appologize to the thread starter (op here? Will need to look up your guyses abreviations),sorry for getting off topic.

 

I do agree that this series is SO deep that each time through you always spot something. I am a few chapters into Eye annd, man, all the foreshadowing is crazy! Even within the first 200 pages Jordan was setting a solid foundation for the rest of this epic series. Looking forward to rereading this series for the 6th plus time and seeing all the stuff I've missed.

[randsc]

I don't have time for addressing your "arguments" (which I will point out suffer from the same weaknesses you impute to mine. In fact, they're worse. Yours are simple assertions, not arguments at all). Perhaps I will pick it up again tomorrow. I'm 3/4 of the way through a 48 hour shift.

 

I'll address a couple of points in the meantime:

 

Very well, you've increased the scope of events which would make the Bible influential.

 

No, I explained the concept of influence. It means "that which has an effect upon." It has never been limited to, "that which has had a POSITIVE effect upon."

 

Your argument ("OK, where then?") means you think, "the idea of human rights HAD to come from the Bible, because it couldn't have come from anywhere else."

 

Not at all. Our conception of human rights COULD have come from elsewhere. But it didn't. That internal moral compass didn't exist before 33 AD?

 

You've never addressed the book I claim is far more influential in the eastern world, the Quran.

 

I never claimed that the Quran wasn't more influential in the Eastern World. It is. That doesn't mean it has asserted more influence over the world as a whole, which is the question on the table. And your claim is exactly the sort of unsupported assertion you accuse me of. Not to mention the influence the Bible had on Muhammad, and by extension the Quran. But I don't suppose you know anything about that?

 

I'm not going to argue further about the literary value of the Bible as opposed to the WOT. Ultimately, such is a matter of taste. I'll just say that I am very comfortable with my position, and strongly suspect that it is shared by the majority of people who have read meaningful amounts of serious literature. Which, again, WOT is not. Jordan himself would never have claimed that it was.

 

Now, if you want a dissertation on the influence of the Bible on the modern world, it will have to wait. I honestly can't believe that you dispute it, but I'll try to write it up for you.

 

I'll only go to the effort, however, if you are willing to actually engage the topic as something other than an excuse to argue for arguement's sake. Really, your lawyer-fu needs some work. I noticed references to Gandhi have gone by the wayside. Does that mean you concede at least that point?

 

Finally, why don't you consider this very basic question: If the Bible isn't the most influential book in the history of the world, what is?

[rsahae]

I, too, apologize to the thread starter.

 

I believe that, while certainly I would never go before a judge without all the relevant documents at hand, which is what I'm doing here, nevertheless I have accorded myself here as lawyerly as need be. For example, I make specific points to support my arguments. For example, compare these two:

 

Me - The Bible has less influence than you think on our government because many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, who reject organized religion and scriptures.

 

You - Well if you're saying it wasn't mostly the Bible, you're dead wrong.

 

You have to agree that yours is not much of a counter-argument.

 

And I will agree that Ghandi was influenced by the Bible. But I disagree that all the ill effects the Bible has left over the years are something to make the Bible more meritorious as compared to WoT.

 

If you want to assume I'm ignorant and illiterate, fine. I'm no Islamic scholar but I know what happened to Hagar. This is the last I indulge any goading.

 

When you say "That internal moral compass didn't exist before 33 AD?" I don't understand. It sounds like you're arguing my point for me.

 

You pose a good question about the Bible. I can think of a few books. The aforementioned Quran. The origin of the species. The Republic. The wealth of nations. Das Kapital. Frankly, I'd call the US Constitution the most important document in the world. And it does come in book form...a small book. But your question raises a point of semantics that frankly is important.

 

If you look at humanity from say 400 C.E. to 1700 C.E., yeah the Bible is the most influential book. But from the start, I have been using the present tense. In the modern world, the Bible isn't nearly as influential as it was 1000 years ago. RJ's work is work of the modern world and that is the world in which we live.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be considered serious literature by academics, but that's too bad. Fiction can be serious literature, and WoT (until Sanderson) certainly isn't short on complex human themes and masterful writing.

[Luckers]

This type of discussion belongs in Debates and Discussion, so Syngen I acknowledge and agree with your original post--WoT rocks!

 

Thread locked.