Pet peeve: christians who haven’t read the bible

[Solus]

This has begin to annoy me more and more latey. The bible is supposed to be word of god; of all truth and wisdom and yet NO christian but one (a peacher) that I’ve talked to has actually read the whole thing! How can a person believe in something and not understand it... drives me nuts that they can live like that. Read the bloody manual at least :boggled:. What’s common I’ve found with christians is that they know a few parts of the bible but not the whole thing (selective reading). Often though those who actually read some of it are the ones that go to bible groups and are "taught" how to read it quite pertubing.

I’m new here but I’m not naïve I think I know the answer as to why. Human beings want an easy answer. Most don’t think critically, they don’t think for themselves in many areas of life. The bible is MUCH too difficult for the average person to even begin to read (in terms of style of writing, complexity). The time required is too great & it's easier just to just believe the guy on the podium, leave happy and never think anymore about it.


Last thing I am though is some christian hating athiest. Religion is ok if it doesn’t hurt anyone (it gives people hope). I’d rather people not need it but it’s human nature hardwired into brain the latest research seems to indicate. I just wish people would study & learn their own faith for love of god I say! :D

[Ryokan]

Yeah, Christians that haven't read the bible annoys me as well. And it seems the non-Bible-readers are the absolute majority.

I've read it several times, myself.

[Tricky]

I've read it once myself, but it was so long ago that there are great big stretches that I don't remember.

But I see nothing wrong with Christians who haven't read the Bible. It is quite possible to learn of a thing by reading or hearing about it. I can tell you the plot from The Godfather, though I've never read or seen it.

Also recall that historically the church existed to bring the word of God to people who couldn't read. Although most people today can read, I know a large number of them (especially church people) for whom reading a book of the size and difficulty of the Bible would be an insurmountable task. If they get their info on the bible from the minister, that's okay, so long as they get it right. (And I mean right in the sense of not changing things, not in the sense of "interpreted correctly").

By the same token, I know many people who accept evolution and can even defend it eloquently who have never read Origin of the Species.

[kmortis]

Well, Tricky, that's all fine and dandy, but I've never once heard someone trying to live their life by Puzo's writing.

And, there were plenty of activities to make the Bible accessable to the common folk. This is especailly tru in the Germanic kingdoms and the Slavic lands. Hell, Old Church Slavonic was devloped to bring the Bible to the Slavs.

To the OP, I think that the Bible should be read my all Christians. Much like I think that the Origion of the Species should be read by all who are interested in evolution, and the governing documents of our various counties should be read by the citizens of those countries (and possibly others, but that's a discussion for another day)

[ImaginalDisc]

By the same token, I know many people who accept evolution and can even defend it eloquently who have never read Origin of the Species.

Well, the difference there is that the Darwin's works are the seminole works on Evolution, not the final word. People debating evolution don't quote Darwin at eachother to settle a point, they look at evidence, data, and observable phenomenae.

Eolvution's a scientic area of study, not a dogma.

[kmortis]

ImaginalDisc,
True that, but it's still a good idea to know where evolution came from, if for no other reason than if an opponent then steps up and says "Well, Darwin said..." you can correct.

[Ryokan]

But I see nothing wrong with Christians who haven't read the Bible. It is quite possible to learn of a thing by reading or hearing about it. I can tell you the plot from The Godfather, though I've never read or seen it.

But that's the thing. To continue your analogy, these guys don't know the plot from The Godfather, yet they still maintain it's be best movie ever.

I've met countless Christians who have refused to believe that God made the Pharao's heart hard as stone, just so that he could show his powers.

When I show them the relevant passages, the look on their faces are priceless. The story is so different from what is taught in sunday school!

[Bone_Vulture]

Hell, Old Church Slavonic was devloped to bring the Bible to the Slavs.

So what you're saying is that modern Russian is the product of a language necessitated by the bible? :eek:

[ImaginalDisc]

ImaginalDisc,
True that, but it's still a good idea to know where evolution came from, if for no other reason than if an opponent then steps up and says "Well, Darwin said..." you can correct.

True, but Darwin got a lot of his examples wrong, and died without ever having a decent explaination for heredity. Looking at Darwin's work to explain, for example, recombinant viruses, is like is like looking at Kepler's work to explain black holes. We owe them both a great deal, but science looks forward, dogma looks back.

[kmortis]

So what you're saying is that modern Russian is the product of a language necessitated by the bible? :eek:
The written form, yes, I think that argument could be made. Methodius and Cyril only introduced the written form of Slavonic to make it possible to teach liturgy and scripture. Sure, I'm sure they understood that it'd have an overaching impact, but their main thrust was to spread the Gospel. They WERE missionaries, after all.

ETA: This is not to say that the Slavs wouldn't have eventually had a written language, left to their own deivces, but that Cyril and Methodius were the ones to "invent" it.

[kmortis]

True, but Darwin got a lot of his examples wrong, and died without ever having a decent explaination for heredity. Looking at Darwin's work to explain, for example, recombinant viruses, is like is like looking at Kepler's work to explain black holes. We owe them both a great deal, but science looks forward, dogma looks back.
True, but why do we study history then? TO know where we came from. We've tried to learn from our mistakes. Same thing here. Why repeat what Darwin did (or his successors for that matter) if we don't need to. HE was, after all, nice enough to write it all down. ;)

[Mercutio]

Seems to me I've known a few bible-thumpers who honestly believed that a naive (that is, not pre-indoctrinated) person reading the bible was a dangerous thing! Universal literacy is a modern dream; the major denominations of christianity predate it by quite a bit. Limiting the bible to the few who could read (or, earlier, to the fewer who could read Latin) was the church's version of "you must be this tall to ride". Trusting the masses to interpret the bible is a dangerous thing, if you want your version to win.

Did I agree with Tricky? Lemme re-think...

[Solus]

Well, Tricky, that's all fine and dandy, but I've never once heard someone trying to live their life by Puzo's writing.

And, there were plenty of activities to make the Bible accessable to the common folk. This is especailly tru in the Germanic kingdoms and the Slavic lands. Hell, Old Church Slavonic was devloped to bring the Bible to the Slavs.

To the OP, I think that the Bible should be read my all Christians. Much like I think that the Origion of the Species should be read by all who are interested in evolution, and the governing documents of our various counties should be read by the citizens of those countries (and possibly others, but that's a discussion for another day)

:( I admit I haven't read it. I tried when I was 16 but that was too young. I do need to read his whole work. But evolution the concept is very clear and a simple biology class (college level) gives you a pretty good understanding of the theory.

[ImaginalDisc]

True, but why do we study history then? TO know where we came from. We've tried to learn from our mistakes. Same thing here. Why repeat what Darwin did (or his successors for that matter) if we don't need to. HE was, after all, nice enough to write it all down. ;)

I agree completely, I'm just saying that Christians look to the Bible as the ultimate authority, whereas people should look to Darwin's works as the starting point to an important science.

[kmortis]

Seems to me I've known a few bible-thumpers who honestly believed that a naive (that is, not pre-indoctrinated) person reading the bible was a dangerous thing! Universal literacy is a modern dream; the major denominations of christianity predate it by quite a bit. Limiting the bible to the few who could read (or, earlier, to the fewer who could read Latin) was the church's version of "you must be this tall to ride". Trusting the masses to interpret the bible is a dangerous thing, if you want your version to win.

Did I agree with Tricky? Lemme re-think...
The problem with that is that for a good protion of Europe, that wasn't the meme. Granted, the peons weren't expected to read, but hte nobels weren't expected to learn Latin either in Germany, Frisia (I think), Denmark or the Slavic lands. The Bible was painstakingly translated into the local tounge to make conversion easier.

Later, it's true that the elitist notion came about in many, many lands. But by then, the "damage" had been done.

[kmortis]

I agree completely, I'm just saying that Christians look to the Bible as the ultimate authority, whereas people should look to Darwin's works as the starting point to an important science.
True dat.

They do take the Bible as Gospel....

Thank you, I'm here all week, try the veal.

[Solus]

Seems to me I've known a few bible-thumpers who honestly believed that a naive (that is, not pre-indoctrinated) person reading the bible was a dangerous thing!

DAMN right! I mean you have to read the bible the "right" way of course :D

[roger]

kmortis, I am not religious, but was a Catholic as a kid. Besides going to church, we went to catechism every week. We never read the bible, yet I knew quite a lot about the religion. Specifics as to whom begat whom, or the kosher dietary laws would have been quite beyond me (though I did eventually read much of the book on my own), but that really didn't matter compared to the central messages of the New Testament.

As I got older we started learning more detailed things like the "Trinity" (this was at the point I realized the whole thing was batguano crazy and bailed), but mostly we learned what I would call ethics. You know, "don't lie" told in a nice little Jesus parable, "don't steal" wrapped up in another parable, etc.

I think we atheists get hung up on the technicalities of religion. There are plenty of thread running right now on whether God is omnipotent, biblical contradictions and impossibilities, etc., but really, the average church going experience (at least while I was growing up) was about ethics, community, helping others, all wrapped up with a pretty Jesus bow.

It's mostly a decent message, and I suspect that most people who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious" discount a lot of the specifics of the bible and church teachings. Look at how many US Catholics still refuse to use birth control, for example. However, they feel that there is 'good' and 'bad' in the world, the central Christian (ethical) teachings make sense to them, and they want to perpetuate a community based on these standards. That desire makes sense to me, though I do disagree with many of the standards. If that is your position, there's really not a big need to read the bible, is there?

It's not that I'm anti-learning; I'd certainly encourage people to read the book. But given my past I can see why they don't. It's absolutely not required if one's goals is to raise their children, participate in the community, and try to be good.


ETA: Don't forget that people tend to regard the clergy or ministers as experts on religion. In a similar way I regard a physician as an expert on health, and pretty much I go to their office, ask my questions, listen to what they say, and if it doesn't set off any alarm bells, do what they say. I don't go back and read medical tomes to verify that what the doctor said was true. First of all, because I'm paying the doctor for the training they did so I don't have to, and second of all because I am not equipped to evaluate what I read. I've read much of the DSM-IV, but that doesn't make me competent to diagnose or prescribe for mental conditions.

Likewise, I think the typical Catholic or Protestent looks to their leaders to do the same things in regard to the Bible. The Bible is a dense read, and unless you (like us JREFers) have an analytical mind it's hard to make much headway.

Heck, I'm pretty well educated as far as religion goes, and yet I doubt my ability to resolve some point of doctrine by reading the Bible. Oh, I could do it if I spent months at it, but who has the time and inclination for that. In the same way, I could read enough case studies to figure out how to represent myself in small claims court, but it's easier to hire a lawyer. I could read law, but choose not to.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

But I see nothing wrong with Christians who haven't read the Bible. It is quite possible to learn of a thing by reading or hearing about it. I can tell you the plot from The Godfather, though I've never read or seen it.

But the Godfather is just a novel/movie (a very good one in my opinion). If you believed the Godfather was the word of God and had the information related to your salvation (or enough to keep you from eternal torment), I bet you would be much more interested in reading it for yourself.

I've always been confused by believers that do not read it. I realize in ages past the average person might not be able to read or have been able to secure a copy. But today literacy is very common and I'm sure someone could secure a free copy in less than 24 hours if they really tried.

LLH

[kmortis]

kmortis, I am not religious, but was a Catholic as a kid. Besides going to church, we went to catechism every week. We never read the bible, yet I knew quite a lot about the religion. Specifics as to whom begat whom, or the kosher dietary laws would have been quite beyond me (though I did eventually read much of the book on my own), but that really didn't matter compared to the central messages of the New Testament.

As I got older we started learning more detailed things like the "Trinity" (this was at the point I realized the whole thing was batguano crazy and bailed), but mostly we learned what I would call ethics. You know, "don't lie" told in a nice little Jesus parable, "don't steal" wrapped up in another parable, etc.

I think we atheists get hung up on the technicalities of religion. There are plenty of thread running right now on whether God is omnipotent, biblical contradictions and impossibilities, etc., but really, the average church going experience (at least while I was growing up) was about ethics, community, helping others, all wrapped up with a pretty Jesus bow.

It's mostly a decent message, and I suspect that most people who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious" discount a lot of the specifics of the bible and church teachings. Look at how many US Catholics still refuse to use birth control, for example. However, they feel that there is 'good' and 'bad' in the world, the central Christian (ethical) teachings make sense to them, and they want to perpetuate a community based on these standards. That desire makes sense to me, though I do disagree with many of the standards. If that is your position, there's really not a big need to read the bible, is there?

It's not that I'm anti-learning; I'd certainly encourage people to read the book. But given my past I can see why they don't. It's absolutely not required if one's goals is to raise their children, participate in the community, and try to be good.

True...but I think it's a safe statment that MOST religious wackos aren't Catholic. Hunster aside, for the moment, most of the religious idiots that we deal with are protestant, and usually fundamental protestant. You know, the ones who totaly deny history and think that the Catholic Church is a tool of the devil, and always has been?

Even Hunster is only a pain cause he's a one-trick pony. Not cause he's Catholic.

[Solus]

Yes that's true religion can help with mortality I guess ethics for masses. But I do wish people would read and educate themselves but I guess only a few are meant for that? :(

[Bone_Vulture]

The written form, yes, I think that argument could be made. Methodius and Cyril only introduced the written form of Slavonic to make it possible to teach liturgy and scripture. Sure, I'm sure they understood that it'd have an overaching impact, but their main thrust was to spread the Gospel. They WERE missionaries, after all.

ETA: This is not to say that the Slavs wouldn't have eventually had a written language, left to their own deivces, but that Cyril and Methodius were the ones to "invent" it.

I'm not an expert on the topic, I just took a class on basic Russian; the teacher mentioned that the origins of modern Russian language are in the Church Slav - she also mentioned that the after the revolution, socialists removed some obsolete letters from the Cyrillic alphabet to make the language more practical. Interesting trivia.

[kmortis]

Yes that's true religion can help with mortality I guess ethics for masses. But I do wish people would read and educate themselves but I guess only a few are meant for that? :(
WEll, yeah. There's a reason Rev. Stang made up the Bobbies when he created had Subgeniusism revealed to him by Bob. There are some who just want to follow and don't give a fig about finding out for themselves. My friend calls them sheeple.

Part of my personal struggle with being a skeptic is getting through apathy, both on my part and those that I talk to.

[Mercutio]

The problem with that is that for a good protion of Europe, that wasn't the meme. Granted, the peons weren't expected to read, but hte nobels weren't expected to learn Latin either in Germany, Frisia (I think), Denmark or the Slavic lands. The Bible was painstakingly translated into the local tounge to make conversion easier.

Later, it's true that the elitist notion came about in many, many lands. But by then, the "damage" had been done.
My point was not about elitism culturally--in fact, the fact that the nobles also did not necessarily know Latin is completely consistent with my point...which was that one had to (ideally) be educated in the church in order to qualify for this ride.

[ImaginalDisc]

kmortis, I am not religious, but was a Catholic as a kid. Besides going to church, we went to catechism every week. We never read the bible, yet I knew quite a lot about the religion. Specifics as to whom begat whom, or the kosher dietary laws would have been quite beyond me (though I did eventually read much of the book on my own), but that really didn't matter compared to the central messages of the New Testament.

As I got older we started learning more detailed things like the "Trinity" (this was at the point I realized the whole thing was batguano crazy and bailed), but mostly we learned what I would call ethics. You know, "don't lie" told in a nice little Jesus parable, "don't steal" wrapped up in another parable, etc.

I think we atheists get hung up on the technicalities of religion. There are plenty of thread running right now on whether God is omnipotent, biblical contradictions and impossibilities, etc., but really, the average church going experience (at least while I was growing up) was about ethics, community, helping others, all wrapped up with a pretty Jesus bow.

It's mostly a decent message, and I suspect that most people who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious" discount a lot of the specifics of the bible and church teachings. Look at how many US Catholics still refuse to use birth control, for example. However, they feel that there is 'good' and 'bad' in the world, the central Christian (ethical) teachings make sense to them, and they want to perpetuate a community based on these standards. That desire makes sense to me, though I do disagree with many of the standards. If that is your position, there's really not a big need to read the bible, is there?

It's not that I'm anti-learning; I'd certainly encourage people to read the book. But given my past I can see why they don't. It's absolutely not required if one's goals is to raise their children, participate in the community, and try to be good.

I won't presume to speak for other atheists, but the only reason I have a problem with the claims of religious texts is that I live on a society where people use those texts to justify all sorts of innane, harmful, and irrational actions. I'm happy that the U.S. Constitution is quite firm about keeping religion out of government. There's several states in the U.S. with laws prohibiting atheists from hlding any government post. The Boy Scouts teach their charges that good citizens "are reverent", ergo atheists are bad. All over the country, there are allegedly christian organizations running around opposing the basic civil rights of homosexual people, on allegedly religious grounds. If someone says, "I oppose this policy/'those people' because the 'good book' tells me so," when they haven't even read it, that's insane.

I think you're right. If a person lives a good life without ever reading the bible, they're perfectly justified in calling themself a chrisitan, or a muslim, or a smurf for all I care. However, when someone tries to throw the 'good book' at me, to justify taking away my rights, or the rights of someone else, that's another matter.

[kmortis]

My point was not about elitism culturally--in fact, the fact that the nobles also did not necessarily know Latin is completely consistent with my point...which was that one had to (ideally) be educated in the church in order to qualify for this ride.
Only in the Roman Church. The Byzantine Church didn't have that hang-up. Sure for higher level communications, Greek (I think) was needed. But this is like how today most international business is done in English. It's the lingua franca. Latin filled the same position back then.

[Solus]

I'm a history amateur but as I understand it nobles were generally not all that well educated during the dark ages. The church oddly enough was truly the one source of gaining any knowlege at the time, a perserver in fact. They had libraries; old greek texts latin ect..

I believe many nobles could not read. Charlemagne couldn't read for example wanted to learn at least though.

[kmortis]

I'm a history amateur but as I understand it nobles were generally not all that well educated during the dark ages. The church oddly enough was truly the one source of gaining any knowlege at the time, a perserver in fact. They had libraries; old greek texts latin ect..

I believe many nobles could not read. Charlemagne couldn't read for example wanted to learn at least though.
Eh...mixed bag, really. Some nobels could read, some could not. THe closer you get to modern day, the more likely you'll get literate nobels. Let's face it, nobels weren't stupid. The Church was vying for power, just like the nobels were, so they'd want to learn, or at least have a trusted advisor who could read.

Plus, it became fashionable to send your kids off to the monestaries to learn to read and write. The old "The first is to the state, the second to the army, the third to the Church" kind of thing, but even the first and second borns would go.

[Tricky]

But that's the thing. To continue your analogy, these guys don't know the plot from The Godfather, yet they still maintain it's be best movie ever.
Well, I've never seen it, but I can tell that it sucks.

I've met countless Christians who have refused to believe that God made the Pharao's heart hard as stone, just so that he could show his powers.

When I show them the relevant passages, the look on their faces are priceless. The story is so different from what is taught in sunday school!
No disagreement here. Posers who claim that such-and-such was in the bible but are badly mistaken get no respect from me. People who really only know what their minister told them and say so, I cut a great deal more slack. Of course, often those people get it wrong (or their minister did) so I will gently correct them.

Of course, one of the funniest things is when people try to quote the bible and actually quote some other source. I wish I could remember some of them now. The only one that comes to mind was when one of my Christian friends was trying to console me because my new computer had gotten a bad virus. "Well," he intoned solomnly, "As Jesus says, all that glitters is not gold." I nearly choked with laughter.

[kmortis]

And Jesus said "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life"

"Um, that wasn't Jesus; that was Lao Tse"

"Oh, well, it SOUNDS Like something Jesus would say..."
:rolleyes:

[Solus]

Well, I've never seen it, but I can tell that it sucks.
Of course, one of the funniest things is when people try to quote the bible and actually quote some other source. I wish I could remember some of them now. The only one that comes to mind was when one of my Christian friends was trying to console me because my new computer had gotten a bad virus. "Well," he intoned solomnly, "As Jesus says, all that glitters is not gold." I nearly choked with laughter.

I'm sure shakesphere would enjoy hearing that were he here today :D

I gotta say I like this fourm! :)

My history gets fuzzy over the years but I remeber now. The social stucture in the middle ages, those who fight, those who pray, those who work. First born receved everything the other's children moved on to second hand postions. Again middle ages, it's such a long period of time it's hard to generalize. Must be very speceifc as to what period it is.

[Bone_Vulture]

"Um, that wasn't Jesus; that was Lao Tse"

"Oh, well, it SOUNDS Like something Jesus would say..."
:rolleyes:

You know, I actually thought that quote was by Jebus as well, until I played Civ4. Yes, the Civilization series has probably taught me more about ancient history than books. :blush:

[Solus]

Details please on CIV4 is it that bad? I know they had one had a final tech invention with the description the discovery of god in CIV err I think call to power but what have they put in CIV4. I'd like to know.

[Ryokan]

Details please on CIV4 is it that bad? I know they had one had a final tech invention with the description the discovery of god in CIV err I think call to power but what have they put in CIV4. I'd like to know.

"Is it that bad?"?!?! No, it's not bad at all. It's one of the best games I've ever played.

You can't invent 'god' in it, no, but you can invent religion. Religion plays a large part in the game.

[Moon-Spinner]

Jesus entered the Temple, and he turned the tables over and poured out the money on the floor, and he said “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick @ss. And I'm all out of bubblegum!”



True Jesus quote, at least that's what I was told :D

[Ryokan]

Give a man fire and he's warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

[Solus]

"Is it that bad?"?!?! No, it's not bad at all. It's one of the best games I've ever played.

You can't invent 'god' in it, no, but you can invent religion. Religion plays a large part in the game.

I heard a bunch of whinning and moaning about how terrible it was crashes and such. Just didn't look much more into after that. I heard it was just like others CIVs but with shinner graphics.

The other poster though kinda sounded like this New CIV had christian biased descriptions of history like chirst invented the wheel or something that's what I mean by bad.

Religion though indeed should play a large part in the game. I still won't look into this game till gets to the bargin bin though.

[Ryokan]

I heard a bunch of whinning and moaning about how terrible it was crashes and such. Just didn't look much more into after that. I heard it was just like others CIVs but with shinner graphics.

Oh, it's a totally new game, really. I'm a great fan of the Civilization games, but didn't like Civ 3 at all. Civ 4 has blown my mind.

You know have real ingame reasons for going to war, instead of simple expansions. Border disputes, cultural imperialism, war for resources, religious differences... The game is much more alive than it ever was.

Oh, and it has not crashed even once for me yet.

The other poster though kinda sounded like this New CIV had christian biased descriptions of history like chirst invented the wheel or something that's what I mean by bad.

There's no religious bias in it whatsoever.

The funniest thing that ever happened to me in the game concerning religion was when the Americans came to me and threatened war if I didn't convert to Islam :D


Religion though indeed should play a large part in the game. I still won't look into this game till gets to the bargin bin though.

I downloaded it :p

[Bone_Vulture]

I heard a bunch of whinning and moaning about how terrible it was crashes and such. Just didn't look much more into after that. I heard it was just like others CIVs but with shinner graphics.

I agree totally with Ryokan, it's definitely an improvement over the previous versions, with governing system adapted from Alpha Centauri, and the graphics from the revamped Pirates!.

The other poster though kinda sounded like this New CIV had christian biased descriptions of history like chirst invented the wheel or something that's what I mean by bad.

Whoever that other poster may be, your assumption is wrong - to my knowledge, the type of religion doesn't affect technological progress. You can choose between different state approaches to religion, though.

Sorry about dragging this thread off topic. :o

[LawnOven]

Well I must say, cultural history of christianity aside...

...It seems like today in the western world where the great majority of people can read, that it is fully reasonable to hold christians accountable for reading thier own religous texts.


So for me anyways, Solus's original gripe is also reasonable.


Haha, if they did read the bible, there would probably be fewer christians.

[BJQ87]

The bible is a means of finding the truth, not the truth itself.

[Medusa]

The only thing I find to be as annoying as Christians not reading the bible is when Christians try to take cultural specific statements in the Epistles and apply them across the board to situations they don't apply to. Or latch onto one verse and ignore the ones around it. (Like, the verse that says men shouldn't have long hair while ignoring the verse about women not cutting theirs. :rolleyes: )

[bruto]

I'm a history amateur but as I understand it nobles were generally not all that well educated during the dark ages. The church oddly enough was truly the one source of gaining any knowlege at the time, a perserver in fact. They had libraries; old greek texts latin ect..

I believe many nobles could not read. Charlemagne couldn't read for example wanted to learn at least though.

It all depends on how you look at it. The church was just about the only seat of learning, but was quite jealous of that position. They had the books, but preferrred that the people stay illiterate, and they guarded their texts very aggressively against poaching, while often taking very little care for either their preservation or propagation. Don't forget too that it was the Church that made translation of the Bible into common languages a heresy and executed those who attempted it. The Church in some ways preserved learning, but did not spread it.


BAck to the original subject, I think that the question of whether one has read the bible is a special case for fundamentalists. It's one thing to say that you believe in evolution, for example. I have a little education, I was taught about evolution and accept the idea, in part on the basis of study, and in part, frankly, on the basis of trusted authority. I'll freely admit to being a dilettante. But I do not make a claim that my beliefs are the only truth, and certainly do not claim every jot and tittle of some text is divinely ordained and must rule my life and that of everyone else. Bibilical fundamentalists do. They insist that this text is so definitive that it should overrule other ideas, be used as the basis of public law and jurisprudence, and be taught by and to people who do not share their religion. I think that anyone who claims that literally every word is God's truth owes it to himself and the world to have read and considered every single word.

[David Swidler]

This thread provides an interesting contrast to Judaism's approach to (part of) the same text. I wonder how some of these arguments play out regarding Jews, who historically have pursued literacy and (at least religious) education as a fundamental obligation ("People of the Book" and whatnot).

Given that, I'm not so sure that greater Bible literacy among Christinas would significantly affect the number of believers; the number of Jews who study the Torah and Talmud diligently and regularly into adulthood, then give it all up, is rather small, even relatively.

Edited for clarity.

[Ryokan]

The bible is a means of finding the truth, not the truth itself.

So the bible itself is not true, is that what you're saying?

I guess this is just another way of saying 'you guys are not reading it right'.

[LW]

Seems to me I've known a few bible-thumpers who honestly believed that a naive (that is, not pre-indoctrinated) person reading the bible was a dangerous thing!

You might agree with that opinion if you studied the history of 16th century Germany.

[BeProf]

This may shock some folks, coming as it does from the mouth (keyboard?) of a guy who "cut his theological" teeth at Bob Jones University: but the number one mistake I see Christians make when reading the Bible is treating it like it isn't just another book.

Yes, as a Christian of the evangelical variety, I believe the Bible itself is the Word of God. Yes, I believe that it is infallible (at least in the original autographs) and preserved (at least in it's essential teachings). Yes, I believe that what it has to say is and ought to be binding and authoritative on all matters in the Christian faith. But none of that means that I should be treating it like some kind of cosmic Dungeon Masters Guide to the Christian faith that just dropped out of the sky fully formed and is perfectly clear in everything it says.

Look, when we study (as opposed to simply reading) a piece of literature, what do we do? We attempt to understand the author. We attempt to place the document in its proper historical and cultural context. We compare and contrast what the author has to say in different parts of the work and thus to form some kind of coherent understanding of what it is the author is actually saying. The Bible isn't really any different.

Too many people, Christian and otherwise, like to play the game of "deuling proof texts". Person A quotes "I Bob 18:4" to support the position, "The Bible teaches that all women ought to keep their big yaps shut". Person B quotes "Slackticus 7:2" as a counter example. Later. Rinse. Repeat. The discussion just keeps on going and going and going and never really gets anywhere because nobody involved in the discussion really cares what it is the Bible is really saying. All the participants care about is using the Bible as a club to beat people into "seeing the error of their ways".

Is it hard? Not really. Is it time consuming? You bet. It is it worth it? I think so. Heck, folk spend hour upon hour upon hour discussing and debating the Designated Hitter rule. Why is it so hard for people to wrap their little brains around the idea that they might... just might... want to do the same for the Bible (esp. if they happen to be in the category of people who have staked their immortal souls on what they think it says).

[Cleon]

Yes, as a Christian of the evangelical variety, I believe the Bible itself is the Word of God. Yes, I believe that it is infallible (at least in the original autographs) and preserved (at least in it's essential teachings). Yes, I believe that what it has to say is and ought to be binding and authoritative on all matters in the Christian faith. But none of that means that I should be treating it like some kind of cosmic Dungeon Masters Guide to the Christian faith that just dropped out of the sky fully formed and is perfectly clear in everything it says.

Hrm...I'm guessing you're not Gary "Willard Preacher" Cattell. :D

[BeProf]

Hrm...I'm guessing you're not Gary "Willard Preacher" Cattell. :D

Nice Penn State reference!

I've always kind of wondered what they're going to call that guy once they knock down Willard Building.

[c4ts]

I don't like the Christians who read the Bible one passage at a time, and vaguely know the stories, instead of reading the thing as cogent literature.

[Spidey13]

The bible is a means of finding the truth, not the truth itself.

I know a lot of Christians who would disagree with that.

[Cleon]

Nice Penn State reference!

I've always kind of wondered what they're going to call that guy once they knock down Willard Building.

Class of 1999. ;)

Are they planning on knocking down Willard? (I hope just the new part--the old building's kinda cool. A little funky, but cool.)

My guess is they'll call him the same thing they've always called him--"that jackass who never shuts up." :)

[Marc L]

I still won't look into this game till gets to the bargin bin though.

You can download a demo of it for free, too, if you want. I don't know the exact site of the download, but if you go to 'www.civfanatics.com' there is a link on the first page.

Marc

[Marc L]

I am reminded of an incident not too long ago where a co-worker told me that the Bible held The Answers. Granted, he had never read the Bible, but he knew that The Answers were in there.

I told him that I wouldn't discuss it with him until 1) He'd read the whole thing, cover to cover, and 2) decided whether or not it should be taken 100% literally. If it shouldn't be taken 100% literally, then which parts shouldn't, and what are the criteria for determining it? I've yet to hear back from him.

Marc

[Cleon]

I am reminded of an incident not too long ago where a co-worker told me that the Bible held The Answers. Granted, he had never read the Bible, but he knew that The Answers were in there.
Usually when confronted with something like that, my first response is something a college professor of mine used to say--that getting the right answers isn't the problem, so much as asking the right questions.

[rharbers]

Is it hard? Not really. Is it time consuming? You bet. It is it worth it? I think so.

You bet it's worth it. I simply had faith because that was what I was told. After reading the books uncountable times and studing catagorically and exegetically for over 50 years, I finally came to the conclusion that the books have very little harmony. My answer is that the books in the bible are the best avenue to reach a conclusion of skepticism.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I am reminded of an incident not too long ago where a co-worker told me that the Bible held The Answers. Granted, he had never read the Bible, but he knew that The Answers were in there.

I told him that I wouldn't discuss it with him until 1) He'd read the whole thing, cover to cover, and 2) decided whether or not it should be taken 100% literally. If it shouldn't be taken 100% literally, then which parts shouldn't, and what are the criteria for determining it? I've yet to hear back from him.

Marc

Wow that boils down my opinion rather well Marc!

I've even gone down this road in other subjects. I used to carry around a picture of Henry Kissinger in my wallet. When someone would try to speak to me about US foreign policy I would whip it out and ask them to identify him. If they couldn't I would tell them they had no business offering opinions on something they know nothing about (the spurious reasoning being if you don’t know who Kissinger is, then you don’t know anything about foreign policy).

A good one with the bible is to ask them to list the first 5 books. If they can’t then maybe they shouldn’t offer opinions on things they know nothing about.

I know many members here will object to this line of reasoning. I admit it is rude and really not fair. But it is really good at getting a reaction out of someone.

LLH

[ZirconBlue]

But none of that means that I should be treating it like some kind of cosmic Dungeon Masters Guide to the Christian faith that just dropped out of the sky fully formed and is perfectly clear in everything it says.

Great! Now we're going to argue about whether Gary Gygax really meant all those magic item tables to be read literally.;)

[BeProf]

Class of 1999. ;)

Are they planning on knocking down Willard? (I hope just the new part--the old building's kinda cool. A little funky, but cool.)

Conventional wisdom around here is that Spanier is going to knock it down next. Wouldn't surprise me, it's not been a secret that he's wanted to do away with the thing since he came here.

[c4ts]

Great! Now we're going to argue about whether Gary Gygax really meant all those magic item tables to be read literally.;)

It means I deserve extra dice every time somebody mentions THACO.

[Elind]

This has begin to annoy me more and more latey. The bible is supposed to be word of god; of all truth and wisdom and yet NO christian but one (a peacher) that I’ve talked to has actually read the whole thing! How can a person believe in something and not understand it... drives me nuts that they can live like that. Read the bloody manual at least :boggled:. What’s common I’ve found with christians is that they know a few parts of the bible but not the whole thing (selective reading). Often though those who actually read some of it are the ones that go to bible groups and are "taught" how to read it quite pertubing.

The world would be a much worse place if they did read it more. Think of all the interpretations, as if we don't have enough as it is. One Pat Roberstson interpreter is manageable. Millions is inconceivable.

On the other hand, I haven't read all of Einsteins Special Relativity, but I have faith in the interpretations of others who have;)

[bruto]

The world would be a much worse place if they did read it more. Think of all the interpretations, as if we don't have enough as it is. One Pat Roberstson interpreter is manageable. Millions is inconceivable.

On the other hand, I haven't read all of Einsteins Special Relativity, but I have faith in the interpretations of others who have;)

I have some faith in the interpretations of others who have read Einstein, too, but I don't think anyone would argue, as fundamentalists do, that all scientific knowledge gained subsequent to Einstein should be thrown out if it disagrees.

Your thought on the bible is more or less what motivated the RC Church to ban translation for so long, but I think the more interpretations of the bible the better. The more people who realize how ambiguous and contradictory it is, the better. We need people to question it and question their leaders. I'd rather have millions of people trying to figure it out than millions saying "don't bother, Pat knows best."

[BJQ87]

Originally Posted by BJQ87 :
The bible is a means of finding the truth, not the truth itself.


So the bible itself is not true, is that what you're saying?

No, I'm saying the bible is a means of finding THE TRUTH, not THE TRUTH itself. The bible is true, it is not THE TRUTH.

Originally Posted by BJQ87 :
The bible is a means of finding the truth, not the truth itself.


I know a lot of Christians who would disagree with that.


That seems to be to me a logical mistake and quite a contradiction. If they believe the bible is THE TRUTH, then why does Jesus say "I am the way and the truth and the life no one comes to the father BUT THROUGH ME." Is Jesus the bible? No. Is the bible a means of finding Jesus? Yes.

Now if they believe that the bible is true, I agree.

[Tricky]

No, I'm saying the bible is a means of finding THE TRUTH, not THE TRUTH itself. The bible is true, it is not THE TRUTH.



That seems to be to me a logical mistake and quite a contradiction. If they believe the bible is THE TRUTH, then why does Jesus say "I am the way and the truth and the life no one comes to the father BUT THROUGH ME." Is Jesus the bible? No. Is the bible a means of finding Jesus? Yes.

Now if they believe that the bible is true, I agree.
Well, anything you read (including fiction) can help you find the truth (I don't believe capitals are necessary).

Speaking from personal experience, the Bible was quite instumental in helping me find one thing that I consider to be the truth. It was when I started studying the bible carefully during my confirmation hearings for the Episcopal church that I first came to the realization that I was a atheist. The greatest reason for that was that I discovered that the Bible, the source of authority in the church, was riddled with contradictions, fables and downright lies. Thanks to the bible, my eyes were opened.

[kmortis]

The Principia Discordia has a quote that they attribute to Neil Bohr.
There are two kinds of truth: little truths and Great Truths. The opposite of a little truth are false; the opposite of a Great Truth is still true.

I'm still trying to figure out just WTF a Great Truth is....

[Hardenbergh]

I've read the Bible from cover to cover twice. However, I derive more meaning from its contents by meditating on just a few verses at a time. Reading the Bible systematically (a chapter at a time) works for some and I don't find fault with it but there's a danger of it being a mechanical thing as if it's something you try to squeeze into your schedule. When I try to read too much at one time, I often can't remember most of what I've read. It's kind of like driving through a town and not being able to recall having been through it because your mind is on other things.

[Godmode]

It sort of bugs me the WAY that they read the bible, picking a verse here, and a verse there to prove some point. Skipping completely what they don't want. Usually if they read anything it's just what their leader has told them to read.

Plus, I very much agree with the idea that if I personally believed that the bible was the actual word of god, I would have that thing as close to memorized as possable. I mean if it really WERE the word of god, what could be more important? Wouldn't you be scared of making a little faux pas by not doing something you're supposed to be doing?

I was once told that the bible was not even meant to be read, that you should use it as some sort of oujia board. You're supposed to think about your problem and randomly open up the bible and the solution you seek will be there. Pretty Miraculous, eh?:p

[kmortis]

I was once told that the bible was not even meant to be read, that you should use it as some sort of oujia board. You're supposed to think about your problem and randomly open up the bible and the solution you seek will be there. Pretty Miraculous, eh?:p

That's called "Bibliomancy". It's about as valid as all the other -mancies out there. Personally, I prefer augury, myself, dinner and a show.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
No, I'm saying the bible is a means of finding THE TRUTH, not THE TRUTH itself. The bible is true, it is not THE TRUTH. How can it be true when it contradicts itself?

Godmode
I’ve been told that before as well.

Ossai

[Jekyll]

And Jesus said "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life"

"Um, that wasn't Jesus; that was Lao Tse"

"Oh, well, it SOUNDS Like something Jesus would say..."
:rolleyes:
I think it was Kuan-Tzu.

[Tricky]

[quote=Godmode; I was once told that the bible was not even meant to be read, that you should use it as some sort of oujia board. You're supposed to think about your problem and randomly open up the bible and the solution you seek will be there. Pretty Miraculous, eh?:p[/quote]
I tried that. I got:

"Reply hazy. Ask again later."

[Elind]

Your thought on the bible is more or less what motivated the RC Church to ban translation for so long, but I think the more interpretations of the bible the better. The more people who realize how ambiguous and contradictory it is, the better. We need people to question it and question their leaders. I'd rather have millions of people trying to figure it out than millions saying "don't bother, Pat knows best."

You are probably right, but of course it ain't gonna happen.:boggled:

[Moon-Spinner]

I tried that. I got:

"Reply hazy. Ask again later."
That's right! I was imagining holding a Bible upside down, shaking it while asking a question.

Parker Brothers could tap a new market.

[Elind]

It sort of bugs me the WAY that they read the bible, picking a verse here, and a verse there to prove some point. Skipping completely what they don't want. Usually if they read anything it's just what their leader has told them to read.


There are many who have become bored with that, or can't make sense of it, so they turn to numerology analysis of the words.

Now they are guaranteed to find something meaningful to themselves.

I even saw one of those terribly sincere TV guys who had figured out that if you took some biblical words in Hebrew and superimposed them on an aerial photo of Jerusalem, there was a fit! This rock here, that gully there (no doubt identical to 2000 years ago).

I'm always amazed at how many people seem to fill those monster TV studios that they call churches.

[Belz...]

But I see nothing wrong with Christians who haven't read the Bible. It is quite possible to learn of a thing by reading or hearing about it. I can tell you the plot from The Godfather, though I've never read or seen it.

Nothing wrong there, but they can't honestly say the bibble contains no contradiction or is absolutely true if they haven't read at least good portions of it.

[bruto]

But I see nothing wrong with Christians who haven't read the Bible. It is quite possible to learn of a thing by reading or hearing about it. I can tell you the plot from The Godfather, though I've never read or seen it.

Fine if all you intend to do is discuss the Godfather informally or feel that you have some reasonable understanding of what it's all about. But if, for example, you were a lawyer prosecuting a case for copyright infringement or plagiarism, you'd have to read it at least pretty carefully. And if, for example, you were arguing that the accounts in it were so accurate that people should be arrested, laws changed, educational policies altered, sexual behavior outlawed, medical practices curtailed and wars waged, all on the authority of that text, and on the grounds that it is true down to the last word, then I would say you'd better have read and understood, and be able to defend, every last word.

I have no quarrel with Christians who have not read the bible, if all they are interested in is their own faith. It's dull, it's long, and most of it is unnecessary even for a reasonable understanding of one's faith. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in the world around us. Too many Christians are citing the bible as an absolute authority to force their beliefs on the world and to force those who do not share them to be the unwilling carriers of these beliefs, or to conform to them against their own judgment. The bible is being used not as a scripture of religious faith, but as an authoritative civil and scientific text. Those who wish to do this, and I include among them the sheepish followers who carry the spears, should be subjected to the very highest critical standards. If you are going to tell me what my kids can learn, whom I can marry, what I can do with the person I marry, what I can read and what I can buy, then you had goddam well better know what you're talking about. As far as I am concerned, a person who bases anything more than casual conversation on the premise that the bible is true in all detail and down to every word has the obligation to have tested that premise against his own judgment, down to the last word, and to be willing to undergo the severest critical inquisition on that assertion.

[Solus]

The bible is a means of finding the truth, not the truth itself.

AH yes...

Proverbs 1.7: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

from the KJB

Solomon the socerrer, it's great literature. And this is correct, a child SHOULD be afarid of god. I sure as hell was, I thought I was going to hell constantly! :boxedin:

[Tricky]

Solomon the socerrer, it's great literature. And this is correct, a child SHOULD be afarid of god. I sure as hell was, I thought I was going to hell constantly! :boxedin:
Couldn't you scare them just as effectively by telling them that Santa Claus was watching?

[Tricky]

Nothing wrong there, but they can't honestly say the bible contains no contradiction or is absolutely true if they haven't read at least good portions of it.
Agreed. I do have a beef with those who claim biblical inerrancy but haven't read the bible. Fortunately, those are small but vocal minority among Christians.

[stamenflicker]

How can it be true when it contradicts itself?

You'd have to ask Neil Bohr since he is the person the quote is attributed to. But consider... "The one who seeks to save his life will lose it, but the one who loses his life will be saved." Or read some Lao Tzu, for other examples.

Flick

[ZirconBlue]

But consider... "The one who seeks to save his life will lose it, but the one who loses his life will be saved."
Flick

That sounds like something the Sphinx would say:

Mr. Furious: Why am I doing this again?
Sphinx: When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack.
Mr. Furious: And why am I wearing the watermelon on my feet?
Sphinx: I don't remember telling you to do that.

[kurious_kathy]

[QUOTE=David Swidler;1372005]Given that, I'm not so sure that greater Bible literacy among Christinas would significantly affect the number of believers; QUOTE]
Nonsense. This makes the difference in everyones life. Believers and non-believers. Faith comes by hearing!

This past year I have taken many bible studies and it makes all the difference in how we become discipled. We as believers want to be sure to get good teaching and understanding so we are built up in our faith.
CD has lots of understanding after reading and studying for 11 plus years. Me I know the New Testament better than the old..but I'll get there. The new covenant was my first priority since those are Jesus's teachings and we are now covered under the new covenant.
The OT has lots more symbolism which takes more time to learn and understand.

[Solus]

[QUOTE=David Swidler;1372005]Given that, I'm not so sure that greater Bible literacy among Christinas would significantly affect the number of believers; QUOTE]
Nonsense. This makes the difference in everyones life. Believers and non-believers. Faith comes by hearing!

This past year I have taken many bible studies and it makes all the difference in how we become discipled. We as believers want to be sure to get good teaching and understanding so we are built up in our faith.
CD has lots of understanding after reading and studying for 11 plus years. Me I know the New Testament better than the old..but I'll get there. The new covenant was my first priority since those are Jesus's teachings and we are now covered under the new covenant.
The OT has lots more symbolism which takes more time to learn and understand.

And umm who exactly brings you this understanding? Your pastor? Question then where does he get his understanding from? Who teaches the pastor?
Who's to say there is a "right" way to read the good book?

[David Swidler]

Oh no! Someone give me a cootie shot! I've been "answered" by KK!

I suppose it was inevitable. I must say, this is a vastly inferior experience to attending one's first Rocky Horror Picture Show.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

This past year I have taken many bible studies and it makes all the difference in how we become discipled.

How long have you been a Christian (kurious_kathy)?

(and of course the inevitable follow up)
If you have believed that the Bible was the word of god for XXX years, why did you wait until last year to study it?

LLH

[Marc L]

That's right! I was imagining holding a Bible upside down, shaking it while asking a question.

Parker Brothers could tap a new market.

This reminds me of what I think is an Urban Legend in Christianity. There was this guy that was using the 'Inspired Finger' method to find a meaningful Bible verse for the day, and the one he picked was about (I think) Ahab (I don't have a Bible handy, so I'm not positive). It was the one about Ahab throwing himself out of a window to his death. Realizing that this couldn't be what the Lord really wanted, our hero tried again, and came up with the following verse: "Go and do likewise". :D

Needless to say, the guy didn't do as he was instructed. What, didn't he have faith?

Marc

(Note: I apologize for the lack of references. Like I said, I don't have my Bible handy, and we're at sea, so I don't feel like spending an hour waiting for biblegateway.com to load.)

[Jekyll]

Or read some Lao Tzu, for other examples.

I'm not convinced that a book of chinese puns is a good example of truth through contradiction.
While much of the tao te ching can be translated as paradoxes, it is sufficently ambigious that it can also be read as a consistant, coherent whole.

Although, what that whole actually is seems to be a matter of interpretation.

[10001]

This has begin to annoy me more and more latey. The bible is supposed to be word of god; of all truth and wisdom and yet NO christian but one (a peacher) that I’ve talked to has actually read the whole thing! How can a person believe in something and not understand it... drives me nuts that they can live like that. Read the bloody manual at least :boggled:. What’s com just wish people would study & learn their own faith for love of god I say! :D

the true and only teaching of the christianity is the following.

1. belief
2. blind belif
3. just believe... you will go to heaven...

no need to understand, comprehend, question, logicate

just 'believe' and 'hope'... god's 'love' will bring you to him/her/?

BIBLE IS NOT GOD'S WORD.
IT IS WRITTEN BY HUMANS.
THEY ARE HUMAN WORDS.

RELIGIONS PREACH GOODNESS. THE HUMANS ARE STUPID.

[Tricky]

This reminds me of what I think is an Urban Legend in Christianity. There was this guy that was using the 'Inspired Finger' method to find a meaningful Bible verse for the day, and the one he picked was about (I think) Ahab (I don't have a Bible handy, so I'm not positive). It was the one about Ahab throwing himself out of a window to his death. Realizing that this couldn't be what the Lord really wanted, our hero tried again, and came up with the following verse: "Go and do likewise". :D

Needless to say, the guy didn't do as he was instructed. What, didn't he have faith?

Marc

(Note: I apologize for the lack of references. Like I said, I don't have my Bible handy, and we're at sea, so I don't feel like spending an hour waiting for biblegateway.com to load.)
LOL. That's not an urban legend. That's a joke. A very old joke. My mom told it to me at least 40 years ago.

[Tricky]

The OT has lots more symbolism which takes more time to learn and understand.
Actually, you have it just backwards. The OT is very specific and a whole lot of it is the giving of laws, including very unambiguous laws about how to treat your slaves. The NT is much more open to interpretation that the OT. Jesus was the one who liked to speak in parables.

[Ossai]

kurious_kathy
This past year I have taken many bible studies and it makes all the difference in how we become discipled. We as believers want to be sure to get good teaching and understanding so we are built up in our faith.

Are your bible studies actually placing it in historical context or is it just someone telling you what a passage really means?

Ossai

[Skeptical Greg]

[QUOTE=David Swidler;1372005]
The OT has lots more symbolism which takes more time to learn and understand.


Translation: " The OT has a lot more crap in it, that makes it hard to rationalize . "

[Elind]

This reminds me of what I think is an Urban Legend in Christianity. There was this guy that was using the 'Inspired Finger' method to find a meaningful Bible verse for the day, and the one he picked was about (I think) Ahab (I don't have a Bible handy, so I'm not positive). It was the one about Ahab throwing himself out of a window to his death. Realizing that this couldn't be what the Lord really wanted, our hero tried again, and came up with the following verse: "Go and do likewise". :D

Needless to say, the guy didn't do as he was instructed. What, didn't he have faith?



He should have asked, WWKD?:p