Many people claim America to be a Christian nation, but statistics indicate that most Americans don't know what is in the holy book of Christianity, the Bible:
- Less than half of Americans know Genesis is the first book of the Bible.
- Less than half can name a single one of the Gospels.
- Less than 40% can name half of the ten commandments.
- Nearly a quarter believe Moses was a disciple of Jesus.
- Over half of American high school seniors believe Sodom and Gomorrah are a married couple.
But according to
a recent Rasmussen poll, 63% of Americans believe that the Bible is the literally true word of God. That means that roughly 193 million Americans believe that a talking snake encouraged a woman to eat an apple, a 900 year old man built a giant boat to replenish all life on earth, and Jonah lived inside a giant fish for three days. Or at least it would, if the statistics show that people don't seem to know what the holy hell they actually believe.
How can you believe that every single word of the Bible is true if you've never even read the book? People say America is a Christian nation, but I think these statistics show that America is more a nation of willful ignorance (the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). I think if they actually read the book they supposedly revere, they may come to a very different conclusion.
Reading the Bible for the first time, the pious believer would likely expect this book, divinely inspired by the creator of the universe, to be chalk-full of wisdom, wonder, enlightenment and beauty. This text, co-authored by the supreme being, should be the most marvelous collection of words set to page. This volume that is the basis of a religion of nearly two billion should stand side-by-side with modern science texts, not starkly against it. Yet reading the Bible we find that God's greatest preachings to mankind revolve around who I can and cannot fuck, what I can and cannot eat, when I can and cannot work, how I should treat my slaves, under what conditions I can annihilate my neighbors, and precisely how to slaughter an animal to appease him.
Let's not forget the way God works to get his point across to misbehaving mortals. Looking behind you is punishable by being transmogrified into a condiment, as we see with Lot's wife. Ezekiel was forced to eat nothing but bread smeared with human shit for 430 days. And slaughtering entire civilizations was kosher if they were in the way of an Israelite land grab.
This is God's ultimate message to us? Send me blindfolded into a Barnes and Noble self-help section and I can find more wisdom to my life on the first grab of
Chicken Soup for the Soul, which is meaningless pop-psychology in the first place.
OK, this one might actually be worse.
Actually reading the Bible and not being spoon-fed the bits your pastor likes shows us that the pithy soundbites of "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" are just means of making Christianity a commodity they can sell. A real dive into the Bible shows that for every "turn the other cheek" there are dozens of cases of slaughtering relatively innocent people. The real God of the Bible will smite you for working on the wrong day, wearing the wrong clothes, sex with the wrong person, thought crimes like wishing for a new car, complaining about lack of food, occupying land that he decided wasn't for you, questioning authority, sassing your parents, breaking the rules for buying slaves, eating the wrong food, or generally not being an Israelite.
The sprinkling of self-evident moral ideals are very much outnumbered by some truly wicked ideas, barbaric rituals and genocidal endorsements.
"Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived" - Isaac Asimov
Comments (35)
Well, once again, we have to state the obvious. There's not a single sentence here that contains anything remotely new for me.
But, I do believe we need to keep hammering the points home. These are some very incriminating facts, but many people (especially - surprise! - devout believers) are blissfully unaware of them.
So, like the old Whitesnake song says... (just substitute "I" for "we" and "my" for "our.")
Only if you don't understand the context for all of the things of which you've stated.
it's odd that so many revile a government we all have the right to vote for yet bow and pay tithes to authoritarian churches to which there is no choice offered but to obey or go to hell.
@LKJSlain - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The good ol' "context" bullshit. Never heard THAT before! LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!! Nice try.
The buy-bull is a pile of primitive, barbaric bullshit. No amount of apologetic word-twisting saves it. But you can go right ahead and believe that WE are the ones missing some sort of "deep" meaning. Especially when even among theologians, there's seldom an agreement on what ANYTHING in the bible means.
The "context" excuse is old, and has already been thoroughly destroyed. Try something else. Come on! Keep scraping that empty barrel! There's bound to be a scrap of something left in there! LOLLL!
lol... well, since you put it THAT way. it's funny how people interpret bible in different ways. with so many translations all over the world, and with new editions each year, and with various types of christian groups, i often wonder whether the message that should be preached got across the same way as it should. i must say, though, the bible definitely is a great story book with many lessons that inspire many human beings to see their life in a different light. though i was raised in a buddhist family and in a muslim country, i went to protestant school when i was little, and so i'm familiar with the teachings of the bible. i find that all religions are pretty much the same in terms of goal, which is for us all to live in peace. what troubling me most, however, how the teachings of religions being translated and the many radicals that bring a bad name to religions. it is sad that many have to segregate themselves in the name of religion, with no acceptance to anything but what their religion says is right and good. i do hope i'll get to see the day when all religions come together and with those who are religionless, and see that they were all wrong and it is time to put differences aside and live in peace. hopefully, in this lifetime.
I agree wholeheartedly that many (most?) professing Christians just do not have what could even remotely be considered an acceptable level of biblical literacy. Unfortunately, though, I'm not certain that forcing biblically illiterate folks to actually read the Bible would have the effect of making them biblically literate. At least for those Christians who regularly attend religious services, they will likely have in tow (whether they realize it or not) a pre-set hermeneutic for reading and interpreting biblical literature such that even though they may read the same words on the page as you or me, they will come away from it with a radically different interpretation. So, I'm not so sure that the problem is increasing biblical literacy (though you are absolutely right to raise that as a significant problem) so much as it is the lack of alternative interpretive communities. Being a part of a relatively liberal-ish seminary, I have consistently seen first year students go through shock, denial, doubt, anger, etc. when they take their first Bible classes because for many of them, this is the first time in their lives that they have been taught to read the Bible from a historical perspective. ("What!?!?! Moses didn't write the Pentateuch!?! The Exodus might not be the grand scale event that the Bible describes!?!?!?") These students are reading the same text that they grew up reading, but because they have been provided a different hermeneutical lens with which to read, it suddenly looks very, very different. So, I think in addition to the problem of basic biblical illiteracy, I would add the problem of a lack of resources for common laity to read the Bible from anything other than a dogmatic view.
I love the rebuttals. They are a handful of different ones but beyond that there is no variation. We can't know what He meant... You misunderstand the context.... Who am I to question His holy plan.... These have always been, in my eyes, cop outs. If you lack the knowledge and understanding to make a valid counter argument, the appropriate response in a debate is acknowledging the points made by your opponent and conceding.
@mendicantmelly - Well made point, I find that critical thinking partnered with literacy are perhaps two of the most immeasurably valuable skills people can obtain.
Don't forget the crucial message that if you are bald, you can ask god to send bears to brutally rip apart the children making fun of you and he will do so.
Also, pinch the head, suck the tail, burn in hell. Consider yourself kindling for wearing poly-cotton blends and planting corn and tomatoes in the same garden.
One of my favorite little nuggets of biblical wisdom: if you feel that a raging group of aroused villagers is about to commit sodomy, it is perfectly acceptable to offer up your virgin daughters to be raped repeatedly by said crowd. Better watch and be sure who goes first, though - since neither daughter will be marriageable after the sexual apocalypse she is about to endure, she must be forced to marry her rapist. Only the first man would be considered a rapist, since we all know virgins can not be raped and every man who falls on her thereafter will further reinforce her status as a whore. Always remember; women were made evil by original sin so whatever you want to do to us is really okay with god. Especially if her father or husband make a profit off of you in the process.
Sorry, that was NON virgins can't be raped.
@mendicantmelly - Agreed. I've heard this before too from ministers and seminary students who didn't go to "bible" colleges and instead went to liberal seminaries. A lot of people get there and just can't take looking at the Bible from anything other than a purely faith-based point of view. It's a big shift in perspective.
I have been thinking about what would be different if religions didn't pop up all over the world. We would still have close-minded, hateful people. We would still be under laws, just ones given by people instead of by god(s) (or people insisting that they were from gods). What would change? Would laws be easier to dispute? Would close-minded people have less validation for their hate? Or would they find other vehicles for it besides religion? I would say that they would still find ways of hating groups and enforcing laws, it might just be a more fluid process. Smaller timescales for changing views.@In_Reason_I_Trust - First you have to understand the complete sinfullness of sin and it's deprevity of good and how man is guided by it and then understand the perfect righteousness of God and how He can have no part in sin and then read the Bible IN IT"S FULL CONTEXT to understand why God does things the way He does before you can even begin to understand anything God does.When all you do is make fun of something like God's word and look for ways to make your sin seem ok then of course,you see it all as foolishness.Who wouldn't when being guided by sin.@LKJSlain - There is no need to even try to explain to folks like this.It's what they live for.Only God can open their eyes.
As far as folks in America understanding God's word,if American Christians were gone after like they are in other countries like China and Areas of Asia,you would see the biggiest majority of them turning away from God showing they DON'T understand Christianity.Take away their comforts and they will turn on God just like Israel did.
@ZombieMom_Speaks - Wow Shannon,just wow!
@Somefishytales - I know. :) THe reality is that I'm sure that he doesn't realize that he's wasting his time with me. I stopped reading his comments a long time ago. He's pretty much the epitome of someone online who does not know how to speak on an issue at all.
@Somefishytales - Exactly how does one justify the "perfect righteousness of God?" I'm guessing that one must first assume that God is the creator of everything and go from there. He who makes the rules is always right? This is why faith and science don't mix. One does not allow for the other. I believe there are forces at work in our lives and the universe that we don't fully understand, but to use God as the scapegoat for man's need to subjugate is pretty self-serving. Let's face it, while there may be valuable life lessons to be inferred by the books of the Bible, it is also a powerful weapon of control and when wielded by the "casual" user is a dangerous one at that, no less than a gun in the hands of a child.
@ZombieMom_Speaks - These rules are so magnificently twisted it almost makes me want to convert. Especially the one where the bears eviscerate those mean kids. I need that. I am bald.
My favorite satire on this theme is Why Can't I Own a Canadian? ... Maybe you could write an updated version.
You can look at any group and see how many proclaim to be something, yet know nothing of it's history. What percentage of high school students don't know what the Bill of Rights is? Yet they're all Americans. How many liberals don't know the history of liberalism and progressivism, yet run rampant, claiming to be open minded, yet shun and insult those who think differently? How many conservatives who supposedly support small gov't cry foul when one of their gov't programs' budgets are threatened? How many know their own history of anything?
Especially you. Salt is not a condiment lol (because it's requred for life [albeit in small amountss] whereas condiments are not required for life.
For some, religion gives answers. For others, science gives answers. But what folks keep forgetting, is that science isn't a constant. It's ever changing and so is what we know about the world around us. It's also not concrete. It's all theories that have been "proven." But "proven" isn't really "proven," it's witnessed. There will always be questions that science just cannot answer, such as "if there was a big bang, where did the material to make it up come from?" If that's answered, then more questions can just be asked.
There are plenty of folks out there who do not follow religion, do not believe in it, claim it's fantasy, and yet, can't give one answer as to why, or how we got here other than "evolution, dumbass!" If they can't describe evolution or how life came about in explicit detail, does that make them any better than those you describe in your post?
Just because it's consensus, does not mean it is science. If it is science, it is not consensus. If it is consensus, it certainly is not science.
@WhatYouHaveTamed - Science can also be a powerful weapon of control. Look at climate change. Whether or not climate change is real, or manmade, the science behind it is being used by politicians and others with self-serving agendas to force folks into changes they do not want, and possibly do not need. Just one example.
@grim_truth - Whether you believe the forecast for climate change would be a result of man-made influence or a natural occurrence doesn't mitigate the impact of the toxins released into our air, water and soil, which is proven to poison our planet and its inhabitants. Environmentalism means to protect "God's creation." How would God feel about us killing his creation in the name of profit? On the other hand, the battle to force any one of a million different interpretations of The Good Book's teachings into government policy usually serves mainly to disenfranchise groups of people such as women, homosexuals, and anyone who doesn't subscribe to Christian doctrine, to "protect" the alleged will of God and to alleviate the fear of losing Christianity's grip on whom and what it controls. My choice to use birth control, marry a woman or allow my child to be taught evolution doesn't damage you, but your choice to vote for politicians that would pass policies restricting my right to do so does damage to me (not that I'm assuming you would do such a thing, just using "you" in the general sense). Anyone who would do so without having so much as a remedial knowledge of the teachings of the Bible does so for their own self-serving purposes, and not to serve the wisdom of its teachings. Who is harmed by lowering emissions and regulating polluters? It may hit some in the pocket book, but it won't give us cancer, or deform babies in utero, or make our water flammable! Of course you can always pray for a miracle in that regard ...
@Somefishytales - [First you have to understand the complete
sinfullness of sin and it's deprevity of good and how man is guided by
it and then understand the perfect righteousness of God and how He can
have no part in sin and then read the Bible IN IT"S FULL CONTEXT to
understand why God does things the way He does before you can even begin
to understand anything God does.]
So I have to make a priori assumptions all before even beginning to read the Bible, the source of all these assumptions in the first place?
[Only God can open their eyes.]
So why doesn't He? I spent years looking for a sign as I slowly deconverted.
@grim_truth - [Salt is not a condiment lol (because it's
requred for life [albeit in small amountss] whereas condiments are not
required for life.]
Go to any fast-food restaurant. Where do you find the salt? In the condiment area. Multiple ways to describe the same thing. Besides, I personally cannot live without my hot sauce, and that is most certainly a condiment.
[science isn't a constant. It's ever changing and so is what we know about the world around us.]
And that's the wonderful thing about science: It's NOT static and unchanging (unlike holy books). It can incorporate new information and adapt. The methodology behind science stays the same, but if something comes around and turns existing science on its head (like string theory is currently doing) then science changes to incorporate this new data. In contrast, when it's been shown what "stopping the sun in the sky" (Joshua 10:13) would do to the Earth, and is thus impossible, did we edit the Bible?
[There will always be questions that science just cannot answer]
As you say yourself, "science is always changing." It's always answering new things. As little as 150 years ago it was firmly asserted that we would NEVER be able to know the chemical makeup of our own sun. Now we know the chemical makeup of stars millions of times more distant. Stating that there will always be things science can't do is simply a statement of faith or dogma, since none of us know the future.
that Asimov quote is so badass.
The Bible is like the Constitution. You can read different meanings into its ambiguity.
@WhatYouHaveTamed - The exact same can still be said with the global climate change activists (that was just the first example that popped into my head. For the record, I do not subscribe to man-made climate change, but I do however, believe that we do indeed need to take care of our planet better.) CFL bulbs that contain mercury. Ethanol that uses more fossil fuels to produce than it can replace. Or take the current example of raids on farms that produce and sell raw milk. Or Al Gore's idea to sell his carbon credits. Lines his pockets with potentially billions, while doing nothing to reduce emissions. (Company A and B can both produce 200 tons of carbon emissions. Company A only produces 100, B produces 300. Still 400 tons, but company A can sell credits to B, while Gore makes money off the transaction.)
I wasn't arguing against the fact that the Bible has been used for evil purposes, and that there haven't been many different translations of the text by various sects that wind up contradicting each other. Just saying the Bible is far from being alone in that aspect.
@GodlessLiberal - And tomatoes are found in the veggie section, even though they're fruits lol Though hot sauce is indeed a condiment and should be available everywhere lol
Stopping the Sun in the sky would be a miracle, and if done by the will of God, wouldn't He also then be able to stop the other side effects of the event. That's the thing about miracles. They defy the "laws" of science. Also, I think that's why there's so much discussion on the Bible. It ISN'T constant. If it were, then no one would need to continue to study it. No one would need priests or pastors. Some of the biggest arguments stem from HOW it was translated from the original text. It is also indeed context, and context IS a valid argument. "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo." Many people when hearing that, think Juliet is asking where Romeo is. But she's not. She's asking "Why are you Romeo?" Punctuation is also a booger in translations. A simple thing as a misplaced comma can change the whole context of just one sentence. "Why are you Romeo?" has a whole different meaning than "why are you, Romeo?" One is asking why he is who he is, the other is asking why he exists. Totally different contexts, and I think that's why we see so many different meanings and stances taken by different sects of Christianity.
"Stating that there will always be things science can't do is simply a statement of faith or dogma, since none of us know the future."
Faith. An interesting little word, isn't it? Believing in the unkown or unknowable. Faith in changing science really isn't that much different than faith in God, is it?
Just a sidebar question (not an attack). Why is Christianity always the target of these discussions? Why not Buddism or Islam? Or any of the other myriad of religions? I assume it's just because it's the most popular. Just curious.
Good to see you back, by the way!
In response to your two questions:
1.How can you believe that every single word of the Bible is true if you've never even read the book?
Response: As I understand it, they base their belief upon one or more of these: A) a perceived assurance of faith, from the Holy Spirit, as it were, per se (which makes more sense if you believe there is a realm of spirit . . . but wait, since this is Post-modernism, not Modernism, you probably do believe this). B) 2nd Timothy 3:16-17. (I dislike it when people just quote the Bible and expect me to go open it. So here: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. C) acceptance of a third person's faith statement, such as, "Hey Joe! Everything in this book is true. You've gotta believe it! Take my word for it!"
2. This is God's ultimate message to us?
Response: I seriously doubt it, given the colossal influence this one text has had on so many people over such a long expanse of time. No other text has so many citations, just as one instance of influence. When secondary literary works cite the Bible, they don't just cite the whole book. Rather, they have to cite some chapter and verse.