Why Are So Many Christians Ignorant About Their Bible?

Image by congerdesign from Pixabay

I was catching up on some atheist-related reading on a Sunday morning. My thoughts turned to how ignorant many Christians seem their own "inerrant" bibles. I realize this is not a new thought, but I can't resist sharing a couple of examples with you.

We can start with a post (update: link no longer active) by the Educated Eclectic from Pam's House Blend. It is well known that fundamentalist Christians rely on Leviticus to justify their hatred of GLBT individuals. Their argument is simple:

1. The bible is the inerrant word of some sort of god.
2. The bible condemns homosexuality (in Leviticus).
3. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

Book of Job Exposes Danger of Moderate Religion

How many subjects can you think of that require apologetics, an entire discipline devoted to the mental gymnastics of convincing people that a book does not really mean what it says, that obvious contradictions really aren't contradictions, or that believing what one wants to be true is better than believing what is true? Yeah, I can only think of one as well.

In the book of Job, one of the many books contained in the bible some Christians regard as "holy" in spite of its contents, we find a nice little story about some sort of "god" and Satan (who may or may not be another god) torturing Job as part of a bet to test his faith. The god character, who is supposed to be the good one here, lets the devil kill Job's family and do all sorts of other terrible things to him. Is this really the god we are supposed to worship?

Putting Christians to the Test: How Many Really Believe Their Bibles?

I don't post many videos here. I am familiar with YouTube and find it helpful for some things, but don't have much interest in watching atheist-oriented videos on YouTube. This wasn't always the case, but it has been the case for several years. When a reader sent me this clip from the Chaser back in 2009 with a glowing recommendation, I figured I better watch it. It turns out the reader was right. The clip was way too good not to share, and so I promptly wrote a post sharing it.

Their Instuction Manual Seems Clear About Public Prayer

Christians may squabble endlessly over what it means to be a Christian, and many are fond of claiming that only those who believe exactly as they do deserve to be called "real Christians." It seems fairly obvious to this author that there must be some common doctrine shared by all Christians. One of these is the belief that their preferred bible is central to the religion. Granted, fundamentalists are going to take their bible far more seriously than so-called liberal or moderate Christians, but all seem to agree that it provides an important source of guidance. So why is it that so many self-identified Christians ignore what their bible says about public prayer?

What are we to say about a Christian who prays publicly or crusades to promote public prayer? Here we seem to have an individual who is either ignorant of what his or her bible says about prayer or is intentionally disregarding it. For those who truly regard this book as "holy," that seems like a surprising choice.

How Worried Should We Be About Offending Christians?

First there was the "don't be a dick" debate, and then we heard a lot about civility following the attempted assassination in Arizona. Many atheists are reflecting on these issues and asking themselves whether civility is a goal to which they should aspire. Assuming that we decide that civility is indeed a positive goal, it makes sense that we would consider the nature of our interactions with the religious.

So, how concerned should we atheists be about whether we are offending Christians? Is this something we should seek to minimize in our interactions with Christians?

Here is what I would like to interject into this discussion:

As long as Christians continue to insist that a book commanding them to kill me is "holy," I am going to have a difficult time worrying too much about whether I offend them.

Those Pesky Parables

Have you ever wondered why the Jesus character depicted in the Christian bible stories supposedly used those wonderful parables instead of speaking directly about matters as one's eternal soul? It seems like he would have wanted to be as clear and unambiguous as possible in such a high-stakes situation. After all, people's "souls" were at risk! Did he use parables just to entertain or inspire his audience, or did he have another purpose in mind?

Given the lack of clear evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus from outside the bible, I suppose we don't have much choice but to consult it for answers. Fortunately, countless Christians over the ages have assured us that any answer anyone could ever seek to any question can be found in the pages of their magic book. I suppose it must be our fault we didn't figure out important scientific discoveries like germ theory from reading it. But yes, we should consult it here to see whether it can shed any light on why Jesus apparently preferred not to speak plainly to his audience.

God Hates Yeast

Back in 2007, I made the questionable decision to read the Christian bible (not to be confused with the Satanic bible) from cover to cover once again. Why? It had been a long time since I last read the whole thing, well before I had read much about atheism. When I referred to biblical passages here (something I did rarely), Christians often complained that I was taking the passages out of context. Maybe I was. So I picked up a parallel bible with the NIV version presented column-by-column with the King James version. I stuck with it for a while but lost interest before making it all the way through. It was much worse than I remembered, but it did generate a few posts. This is one of them, written right about as I hit the middle of Leviticus.

I'm not sure, but I think this might have been my first time reading the NIV translation, and it did make for an easier read than the King James. Still, I found myself going back-and-forth to compare both versions and note some of the seemingly important differences. This was one of the things that prevented me from finishing because it slowed the process down so much.

God Wants Scorched Earth Warfare

Although most Christians will not only permit but encourage atheists to read the bible at least some of them regard as "holy," they would generally prefer we keep our thoughts about it to ourselves. After all, this is no ordinary book; it is one that must be believed before it can be understood. And that generally means that Christians will be quick to dismiss anything an atheist might wish to say about their bible. Still, I think there are some good reasons for atheists to read this bible.

Regardless of what you or I might think about the veracity of this book, it is impossible to deny that it has been tremendously influential on Western civilization. Perhaps learning about what it says will help us understand our Christian neighbors and why they do some of what they do. Even if you are tempted to dismiss the whole thing as a fairy tale, that might be enough of a reason to read it. Of course, the obvious rebuttal to this is merely to note how few Christians have bothered to read it, even as they insist that it is "holy" in some way.

There Are Many Bibles on the Road to Atheism

I may not be a fan of atheist memes (or any memes for that matter), but I think there's a great deal of truth to this particular meme. I'm sure that plenty of people have transitioned from Christian to atheist without ever having read any bibles; however, I've also heard from countless ex-Christian atheists that this was an important part of their own path to atheism. I think I would have left Christianity behind sooner or later even if I never looked at their bibles. Doing so probably sped up the process though.

Growing up, I was frequently told that the bible was "holy" and that it was the greatest book ever written. Needless to say, that made me quite eager to read it. When I was given my first bible, it was kind of a big deal. Finally, I'd get to see what all the fuss was about. To say it was disappointing on that initial read was an understatement. Even as an early teen, the contradictions and inconsistencies were apparent. But the cruelty of the genocidal "god" and the manner in which it interacted with humans were among the things I remember most. I finally understood what "god-fearing" meant, but I was puzzled as to why this thing deserved to be worshiped.

I have heard many atheists who were former Christians describe similar experiences. This is one of the reasons I've always found it puzzling when Christians try to drum up fears about atheists attempting to "ban the bible." I'm not sure I've ever encountered an atheist who didn't think that more people should read this book in order to discover what it actually says. Most of us seem to agree that we'd have more atheists if more people were to do so.

Is the road to atheism really littered with bibles? I'd say so. Discovering for oneself that "the good book" is anything but good has a way of prompting questions and stimulating critical thinking. Learning how little relevance it has for modern life has a similar impact. The process probably isn't instantaneous, but it certainly helps to get the ball rolling. At least, I found that it had that effect.

What Caused the Flood That Required Noah's Ark?

The story of Noah's ark was one of many that stood out to me, even as a young child, as implausible. But while most of the other children at Sunday School were focused on the logistical details about the number animals that could fit on a boat and the implications of having so many species sharing such a small space, my thoughts were elsewhere. I figured that fitting so many different animals on board could be a miracle, and I was willing to let that slide. I was far more interested in the source of the massive genocidal flood that made Noah's ark necessary.

The adults around me seemed to expect me to believe in a god that loved us despite it having rid the planet of virtually all humans previously. And why did it send the great flood that made the ark necessary? The humans at the time had upset it. They had exercised the "free will" we hear so much about and were subsequently exterminated by a "loving god." This was the main problem I had with the Noah story. The kind of god that would do this was anything but loving; it was a monster.

Fundamentalist Christians Are Right

Michael Tracey from Ashevillle, NC, USA [CC BY 2.0]

That's a post title you probably thought you'd never see here at Atheist Revolution! Amidst all the discussion in Christian circles about "interpreting the bible" and how best to do it, I can't help thinking that the fundamentalist Christians are on the right track. If we want to know what the "holy" bible or any other book says, we should read it. No interpretation is necessary. No bible study is necessary. No members of clergy are necessary. A book says what it says. And what it says is there for all to read.

I suspect that much if not all of what passes for biblical interpretation involves isolating a particular passage that makes someone uncomfortable and attempting to reinterpret it in such a way that it ends up making someone less uncomfortable. When we find pervasive themes of cruelty, intolerance, violence, misogyny, etc. scattered throughout the bible, we have a hard time reconciling this with our Sunday school teachings. We then interpret away the literal meaning as something we have an easier time accepting.

The problem is that the bible is rather clear much of the time. This is a vengeful, punitive, jealous, violent sort of god. This is clear if we look at what the bible says rather than what we wish it said. Say what you will about Christian fundamentalists, but it strikes me that they are more honest in their focus on the actual words. I realize there are exceptions, but they seem more willing to point to what this book actually says. That doesn't mean we need to go along with it, but it does seem like they are at least somewhat more willing to face up to its contents.

We Should Be Building Homes From Recycled Bibles

One of the many things I miss about living in more liberal (which still seems to mean environmentally conscious, among other things) regions of the country is curbside recycling. The local county department of sanitation has been suggesting that we might eventually see it here, but they have been saying that for at least 10 years. We had it even in the small town where I grew up back in the 1980s, so it puzzles me that they still don't have the will to implement it here.

Of course, one of the obstacles has been that the market for recycled products is not what it once was or what we once hoped it would be. When recycling programs were first rolled out, the expectation was that they would create a demand for recycled products which would help to support their cost. That hasn't happened. What I have heard locally is that the cost of recycling many items far exceeds the price of what recycled items can be used to produce.

As someone who lives in an area regularly afflicted by tornados, this got me thinking. Maybe we haven't been recycling the right things or using recycled materials in the right ways. I'd like to see the state of Mississippi create a program to recycle bibles. I believe there would be a high demand for such a program since we seem to have far more of them than we should. But instead of using recycled bibles to make paper or whatever else might be sensible, I recommend that our recycled bibles are turned into building materials. If we constructed all new homes in the area out of recycled bibles, these homes would be immune to any of the severe weather events regularly thrown at us by the god in which many Christians claim to believe.

Christian Bible is Poor Basis of Morality

Many contemporary Christians claim that their bible is the source of all morality and that it serves as something of a guide for them to determine how to live their lives. If we accept that they believe this to be the case (which may not be warranted), the implications are terrifying. Granted, there are some good things in their bible, and even if they can be traced back to moral systems that pre-date Christianity, this does not necessarily diminish their value. But there are also many terrible things in their bible, making me extremely uncomfortable with the notion that anyone might suggest that it should guide the behavior of my Christian neighbors today.

It may be helpful to consider an example, and there are many to pick from. The following comes from Exodus 34: 13-17 and provides one of many decent examples of why I have a difficult time with the claim that this book can be regarded as any sort of guide to moral behavior:

...ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. Thou shall make thee no molten gods.

Loving Thy Neighbor and Being Excellent to Each Other

Photo by BagoGames [CC BY 2.0]

Growing up as a Christian, I was taught about the whole "love thy neighbor" thing. I was also taught that "neighbor" was not to be taken literally. The Jesus character was not saying that I should be nice to people who lived near me and treat those who lived a greater distance away poorly. He was not saying that I should be kinder to people who looked like me or spoke the same language than I was to others. I was told that "neighbor" should be interpreted in the broadest possible sense as referring to one's fellow humans. What Jesus was really saying was to love other people. Personally, I've always preferred an alternative phrasing: "Be excellent to each other" (from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure), but the basic idea is good either way.

I always thought this was one of the more admirable things the Jesus character was depicted as saying. As a Christian, this was one of the aspects of Christian dogma with which I was happy to associate myself. You can imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered years later that many Christians adamantly reject how I was taught to interpret this statement.

Bible Says Women Should Be Silent in Church

It is clear that many people who identify themselves as Christians have little idea what their bible actually says. They may insist that it is "sacred" or even "holy," but few have bothered to read it. And those who do read it once in awhile are generally quite skilled at selectively ignoring whatever they might encounter that conflicts with their preconceived views. Still, I can't help thinking that exposing the contents of this book is one of the many ways atheists can be of service. And so, I'm encouraged when I see atheists doing that.

When you hear atheists criticize a book that many Christians claim is something far more than an ordinary book for being less than charitable to women, what are they talking about? Just because we've had our share of patriarchal societies does not necessarily mean that Christian scripture is responsible for it. When I was a Christian, after all, I was taught that we were all "God's children." This certainly included women and girls as well as men and boys. Why then would some atheists claim that the very foundations of Christianity (i.e., the "holy" book itself) are filled with blatant sexism and even misogyny? What could have given them such an idea?

Declining Biblical Literalism in the U.S.

You know Gallup, the polling group, right? Back in May of 2017, they reported that 24% of Americans believe that the "holy" bible is the literal word of some sort of god. The good news, as you probably guessed from the title of this post, was that this number (24%) was the lowest they had recorded in 40 years. It appears that biblical literalism is declining in the U.S. I think most of us would agree that this is encouraging news even as we shake our heads in amazement that 24% of our neighbors could possibly still believe this.

The not-so-good news from Gallup was that another 47% of those polled continue to regard this book as being inspired by some sort of god and that this number has been stable over 40 years. That means that if one were to combine the number of biblical literalists (24%) with the inspired-by-some-god folks (47%), one would end up having to confront the unsettling reality that 71% of Americans believe that this book is at least divinely inspired.

Of course, one could protest that just because people claim to believe these things in a poll does not mean that they really believe them. I'd agree with that. Many Christians have little idea what their "holy" book says, and many even disregard much of what it says. It is certainly possible that poll questions like this reflect a heavy dose of social desirability (i.e., many of the respondents said they believe in divine inspiration because they think this will be viewed favorably). But even if that is the case here, I cannot help finding the idea that 71% of Americans would indicate that they believe this to be more than a little troubling.

When Christians Change Churches

Some Christians remain in the same town in which they were born for their entire lives and attend the same church as adults they attended as children. Although this happens, I'd guess it is unlikely to be the norm. These days, people often move around a bit. For churchgoing Christians, this would mean that it is probably not uncommon to attend at least a few different churches throughout the course of their lives. But setting all of that aside, I'd like to address something I don't think I've ever written about before: Christians changing churches not because they move or a church closes but because they become dissatisfied with some aspect of their church.

I've known plenty of Christians who have done this. Over time, they grew dissatisfied with some aspect of their church and switched to a different church. In many cases, the source of their dissatisfaction was with the clergy. Maybe the church got a new pastor, and they didn't like what he or she brings. Several years ago, my parents told me that several long-time congregants left the church they used to force me to attend when a female minister was hired. In other cases, members of a church may tire of a long-time pastor who they perceive as increasingly out-of-touch with a changing world. Or maybe church leadership made a controversial decision unrelated to clergy with which they disagree. These things sometimes lead them to switch churches.

Are There No True Christians Left?

Handling serpents at the Pentecostal Church of God. Lejunior, Harlan County, Kentucky., 09/15/1946 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What is a true Christian, and how might we spot one in the wild? Of course, we could just ask a few Christians how they decide who deserves the label and who does not. It probably makes sense to assume that Christians would be in a better position to explain this than atheists, right? And yet, this rarely helps because Christians don't seem to agree on the question of who deserves to be called a "true Christian." In fact, this is a real point of contention among Christians.

Consider evangelical fundamentalist Christians for a moment. Many would say that a true Christian is anti-gay because the Christian bible condemns homosexuality. Or perhaps a true Christian opposes scientific theories (e.g., evolution) or actual discoveries (e.g., geological findings concerning the fossil record) because these theories and facts contradict the biblical account of creation. When reality contradicts their bible, the true Christian must distort or even deny reality in order to preserve the "truth" of their bible.

Most liberal Christians wouldn't agree with much of this, and some wouldn't agree with any of it. They would probably argue that their bible is more of a living document that needs to be reinterpreted with the changing times. They'd probably argue that a "real Christian" should not hate others but strive to be more like Jesus.

Atheists Fail to Consider the Historical Context of the Bible

Perhaps Christians' complaint of atheists using bible verses out of context is not terribly persuasive, but there is a different sort of "out of context" argument that seems to have some merit. Some Christians respond to an atheist pointing to objectionable passages in their "holy" book by claiming that we are failing to consider the historical context in which the verses were written. In essence, we are condemning what were once common practices through the lens of modern morality. At least on the surface, this is not a bad argument.

Suppose that slavery could be found in most of the civilizations in existence during the time period in which the Christian bible was written. If that was the case, it would make sense that the bible condoned the practice. The same could be said for all sorts of other practices that strike us as barbaric today but were once commonplace. According to some Christians, atheists are being neither fair nor honest when we focus on such practices without taking into account their historical context.

This sort of objection makes some sense. At least, it would make some sense if the person making it was prepared to let go of the absurd notion that the bible is timeless and/or serves as a guide for how modern Christians should live their lives.

Atheists Using Bible Verses Out of Context

Many atheists have read at least one of the many versions of the bible some Christians characterize as "holy." Not surprisingly, this is especially true for those of us who are ex-Christians. Some of us have read it many times.

Many atheists have attempted to discuss certain portions of this book with Christians. We are fond of highlighting objectionable passages (e.g., those condoning slavery, rape, murder, genocide, and so on) and watching Christians squirm as they try to explain them away. I thought I'd share one of the ways I have observed Christians attempting to do this and see if you have had similar experiences.

In this post, I'll consider what I refer to as the "out of context" claim. An atheist presents a Christian with an objectionable passage, and the Christian responds with something like this:

Yes, that does sound pretty bad. The problem is that you are taking it out of context. You've quoted a couple verses, but you have to read the text around these verses to have the proper context to understand what they mean.