Feed on Posts or Comments 25 May 2018

Christianity Thomas on 13 Jan 2010 12:47 am

The stupidity of the Bible

This video is definitely NSFW, but does a perfect job of showing the stupidity of the Bible:

Despite the stupidity, more than half of the American people believe that the Bible is literally true.

How bad is this stupidity? So bad that a legitimate candidate for governor in Alabama has publicly declared that the Bible is literally true:

Bradley Byrne says ‘every word’ of Bible is true

“I believe the Bible is true,” Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne said here Wednesday. “Every word of it.”

This level of stupidity hurts our country.

12 Responses to “The stupidity of the Bible”

  1. on 16 Jan 2010 at 1:08 am 1.Kaye said …

    Hmmm, the Christians are unusually silent on this one. What’s the matter, guys? Can’t come up with even ONE counter argument?

  2. on 16 Jan 2010 at 2:04 pm 2.Tory said …

    Hmm, the atheist are quiet on Samuel L Jackson. What’s wrong, he is in your party?

    Why comment on Pat? I agree his comment were stupid…..but you never post all his humanitarian work. If only atheist groups did as much GOOD as Pat does we could tolerate their stupid comments. You see, if you build a lot of goodwill we can accept the occasional faux paux. Actions speak louder than words.

    Nice blog.

  3. on 16 Jan 2010 at 4:58 pm 3.Kaye said …

    Well, first of all, this wasn’t a comment on Pat. It was a comment on the stupidity of believing the Noah’s ark story is literally true. I’m glad to hear Pat does humanitarian work. That’s great, but it still doesn’t give him the right to say these asinine things.

  4. on 16 Jan 2010 at 8:42 pm 4.Biff said …

    “it still doesn’t give him the right to say these asinine things.”

    Are you kidding? He has every right and then some. Hardly the stupidest thing to be said in the last year.

  5. on 17 Jan 2010 at 3:41 am 5.Horatio said …

    No, that honor goes to Martha Coakley calling Curt Schilling a Yankee! Well, and there are no terrorist left in the Afghanistan.

  6. on 17 Jan 2010 at 7:19 am 6.Hobbes said …

    This all goes to show that the bible is a collection of myths that are not supposed to be taken literally. Myths serve to explain concepts that cannot be explained in logical, scientific terms.

    For example, if you’ve never heard of the concept of courage, I could read to you the definition of courage from a dictionary, but the plain definition might not really describe the entire concept. However, if I told you a story about how a boy defended his village against a dragon, you would better understand the concept of courage in away that a plain definition cannot. The story makes it part of your experience.

    This is why why have the arts to explain concepts such as love, compassion, sadness, tragedy, etc. You can use science to explain the chemistry behind love, but it’s doesn’t explain the impacts of love on human consciousness, identity, or development.

    The Bible is filled with stories of this kind to explain these concepts, but they were never meant to be taken literally. This doesn’t mean the Bible is worthless: it certainly has plenty of lessons to teach, but it’s only in pondering the myths that you can truly understand the concepts.

    To hear a story that illustrates this idea, listen to my story at:

  7. on 17 Jan 2010 at 8:33 am 7.Severin said …

    Hobbes 6
    “The Bible is filled with stories of this kind to explain these concepts, but they were never meant to be taken literally. ”

    Sorry Hobbes, but you are wrong.
    For almost 2000 yeras the Bible WAS taken literally, and if you dared to call biblical verses „parabolas“, „metaphors“, „symbols“… you would be tortured or killed by church!
    Organized church killings continued untill as late as beginning of 19the century, in some countries!

  8. on 17 Jan 2010 at 4:30 pm 8.Hobbes said …

    Actually Severin, you’re wrong. Although some of the texts are over 3500 years old, the King James Version (the most popular translation/interpretaion) is only 400 years old.

    The texts that make up the bible (in Hebraic, not English) are incredibly complex and take years of study and analysis to understand. The Bible was never meant to be read by the common man, who is wholly untrained and unacademic to truly understand it’s true meaning. If the original authors knew that their work was to be taken so literally, it would not have been penned they way it was.

    Anyways, how the Church decides to present this book of myth is irrelevant: it doesn’t change what the bible is, only how it’s being sold.

    In my example with the boy and the dragon, if you heard that story and starting living your life in constant fear of dragon attack, you will have missed the whole point of the story (having taken it literally rather than mythically).

    The bible is myth, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have truth in it.

  9. on 17 Jan 2010 at 10:07 pm 9.Severin said …

    Hobbes 8
    The right argument to my point would be the answer to next question:
    What would happen (and what DID happen!) to ANY person who would have claimed publically (or privately, but to a wrong person) in 16th or 17th century (or earlier, and in some cases even much later), in Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, France….., that:
    -Jesus was not resurrected
    -Mary was not a vergin
    -Big flood did not happen
    -God did not create a man
    -Etc., etc (negations or reinterpretations of biblical myths)
    They would be killed, is there any doubt? Ppeople were kiled for much less than this.
    So Bible was taken literally, and was the main criterion (“law”) for hundred of thousands of sentences to (brutal)death.
    I do not see where was I wrong.

  10. on 17 Jan 2010 at 11:00 pm 10.Hobbes said …

    Okay… sure. Historically, the Church took a literal interpretation of the Bible and brought it to the masses, not allowing any other interpretations of it. Point taken.

    But that’s still an irrelevant point. The Bible is not *meant* to be read literally. It’s meant to be read *mythically*, so the Churches that were reading it literally (and not all flavors of Christianity do this), enforced it literally.

    So I guess my point is that there’s nothing wrong with studying the Bible as long as you study it as myth rather than historically or literally. The stories are symbols of a universal, humanitarian truth, and therefore, can have multiple meanings and multiple interpretations, and then can all be valid and meaningful.

  11. on 18 Jan 2010 at 10:57 am 11.Anfauglir said …

    Hobbes…when you say the Bible is myth rather than history or literal fact, presumably you mean ALL of it? So where it speaks of the existence of god it is myth rather than fact?

    You also say that the Bible has worth as symbols of truth…..which truth would that be? What “truth” can be gained from the admonishments to stone homosexuals to death?

    Yes – there ARE passages of great beuaty and worth in the Bible. But there are also passages of great evil, or zero worth to humanity. And there are other books that contain the former, and not the latter. So why on earth bother with the Bible at all, if all it is is a mediocre book of myths that contains much that is just plain evil?

  12. on 19 Jan 2010 at 1:30 pm 12.Hobbes said …

    I think it would be a mistake to throw out or disregard an entire literary work just because of a few out-dated, politically-motivated passages. Do you disregard the entire work of an artist just because of one painting you don’t like?

    The Bible, like many other works of art, can be a source of beauty and inspiration, just like it can be scandalous and misleading. Like all art, its interpretation is up to the beholder (and any training that beholder has in appreciating the art).

    With myth, while the stories may not literally be true, it serves to explain a concept that cannot be explained directly. This doesn’t mean that myth is a lie!

    Myth is at the hearty of poetry, which uses mythical imagery to describe beauty that cannot otherwise be fully captured. When you look at a loved one and say “Your eyes are beautiful pools of love”, your partner is not supposed to take that literally. Mythically, that statement means something else entirely that maybe only your partner and yourself understand due to your own unique experiences.

    When the Bible speaks of God, it uses mythical imagery describe a concept that cannot be simply defined. If God is beyond comprehension, beyond imagination, beyond limit, how can any one definition completely contain such a thing? And even if it could, it couldn’t be God because you’ll have placed limits on a concept that is supposed to be limitless.

    Just like the concept of Love:. There isn’t just one love song, one love poem, or one story that full defines love. It’s a concept that requires myth and lots of it, and still can’t be fully defined. Love is a fact of human existance, and yet it’s definition is rooted in myth, just like the existence of God.

    Just like love, you cannot see God in a physical form, but you can see its evidence everywhere, and it can only be described in mythic format (“Love is like a red rose”, “God is love in action”).

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply