Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

Less than three percent of Christians believe that all the works of the Bible are scripture, divinely inspired by God? That number seems shockingly low. This is a different belief from inerrancy, or biblical literalism. Even so, I would suspect even those numbers are higher than three measly percent, especially in the US, but probably worldwide as well. Got a source? A quick google gives me Gallup, with vastly higher numbers: 31% believe it is the literal word of God, and nearly 80% believe it is either that, or inspired by God. That's a lot higher than 3%, at least for the US.

I was replying to what I see on Pew Research as to the number of Christian Fundamentalists, not the number of people who mistake the Bible for literal truth. When someone can figure out how the book of Job got written, as literal truth, then we can talk. I could show you a statistic on the number of people in various countries that believe in UFO's as well. In that there may be around 30% of Christians who when asked that question would answer that way does not surprise me, however if you ask them if they adhere literally to what is written, you'd get a different much smaller percentage.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I could show you a statistic on the number of people in various countries that believe in UFO's as well.

I believe in UFOs -- heck, I see them all the time. I look up all the time and say, "Hey, what kind of plane is that?" :lol:

In that there may be around 30% of Christians who when asked that question would answer that way does not surprise me, however if you ask them if they adhere literally to what is written, you'd get a different much smaller percentage.

Yeah -- like 0. If a by 'fundamentalist Christian' you mean someone who follows all the laws in the Bible, then I doubt you'll find one who follows the dietary laws, the hygienic laws, most of the moral laws, not to mention the stonings. Throughout history, Christians have cherry picked the Bible, ignoring circumcision and travel restrictions on the Sabbath, but accepting the killing of witches when it suited them. Then again, no true Christian takes the old testament seriously. :whistling:

--Pete

[Jester]

I was replying to what I see on Pew Research as to the number of Christian Fundamentalists, not the number of people who mistake the Bible for literal truth.

Oh, there's a fun shuffling game. I say that Christians generally believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. You say that only Christian Fundamentalists believe that, and they're only 3%. I point out that this belief (even the strong form) is shared by much more than 3% - it's 30% at least. Your response is that you were only talking about Fundamentalists? I think the plot got lost somewhere in there.

Here's Pew. Draw the line wherever you want for who's "Fundamentalist," as opposed to merely "Evangelical." The breakdown among "Evangelical Churches" is here - the stats for biblical literalism speak for themselves, frankly - there's no way to multiply those numbers and end up with 3%.

In that there may be around 30% of Christians who when asked that question would answer that way does not surprise me, however if you ask them if they adhere literally to what is written, you'd get a different much smaller percentage.

So? We were talking about belief, not adherence. As Pete rightly points out, obeying every last rule in that bizarre, contradictory mess is impossible - literally.

Or, as Reverend Lovejoy so succinctly put it:

"Marge, just about everything is a sin. You ever sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."

-Jester

[Zenda]

I was replying to what I see on Pew Research as to the number of Christian Fundamentalists, not the number of people who mistake the Bible for literal truth.

Having to look around Pew Research to find what you saw, I did a shocking discovery...

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-be...s-tradition.pdf

Is it really true that 8% of all American Atheists are 'absolutely certain' to believe in God? :blink:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is it really true that 8% of all American Atheists are 'absolutely certain' to believe in God? :blink:

Great find. Thanks. :D

Only 16% of the agnostics are agnostic (less, since this includes refused and other). The rest seem to be unsure of their uncertainty, if not convinced one way or the other. However, there is a point to be made here. I have often said that I'm intellectually an agnostic and emotionally an atheist. As someone who has spent a fair bit of time and effort on this subject, I'm reasonably convinced that the existence of a god or gods is impossible to determine. From what evidence there is, I think that god is superfluous to my world view, so I don't believe in god. So, my honest answer would be "I do not *know* if god exists, but I *believe* that he/she/it does not."

I hope that the agnostic spread is based on that intellectual principle -- but I highly doubt it.

Of course, their question was weasel worded. "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?" However, what this does show is that half the population is below average. And average isn't all that good.

--Pete

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Yeah -- like 0. If a by 'fundamentalist Christian' you mean someone who follows all the laws in the Bible, then I doubt you'll find one who follows the dietary laws, the hygienic laws, most of the moral laws, not to mention the stonings.

Well, there's at least one person who tried to follow all the laws in the Bible and wrote a book about the experience. He's no fundamentalist Christian (actually he's a Jew), but the book makes for a quick and entertaining read.:)

-Kylearan

[eppie]

Hi,
Great find. Thanks. :D

Only 16% of the agnostics are agnostic (less, since this includes refused and other). The rest seem to be unsure of their uncertainty, if not convinced one way or the other. However, there is a point to be made here. I have often said that I'm intellectually an agnostic and emotionally an atheist. As someone who has spent a fair bit of time and effort on this subject, I'm reasonably convinced that the existence of a god or gods is impossible to determine. From what evidence there is, I think that god is superfluous to my world view, so I don't believe in god. So, my honest answer would be "I do not *know* if god exists, but I *believe* that he/she/it does not."

I hope that the agnostic spread is based on that intellectual principle -- but I highly doubt it.

Of course, their question was weasel worded. "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?" However, what this does show is that half the population is below average. And average isn't all that good.

--Pete

This is always a difficult question to answer. I mean an atheist can not know 100% sure that god does not exist, in the sense that he can never find the proof for this.

On the other hand the 'question' is unfair. God would be e.g. at the same level as small gnomes that live in walls of our houses but can never be seen, and can also not be measured by any equipment we have built, because we we go looking for them the miraculously dissappear.....but they are there.
The question or better the definition of atheism is made using 'there is a God' as the standard, and this is wrong.

With that in mind I could consider myself as a true atheist, but I would rather consider myself as 'normal' or as 'nothing at all' when talking about world view. And religious people as theists or abnormal.....they are the ones inventing things, I am not the one uninventing them.

[Jester]

Well, there's at least one person who tried to follow all the laws in the Bible and wrote a book about the experience. He's no fundamentalist Christian (actually he's a Jew), but the book makes for a quick and entertaining read.:)

Neat experiment, but I can only assume he's pulling his punches. How, for instance, would you obey Deuteronomy 13: 1-16? I can only presume he discusses this kind of thing, but obeying it, even in the most watered-down way, would be impossible, not to mention illegal. (Apologies for the long quote)

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

So, let's see. If anyone suggests worshipping any God but the Hebrew God, you have to kill them, even if they're members of your family. You must do it yourself, with no pity. Then, if you hear that people in another city are worshipping God, you have to kill everyone in it, and burn the whole place to the ground, never to be rebuilt. You can't even pull your punches by "stoning" them without killing them - this is quite explicitly a death sentence, for anyone who advocates any other religion whatsoever (and who lives in a city with them...)

Sounds a little harder than not eating shellfish, or not mixing your textiles. In fact, not only does it sound intolerant and murderous, it sounds basically impossible without at least a large army, or a nuclear bomb. But it's in there all the same. (Reviews seems to indicate that he let himself off the hook for doing anything blatantly and unavoidably illegal, like murder. Probably the wise choice, but not one a truly *strict* literalist would have.)

-Jester

Afterthought: Were one to try to justify terrorism in the Judeo-Christian tradition, this would be a great go-to quote.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Neat experiment, but I can only assume he's pulling his punches. How, for instance, would you obey Deuteronomy 13: 1-16? I can only presume he discusses this kind of thing, but obeying it, even in the most watered-down way, would be impossible, not to mention illegal.

Absolutely. He does nothing illegal, and discusses the problems of having to ignore some rules completely and use watered-down versions of others. He also uses excuses like saying the translation has been wrong and thus it's not really clear what "literally" means in this context, and points out some inconsistencies.

The attempt should not be taken too seriously, but I liked the general idea.:)

-Kylearan

[Jester]

Absolutely. He does nothing illegal, and discusses the problems of having to ignore some rules completely and use watered-down versions of others. He also uses excuses like saying the translation has been wrong and thus it's not really clear what "literally" means in this context, and points out some inconsistencies.

The attempt should not be taken too seriously, but I liked the general idea.:)

Well, thanks for the reference. I might read that for fun, sounds like my kind of guy.

His previous project, to read the entire Encylopaedia Britannica, reminds me of another one of my favourites, Bob Harris - the kind of guy who knows it's impossible to know everything, but has a good time trying. For those interested in this kind of intellectual exercise, I'd recommend Prisoner of Trebekistan. But now we're far afield.

-Jester

[Jester]

Is it really true that 8% of all American Atheists are 'absolutely certain' to believe in God? :blink:

Below the 10% threshold you're in the domain of the confused and the strange. Equally oddly, 5% of Muslims don't believe in God? Surely, this is merely representative of people who are answering randomly, or who don't understand the question, or dropped a negative somewhere.

Maybe the issue is understanding what the words mean - maybe some people think "Muslim" means "anyone from the middle east." Maybe they think "Atheist" is someone who doesn't go to church, or maybe they meant to say they're "absolutely certain" that God *doesn't* exist, but just answered backwards. We are talking about a very small number of people at this point - in the "Atheist Muslim" case, the number is about 11. The "Theist Atheists" number 41. Do I believe that 6, or even 41, people out of 35,000 are confused, stupid, or deceptive in any particular way? To quote the lovely Ms. Palin, you betcha.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

There are Evangelicals like mainstream Lutherans, Baptists, Calvinists who have doubts about the infallibility of the bible, and there are fundamentalist Evangelicals, like that wack job who protests at funerals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

[Jester]

There are Evangelicals like mainstream Lutherans, Baptists, Calvinists who have doubts about the infallibility of the bible, and there are fundamentalist Evangelicals, like that wack job who protests at funerals.

Right. And you'd think a poll, like the one above, would capture that - when given two options, between the Bible being the literal message of God, word for word, or the Bible being merely inspired, but not to be taken literally, people would answer approximately how they believe.

You can see the breakdowns. There are plenty in both categories.

There is, however, only one Fred Phelps: a man so utterly devout, scrupulously honest, and completely fracking nuts that he is hated by all his contemporaries, except a small circle of fanatically devoted allies. He spends all day telling people exactly why they're going to hell if they fail to embrace his precise brand of crazy, whether they want to hear it or not. In this, he reminds me of Jesus.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Afterthought: Were one to try to justify terrorism in the Judeo-Christian tradition, this would be a great go-to quote.

If we are going to examine ancient codes of laws, then why not also Hammarabi, or the Elder Law of the Ostragoths? Deuteronomy is perhaps the eldest of codes of laws among them, being about 1500 or 1700 BC. If anything, Deuteronomy is another warning about the need to separate "Church" matters from "State" power. Otherwise, we'd be stoning idolaters left and right.

[Jester]

If we are going to examine ancient codes of laws, then why not also Hammarabi, or the Elder Law of the Ostragoths? Deuteronomy is perhaps the eldest of codes of laws among them, being about 1500 or 1700 BC.

The code of Hammurabi is older. Even by "early exodus" estimates, Moses would not be born for another 300 years. If I recall my History 'o Palestine course, you can usually see how various Babylonian ideas get exported and reinterpreted in Israel throughout this period.

If anything, Deuteronomy is another warning about the need to separate "Church" matters from "State" power. Otherwise, we'd be stoning idolaters left and right.

Amen to that.

-Jester

[eppie]

If we are going to examine ancient codes of laws, then why not also Hammarabi, or the Elder Law of the Ostragoths? Deuteronomy is perhaps the eldest of codes of laws among them, being about 1500 or 1700 BC. If anything, Deuteronomy is another warning about the need to separate "Church" matters from "State" power. Otherwise, we'd be stoning idolaters left and right.

Why all this whining on about books that have been written 1000, 2000 or even more years ago.
How can you take anything serious from a time in which people didn't know that the Americas existed, or how rain is formed, or what DNA is, or what stars and planets are and most importantly had no tools and knowledge to find out where they came from.

(I know I shouldn't be asking you but religious people instead)

I mean there are still people that believe in miracles nowadays, but they are at least not taken seriously by anyone else than the catholic church and some scandalistic news papers. These books were written in times when there was no youtube and CNN so the truth of one man, became the truth if he was able to communicate it nicely......noboyd could go and check the facts anyway. I mean even with youtube and world-wide news channels nowadays people can convince other people to believe lies.....so only imagine in those days.

[kandrathe]

There is, however, only one Fred Phelps: a man so utterly devout, scrupulously honest, and completely fracking nuts that he is hated by all his contemporaries, except a small circle of fanatically devoted allies. He spends all day telling people exactly why they're going to hell if they fail to embrace his precise brand of crazy, whether they want to hear it or not. In this, he reminds me of Jesus.

He is exactly the kind of religious zealot in which you and I are both disgusted. The kind of zealot whose followers actually may be incited to do violence. He is a bad example for Christianity, and humanity in general. I'd throw in many other notorious examples as just bad Christians, like Pat Robertson and anyone associated with the 700 club.

I don't think Phelps is anything like Jesus at all. Phelps and his followers are filled with hate and rage. I think Jesus was a controversial Rabbi who was leading Judaism in a new direction, past its hyper focus on physical purity and legalism. But in all of that controversy within Judaism, Jesus never stopped preaching anything but total love for humanity. Paul, actually began his Christian walk as a bounty hunter, paid by the Sanhedrin to hunt down Jesus' followers. He was one of the more brilliant and well schooled Judaic "lawyers" of his time, and lived as an ascetic Jew until his conversion. Archeology of that time is very revealing. In Jerusalem, the Rabbi's of the temple had special walkways so that they would not ever come in contact with normal (dirty) people. Which puts Jesus' schism of walking among the lepers and sick in the streets into a different light. No wonder he became wildly popular with the people, as he was willing to mingle with all classes of people.

[Delc]

Not necessarily so. No one claims that the works of Plato (for instance) are inspired by god, yet his writings are still studied and still contribute to the foundations of our present ethics. There are concepts of value in the Bible. There are quasi-historical tales that, like the Iliad of the Greeks, may be based on actual events. There are fictional tales that give us an insight into the behavior of people in that region and at that time. Some of the stories have been 'borrowed' from adjoining cultures, and that gives us indications of how different people related to each other and how the stories evolved.

The differences between divinely inspired, and interesting work of fiction are huge though. If the bible is the word of god, then Christian beliefs are truth. If its a collection of myths, then its a house of cards built on lies. When people base their world view on that house of cards, how easily do expect them to change?

If you know that god is real because the bible tells you so, and you know the bible is true because god wrote/inspired it, what happens when you try to admit that half of that may be false, but can't accept that the other half may be as well?

[Jester]

He is exactly the kind of religious zealot in which you and I are both disgusted. The kind of zealot whose followers actually may be incited to do violence. He is a bad example for Christianity, and humanity in general. I'd throw in many other notorious examples as just bad Christians, like Pat Robertson and anyone associated with the 700 club.

I can't say I like any of them. What's notable about Phelps is that he is hated by everyone, including the Pat Robertsons of the world. That takes a special kind of crazy.

Phelps and his followers are filled with hate and rage.

They're filled with zeal, a powerful outlet for hatred. But they don't beat people up, they don't murder people. They are not terrorists, although much of what they do is socially unacceptable, and occasionally illegal. What they do is, loudly, without restraint, and in socially taboo places, declare that their God is an intolerant God, who offers people a stark choice: absolute belief, or eternal hellfire. If they're crazy (and they are), it's a matter of degree - most religions explicitly or implicitly offer a similar choice. They're just not so forceful or obnoxious about it.

But in all of that controversy within Judaism, Jesus never stopped preaching anything but total love for humanity.

Jesus says, over and over and over, that anyone who does not accept his message is going to be cast into hell by God. Wailing and gnashing of teeth, and all that. He is not shy about saying so - he goes to the temple and kicks over the stands of moneychangers. He stands up and publicly declares that existing religious authorities are simply hypocrites who are going to burn for eternity. His tolerance extends to everyone - so long as they accept his message - not just the "total love for humanity" bit, but the "I am the messiah" bit, too. Anyone who doesn't, even family members, are to be cast aside, because the end times are coming, and they will all burn in hell. Horrible calamities are to be expected, because the world is living in sin, and can expect no better than Sodom and Gommorah when God decides it's all over.

This sounds like Fred Phelps' message almost word for word. This is not surprising, since his message is based on a very direct, very strict reading of the Bible. Almost everything he says or does, regardless of how inflammatory, hateful, or simply insane, is taken straight from scripture. It's uncomfortable in the extreme, but he's not joking - it's all in there somewhere between Genesis and Revelations.

Which puts Jesus' schism of walking among the lepers and sick in the streets into a different light. No wonder he became wildly popular with the people, as he was willing to mingle with all classes of people.

And what should happen to these lepers, these sick in the streets, if they decide they'd rather keep their beliefs, rather than covert to his?

Jesus' sect was small, and his firebrand preaching not appreciated in the slightest by the existing religious authorities. He was a fringe lunatic and a dangerous man who claimed to speak for God - and they killed him for it. This caused no popular uprising or protest of any kind that is recorded - not even in the Gospels. In the next century, ambitious and devout followers spread this sect far and wide, Paul being notably effective in this.

The only solid evidence we have of his contemporary popularity are the Gospels, which are hopelessly biased for obvious reasons. We barely even have evidence of his existence, outside of the various Gospels and a couple rather questionable passages from Josephus, written half a century after Jesus' death. While it's dangerous to argue from lack of evidence, it does seem rather strange that, were he very popular in his lifetime, his existence would not have been better recorded outside his own sect.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The differences between divinely inspired, and interesting work of fiction are huge though. If the bible is the word of god, then Christian beliefs are truth. If its a collection of myths, then its a house of cards built on lies.

I believe that that has been my argument all along. <_<

When people base their world view on that house of cards, how easily do expect them to change?

Depends on how well they are educated in reality and logic. An education that stresses clear and logical independent thinking and that presents all the facts and histories in comparative religion and that gives a solid exposure to the sciences will, I think, almost invariably produce intellectual agnostics. From there, they can go on to be atheists or theists (or deists) in full knowledge that they do so on faith -- as a belief system that is unfounded on evidence. Few so educated will put much stock in 'holy books'.

If you know that god is real because the bible tells you so, and you know the bible is true because god wrote/inspired it, what happens when you try to admit that half of that may be false, but can't accept that the other half may be as well?

What happens is that you become a common, garden variety, Christian. You do not examine your beliefs and you go about your life, perhaps occasionally going to some service or other. It bothers you no more than your belief that it is hot in Summer because the Earth is closer to the Sun combined with your knowledge that the seasons are reversed in the Southern hemisphere (about four out of five Americans surveyed held this idea). As Churchill said, "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

My comments were in answer to your statement, "I mean, if its not the word of god, or at least inspired, then its just some incoherent ramblings from some crazies in the desert 2000 years ago." Just because the Bible is not inspired does not mean it is useless. Indeed, it is very useful.

--Pete