Should we all read the Bible cover-to-cover?

[Mr Rayon]

What non-religious motivations could one have for reading the Bible?

 

And also, what are some benefits that it can have to read it for an atheist/agnostic?

 

Is it best if people stopped reading books such as the Bible?

 

Many people who are atheist/agnostic have not read the Bible or gotten extensive exposure to religion.

 

Should people get extensive exposure to different religions before labelling themselves atheist/agnostic?

 

Why do you think that the Bible is the most popular published book of all time? Is it the best book ever created after-all?

[John Cuthber]

If more people actually read the bible, more people would stop believing in it.

[Phi for All]

I think it's important to read it cover-to-cover if you're going to either completely accept it or totally reject it. That said, skepticism tells us that it's safer to reject something if you find parts you disagree with than to accept it because you agree with some parts.

 

There are many people who currently embrace it without reserve who haven't read it cover-to-cover. I think that's dangerous.

 

Those who haven't read it but object to the parts they have read may not have a comprehensive perspective, but it's not unjust. I like certain aspects of Judaism but I'm not willing to embrace it or even fully investigate it because I like bacon.

[zapatos]

What non-religious motivations could one have for reading the Bible?

To be better informed; to understand others better; to prepare for a job as a tv evangelist.

 

And also, what are some benefits that it can have to read it for an atheist/agnostic?

See above.

 

Is it best if people stopped reading books such as the Bible?

Too broad of a question to answer.

 

Many people who are atheist/agnostic have not read the Bible or gotten extensive exposure to religion.

What is your point of this statement? There are also many religious people who have not read the bible or received extensive exposure to religion.

 

Should people get extensive exposure to different religions before labelling themselves atheist/agnostic?

Not necessarily. As soon as you realize you don't believe in God you should label yourself an atheist.

A question in return: Should Christians get extensive exposure to different religions before labelling themselves as Christian?

 

Why do you think that the Bible is the most popular published book of all time? Is it the best book ever created after-all?

By 'most popular' do you mean most copies sold? Probably because of the built in audience. Every Catholic I've ever known has received a copy on their First Communion. It's like giving someone a card on their birthday.

I cannot think under what category you might label the bible as the 'best book ever created'. Maybe under the category of biggest profit of all time.

Edited September 11, 2012 by zapatos

[Dekan]

Your questions strike deep.

 

Perhaps we need a "Sacred Book" - which no-one actually reads, but which by its existence, inspires us.

 

Like in Science - has anyone actually read Newton's "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" or Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" - from cover to cover?

 

Probably not. Books like that would get punched full of holes by any modern scientist. But that's the point - books can have a value which transcends their mere content.

 

Does the Bible inspire Science, do you think, or retard it?

[iNow]

I've read it cover to cover because it's played such an important role in shaping how people act in our culture. I became an atheist in part due to my reading it. It was very clearly a work of fiction... Yet another form of human mythology, but one full of internal contradictions and logical inconsistencies. It suffers from design by committee, and the fact that it is an anthology is apparent in the way that stories don't align neatly.

[Dekan]

I've read it cover to cover because it's played such an important role in shaping how people act in our culture. I became an atheist in part due to my reading it. It was very clearly a work of fiction... Yet another form of human mythology, but one full of internal contradictions and logical inconsistencies. It suffers from design by committee, and the fact that it is an anthology is apparent in the way that stories don't align neatly.

 

As you say, the stories don't match up. So why does the Bible get taken seriously? The answer's obvious - it offers a prospect of avoiding death, and obtaining Eternal Life.

 

This Eternal Life is supposed to be obtained by belief in Biblical fairy-tales. But does that really convince anyone?

 

No! Death will be ended by human Science. Our Science will investigate, learn about, and eventually control our DNA. Such control will give us everlasting life, by scientific means. No religion needed! Immortality, for everyone.

 

It's sad to think that us posters here, are at the tail-end of a stage in human evolution - the stage when death still exists. But it won't exist much longer!

 

This thought obviously leads back to the Bible. Isn't that book a kind of wishful thinking, a pre-scientific attempt to conquer death? Nice try, Bible - but Science beat ya!

[chilehed]

...Our Science will investigate, learn about, and eventually control our DNA. Such control will give us everlasting life, by scientific means. No religion needed! Immortality, for everyone....

I can imagine few things more horrible than that. Very, very few.

[ydoaPs]

Many people who are atheist/agnostic have not read the Bible or gotten extensive exposure to religion.

 

Your point? I know quite a few people who are atheists precisely BECAUSE they read it cover to cover.

 

Fun fact:Atheists know the Bible better than Christians as well as knowing religion in general better than them.

Edited September 13, 2012 by ydoaPs

[LimbicLoser]

This has been pretty much answered to (which answers I greatly appreciate for the most part), and I only wish to see if I can perhaps fine tune, a little.

 

First of all, I wish to comment on and respond towards the title of the thread. The answer is absolutely negative. The reason for that, nevertheless, is a bit paradoxical in some sense, we can think. First of all, the 'Bible' of the general present, as a single-volume book, is simply a collection of documents. A general skimming of a document's opening chapters, will often enough give a fair answer as to whether there is any great practical advantage in reading it. Then, it is not simply reading it that should be the prime objective, but studying it as a self-contained context; and then cross-referencing with documents of a similar genre, source, and library. For example, Second Temple exemplar which we have in the extent witnesses for our Genesis, should be compared with similar documents, or documents which allude to it, from the Qumran library. One could even check the differences between the Palestinian canon (which is what we generally have in the present Torah) and Samaritan canon (or the Alexandrian, Babylonian, even). For the Christian Greek documents, it would be good to cross-reference with the fuller number of non-canonical documents, and sub-apostolic fathers, as well.

 

However, I would additionally very much recommend that that study also involve some amount of study of the original tongue. Taking this much (the above paragraph, and this strongly urged suggestion together) I say that simply reading even several English translations and versions of the Bible (with and without several documents) is not something one should do at all. As pointed out by others above, that has been a big problem.

 

What non-religious motivations could one have for reading the Bible?

One other than those already mentioned (and do forgive any misses on my part), is to learn. Learning is a very good thing.

 

And also, what are some benefits that it can have to read it for an atheist/agnostic?

I would say that first of all, any particular persuasion, or position (such as agnostic, Christian, Jewish, Muslem, Shintoist, atheist, etc.) would have no bearing on the question of whether anything pragmatic can come out of studying the 'Bible.' Learning is good; information gaining is good. Also, there are some very nice, poetic pieces to be found, also some reflection of the thought of the authorship and direct-and-immediate audience of the era of penning can be picked up on. Comparative religious studies would of course benefit by such studying. (However, again, it does not follow that all of each and every document will present itself as being worth spending such involved time on.)

 

Is it best if people stopped reading books such as the Bible?

If simply reading, yes. (See the above.) If studying, I tend to think that there is far more advantage in doing so to the degree that such can be done. "At least try," is my suggestion.

 

Many people who are atheist/agnostic have not read the Bible or gotten extensive exposure to religion.

Should people get extensive exposure to different religions before labelling themselves atheist/agnostic?

I am not sure if the question will prove to be answerable, actually. A very pure Buddhist, will not usually fall under the category of being a theist, and in that general, on-the-face-of-it circumstance, may be an atheist; possibly? That need not mean that such a one will not have investigated and studied other theist-involved religious belief system doctrine sources, however. Additionally, we can rather clearly project the circumstance wherein a Muslim will deny that there is any truth value at all in the assertion that the character Jesus (of the canonical accounts) is in any way deity, or a member of some triune god. Would that make such one an atheist? Most obviously not, and yet he, or she, denies the dogma of one system, in favor of another--even if having investigated its information sources (Bible, Tanakh, Talmud, etc.). At any rate, however, I say that learning is good, and that that should be pursued.

 

Why do you think that the Bible is the most popular published book of all time? Is it the best book ever created after-all?

The second question is great, in one particular sense. It is the case that the 'Bible' (that single volume book of today) was created. Of course, that means that it was created by human beings through and through--in both the mere document penning of the autograph as well as the story telling involved, and the very collecting into that single codex form that we have it as (pretty much) now. Whether it is the best, or not, might have far to much to look at and match up, to answer in any definitive manner. It is a good book, yes; as are so many others--have you ever looked at the Mahabharatha?