from this article here

Thirty percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God, according to a recent Gallup survey. While nearly 50 percent agree that Scripture is “inspired” by God, only three in ten say that it should be interpreted literally. Another 17 percent say the Bible is merely an ancient book of stories recorded by man. According to Gallup, the view that the Bible is divinely inspired, but should not be taken literally, has been the most common opinion over the 40 years that the pollster has been querying Americans on the issue. Gallup noted that the “high point” in the number of Americans believing in the literal interpretation of Scripture was 40 percent in 1980 and 1984, with the low coming in 2001, when only 27 percent said they thought the Bible was the actual, literal word of God.


Among specific religious groups, Gallup found that Protestant were the most hard-core in their convictions about the Bible, with 41 percent believing in a literal interpretation of Scripture and 46 percent saying it is inspired by God. By contrast, 21 percent of Catholics believe the Bible is the actual word of God, while the percentage goes up to 65 percent for Catholics who believe it is the inspired word of God. As for respondents claiming no religious persuasion, only five percent thought the Bible is the actual word of God while, predictably, 63 percent thought it was nothing more than a book of legends and fables.


so, does this mean that the fundies have a lot more work to do or perhaps our perception is driven by a media that seems obsessed with promoting christian dogma for some reason? if less than half of all christians in general don't believe the word of god is 100% accurate, then why are they so quick to defend it when science and truth prove it wrong?


any thoughts welcome!

Views: 627

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What the hell have I said that marginalize women?

And I understand that my tone was rude - especially towards a lady. I apologize. But I still want to know, what have I said that could even be inferred that I marginalize women??

I guess you haven't read my posts? I do not react more sharply when women disagree with me. I don't get it? Please simply go back and read my posts from any of the threads I have participated in - simply go to my profile and look at all the discussions I have been in.

Yes, the weaker genes thing - and I had addressed you personally that I was not saying you or people who do not want to have children are "weaker" people - but rather, I was making an argument based on evolution and natural selection. Again, I'm sorry if my correspondence with you came out as harsh - but I can assure you, I do not react more sharply when women disagree with me - I judge people based on their character - not their race, creed, or sex.

And Scarlett, the Darwin postulate that I was stating also applied to males - it did not target females rather than males - as males can decide not to have children and pass on their genes for a multitude of different reasons whether medical or personal.



you need to look at the reality of what is happening today. the us constitution is under attack by factions that would deny it's secular history. the 'under god' thread and the supreme court allowing it to remain clearly violate the 2nd amendment yet was allowed to stand. that is the beginning of the erosion which has become the battleground of the religious right and it's quest for a theocracy. if you can't see it, then you are not looking very hard. once the dam is cracked, it will be difficult to contain the flood.

this is no longer about what was... it is about what is NOW!! the us has begun this with the patriot act which allows the government to suspend any persons rights it wants with NO causation....


please, look at what is going on before you attack others... scarlett is correct on this issue, the vision has been corrupted and it continues with little resistance.

WOW. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with this. How the hell do you make leaps of leaps - leaps the size of football fields to connect the two?

I agree - I would love for there to be no "under god" in our money - no "under god" in the pledge - etc etc etc. but there is no doubt we still are a secular country and have a separation of church and state that has been defended over and over with the Supreme Court. Saying this - I agree, the religious right is always a threat and I am not trying to undermine them - look what they did with stem cell research and how the right wing nuts right at the current moment are in denial of the science of global warming even at these record temperatures!

Saying this - the Patriot Act has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do in protecting us against terrorists. This is what I mean by taking it overboard - the Patriot Act includes common sense measures in being able to monitor the telephone calls of terrorists - and I will say it again - the U.K. has much more stringent anti-terror laws than here in the U.S. and so does most of Europe and their people have common sense to understand that those are simply necessary measures in assisting the authorities to prevent terrorist attacks and instead be on the offensive against terror cells.

i brought up the Patriot act as an example of the government being very willing to find reasons to suspend human rights. Yes, america is still a secular society, but the point we are making is that the government is giving in to the pressure of the religious right which has begun to erode that separation and intends to erode it even more.


if you read what and how i stated my point, you will see that i in no way connected the thought of the 2nd amendment being suspended and the Patriot act. the thoughts are in 2 different paragraphs, thus, are two different thoughts...


now, which one of us is taking things overboard?

I don't see the government bending over to the religious right. In fact, there have been recent rulings protecting the separation of church and state - but I just don't see how the Patriot Act and the separation of church and state can even remotely be discussed in the same discussion as relevant.

sassan, there is no reply to your comment, so i am borrowing this one!


again, you need to see the supreme court ruling on the 'under god' phrase in the pledge as a violation of the 2nd amendment. if you don't, then you are missing the fundamental issue in this thread.


again, i will make this even more clear. I did NOT bring the Patriot act in to this discussion to be used as an example of the division of church and state. I am sorry you are having an issue seeing the reference and the context i used it in. I am using the Patriot act as an example of how the government can, and will, suspend ALL your rights as a citizen at any time with the stroke of a pen. IF you can not see how that fits into this discussion, just ask and i am sure others can help you see the connection.



Sassan, I am not sure what part of the country you are from but it is obviously not the bible belt. The entire southern US has a Christian population that grows in numbers by leaps and bounds every year. There are 8 churches with in 1.5 mile radius of my home and this is a pretty typical representation of most of the more populated areas in the south. Church run schools run into the high double digits in most of the larger cities. Thinking that these views on religion infused into laws and government will go away after "this older generation" dies out is absurd. Fundamentalists are even trying to rewrite our nations history of it's formation. If I was you I would think a little more about the whole picture before you speak and not just say things to incite an argument. Check your facts first and do not make them up so you look good. That's what Christian Fundamentalists do.
The younger generation won't be fundamentalist - I feel confident that when this older generation dies out things will be fine - especially as science progresses. I do not make things up - most Christians don't believe the bible is the "exact word of god" - even religious pastors and priests - they acknowledge that it was written down over generations from various scribes. In contrast, Muslims believe the quran is the word of god word by word as dictated to Muhammad in a cave. That is simply all I said - that the vast majority of Christians don't believe the Bible word-by-word unlike Muslims who believe the quran word-by-word.

"if less than half of all christians in general don't believe the word of god is 100% accurate, then why are they so quick to defend it when science and truth prove it wrong?"

I would say it's because of their common view of "Atheists are evil" where they feel obligated to fight against us in any way possible (using logic/reason was already thrown out the window on day 1 of their indoctrination). Defending their beliefs probably also gives them a morality boost (though they technically should just pray for one) by making them feel like leaders and appealing to their friends/family opinion. Congratulated by such an audience, others (in the same boat) would probably get the notion that they could just as easily become recognized using the same imprudent retaliation against Atheists.

I also wonder if this current 30% even know what they are saying when they say the bible is the literal word of god. There is a chance that many of them haven't read the whole thing or even lack understanding of it.

I think that all media takes a smal snapshot of what is happening and of the viewpoint of the general populance. The more radical elements are featured more often because they make better news, ie more entertaining. Also it is the more extremepeoplethat tend to have the louder voices.


© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service