This Is Why You Don’t Introduce the Bible to Children September 17, 2010

This Is Why You Don’t Introduce the Bible to Children

Man, it’s a good thing those kids didn’t get to the *really* bad parts of the Bible…

(via wulffmorgenthaler — Thanks to Jeff for the link!)

"Bet you don’t need 20 rounds in a huge magazine, either."

“Prayer” and “Fasting” Fail to Contain ..."
"You can still purchase SBC Coffee at the supermarket, but that's it. *Le sigh*I hate ..."

“Prayer” and “Fasting” Fail to Contain ..."
"He’s not a catholic, so it doesn’t matter."

“Prayer” and “Fasting” Fail to Contain ..."
""I think she should win on first amendment grounds"No. Ditto on what @Jerald says. Wear ..."

Christian Sues School After Daughter Gets ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • This doesn’t make any sense. Christians don’t ride bikes.

  • bigjohn756

    Of course they ride bikes! How else can they masturbate without guilt?

  • muggle

    Holy children of the corn, Batman!

  • i’ve never really understood why people think it’s a “wholesome” text. the same people who get their panties in a bunch at every pride parade “gay people dancing naked in public! won’t somebody think of the children!!1!” want their kids reading about incest, rape, torture, mass slaughter and bashing babies’ heads on rocks. um, whatever.

  • If you look carefully, you’ll notice that they’re not actually riding their bikes. They’re walking them.
    Everyone knows Christians can’t talk and bike at the same time.

  • Sharon Stanley

    I am a parent of a 12 year old boy. We belong to an Ethical Humanist Society in LI, NY.

    Whenever I’ve tried to tell my child about the bible, the conversation really starts to sound absurd. The Bible sounds like fairy tales to my son! When he looks at me with that, “That sounds crazy!” look, I realize that even though I am familiar with Bible Stories, they sure do sound ridiculous when you try to repeat them.

    I have also taught in the secular Sunday morning program for children at EHS, and they have the same reaction.

    They are bored. They would rather talk about social action, or saving the environment, or anything else.

    I thought that Dale McKowen was right when we created the term, “Religious Literacy.” I thought it was impt for the kids to know about this stuff. But it bores them!

  • Dianna

    Best comment of the week, bigjohn!

  • Mary

    Here’s another reason: my four-year-old nephew is about to say his prayers at night, and he asks me, “Is God going to hang me from a cross like he did Jesus…and leave me there?” The tone of his voice was both frightened and a little fascinated, like he knew that is a really bad thing to do and found it interesting that God would do it. I got shivers…my impulsive little nephew did not need to have violence like this floating around in his head at that age. I’d much rather him be fascinated by baseball or bikes or board games. Of course, he’s only ten now, and they gave him a gun and let him shoot his first deer, and they put blood all over him and made him feel great about the accomplishment. Gotta love it. But it’s all good because god gave us dominion over the animals. They remind me of this anytime it comes up that I’m a vegetarian.

  • I should do a video of myself using various holy texts as toilet paper.

  • Ms. Crazy Pants

    Mary:
    Didn’t you know that “God” intentionally made animals tasty so that people eat them? Did you know that little nephews are delicious in BBQ sauce?

    On the other hand, if we’re supposed to eat animals, then how come they clog our arteries and make us fat? How many heart attack victims eat fried chicken and steak?

    Maybe the “forbidden fruit” was actually a chicken??

  • Jason Greenlee

    My co-worker asked me (after overhearing a seperate conversation with a seperate co-worker) if I believed in god. I replied, “I’m not at all superstitious.” She retorted that religion had nothing to do with superstition. To which I replied that a belief in any faith-based practice was the epitome and very definition of superstition. I feel confident I’m correct in my thinking, but could use some outside opinions.

  • GentleGiant

    Wohoo, a Danish cartoon involving religion that won’t get anyone killed or threatened with death!
    Right? Right?

  • Danish Atheist

    Hehe GentleGiant, you have a point there 😀

    I subscribe to Wulffmorgenthalers cartoons so I get one every morning, and the do poke fun at islam too (and EVERYTHING in general, actually) – but I don’t remember any actual Mohamed drawings….

  • Steve

    @Jason Greenlee
    The dictionary would agree with you. Just open the page and show her

    1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
    2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
    3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
    4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
    5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

    Or an alternative:

    1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
    2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

  • Naasson

    Think about this for a minute ok, just give me a chance: behind a beautiful painting is a painter right? To deny there’s a painter would be insulting to the painter of that work. That goes for everything created on Earth pretty much. Wouldn’t it then stand to reason that there’s a ‘creator’ who made the heavens and earth in all it’s splendor? Or does it stand to reason that some purposeless big bang gets the credit?

  • Anonymous

    The most sensible translation is the LOLcat Bible. Guaranteed to soften the blow.

    http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

  • muggle

    Think about it, Naasson? We have. Have you? If everything had to be designed (as opposed to evolving), who designed the designer? And if he didn’t need a designer, why does anything else?

    Sigh, I just love unthinking trolls who crash Atheist boards to oh so reasonably ask if we’ve thought of yet another trite apologist argument we’ve heard a million times before as if it’s something new they just came up with.

    Pathetic. Really pathetic.

  • Greg

    Naasson – are you actually serious about that question, or are you being facetious?

    I’m just asking, because that’s the kind of question that generally provokes roars of laughter amongst atheists.

    If you do honestly mean it, and honestly are interested in an answer, I can give you one if you really need it. I am, however, painfully used to theists saying things like that and having absolutely no interest in the response. As I have no interest in having yet another discussion with someone who doesn’t read what I say, and then tries to declare ‘victory’ when I end the discussion and use my time more profitably (like talking to a wall), you’ll forgive me if I don’t give you an answer immediately.

    I can give you a multitude of answers, actually, it’s not hard.

  • Spook

    Ah, that takes me back to elementary school.

    Parents: don’t teach your kids about stoning unbelievers unless you also tell them that it’s wrong :/

  • bernerbits

    Naason:

    Paintings have painters. Buildings have builders. Designs have designers. Therefore, creation must have a capital-C Creator, right?

    Unfortunately, while initially compelling, this is no more than a clever linguistic trick. When you say “creation has a creator”, what you actually mean is “creation (which is created by a creator) must have been created (by a creator).” In other words, by labeling the universe “creation”, you assume that the universe was created a priori, and then use that assumption to deduce that that assumption is true.

    For the record, we have also thought about and come up with reasonable objections to the following claims and more:

    * That radiometric dating is junk science,
    * That evolution is totally unprovable because it takes so long to happen that nobody can witness it happening,
    * That gaps in the fossil record prove that evolution is no more than a guess,
    * That the coexistence of apes and humans proves that humans did not evolve from apes,
    * That DNA/RNA is code, code is information, and the only source of information is an intelligent mind,
    * That the relative locations of the Earth, Moon and Sun are so perfectly arranged to support life that they could not have happened by chance,
    * That four billion years ago Earth’s magnetic field would have been so strong as to completely obliterate all life,
    * That many if not most biological systems are “irreducibly complex” …
    … and so on. Take your pick.

  • I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Harrison’s “The Streets of Ashkelon” in conjunction with this:

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

    Great short story. Depressing as hell.