Skip to main content

The Bible should be taught at school

By Paul So ~

Before anyone criticizes this article based upon the title, I want to make a clarification: While I do think that the bible should be taught at school, I also think that the way the bible should be taught ought to be in a scholarly and secular manner. When the evangelical fundamentalists insist that the bible should be taught at school, they are actually advocating a conservative theological framework that interprets the bible from its own theological point of view; in other words, the bible is not the same thing as theology. Theology is a very old academic and ecclesiastical discipline that is largely responsible for formulating doctrines, dogmas, creeds, and tradition. While many theologians appeal to the bible as an authority, they also use the bible to support their own theological opinions in matters of Church, Morality, Politics, Philosophy, Marriage, etc. The interesting thing is that there are so many different kinds of theological views that use the bible to support their beliefs. These theological views often conflict with each other to the point that it often leads to schisms or sectarian splits as you would find between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
The bible then is usually approached theologically by many laymen, clergy, and theologians. However the bible is also approached in a different way from biblical scholars, archeologists, historians, and other academic disciplines. In this respect the bible is “Theology-Free”, that is it is not approached theologically but rather it is approached by simply understanding how the bible was actually written based upon the best supported evidence.

Spinoza, a Dutch-Jewish philosopher, was considered by some to be the Father of Modern Biblical Criticism. What Spinoza did that made him infamous in 17th century Europe was that he argued that the bible is not divinely inspired by God through the prophets, but rather the bible like any other ancient literature was written by ancient men who had their own interests and agendas on how to write literature. He was one of the few to argue that the bible was not only written by people with their own interests or agendas, but they were also written by people who did not have a advanced understanding on how the Laws of Nature operated in people’s lives. Because of this people often mis-attribute amazing events as miracles performed by God. Spinoza was also one of the many intellectuals to point out that the bible had many contradictions, especially the relation between the New Testament and the Old Testament. Spinoza also pointed out that the Old Testament never taught immortality of the soul or immateriality of God, but rather the Old Testament did not believe in the soul, it was rather an alien idea to the ancient Hebrew minds.

Currently, many biblical scholars study the bible in similar ways that Spinoza did, except they use evidences and records from their knowledge on cultures, language, history, and archeology (and perhaps more!). Many biblical scholars come to a very different conclusion about the bible in contrast to the average believers. For example, many biblical scholars agree that the bible has contradictions, Moses didn’t write the Torah, the Gospels are not eye-witness testimonies, Historical Jesus may be different from the Jesus portrayed in the Gospel, etc. They came to these conclusions that are not based on personal theological convictions that are by nature biased, but rather the conclusion is arrived through researching independent sources that can provide evidences or clues as to how the bible was plausibly written. They also use independent sources to decide which accounts of the bible were historically factual or mythological (i.e., enslaving the Jews in Egypt probably never happened, since there are no independent historical evidence). So how the bible is being understood is almost absent of theological biases.

The irony is that the bible is actually being at schools: at secular universities, specifically in courses that teaches modern biblical criticisms held by biblical scholars and professors. There are, however, other religious universities with their own seminars to teach a certain theological view on the bible as well. Because these courses are usually advanced, they are not usually not being taught at high-schools. However, if anyone can reasonably teach an introductory course that can condense all these scholastic information into basic major points, then perhaps it is possible to teach biblical studies in high school.

So when I say that perhaps the bible should be taught at school, I am not asserting that theological preconceptions that most evangelical Christians have about the bible should be taught in schools; this would be a violation of the separation between Church and State. What actually should be taught is the bible itself along with the vast amount of knowledge that has been gathered through independent research. I remember when I first took the course on Biblical Greek, a professor (who is actually a feminist who argued for Churches to hire female clergy!) said something that did have an impact on how I articulate my views on the bible: “I am not teaching you to interpret the bible by imposing your own theological assumptions into it, but rather I am teaching you how to honestly read the bible without these theological assumptions.”

So let’s teach the bible at school but throw away all these theological ideologies as pretentious garments, and teach it in its naked essence that many conservative evangelical Christians would deem to be shameful and wrong. Let’s teach the bible at school where it is being analyzed and dissected, rather than being indoctrinated. This embodies true education that nurtures students to be independent thinkers, rather than passive imbeciles who only accept what authority says, even when the authority is plainly wrong.


Popular posts from this blog

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi