When I was a Christian, I often tried memorizing bible verses. I wanted to “treasure up God’s Word in my heart” and I thought it would make me a better Christian.
I was never too successful. I still know about 50 verses, but most of the rest are forgotten. My wife, on the other hand, was able to memorize an entire book. That still impresses me.
What got me thinking about this was my pastor extolling the virtues of memorizing extended passages from the bible. Last week he said:
The only two reasons we don’t memorize long passages of God’s Word is (1) we’re lazy and (2) we don’t love God enough.
I guess that does describe me pretty well. But what about all those poor sinners squirming in the pews? They went away with a guilty conscience because they didn’t have long passages of the Bible memorized. What a sad waste of guilt and effort.
Memorizing scripture is a fairly new concept to Christianity. When Catholicism took over the scene nobody was allowed to have a Bible. Jesus said that He desired mercy not sacrifice. The greatest gift that we can give back to God is love. Love for Him and for those around us. Memorizing scripture is just an add on. I am not saying that memorizing scripture couldn’t be useful but if it causes one to be under the law then it is wrong. Jesus set us free. His burden is easy and His yoke is light. It is pharisaical men and women who lay heavy burdens on the backs of Christians.
Regardless of your views I hope you find that Jesus is full of grace. Have a good 4th of July.
I think that this whole notion of memorizing scripture is nothing more than a form of indoctrination/brainwashing. Even those churches that claim to extol critical reasoning when it comes to biblical texts offer nothing more than proof-texting.
“Regardless of your views I hope you find that Jesus is full of grace.”
I somehow don’t think you’ve taken the time to look around here at all.
I recall in Sunday School being given a Memory Verse each week. We were rewarded with sweets if we could regurgitate it verbatim a week later, including chapter and verse citation.
I love sweets, so got pretty damn good at Memory Verses. Years later, when I was working in theatre, I was always grateful for the rote memorisation skills I learned back then. Did I learn anything else useful about the Bible, or the Christian faith? Not in the slightest; I was just repeating words I’d heard, without giving any thought to their actual meaning or validity.
Now what does that remind me of…?
As far as I can tell, one can be accepted into the Christian discourse community in most of North America by being able to quote nothing of the Bible save John 3:16 and Leviticus 20:13.
Scholarship is, if not actively discouraged, then at least not valued (it’s known to cause unwarranted thought).
However, this too may be Biblically approved (see Lev 19:27).
Scripture Memory, heh. I was involved with the Navigators, who are really big on that. People who had hundreds or thousands of memory verses were held up as role models. At peak, I had maybe 100 or so, plus a whole chapter or two (1 Cor 13 and Isa 53 IIRC).
I could probably still recall quite a few if I cared to, having a memory that just seems to work that way. Of course, I also recall most of a Stanley Holloway monologue I memorized in Grade 6 (ie. 40 years ago!).
It’s a good thing that the brain’s memory capacity is so large, and/or it’s good at dumping useless stuff to make room, or I’d now be very annoyed at wasting good neurons on this stuff (I mean the Bible verses, not the Stanley Holloway!).
BTW: one of the funniest passages in Tom Sawyer is about memorizing Bible verses for Sunday School.
C’mon. If you don’t memorize the Bible you are destined to fail at ‘dueling scriptures’: prooftexting as a form of arguing.
I think that it is interesting that the Jews have a much better track record with really knowing the scriptures by hear yet they don’t have it broken up into chapter and verse. Perhaps it’s those annoying little verse numbers, that tend to break up the narrative, the train of thought and even the intent of the written word that are the culprits. The red letters don’t help either.
@David: “It is pharisaical men and women who lay heavy burdens on the backs of Christians.”
Let me translate for Daniel:
“Your pastor is not a True Scotsman”
@Christian: Hah, very true.
@Eamon: I seem to have forgotten that part in Tom Sawyer. I love the part about the Calvinists in Huckleberry Finn, though! Twain had quite a bit of fun at religion’s expense. I’m sure his Diary of Adam impacted me more than I realized when I read it as an x-ian.
Daniel: searching one of the online texts for “yaller ticket” will get you the passage.
Yeah, Twain was definitely a cynic re organized religion. For some really dark stuff, read his novella “The Mysterious Stranger”.
Daniel, I’ve been following your blog for several weeks now and enjoy reading your daily insights and examples. Today’s entry has left me a little confused, though. You quote your pastor’s sermon, if I’m reading it correctly. Does that mean you still attend services? That you still identify that person as “your” pastor?
Also, you mention your wife. At the risk of seeming overly curious about your home life, has your wife, who seems to be a Christian (memorizing an entire book of the Bible), joined you in your deconversion? If not, would you feel comfortable in this forum discussing the dynamics of a “mixed” marriage, especially one in which both members (presumably) both started out as Christians? I ask because I am dealing with a similar situation with my extended family and haven’t found such a discussion elsewhere.
Thank you for your blog, and Happy 4th!
@David M: I can see how that would be a bit confusing. I do still attend church, but the reasons are complicated. I would rather not attend, but I am obligated for now.
My wife has joined me in my deconversion. For a long time I did not want to drag her with me, just in case I was wrong. But once I became settled in my convictions, we discussed it a lot and she came to agree.
Hello Daniel.
I was a youth pastor in a pentecostal church in Iceland, and a fervent believer from the age of 14 until about a year ago. (I am 29 today). I learned the entire sermon on the mount (chapters 5-7 in Matthew) by heart and preached the entire sermon in two churches, word for word, with a little commentary before and after. I evolved from being a young earth creationist, and inerrantist, towards old earth – later I accepted evolution – after that I rejected inerrancy, and finally I became an Atheist.
I learned a lot of verses by heart, in order to “build up” my faith, and my secret reason, that I did not even admit to myself, was that it was a great way to impress my listeners when I was preaching. I often preached (not only in youth services), and quoting many verses without opening the Bible made the sermons more fluid and impressive.
@Christian Beyer – “Perhaps it’s those annoying little verse numbers, that tend to break up the narrative, the train of thought and even the intent of the written word that are the culprits.”
Wasn’t it John Calvin who first instituted the chapter:verse scheme? That should have been a huge tip-off right there. “Here, let’s use an organization scheme created by a complete fascist.”
There’s an old story – probably apocryphal – about the great preacher Vernon Johns. Supposedly he realized that his eyesight was going, so he memorized the bible so he could continue to quote from it.
Some books are quite easy to remember:
“And in his ___ year, ____ knew his wife, and begat ____. And he lived ___ years after that. And in his ___ year…” (See also the Buggre Alle Thys Bible, from Good Omens by Pratchett and Gaiman)
One of the most interesting characters with perfect scriptural memory was Brutha, from Terry Pratchett’s book Small Gods, which is an odd book in that atheists think it’s anti-religion and theists often think it’s pro-religion. He had a good memory naturally, but he also had it beaten into him by his grandmother.
One of my creationist teachers (I’ve had more than most born-and-bred atheists probably do) intended to read the whole bible. He reckoned it could be done in a year, three pages a stretch. I think you’d probably forget the whole deal about it being the one true word of god about halfway through Leviticus and use it for a firelighter.
Vorjack, that is what the Calvinists claim for their Geneva Bible. But nine years earlier in 1551 Robert Stephanus added verse numbers to his version of the Bible, “Textus Receptus” and these are the ones still in use.
Fortunately, Eugen Peterson has done much to make the Bible easier to read and digest with the “Message”. Hard to memorize, though.
“The Mysterious Stranger” is one of my favorite works by Twain. It is really not a condemnation of theism but a scathing satire of religious hypocrisy. I think Jesus would have liked it. Gotta revisit Tom Sawyer and look up his skewering of Calvinism. Thanks.
@Christian: Just FYI, the Calvinism stuff is in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. And thanks for your comments — I appreciate your insight even when we don’t agree.
I wasted much of my childhood being forced to memorize bible verses. However, the few I remember still inspire me to this day.
“Every living substance that I have made will I destroy.” Gen 7:4
“I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.” 2 Peter 2:7-8
“The LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire.” Gen 19:24
“To kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.” Rev 6:8
Truly, words to live by.
I’ve also always struggled to memorize bible verses. I think the real problem is that most of the methods are ad hoc and don’t survive the daily intrusions of life into our best intentions. If you happen to spend a lot of time in front a computer, I highly recommend a website, . I started using it about 3 months ago and it’s the first method to ever work for me. I’ve built up to about 110 verses fairly easily.
I don’t think most people on Daniel’s blog would care to memorize bible verses (me included), but I’ll check out the site anyway. If it’s to improve memory generally, I’m game. (FYI – this is a site consisting mainly of atheists who used to be christian)
Sorry, I really botched that comment (please delete it)
I’ve also always struggled to memorize bible verses. I think the real problem is that most of the methods are ad hoc and don’t survive the daily intrusions of life into our best intentions. If you happen to spend a lot of time in front a computer, I highly recommend a website, Memverse. I started using it about 3 months ago and it’s the first method to ever work for me. I’ve built up to about 110 verses fairly easily.
Janet, just one comment: Many of those verses you cite aren’t “words to live by” … they’re words for God to live by.
1. I was being sarcastic. Memorizing bible verses was a collosal (sp?) waste of time.
2. I do not believe god exists. I am an atheist.
3. I do not understand what you mean “words for god to live by”.
I realize that most of the people on this site are atheists. I spent my formative years singing hymns thinking that it was a colossal waste of time but 20 years later I think differently. I’m sympathetic to many of the complaints of atheism. I’m not, however, sympathetic to the claims of the current crop of pop-atheists to be the champions of rationalism. There are solid ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for the existence of God but most atheists I know are too lazy to either understand, nevermind refute, these arguments.
What I meant by “words for God to live by” should be obvious. It is clearly the prerogative and the capability of God to rain fire and brimstone. We, as humans, are not called to live by that code.
Er, no. There are various arguments for the existence of God, but none of them are “solid”. Usually such arguments rest on presuppositions so that they are essentially circular. They explain the existence of God using a number of assumptions about God which you have to accept in advance.
Maybe you would like to post these solid arguments and while you’re at it give the Pope a ring as he’ll be so happy to find out that it’s not based on blind faith after all.
The ontological argument: Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.
Steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, allknowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
Existence is not a property. This argument has been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections>dead for almost two hundred years.
Kant’s “Existence is not a proper predicate” objection is, IMO, a very poor one. The real weakness of the Ontological Argument is its use of the incoherent notion of “perfection” and arbitrary assignments of ontological priority to existent, as opposed to thought-existent, things.
I just noticed that the version being used is the “maximally great” rather than “perfect” being, which is just as incoherent (if people wanna keep the terms constant).
I think it is fatal. There is nothing that lacks the “property” of existence. The idea of a unicorn exists as much as the idea of a horse; the difference is that there is an object in reality that corresponds to the idea of a horse. In the sense that the ontological argument incorporates, everything exists. The idea of God exists. The argument fails to make a case that there is an object in reality that corresponds to the idea of God.
Furthermore, one premise is that existence is greater or more perfect than nonexistence, which seems subjective and meaningless. Similarly, the idea that it is greater and more perfect for a being to exist necessarily than to exist contingently, sounds like an opinion; especially given that it is doubtful whether there is such a thing as “necessary existence”. A sarcastic summary of the ontological argument might be:
1. I define God to be X.
2. I can conceive of X.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Also, Anselm’s first premise is “God is understood as ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought.’” (“maximally great being”), which makes this an argument for the existence of “that than which nothing greater can be thought” alone, while a great many other attributes are generally attached to the concept of God, including: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibelevolence, hearing and answering prayers, caring for humanity, generosity, vengefulness, jealousy, etc., that are left out of the actual argument but implied to be included in the conclusion. One could say that those attributes are included in the definition of “perfection”, but once again this definition is subjective. The argument does not describe the Abrahamic god. This is an argument for a god that no one believes in.
There is nothing that lacks the “property” of existence.
I’m a dirty Meinongian, so I disagree with the basic axiom that things cannot lack an existence predicate. But I agree with you in the wider sense, here, when you say:
“In the sense that the ontological argument incorporates, everything exists. The idea of God exists. The argument fails to make a case that there is an object in reality that corresponds to the idea of God.”
…because the Ontological Argument sloppily collapses existence into subsistence.
Since you fail at step one all the other words that follow are meaningless.
It does begs the question: “God exists because it is possible God exists.”
There are a great many flaws, take your pick as to which you find most dire.
– Bertrand Russell
*beg
“There are solid ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for the existence of God but most atheists I know are too lazy to either understand, nevermind refute, these arguments.”
How arrogant of you.
We do understand them and they have been refuted ad nauseum.
Educate yourself before you make this sort of unfounded claim about what other people think.
No sh*t! Damn, I guess my degree in philosophy is worthless…
I mean, Jeez- I guess none of these refutations count:
Ontological:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#ObjOntArg
Cosmological:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
Teological:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#2.1.1
Moral:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/
Nope. I’m just a stoopid ignoramus…
Mine is too, but only because I got it from West Hollywood Upstairs Philosophy School and VCR Repair.
LOL!!! Well, mine’s from Univ. of Texas, so not too shabby I guess.
All the parts of Texas I’ve been to seemed shabby.
Hey! :P
Perhaps I have only been to the shabby parts.
Perhaps. It’s a really big place. :)
My former co-worker from Texas used to say that the way you find your way back to Texas is you go East until you smell it, then go South until you step in it.
Even former Texans are not respectful.
I went to a school that had a ton of folk from New Jersey, and so when people would badmouth New Jersey each would claim that they “weren’t from the crummy part”. Of course, each would name a different part, such that the entire state would be spoken for…
Well, I live in Austin, and just 20 minutes from here is Lake Travis, which has such crystal clear water that you can be shoulder deep in it and still see your feet! We have limestone cliffs with cedar trees on them and a few cacti interspersed here and there– very cool. And if you’ve never been to the Davis Mountains or Big Bend National Park, then you are missing some nice stuff there. Also, my grandmother lives in Tyler, and in the spring, the azaleas, roses, tulip trees, dogwoods, and pear trees are all in blossom. It is quite magical.
I have always heard great things about Austin in general.
I will need to go there someday.
Philosophy of cattle rustlin’?
Ha! I guess it’s pick on Lydia day!
I kid because I love.
Aw! So sweet! :)
“How arrogant of you. We do understand them and they have been refuted ad nauseum.
Educate yourself before you make this sort of unfounded claim about what other people think.”
Read my statement about the *atheists I know*. You can’t claim it isn’t well founded since you don’t know the atheists I know. Your reasoning it typical of their sloppy reasoning.
LOL! Sloppy reasoning.
Great you know some stupider people that your above BS worked on. Why even mention atheists you know if you meant them and only them? You just wanted to throw off an insult to some strangers (us) about some people (athiests) that you know?
Liar.
You were trying to insult us indirectly by insulting a group.