A person needs to spend 80-90% of his time reading the bible, if not 95-100%.
[12/16/2009 6:46:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 118
Submitted By: Cameron Williams
100% of your time reading the bible? What about eating, sleeping, pooping, bathing, working, etc?
And after you've read the bible through several times, why should you keep reading it?
12/16/2009 6:52:52 AM
Because working for a living, Eating, Hygene, and functioning within a comunity.... is all irrelevant.
12/16/2009 6:53:00 AM
It would be entirely appropriate to read the bible while taking a dump, I agree.
12/16/2009 6:54:06 AM
Yeah, wow. You are already supposed to be spending, what, 1/3 of the day asleep (8 hours)?
12/16/2009 6:54:14 AM
Because once the sleep deprived hallucinations kick in, it makes the bible seem so real.
Fundie: How fast do you work through your bible?
Me: Oh, about two pages a day. I need a new one, I'm into Revelations.
12/16/2009 6:54:32 AM
Forget sleeping, eating, drinking or doing any other of those pesky things you need to do in order to live, just read the bible!
12/16/2009 6:59:00 AM
I fully support this idea, assuming they don't have sex while reading the bible.
Eventually the fundies should die out.
12/16/2009 7:05:00 AM
Is it ok to read the bible while taking a dump?
12/16/2009 7:05:43 AM
It only took a few days to read it when I was seven. It was obviously crap then. Why should I re-read crap?
12/16/2009 7:19:33 AM
I think you left an "o" out of your name.
12/16/2009 7:19:56 AM
Haha, I'm only going to read the bible 92% of the time! Take that!
12/16/2009 7:20:13 AM
Darn, double post. Sorry.
12/16/2009 7:23:41 AM
I have noticed this kind of thing so much and have been wondering if there is an official name for it? This is the belief whereby if action X is considered good, then any intensification of that action will be accompanied in lockstep by a correlative increase in goodness, even if you take it to the outer limits of what's possible. Here are some examples:
In Saudi Arabia, modesty is considered good. Therefore more modest must be better. And yet more modesty is even better still, leading to the point where you have mullahs recommending that, to really be moral, a woman has to wear an eyepatch over one eye as well as the niqab.
Having a child is a wonderful thing. Therefore having more children is even more wonderful. To be even more wonderful still, one has to treat a woman's womb like a clown car, not allowing it even a moment's repose as it relentless thunks out a succession of miracles, et voila! Quiverfull families!
Maintaining childhood innocence is good. Therefore trying harder to maintain it is better. But to truly be moral, it is necessary to treat young children as utterly incapable to operating independently in the real world, and have to be kept under lock and key until the moment a partner is picked for them. Bro Randy personified.
Having faith in God is good. Having more faith is better. Therefore having so much faith that you are willing to allow your young child to wither away in agony, rather than get them to a hospital is the pinnacle of goodness.
And now this guy. If reading the Bible is good, then completely ignoring all other possible human activities in favour of further reading must be better.
In all cases, we have people who are so fixated on a particular facet of moral behaviour that they monomaniacally ratchet that behaviour up as far as it will go, with the ignorant assumption that they are guaranteed to be considered more moral than others. It is purely about display, rather than a measured consideration of what will be best for humanity.
This is such a primitive and thoughtless approach to morality, completely divorced from the need to actually maintain human well being and happiness. Is it any wonder that people are unimpressed by it?
12/16/2009 7:25:52 AM
> A person needs to spend 80-90% of his time reading the bible, if not 95-100%.
So why aren't you in a monastery? (Oh, right, monks spend considerably less time than that studying the Bible. It wouldn't be right.)
12/16/2009 7:26:41 AM
At least most of the posters at CF disagree with him.
sleeping and eating shouldn't get in the way of your walk with christ.
If you sleep 8 hours, you need to read your bible or otherwise spend time with god more than that, or you love sleep more than god.
12/16/2009 7:31:28 AM
How long does it take to read
? What else from the Bible do you need to know?
12/16/2009 7:33:48 AM
"A person needs to spend 80-90% of his time reading the bible, if not 95-100%."
Why? What can a book of fairy tales written by dishonest bronze age goat herders possibly tell us?
12/16/2009 7:36:24 AM
Sweet Fancy Moses
A person needs to spend 80-90% of his time reading the Lord of the Rings, if not 95-100%.
12/16/2009 7:47:01 AM
Because fuck work and sleep, you need to be studying this book all the damn time.
12/16/2009 7:47:59 AM
I'd like you to spend 100% of your time reading the bible. Perhaps you'll starve to death and no longer afflict us with your existence.
12/16/2009 8:01:51 AM
I heartily agree that all fundies should immediately adopt this mentality about their holy book of choice. It certainly is a way to meet your maker sooner.
12/16/2009 8:08:37 AM
Wow, one of the few times I've had a response to a point I've made:
"If you sleep 8 hours, you need to read your bible or otherwise spend time with god more than that, or you love sleep more than god.
Okay then, fine, only get six hours of sleep. Even then, it's only
of your time (I did the math)-not including, you know, work and such. You must still be living with your parents and/or unemployed, if you think this is even remotely feasible.
12/16/2009 8:10:09 AM
Y'know, this is worse than when they say, "If everyone was homosexual, we'd be extinct." 'Cause no one is suggesting everyone should be homosexual. But he's suggesting everyone should do nothing but read the Bible. That would most definitely drive us extinct.
12/16/2009 8:10:19 AM
Yes, I favor this plan. For those that need the bible, anyway.
12/16/2009 8:12:37 AM
Well why are you on forums then?
12/16/2009 8:14:37 AM