Hacker News Reader

Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue that it definitely is a norm for devout Christians in the US. Bible chapters are a lot shorter than you think (if you're not familiar with the Bible), though.

It's a bit of a No True Scotsman, but a lot of people who claim they're devout don't really read the Bible at all, just make public judgments about people. The actually devout people I know usually have a copy of the Bible near the bed, often with an issue of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Daily_Bread on top of it (A daily devotional.)

Very long-time atheist here.

Is it really that much of an ordeal to spend 10-20 minutes with the words of the creator and lord of your universe every day? IMO if that sounds tough, then the belief can't be serious. If you have a favorite 1 hour weekly TV show, that's almost the same amount of time committed.

View on HN

I don't know about Protestant denominations but my mother grew up extremely Catholic (in the US) where every single part of life revolved around church. The family was about as devout as you could possibly get, including not practicing birth control. However, individual Bible reading wasn't practiced. In fact, individual Bible reading was actually discouraged by the nuns.

I'd bet the tradition isn't the same in Catholicism (which I have no experience with.) Protestantism is largely an outgrowth of insisting that the Bible be distributed, and in a language that the locals could understand. The Roman churches expected you to be dependent on the priest's communications of what the Bible said.

The catholic church in general is, incredible as this may sound, more open to evolution. It just takes a very, very long time, but there have been dogma updates and clarifications throughout the centuries, and even admissions of being in the wrong. I fully expect the church's stance on some highly divisive issues of today to further evolve in the coming decades.

Rather than insisting stories from millennia ago written by humans (even if you believe them to be divinely inspired) are forever perfect and right for an evolving secular civilization, it makes more sense to me if those stories are put into context by what are, in the end, educated professionals who have spent years studying them and other associated texts.

I've heard a lot of sermons from catholic priests who were good at their job (caveat: I've also heard priests who were terrible at their job...) that I would consider interesting and thought-provoking even for atheists. I'm particularly fond of jesuit priests (such as the current pope), who are more scientifically minded and more likely to speak "my language", in my experience.

>The catholic church in general is, incredible as this may sound, more open to evolution.

Of course it is. The whole idea of protestantism was going "back to the roots", to the "initial sources". As such it is a fundamentalist creed.

Catholic, orthodox etc are much more socially and historically developed.

> It just takes a very, very long time, but there have been dogma updates and clarifications throughout the centuries, and even admissions of being in the wrong.

Clarifications, yes. Changes in dogma, no. Catholic doctrine has not changed since the death of the last apostle, John. It has developed, in the sense of being expounded upon for an increase in understanding (clarification), but it hasn't changed. Clarification often occurs in response to attempts at changing doctrine or promoting something which is contrary to doctrine.

> If you have a favorite 1 hour weekly TV show, that's almost the same amount of time committed.

Right, but very few people watch the exact same episode/series over and over, at the exclusion of everything else. And people who do that are generally seen as more than just devoted. It also means that you have one hour less to discover something new. The Bible is a big book, but it’s limited. I’ve read all of it, and I’ve read parts multiple times (it is, after all, a central part in Western culture). But reading it again and again every day means I’d lose time in which I could be reading (and learning!) other things.

A commenter below mentions quiet time. This is a perfectly fine concept but those Christians (both Catholics and Protestants) that I know don’t spend it rereading the same text over and over. They spend it introspecting. Anyway, I don’t want to disparage the concept: All things said and done even if I’d consider this time completely wasted you’re right that it’s fairly short. I just found it hard to believe because, as mentioned, it doesn’t match my experience at all due, presumably, to cultural differences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com