On Biblical literalism

Fundamentalists look at scripture strictly for what it says and believe that the words mean exactly what they say and that the mythoi of scripture is indisputable scientific fact.

Atheists look at scripture strictly for what it says and believe that the words mean exactly what they say and use those words to bolster their argument that Christianity, and the Christian God, are paternalistic, misogynistic, petty, vindictive, contradictory, and sadistic.

Both viewpoints are narrow and short sighted.

Literalism is a simplistic interpretation that doesn't account for context. It distorts and twists until it fits a particular agenda, whether it be religious, political, or personal.

Literalism leads to fundamentalist and extremist viewpoints, which are both deeply rooted in ignorance.

Are there things that appear to bolster both claims? Sure, if one doesn't bother to look below the surface or simply takes things out of context. Verses can be cherry picked to support just about any view, but the fact is that this is indefensible and horrible exegesis.

Scripture should be read for what it says and then looked at from a bird's eye view to gain a deeper understanding.

This is the point of the parables, so that people would continually study, meditate, and question things to grow in wisdom. This is also the meaning behind scriptures that teach to "take every thought captive and make it obedient to God." Growing in wisdom, in understanding, in faith, in life, is a journey. It's meant to be undertaken every day. "Take up your cross daily" is all about putting our selfishness, self interest, and sense of self importance aside and focus outward on the world around us.

Yet I've read it in this forum that fundamentalist Christians are on sound theological ground while moderate and liberal Christians are merely pretenders to the throne. In other words, you're not a "true Christian" unless you're a fundamentalist nutjob.

This is the same view that Hitchens, Dawkins, Mills, et.al. have. It's willfully ignorant and a self-serving justification for their hatred of religion.

This is the same view that people like Rush and Beck and Hannity and Savage use to condemn all Muslims as terrorists.

It's also been said that Jesus' words are endorsement of 'thought crime'. This, too, is an immature understanding of Christ's teachings.

His words are about the condition of the human heart. What he taught goes way beyond just following rules and rituals. Rules and rituals don't justify man... in fact, it can lead to the rationalization that sounds like "...at least I/we don't _______"

Tell me, how is it respecting your husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend or partner when you're lusting after someone else? "...at least I didn't bang him/her" doesn't cut it. Just by thinking it you've put the one you supposedly love and care about 2nd in line behind whoever your hormones go ga-ga over.

There's alot of horrible theology being put out there, by both sides. Hearing fundamentalists say all atheists or anyone who believes differently are going to hell is just as offensive to us "non-true Christians" as atheists saying that we're tacitly supporting these fundy nutjobs because we're not driving them out of the Church. Neither side contributes anything to the conversation but hatred, bigotry, ignorance and intolerance.

That's what Biblical literalism leads to.

I'm sure some christians would say the same as well.

....there's plenty of posts to back up those claims.

I know not all atheists are like that, and should have clarified that point. With two deaths in the family in the last week, I'm not as focused as I usually am.

I'll take my lumps for that one.

Care to share?

BTW - perhaps you could start be explaining the deeper meaning behind Jesus coming up with the idea of an eternity in hellfire for people who don't confess him as their savior. That's a concept that Jesus came up with pretty much on his own. It doesn't exist in the OT. In the OT, god ordered the Jews to engage in genocide, sure, but once those enemies were extirpated, their suffering was over. No eternity of suffering for them. Just oblivion.

After that, you can tell us what the deep meaning is behind Jesus saying heaven is based on the model of a kingdom, rather than a democracy. There are no votes in heaven. The saved spend an eternity as serfs, bowing and scraping to a god who - if OT reports of his behavior are true - is hardly a benign dictator.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I would say it's organized religion you have a problem with and not Jesus/God.

This boils down to the following proposition: "Scripture means what you want it to mean, and if that is not how the text actually reads, so what?"

...then you illustrate my point perfectly.

That there are those in the world who are intellectually incapable of understanding something that is literal, allegorical, and metaphorical.

Count yourself among them.

See #10, and by all means, tell us how you really feel...

Why not toss typologic into the mix for good measure?

The case remains as stated: all you have done is asserted that the text means what you want it to mean, and if the text says plainly something else, that does not matter against your cyphering out of its 'true' meaning. This 'true' meaning will, of course, vary from person to person, according to their various pre-dispositions. People engage in this sort of endeavor when something in the plain text affronts their personal views of good and evil, or physical possibility, or simple self-interest, or a variety of other possible inclinations towards one view or another. Even fundamentalist literalists do not take the text literally, but read all sorts of things into it that are not present in the plain meanings of the words, treating, for example, as references to the Christ any number of passages that never were viewed by anyone as prophecies of same when written down, or for centuries afterwards. The entire literary corpus, being a sprawling and disorganized product rife with contradictions, offers something for just about everyone, and of course employs in various parts most every conceivable literary device, so that certainly some passages are metaphor and some present allegories, and some are openly labeled as fables or parables, while others purport to be straight history or legal code and other immediate instructions for ordering social and personal affairs. What is generally done is that people seize onto elements within the mass of words that they like, and privilege these over the rest, and set out to somehow harmonize the rest with the lines they prefer. The varieties of intellectual strain and dishonesty that ensue frequently provide a good deal of entertainment, but can prove nothing about the meaning of the text, the nature of the divine, or anything else but the individual engaged upon them.

of the Bible, both in toto and in its parts.

The application of archaeology, geography, history, linguistics and other disciplines have placed the words in context, unearthing a meaning not available from a blunt, literal mouthing of the words.

It is far from a grabbag.

Lest we end by complaining neither are a bunch of grapes.

There has certainly been valuable scholarly analysis and textual criticism applied to the book. It is quite possible to be fairly certain now when various portions were written, in what historical and cultural context they originated, and so penetrate to some reasonable approximation of the meanings intended by the authors and compilers, and isolate distortions arising from later interpolations and translations.

But none of this relates to sacred or moral meaning. Though theologians may engage in it, and make use of it, it is not theology, or even closely related to it. Theologians do what they have always done, and can only do, which is treat speculation as fact and trim the evidence accordingly. Persons who treat the book as an account of an omnipotent deity in history cannot escape the burden of the plain text, and in no instance does the scholarship ease their burden.

that theology itself has no value. That is another discussion altogether.

Assuming, however, that theology has value and that theology by its very nature is based on revelation not investigation, then the secular scholarly disciplines can indeed provide theologians - and believers - a coherent and harmonious narrative of that revelation.

If one simply does not believe, then it's an idle exercise.

Read it again, Sam...

but that's hardly a reason for me not to give it, now is it?

does the free speech of the mean old atheist bother you? Are you feeling oppressed? How about actually presenting a fully formed argument rather than trying to tell me to piss off, huh?

And I have seen more fully formed arguments on cardboard signs at teabag rallies.

You repeat yourself ad nauseum when you can't successfully make a point, you refuse to post sources to your claims when asked repeatedly, you selectively read items presented to you, you parse statements made by others for single word choices that you can pick on instead of answering substance, you insult me at every chance you get...

Yeah, I'm the tedious one.

Arguing with you is exactly like wrestling a pig in a mud pit. Goodbye.

It used to be said of exo-biology that it was a science without a subject, and while that may become false in time for that branch of inquiry, it is and must continue to be true of theology. Regarding the proposition there exists a divine, my view is that this can neither be proved nor disproved, but it can be stated with certainty no human description of it, if it exists, can be accurate, and that all statements on the subject are made by humans. Theology requires assent to its conclusions before it is engaged in at all, which removes it from the realm of honest inquiry and establishes it as just one of the many ways by which the rubes are fleeced to keep the grifters in shiny shoes.

Theology does not initially require assent to conclusions but it does initially require belief.

And that belief can lead to an honest inquiry of the sources of that belief, namely revelation as recited in scriptures. I do not think you are saying that no believer can engage in honest inquiry, Elmer Gantry and shiny shoes notwithstanding.

It is axiomotaic that a divine can be neither proven nor disproven. Hence, the belief is based on a belief in revelation. An honest theological study of the book, using all avaible scholarly tools, can result in a coherent, consistent message, not always couched in concrete literalism. That, after all, is the point of the OP.

Theology and divine existence are different topics.

That is the conclusion of an inquiry, not the commencement of one. Nor does theology attempt to falsify its conclusion, that the deity exists and can be known, as honest inquiry into the subject would require.

Any 'coherent, consistent message' someone claims to have found in the book in question does not emerge from it, but is always imposed on it by the person finding it, and will always be one that is agreeable to the believing seeker. Too wide a variety of consistent, coherent messages have been found in it, by different people in different places and different times, for it to be otherwise.

It is unfortunate for those who are affronted by the list of horribles adduced by the person who commenced this discussion that they are, all of them, plainly and clearly ascribed to the deity envisioned by Christian worshippers in the text of the books. That makes it understandably difficult for such persons to confront the plain text while still subscribing to Christian belief and to their own sense of morality and propriety. But it does not make respectable the gymnastics they engage in to square that circle.

It is the prime assumption from which an inquiry proceeds.

And despite the variety of interpretations, Christianity has a remarkably consistent doctrine. I suspect you are distracted by the panoply of the American religious scene.

That doctrine has emerged from centuries of Western inquiry. To say it is the result of ascription. given the quantity of scrutiny over that time, is, frankly, an unsupported opinion.

Given your comments and view of the bible, I am surprised you hold that any of its text is plain.

In any event, I'm going to bed.

Actually they not only believe the deity can be apprehended fully, but that they do in fact apprehend it themselves.

The claim of near-uniformity, even, in Christian views cannot be sustained. The differences between even main-line sects at present are large, even without going into the smaller sects, and the question of what is actually believed by many among the laity. It should not be necessary to give examples, but if we should chance to continue this, they can of course be provided.

The book contains numerous passages described as direct communication from the deity. If this claim is to be credited, the deity must be held responsible for their content, and no craw-fishing about imperfect communication, limits of human understanding, etc., is acceptable, as an omnipotent deity would be capable of seeing to it the communication was clear. The book contains numerous passages that are proclaimed to be historical chronicle, a true and inspired history of actual events, and these must stand up to the measure of check from independent sources, which they do not do particularly well.

The incomprehensibility of God is one of its essential attrbutes.

Nor is any claim of near-uniformity made. What is claimed is a consistency in core belief throughout the bulk of Christianity. The disparity between the larger denominations is usually historic and often concerns ecclessiology. The likeness is far greater than the difference.

Your remarks about the responsibility of a God to make itself clear is interesting. It is akin to the charge that the ambiguity of the message is proof of the nonxistence of the messenger. That issue is not craw-fishing. It is a fundamental theological question related to free will. Why does God not simply save everyone or, at least, be crystal clear to every human? Those questions have been asked for millenia and been addressed for millenia.

While some of the Bible invokes history, not least the Book of Chronicles, none but the most adamant critics claim it to be a book of history. Like all of it, it is a book meant to be read in context with the whole, to impart a moral and theological message, and is not a captive of literalism.

The following, in my opinion, are some pretty central ideas in Christianity. Perhaps you could tell me just how similar the various Christian sects are on their position regarding them?

1) The fallen state of mankind. Is this really because two people named Adam & Eve were living in an actual paradise but disobeyed god by listening to a talking serpent and ate forbidden fruit?

2) The requirement of sacrifice for atonement. Was Yahweh's thirst for blood sacrifice quenched by the crucifiction of Jesus? Why did your god require sacrifices for flaws that it designed in humans?

3) The resurrection. Was Jesus physically resurrected or was it a spiritual resurrection?

4) Faith vs. works. Is it sufficient to simply believe and accept Jesus as one's personal savior, or should one perform works on Earth that glorify him?

5) The existence of hell. Does hell exist as a physical place, a spiritual place, or does it not exist at all? Are souls tortured in hell for eternity or not?

I look forward to your demonstration that all the various branches, divisions, and sects of Christianity have a clear consistency on these fairly central tenets of the belief system. Thanks!

But the breadth of your intellectual prowess in #61 requires me to formulate an answer to that first.

and the fact that you used it correctly in a sentence proves the old adage about that broken clock.

given how lonely you must be with your attitude.

If your attitude here is any indication, being related to you must be less fun than dental surgery.

I have several friends who love to discuss dental surgery, so yes, I probably do have quite a bit of experience there. Though experience is the wrong word, again, since what you're really looking for is exposure.

Thank you. It's much clearer now.

The fact that I can have a normal, intellectual conversation when you're not playing pigeon all over it? Yes, I thought that was clear long before you came along.

Edit: missing word.

For another, the excruciating pain I feel when I see one of your posts.

trying vainly to restart their firing so that you can properly understand a post written at an adult reading level.

Anything else you wanna throw out there in order to get the last word in, as is your way?

Color me a dashing hue of surprised.

I'll give you a couple of days to digest my questions about identifying the commonalities among Christian beliefs. Further one-line insults will force me to assume that you simply have no answer, and concede the point that the branches and sects of Christianity have fundamental (no pun intended) and irreconcilable differences instead of commonalities.

And given ample opportunity to answer questions and shut us up, they hurl another insult and run away.

:hi:

Sunday School theology just doesn't cut it, and so recognizing his inability to discuss any substantive theology (an oxymoron?), the believer posts a smiley to try and pretend the questions never existed.

The beaten believer couldn't leave without firing one last salvo designed to make it look like they're the victim in all this mess.

ETA: Witness now #154. Talk about meeting predictions...

Embrace anew your assumptions.

Like any other good literature, the bible gives us a context for understanding the human condition. It doesn't mean just anything we want it to, but it does give us sort of an "operational envelope" for contemplation.

One can learn a good deal about the human condition from the Homeric cycles, or Balzac, among others. The problem with this particular work is that it is freighted with the claim it is sacred and true altogether, and that most of the people reading in it accept this freight as a fact of the work, and their experience of it. This presses onto them the temptation, even the necessity, to wring from it things they can themselves accept as holy and true, which in many instances is damned hard work. The result is quite often people making claims regarding its meaning that amount to 'it means whatever I want it to mean'....

If you want to make money off something, first you have to claim it. And to claim it you have to codify your claim. One almost always has to sell something, even if it's just a pile of questionable literary criticism.

This product jumped the shark a long time ago.

On what rational and objective basis do you judge whose interpretation of Scripture is more correct (i.e. more in line with what god really meant)? On what basis do you decide which portions of the Bible should and shouldn't be taken literally, other than your own unsubstantiated gut feelings about how god couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't act or think, or what Christianity should and shouldn't be?

If they'd stop and think things through before they post, they wouldn't bother posting.

or for that matter the knowledge to pick and choose from the Bible what to believe, and what to discard?

It is you who claim that your book is holy, but yet somehow you feel free to interpret it any way that you like. If a book can say anything that you want, how can it be holy, divine, revealed, inspired, or any of the other various adjectives I've heard in the past?

Biblical literalists ARE on firmer theological ground than other types of Christians, for the simple fact that they follow the book from which their chosen God originated. The Bible is not historically corroborated on any significant level with other texts of ancient times, especially when it comes to the New Testament. Yet Christians believe that the story of Jesus and the virgin birth are true. Why believe that part of the story, and yet ignore so many other parts of the text?

As for the claim of 'supporting these fundy nutjobs' pissing you off: Tough. You ARE supporting them by using their label. Majority status gives a group social and political power, even if they shouldn't have it, and even if they deny it. By bolstering the ranks of 'Christianity' by self-identifying with the exact same label the sickos use, and being apparently unable to make your voice heard over those sickos, you help them maintain that majority status.

And since 'Christianity' can apparently mean whatever its adherents want it to mean, I think it's high time you and your non-psycho friends pick a label that doesn't automatically paint you the exact same shade as Pat Roberson.

But of course, that just makes me a 'fundy atheist'...:eyes:

....and only get worse.

First "or that matter the knowledge to pick and choose from the Bible what to believe, and what to discard?"

There's not a single place where I said, or even implied, that it was about picking and choosing what to believe and what to discard. I appreciate your attempt to redefine the argument to something you're familiar with, but it won't work with me.

It is you who claim that your book is holy, but yet somehow you feel free to interpret it any way that you like. If a book can say anything that you want, how can it be holy, divine, revealed, inspired, or any of the other various adjectives I've heard in the past?

It's not really all that difficult a concept to grasp, unless growing in wisdom and knowledge is somehow foreign to you.

Biblical literalists ARE on firmer theological ground than other types of Christians, for the simple fact that they follow the book from which their chosen God originated.

And that opinion is as theologically ignorant as those of fundamentalists and other religious extremists.

As for the claim of 'supporting these fundy nutjobs' pissing you off: Tough. You ARE supporting them by using their label.

Now you're just getting silly. This "all or nothing" mentality is not only illogical, but intellectually dishonest.

And since 'Christianity' can apparently mean whatever its adherents want it to mean, I think it's high time you and your non-psycho friends pick a label that doesn't automatically paint you the exact same shade as Pat Roberson.

I'm sure us "non-true Christians" will take your words under advisement.

BTW....you asked what gives me the right?

You see, I'm a theologian.

It's what I've studied, it's what my degree is in. Theology is one of my life's passions.

So, what gives YOU the right?



You see, I'm a Theologian. Went to school and graduated with a degree in theology.

and not a single answer. Just what I've come to expect.

ETA: And where it isn't pure ad hom, it's argument from authority and pure dodging. Obviously you won't answer my questions because they come from someone whose POV you dislike. How very 'Christian' you must feel.

If anything, liberal religion is an affront to the supposed infallibility of their system. I have seen these charges being thrown in the atheist writer vs clergy debates but I don't see the logic given my own experience in confronts. Fundamentalists find the liberal religious dangerous to their religion since the fundies see the ideas as change in nature that is not acceptable. Consequently, you see attacks from these fundies. For example, biblical scholarship originated from liberal religious scholars. This approach is considered heresy by the literalists and it is (properly) used in the arguments by atheists.

However, I see the charge of the so called "fundy enabling liberal religions" as an attempt to push blame and creating another adversary. I mean, liberal Christians (and others) are shat on for being enablers but all these groups, in my opinion, seem like good allies. I could be wrong, and perhaps there is some study out there that backs up these claims, but I would like to see it in order to buy it. Harris, Dawkins, et al. have some good arguments. But that doesn't mean they are right in this regard and one should give it careful thought before promoting it.

If the group you call yourself a part of is shitting on you frequently for being a heretic, why continue to be a part of it?
If the group you call yourself a part of is constantly putting out a message of hate, and you can't or won't do anything to stop it, why continue to be a part of it?

Liberal religion IS quite heartily opposed to fundamentalism, but when you both self-identify as the exact same group, you CHOOSE to stand together. To wit:

I self-identify as an atheist. Consequently, believers love to throw Christopher Hitchens quotes in my face as examples of 'what atheism leads to'. I attempt to educate them about the fact that Hitchens is a bigoted DICK, and that it has nothing to do with his atheism, but most of the time my arguments fall on deaf ears.

Now, does it piss me off that people make those assumptions based on Hitchens rantings? Sure. Do I fight it? Not really, and I don't for two reasons. One, Hitchens has no real power or authority over anyone, so all he can do is bloviate and sputter. Two, every minority group needs a flamethrower who's absolutely bugfuck insane, because it manages to get people talking about the status of that group, and maybe, just maybe, minds can be changed.

Compare that to Pat Robertson. Pat has his own fucking TV network, and an army of followers. The man obviously possesses power and authority over others, and he is bugfuck insane to boot, not to mention the fact that he 'represents' the majority group of Christians in this country in the same way that Hitchens represents atheists, by being one of the loudest.

Does this make sense? What I'm trying to say here is that flamethrowing assholes attempting to represent minority groups can be useful attention getting tools, since they have no real power. But majority groups don't need any extra attention, and flamethrowing assholes attempting to represent majority groups actually DO have power, and more often than not lead to oppression, hate, and possible violence.

Now don't get me wrong, Hitches IS a dick, but nobody needs to 'take away his power' because he doesn't have any. Pat Robertson, on the other hand, has power, and it's high time someone took it away from him, and his fundy friends as well.

I submit that the easiest way to take their power is to take their majority status, and to do that, the liberal Christians who somehow never seem to get a microphone need to leave the label 'Christian' behind, and take up a new moniker that more accurately describes what they believe.

Of course, I guess you could always try to reclaim the word as something pure from the poisoning of the right. You can try, but I suspect that you will have no more (and probably much less) success than the people who tried to reclaim the words 'nigger' or 'queer'.

Liberal christians are what they are: Christians. And if people cannot make distinctions between Liberal Christians and Pat Robertson then that is another issue altogether.

There are obviously different Christianities with different ideals. I could be overthinking something here or oversimplifying this (or both) but if you let the Pat Robertsons of the world claim ownership to a supposedly "true Christianity" then I think the fundies win. Now, that is true empowerment.

So, as a non-Christian, if the issue is "claiming" or "reclaiming" anything, I would rather see the meaning of the word "Christianity" represent the liberal Christian ideals than represent fundies. In my opinion, the people who need to be rewarded with empowerment and legitimacy are the ones who want to keep their business to themselves. You know, those who I believe would fight for my rights as a minority.

Liberal Christians being shat on by the religious right is besides the point. It is hardly a surprise and I am sure Liberal Christians take the shit from the religious right as a medal of honor.

But the problem I am talking about is when Liberal Christians are being shat on by some prominant atheist writers (and those who mimic their arguments) who unnecessarily create an adversary that would otherwise be a formidable ally in tackling the real issue. Creating an opponent, in my opinion, seems counter productive. And it gives the perception that the goal is to show intellectual superiority rather than fighting a more serious problem. And there are better, smarter, and more rational strategies to use when the intentions are to solve a problem.

But that is just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Firstly, 'true Christianity' is not to be defined by those outside the faith, but by those who make up its composition. They are doing a poor job of defining and representing that faith as a liberal ideology. The blame for that cannot and should not be laid at the feet of non-Christians for their lack of understanding, but rather at the feet of Pat's brigade for their 'poisoning of the well.'

Secondly, and following somewhat as a consequence of the first case, prominent atheist writers and those who mimic their arguments are uninterested in allying themselves with anyone of any faith. That is mostly because we recognize that religion in general is too easy a tool to use for motivation and justification of actions, and we're worried about the law of unintended consequences.

Step out of theology for a moment, and let's look at some history. The US was so terrified of the spread of Communism and Russian advancement that we armed the Afghan freedom fighters to the teeth, and trained them in guerrilla warfare. Lo and behold, the law of unintended consequences came back to bite us in the ass as the freedom fighters threw out the Russians and turned on those who they suspected would supplant them by mostly non-violent means. And thus we find ourselves once again 'involved in a land war in Asia.'

And so, what you may call an unnecessary creation of an adversary, I call prudence. I, and I suspect the world's most prominent atheist writers, are uninterested in supporting or creating the next Osama Bin Laden. That sounds harsh, I know, but it must never be forgotten that at one point in history Osama Bin Laden was an American hero, fighting a live shooting war with our greatest adversary while we tried to remain in the shadows. If an American hero can be turned into a powerful force for evil due mostly to his religion, what is to stop the same thing from happening to the average Dick and Jane once they hold the reins of the faith?

And making a fair attempt to know them as opposed to making assumptions. We can blame Pat Robertson for being a douche and poisoning the well, I agree, but it is rather strange when a person decides to persist with the original assumptions once he/she learns that there are distinctions.

With the above said, using the American government willingness to create alliances with religious fanatics (like in your Osama Bin Laden example) as a reason not to trust liberal Christians is beyond ridiculous. Perhaps you are okay with the comparison because perhaps you don't see how poor this analogy really is. But it is a comparison that does not convince me. In other words, it sounds like a pretty weak excuse to stick with a "reality."

then answer the original question. What is to stop the average Dick and Jane from doing exactly what Bin Laden did with his faith? The answer, of course, is nothing. It is an answer that is difficult to stomach, for certain, but that doesn't make it any less true. Therefore, given that I have spoken truth here about the law of unintended consequences and the possibilities involved in the Christian faith, I submit that my analogy is dead on, but you wish to disregard it because it insults you. I understand that, but I do not sympathize.

As for 'getting to know them', you are now deliberately changing the scope of the argument. We were talking about Christians as a group, and by using the phrase 'getting to know them' you are now talking about individual Christians. Of course this is, in essence, the entire problem I see with Christianity: The liberal individuals disagree vehemently with being lumped in with their fundy adversaries, but do nothing to differentiate themselves from the group.

When someone asks you what religion you are, do you say you are a 'Christian', or do you qualify it and say you are a 'liberal Christian'? Actually, I'll go one better: when someone refers to you as a 'Christian', do you correct them and say 'I am a liberal Christian, there's a difference.'?

If liberal Christians as individuals want people to get to know them before they are judged, they already have that luxury, at least in my eyes. I know some incredible examples of humanity who just happen to be Christians of the liberal variety, and I am quite happy to meet more. But if liberal Christians as a group want to differentiate themselves from their psychopathic counterparts (and of course, they do), then they should find a way to do so that is accessible and discernible from outside of their own group. This is why I say they need a new label.

If you want to be heard, you either need to grab the mic, or grab your friends and go somewhere else. I don't understand what is so difficult about that concept.

Atheists ARE willing, IMO, to live alongside people of ANY faith, as long as they can live alongside everyone else. I think what scares theists the most is that fact, that we WILL tolerate them, as long as they tolerate us.

but most believers don't even think of you (atheists) as anything other than another person they may or may not even know.

If beleivers would stop trying to incorporate "biblical teachings" into secular law, there wouldnt even be a need for this conversation.

I am sure it is different in other parts of the country but atheism was never taboo and not even an issue in my circles. The only annoyance that had to do with religion were the missionaries who would knock on my door from time to time. God and lack of belief in god were never a big deal or reason for drama. Much less of a concern was the "fear that if we don't tolerate them they are not going to tolerate us..."

I live in a very religious and very conservative area and have never felt oppressed as an atheist or a Christian of the somewhat unorthodox type for most of the people around here.

That's your assumption and I wonder why you make such assumptions.

What I don't understand is why you compare "Dick and Jane" to Osama Bin Laden? Assuming Dick and Jane are liberal Christians, of course. If Dick and Jane are religious radicals then the comparison makes sense since I understand your concern with making alliances with radical religious groups or religious radicals like Osama Bin Laden.

But if you cannot (or are not willing to) make the distinction between Osama Bin Laden and liberal Christians then I truly don't know what to tell you. I am not insulted and I have no reason to be insulted. I am just baffled.

I am not trying to deliberately change the scope of the argument. If it happened I didn't do it deliberately. All I am trying to say is that I had my own misconceptions about Christianity and I learned to make distinctions from interactions with Christians and reading more about this form of Christianity. From my own point of view, it appears that just by being "liberal Christianity" the group differentiates itself (by default) from other Christian groups. The nature of liberal Christianity is already opposition to these groups and "bad" enough to draw ire from the religious right.

My main point through the many exchanges we are having here (and I repeat again) is the fact that there are distinctions. The issue now is the ability to see them or the willingness to recognize them. I personally think liberal Christians don't need a new label for others to see these distinctions. I see that it could be convenient not to recognize them or try to lump them so there is a reason to attack the boogieman opponent. I don't find it offensive. I just find it a waste of time and wasted opportunity.

1. Osama was not ALWAYS a religious radical, but religion certainly made him that way.

2. Recognizing distinctions is all well and good, and should be done, but I refuse to make up distinctions simply for the comfort level of people who should frankly know better than to think that I mean to insult them personally. The bottom line of my POV is that liberal Christians voluntarily self-identify with the word 'Christian', and therefore voluntarily take on the baggage that word has come to carry in the non-Christian world.

3. Regarding my assumption, I apologize. I simply took your moderately worded yet persistent defense of liberal Christianity as a sign that you were a liberal Christian yourself.

Let me take a different approach on this argument, and boil down my take on liberal Christianity as a group to one sentence:

If you're going to voluntarily plant yourself squarely in the middle of a flamewar between two diametric opposites, you have no right whatsoever to bitch about the damage to your flamesuit.

1. Even if we say Osama Bin Laden was not as radical back in the day, this is still a silly argument and comparison to make. What is there not to trust someone or a group you reach out to and who is willing to join you in defending a secular government, defending freedom "of" and "from" religion, etc.? Do you really think the person/group will turn to be a radical religious person/group after you give your trust? Are you planning to fund them and train them? :-) Creating walls when there is no need for walls is disturbing thing to do in my opinion. There are wasted opportunities here to educate people instead of alienate. I don't think most people realize that atheists are prohibited from holding public offices in certain states, face discrimination at work, school, etc. But the message is received much more efficiently when emotional attacks are not involved.

2. If you know the distinctions and you lump them together anyway then you are trying to offend. And it won't get you anywhere except for an online flame war. It is not the same thing but it has the same effect as the occasional jackass who lashes out the "fundamentalist atheist" charges.

3. No need to apologize. I make the wrong assumptions myself more often than I am willing to admit. I am Jewish, btw. You can give me grief for that. I don't mind.

"If you're going to voluntarily plant yourself squarely in the middle of a flame war between two diametric opposites, you have no right whatsoever to bitch about the damage to your flamesuit."

I agree with you if you are discussing your point of view (or having a "flame war") as far as belief in God, theology, etc. Atheists have a position in all this and if that position offends then I say the religious person should grow a thicker skin. The issue I don't agree with is the lumping and finger pointing which I think is counter productive and not a very rational way of handling the problem. But again, this is just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

More anti-atheist bullshit. You are positively obsessed with non-believers, aren't you? I can only imagine it stems from being so insecure in your own beliefs that instead of defending them (which you clearly cannot), you have to lash out and act like a prick.

Have you ever, with your oh-so-colossal and stupendous intellect, ever stopped to consider that when an atheist challenges you with a literal interpretation of your holy text, it's a rhetorical exercise designed to get you to explain exactly how one determines whether a passage is to be interpreted literally or metaphorically?

Probably not, because you're too busy telling atheists they're stupid, trying to knock them down to make yourself higher.

Jesus must be so proud of you.

yours was shorter and still said everything that needed to be said. Clearly I have much to learn on the subject of brevity. :hi:

It's all us stupid mouth-breathing atheists can do to work a mouse, let alone compose thoughts and type them on a keyboard. (Remembering to click "Post Message" of course! Geez that's HARD!!!!)

...as this wasn't a tirade of anti-atheism.

Damn, you sure are sensitive, seeing oppression everywhere you look.

Actually, since you missed the thread title, this is about the biblical literalism, which is on display in the theological ignorance of both fundamentalists and some atheists.

Have you ever, with your oh-so-colossal and stupendous intellect, ever stopped to consider that when an atheist challenges you with a literal interpretation of your holy text, it's a rhetorical exercise designed to get you to explain exactly how one determines whether a passage is to be interpreted literally or metaphorically?

Actually, a number of believers here, including myself, have done that and answered that same question. And, when it's answered not to the atheists liking, the atheist typically ignores what the believer says and refuses to accept or even acknowledge that the believer may be right and the atheist wrong.

But, if you interpret a discourse on biblical literalism to be "anti-atheist", then that's your problem.

More anti-atheist bullshit. You are positively obsessed with non-believers, aren't you? I can only imagine it stems from being so insecure in your own beliefs that instead of defending them (which you clearly cannot), you have to lash out and act like a prick.

Project much?

Actually, a number of believers here, including myself, have done that and answered that same question. And, when it's answered not to the atheists liking, the atheist typically ignores what the believer says and refuses to accept or even acknowledge that the believer may be right and the atheist wrong.

I missed that post. Care to re-explain how one determines what and what not to interpret literally in the bible? I have heard a few weak minded attempts to explain it but none that made any sense. I really would like to know.

Things like proof and evidence are beyond people like good ol' Sal.

Even us intellectually-challenged atheists.

Actually, a number of believers here, including myself, have done that and answered that same question.

I would echo the other response to this post and say that I've never seen that answer. Well, other than it essentially being stated as, "The bible is literal when I say it is, and allegorical when I say it is."

That's no answer. That is not sophisticated scholarship or analysis or interpretation. That is instead EXACTLY what the fundies do. Because you do realize that even the most strict, bible-banging fundie has parts they don't take literally, right? You weren't forming your whole OP on a strawman, were you? NAAAAAAAWWWWWW, you'd NEVER do that!

:eyes:

It's fun toying with you though, and your quest to prove yourself smarter than all the non-believers in the world. Comedy gold, Jerry.

I really do want an answer to that question, how does one know when or when not to interpret the bible literally?

I am sorry to put you on the spot, but you made the claim that that question has already been answered, yet I cannot find that answer. I will take a non-response from you that there IS no answer. A non-response also means that your whole premise is false and any further postings from you should be ignored as the ravings of an ignorant religious fundie.

Short answer is, it depends on what you're reading. There are a number of subdivisions of literature types in scripture. There's historical books, poetry books, prophecy, etc, so the first box to check is to understand what type of literature you're reading.

Secondly, because of when it was written, you have to view what you're reading through the social, cultural, and historical context it was written in. This encompasses idioms, metaphors, allegories that may not carry the same meaning today that they did thousands of years ago.

For example, in the "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" saying, the word camel is a mistranslation of the Aramaic word for rope, which, in its day, designated a very thick, very coarse thread. This changes the saying from something that's impossible to something that is very difficult. The intent is to relate that when one is preoccupied with material things, it's easy to let those become your God, your idol, and lose focus on living out the Kingdom on Earth.

Then there is scriptural criticism, of which an understanding is needed for studying theology. A decent guide to this is An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures By Thomas Hartwell Horne, published in 1846. In the very beginning of this book, Horne states:

Then we get to the next part, criticism. There's scriptural, textual (linguistics), source, form, redaction, rhetorical, canonical, among many other methods of biblical criticisms. They all have their specific rules and methodologies, in order to facilitate movement towards a common, or thorough, understanding of scripture. Too many people today, religious and non-religious, don't employ "proper" criticism methodologies in reading scripture, which leads them to, for lack of a better word, improper exegesis and understanding.

So, it's not as simple as it sounds. It takes time, study, research, etc., to understand what someone thousands of years ago wrote and the message contained within.

The debate I was referring to the other day was over Paul's use of the word "slave". In Paul's time, the concept of slavery was completely different than we understand it to be today, particularly looking through 17th thru 19th century American lenses. The difference in concepts was explained, numerous times, yet the common response was (paraphrasing) "Yeah, but it says slave!" That example may not exactly answer the question, but it does illustrate the difference between literalism, commonly employed by people, and a more thorough understanding.

I've studied theology for years as a hobby, but it's only through the last few years of formal education in theology and employing these methods that I feel I'm starting to grasp it fully. I'm beginning to see what I call the "scriptural spiderweb", how different books, stories, etc., fit together to form one coherent piece. For years, I, too, thought that the Bible was contradictatory, that the OT God was completely different from the NT God, that Paul was misogynistic in his writings. It's easy to do if you just stick to surface, a theology I refer to as "a mile wide and an inch deep".

Does that help? If something's not clear, please ask, and I'll do my best to explain it better.

Maybe I am unable to see this from any perspective but my own, and here it is........

Christians say that the bible is the divine word of god, period. Either it is, or it is not. I do not see any middle ground there. Before we go further, I need to know if that is right or not.

Truly, it's appreciated.

It was written by men, inspired and directed by God, in a way that the people of their culture and time could understand. This is why there is a need to understand context, and apply context, to scripture so we can better understand the message.

Either it IS or it is NOT the divine word of god. If it is interpretable by different cultures in different times, then how is one to know who is interpreting it correctly? Who decides? And if it can be interpreted differently, then it MUST be fallible, and thus is NOT the divine word of god.

This seems like a black and white thing, SAL316, no?

is no different than the claim the Catholic Church made for centuries before and after Luther nailed his Theses to the door, namely: Laity cannot interpret scripture, as it requires a study of original language, context, and cultural effects.

Your entire post here makes the point that no one without a post-graduate degree should even attempt to read the Bible for themselves, because they wouldn't truly understand it.

But here's the Optimus Prime sized hole in your argument: Are you a fully qualified archaeologist, anthropologist, cultural historian, or student of dead languages? No, by your own admission you have a degree of some kind in theology, which means that the total tonnage of what you don't know about archaeology, anthropology, cultural history, and dead languages could stop a team of oxen in its tracks. By your own argument you must have knowledge of all of these things and more in order to properly interpret scripture in the appropriate context, but how can you possibly be sure that you have all the information you need to provide that context?

Seems more like Imperial Star Cruiser sized. Or hell, planetoid sized.

Never mind the issue that since the bible purports to be the word of the Christian god, it contains the information necessary to know and accept him/her. But somehow a person would need to be one of the most specialized and educated individuals in the world to even begin to decrypt it? Why would a loving god, who wants its creation to know it, hide itself behind such arcane, easily mistranslated, and horribly misunderstood words?

I was originally planning to include that salient point in my post, but I couldn't find a place to fit it in.

The Catholic Church claims that only the Church can explain the Bible to laity. That is not, and never has been, my position. Even being raised Catholic, I found that position to be untenable, in that if man was created in the image of God, that means we all have the capability to discern meaning from Scripture.

Your entire post here makes the point that no one without a post-graduate degree should even attempt to read the Bible for themselves, because they wouldn't truly understand it.

No, that's not it, and that's not what I said. Quite honestly, one wonders where you come up with these statements.

As far as the "Optimus Prime sized hole", that's an awfully bold assumption. What you're assuming is that unless one has an intimate knowledge and is fully qualified in those fields, their interpretation is meaningless. In your words.."which means that the total tonnage of what you don't know about archaeology, anthropology, cultural history, and dead languages could stop a team of oxen in its tracks."

It is important to understand context, understand language, understand idioms, etc. But to insinuate one needs to be "fully qualified" is asinine.

You see, if I want to understand those things.... I read, I study, I research. I defer to experts in those fields and their knowledge and scholarship.

Would you read classics in Greek literature without understanding the context of the times? How about early American documents by the founders, such as Paine or Adams or Jefferson? Does one need to be an expert in numerous fields to understand what they were saying?

In this area, yeah, I probably do study more than the average joe. Does that mean the average joe is incapable of understanding scripture? Not hardly.

Well, let's see. From your own post:

Short answer is, it depends on what you're reading. There are a number of subdivisions of literature types in scripture. There's historical books, poetry books, prophecy, etc, so the first box to check is to understand what type of literature you're reading.

Secondly, because of when it was written, you have to view what you're reading through the social, cultural, and historical context it was written in. This encompasses idioms, metaphors, allegories that may not carry the same meaning today that they did thousands of years ago.

Of course, the emphasis is mine, but the argument is yours. If you are taking issue with this argument, then you are simply arguing with yourself, and I can't help you.

ETA: I've gone back over this thread and re-read your OP, and all of your responses. You have answered every response to your condescending OP with more condescension and insults. In fact, I find the sheer volume and tenor of your condescension impressive, and with what I've seen in the past that's saying something. So I have to ask: Are you actually interested in any answers to the questions you have posed, or is your true motive here simply to look down your nose at the unbelievers?

Uh, yeah, it does. Because you yourself have said as such. The "average Joe" Christian in the United States is more likely than not to believe in literal 7-day creation, a literal global flood that killed all humans save Noah's family, a literal place called hell where souls are tortured, and that only Christians will be saved when Jesus returns to judge the world. I totally understand that none of these beliefs are probably part of your take on Christianity, nor your church's, but that's the point. One which even you, I would hope, could grasp.

Your explanation above doesn't fly in some circles as it negates the hyperbolic idea of a camel being able to fit through the eye of a needle. The "Aramaic solution" (if I might call it that) is just as fanciful as any other offered.

A good overview of this particular verse and possibilities behind it's meaning are discussed here: http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

a believer is supposed to react when the seeming standard for challenging an interpretive reading of any Biblical verses seems to be, "See you stupid fuck how can you not take every verse literally". I know this is a somewhat broad brush statement but I am speaking from my experiences not saying this is how everyone acts.

Perhaps you could come back with an actual example or quote?

Which, if any, of the following passages are meant to be interpreted literally? How do you know this?
From Judges 11

Matthew 1
From Exodus 20
And from Exodus 34

Theists on this forum don't seem to like this question. If this question does not get a theist answer in this thread, this question may make for a really good OP.

The difficulty of making it a single response is paring down the specific passages.

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

1 Cor 6: 9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

1 Tim 1: 9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."


Most Religious people consider this literal- to this day we have a climate of hatred for LGBT because of texts such as this taken literal.

My biggest thing with the bible is that it's full of misogyny - Sorry, can't get behind a book ( or and religion) that has made women second class humans for millennia-

I've been religious before- I've read the bible backwards and forward. I've studied- I've researched.
My conclusion- it's a work fictitious nature, nothing more.

...but that's not what those passages mean.

The Levitical passages refer to the practice of temple prostitution. Additionally, it helps to understand the Holiness code in the OT in its proper perspective.

The passage in Corinthians contains a word, translated as homosexual, that nobody actually knows what Paul meant. It's not a word that appears in any Greek literature of the time, and not in any of the surviving Greek gay erotica, either. It is most literally translated as two words "man" and "bed", and, based on the cultural context of the time, most likely refers to sex slaves or prostitutes.

The passage in Romans, the most popular clobber passage, is always taken out of context. Paul is talking to Christians in Rome, and here he is referring to Pagan sex orgies.

The passage in Timothy, again, contains the word "arsenokoitai", Paul's made up word.

It's understandable how someone could believe the Bible, and Paul in particular, to be mysoginistic. One should, however, put it in proper context first before passing that sort of judgment.

To the Church in Corinth, Paul's saying women should be silent is because, at the time, Pagan priestesses would sing, chant, prophesy, speak in tongues, all rather loudly, and interrupt the services.

Secondly, Paul's writings on gifts does not single out men or women. In fact, Paul, in numerous places, praises women working in the church using a word that is commonly translated as deacon or minister.

Third, when Paul says women can't teach men, he also says that they should learn so they can become "teachers of the way". In those cultures, women weren't allowed to read, write, learn, etc., so there was a danger of having women who didn't understand (because of having been excluded for generations) teach bad theology. In fact, Paul says the same thing about men in other places, too, particularly that new believers should not be in positions of authority because their faith and understanding aren't mature enough.

Conservatives love to cherry pick the passages that make women second class citizens, taking them completely out of context. However, if one reads it properly, Paul makes it very clear that all are equal in the eyes of God.

I think you've just hit the nail on the head.

There are as many different ways to read the Bible as there are people on this planet, and there always will be no matter how many people there are. (See what I did there? :))

As for Paul, there are many things that can be said about him, but one of those certainly is that he was not a moron. He chose his words with an intention that they would be used for posterity, so that generations of Ephesians, Corinthians, and others would know what it was to truly be members of Christ's church.

If your argument was true, then all of Paul's writings would be useless outside of the immediate time frame in which he wrote them, and HE knew that too, which is why he chose to use more generic statements to allow for future applicability. The generic statements that he chose were most definitely misogynistic, and to walk back that misogyny using the then-current problems of the church is to entirely mistake his intent.

Yes, I've had this argument before. In fact, I was on your side of that argument at the time, but I learned a lot more about Paul after that little encounter. The man was a prick, and as such I'm still not sure why his writings were considered good enough to include in the current incarnation of the Bible, while the Gospel of Mary and many other books were left out. Oh sure, you can quote the Council of Nicaea, but they included Paul because he writes GREAT suppressive law, and I just wonder why we're still using their rules.

No one you are addressing here has not seen these tired wheezes for years. They do nothing to advance your claims, or to mitigate the statements whose full implications you are trying to evade.

It remains a fact that the code of law, claimed to be the direct product of the deity, a deity righteous altogether, etc., pronounces homosexual acts a capital crime.

It remains a fact that a leading apostle, held to be divinely inspired in his writings, directed that women should remain silent in services.

The reasons for this do not matter, or certainly do not matter in any way that helps you. The most they could stand for would be as mitigating circumstances in determining punishment: yes, the defendant has committed the crime, but he had a harsh up-bringing, is not very bright, and so perhaps should be shown some leniency in sentencing. It does not matter that these acts were forbidden, and in some cases punished harshly, because they were acts that could be found in the worship of other religions, and devotees of this particular deity could not be suffered to allow even the appearance of doing something some other religion viewed as sacred. This does not provide the slightest defense against the charge a murderous attitude towards homosexuality, and regarding women as inferior creatures, are things embodied in the religion from its roots, and indeed rendered as sacred charges.

Your defense of Paul, a fellow who, in my view, comes in for a good deal of unjustified disparagement, gives the key to what is really going on here. That defense boils down to stating 'Paul was no more of a misogynist than most anyone else around at the time', and that is true enough as a broad statement concerning the cultures centered on the Mediterranean. But you are contained now by a culture which rejects the views concerning women which were dominant in his time. You bring those views of your culture to your desire for religious belief, and find them a poor fit with the texts of the religious belief which is still nominally dominant in your culture. You accept the easy identification of religion with the good and moral that so many make, and so must find what you consider good and moral within your religion. Thus, necessarily, you set out to find ways to make the texts your religion holds sacred and divinely inspired say things that are in accord with your own views of what is good and moral, the present standards of your own culture and social world. Thus, Paul becomes, despite numerous plain statements that women are subordinate, an apostle of gender equality, fit for a seat on the board of MS. Magazine, a bold proto-feminist from the era of the Caesars. But it is you, you yourself, who works this change; it is not a reflection of a deeper understanding of the book or of the ways of the deity, a discovery of things that were always there if only looked at properly. You brought them to the book, and made it into your mirror. The book remains what it was and is: a product of a place and time, peculiar to that place and time, constructed by humans for their own purposes in that place and time, and no more or less relevant outside it than any other ancient work of literature.

It remains a fact that the code of law, claimed to be the direct product of the deity, a deity righteous altogether, etc., pronounces homosexual acts a capital crime.

It remains a fact that a leading apostle, held to be divinely inspired in his writings, directed that women should remain silent in services.

This does not provide the slightest defense against the charge a murderous attitude towards homosexuality, and regarding women as inferior creatures, are things embodied in the religion from its roots, and indeed rendered as sacred charges.


Uhhhh... seriously? You're taking the side that the fundamentalist interpretation is correct?

A good way of describing what it's like to read Paul I've heard is like listening to one half of a telephone conversation. Without understanding what Church he's speaking to, what issues he's addressing, what the cultural context is, it's easy to take the fundamentalist, extremist viewpoint.

Quite honestly, that's intellectually lazy. It assumes that the context it was written in is the same as today, and that cultural advancements are irrelevant.

Where would we be if we understood scientific or psychological or economic or any other premises the way we understood them in the 14th Century? Why is it acceptable to increase the understanding of the world around us in every other subject except Theology? Why must we understand the nature of God and Scripture the same as we did in the 12th Century?

Our understanding of ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic has increased exponentially since the King James translation in 1611.

I suppose that's all irrelevant to you anyway, since it's "a product of a place and time, peculiar to that place and time" and no more relevant than "any other ancient work of literature."

However, sir, for me, I choose to continue to grow in knowledge.

The difference it makes was spelled out clearly: it may mitigate, but does not exonerate. Those are different concepts. One may say, these persons who wrote that law had a limited understanding, were ignorant, etc., and so it might be just not to judge them so harshly as one would a person who today wrote a similar claim, but this does not alter the character of what they wrote, or change its meaning. It remains, in the particular instance cited, a statement that homosexual acts are capital crimes, and a statement that a deity, a deity altogether righteous, etc., decrees this to be so. You seem to have a problem with a deity declaring homosexual acts to be a capital offense, which is all to the good; it is your reaction to that difficulty that cannot be regarded with respect. You do not say forthrightly, that is wrong, and cannot be the act of a righteous deity, so the deity which makes that command cannot be righteous, and cannot serve as a point of aspiration for good and moral action. Nor do you take another tack, saying a righteous deity could not have made such a command, and so the persons who wrote that law were not inspired by a righteous deity, as they claimed, but wrote it of their own will, and lied in saying they wrote under divine instruction. Either course is a perfectly respectable response to the contradiction between what you think ought to be there, and what actually is there. For that matter, even the course of saying, well, if that is what the righteous deity says is right, it is my duty as a righteous believer to follow the instruction, whatever my personal feelings may be, is respectable, in the sense that it is honest and straightforward, though it is certainly murderous and dangerous. What cannot command respect is the indulgence in black-white you seem to favor, the bending of every mental sinew to make the text somehow agree with what you think is moral and good, no matter how flatly that is contradicted by the text before you, making the deity over into something wholly in your own image, yet claiming it is a deity eternal and true, and always really meant just what you have always thought best yourself.

You fall into a common trap in these matters by imagining yourself the only person possessed of knowledge on the topic, which is a foolish presumption here. Even without bothering to make any claim of special knowledge on my part, it is enough to point out that the period of the Roman Republic and Empire, and the currents of Hellenist thought, are sturdy staples of learning, even entertainment, in our culture, and any number of people will have come, from a variety of directions, to interest in the development of religions and religious thought throughout history, in a variety of places and times. It is not something arcane and obscure, like events in Mongolia during the Russian Civil War, or the composition of and compounding of alloys and dyestuffs in late Pharonic Egypt, about which only persons with highly and uncommonly specialized interests will know a damned thing. The context in which the Abrahamic traditions arose, and spread, is widely known, and most people who trouble to engage on the matter will have some grounding in it. You are not going to make many points by insisting there is some magic in the milieu that spins dross into gold. The text you seek to salvage is hampered by certain claims, that it is divinely inspired, and that the deity who inspired it is eternal and absolute and omnipotent and omniscient and righteous altogether. This leaves very little wiggle room for honest persons, though it opens a wide field for persons inclined to chicanery and sophistries.

It is worth pointing out, too, that in citing comments by a person you are addressing, it is best to take the plain text, and avoid editing to suit an attempted point. My statement was that the book in question was no more or less relevant than any other work of ancient literature. Some of my favorite and most valued reading material is thousands of years old, and if it did not strike me as highly relevant and instructive, it would not engage a moment of my time. Human beings are today pretty much what they were two thousand years, or ten thousand years, ago; human affairs, interactions, emotions, all remain broadly similar, though they play out within different constraints and with different mental furnitures, in different times and places. There is much in the Bible worth absorbing, as there is much in Homer, and in Confucius and Lao Tzu, and many others. But the pretense it is a divine work, revealing the Lord of the Universe, communicating His Truth, cannot be sustained for a heartbeat, and in trying to sustain it, most of what is valuable in the book is lost.

that the Bible does not mean what it clearly says. I've always wondered at the criticism that I am reading the words of the Bible, seeing their meaning, and being appalled, and then not just assuming that the words must clearly mean something less horrible. Pick just about anything. In what context can I put the stoning to death of a man who picks up sticks on Saturday that makes it okay? I'm aware that the story as it is written didn't literally happen, but it's still abhorrent. What about God explicitly endorsing (and more than once committing) genocide? While it didn't literally happen, what light can be shed on the matter that makes an endorsement (or commission) of genocide okay?

Although every now and then we'll just point out how stupid the whole thing is.

:eyes:

So not only do you have the maturity of a 12 year old, you also have the same level of intelligence.

Or do you just have a compusion to post to me?

so it was simply a response in kind, and at least trotsky had the presence of mind to make sense in his statement.

Which seems to constitute the bulk of the critique of the OP. Nothing unusual really.

but the fine line that you pole-vaulted over, and that HFPS respected, was that between insulting a text, and insulting a person. But then, who needs subtlety when you have one-line insults that you can throw at whomever you like? :eyes:

that we have to write stuff for fifth graders to get you to understand it properly.

Say hi to them for me.

I suspect that it doesn't impress anyone else you know, either. My guess: you are simply tolerated at all of your family gatherings, while the adults attempt to carry on a normal conversation. Much like here.

And kudos for a mature stimulating post. I hope your stay here will be tolerated for more than a few months.

You are obviously interested only in taking and giving offense. You care nothing for discussion and have no basic understanding of decorum, let alone substantiation or argumentation, so you have quite visibly decided to act like an asshole at every opportunity. It may take them a while to see it, but I suspect the PTB will finally consider you an inflammatory and totally negative influence on the board. Right now, I look happily forward to seeing 'Deleted message' in several places where your insulting bullshit used to be.

Have you been drinking?

And just to clarify, since you obviously missed it, THE FACT THAT IT WAS TO SOMEONE ELSE WAS MY POINT, GENIUS!

Well, you're entitled to it, stupid as it may be.

My opinion about the stupidity of your posts is irrelevant, as reviewing your posts, you added NOTHING to this discussion with ANYONE other than some sophomoric insults and childish wordplay. I am sure you will respond with more of the same in order to have the last word, so I will give it to you. But please understand, you will probably never be taken seriously on this board, ever, and will most likely end up on everyone's ignore list. Pretty much like your real life.

Now excuse me while I help my children sort out their Halloween candy. (BTW, those skeletons you may see tonight? Don't take them literally.)

The Bible's stupidity is absolute.

the stupidity of R/T is absolute.

I'll be happy to direct you to the posts.

Do you think the earth has four corners and the value of pi is 3?

Do you think gay people should be executed?

No.

Insuliting question requiring no response.

Now let me ask you the question posed in the OP.

Do you take the Bible literally?

The literal interpretation of the Bible is stupid.

As evidenced by claims about a flat earth, the value of pi being 3, and claiming that gays should be executed.

It's just stupid.

You have to get over the fact that the Bible is not infallible.

But if you don't take it literally, and others don't take it literally, why do you think it is meant to be read literally?

Is that supposed to be a parable for something?

Because sometimes there's no other way to read it.

As evidenced by your failure to answer my question.

Religioustolerance.org also has an interesting explanation. As does scholarship over the last two centuries in particular.

As to your answer to my question, "sometimes there's no other way to read it". Is that it?

If it is, and you therefore hold the Bible requires the execution of gays, then you have proven the point of the OP.

Post #77 was an absurd dodge, as explained in posts #79, 81, and 85.

"If it is, and you therefore hold the Bible requires the execution of gays, then you have proven the point of the OP."

Yes, the Bible requires the execution of gays.

And that proves my point that the Bible is stupid.

It doesn't prove the OP's point. The OP would claim that the fact that the Bible calls for the execution of gays means that Christians and the Christian God are paternalistic, petty, sadistic, etc.

It doesn't mean that. It just means the Bible itself, and the people who believe in the literal interpretation, are petty, sadistic and homophobic.

As for the Christian God, there's no such thing.

And I assume you consider the scriptures of other faiths to be stupid also.

I doubt the reason is simply that you believe they are meant to be read literally.

Don't you?

To be deliberately concrete on your favorite passage does not advance your argument.

I have asked this question several times on this forum, but I never receive a theist answer.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth <-- Literal, or not literal, and why?

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live <-- Literal, or not literal, and why?

'On First Principles'

then the reading is probably not worth my time.

I will try to explain it but as bad a theologian as I am I may be even worse at writing about such concepts so it may take some time to get the right words together so it won't sound like I'm talking from the bottom of a bottle of Glenlivet. I still recommend Origen he was most likely the greatest of all Christian exegetes.

Especially if book A is to be the divine word of god?

I post on DU between on-line homework assignments.

You read his books. How does one decide which parts of the Holy Bible are literal and which parts are not literal?

eta: If you can not answer the question after reading his book, then the book is probably not worth my time.

but it causes me to wonder if your interest i the subject is even strong enough to warrant my time explaining it or will it just be summarily dismissed and silly Christian babble by you.

The question is simple, yet any answer given is always gibberish.

One more time......


If the bible is the divine word of god, then how does one determine what parts are literal and what parts are not and who decides?


An answer to that question does not need a whole other book to explain, not a fancy, convoluted answer that doesnt really answer the question at all. C'mon, dude, Christian up and answer the question honestly.

I will probably ask you questions about the method.

I am NOT calling you out, but I know of no other way to try and get a response from you where it can be documented in the Thread you started. So here is my question, one I repeated in sub-threads but so far has gone unanswered.


I really do want an answer to that question,that you say you have already answered, how does one know when or when not to interpret the bible literally?

I am sorry to put you on the spot, but you made the claim that that question has already been answered, yet I cannot find that answer. I will take a non-response from you that there IS no answer. A non-response also means that your whole premise is false and any further postings from you should be ignored as the ravings of an ignorant religious fundie.


PLEASE! Restate your answer, if only to educate a heathen like me. I look forward to your relpy.

People like this need to play as if they're like tiresome gods they claim to believe in -- they can't reveal themselves or their Great Truths directly, oh, no! It is your job to see spot the Wisdom that has been placed before you, and find it if you are Worthy. :eyes:

I'm outta here! :yoiks:

:popcorn:

and was resurrected, correct?

he idea of God is that God is the cause. We are the effect. We created religion and science.


Science and religion are both "explanations" of how things came to be, are and might be in the future.

They are explanations-after the fact-of the effect.

The scientific method, the testing of a hypothesis, is in fact the observation of effects in an attempt to root out the cause. So while much of science appears to describe effects, that is only the form and function that science takes to lead to its ultimate goal, which is the understanding of causes.

Religion, however, IS the explanation of effect. God (in theist religions) is setup as the root cause of all that is, thereby explaining every effect in our cosmos.

Science and religion are opposites. One uses effects to try and find causes, while the other postulates a single cause to explain all effects.

But it only reinforces the point that they cannot not be compared. Except that they are both inventions of man.

Non-Overlapping Magisteria.
Edit: better link

Non_Overlapping Magisteria even was. Or maybe I just missed it.

Nevertheless, I'm speaking of God. Mr. Dawkins is speaking of religion. Specifically, Catholicism.

When science gets it wrong, it corrects the mistake.

The holy texts of one particular religion claim that the Earth is flat, fixed, sits on pillars, and 6000 years old. They also claim that all people are descended from an original pair of humans who lived 6000 years ago, that a 500 year old man built a giant boat and loaded every species of animal onto it in a single day to survive a global flood, that everyone spoke the same language until a single moment around 4000 years ago, that bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, that pi=3.0, that the sky is holding back water, that the earth stopped rotating for 24 hours around 3500 years ago, and that the moon gives off its own light.

Every one of those claims is absolutely wrong and adherents of that religion make excuses about why we should ignore how wrong those claims are and still take those holy texts seriously.