OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[Agema]

Originally Posted by licker

So you just pick what you want to take literally and what you don't?

And you accept that even though there are more gospels than what are included in the bible that the others are not important/relevant to the religion?

Look, I have nothing against christians (or any religion), but it amuses me the leaps of logic many people make in trying to make their decision to believe in fairy tales palatable to themselves.

I might suggest that saying you have nothing against the religious is a lot more convincing when you don't then patronisingly belittle them for illogicality and believing fairy tales.

I'm an atheist too for the record. But I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, some are smarter than me and many of their detractors, and I think all deserve better than casual mockery.

* * *

I think many atheists are a little disingenuous with "Christians pick and choose" arguments. The Bible is and always was considered a book that works on many levels. Biblical literalism - much of what causes problems in the modern world in my view - was popularised by elements of Protestantism 1500 years after Christ. Even today it is only prevalent in Protestants, and a minority at that, albeit a minority with plenty of money and will to make a disproportionately big noise about their beliefs.

Someone (Slippery Jim?) said that Jesus is the lens through which the Bible should be read. This reflects an important ideal that has existed in Christianity since its earliest day recognised by earliest Christian thinkers like Origen or St. Augustine: that not every last bit of the Bible, especially the O.T., should be carried out to the letter, or is an absolute word of God. Much of it allegorical, inaccurate interpretations by men with primitive understanding, simple historical record or whatever else.