OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[thejeff]

I think Nikelaos is saying he doesn't take it literally. Which is a fine way to approach it, there's a lot of wisdom in the Bible.
And with someone who took that approach I wouldn't "pick out little quotes to make judgements". That's reserved for those who claim to believe the whole thing it divinely inspired word for word, all literally true. Which is, I agree, a minority of Christians. Just usually the loudest ones.
(Especially in America.)

I particularly like those who claim they simply believe the literal meaning of the text, needing no interpretation, then proceed to explain what the verse means.

I am also reminded of the Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
So many, and so many of the loudest voices, claim to be Christian, but I see very little of Christ in their behavior.

[licker]

I'm not an atheist, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can take my statements at face value though.

And I don't have a problem with people who believe in fairy tales either, hell my kids love them

I don't think it's casual mockery either when people will say that that bible contains the 'word of god' but then decide they somehow get to chose which of words he actually apparently meant to be taken literally.

So either you accept that the bible is a big fairy tale and don't chose to base an otherwise completely arbitrary belief system off of it, or you stick up for a more literal interpretation of *all* of it. Really the distinction for most christians is between the old and new testament anyway. And there are arguments out there for why the old shouldn't be taken literally, but that the new should be. I think those arguments fail though, so that's why I take the stance I take.

[llamabeast]

Er, as a moderator I'm feeling a little nervous here. This thread is on the very edge of disaster.

JaghataiKhan, if you got banned from the Mount&Blade forums for being offensive in your vehement assaults on religion, please try to avoid repeating that here.

In any case, I am moving this to the Bar&Grill, as it has nothing to do with Dom3.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Er, as a moderator I'm feeling a little nervous here. This thread is on the very edge of disaster.

JaghataiKhan, if you got banned from the Mount&Blade forums for being offensive in your vehement assaults on religion, please try to avoid repeating that here.

In any case, I am moving this to the Bar&Grill, as it has nothing to do with Dom3.

Belated apologies for dragging the thread even further off-topic than it already was....

[Edratman]

This site is a collection of saying from a famed (at the time) late 19th century American athiest.

Naturally, I concur with this.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/.../ingersoll.htm

[Edi]

For the sake of completeness, this was split from here.

[Agema]

Mainstream interpretation of the Bible, even since the earliest Christian theologians, has never been that it is entirely literal.

Even if the Bible is the word of God, it does not mean it has to be literal truth. It is logically consistent to say that although God is perfect, any communication he could render to humans must be interpreted by imperfect human understanding. (That argument was originally based on Platonic philosophy, although it's also compatible into one of the major strands of postmodern philosophy.)

The failing with literal interpretation was pointed out over 1500 years ago by Christian theologians. They noticed their understanding was far greater than the primitives who wrote the early Bible and had even less chance of comprehending the whole truth. As human knowledge grows, Christians need to consider whether tracts of the Bible are actually loose framework, grossly simplified versions of events, or outright allegory.

For Christians to back total literal interpretation is to put them at odds with the intellectual background of their own religion. For atheists to do it (assuming they aren't countering a literalist), it's nothing but setting up a straw man.

[thejeff]

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.

[Edi]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.

True. And the "part literal, part allegory" approach on the other hand provides all sorts of ammunition against a lot of things that even mainstream Christianity accepts as a matter of course. It comes to the "So, which is it?" question and sooner or later the religious arguments start contradicting themselves.

It's hard to give any respect to something that is so inconsistent and self-contradictory. Most of the good stuff associated with Christianity is not actually sourced in the Bible per se, but is universal to most ethical systems that aim to improve the lot of people. The Golden Rule being one of those.

Another problem Christianity has in the eyes of non-believers is refusal of moderates to outright condemn the whackjob fringe, thus silently enabling them to claim more supporters for their position than there really are. If someone on my side were sabotaging constructive efforts the same way they are, I'd let them have it with both barrels. And as long as the other side doesn't return the favor, I won't bother making any distinctions when talking about them as a group. If someone has a problem with it, they can speak up later. Not that the earlier silence will get a lot of sympathy.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.

We need to draw a very careful distinction between Truth and literalism. Fundamentalist Christians like me believe the Bible to be true. We believe that Scripture is the infallible and inspired Word of God. What does that mean?

"Infallible" means that the Word is never wrong on any subject that it addresses. The doctrine of infallibility does not claim that Scripture contains all knowledge. I work in IT, and I can tell you that Scripture is remarkably short on advice for properly configuring a virtual datacenter. However, when Scripture speaks on a subject, it is always correct.

The doctrine of infallibility also does not require us to always interpret Scripture in a literal, word-for-word sense. Some parts of Scripture are poetry, some are prophecy, and some are literal. We have to understand what we're reading. Of course, now we have the problem of determining which is which. Is the creation account from Genesis poetry or literal history? Christians are divided on this question. Personally, I'm undecided, but I'm leaning toward literal history.

A good rule of thumb for interpreting the Bible is: When the Word makes plain sense, seek no other sense. In other words, if the text makes sense from a literal view, then that's probably how it was meant to be understood. We shouldn't reach for a poetical or metaphorical understanding unless the plain meaning of the words can't possibly make sense....

"Inspired" simply means that the Bible came from God. Yes, it was written by human hands, but those people were all guided by God's Holy Spirit. In other words, the Bible has only one Author, but He gave a lot of dictation.

With those points in mind, I will refer you back to Agema's comment. Literal understanding of the Bible simply doesn't work, and Christians have known that for many years. I suspect that you actually don't know too many literalists. I am a member of a fundamentalist Christian church, and I don't know any literalists.

Most of the people who believe in a literal understanding of the Bible are straw men. Actual Christians -- including the fundamentalists -- know that literalism is both self-defeating and unnecessary to proclaim God's Word as truth.