Scholar Reza Aslan absolutely destroys biblical literalism

[LongTomH]

In February, Professor Reza Aslan spoke at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. One of the questions he responded to was on whether the accounts of Jesus miracles were literally true. According to Prof. Aslan, a literal interpretation of scripture is a late 19th Century concept:

“Let me just say that one more time,” Aslan continued. “In the 2,000 year history in which the Gospels have existed, the idea that what you are reading in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is literal and inerrant is a little more than 100 years old. It was the result of a very interesting movement, a backlash to Christian liberalism and the Scientific Revolution at the end of the 19th century … by a group of American Protestants who began a movement that was launched by a series of tracts that were written called ‘The Fundamentals’ and that is where we get the term ‘fundamentalism’ from. It’s a very new phenomenon.”

Along with biblical literalism being a new phenomenon, Aslan also points out that the Gospels are full of errors, and some of them don’t even match up in terms of date. More shockingly, he states that religious men in the church didn’t really have a problem with these historical inaccuracies.

Aslan points out the discrepancy on the date of Jesus birth in Matthew and Luke:

“Now, let me ask you a much more important question than which one is right,” Aslan states. “Do you think that the church fathers who in the fourth century decided to put both Matthew and Luke in the canonized New Testament didn’t bother to read them first? They didn’t notice that they have different dates for Jesus’ birth? They didn’t notice that the gospel of John absolutely contradicts the entire timeline of Matthew, Mark and Luke? They didn’t notice that there are two completely different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke?

.....................//snip

“They were not as interested in the facts of Jesus’ life as they were in the truth revealed by Jesus’ life. When they constructed these stories about Jesus, and I mean that quite literally, they constructed these stories. If you asked them, ‘Did this really happen?’ they wouldn’t even understand the question. What do you mean did this really happen? You’re missing the point! The point isn’t ‘Are these facts true?’ the point is, ‘What does this story reveal about the nature of who Jesus is?’”

I believe the concept of a 'rapture' and an imminent, physical return of Jesus is also a 19th Century phenomenon.

[elehhhhna]

1. religion has used the imminent return of Christ threat/promise

Since at least the beginning of the Crusades around 900 c.e.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

4. Much longer than that -- right from the start.

Read the letters of Paul, which were written perhaps 20 years or so after Jesus was crucified, and you will see strong indications that everyone thought he'd be returning in the near future.

[LongTomH]

9. Yes, the Second Coming has been part of Christian theology since the early church, however......

........the modern concept of a rapture mostly dates back to the dispensationalism of preacher John Darby in the early part of the 1830s.

[cbayer]

2. Well done.

Thanks for bringing this here. I don't think anyone who regularly posts here is a literalist, except for those that completely reject the bible but insist that if you accept any of it you must accept it all.

As usual, Aslan makes a succinct and strong case.

Be aware that there are some here who do not like him. He had the audacity to criticize Bill Maher and Sam Harris, you know.

[trotsky]

3. *sigh*

If it weren't for straw men, you'd have nothing to attack.

[truebrit71]

59. Or he could just be criticized because he is more frequently wrong rather than right...

Naaaah, couldn't be that straight forward....

[cbayer]

60. Do you have anything that would substantiate that?

I don't always agree with him, but it's generally because of his personal spin on things. I have not noted that he is more often wrong than right.

Any evidence that you could provide would be most appreciated.

[truebrit71]

61. Yes. I read what he writes.

...

[cbayer]

62. So do I. Disagreeing with him does not mean that he is factually incorrect.

Can you provide some examples?

[truebrit71]

63. There are examples right here in this very thread...

...

[cbayer]

64. No there aren't.

There is a single member's opinion, which is different than his. While I generally think this member has a pretty good grasp of these topics, I doubt that his education and experience in this field are superior to Aslan's.

As I claim no expertise in this particular historical perspective, I'm not sure where the truth lies.

So I'm going to toss that as an example.

Do you have any others?

Again, I think that you probably have areas of disagreement but that doesn't mean he is factually inaccurate.

[stone space]

5. I find Biblical literalism annoying in the extreme.

launched by a series of tracts that were written called ‘The Fundamentals’ and that is where we get the term ‘fundamentalism’ from.

Fascinating. I didn't know that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. It should be noted that it was common, long before that, to take the Old Testament dates literally

The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as they believe is described in the first two chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis.
...
The chronology is sometimes called the Ussher-Lightfoot chronology because John Lightfoot published a similar chronology in 1642–1644. This, however, is a misnomer, as the chronology is based on Ussher's work alone and not that of Lightfoot. Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.

Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).[1] Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). This view continued to be held as recently as AD 2000,[2][3] six thousand years after 4004 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

And if you say you believe the Bible when it says that Noah was 500 years old when his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth were born (they were apparently triplets - I'd never noticed that until now), then you deserve the label 'literalist'. You're basically ready to believe anything written in the book.

Compared to believing in people living many centuries and fathering children at those advanced ages, Aslan's example of "Matthew and Luke disagree by about 10 years for the birth of Jesus" is a piece of piss to paper over. They don't explicitly give a year in which they claim he was born - they talk about different regimes in charge of the area. To believe both of those simultaneously, all you have to do is not have complete knowledge of how Judaea was governed at various times.

Anyway, with Bede and Ussher both being literalists, the "for over a thousand years, religious leaders did not take the Bible as literal fact" claim is wrong. It might be interesting to know which thousand year stretch he was claiming it about, though.

[cbayer]

7. I believe that he is only talking about the New Testament.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. That would be a pretty dumb thing to do, then

Ignore the stuff about worldwide floods, parting of seas, plagues of Egypt, and other stuff that Christianity believed as orthodoxy until the Enlightenment, and say "of course they weren't literalists - there are minor contradictions in the gospels, and these people were too intelligent to miss that, so they can't have believed they were actual history. They reserved 'actual history' for the bit with the talking snake."

Aslan is an idiot.

[cbayer]

11. Aslan is far from an idiot.

He may not be your cup of tea, but he is definitely not dumb.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. He's an idiot in the sense that George W. Bush is an idiot

He may make a good living from spouting BS, but it's still BS. If you prefer, he's a conman.

[cbayer]

16. You are comparing Reza Aslan to W? That's amazing.

If he's a conman, what should we call the people who pontificate and proselytize about the evils of religion that have absolutely no education, training or experience in the field of religion? None.

You may not like him or agree with him, but he wins hands down when it comes to credentials in this area. There is no comparison.

[edhopper]

22. You really don't spare a chance

To attack Dawkins et al. Why do you only bring atheist writers up? Why no mention of people like D'Souza or Barton?

[cbayer]

39. I don't know who "et al." (is there a club or something), but I will not spare Dawkins.

I don't like him and I don't have any respect for him. He is a proselytizing anti-theist who think religion is a disease, that believers are delusional and is spearheading the "cure". He has the one way and he want to save people. He's no different, imo, that an evangelizing christian. I also think he's a sexist, elitist and is islamophobic.

While he certainly has the credentials to back up his work in science, he has none when it comes to religion. And the wailing of "DAWKINS!!!11!!!111" is not an argument at all, but only a juvenile attempt to dismiss a position that some don't agree with (that is a pre-emptive strike, which is likely to be very effective).

Now, I think people like him are needed to kick the doors open in any movement for civil rights, he does more harm than good at this point.

In my post, btw, I made no mention of the people I was referring to being atheists, just as being against religion. That is your assumption. I would take anyone to task who talked with pseudo-authority outside of their field.

Whether people like Aslan or not, he does have the credentials to speak on this.

[edhopper]

43. Why deny that

your reference was to Dawkins, Harris etc...
You then go on a rant against him that just shows you were talking about him.
And you don't mention the religious writers like d'Souza and Barton, revealing your bias.
Obviously anti-religion writers bother you much more than those who promote religion, no matter how nonfactual their books are.

[cbayer]

45. I didn't deny it at all. I explained it in detail.

My reference was specifically to Dawkins. I have mixed feelings about Harris. And I still don't know who "etc.." is.

I don't even know who d"Souza and Barton are. Perhaps you could give me more information.

So disliking a prominent newsmaker and the things that he says and stands for is bias? Really?

I also don't like Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggers, Joel Osteen, Chuck Colson or Rick Warren. There are also a whole slew of American Catholic Bishops that I abhor. Am I even now?

Anti-theists bother me a great deal, but so do anti-atheists and bigots of all faiths. Where in the world did you get the idea that my dislike was one-sided? Just because I brought up Dawkins.

The hero worship attached to this guy is stunning. It's so absolute for some that they can not even acknowledge the most blatant of faults. He is nothing more than a sacred cow at this point.

[edhopper]

48. Okay

but this is besides the point.
This particular argument by Aslan has been shown to be in error in this thread.
What Dawkins has written has no bearing on the legitimacy of this particular argument by Alsan. And I don't see why you would bring it up.
Saying the fourth century church fathers did not consider major parts of the bible literally true is not an accurate account, that is the issue.
His effort to combat modern day literalists is noble, but his argument falls flat.
The undeniable falsehood of much of the bible (in terms of stories, not what it's meaning or teachings are) should be enough to counter them.
I highly doubt telling a born again believer that a church father in 400 AD didn't think all the bible was true would do much.

[cbayer]

49. Well, one member has made a cogent argument against the one made by Aslan.

I'm not sure who is factually correct because both are speaking outside my knowledge base.

I brought up Dawkins because Aslan was dismissed as an idiot in the most derisive terms, even though he has the education and training to actually speak on these issues. To dismiss him while holding Dawkins up as an expert on all things religious is what I challenged.

You have not really put anything into evidence to support your contention that Aslan is incorrect. You seem to be basing it solely on the argument presented by another member. I read his argument and thought it made a lot of sense. I also think that the counter argument has merits and I have respect for the knowledge base of that member. I don't dismiss either one of them.

We need to combat literalism everywhere we see it. However, trying to dismiss the entirety of a person's beliefs will drive them further into their corners, imo.

[edhopper]

51. I disagree with the

idiot charge, and did not mean to defend it.
I have problems with his ideological stance of never blaming religion, but he is educated and intelligent.

[cbayer]

53. Fair enough.

I don't always agree with him, but I sometimes do.

Nice talking to you ed hopper.

[edhopper]

15. He's just making a dubious argument.

and is wrong on his facts about literalism, as muriel v. has demonstrated.

[cbayer]

17. No, muriel made the case about the Old Testament.

He was specifically asked about the new testament, and in particular the gospels.

What do you think is dubious about his argument?

[edhopper]

19. Wait

They thought the OT was true back to Genesis, but didn't consider any of the stories about Jesus as real or not?

It seems they were very concerned about the truth in the NT.

[cbayer]

40. Who are they?

[edhopper]

42. the fourth century

church fathers he talks about.

[cbayer]

47. Are we reading the same article?

At no point does he make the claim that they believed everything in the old testament all the way back to genesis to be true and just held the New Testament to be only partially factual.

He talks only about the New Testament and about the gospels in particular.

[edhopper]

50. Muriel has shown that they

thought much of the OT to be true.
I have pointed out that the accepted major parts of the NT, the key points in the life of Jesus to be true.
That they trid to reconcile the gospels is one thing, that they didn't care what actual happened is a dubious claim.
Do you think they would have said; "it makes no difference if Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary or if he rose form the dead or if he existed at all, what matters is the meaning of the stories". Really? because that is what Aslan is saying.

Like you, he mistakes claims of literalism with claims of complete literalism. They are not the same thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. He's lying about the New Testament too

He claims:

“Now, let me ask you a much more important question than which one is right,” Aslan states. “Do you think that the church fathers who in the fourth century decided to put both Matthew and Luke in the canonized New Testament didn’t bother to read them first? They didn’t notice that they have different dates for Jesus’ birth? They didn’t notice that the gospel of John absolutely contradicts the entire timeline of Matthew, Mark and Luke? They didn’t notice that there are two completely different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke?

“Of course they did!” Aslan responds. “They didn’t care, because at no point did they ever think that what they were reading was literally true.”

Why didn’t the discrepancies bother these church fathers? In short, to them, fact did not equate to truth.

Let's take an important 4th century church father - Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, prominent at the Council of Nicaea. He was so concerned about showing that the gospels all fitted together correctly, he wrote at length on how to reconcile them, such as the genealogy discrepancy, explained away here using Jewish customs of marrying brother's widows:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.vii.html

As this book says, this "shows Eusebius' concern that the gospels be understood as documents that are historically reliable and valuable".

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jVyzbHAJ_hAC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=%22matthew%22+%22luke%22+%22eusebius%22+%22genealogy%22&source=bl&ots=TC3bYkfYw2&sig=A2CDhwownuvWU02ks7L5WzdCBH4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OPhrVJOmMM_1asHDgLAC&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22matthew%22%20%22luke%22%20%22eusebius%22%20%22genealogy%22&f=false

That points out he is following the 'explicit guiding premise' of an earlier Christian historian, Sextus Julius Africanus: "in any case the gospel speaks the truth". Sextus and Eusebius both wrote full histories of the world, based on biblical chronology - Sextus reckoned Jesus died 5,500 years after the creation of the world, while Eusebius reckoned he was born in the 5,199th year. Both were literalists, for both the Old and New Testaments.

Aslan either never bothered finding that out (in which case he's an idiot, because he shouldn't pontificate on the subject without doing a tiny bit of research), or he's decided to ignore it, because it's inconvenient for the marketing of his books (in which case he's a conman).

[cbayer]

41. You clearly know much, much more about this than I do.

This is one of the problem with scholarly opinions for me. I don't know if you are right or he is right. You are both speaking from positions that I do not have adequate knowledge about.

If this were truly scientifically data driven, I could make a determination. I don't in any way dismiss what you are saying here, but it appears to be open to debate and it would require some faith on my part to believe what you are saying without the tools necessary to personally evaluate it.

Well, I guess I could if I really wanted to expend the time and effort, but it is not something that really interests me.

I would, however, love to see you and he debate. I would not have a favorite in that case.

[TM99]

56. Ah speaking well outside of your depth I see.

Instead of quoting Wikipedia - that bastion of scholarship - and calling noted religious scholars 'idiots' do you actually have any understanding of the topic you are trying to discuss?

Until the advent of the modern scientific method and the materialist world-view, it was common practice in all cultures to answer the unanswerable questions with mythopoeic additions to 'factual' histories. From great generals and Cesar's descending from pagan gods to Old Testament 'history' blending with the understanding of the time, what you are attacking were attempts to reconcile the science of the time with the world view of the time.

Have you actually ever read Bede? I have, extensively. I recommend that you read Wallis' translation of Bede's The Reckoning of Time. Then come back here and demonstrate to us again how Bede was a Biblical literalist like Dr. Aslan is discussing in the context of the modern (since the 1900's) religious fundamentalist movement in America.

And yes, while Aslan is discussing the New Testament in more depth than the Old, I suggest you avail yourself of the works of Dr. Brevard Childs for a similar discussion of the Old Testament. He was my professor during graduate work in religious studies. He was unabashedly 'neo-orthodox' but hardly a 'literalist'.

I actually remember a time when atheists weren't just anti-theists with an emotional agenda. I and others studied religion, history, psychology, etc. in order to really understand those who follow religions which we did not. We could converse, argue, and debate without resorting to ignorant statements like conflating con-men, Aslan, and George W. Bush.

Any attempts at a rational debate on the topic were lost with that bit of ignorant rhetoric.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. So it is only in the last 100 years that christians started believing

in resurrection, virgin birth, the idiotic miracles listed in the N.T. etc? No, that is not right. Rezlan obviously misspoke. As usual with this sort of apologetics, "not to be taken literally" means "well the stuff we can't wave our hands and claim you can't prove it didn't happen, the stuff that is too ridiculous to defend, that stuff shouldn't be taken literally".

Prior to the reformation the common people weren't even allowed to read the bible, so really "literalism" was an internal doctrinal issue within the RCC, the people were just told to "believe this" and that was that. At best Rezlan is talking about the time between Luther and now, and his claim that literalism didn't start until the 19th century is dubious.

[Leontius]

13. There has been conflicting schools of thought amongst theologians about how

the Bible should be read since the early Church but the todays form of literalism and enerrancy is a more modern reaction to that conflict.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Sure. Because for 1000 years there was not a huge amount of obvious conflict

between what was known about the real world and what was claimed in the bible. And then modernity happened. From Copernicus to Darwin the bible and all the ancient holy books of the world's religions have been reduced from the Word of God(s) to fairy tale status, and the religious institutions that need them to be relevant to justify their existence have been desperately struggling to redefine what those words mean to fit their iron age cosmologies into the modern world. That is many centuries of conflict and retreat, not the 100 years the Rezlan wants to claim, and today's resurgence of literalism in America is just another part of that struggle.

[Leontius]

24. At that is where the central error of your argument lies, the Bible is not a science textbook.

It was never written to be one.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. The bible makes a whole lot of claims about the real world.

Which is why the conflict with science has been a problem for the last 500 or so years.

[Leontius]

30. Wrong again, keep digging that hole and you can't see out of it . That's exactly why your literal

interpretation gets you in trouble. It seems that for you and your group viewpoint the mirror is the true image.

[edhopper]

32. So there was no Jesus?

No virgin birth,no miracles, no crucifixion, no resurrection? Nothing in the bible actually happened and no one who believes thinks there is anything real in it.
That is your position.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. well there was galileo

The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

But I suppose the 1800's could be interpreted to include the late 1500's and early 1600s.

[edhopper]

14. So what do we disregard?

If none of the facts being true is beside the point, and it's about who Jesus was, what parts do we accept as real, if the virgin birth, the miracles, the crucifixion, the rising from the dead aren't to be accepted as real or not, why accept the divinity of Jesus? Some of the NT must be accepted as literally true or it is just a morality tale, and the very existence of Jesus must be called into question.

He doesn't really answer that, just makes an argument for not accepting everything. But I would ask him, then what is to be accepted?

[cbayer]

18. I don't think he says that none of the information is true, just that much of it clearly isn't.

It's the same point made by many people who post here. You can not read it literally. Much of the bible is allegory, tales that provide lessons. It's literalists that get into all kinds of trouble trying to make it all true.

You don't really accept any of it as real, so your questions seem disingenuous at past. I think that each individual decides for themselves what is true, what has meaning, what needs to be taken in the context of the time it was written, and on and on.

The only people I see around here ever making the argument for literalism are the ones who reject the bible in it's entirety. Don't you find that odd?

[edhopper]

20. But he states they didn't even think about whether it was real,

He tries to say they weren't concerned if any of it was true or real. That isn't true, as I have pointed out.
They did take much of the NT literally, just not the whole thing.

I don't find it odd that any claim of truth can be challenged. You obviously think that if someone isn't a total literalist, then their claims of truth are unreproachable.

[cbayer]

37. I don't obviously think that at all.

I think all claims of truth can be challenged. But I also think that one does or does not believe about the bible is a personal decision. If some of it is used to justify harmful acts, then it most certainly should be challenged.

What I challenge are the claims of some that if one believes part of the bible, they must believe it all. The only demands for literalism I ever see in this group come from nonbelievers.

That's odd.

[trotsky]

38. Interesting claim.

What I challenge are the claims of some that if one believes part of the bible, they must believe it all. The only demands for literalism I ever see in this group come from nonbelievers.

I have never seen that. What I *have* seen is a non-believer asking for justification as to why one part of the bible should be taken literally, but not another. A justification other than "because I say so."

If you have any proof whatsoever of your accusation, could you present it? I would then suggest that you direct your attacks at someone who actually makes the direct claims you accuse them of rather than broad-brushing and assuming.

[edhopper]

44. You don't understand the argument

that is not what is said. What is said is when people choose one part of the bible as true, that is literally true, like Jesus rose from the dead, why should that be seen as true and other portions not. What is the basis for accepting one part and not another.
Sorry, "I just believe it" is not an argument.

[cbayer]

46. I understand the argument just fine, thanks.

What difference does it make to you whether someone believes that certain parts of the bible are true if that belief doesn't harm others?

If they are all up in your facing stating the it is a fact, then you are well within your rights to ask for proof.


But there is no argument if someone just embraces some parts as true and others as not. You are coming across as one of those who would insist that if you see any of it as true, then you have no basis for saying other parts are not true.

If it is solely for you about being right, then "I just believe it" is not an argument and I guess you win. But if it is about an individuals beliefs that are based on faith, "I just believe it" is a perfectly acceptable response.

[edhopper]

52. This pertains to discussions about the bible

I don't engage people, unless they want to engage.
The basis for the belief is crucial, and "I just believe" doesn't support any claim.

[cbayer]

54. Those who make definitive claims should be challenged, whether

those claims are based on religious beliefs or lack of beliefs.

But without a definitive claim, I think "I just believe" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

[edhopper]

66. "Jesus was born a virgin and rose from the dead

and I just believe it."
You don't find that definitive?

[cbayer]

67. You are mixing up two things.

If I say that I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, that is not definitive. That is merely a belief.

If I say I know that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, that is definitive. That is not a belief if I am stating it as fact, so the burden is on me.

The same goes for those that say, God does not exist and all the religious stories in the bible are lies. That's a definitive statement about knowing something and the burden is on the one making that claim.

[edhopper]

68. I see the distinction

though the majority of believers I have met are very sure their beliefs are true. And far to many people act as if they are.

As for God; the statement would be, I have been shown no evidence to support the premise of any gods. (This goes along with the God premise violates what we do know about the Universe).
Not, I know there is no God. And believe me I have been asking for evidence for years.

[cbayer]

69. If they are sure their beliefs are true, then the burden is on them.

Of course, they have not proof, but that is what belief and faith really boils down to.

There are also those who are sure that all those beliefs are really false. They also have no proof.

There is no one who is going to give you evidence. Those that believe will often tell you that the evidence they have received is internal. Who can say it isn't?

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want in this case. As long as it does no harm, I don't think those that believe have any more standing than those that don't.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

26. The serious bible scholar I took classes from in college knew it was contradictory.

And disorganized. And not to be taken literally, except in some parts of the OT that had a bit of historical information about the twelve tribes.

This is nothing new, it's just Reza Azlan bringing it to the attention of a new generation.

[LongTomH]

27. Thank you!

[edhopper]

28. Your teacher

Was a fourth century church father?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. No, he went to Princeton.

He was later head of the Religion Department of the University I went to.

B.A., Maryville College
B.D., Th.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

[edhopper]

31. I don't understand you post

Raiza is trying to say the church fathers a 1000 years ago were not literalist, in fact he says they didn't care if it was factually true at all.
Not that there are modern scholars that aren't complete literalists. Contrary to claims made here, most atheist do not think all believers are literalist.

[Odin2005]

33. St. Augustine would gleefully whack these idiots on the head.

Good lord, I'm not even a Christian, but I am more well versed on the Christian Fathers than any Biblical Literalist. Yay for me being fascinated by the history of religion!

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. So, what do you think Eusebius' views were on the factual accuracy of the gospels?

See #21 for what it looks like to me. I think that Christian Father was a Biblical Literalist.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Agustine was coming from the greek philosophical tradition and as the western empire

collapsed that tradition was lost for 1000 years. Ignoring the millennia between and claiming that the late antiquity perspective was representative? You aren't making that claim, are you?

[Odin2005]

55. LOL, Lost? The Byzantines and Arabs would BEG to differ.

And the Byzantines are proof that intellectualism and religious devoutness do not oppose each other.

The so-called "Dark Ages" (a BS term) in Western Europe had NOTHING to do with religion, it had to do with the fact that the Western Empire, outside of Italy, was far less economically developed than the East. Roman cities in the West were mainly administrative centers parasitic on the countryside (as opposed to medieval towns, which were self-sustaining commercial centers), when the Western Empire disintegrated the cities depopulated because they lost their purpose for existing.

In any case the "dark ages" were actually a time of technological advancement because the stultifying effect of Roman chattel slavery on inventiveness disappeared. Heavy iron-tipped plows, 3-phase crop rotation, windmills, and a non-chocking horse collar were all invented in Western Europe during the so-called "dark ages".

The notion that the Middle Ages was "a 1000 years of backwardness" is an invention first of Renaissance humanists who jerked off to Plato and Aristotle (and who actually delayed the emergence of Science because of their slavish devotion to the ancients), and second and invention of Enlightenment-Era polemicists.

[rug]

58. +1054

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Did I use the term "Dark Ages", did I say anything about Islam or Byzantium?

Oh wait. No I didn't.

[Odin2005]

70. You implies it with your "1000 years" thing.

[okasha]

71. +1046.