Don't take it literally

[Cartoonist]

I am encouraged when I hear a theist say that certain stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally. It shows that even someone who identifies themself as a beliver knows deep down in their heart that it's all bullshit, they just haven't made that final step.

I applaud their courage in calling the authors: liars and deceivers. This is, supposedly, their Holy Book with instructions and commands from the Big Dog himself, and some from his Pup as well.

When you call into question, or flat out deny that something in the Book is not true, then the credibility of the whole shebang is shot. Of course, if you're one of those who pick and choose which parts are real, then your own credibility is non-existant.

[PJMcK]

1. As we used to say, Right on!

Biblical believers have a problem. If the book is true, then there are unexplainable contradictions and scientific facts that cannot be reconciled. If any of the book is false, then the whole house of cards collapses. Either way, there are no logical threads to hold it together.

Believe what you want. That's called religious freedom. As for me, I no longer subscribe to the fairy tales, falsehoods or fabulist ideas in that book.

[whathehell]

3. Uh huh..Do Torah.and Koran believers "have a problem" too?

The bible is hardly the only religious book with tens of millions of followers... Maybe you could educate yourself about those and kind of "expand your range of attack", so to speak.

[edhopper]

5. The Torah

is part of the bible.
And all religious text has this problem.
Does that answer your question?

[whathehell]

7. I knew that.

Given their singular focus on Christianity, it seems that few others here do.

[edhopper]

10. I love dicussing

how the Jewish faith is based largely on fantasy and things that are historically impossible.

[whathehell]

11. Who's stopping you?

[edhopper]

14. nobody

I have done so here.

I see I phrased that in a way I didn't mean. I'll change it.

[Voltaire2]

48. Ah yes it is time for me to play

atheist pesach curmudgeon again.

It is the highlight for me of a holiday filled with beloved but horrible food and the retelling of a truly appalling myth, generally without any reflection about how preposterous and awful it is.

[edhopper]

49. Now hold on there fella!!

I love Matzo and Gefilte fish.
I can't get enough tsimis either.

As for the story of Moses and the Exodus.
I like the earlier Babylonian ersion better.

[edhopper]

50. 4 questions

Why are we still talking about this bullshit story?
Why do we celebrate a night of killing innocent babies?
Why is God such an asshole in most of the story?
Why didn't the Hebrews have GPS.

But thanks for the Matzo.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. If at some point Jews and Muslims pose a legitimate threat to secularism in this country...

...I guarantee you they will be criticized in equal measure. Until such a time, there are bigger fish to fry. Sorry, not sorry.

[whathehell]

33. Sorry, but there's no "credible threat of secularization" in a nation

requiring a separation of church and state -- Try again.

[Pope George Ringo II]

35. How's that transgender troop ban working out for you?

How about the fight to limit same-sex marriage? The fight against abortion?

Or are those things because of the Zoroastrians?

[Mariana]

62. Oh, who cares about them?

Christians are the real victims in this country.



You know, this reminds me of a Bible story. 2 Samuel 12 : 1-4

The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

He who has ears, let him hear.

[Pope George Ringo II]

65. Sorry. I forgot.

My sympathies should be with Kim Davis as she endures the horrible oppression of having to do her job for gay taxpayers. And with people facing the unimaginable terror of having to bake cakes for gay customers once in a while. I lost sight of the true tragedy of modern America.

I understand supporting a christian candidate for President even got a man kicked out of an atheist group somewhere once. Truly, no group has ever had to suffer so much.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Nor is there a legitimate threat of cogent responses, it seems.

[Cartoonist]

6. Yes!

If someone puts forward a religious text and claim it to be the word of God, if there is even one word that is false, then the whole thing is not credible.

[whathehell]

9. Really?

Funny how RARELY we hear them criticized here -- a small oversight, I:m sure.

[Cartoonist]

12. Limits

There are so many different religions that it is impossible to cover them all. I'm sorry if I left yours out.

[whathehell]

15. Oh please..

No one here has noticed an attempt.at balance. Were anyone here to bash Judaism or Islam with anything CLOSE to the relish or frequency they do Christianity, the'd be attacked as bigots or anti-semites and thereby silenced -- Let's get real.

[Cartoonist]

16. Keeping it real

What is your problem, really? I choose to criticize the Bible because that is what I know. I've never read the Quran so I can only make generic observations. But make no mistake, I hold all religion in contempt. When I say Bible, I mean all holy books.

[whathehell]

19. Lol..I think not.

"What is your problem, really"?

I think my "problem' should be obvious. It's the hypicriisy of
claiming to "hold all religion in contempt" while expressing contempt for only one -- Ignorance of others is not an excuse -- If your intended meaning is more inclusive -- If you mean "holy books" and not only the Bible, say that - The bible is only one holy book -- They are all different, and the bible shouldn't be serving as a "catch-all" for all your contempt or anyone else's.

[Cartoonist]

20. So let me get this straight

Your complaint is that I am not inclusive enough in my condemnation of religion. I don't see it. I have never held back. You must not be familiar with my posting history.

And they are not all different to an atheist. They are all the same.

[whathehell]

23. Yes, I think you should..

You can start by acknowledging the reality and significance of religious differences. All religions are not the same and convincing yourself otherwise won't work in the real world -- It's a matter of established fact, not belief or non-belief. Even reasonably educated atheists knows this.

[Pope George Ringo II]

25. No. They're the same.

The distinctions are without difference, particularly within the Abrahamic Trilogy of Terror. They all start with the lie that there is something lacking in you but if you buy their product and embrace their monster then you can have a wonderful afterlife. It's like arguing over what model year Yugo you have, though. It simply doesn't matter to people who drive real cars.

[trotsky]

22. Why aren't you delighted about this?

Jesus said you should be. Matthew 5:11-12.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[Mariana]

17. In this group, we've had Christians tell us

that parts of the Bible are fiction many times in recent threads. We haven't had any members of other religions post here saying that about their holy texts. That is the only reason we tend to focus on discussing Christianity and the Bible in this group.

[whathehell]

21. If you've had Christians admit to "fiction" but no others, why are you

still focusing on Christians?...They've given you what you wanted --

It seems like this should be the time to focus on those "others" who have not

[Pope George Ringo II]

24. Because it's christians here who routinely deliberately lie about the definition of atheism.

Because it's christians here who deliberately lie about the Nazis being atheists. Because it's christians here who constantly demand atheists shoulder the burden of proof. Because it's christians here who defend institutionalized pederasty.

You want other groups being shot down more, ask them to show up and say stupid crap on the scale christians do here. Or ask them to form their own major American political parties opposed to progressive goals. We're not shy about opposing islamic murders, jewish circumcision weirdness, or whatever--and we've done so--but the ones who keep bringing the fight to us are christians. We're too busy mocking the silliness in our face to go looking for other silliness.

[trotsky]

28. I don't think it could be put any better than this.

Christianity is criticized more here because it's in our faces more.

[Pope George Ringo II]

32. It's like being told all those German planes were shot down over London in WW2

Because the British were picking on the Germans and should have been shooting down Hungarian planes too.

[whathehell]

30. Where do you mean by "here"?

On DU?...I think not...Nor in the LARGEST American Christian denomination in which I was raised, and not in anymainstream Protestant denomination of which I am aware

That accounts for at least Two Thirds of American Christians...Your description sounds like some small Right Wing sect that clearly does not represent the majority, so please stop the
slander. Making blanket accusations against a religion to which a full third of the world adheres is like blaming all Muslims for terrorism.-- Get your facts straight.

[Pope George Ringo II]

31. You think not? You act like reality is subjective, which is kind of the problem...

Right here on DU we routinely have one poster (guillaumeb) deliberately lie about the definition of atheism. He routinely insists it's an actual belief regardless of how many times he's corrected on it, and he's then rude enough to demand the right to define the atheist position. The lie and the incivility pop up almost daily. But you think not.

And another guy, Yallerdawg, insists that the explicitly christian Nazi Party (see point 24 of their programme) was an atheist organization. He decided I was Fox News for pointing out how wrong he was. But you think not.

I could go on, but you think not. And that makes it all better. And that's the problem in a nutshell.

[whathehell]

36. "You act like reality is subjective"...Huh?

I've l no idea what your talking about and I'm not sure that you do.

As for gulliambeh, yes that would be the only name you could come up with, given there's about 20 atheists to every 1 self-described believer here. It:s called "The exception to the rule"

FWIW, the point of whether the Nazis were "Christian"Muslims" or Taoists is moot -- No religion condones murder, so whatever they were raised to be by as children, they clearly weren't following it...That said, Stalin is an excellent example of an atheist murderer.

[Pope George Ringo II]

37. Nobody ever said Stalin wasn't.

But the problem is that christians trot out a "no true Scotsman" every time there's a christian bad guy.

And bad christian here behavior really ties the room together. Rest assured I can come up with more than one name.

[Cartoonist]

43. No religion condones murder

What the Bible says about stoning

For touching Mount Sinai

Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

For taking "accursed things"

Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

For cursing or blaspheming

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

For disobeying parents

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

For witches and wizards

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

For giving your children to Molech

Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

For breaking the Sabbath

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

For cursing the king

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10

Well, there's one anyway.

[trotsky]

44. Well see it's not murder if god says it's ok. n/t

[Pope George Ringo II]

47. You were supposed to use another religion

Now you're just oppressing those poor, marginalized christians who can't freely practice their religion in America.

[whathehell]

64. Lol...Your quotes are allmost entirely from the Torah, not

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2018, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

.the New Testament of the Christian Bible..That said, "murder_ has a specific meaning..It is not "execution" or simply 'killing" and in sny event, those penalties are NOT currently arvocated or condoned by contemporary folliwers ofJudaism or Christianity...Have a nice day.

[Pope George Ringo II]

67. You think not again, I take it.

[Mariana]

73. Holy shit, what a loon.

Anyway, as the whatthehell already explained, what Pastor Swanson is calling for is the execution of homosexuals, for the crime of being homosexual. That's a totally different thing than murder, you see.

Next, we'll be told he isn't a Christian.

[Pope George Ringo II]

81. It must be said we're getting a classic display of the level of self-deceit required.

He keeps telling us all the lies he has to tell himself, and it's pretty clear there's a vast gulf between reality and christianity.

[whathehell]

85. Lol..

What I think is that this man represents Christianity about as well as Isis represents Islam... That said, I'd advise you against going to the Muslim forum to bait them as you bait Christians, but I doubt your instincts are 'ecumenical" to the point of being so inclined, which was, of course, my original point...Have a nice day.



.

[trotsky]

86. You keep missing the point.

That man represents Christianity, because he claims to be a Christian. He can point to some bible verses and teachings to support his position.

You represent Christianity, because you claim to be a Christian. You can point to some bible verses and teachings to support his position.

Members of ISIS represent Islam because they claim to be Muslim. They can point to some koran verses and teachings to support his position.

Keith Ellison represents Islam because he claims to be Muslim. He can point to some koran verses and teachings to support his position.

There's good and bad in all religion. You can't dismiss one or the other because you don't like it.

[Pope George Ringo II]

87. A no-true-Scotsman, a baseless accusation of baiting, and a fake injury all at once.

Your no-true-Scotsman was introducing a sitting United States Senator on camera. There's a distinct limit to how far out of the mainstream he can be and still do that. You don't get to declare he's not a christian in any event.

And why would you accuse me of wanting to go to a muslim forum and baiting them, the way you manufacture a fantasy about me doing it to christians? I'm in an open forum shooting down christians who bait atheists. If any muslims show up, I'll be more than happy to shoot them down, but if you're going to make up lies about me going to christian forums and baiting christians, you're going to be called a liar for that. It's dishonest, and you're doing it only so you can play to your fantasy that christians are the injured party. And that fantasy, of course, was your original point.

Have a nice life. I won't be seeing you again due to your dishonesty.

[whathehell]

94. Wow..

You might want to calm down a bit, Pope, if for no other reason
than to read my post again and see that I never 'accused' you of "wanting to go to muslim forum and bait them" -- In point of fact, I said the opposite -- I said you weren't iinclined to do that.

Having corrected that 'baseless accusation', I'll be happy to part ways -- You have a nice life, too.

[Mariana]

88. This isn't a Christian group, so it isn't equivalent

to the Muslim group in any way. This is a group for the discussion of religion. Christianity is the dominant religion both on DU and in the United States, so we discuss it at length, as you see.

There are several protected Christian groups in which Christians can talk among themselves in peace. There are other protected groups that invite people of all faiths to participate, including Christians. No one will "bait" them there by asking awkward questions or pointing out inconsistencies, equivocations and lies. Judging from the lack of traffic in those groups, it seems very few Christians on DU are interested in having that kind of peaceful discussion.

[whathehell]

90. Yes, but the "targets" of atheists here are almost invariably Christian

As for that 'lack of traffic", and what it might indicates, I could say the same about the Atheist Agnostic group.

[trotsky]

91. Are you referring to the Atheists & Agnostic group that has more posts....

than all of the other religious groups put together? THAT Atheist/Agnostic group?

[Mariana]

93. So what?

Really, why does that bother you so much? Most Americans and most DUers are Christian. Of course we're going to discuss Christianity much, more more than any other religion.

[whathehell]

95. So WHAT??

It's biased and unfair, that's "so what" -- Thanks for taking off the mask and proving my point.

[Mariana]

98. Biased and unfair?

Christians regularly post in this group about their religion. You think responding to them is biased and unfair? One regular Christian participant here has gone so far as to post a link to a right wing hate site, one that promotes SPLC-listed Christian hate groups. He then exhorted posters to visit the site, calling the proprietor of the site an "authority" on Christianity. You think it's biased and unfair to call him out for doing that? Christian lawmakers in the US are working day and night to deprive women, LGBT people, and religious minorities of their rights, with the enthusiastic support of their Christian constituents. You think it's biased and unfair to talk about that?

And now you've demonstrated your own dishonesty. You pretended you didn't know anything about the various safe-haven groups available to Christians, but then you let slip that you're familiar enough with the Atheists & Agnostics site to comment on its traffic. It's highly unlikely you found that group without seeing the links to the others. Oopsie. I suppose it's biased and unfair to point that out, too. Oh well. Go rejoice and be glad, as Jesus instructed his followers to do when they're persecuted. Blessed are you, and all that.

[Cartoonist]

68. I counted three excuses

Got any more?

[whathehell]

69. You'd dismiss anything as an "excuse"

Sorry, but I've got better things to do...Have a real nice night and
.Buh bye.

[Pope George Ringo II]

83. It might be only two

"We all ignore the batshit crazy evil shit in our sacred divine holy book because obviously we're not all a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths" could be taken as something less than a full-throated defense of the religion and an attempt to live in reality.

Being charitable.

[trotsky]

82. The Christian "Buble" includes both the old and new testaments.

I can't believe an atheist has to explain this to you.

[Pope George Ringo II]

84. Ignoring the OT means "Thou shalt not kill" is obsolete.

After all, if they're going to say the new bullshit made the old bullshit obsolete, that would seem to be one of the consequences, no?

[Mariana]

59. Because it leads to further questions.

For example, how do they determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are false?

I can't ask a Muslim questions like that about the Quran here, because there haven't been any Muslims posting in this group, saying parts of the Quran are fiction.

Questions about religious beliefs, texts, and rituals are not criticism, condemnation, or ridicule. They are simply questions.

[whathehell]

63. Well, maybe some initial questions would be asppropriate

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2018, 05:04 AM - Edit history (1)

..We used to have a Muslim forum here, I believe.

[Pope George Ringo II]

66. Your keyboard has been possessed by the ghost of a can of alphabet soup.

That's about all I can really get out of this post, I'm sorry.

[whathehell]

75. Lol!

I just noticed that -- I'll happily make the adjustment.

[Mariana]

72. There is still a Muslim forum here. I believe it is a safe haven group. nt.

[whathehell]

76. Oh right..

Maybe "Christians" could use that safety as well.

[Mariana]

92. They already have it.

I get that you really want to feel persecuted, but it just isn't so.

Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1221

Discuss Catholic and/or Orthodox Christian beliefs, share faith experiences, post prayer requests, discuss Catholic/Orthodox liturgies, traditions, saints, etc.

Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1222

A group for Christians and Christian-friendly persons who would like to have an open discussion about our faith and its role in the world around us. Our group will provide a safe haven for discussion and support, and find ways to express our beliefs in positive, non-threatening ways.

Interfaith
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1264

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

Prayer Circle
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1225

Gather together at pre-arranged daily meeting times to concentrate prayers and good thoughts/energy around certain issues. All are welcome, regardless of faith or spiritual persuasion.

[whathehell]

97. Not on this forum, which was my original point

Leaving your false assumptions aside, let me tell you what I "get", 'okay?
What I get get is your desire to trash certain groups while ffeeling "okay" about it, feel like you can still claim to be 'progressive'.
Well, sorry, Mariana, but that doesn't cut it -- That's hypocrisy.

[Mariana]

99. It's true, this group isn't a safe haven for anyone. So what? nt.

[whathehell]

100. To answer your elegantly worded question, this is "so what".

'in theory it's not "safe for anyone",In reality it"s safe for atheists and no one else, which is why, I think, so few who actually practice a religion come here..They know they're more likely to be ridiculed and sneered at, rather than respected. This is so much the case, that even calling it "the religious forum" seems a misnomer..It's just an extension of the Atheists & Agnostics forum as far as I can see.

[Pope George Ringo II]

39. Fine. I give up.

I really hate those damn muslims and their support for Trump's ban on immigration from islamic countries. If it weren't for those xenophobic muslims we could give a chance at the American dream to those poor, oppressed people suffering under islamic rule. It's really unfair of those mean, nasty atheists to blame christians for something which is so obviously entirely the fault of muslims start to finish.

Happy?

No christians were harmed in the manufacture of this post.

[whathehell]

78. Again

Right wing Evangelicals & Fundamentalists comprise a MINORITY of Christians in this country.

That fact, though pointed out numerous times here, is routinely ignored, in the interests, it seems, of continuing the hate fest -- Good luck with that.

[Pope George Ringo II]

80. We're not talking about a fringe group, unless you consider christianity as a whole to be fringe.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/polls-widespread-backing-trump-travel-ban

[whathehell]

89. You're kidding, right?

You're blaming the "anti-Muslim ban' on Christianity?...This gets better all the time, lol...Sorry, Pope, but the reasons I've heard from those supporting a ban relate to fear, not some "religious" objection -- Were it based solely on the fact of religious difference, they'd be objecting to Indian Hindu immigrants, which they are not.

[DetlefK]

2. Actually, not taking the Bible literally is how theologists work.

Someone who studied theology (for a few semesters) told me that when you study theology, you pick the Bible apart. Instead of taking the Bible at face-value, you analyze what the text means on a philosophical and ethical level. The advanced courses also take stuff like ancient languages and ancient history into account, to better understand what the author meant.

The same person also told me that the most fanatic believers eventually drop out: What they learn about the Bible challenges their simple and clear-cut beliefs so much, that they simply cannot take it any longer. Theology isn't simple and clear-cut: It's huge and fuzzy and complicated.

[marylandblue]

46. That's simply not true

It depends on where you study. If you study theology at Havard you'll get the full scholarly treatment that's inconsistent with literalism. But if you go to Bob Jones College, you'll get something more slanted to literalism. And they are self selecting. Somebody who wants an objective view isn't going to make it at a literalist seminary.

[Ferrets are Cool]

4. There's that and...

the ever-present "If something good happens, Praise God", if something bad happens, "God always has a purpose, it was his will."
I hate the hypocrisy of religion more than just about anything else in the world.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. But what about the parts they *do* take literally?

To ease confusion, a simple axiom:

Do I agree with the literal meaning of the passage in question?

IF YES: It is meant to be taken literally.

IF NO: It is figurative.

[MineralMan]

13. Oddly enough, some who take none of it literally

still consider themselves Christians. That has always puzzled me. If nothing in the Bible is literally true, then what is it that they believe?

[PJMcK]

18. I like Chinese food

The fun part, for me, is to look through all of the different things on the menu then pick and choose what I like.

Seems a lot of religious folk treat their holy texts similarly.

[brush]

26. Whoa! You broke it down brilliantly and clearly. Thank you.

[zipplewrath]

27. Wow

Wonderful distortion of others beliefs.

[Cartoonist]

34. Go ahead

Explain to me all about religious hypocrisy. Try not to distort anything.

[zipplewrath]

40. One size fits all

There is a wide range of positions on the literalness of historical religious texts. And to call the authors "liars" is ridiculous since your concept of "truth" is one that only became common in the last 150 years or so, well after these authors were dead and gone.

[Cartoonist]

42. Who created the universe?

Or, how did the universe originate? Anyone who says they know the answer is a liar. Whether it was yesterday or a million years ago, they were still liars.

[zipplewrath]

45. So little you know

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2018, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

It would not have been considered "lying" when these people wrote these stories. A stories "truthfulness" would have been judged by whether the "conclusion" or "lesson" was correct. Historians long ago figured out that any history text that was written much before the 20th century has to viewed in a different light. It's the whole "Washington never told a lie" problem. People weren't "lying", they were expressing an idea (or probably more accurately, an "ideal" ). When you read any document that predates "modern" science, you have to read it understanding that the concept of "being consistent with the facts" didn't really exist. Heck, for many "ancient" documents one has to be careful about "numbers". The vast majority of people, even people who could read and write, knew little about math or numbers. Any number much bigger than about 12 wasn't a quantity so much as an adjective. They were often used to express concepts associate with numerology.

Generally speaking the people that wrote these original stories (and quite honestly, the true "original" stories are probably long lost. What we read today are probably the results of retelling, copying and expanding upon the originals) did not write to "deceive" generally speaking. To a great degree they knew what they were doing and thought it was the "right" thing to do. And the listeners understood as well. Just because today we have judged this a poor way of communicating information, doesn't mean you can stop putting the original story tellers in the proper context. To do so is a deception.

[edhopper]

52. So when did the stories

from the early bible, like Adam and Eve or Noah become litterally true?

Did those who first told these stories think these things really happened that way?

If so, where did they get the stories from? (We know they didn't see them)

If not, were they just making things up?

[zipplewrath]

54. A mixture

In the Christian world, literalness is a fairly recent idea. Of course it is one that only needed to be formed recently since the modern concept of "true" is, well, modern. The original story tellers were communicating the conclusions of what they saw, felt, and knew. Remember, they don't have your modern definition of "true" so they wouldn't even understand the question. They developed these stories the same way various ancients conceived of "five elements". They weren't "lying", the were attempting to understand and explain. (It is interesting that fairly widely dispersed cultures developed very similar 5 element ideas). And again, there is little reason to believe that the stories we know today are the "originals". They very likely have been modified over the millennia to adjust to changing understandings, as well as language changes.

Even more important is that they are probably fusions of several stories that were told by different "authors". Many of those original stories were lost to history. Each author was attempting to "perfect" the story by adding or adjusting to their own experience and knowledge. But generally, they didn't see any of it as "making things up" They saw it as attempting to explain in the only way they knew how.

By the way, this kind of thinking still lives on today. We see it in politics, of all stripes. The GOP seems to have gone all in these days, but it is a kind of thinking where you decide how things "should" be, and then generate explanations on why that is. Never mind if the facts don't support it. That's they way is "should" work so that's the way it "does" work. Which is how we get everything from "trickle down" to Donald Trump. The ancients had an excuse, they knew nothing else. In this day and age, I'm not sure what the excuse is.

[edhopper]

56. But the Church

represented them as literally true for millennium. To the point that saying they weren't was a capital offense.

When did they become literally true?

When was the story of Jesus literally true. That is not a modern concept

[zipplewrath]

61. Not exactly

Much of it was asserted as literally true. But the Roman Catholic Church puts Tradition on the same level as the Bible. (By the way, they have a different bible than the protestants). The vast majority of Catholic Tradition (it's capitalized by the way in the church) is about the new testament. And they hold alot of things as "true" that isn't even in the bible. But theologians for centuries have recognized that some things in the bible were "parables".

The story of Jesus, while not modern, has changed massively over the years. His divinity developed over a couple of hundred years. Mary's position has risen and fallen as well. When literacy started to climb, much of this bible centric attitude started to develop. Mostly it related to the church trying to maintain is authority. Movable type and distribution of bibles also had a large influence. And again, recognize that much of the new testament has been "edited" over the centuries. Translations have been done, and redone. And again, remember, until the emergence of science, the concept of "true" would have been vague to nearly everyone except potentially the most educated. And then you have the investiture period where alot of assertions of the Vatican weren't by theologians, but by autocrats looking to hold power.

And you have to be careful about an expression like "the church". There are at least 3 Catholic churches. They don't agree on much of this. Then there are many protestant churches these days.

[Act_of_Reparation]

79. There is equivocation afoot.

We've been talking about literalism in the broad, generic sense that there are passages of the Bible people read literally.

Thucy is talking about literalism in the narrow, specialized sense that there is a theological tradition that hinges upon every line of the Bible being the literal word of God.

They are correct in that this form of literalism is relatively recent, that the Catholic church had for over a millennia before the Reformation proposed and generally accepted that some interpretation was required when reading the Bible, but I don't see how that's relevant. In practice, there was a great deal of broad, generalized literalism going on. Just ask Galileo.

[marylandblue]

51. Our conception of historical truth came from ancient Greece

So it's not a new idea.

But I don't think the writers of the New Testament were necessarily liars though. They likely gathered up stories they believed to be true based on oral traditions in a time when few people could read and many believed in magic. They probably weren't aware of how oral traditions are quickly changed in the retelling.

[zipplewrath]

55. Or modern concept

But there are huge periods of time in western society, and all around the world, that knew nothing of ancient Greece or their ideas.

[marylandblue]

57. Jesus' time and place was well acquainted with Greek ideas

The locations of many of the earliest churches in Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria and Rome were even better acquainted.

[edhopper]

70. okay

You were talking about the lying part.
I was speaking to the larger true or not issue.

[Iggo]

41. When I was a little kid in the 60s, there was this term, "Cafeteria Catholic."

I didn't really understand the term back then, but Sister Gustave told us we would definitely be going to hell if we were like those Cafeteria Catholics.

Decades later, it's kind of funny.

Kind of.

[thucythucy]

53. Not even the literalists can or should claim

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2018, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

that it's all "written" or dictated by God.

Certain portions clearly are not. The Book of Lamentations, for instance, is addressed TO God by believers asking, essentially, if you're so all powerful and we're your chosen people, why are we being treated so badly? (Lamentations was probably written during the Babylonian occupation and exile, but I imagine any people occupied and oppressed by a foreign power can identify. One reason why the book has retained its popularity, though all the verbiage about how this oppression is just punishment for sins is a bit wearisome).

The Psalms, likewise, are clearly written by a mortal or mortals, in praise of the divinity.

My take is that certain portions are clearly not to be taken literally, deliberately written to be obscure to "outsiders"--Revelations, for instance, which would seem to be a political screed against the Roman Empire. People used to get their lives snuffed out for direct threats against the established order, hence the need for all the symbolic mumbo jumbo.

Other portions that ARE supposed to be taken literally are either flat out not true or maybe fifteen generations removed from some event passed down through oral tradition--the Flood for instance--which occurs in numerous middle eastern mythologies.

Still, there's some nice stuff. The Sermon on the Mount, and all that stuff about caring for the poor and the stranger, how being uber rich is pretty much inherently evil, and such. I mean, I don't see how "the credibility" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "love thy neighbor as thyself" is "shot" because the Creation sagas are bogus.

[Mariana]

60. The credibility of the nice stuff isn't shot

but those ideas - do to others as you'd them them to do you" and "love your neighbor as yourself" - aren't exactly unique and original to Jesus (or to the writers of the gospels).

[thucythucy]

71. Probably not, but they're still nicely put.

And I don't know that the sort of pacifism Jesus preached--love your enemies, if an enemy strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek, he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, if a robber demands your coat, give him the shirt off your back as well--was all that common in the ancient world--which tended to go more for the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" way of dealing with personal and social conflict. What Jesus preached was a fairly extreme pacifism I don't see duplicated in much of the world at that time. Gandhi for instance stated that as a Hindu he was greatly impressed by this Christian idea that loving your enemy, and that it formed much of the basis of Satyagraha--the non-violent non-cooperation, civil disobedience campaign that he first launched in South Africa. "Satyagraha" translates roughly into "Soul Power:--which Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., through his study of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, adapted for use by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Another contribution of Christianity that isn't generally recognized these days is its influence on the development of the earliest forms of American democracy. Whereas the first settlements in colonies such as Virginia and Maryland and New York were ruled by a traditional top-down elite. the original Massachusetts Bay colonists were "Congregationalists"--meaning authority was vested in the (white male) members of the Congregation. It was the members of the congregation--by majority vote at annual meetings--who hired and fired ministers, elected deacons, and set much of church policy. This was one of the reasons they had to flee Europe--since as Congregationalists they didn't recognize the authority of bishops (or popes) to dictate individual church polity. These congregational meetings eventually morphed into annual town meetings--which is how some New England towns continue to be governed.

It's no wonder then that Massachusetts was pretty much always in the vanguard of social justice movements and innovations leading to an ever more inclusive politics--from the abolitionists right up to the marriage equality struggle.

Of course, in all movements for social justice it's always two steps forward, and a step and a half back. And New England has certainly had some very dark parts of its history--from King Philip's War to the Salem Witch trials and beyond.

But I see the relationship between progressivism and religion as much more nuanced than many atheists here seem willing to accept.

Anyway, as an agnostic, I feel I can take the good and weed out the bad.

Sorry to be so pedantic.

Best wishes.

[Docreed2003]

58. The idea that the "Bible" is the literal word of God is a relatively new phenomena

The idea of Biblical literalism grew in popularity in the evangelical communities in the 1800's, but wasn't considered serious biblical scholarship at that time and even now is only accepted in the most evangelical of circles. The best commentary on "The New Teastament" I've ever read is by William Barclay written in the mid-20th century. His real world take on the life of Jesus would probably offend most American evangelicals, ie. In his book on Luke he states that it's more likely that the story of Jesus multiplying the fishes was most likely the result of Jesus' teaching shaming the crowd into sharing their fishes that they had hidden. I personally have no issue whatsoever with seeing the stories of the Bible for what they are as a means of understanding the world and the personal interactions within it.


At the end of the day, people find personal strength in the stories of their religion to better themselves and their community. I will never criticize or question those personal beliefs, no matter what background they come from. I think the larger issue that comes into play is when people attempt to push those beliefs on others and try to force their opinions into the political sphere, that's what I have a major issue with.

It's easy to criticize that which we may not believe in, especially when you have sick fucks from the evangelical Christian community in this country all over the airways and in seats of power emboldened to force their worldview on the rest of us. It is those that we should be focusing our ire, not theists who hold more personal views.

[Cartoonist]

74. Some images

[underpants]

77. /

[guillaumeb]

96. Jumping to conclusions?

My opinion is, yes, you did. But I understand your apparent need to argue with a literalist, and from a literalist perspective.