How do you view the Bible?

[Silent3]

I've heard the idea repeated a lot in this forum lately that atheists (apparently atheists in general, the way some say it) "demand" that anyone who calls themselves Christian take the Bible literally.

I suppose maybe there is an atheist or two out there who do that, but then again, I'm sure there's probably an atheist or two out there who believe aliens are visiting them nightly to probe their rectums. It takes all kinds.

This is hardly a representative atheist position, however. I think two things are happening which are being misinterpreted:

1) Comments aimed at fundamentalists being taken personally be non-fundamentalists, either because of incautious wording on the part of an atheist or excessive readiness to take personal insult on the part of the Christian.

2) Rhetorical challenges meant to dig into the rationale for "cafeteria style" interpretation of the Bible, phrased in terms of the extreme of Biblical literalism.

That's the issue I'm most interested in discussing, but I thought the poll included here would be a good adjunct to this discussion. My apologies for running out of room for an "other" option, but I was trying my best to lay out a fairly good spectrum of approaches to the Bible.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. One of many interesting compilations of ancient texts

Of great interest as a major basis of western civilization but far from literal history.

Since God doesn't exist the questions of religious verity kind of answer themselves.

[iris27]

37. +1

:thumbsup:

[Taverner]

40. +1

[SoCalNative]

2. As nothing more than a work of collaborative fiction

eom

[Gman]

3. I just wasted too much time reading this

[Bluzmann57]

4. Something to remember

When a story starts spreading, it often gets distorted in the retelling. I believe this to be the case in biblical tales. I am not saying that events did not happen, I am just saying that perhaps they did not happen as described in the Christian bible.
Example of a story getting distorted: A few years ago, I had blood clots in my leg. I went to the doctor's office, he told me to stay off of the leg as much as possible, prescribed some medication, and kept me off work for a week. The week passed, I went back to work, and as I was passing through the plant to my work area, I was approached by a co worker who asked me what I was doing there. I said that I had to clock in and start work as it was expected of me. She said that the story was that my leg was getting amputated. Well, the leg is fine, I have not had any problems with it since then and I am working, although at a different job now. But that's just a small example of how stories can get distorted when passed on. As I already stated, I believe that many stories in the bible were passed on from person to person and got distorted.

[hamsterjill]

8. I believe that, too.

On top of any distortions, you also have "author's prejudice" (i.e., including or not including those items which the author wishes), and you have translation interpretation problems.

I thought your post was a wonderful "parable" in explaining the situation.

[Dogtown]

5. Interesting fiction

I rated it "worst" because cynical pretenders or outright fanatical crazies have used it to justify a large portion of histories atrocities.

[dmallind]

6. Def a mixed bag. Anyone who thinks it has no good in it has never read it.

That said, none of the good is all that unique or original, but very few writings are, and we should not judge the dominant holy text of our own culture any more harshly than those of others, which trust me are all pretty much in the same classification of "mixed bag" both morally and historically. It's a fascinating insight into cultural anthropology and history, with a morality implied that varies from the abhorrent through to the wondrous and everywhere in between.

[moobu2]

7. Fantastic cultural identity destroying mechanism

[nebenaube]

9. Instrument of confusion n/t

[mikelgb]

10. with my eyes

[Demit]

11. I'm curious about the one vote for literally true about the life of Jesus.

Weren't the gospels written long after Jesus was dead, and long after anyone who had lived in Jesus's time was dead?

[Silent3]

28. I did say just "the basics" of the life of Jesus.

By that I mean his divinity, virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection, a general idea that he preached a message of peace and love and salvation, maybe that he performed some miracles, not much more.

I've heard a number of Christians claim to believe in that much that's in the Bible, while being fairly open or noncommittal about anything else in the Bible.

[Sanctified]

32. No, all of the Gospels are dated between 70-90 AD. n/t

[tiny elvis]

39. only dated that early by a few believers

and that dating is founded on nothing but faith
no surviving text mentions a gospel before the second century
no christian writer quotes a gospel before the late second century
justin martyr, around 150 a.d., wrote of an earthly jesus, born of a virgin and crucified, and quoted jesus thus:

(jesus) foretold that, in the future world, sexual intercourse should be done away with; as He says, "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but the children of the world to come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in heaven."

justin certainly knew his gospels, but he did not quote them as we know them
paul, around 50 a.d., never heard of jesus of nazareth
revelation's john of patmos, around 90 a.d., never heard of jesus of nazareth
a non narrative (non biographical) foundation of mark can be argued to have an enduring content as early as 70 a.d.
noone has successfully argued that matthew was written before the second century
noone has shown that luke was written before 120
noone can show that john existed before 150
earthly jesus stories are unheard of before the last potential witness was gone

[iris27]

36. 40-50 years after Jesus died, so some who lived in Jesus' time

would still be alive. But they are not considered by most biblical historians (except the literalists) to be first-hand accounts written by those they are named after.

[MNDemNY]

12. Which bible???

[Silent3]

13. Any of them. Pick what you think is best, and rate that.

The idea of picking a particular favorite is explicitly of covered in the first choice, but you can extend that idea through the rest of the poll.

[MNDemNY]

21. Oh! The bible....they're all shit.

[Meshuga]

14. Other

The Bible is the work of humans beings and a product of its own era. It is an important piece of literary work that has good and bad in it if we look at it using moral standards of the 21st century. However, I would say it is hard to pinpoint the books as generally terrible or generally great because of all the diverse and conflicting ideas contained in them.

As far as relevance to me, the Hebrew Bible is an important and relevant because the Hebrew Bible is part of the Jewish story and part of my heritage. It is also an important piece in terms of Jewish folkways.

[smoogatz]

15. A great novel. A towering work of human genius.

Like all great novels, it captures the best and worst of human behavior, and the full emotional range. Technically I give it mixed reviews: it uses multiple points of view in a really interesting way, spans twenty centuries, is a rip-roaring read in some spots but tedious as hell in others. It also offers some compelling philosophical insights, and ends in magical realist allegory verging on delusional fantasy. Editorial hyper-intrusion has evidently weakened it somewhat. If nothing else, you have to admire its ambition: it's always made me want to sit down and write a seminal religious text, which probably says something weird about me.

[Silent3]

16. One idea that I couldn't squeeze into the initial poll...

...is the idea of the current Bible being a distorted version of some perfect (or at least closer to perfect) past revelation, corrupted over time.

While I certainly believe the collection of writings gathered together as various version of the Bible today has been changed and distorted over time, I see no particular reason to believe that past versions were any closer to truth or divinity than what we've ended up with today.

[MineralMan]

17. These days, through +2.25 reading glasses...

I have a pair everywhere I might be, and spares in both vehicles. Geezer.

[unblock]

18. as little as possible. makes my eyes burn and my skin smolder.

i see it as a collection of written works of great historical and cultural significance. it appears to satisfy a certain hunger in many people, a hunger that for whatever reason, i simply don't have and have never felt.

in terms of picking and choosing, i don't have any problem with that per se; everyone picks and chooses from all of life's wisdom and stories. it's only problematic when people insist that they are being literal in their interpretation when in fact they are not or claim that they are not picking and choosing when in fact they are. then, of course, it becomes amplified a hundred-fold when they try to shove it down your throat.

if the torah/bible/koran has any "divine" significance, it is only because so many people imbue it with that faith. if people were to stop believing in any divine origins of those texts, then they would cease to hold whatever divine influence could be said to have inured to them.

just as thor or ra could be said to have existed once, but now that no one believes in them, they are clearly dead.

[rd_kent]

19. A bunch of made-up, contradictory, hypocritical SHIT!

THATS how I view it.

[MNDemNY]

20. +1

[Amaya]

22. a scourge to humanity

just my opinion :)

[Odin2005]

23. A bunch of fairy tales.

[jmondine]

24. Usually with my eyes glazing over...

I've only gotten as far as 1 Samuels. The hardest part was Numbers. It was like reading a census report. I did like the stories of Joseph (the one with the multicolored coat) and Ruth. Both were sweet stories.

[saltpoint]

25. It's a mixed bag. It's a calico rhinoceros. It's a slab of wiggling Jello filled

with green beans, dolls' feet, and a tooth of St. Jerome.

It is alternately clueless and lovely.

The Sermon on the Mount ain't bad at all. I'll take it just about any day. Paul's letters, on the other hand, are in some significant part oppressive bullshit.

A good reader and an imaginative reader can find in its pages pathways to self-realization and social betterment through a heart-and-mind assistance to others in need.

A manipulative reader can cherrypick the same books and distort the intent and context to justify denying women the priesthood or lesbians and gay men the right to marry.

It's a local carnival's fun house, it's a secret river beneath the dusty earth, it's the elves' hourglass.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Hi Saltpoint!

You're waxing poetic today!

[saltpoint]

31. Hi, JerseygirlCT. Naw. It's the 650 micrograms of acid speaking.

Hope you're doing well.

[JackRiddler]

26. None of the above. I prefer historical definitions.

NT: A selection of religious texts from among those in circulation at the time of Constantine, compiled and edited by Roman church clerics into a single canon meant to exclude other texts and to be enforced as law under the new post Nicean order.

[Silent3]

27. Wow, somebody actually voted for option 1.

Wonder if his screen name begins with a Z? :)

If we ran this same poll over at FR (does that crappy forum software they use even support polls?) I'd guess that option 1 would be running well over 50%.

[cynatnite]

30. A historical work that reflects the times it was written. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. A product of human minds mixed bag.

[frebrd]

34. I haven't viewed the bible in 58 years, and before that.......

it was only under duress.

[charlie]

35. More trouble than it's worth n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

38. A motley collection of ancient myths and legends,

histories and geneologies, philosophical musings and erotic poetry, and laws and moral teachings appropriate to a bronze age society.

In literary terms I don't see it as any worse than the Epic of Gilgamesh, or a collection of ancient Greek myths. The real problem with it is people in the modern era trying to insist on its literal truth and trying to structure society in accordance with it.