Some (contrary) Biblical views

[rogerashton]

Here's a site that argues, on Biblical grounds, that Jesus was NOT God.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html

Here's one that promotes the view that Earth is the center of the Universe:

http://www.fixedearth.com/index.html

It appears that the claim that Fundamentalists believe the Earth is flat is a little overdone in the atheistic literature, but here's a defense -- not up to the standards of the previous two in my subjective view.

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/flaters.htm

Now, the point is not that these views are common among fundies -- they are not, and most of what one reads about the flat earth position makes that point. The point is that they are biblical, and the common Fundamentalist view that rejects them is an interpretation, selecting some Biblical passages and treating others as wrong. But that means all Fundamentalism is a sham.

[Selwynn]

1. Yes.

Biblical literalism is impossible to rationally defend.

[hvn_nbr_2]

5. Biblical literalism is a "Big Lie"

They've told it so often that everyone believes it, without even examining the claim.

It is not possible to believe every word of a document that says love God, fear God, and there is no fear in love, or to believe that such a document contains no contradictions.

In fact, they take things literally whenever it suits their agenda, they take them symbolically when it suits them, and they flatly contradict things when it suits them.

Some examples:

They rant and rave against symbolic interpretation of the Bible, but they interpret things symbolically all the time. Many things are completely ludicrous literally. If a literal star literally fell to the literal earth (per Revelation), there would be no earth still standing; so they interpret what the symbolic star means.

Nobody believes that a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns is going to come up out of the literal sea and rule the earth. But twenty years ago they claimed with the absolute certainty of literal inerrancy that whenever the tenth nation joined the European Common Market, then Armageddon would happen and the world would end. Of course, the beast's ten horns never literally meant ten nations of the Common Market--that was only their interpretation of the ten horns as a symbol. Just as they interpreted the obvious literal references to the real Roman Empire to mean symbolically the non-Roman non-empire Common Market. Now that their interpretation has been proven false, they have a new and different "literal" meaning for the ten horns.

No one believes that God literally sits on a literal throne in the sky, as Revelation says. I don't think anyone believes that Jesus will literally kill 200 million soldiers with a literal sword coming out of his literal mouth. (But that is a very interesting symbol which has obvious meaning that they wouldn't like.) Many of them claim that Revelation's reference to 144,000 Israelites really means their own cult or denomination, as if they were literally Israelites.

They even think that what Revelation says about itself--that it is the things its author (John of Patmos) has seen, and the things that are (in John's time), and the things which will happen hereafter--is not literally true but really means only things that must happen after John wrote it, and not only that, but must happen 2000 years later.

Likewise, they flatly contradict many things in the Bible that are obviously intended to be taken literally, particularly teachings of Jesus:

Jesus said that the kingdom of God is not of this world, but they want it to be a political kingdom where they have political power.

Jesus said don't pray ostentatiously in public, but they insist on praying ostentatiously everywhere in public, and forcing everyone else to too.

Jesus said love your enemies and do good to them. Fat chance.

The Bible supports slavery and various kinds of flat-earth science, which they cited as support for their similar positions for hundreds of years. Now they flatly contradict some, but not all, of those things.

They flatly reject many Biblical laws, such as all the things cited in all the Dear Dr. Laura letters that periodically circulate around the net.

They seem not to even know what the word literal means, and they act as if it means simply that they're right and you're wrong.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. One important fact that most fundamentalist Christians overlook is

that the Bible was written by numerous authors over a relatively long time period. Even the earliest New Testment books are, I believe, thought to have been written decades after Jesus's death. The Council of Niacia decided which books were to be in the Bible, which books rejected-and several books, especially those with a mystical slant or those that talked most about personal responsibility for ones salvation, were left out.

If you want to see a Fundy's head explode, ask them about these facts. They generally refuse to listen to them at all.

[Tafiti]

3. Right.

Paul's influence on the New Testament is enormous, yet he never even knew Jesus. He never even met him! Still, Paul had no problems laying down the law and the ground rules in Jesus' name.

Most fundamentalist Christians, at this point, are accustomed to throwing out any evidence presented to them without consideration. They'll just say, "Well, I believe that the Bible is what it is because of God's will. God was guiding the men who wrote the books, and also those who selected which books would belong in the Bible," or something like that. If you try to pin it on human error, it doesn't work. It was divinely inspired, so whatever it says is in there for a reason. God wanted it that way.

You can see where that thinking leads...no room for interpretation at all.

[stevebreeze]

4. A link for the none believers

the skeptics bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/