Some agreement between many atheists and most Biblical fundamentalists?

[Boojatta]

"The Bible is to be taken literally from beginning to end."

Of course, there remain differences between atheists and Biblical fundamentalists. For example, atheists select an easy task: find discrepancies. Biblical fundamentalists select a task that will be forever challenging (and perhaps impossible).

[laconicsax]

1. Common misconception.

Fundamentalists don't take the whole thing literally--they pick and choose.

Atheists don't take the whole thing literally either. In fact, they don't take any of it literally.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Agreed. Fundamentalists pick and choose.

Atheists point out the pick and choose behavior. The point of the atheist's argument on this subject is theists create their gods.

[LAGC]

3. Other: They need to bring back the polls, so we can get some good Boojatta religious polls going.

[justiceischeap]

4. I guess I consider myself an atheist

and I don't spend a heck of a lot of time thinking about the bible, let alone finding discrepancies. I know it's full of them, no need to hunt them out. I will, if a discussion merits it, talk about hypocrisy much more than discrepancies.

My first big issue with the bible as I got older was interpretation (and how hypocritical people are when doing the interpretations). I always use the following as an example:

A reporter from MSNBC, CNN and Fox are sent to cover the story of the burning bush. Each reporter will come back and tell the outline of the same tale, there was a burning bush, but each reporter has a different interpretation of the bush burning.

When I started thinking of the bible in those terms, everything in it, for me, fell apart. When I learned how the King James version of the bible was put together (by a committee of men), I lost even more "faith" in the accuracy and intention of the bible. I began to see it more as a tool to spread fear to better control people than some guidepost for making our lives better. Sure, there's some nice flowery, feel-good stuff in it but for the most part, and I would imagine for the uneducated when it first came about, it was a powerful way to control people.

Of course, then I started studying older religions and saw how the story of god and jesus looked an awful lot like religions and worship that came before Christianity (copy cats in most cases) and that put the nail in my faith coffin. Now, I really don't believe there was a god and jesus as the Christian bible portrays them (or if there was a jesus, he wasn't the son of god).

I mean, to believe in Christianity, to have full faith in it, you have to ignore science and history and I just can't do that.

[tama]

8. Your example

reminded be of the story about blind men and an elephant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

[justiceischeap]

13. Thanks for the link, the parallels are definitely there. nt

[edhopper]

5. You have it wrong

atheist ask believers what in the Bible is literally true. They don't accept any of it, but it appears that all believers accept part of it as literally true.

[Thats my opinion]

6. Interesting!

There are more Biblical references in these threads by non-believers than there are by believers. Non-believers are fond of quoting the strange texts of the Bible, which Biblical scholars have explained and saying, "Aha, this is what you believe and it is absurd."

There was no garden of Eden, no Noah's ark---these are stories. And it is the metaphors and the stories that Biblical scholars have describes not as history but as pointers. So non-believers insist that believers take stories as history, and if we don't, the accusation is we are cheery-picking. Scholarly Biblical interpretation is not cherry-picking, it is the same scientific understanding of ancient literature that many of posters here insist on in other fields. Good religion uses all the scientific and literary tools available. It is part of our discipline.

[LAGC]

7. So Jesus is just a metaphor?

He didn't really exist, didn't really turn water into wine, didn't heal the sick, didn't die and rise from the dead three days later, etc.?

Just trying to understand here...

[tama]

9. Hagiography

scholars agree that all hagiographies (descriptions of holy people and their deeds) of that time and place , not only Christian, share the narratives of various miracles. It's part of the genre that the four canonical belong to. I'm not really a biblical scholar, so I ask, what miracles if any are mentioned in those Paul's letters that are considered genuine?

[edhopper]

12. Exactly my point

We (atheist) simply ask what the believer accepts is true and then debate points.
We can't help it if atheist know the Bible better than some believer.

[PassingFair]

16. Miracle!

You just turned TMO into a cricket!



Wonder if he believes in Moses?

And the whole commandment thang.

[Humanist_Activist]

10. And once they turn everything into a metaphor, at what point does Christianity...

stop existing? Without Jesus resurrecting, without the miracles and everything else, what part of the religion are you going to keep? Is it to become a Jeffersonian religion, no miracles, no morally objectionable material, just a hobby to do on Sundays?

[Goblinmonger]

11. So how do you draw the line as to what is metaphor?

If the OT is primarily metaphor, what is the basis for Jesus being the Messiah since the prophecies he fulfilled were not to be taken literally.

[mr blur]

15. "There was no garden of Eden, no Noah's ark---these are stories." -

Perhaps to you, but you must accept that many Christians (including some running for President of your country right now) accept these stories as historical fact/truth and would like to establish laws based on such stories - furthermore, are willing to demonise those of us who find this ridiculous.

(I'm not suggesting for a second that you share these beliefs)

[skepticscott]

18. And yet if you ask "Biblical scholars"

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

or any religious believers which parts of the Bible represented as fact they actually take as true, you either get total evasion, or a list of things that doesn't begin to support a religion like Christianity. And don't even dream of asking them to tell you what things they're sure that God/Jesus actually said and which were made up by others. Or which of the things God/Jesus said that they actually meant. It is the (supposed) commands and dictates of God/Jesus/Paul channeling God that guide a lot of religious looniness, but those who choose to follow some, but not others, are most definitely cherry-picking.

[MarkCharles]

14. I had always thought what I learned in church was that

Jesus died for our sins, and his resurrection was the proof that he died for our sins.

Thus the resurrection was not seen as "metaphor" but as an actual event, proof that he was, indeed, the "Son of God", (again, NOT a metaphor).

If posters here are attempting to convince us that being a Christian only means believing in the "metaphor" that Jesus was the "Son of God" and that Jesus' dying on the cross and being "risen" 3 days hence is ALL METAPHOR, I guess I missed that boat when it sailed by in my Sunday school class.

Would a few Christian believers like to check in here and tell me what, if ANYTHING, in the Bible is NOT a metaphor? I'm deeply confused.

By the way, I know of many many folks living today who call themselves Christians who believe in Noah and the flood as historical events, believe the world to be between 6-10 thousand years old, etc. What kind of religion enables some to believe one thing and others to believe the exact opposite?

[tama]

17. What is not a metaphor?

I'm not a Christian believer, but IIRC there's a mention in a Gnostic text, don't remember which one, that Jesus usually spoke only in metaphors, but once he spoke directly to some chosen disciples to the effect that those disciples - metaphorically - shit their pants.

Paul is most interesting source, in relation to historical formation of Christian doctrines, but I'm not quite sure what was Paul's teaching and understanding of the meaning of resurrection. Perhaps better exegetics could help?

As for the deeper historical and spiritual meaning of the Christ Lamb, my own pet theory or intuition is that what ever historical person and events are behind the stories about Jesus and his sayings, there was something going on, connected to also Apollonios of Tyana who lived at same times, of renewing the contemporary rites and giving up the religious custom of sacrificing animals. Which followed, to large extent.

Christian teaching of Heaven has also interesting parallels to the Pure Land of Buddhism, and it's easy to consider Christ a manifestation of Pure Land Boddhisatva.

[skepticscott]

19. You obviously were brought up on a deeply distorted and discredited version of Christianity

No real Christians anywhere still believe that.

[MarkCharles]

20. That must be it! Thanks!

I guess I went to the only church anywhere that ever taught Jesus died for our sins, and that he was the "Son of God".

I get it now. No true Christian anywhere believes that!

[skepticscott]

21. Or so I've been told

by a noted authority....