The God Delusion

[_keithb]

So let me get this straight…

I state that your insistence on a literal understanding of biblical texts is anachronistic, you counter that your knowledge of Christian history and encounters with Christians themselves tells you a different story, and you challenge me with the burden of proof. I produce a textbook, written by a prominent textual scholar, a guy who specializes in how ancients read and wrote their texts, who contradicts what you claim and your response is:

So, one man doesn't ...

Still, I would assert that historically the vast majority of Christians have thought of the stories in Genesis, Acts, etc. as literal.

All this, within the context of a thread where I’ve been arguing ex-Mormons can’t seem to move past their limited understanding of Christianity provided to them by their Mormon upbringing.

We are clear on this, right?

So, let me get this straight Stak

You are arguing that Christians DON'T and HAVEN'T generally read the Bible as literal, in a world that had Cotton Mather, the Crusades, the Scopes Monkey Trial, and a hole crap load of other historical instances that seem to very, very strongly suggest otherwise?

We're clear on this, right?

[_keithb]

Oh, come now Stak. We both know that historical figures have used the Bible -- interpreted literally (including the ages of several figures in the Bible) to make a calculation that comes up with this age for the earth -- or something close to it.

Whoa whoa whoa, back up. Talking about James Ussher’s chronology? Surely you don’t think a literal reading of Genesis chapter 1 means the beginning of the universe, do you? The compound preposition Be’reshit which opens up the chapter is grammatically a construct state, there is no beginning of a timeline there, at all.

Counting back generations to Adam and Eve presupposes the doctrine that God created from nothing, which is literally taught nowhere within the text.

Come on guy…Rabbis before Jesus was even born had already countered this kind of stuff from Pagan detractors.

I am not really sure how this answers my point. I pointed out that, historically, there are some Christians that have argued from a literal interpretation of the text that the earth is 6,000 years old. You basically said, "Sure, but there were some Rabbis that disagreed with them."

Okay. I'll concede the point that some Rabbis thought that they were wrong. Still, people have made the attempt to justify a young earth based on the Bible.

Also, if you want to just count back generations to Adam and Eve, are you arguing that 1) Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and 2) the human race has only been around for 6,000 years?

[_MrStakhanovite]

So, let me get this straight Stak

You are arguing that Christians DON'T and HAVEN'T generally read the Bible as literal, in a world that had Cotton Mather, the Crusades, the Scopes Monkey Trial, and a hole crap load of other historical instances that seem to very, very strongly suggest otherwise?

We're clear on this, right?

I’m arguing that, historically, a literal understanding of scripture within Christianity/Judaism is a relatively new trend.

As for your examples, I think the Scopes Trial is the only one that works, and since that is post the publication of The Fundamentals, it fits nicely within my framework. For non-literal readings of the Bible with Cotton Mather, I can dig up his disputations with Quakers to produce counter examples, and for the Crusades it’s even easier with aneat little book I picked up called Popular Religion in the Middle Ages.

So far, I think we’ve been understanding each other well!

[_keithb]

So, let me get this straight Stak

You are arguing that Christians DON'T and HAVEN'T generally read the Bible as literal, in a world that had Cotton Mather, the Crusades, the Scopes Monkey Trial, and a hole crap load of other historical instances that seem to very, very strongly suggest otherwise?

We're clear on this, right?

I’m arguing that, historically, a literal understanding of scripture within Christianity/Judaism is a relatively new trend.

As for your examples, I think the Scopes Trial is the only one that works, and since that is post the publication of The Fundamentals, it fits nicely within my framework. For non-literal readings of the Bible with Cotton Mather, I can dig up his disputations with Quakers to produce counter examples, and for the Crusades it’s even easier with aneat little book I picked up called Popular Religion in the Middle Ages.

So far, I think we’ve been understanding each other well!

I am willing to concede the point to you that there have always been a minority of people who have viewed the Bible as a metaphorical work.

However, in terms of what the vast majority of Christians historically would have believed, I really would have to say it's evident -- at least to me -- that these Christians would have taken the Bible as a literal history of the world. I just can't imagine walking through a medieval village and having the priest say, "Well, the Bible says Adam and Eve were the first two people, but everyone here thinks that's probably a metaphor."

I just can't see it happening.

On a side note, it's fun to argue the point with you though, Stak. :D

[_MrStakhanovite]

I am not really sure how this answers my point.

If it takes a non-literal understanding to get a 6,000 year creation narrative, it would deal a pretty heavy blow to your thesis of “Historically, most of the Christian world has understood the myths of the Bible to be literal” if your favorite example of literal interpretation comes from Creationism.

However, in terms of what the vast majority of Christians historically would have believed, I really would have to say it's evident -- at least to me -- that these Christians would have taken the Bible as a literal history of the world. I just can't imagine walking through a medieval village and having the priest say, "Well, the Bible says Adam and Eve were the first two people, but everyone here thinks that's probably a metaphor.”

Given the time period, the Priests were probably just barely more literate than the folk they attended to. I don’t doubt for a second that the Middle Ages from start to finish was a very superstitious time filled with a manifold of false beliefs.

Given this, I don’t underestimate people from that time period. These people’s lives depended on the livestock they tended and the crops they grew, I can’t imagine a scenario they were as proficient as they were with animals and plants, that they understood that inbreeding was bad, and a surefire way to kill your food source. I’m sure they would apply that knowledge to the Adam and Eve narratives as it was read to them (the text itself was simply unavailable to them) and find their own creative reasons around it. I mean, there are gaping holes in the story, with passages that contradict each other but a few verses apart.

On a side note, it's fun to argue the point with you though, Stak. :D.

Likewise.

[_keithb]

I am not really sure how this answers my point.

If it takes a non-literal understanding to get a 6,000 year creation narrative, it would deal a pretty heavy blow to your thesis of “Historically, most of the Christian world has understood the myths of the Bible to be literal” if your favorite example of literal interpretation comes from Creationism.

If you don't like the 6,000 year old creation idea, how about Adam and Eve in general. Would most Christians historically have understood this to be a figurative story?

What about the resurrection of Jesus?

However, in terms of what the vast majority of Christians historically would have believed, I really would have to say it's evident -- at least to me -- that these Christians would have taken the Bible as a literal history of the world. I just can't imagine walking through a medieval village and having the priest say, "Well, the Bible says Adam and Eve were the first two people, but everyone here thinks that's probably a metaphor.”

Given the time period, the Priests were probably just barely more literate than the folk they attended to. I don’t doubt for a second that the Middle Ages from start to finish was a very superstitious time filled with a manifold of false beliefs.

Given this, I don’t underestimate people from that time period. These people’s lives depended on the livestock they tended and the crops they grew, I can’t imagine a scenario they were as proficient as they were with animals and plants, that they understood that inbreeding was bad, and a surefire way to kill your food source. I’m sure they would apply that knowledge to the Adam and Eve narratives as it was read to them (the text itself was simply unavailable to them) and find their own creative reasons around it. I mean, there are gaping holes in the story, with passages that contradict each other but a few verses apart.

First, maybe we are in the same situation. We are worshiping this fellow Jesus only because we lack the proper textual and historical understanding to know that the Bible was written by Zeus and we should actually be worshiping him. Maybe if we understood what the text was actually saying -- instead of what we interpret it to say or what the literal understanding of the text itself seems to say prima facie -- we would understand that Zeus was actually our god.

For that matter, if we allow for metaphorical language in religious texts, why are their any problems at all with the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon? Why can't "horse" just be a metaphor for "tapir" (or we only understand the term "horse" to mean horse because we don't understand the underlying text and the Nephite culture)? Similarly, why can't people be made metaphorically out of corn dough, as per the Popol Vuh?

Second, the bolded part of your reply helps my point. My position is that the people who wrote the Bible -- just like the people who wrote the Bhagavadgītā, were profoundly ignorant people by the standards of our time. Why should I care at all about what they think about god?

On a side note, it's fun to argue the point with you though, Stak. :D.

Likewise.

:D

[_Equality]

It's the height of impertinence, since they are much better read than I on these subject, but I side with Aristotle Smith and Stak in this thread. Especially when Stak says:

Sam and Richard have quite a lot to say about Islam, and it isn’t pretty.

That's the main reason I can't take Sam Harris seriously.

You can't take Sam Harris seriously because he has un-pretty things to say about Islam?

Do you take Ayaan Hirsi Ali seriously on the subject?
http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-ebook/dp/B000NY12CI/ref=pd_sim_b_10

[_Droopy]

If you are going to investigate atheism, don't pussy foot around with namby pamby Nu Atheists. Read a real atheist, like Nietzsche.

Here Here! And if you're really in a depressive, nihilistic sort of mood, you might take a look at Schopenhauer as well.

[_mikwut]

Jason,

How is your reading going so far? Any discussion points reached?

mikwut

[_mikwut]

Bumping for Jason, curious about the reading?