Fundamentalists and Atheists: Two peas in a pod?

[twf]

Mike,
Because of the historical predominance of Protestantism in North America, I think many skeptics take a very a Protestant approach to the Bible. I don’t mean this just in the sense of literal vs allegorical. Protestant churches are book-based faiths. They are founded on the Bible. They received a Sacred Book, sought to understand it, and founded a church. This isn’t so for Catholicism or Orthodoxy. The Church came first and then the Bible as we know it. The Church knows what Her faith is- She has 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. She deliberately chose from a wide variety of sacred texts from various times and places when compiling her list of “canonical” texts to be read in the context of the liturgy (the mass). The modern concept of pouring over the Scriptures as an individual to discern doctrine was not the historical norm- these texts were primarily used for divine worship in the Eucharistic celebration. Yes they instruct us, but divorced from the Sacred Tradition of the Church these books can be confusing and limited.
In regards to slavery and other moral issues seemingly tolerated in the Old Testament but no longer permitted by the Church, we must also consider the concept of progressive revelation. The Israelites saw a glimpse of God; God and His plan for mankind was not fully revealed prior to the Incarnation of Christ.

 

[Della]

Mike,
Because of the historical predominance of Protestantism in North America, I think many skeptics take a very a Protestant approach to the Bible. I don’t mean this just in the sense of literal vs allegorical. Protestant churches are book-based faiths. They are founded on the Bible. They received a Sacred Book, sought to understand it, and founded a church. This isn’t so for Catholicism or Orthodoxy. The Church came first and then the Bible as we know it. The Church knows what Her faith is- She has 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. She deliberately chose from a wide variety of sacred texts from various times and places when compiling her list of “canonical” texts to be read in the context of the liturgy (the mass). The modern concept of pouring over the Scriptures as an individual to discern doctrine was not the historical norm- these texts were primarily used for divine worship in the Eucharistic celebration. Yes they instruct us, but divorced from the Sacred Tradition of the Church these books can be confusing and limited.
In regards to slavery and other moral issues seemingly tolerated in the Old Testament but no longer permitted by the Church, we must also consider the concept of progressive revelation. The Israelites saw a glimpse of God; God and His plan for mankind was not fully revealed prior to the Incarnation of Christ.

Indeed so. When I was a Pentecostal we thought it was our task to interpret doctrine based on the Bible. Needless to say we had a lot of odd ideas surface based on people’s individual inclinations rather than on sound doctrine. It simply doesn’t work because God never intended Scripture to be used in such a way. Indeed, we are warned against this by St. Peter:

2Peter 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Depends on the fundamentalist, and on the atheist. You can’t pigeon-hole whole groups into a certain type of behavior.

Did I really write that?
Dang, I’ve mellowed over the years.

This made me chuckle.

 

[AbideWithMe]

As far as whether fundamentalists and atheists are alike, I’d say at least a few are. There’s always a few people in all walks of life and in all things where they obsess and won’t even discuss alternatives, whether it be family life, politics, or boy bands. Atheists and the religious are no exceptions.

I agree.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I quoted the paragraphs more for the sake of our seekers and lurkers who don’t post, but read everything. :tiphat: “Anagogical” is not part of my daily vocabulary either.

I hear ya!

This explanatory paragraph answers your questions. It is up to the Church to determine what is literal and the various meanings Scripture passages may have. This is the task of biblical scholars and theologians.

Personally, I don’t think that paragraph is a satisfactory answer to my questions. If the Church provides reasoning for why they interpret a certain passage as they do then at least there can be debate as to why they did so. The paragraph you gave says that your church has the sole say as to how a passage is to be interpreted.

Remember we’re talking about atheists having a problem with how to interpret Bible passages. I can think of no atheist this is just going to (pardon the phrase) take it on faith that the Catholic Church is without flaw in such interpretations. The questions I gave are a few basic guidelines to where we can look at what is said about a passage and see if it lines up with reason and morality. I’m sure others could come up with several more questions to apply to reading of Scripture. The fact is the words that have the most value are the ones that have faced the most questioning and the most scrutiny. To say that the paragraph answers my question seems like you’re saying that if the Church makes a statement on Scripture it should be unquestioned. Again, I have to disagree.

You see, the Church is not concerned with proving anything to satisfy everyone’s ideas about what a passage means.

The Church is under no obligation to satisfy the questioning of atheists. But if they won’t give answers or if they respond to any questions from a standpoint of the Church is simply right in such matters, then it’s going to affect a different group: questioning Catholics. Now I would say the Church has done an excellent job in the past several years in getting its message across, but I would also say that prior to that it hasn’t done as good a job.

Why? Because our faith is not based on interpreting the Bible. It’s helpful to the faith to have solid reasons for interpreting passages as literal, but they don’t determine what is believed and what we must believe. We are not “people of the book” as most Protestant bodies are. Indeed, the Church has declared only a handful of passages must be being read according to a set interpretation–just for the sake of clarity and sound theology.

Still the Church says that each passage is true in a literal or non-literal way. If it states why a passage is non-literal it must explain why. If it can’t state that it is either literal or non-literal it must then explain why they are sure it’s true.

The Bible is not meant to be read cold, without proper interpretation, which is the purview and responsibility of the Church, not of the average lay man.

As I noted, atheists will not just accept that only the Church can interpret Scripture because the Church says only they can do so.

Another thing to add is that atheists know that the Catholic Church is not the sole Christian church which lays claim to proper Bible interpretation. To put it in different terms, even of MIT makes a scientific study that doesn’t mean that CalTech can’t duplicate its studies and pronounce its own findings. Knowledge is to be discussed and dissected, not taken blindly.

It’s a huge mistake for you and I to try to decide what is literal and what isn’t because we haven’t the skills nor the authority to do so.

Each man must strive to know what is true and do what is right. I may not have the authority from the Church’s standpoint to point out troubling passages in scripture but I most certainly have the skill to state if I believe it is not good. It’s only by these kinds of questions can we really hash out whether something is or is not problematic Scripture.

Catholics are guided by our bishops in union with the Pope, the Magisterium in such matters because Christ gave the Apostles and their successors that authority and duty.

But you must understand that atheists will not assume that is accurate or that no mistakes were made, are being made, or will be made. Organizations have been guided by great people and yet have made mistakes. The Catholic Church is certainly no exception.

I’m sorry for the lengthy explanation, but books have been written on the subject, so it’s unrealistic to think it can be explained in one post on a public forum.

I fully understand the length as I can get a bit longwinded myself , though I doubt any book will convince me that anyone should remain silent if they see a problem. I am sure that if you saw a particular Surah in the Quran as troubling, you wouldn’t hesitate to speak out against it. I know you likely believe that such a matter would be different because you believe Christianity is true while Islam is not; but to that I would say that an atheist doesn’t take it for granted that any faith is true and will question when and where he or she can.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Church came first and then the Bible as we know it.

To be fair, the Torah came before both, and it is the cornerstone of the Old Testament.

The Church knows what Her faith is- She has 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. She deliberately chose from a wide variety of sacred texts from various times and places when compiling her list of “canonical” texts to be read in the context of the liturgy (the mass).

The Church chose the books that would make up the Bible, and in doing so stated to the world that these were all true in some sense. It made a statement that it now must stand by. If I vouch for a friend I have to be sure that he or she will act accordingly. If the Church says a book is true, it had best be true.

The modern concept of pouring over the Scriptures as an individual to discern doctrine was not the historical norm- these texts were primarily used for divine worship in the Eucharistic celebration. Yes they instruct us, but divorced from the Sacred Tradition of the Church these books can be confusing and limited.

That’s why I think the questions I came up with early in the thread are a good start to make sure that any explanations given as to non-literalness of a passage can withstand scrutiny. If the Church wishes to use Sacred Tradition while also explaining why a certain interpretation is best, then it can be discussed as most anything else can. If though Sacred Tradition is used without explanation and merely as a way to stop all questioning, then there should be no surprise if atheists will not accept what is essentially an argument with no points.

In regards to slavery and other moral issues seemingly tolerated in the Old Testament but no longer permitted by the Church, we must also consider the concept of progressive revelation. The Israelites saw a glimpse of God; God and His plan for mankind was not fully revealed prior to the Incarnation of Christ.

Unfortunately that is the kind of interpretation that collapses under the mildest of scrutiny. The Israelites didn’t see a glimpse of God, they spoke to him. He told the Israelites not to do as other nations do – Leviticus 20:23 “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.” Yet the explanation atheists most here about immoral practices he told the Israelites to do is that he had to take into account the time and place they were in. The Israelites had escaped Egypt and were making a fresh start. If there ever was a time to start a people off fresh was then. It’s explanations like that which show why we can’t just take them as given. More often then not they are more hand wave or dodge than explanation.

 

[Della]

Mike from NJ, your coments about what would be helpful to atheists re bibical interpretation begs the question: Why should atheists even care what the Bible says about anything or the Quran for that matter?

In my experience no explanation ever satisfied those who are bent on disbelieving no matter what is presented to them. So, biblical interpretation, for the atheist, becomes merely a dodge (conscious or unconscious)–a means to excuse one’s own desires rather than to actually learn anything. That being the case, it’s a huge waste of time and effort for both–the atheist and the believer.

The Bible is meant for those who already believe. It’s not an apologetical work, it’s a resource for those of faith to live their lives pleasing to God. If you cannot accept it as that, then it’s simply not for you. Indeed, it may even be dangerous to your soul for the word of God is a two-edged sword not merely a collection of pious sayings.

 

[AbideWithMe]

In my experience no explanation ever satisfied those who are bent on disbelieving no matter what is presented to them. So, biblical interpretation, for the atheist, becomes merely a dodge (conscious or unconscious)–a means to excuse one’s own desires rather than to actually learn anything. That being the case, it’s a huge waste of time and effort for both–the atheist and the believer.

I don’t know Mike from NJ or whether or not he’s “bent on disbelieving”, but he asked fair questions that are worthy of answers even if we amateurs here don’t have all the answers ourselves. I see no reason to accuse him or other sincere atheists of dodging the issues, consciously or unconsciously.

 

[Della]

I don’t know Mike from NJ or whether or not he’s “bent on disbelieving”, but he asked fair questions that are worthy of answers even if we amateurs here don’t have all the answers ourselves. I see no reason to accuse him or other sincere atheists of dodging the issues, consciously or unconsciously.

I didn’t accuse Mike of anything. I wrote that that was my experience when presenting evidence of the faith to atheists. As I wrote, but to put it another way, I think biblical interpretation is not necessary, and may even be harmful, for those outside the faith because it will only confuse them. IOW, it’s like a beginner swimmer trying to swim the Atlantic. He’s not prepared for it–he doesn’t have the skills to deal with it–to stretch the analogy to the breaking point.

As for interpreting the OT, there are plenty of resources right here on CA, as well as other Catholic scholars and apologists for anyone truly interested. The thread isn’t about biblical interpretation, in any case. This is a tangent issue that has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads readily available to any who are interested in reading them.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike from NJ, your coments about what would be helpful to atheists re bibical interpretation begs the question: Why should atheists even care what the Bible says about anything or the Quran for that matter?

There are a few reasons why atheists should care what the holy religious books not only say but how they are interpreted:

1. It’s important to be knowledgeable about the people we work and live with.
To be a citizen of the world is to try and understand cultures outside of our own, not only of other nations but of other cultures within our own borders.

2. People have used and continue to use religious reasons to influence those of all religious persuasions.
Each of us is shaped by what we believe is right and what is wrong, and for many that comes at least in part from their religion. All people with power and influence must be kept in check as a general rule. It doesn’t matter what their reasons for their actions are, but since for some those reasons are religious it’s important in those cases to understand those reasons – and in those cases where the reasoning is faulty to be able to show why they are faulty.

3. It’s a fair response to those who question of morality of atheists.
One canard atheists will hear most often is how one can have a moral foundation without a god or church. Different atheists will have different explanations, but sometimes the best method is to show that while non-religious morality is not perfect it can have strong advantage to religious morality when it can be shown that a given god or church for a person is in some way immoral.

In my experience no explanation ever satisfied those who are bent on disbelieving no matter what is presented to them.

There are those on CAF who would disagree. Some have come to belief via study. Not everyone has a Road to Damascus moment in their conversion.

So, biblical interpretation, for the atheist, becomes merely a dodge (conscious or unconscious)–a means to excuse one’s own desires rather than to actually learn anything.

I would argue that studying various interpretations, not just the Catholic Church’s is a great way to learn something. Some of the best learning I have done is by listening not only to things like Catholic Answers Live but also one of its counterparts, Pastors’ Perspective (which is from Calvary Chapel). Comparing and contrasting them (as well as other apologetics from different denominations) can shed new light on how Christians interpret the Bible. This is most notable in how each group determines what is and is not literal. While the Catholic Church says the passage used to show the Real Presence are literal, Calvary Church says they are not. The opposite occurs for other passages (or at least the Catholic Church will state we can’t determine if they are literal). The announcers on both shows are often eerily similar in tone and word when denouncing how other groups interpret those passages.

That being the case, it’s a huge waste of time and effort for both–the atheist and the believer.

Anything that can help sort out what is and isn’t true is not a waste of time.

The Bible is meant for those who already believe. It’s not an apologetical work, it’s a resource for those of faith to live their lives pleasing to God. If you cannot accept it as that, then it’s simply not for you. Indeed, it may even be dangerous to your soul for the word of God is a two-edged sword not merely a collection of pious sayings.

Until I no longer interact with those of other beliefs (point 1), until those with such beliefs will not attempt influence – great or small – over me (point 2), and until those believers continue to question if I’m even moral (point 3) then I will continue to attempt to learn of these beliefs and question when they seem contradictory, inaccurate, or even immoral.

 

[Della]

See my post just before this last one of yours. :tiphat:

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I didn’t accuse Mike of anything. I wrote that that was my experience when presenting evidence of the faith to atheists.

As I mentioned there are others, including some on CAF, that came to their beliefs through study. To say that atheists simply can’t be swayed by being presented with the Catholic side is to deny their stories.

As I wrote, but to put it another way, I think biblical interpretation is not necessary, and may even be harmful, for those outside the faith because it will only confuse them.

I’m not sure “confuse” is accurate. There are some atheists whose understanding of Catholicism matches those who are well learned in Catholicism. If an apologist wishes to state that an atheist is misunderstanding a piece of Scripture or teaching, let it be done through natural discourse and not through dismissing the atheist simply because he or she is an atheist.

IOW, it’s like a beginner swimmer trying to swim the Atlantic. He’s not prepared for it–he doesn’t have the skills to deal with it–to stretch the analogy to the breaking point.

To completely break the analogy, I would say it can feel more like listening to a tall tale from someone claiming they swam the Atlantic and pointing out flaws in the story that don’t require a professional swimmer to notice.

As for interpreting the OT, there are plenty of resources right here on CA, as well as other Catholic scholars and apologists for anyone truly interested.

But is that supposed to be a one-way street? CAF is a very good resource to get apologetics; but it’s also a place for questioning Catholics, those interested in joining the Church, and even atheists to question and probe what is being said.

The thread isn’t about biblical interpretation, in any case.

I would disagree. One of the four points in the OP was that atheists demand a literal biblical interpretation. I’m here to show that is not correct, that a non-literal interpretation is acceptable provided that there is sufficient reasoning for it and that it doesn’t lead to further complications.

This is a tangent issue that has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads readily available to any who are interested in reading them.

I realize this isn’t the place to go into specific interpretations, but I think whether and how an atheist deals with interpretations he disagrees with is key to determining whether we can compare atheists pejoratively with fundamentalists.

Della, in my last post I laid out three reasons why I think it is important for why everyone (not just atheists) what the various holy books (not just the Bible) say. I’d be very interested if you agree or disagree with those reasons.

 

[Della]

As I mentioned there are others, including some on CAF, that came to their beliefs through study. To say that atheists simply can’t be swayed by being presented with the Catholic side is to deny their stories.

Some atheists have been swayed, and of course they can be–like anyone else, if they have an open heart and mind. It’s simply been my exerience that most don’t have, at least, an open mind.

I’m not sure “confuse” is accurate. There are some atheists whose understanding of Catholicism matches those who are well learned in Catholicism.

Perhaps the “nuts and bolts” but not heart and soul and practice–things which make all the difference.

If an apologist wishes to state that an atheist is misunderstanding a piece of Scripture or teaching, let it be done through natural discourse and not through dismissing the atheist simply because he or she is an atheist.

Again, most atheists I’ve encountered online have a very limited understanding of Scripture and biblical interpretation from the Catholic understanding of it. So, they simply can’t understand what a Catholic means, even if it is explained quite thoroughly. I know, I’ve tried.

To completely break the analogy, I would say it can feel more like listening to a tall tale from someone claiming they swam the Atlantic and pointing out flaws in the story that don’t require a professional swimmer to notice.

Interesting that you use the words “tall tale” rather than “experience of”. Many atheists come with the presumption that the Bible is nothing but tall tales instead of giving it the benefit of the doubt, so they rip it apart rather than truly studying it. As Tolkien wrote: “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

But is that supposed to be a one-way street? CAF is a very good resource to get apologetics; but it’s also a place for questioning Catholics, those interested in joining the Church, and even atheists to question and probe what is being said.

There is a difference between probing to find the truth and probing endlessly until the truth becomes lost in the probing.

I would disagree. One of the four points in the OP was that atheists demand a literal biblical interpretation. I’m here to show that is not correct, that a non-literal interpretation is acceptable provided that there is sufficient reasoning for it and that it doesn’t lead to further complications.

Then I don’t see the problem with what you’ve asked except that it doesn’t matter as much as you seem to think it does. How can I get across how unimportant it is if you insist that it is? The Bible is not the end-all and be-all of the Catholic faith. It’s but one component–an important part, but not as you seem to think. It’s only a witness not an authority. If you could only let go of the notion that the faith must be proved from the Bible instead of being proved by the witness of the Church, you could skip all the agony over interpretation, because again, it’s really not that important. The Church has interpreted only a very few verses as having to be taken literally. The rest is for our devotional benefit–that’s all, Really.

I realize this isn’t the place to go into specific interpretations, but I think whether and how an atheist deals with interpretations he disagrees with is key to determining whether we can compare atheists pejoratively with fundamentalists.

I’m not sure it is pejorative, it’s only a comparison, not a condemnation. Fundamentalists are free to interpret the Bible literalistically all they please and it’s no skin off anyone’s noses. The idea is that by atheists insisting they must know which verses are literal and which aren’t they are making all about literal interpretation. There’s no big need for that, truly there isn’t. It’s really a none issue, which is why I keep saying that it would be better to acquaint oneself with the heart and soul, and practice of the faith, since the Bible is not the basis for our faith/beliefs.

Della, in my last post I laid out three reasons why I think it is important for why everyone (not just atheists) what the various holy books (not just the Bible) say. I’d be very interested if you agree or disagree with those reasons.

I guess then I have to disagree. I could care less what, for example, the Quran has to say about anything, frankly. Not because I dismiss Islam out of hand, but because the truths it contains already subsist within the Church, which was commissioned to preach and teach Christ’s teaching, who is the truth. I find other religions fascinating. I love mythology–I learn a great deal from the old myths and legends. Rich stuff all of it. But, I put my faith in Christ because he rose from the dead. It’s as simple as that. St. Paul wrote that if Christ be not raised from the dead our faith is in vain. I take him quite literally about that.

 

[patmiron]

=Son of Niall;13187915]Fundamentalists and Atheists appear to be opposite sides of the same coin. Think about it.

1. When interpreting Scriptures, both factions insist on a literalist translation, ignoring genre, original audience, and idiom.
2. Both insist that their own view is 100% correct, and all else are absolute fools, decreeing themselves to be the final arbiters of truth.
   3.Fundamentalists will not discard their misguided faith under any circumstances.
   4.They are militant in ‘evangelizing’ the unwashed.

Thoughts?

And yet there remains SERIOUS differences:

Atheist desire to claim to believe that their is NO GOD, a position that is logically unsustainable.

While Fundamentalist believe that God DOES exist, yet desires to remake them in their image of what they THINK God is, Whats and Commands.

Both need our prayers,

Pat Miron

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Some atheists have been swayed, and of course they can be–like anyone else, if they have an open heart and mind. It’s simply been my exerience that most don’t have, at least, an open mind.

It’s important to realize that reasonable and open-minded people can come to differing conclusion, especially when it comes to such an immense and ever-altering concept like religion.

Perhaps the “nuts and bolts” but not heart and soul and practice–things which make all the difference.

Would you agree that those from other religions would say the same when someone expresses doubts about their religions, that you can’t judge them without experiencing (and in some cases) believing in it to start? If someone is going in with an open mind then one can’t accept one religion’s call to heart and soul and ignore all the many others.

Again, most atheists I’ve encountered online have a very limited understanding of Scripture and biblical interpretation from the Catholic understanding of it. So, they simply can’t understand what a Catholic means, even if it is explained quite thoroughly. I know, I’ve tried.

I would question whether the atheists that you spoke to have limited understanding of Scripture or if they were simply unwilling to accept that only the Church may make such interpretations. That’s the whole reason why I’ve posted in this thread, to say that we understand some Scripture is not literal but believers have to give reasoned responses as to why any individual piece of Scripture is to be interpreted in one particular non-literal way.

You mentioned that most atheists have a limited understanding of Scripture. What about those that you believe do have that level of understanding but still reject the Church’s readings?

Interesting that you use the words “tall tale” rather than “experience of”. Many atheists come with the presumption that the Bible is nothing but tall tales instead of giving it the benefit of the doubt, so they rip it apart rather than truly studying it.

It is wrong to just outright assume a piece of Scripture is a tall tale, but at the same time it is wrong to assume it is true. Neither one is being open-minded. If we analyze what is written and find it fails on a literal, allegorical, or moral level it is then safe to doubt its truth.

There is a difference between probing to find the truth and probing endlessly until the truth becomes lost in the probing.

How does one probe too much? Does a detective stop investigating a case for fear that he may cease understanding the facts of the case?

Then I don’t see the problem with what you’ve asked except that it doesn’t matter as much as you seem to think it does. How can I get across how unimportant it is if you insist that it is? The Bible is not the end-all and be-all of the Catholic faith.

It is a vital component of the Catholic faith, especially as the Church itself says it is true. When the Church says to ignore passes of what it considers to be true if it demonstrates serious flaws in God Almighty, this can not be ignored. When the Church says that a certain passage says one thing but really means its opposite, it casts both the Church and the deity it worships with suspicion – not just from non-believers but believers as well.

(continued in next post)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

(Continued from previous post)

It’s but one component–an important part, but not as you seem to think. It’s only a witness not an authority. If you could only let go of the notion that the faith must be proved from the Bible instead of being proved by the witness of the Church, you could skip all the agony over interpretation, because again, it’s really not that important.

I am somewhat confused. You said that the Bible is an important part of the Church then right after you said that Biblical interpretation is really not that important.

The Church has interpreted only a very few verses as having to be taken literally. The rest is for our devotional benefit–that’s all, Really.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, and I’ll ask again. For those passages for which the Church has declared that they are uncertain whether they are literal or not, how can it also be so very certain that it is true?

I’m not sure it is pejorative, it’s only a comparison, not a condemnation. Fundamentalists are free to interpret the Bible literalistically all they please and it’s no skin off anyone’s noses.

The comparison has been couched in terms of a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to learn. I think it’s safe to say it was pejorative.

The idea is that by atheists insisting they must know which verses are literal and which aren’t they are making all about literal interpretation.

It’s not that we are saying which verses are literal so much as saying that if certain verses are literal then it paints a poor picture of some of the characters contained within, including God. We are also saying that the common response of “don’t take it literally” is insufficient if the only reason why a non-literal reading is called for is to dodge that poor picture or if a non-literal interpretation also paints a poor picture.

There’s no big need for that, truly there isn’t. It’s really a none issue, which is why I keep saying that it would be better to acquaint oneself with the heart and soul, and practice of the faith, since the Bible is not the basis for our faith/beliefs.

My heart tells me to seek the truth is the most noble of goals, and that doing so means to ask, probe, and be skeptical. Many other atheists feel the same way.

I guess then I have to disagree. I could care less what, for example, the Quran has to say about anything, frankly. Not because I dismiss Islam out of hand, but because the truths it contains already subsist within the Church, which was commissioned to preach and teach Christ’s teaching, who is the truth.

Atheists come from the viewpoint that we take no knowledge for granted. Assumptions lead to poor reasoning. Intellectual curiosity is essential.

But, I put my faith in Christ because he rose from the dead. It’s as simple as that. St. Paul wrote that if Christ be not raised from the dead our faith is in vain. I take him quite literally about that.

I could ask many men if Allah raised a man from the dead to tell onlookers who had killed him (Surah 2:72-73). They too would say it’s quite literally true.

 

[RebeccaJ]

C. Determine whether a quote from God can be non-literal. If God the Father or Jesus is quoted as saying something in the Bible, can we say that he literally said it. I’m not talking about whether what is said is a parable or something like that, but if those words (translated from the original language) is an accurate representation of what was said. The Bible writers are often said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, so I would hope that he would not allow for misquotes or inaccurate paraphrasing.

Divine inspiration means that God involves himself in a special way in a human event, guaranteeing his presence and the truth of what is communicated. When God inspires, he works within the human history he has created and with the creatures he has formed, but he protects the fragile creations from error in establishing his truth.

What I underlined, is usually where fundamentalists and atheists go off the track. Viewing instead that God works outside of human history and experience. It is an erroneous view, of God as a divine dictator that once in while uses humans like a ventriloquist.

Divine inspiration means God conveys truth in the context of the society and culture of which the author is a part of. It is one reason why we must take literary and historical criticisms into consideration when studying an interpretation. Not to explain away scripture, but to understand the truth that is being conveyed.

 

[Contarini]

I want to start with the first contention and maybe get to the others later.

I understand that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture can be interpreted in either a literal sense or one of three non-literal, spiritual senses (allegorical, moral, or anagogical).

The problem I have with this whole discussion is that the term “literal” can mean a lot of things. Here are three:

1. The first thing that comes into someone’s head when they read a certain phrase or passage. This is what most people seem to mean by it. This is just a bad way to read any text written in a difficult culture than your own, even before getting into the question of sacred meanings.
2. The probable meaning of the original author, as determined by historical scholarship. This is a more intellectually serious definition. But it’s still inadequate for talking even about the “literal sense” of Scripture in terms of theology. Christians, especially Catholics, read Scripture as a canonical whole, in light of the Church’s Tradition. So the actual, historic meaning of “literal” in the sense of the fourfold interpretation you describe above is:
3. The primary meaning given a passage by the Church’s Tradition.

Hence, when Catholics say “Catholics don’t read Scripture literally,” this is not actually referring to the traditional spiritual senses, although in practice I think the fourfold sense should be redefined so that there are two “literal” senses and two “spiritual” ones.

For instance, when Genesis 1:1 says “God created the heavens and the earth,” the most probable literal meaning in terms of sense 2 is that the passage is talking about God ordering pre-existing chaos. But the “literal” meaning in sense 3 is that God made the universe out of nothing. That may or may not be what the original human author(s) had in mind (most likely not), but the language still points in that direction, with its use of a word for “create” that is used nowhere else in Scripture and with the emphasis on God’s sovereignty as the source of all creation in contrast to previous creation accounts with their warring gods.

But this doesn’t even touch what most people think of as the “literal/nonliteral” issue in that passage, namely whether the seven days are “literal.”

The problem comes when a tricky passage of Scripture is pointed out non-believers will also be told that “Catholics don’t read the Bible literally”, but won’t go further in explaining that position. It’s as if stating that it’s not literal is a magic salve that clears up any and all uncomfortable scripture.

Well, it’s really a statement denying the right of a 21st-century reader to just pick up the text and say, “it seems to mean X to me, so obviously if you don’t believe X you aren’t taking your own Scriptures seriously.”

If a passage is not literal, the next steps would be:

A. Show why the passage should be interpreted in a non-literal sense.

You’re assuming that there is a solid, obvious “literal” meaning in the first place, and indeed that there is a single meaning to the word “literal” itself. You don’t have grounds for assuming either of these things.

Scripture is the book of the Church. We do not read it simply as a collection of ancient Near Eastern writings. And frankly most people who talk about “literal” meanings haven’t even gotten as far as that, but are just assuming that what seem like the “obvious” meanings to them are the “literal” ones, and that anyone denying that “literal” meaning must present reasons for doing so.

Nope.

It’s not enough to just claim a passage is not literal, there must be a reason to opt for that over a literal interpretation. It can be frustrating for non-believers when seemingly the only reason for such an interpretation is because it casts the God of the Bible in an unflattering light.

Well, you’re frustrated in your wholly illegitimate desire to declare yourselves the authoritative interpreters of other people’s holy books. You don’t get to do that, just as Christians don’t get to do it to Muslims, say.

I think the reason most unbelievers proceed this way (other than that our culture, at a popular level, predisposes people to think that this is an appropriate way to approach a text) because they notice a lot of silly Christians talking as if they just sit down with the Biblical text and inductively observe what it says about God, and build their theology solely on that. Actually nobody does that. It’s not even possible, let alone desirable. But many unbelievers in this culture not only are used to hearing Christians claim to do this, but were once Christians who did it themselves. Hence, they are conditioned to see any other approach as somehow “inauthentic” or a cop-out.

B. State whether non-literal passages can intersperse with literal passages, and if so how and when we can tell which is which.

Again, there needs to be clarity on what “literal” means here.

 

[Contarini]

I was discussing Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 (where God is quoted as saying slaves are property) with someone a few months back and the person stated the passages were not to be taken literally. The problem is that both passages are in the middle of other passages that are to be taken literally. For example the end of Exodus 20 through the beginning of Exodus 24 is a long quote from God containing literal rules to follow, including the Ten Commandments. Yet for those people who state Exodus 21:20-21 (which I understand is only some Christians) they have to explain why a non-literal interpretation is smack dab in the middle of God giving a list of laws.

Well, I agree that saying “it’s non-literal” just like that is unconvincing.

My approach to that text would be to say that it clearly reflects an ancient cultural understanding that slaves are property, but that the divine revelation in the text is the protection (albeit imperfect) afforded to slaves. In other words, your flawed assumption here is that all these laws are simply and directly given by God as timeless truths. Clearly that’s not how OT laws work.

The traditional way to put it would be that God “accommodates” his laws, leading people on by degrees.

I’d go further–I’d say that God was trying to get through to ancient people the truth that slaves are not property, but that they were not yet capable of hearing that truth in its fullness, so it came through, in that particular passage, in a muffled way.

But either way that law is not, in and of itself, an adequate representation of what God has to say about slavery.

For this to pose serious theological problems, you’d have to show that the passage was rejecting a view held by some ancient Hebrews who wanted to punish those who abused slaves even if the slaves didn’t die right away. But even in my sense 2, this isn’t a likely interpretation. It’s far more likely that the law was an attempt to bring some accountability to those who harmed slaves, and that v. 21 is a concession

C. Determine whether a quote from God can be non-literal. If God the Father or Jesus is quoted as saying something in the Bible, can we say that he literally said it.

First of all, “God the Father” doesn’t say much in Scripture, even as a literary character. “This is my Beloved Son” is about it. What is said in the OT is not said by “God the Father,” since that distinction doesn’t exist. (In traditional Christian thought, Jesus is the one who reveals God and thus the Second Person of the Trinity would be speaking in the OT too, if we are going to distinguish Persons at all. But all the works of the Trinity are indivisible anyway.) The point rather is that anything ascribed to God except the things said and done by the incarnate Jesus cannot, by definition, be said literally. You can’t speak of God literally, except in the Incarnation.

I’m not talking about whether what is said is a parable or something like that, but if those words (translated from the original language) is an accurate representation of what was said. The Bible writers are often said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, so I would hope that he would not allow for misquotes or inaccurate paraphrasing.

God clearly allowed all sorts of things that many pious people would not expect.

This is another example of your imposing certain assumptions on the text and then demanding that Christians measure up to them. You just don’t have the right to do that when talking about someone else’s religion.

Why do you “hope” anything of the sort? It makes no sense.

D. Showing that if a passage is non-literal in nature that it doesn’t show God as being reprehensible. So God says or does something that atheists find objectionable. Catholics state that the passage detail what was said or done is not literal. If the figurative reading of that passage still shows God as being objectionable then it is imperative that the believer demonstrate a different reading or why that reading is not objectionable. Again, solely stating that a passage is not literal is quite insufficient.

I agree. But so is assuming that whatever meaning happens to seem obvious to you is “literal” and is the default meaning given to the text.

E. Determine which non-literal interpretation is to be used and why. Let’s take Matthew 24:29. It’s a list of signs that all the world will see when Jesus returns. Matthew 24:34 says that it will happen within the generation of the people Jesus was speaking to. Now I think it’s safe to say this is not literal. The stars did not fall from the sky. My understanding is that Catholic Church believes in a form of preterism. There are several forms and some are in conflict with each other. There are also those who use futurism to interpret these passages (think the “Left Behind” folks). In short, when speaking to atheists about those passages which have multiple non-literal interpretations it’s vital that the believer explains why we should go with one such interpretation over all of the others.

I don’t really see why the believer needs to explain anything of the sort to you, unless you are seriously proposing to embrace one of them.

If there is a God, and if God revealed Scripture, then obviously that rules out any interpretation that is immoral or false. It makes no sense to say “you must prove to me, based on some set of rules that I have invented or learned from some other group of Christians to which you don’t belong, that your meaning is more plausible than the obviously wrong or wicked meanings.”

Again, the problem with this whole discussion is that people don’t really sit down with the Bible, figure out what it “literally says,” and then build their religion around it. Some people claim to do this, but they are obviously not really doing it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And that’s sort of the problem that can frustrate doubters. If it’s not verbatim, then how much is essentially true? That leeway when someone question something God said and the response is to focus on certain aspects of what is said can sometimes feel like the question isn’t being properly addressed.

But your standard for what is “properly addressing it” seems to be shaped by fundamentalism.

Why exactly do you assume that God couldn’t get a message through to people through “certain aspects of what was said”?

Why assume that the Bible can’t be a genuine set of ancient documents, complete with (on the level of the intentions of the original authors) the sorts of flaws and limitations you’d expect of people from ancient Near Eastern cultures, but that God is getting something through to us in the Bible anyway?

Why just rule that point of view out dismissively instead of seriously engaging it?