Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[reggieM]

Anyone who reads religious texts literally is a concern. It can lead to a lot of situations that we would all prefer did not occur. And you might notice that the more educated one is, the less likely one is to be a fundamentalist.

I would challenge us all to show me one person who reads the Bible “literally” in the absolute sense of what that, I think, you’re saying here.

If it’s some kind of relative sense - then every Catholic is a fundamentalist.

There might be some rare persons who read the Bible entirely non-literally. They think every word is fiction.

 

[Bradski]

I would challenge us all to show me one person who reads the Bible “literally” in the absolute sense of what that, I think, you’re saying here.

If it’s some kind of relative sense - then every Catholic is a fundamentalist.

There might be some rare persons who read the Bible entirely non-literally. They think every word is fiction.

Did you not read the poll questions?

‘Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the bible:’

And the first statement, to which 30% of Americans said represented their views was:

‘The bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word’.

For the life of me, I cannot see how that could be any clearer. And note that 21% of Catholics agreed that the bible is meant to be taken literally, word for word.

Please feel free to argue the semantics of the term ‘literally’, but bear in mind the second view presented was ‘the bible is the inspired word of God but not everything should be taken literally’.

If only the first statement was given and the respondant was asked if it represented their particular view: yes or no, then you might, just might have had an out in that you could say that they meant it was to be taken literally as the author intended it to be taken. That is, not word for word.

But given that that view is encompassed in the second statement, then there isn’t really any reason for nominating the first as one’s view other than from a fundamentalist position.

 

[minkymurph]

Where does this come from? As I posted earlier, if I’m in discussion with any given Christian, then I am responding to their particular beliefs and their understanding of scripture and their concept of God. Otherwise…well, we’d just be talking past each other.

My comment was posed as a question in response to PR. It was thus not an assertion a such.

That said, where it comes from is atheists themselves - hence the reason I posed the question.

How could I criticise someone for believing in a literal flood if they take it as being allegorical?

You wouldn’t, but there are atheists who would. Hence my comment.

How could I discuss the symbolic meaning of the story of Adam and Eve is the person takes it literally?

There are atheists who would say Catholics should read this account literally, and if they say they do not the response is, ‘That’s just a cop-out.’

I once had a discussion with an atheist concerning justifiable killing - just war, defense of self/protection of innocent life and stuff. His argument was the Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and thus the Christian cannot kill under any circumstances. I said there are translations that read, ‘Thou shalt not murder’ which puts a different perspective on things and when one reads an explanation of the Law just war, self defense and stuff was permitted. His response was, ‘That’s a cop-out, the Bible says Thou shalt not kill.’

An atheist once said to me, ‘You believe the earth was created in six days.’ I said I didn’t believe that, and I was told I was going against my Church. When I said I was not, I was told my Church was going against the Bible.

Now I reckon you would write these atheists off as idiots, but this is why I made the comments I did. That said I take your criticism in that my comments appear to tar all atheists with the one brush. It was not my intention to do that but I didn’t draw any lines of distinction, so I take your point.

You must have noticed that my discussions with you reflect your beliefs, not what I think you should believe as my interpretation of what a Catholic should believe. Likewise, when I discuss anything with anyone else, it is their beliefs I am discussing.

If you do come across an atheist that says something along the lines of: ‘Talking snake? Sheeesh, what a crock…’ then I’m bemused that anyone who doesn’t take the story literally would take offense. It’s not that the atheist is a fundamentalist in that case, it’s that he is having a shot across the bows of people who are fundamentalists and who do believe that there was actually a snake that talked (and there are quite a few of them).

The ‘Sheesh, what a crock…’ Could equally be said by any Christian who knows that the story is not meant to be taken literally.

The radical or ‘fundamentalist’ atheist will tell you that your are supposed to believe the snake talked. I say you don’t you get told your are going against the Bible, your Church and not really Catholic. Say the Bible is not meant to be read literally and you are ‘copping out.’

And let’s put something to bed here. The term fundamentalist as it is being used in this discussion is a perjorative. It is describing someone who, as far as I am concerned and using the local vernacular, has a few sheep loose in the top paddock.

Otherwise, why the denial that there are actually quite a few Catholics who hold fundamentalist beliefs?

It is being used in the perjorative and to describe someone who has a few sheep loose in paddock. I have made an attempt to draw lines of distinction - feel free to improve on it.

There are Catholics who hold to fundamentalist beliefs and it has prompted much debate on CAF - particularly in relation to the Genesis accounts of creation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would challenge us all to show me one person who reads the Bible “literally” in the absolute sense of what that, I think, you’re saying here.

I’m not sure it is possible in an absolute sense. There are parts of the bible that are written with abstractions. To choose a simple example:“a man shall not wear that which pertains to a woman…” There will be variances in literal interpretation as not everyone will agree on what pertains to a woman and man. For some Christian denominations women can’t wear shorts or pants. In others pants don’t necessarily have a gender. (I wonder how various people in such denominations feel about a man wearing a kilt).

 

[Bradski]

An atheist once said to me, ‘You believe the earth was created in six days.’ I said I didn’t believe that, and I was told I was going against my Church. When I said I was not, I was told my Church was going against the Bible.

Scratch an idiot and you’ll find a moron. That’s applicable whatever your beliefs or lack of them. Not all Christians are fundamentalist, but there are quite a few. And not all atheists are stupid. But there are quite a few.

Maybe we should leave them alone together to chat amongst themselves. It’ll keep them out of mischief.

 

[minkymurph]

Scratch an idiot and you’ll find a moron. That’s applicable whatever your beliefs or lack of them. Not all Christians are fundamentalist, but there are quite a few. And not all atheists are stupid. But there are quite a few.

Maybe we should leave them alone together to chat amongst themselves. It’ll keep them out of mischief.

 

[reggieM]

‘The bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word’.

For the life of me, I cannot see how that could be any clearer. And note that 21% of Catholics agreed that the bible is meant to be taken literally, word for word.

Never met a Catholic that does what you claim this is.
Never met a Protestant either. If you can show me one here on CAF I will like to see.

 

[PRmerger]

NB Those who despise others for their lack of intelligence reveal their own pride and stupidity…
,

Indeed. They worship the intellect rather than put it to use.

 

[PRmerger]

Well they’re usually not reading the Bible. To have the status of a Fundamentalist you actually have to read and study at least.

I don’t think so.

They’re just attacking Christian fundamentalists.

Right.

If a person’s primary argument about anything is “the Bible says” whatever, then they’re open to that kind of attack. In the U.S., the term “Christian” means Protestant, in the minds of most people. Atheists encounter Protestants (many fundamentalists) on the web far more than Catholics. That’s why we see these characterizations of the Bible.

Well, I think atheism is actually over-represented on the interwebz as compared to Christians.

I

f atheists actually were Fundamentalists in the way they read the Bible, that would be an improvement. As it stands, they use the Bible as an attack weapon only. They hunt for the worst clips. It’s selective reading, quote mining, totally dishonest and nothing that anyone can take seriously.

I don’t have any disagreement with this.

I understand why Mark Shea came up with that. I think it was an attempt to set atheists back on their heels a bit. But for me, it’s a misfire.

Atheism has problems that are so massive and so obvious and pathetic – I think the only response is to feel sorry for them.

I appreciate your posts PR and all of that is just a friendly (I hope!) and different point of view that may or may not help.
Thanks!

 

[reggieM]

I’m not sure it is possible in an absolute sense. There are parts of the bible that are written with abstractions. To choose a simple example:“a man shall not wear that which pertains to a woman…”

It’s not possible. No one does what it is supposedly claimed.
There are hundreds - maybe a thousand passages in the Bible that cannot be taken literally.
Here’s one:

John Chapter 10
“Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.”

Supposedly, there is some Fundamentalist on this earth somewhere who takes that “literally”. Word-for-word?
No, there isn’t.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There are atheists who would say Catholics should read this account literally, and if they say they do not the response is, ‘That’s just a cop-out.’

That is not the point. The Bible is a collection of stories, some are supported by independent historical evidence, others are allegories, and yet others are nonsensical fairy tales.

What atheists would like to see, the church come clean and give a list of the parts, which belong to the different groups. As is, the Catholics are just like to play hide-and-seek, and declare the parts literal, when it suits them, and allegorical when that is preferred.

When it comes to the Old Testament the stories are likely to be considered “allegorical”. When it comes to the story of Jesus, the stories become “historically correct”, even though they have absolutely no evidence for them. I presented a few of these stories (post #108 and #112), and asked what kind of evidence is there for them. Obviously no one answered.

 

[PRmerger]

What is atheism supported by? As Lear pointed out, nothing shall come of nothing…

And I find it disingenuous that an atheist objects to “some things in the Bible really happened, like the resurrection, and some things in the Bible are allegory, like a talking snake” with the question: how can you tell when it’s allegory vs actual?

I answer with: if your 7th grader brings home 2 books from his high school library–one that is about the lunar landing and one that about Hogwarts, do you really think that he’s really going to be all “Shoot! I got these both from the very same library, and now I can’t tell if we really landed on the moon, or if Hogwarts is just a fictional place because, gosh, it certainly can’t be true that one of them is an actual event and the other one is just plain fiction, right?”

Right?

Is the point that we Christian are too dumb to discern that some things are actual events but some things are allegory? They have to be ALL actual or ALL allegory?



That fundamentalist EITHER/OR rears its ugly head yet again.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Weeehlll, gholly gee fellors… I thinks I spotted where the survey went wrong… was the question asked and the first answer available the literally answer for all surveys? If so, there’s your 20%… 20% of Catholics either did not understand the question, chose the first answer for expediency, or purposely fumbled the survey to skew its results… how many were surveyed in total and how many Catholics?

 

[minkymurph]

Scratch an idiot and you’ll find a moron. That’s applicable whatever your beliefs or lack of them. Not all Christians are fundamentalist, but there are quite a few. And not all atheists are stupid. But there are quite a few.

Maybe we should leave them alone together to chat amongst themselves. It’ll keep them out of mischief.

This is why I don’t engage in discussion with radical/fundamentalist atheists.

To expand the point:

The radical atheist displays a similar mindset to the religious fundamentalist in terms of this is that and that is that. If this is Y then this must be X.

They don’t engage in speculative and imaginative thought. They don’t reject the value of speculative and imaginative thought in principle, but they themselves stick to a very literal view of the world.

 

[minkymurph]

That is not the point. The Bible is a collection of stories, some are supported by independent historical evidence, others are allegories, and yet others are nonsensical fairy tales.

If the only point is ‘There is no God,’ and to a radical atheist this is the only point, then nothing I say has a point unless it is, ‘There is no God.’

What atheists would like to see, the church come clean and give a list of the parts, which belong to the different groups. As is, the Catholics are just like to play hide-and-seek, and declare the parts literal, when it suits them, and allegorical when that is preferred.

The Church doesn’t really care what atheists would like but let’s be honest, nothing the Church would say would satisfy a radical atheist as the only thing the radical atheist wants to hear is, ‘There is no God.’ For this reason their mindset is comparable to religious fundamentalist.

The Church have identified which belong to different groups based on scholarship. In my part of the world they have run a degree course in Theology recognized by a university. Through this course I studied Biblical exegesis for three years and this involves the tasks you cite.

When it comes to the Old Testament the stories are likely to be considered “allegorical”. When it comes to the story of Jesus, the stories become “historically correct”, even though they have absolutely no evidence for them. I presented a few of these stories (post #108 and #112), and asked what kind of evidence is there for them. Obviously no one answered.

Based on Biblical scholarship:

I was never taught the miracles you list cite are ‘historically correct.’ I was taught outside Scripture there is no evidence for them.

Concerning any work an account should not be read literally if it was not the authors intention is should be. I was taught where historical events are recorded in the the Bible they receive a theological interpretation. Thus, they may not have happened in the manner described by the author and likely did not, but the actual details of the event are not the authors concern. The authors concern is the theological point they are making. Totally unacceptable to a radical atheist, but the reasonable person would cut them some slack as they did not have satisfying the expectations of radical atheists in the 21st century in mind when they wrote their accounts.

Say all of the above to a radical atheist and the response is, ‘That’s just a cop-out.’ The reason being the only thing the radical atheist wants from the discussion is for you to agree with them and cease believing in God, or at least walk away from the discussion believing they completely discredited your arguments with their own.

 

[reggieM]

Weeehlll, gholly gee fellors… I thinks I spotted where the survey went wrong… was the question asked and the first answer available the literally answer for all surveys? If so, there’s your 20%… 20% of Catholics either did not understand the question, chose the first answer for expediency, or purposely fumbled the survey to skew its results… how many were surveyed in total and how many Catholics?

It’s a good point because there can be a bias based on how the survey is structured.
There is no way that 20% of Catholics take the bible word-for-word.

The LORD is my rock, my fortress … my shield and the horn of my salvation,

people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers [mosquito bites on the ears?]

The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and
threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. …

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. {Must have had another farm somewhere?]

Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching.They are a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck.

I spent about 5 minutes on this - there are hundreds of examples.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Did you not read the poll questions?

‘Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the bible:’

And the first statement, to which 30% of Americans said represented their views was:

‘The bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word’.

For the life of me, I cannot see how that could be any clearer. And note that 21% of Catholics agreed that the bible is meant to be taken literally, word for word.

My how our number change Bradski. In post 11 you claimed 40% of Catholics were fundamentalists. Now you are down to 21%. Maybe in a few more posts it will be 10%?
How accurate!

 

[PRmerger]

The Church have identified which belong to different groups based on scholarship.

Yes.

Dei Verbum professes these guidelines when reading Holy Writ:

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”;
2. Read the Scripture within “the living tradition of the whole Church”; and,
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church doesn’t really care what atheists would like but let’s be honest, nothing the Church would say would satisfy a radical atheist as the only thing the radical atheist wants to hear is, ‘There is no God.’ For this reason their mindset is comparable to religious fundamentalist.

Yep.

Would that the atheist understood the Catholic approach to Scripture.

Rather they are like this, which Mark Shea addresses:

For some folks, including not a few Catholics, it takes a lot to dispel the myth of the hyper-controlling Church that only permits Bible study after the insertion of the Vatican Orbital Mind Control Laser Platform chip in the frontal lobe of the brain.

 

[PRmerger]

More…

Tools For Thinking Sensibly About Scripture:

Originally posted by Mark Shea: From the perspective of sane biblical study, this entire approach (technically known by Catholic theologians as the “hermeneutic of suspicion”) is sort of like looking at a goldfish and seeing only a circulatory system, an excretory system, a pair of gills, a pair of eyes, some randomly distributed fins, a bunch of scales, a nervous system, and various connective tissues, all of which just happen to be crammed into a goldfish-shaped space—and then spending all your time looking for “junk DNA” in the goldfish cells while steadfastly ignoring the swimming, living fish.