This is a serious question?

Not even someone who is cannibalistic could use this passage to support their beliefs when Jesus is clearly saying 'My flesh' and 'My blood' (note that is it capitalised) and in the Catholic church, the church that is primarily responsible for Christianity going mainstream, that is exactly what they do in the Euchrist and what Jesus did at the last supper.

I'm sure that I know next to nothing about this when compared to people who've spent years studying it but one thing I feel that I can say with reasonable certainty is that Jesus was talking about himself specifically and that the passage doesn't condone cannibalism and that it is intended to be taken literally and the catholic church do take it literally.

I don't find it credible that this deity would give us written instructions/guidelines but then allow us to interpret them as we see fit, this doesn't fit with what I know about Christianity and the Christian god. If the bible was written by people who freely adapted what they thought god wanted or even added parts for their own purposes then the entire book is suspect and I wouldn't trust a word of it. If it's the divine word of god then who are we to question the intent?

I used 'transcribed' because I wasn't sure how else to refer to the act of god passing his word to men who wrote it down. This is what is supposed to have happened right?

Thanks for linking that. If I were having that conversation now I'd have asked OrP why his question is relevant - "how did the founders of a religion intend it to be understood? " because I'm looking at this from the point of view of god having been the writer of the bible, not man, so what the founders of a religion wanted is moot, they were simply the vessels by which god gave us his word.

Unless of course the founders played a much larger role than that and were instrumental in deciding how and why this god should be worshiped and wrote that into the bible but it was nothign more than their own thoughts and then as I said before, all bets are off and you're free to interpret the bible any way you wish, it has been corrupted by the desires of men and has never been entirely the divine word of god.

So we have a situation I think where Christians have to admit that the bible is corrupted and untrustworthy, or that it's the literal word of god and should be followed literally because you can't second guess a deity. Or can you? If you can, then clearly I'm wrong.

Why? The one thing that Christians have that connects them directly to their god is the bible, it should be the most important element of their faith. How can you put it to one side and give more authority to something else? This can only weakens the credibility of both the bible and the faith IMO because it's simply more evidence of people choosing how to worship in a way that suits them and to compliment what we now know about our physical reality.

Have you seen that the pope just officially recommended that Christians accept ToE and The Big Bang? I think that this issue of whether or not the bible should be read/interpreted literally is going to become much more prominent in days ahead.

Most Christians I've known would hold that the bible is divinely inspired but not infallible, you are emphasising the fallibility but using pretty loaded terms like untrustworthy and corrupted.

In any case if that were your your response to OrP I wouldn't find it satisfactory, you haven't answered the question of what evidence you have that the bible was intended to be taken literally.

Sure I did. My argument is that if the bible is the unadulterated word of a deity who intended it to be his authoritative word, then who are we to second guess it. Does it contain instructions that we should figure out ourselves which passages to take literally and which are allegorical? Not as far as I'm aware. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

They're the Christians that I think cherry pick the bible to suit their specific requirements.

I used those terms because they fit, they're not intended to be rhetoric or hyperbole. If people partly changed what god said or added their own thoughts then it's not the uncorrupted word of god, so it's corrupted, and if the bible is a complete fabrication (i.e. god had nothing to do with) then it can't be trusted as the word of god or indeed as anything since we have no idea of the motivations of those who created it (although reasonable guesses can be made).

The pope has just claimed that Christians should accept ToE and TBB. Fundamental Creationists disagree that those two theories are compatible with the bible. Which do you think are right?

And what if it isn't, what abut those Christians who deny it is the literal word of God, what makes you authoritative on this question? You've stated it on multiple occasions but you haven't explained why it was intended to be taken literally or why it should be. You are making assertions without offering any historical evidence for your claims, given just what it is your claiming I think your position here is based on ignorance and I think you have failed and are continuing to fail to address this.

Why should the bible be considered the literal word of God?

What makes you think that I think that I'm saying this from a position of authority? It's an a priori position, it seems reasonable and logical to me in a way that the alternatives don't.

I think that I have now, several times, so I'm starting to wonder why you don't see what I'm saying as an explanation?

I think that this is missing the point and might explain why you don't think I've backed up my position. I can't offer 'historical' evidence that the bible is the word of god, how is that even possible? Even if there is a god as the Christians describe him and the bible is the word of that god, there isn't any proof. None. All I can offer is the hypothesis.

What is it that you think I'm ignorant of?

Because god wrote it. Are you suggesting that god didn't mean what he says in the bible? What reasons do you have to believe that? Perhaps you can offer a theory for why god intended us to second guess his word, a hypothesis that I find unlikely given how clear he is on what he wants in so many biblical accounts. A mixture of vague and cryptic and straightforward and clear? I suppose it's possible but I'd like to hear your hypothesis anyway.

I know that. Your mistake was in broadly claiming what "an atheist should do". What you should have said was that there is a particular type of atheist (perhaps one that is common on this board) that should do this. For example, I do not find the concept of a soul outlandish or necessarily superstitious, but I don't believe supernatural is a meaningful category and I think belief in God is mostly superstition and I am most certainly an atheist.

I don't think buying or selling my soul has much of an effect, but the symbolism of the act alone is enough for me to turn an offer of $1000 dollars down easy. I wouldn't sell my honor for a $1000 dollars either, even if it was explicitly stated I would not need to change anything about myself. Do you understand why?

Now, you might think I'm being silly... you might think I'm employing a double standard. But this has no bearing on my atheism.

I don't think this type of claim is suitable for considering a priori. Generally a priori claims should be in someway evidence transcendent, if we can understand something better empirically rather than through pure reason then we should, this is a claim about the world not a claim about all possible worlds.

I don't and nor did OrP so I think you may wish to revisit, people are asking you for evidence and the criticisms made of your explanation in that thread remain valid.


I am not asking you to prove that the bible is the word of God I am asking you why you think it was intended to be interpreted literally.

How people believe and what they believe.

I don't believe God wrote it and even while I would identify as a Christian I didn't think God wrote it, nor do I have personal experience of Christians telling me that it is the inerrant word of god, this is why I think you are ignorant of what people believe and why. You are also asking me for a hypothesis that I can't support I don't think the bible is the written word of God and so can't give a theory of what is in gods mind.

My impression is that a lot of posters are having their cake and eating it too in their criticism of MB.

Because on one side they want to criticize him for not including reasonable concepts of God in his assessment that belief in God is unreasonable, but on the other side they don't actually want to bother with what these supposedly reasonable concepts actually are.

Perhaps I'm being unfair, but this is my impression.

I don't understand this and certainly not with regard to the conversation I am involved with him in. Can you clarify?

My point during this conversation has been to ask why MB considers that Christians should interpret the bible literally. I am asking for evidence rather than a priori reasoning because I don't think that a priori is a suitable method to answer a question about the real world in particular.

What reasonable concepts are people failing to bother with?

Perhaps I missed something in the conversation. I thought this was a debate where MB is basically stating that if one can merely cherrypick aspects of "God", then "God" is likely nothing but a projection for personal norms and values. As for why... Hasn't he stated that the reason for this is that for Christians the Bible should be the word of God? I think that sounds sensible. If it is seen merely a human creation, I am struggling to see why we should ascribe it any more religious value than say the epic of Gilgamesh.

I think you are wrong in this somehow requiring the bible to be understood literally. For example early Jewish interpretation of canon viewed it as inerrant, but did not employ literal reading of the Tanakh as a general rule. Rather scholars employed strict rules for which sections should be interpreted and how these could be interpreted (basically any interpretation had to also fit other usage of terminology in the text, a sensible method if you ask me).

I don't think the criticism is that he's not only that he's not using reasonable concepts, but that he's trying to dictate to actual religious people what their beliefs are supposed to be, regardless of what they actually are, and for no reason other than "it seems logical to me". I would say it's very much like your response to Robin Agrees that "your mistake was in broadly claiming what 'an atheist should do'".

I thought I at least was attempting to bother about presenting a more reasonable understanding, re: cake and eating it.

The question I am asking MB is pretty specific, it's the same question he was asked by OrP in the thread I linked to above, namely on what grounds is MB stating that the Bible was either intended to be interpreted literally or should be interpreted literally.

I don't require the bible be understood literally this is my point, despite not actually being a theist when I was I never understood the bible to be interpreted in the manner MB suggests.

This has always been my problem with MB a lot of his criticism is based upon an understanding he hasn't shown much ambition to improve.

Here is the main part of what MB said that he is getting push back on, emphasis added.

The criticism is that this is a false dichotomy and that the Bible being the "word of God" can (and does for many Christians, both now and historically) mean something besides his idea that the word-for-word text was dictated by God with no input from human authors, as in his "not written by people".

It's also a claim that's been made repeatedly.

I can see that, but I think "Christian" is far more specific than "atheist" or "theist". I actually think a doctrinal discussion on Christianity is fair game ("what should a Christian believe"), but on a theist it would be too broad.

I know there is disagreement, I have discussed this with OrP who does not agree with me for example. Still, I maintain that a) Christianity should have a biblical basis and b) Not all Christians can be right.

(Obviously I believe none of them are right, but b is hypothetical).

Well, I disagree with MB that viewing the bible as inerrant requires a literal understanding of the bible. But I will claim it should require a systematic and fair understanding of the bible, and it is very difficult to see how some parts should not be taken literally.

.

I'm sympathetic to your broader complaint that people cherry pick what suits them, and ignore other passages. There is no doubt that happens. However, the way you have decided to illuminate this error is particularly poor.

For one, you've decided that your approach to understanding the bible is the only correct one, which is one of a complete and total literal interpretation. Again, I could almost accept that, but then you go even further and decide that not even literary devices can be used, and all figures of speech are actually literal as well. You don't need to go this far for your original complaint to remain valid, you are weakening your case by reaching this far.

When you deny literary devices, you lose all credibility, there are entire books where the author uses anthropomorphism, allegories, imagery, etc. Jesus was particularly known for talking in parables and for using language with multiple meaning, a fact that he later elaborates on.

I get your original point, again, I'm sympathetic to it, but the way you're going about arguing it is hurting your case.

I'm not telling anyone what they should and shouldn't believe, or even what I think they believe, I merely expressing surprise and confusion over the fact that the bible isn't interpreted literally and explaining why I think it ought to be. However, cries of 'don't tell me what I believe!' are not going to stop me expressing my view.

Let me ask you a question, is the bible the divinely inspired word of god, and by that I mean, did god essentially write the bible even though it was put down on paper by humans, or do you believe that humans wrote the bible themselves with no divine intervention?

Second, if you believe that the bible is the divine word of god and that no human thoughts are contained within it, that is is uncorrupted straight from your god, then do you agree that when you decide based on your own judgement when the bible is being literal and when it's not, that you are second guessing your god and what he intended?

How can any argument about what god wants, as recorded in the bible, be anything other than a priori Dereds when the bible itself can't be offered as evidence?

I've asked you questions which you have steadfastly not answered and you simply keep repeating your request for evidence that can't be provided. Unless you can show me why god didn't want his word to be taken literally I'm going to continue to wonder why anyone thinks differently.

You're not, you're arguing with TD even if what you're arguing about it what I'm talking about and I'm fine with that, new perspectives are always welcome.

So do you think that the bible contains human 'input'? This raises a lot of questions for me but I'll wait until you answer in case they're not relevant.

Yes