(September 26, 2019 at 7:00 pm)factseeker Wrote: I agree that certain parts of the bible can be very confusing, not knowing whether text must be taken literally or figuratively.
If I might offer a suggestion.
ANYTHING you read or hear has to be evaluated as to the intended meaning and part of that is judging how literally to take it. It's a problem inherent in speech and the written word. It is not unique to holy books. Someone gave the example "it's raining cats and dogs". Since that's such a ridiculous simile and common usage equates "cats and dogs" to "very heavily", basically no one beyond perhaps a small child would make the mistake of thinking for a hot second that the sky is disgorging itself of domesticated house pets.
Usually when we're a little less sure of the speaker or author's intent we can simply ask or refer to the broader context of how they habitually speak or write. But it's hardly an exact science.
Holy books did not CREATE this problem, but they LEVERAGE it. I've always submitted that holy books (not just the Bible) in order to be "timeless", must be able to adapt to various contexts, and as such, they are written to be full of stuff where the context is often not set up or clarified enough to make the author's level of (non)literalness implicit. This allows any random reader in any random time and culture to take from it whatever their preconceptions and presuppositions make them the most comfortable or speaks to some immediate need or desire. This is then modified and filtered a bit by the interpretational system of the religion, to knock off the rough edges a bit and resolve at least the biggest logical contradictions. This would be apologetics of the form, "that might seem intuitive but because of dogma A vs dogma B plus bullshit argument C it really means this other thing -- or is (not to be) taken literally", etc.
Holy books are templates for each religion (and in fact each sect or denomination) to flesh out their unique take on dogma. As an example, most of Christianity historically has left the signs and miracles related about the early church in the Acts of the Apostles in the realm of "not for today" -- things like speaking in tongues, sinners being struck dead where they stand, healings, even raising the dead, etc., are regarded as miraculous validation of the teaching of the apostles and early church fathers before there was an official canon of scripture (though not, oddly, before there were printing presses to disseminate it and widespread literacy to make disseminating it relevant). But the entire pentecostal / holiness / charismatic branch of Christianity turns on the notion, "what IF these things ARE for today?" which largely involves taking half a verse in Acts literally and universally where the church historically has said, well, obviously those things never happen so the aren't applicable today but are just inspiring campfire stories.
If one is very literal-minded because of being on the spectrum or just personality leanings and inclinations, they will tend to see things more literally but will be reigned in by the majority of fellow believers who will "correct" them.
If one questions or is skeptical of scripture being the inspired word of god, that has nothing inherently to do with which interpretational system and approved dogma they might be personally rejecting.
Atheism is not a thing-in-itself. It's just one of many side effects of skepticism and a rational, evidence-based approach to life. Liberal Christians who hold their faith relatively loosely and metaphorically can and still do turn to atheism.
So this notion that atheists are atheists because they take the Bible over-literally or impose literal meanings where it is "clearly intended" to be metaphorical is, I'm sorry to say, 97.2% bullshit.
