(August 23, 2012 at 2:49 am)Ed from Ann Arbor Wrote: I agree with Dawkins that [paraphasing] people who 'believe' the bible either haven't read it [all] or don't understand it. Dawkins is a prominent atheist, but in addition many adherents of Christianity agree with this statement. The bible was thought to 'mean' the way it 'reads' by most all believers [adherents] until recently (mid 20th century?). Even the Catholic Church (my background) fought against science until about 50 years ago. It is a new ball game now that they, mainline protestant, anglican, etc. churches (perhaps comprising 80%) of Christian churches do now employ critical thinking and reason to the bible. I wish the same could be said for Islam. (Wait about 300 years). The fact is that everyone, whether fundamentalist or non-literalist adherents engages in the same process: Selectively taking certain passages as important/applicable, and other passages as not applicable/required to be practiced. Regardless of who is at their pulpit, that person is going to tell them what passages should be acted on, and which 'no longer apply'. Personally i have read the bible through twice. The problem with the bible is that it has an emotional hold for some believers that is so strong that they cannot employ critical thinking to appreciate it the way it can be appreciated. You can't undo the existence of this document, good or bad and the hold it has on the less educated, the less reasoned. I respect atheists who are just appalled at the bible and regret its hold on some people. You and I have common ground. Sorry I can't be more upbeat on Islam. A cultural catholic, Ed.
So... the biggest problem with the bible is not an actual problem with the bible but how certain people interperet it? How is that different from anything else?
