Biblical illiteracy

[Ryantology]

What makes one 'biblically-literate'?

I don't agree with the idea that being 'biblically-literate' involves agreeing with a single word of it. There's no such thing as an objectively-correct interpretation of a book which is both fictional and vague in so many ways. To read it literally and without accepting any of it as factual is, arguably, the most correct way to read it. To read it with the assumption that any of it is factual is faulty, because so little of it has been determined to be factual, and accepting the main premise without proper justification will only lead to you accepting others with a similar lack of justification.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I wouldn't want to venture an opinion on what are the most essential concepts for a Christian to understand. Who am I to judge? Speaking personally, I wouldn't say it's at the core of my faith. One of my closest friend is a jehovahs witness and we've been arguing about the divinity of Jesus for 10 years. To me she exhibits all the significant" fruits of the spirit" so I would not opine that here doctrinal differences on this strongly affect her Christianity.

Okay, so then what is your position on who Jesus was/is? Do you beleive that he was a man, God, son of God, all three at the same time ... or what?

Would you mind if I redirect you? I cracked off a thread called "most important reason I'm a xtian" because someone asked me that on another thread. Rather than derail this thread on biblical illiteracy, if you want to know my personal theology, it's there (although I'm sure I don't know why anyone would be interested!).

---

What makes one 'biblically-literate'?

I don't agree with the idea that being 'biblically-literate' involves agreeing with a single word of it. There's no such thing as an objectively-correct interpretation of a book which is both fictional and vague in so many ways. To read it literally and without accepting any of it as factual is, arguably, the most correct way to read it. To read it with the assumption that any of it is factual is faulty, because so little of it has been determined to be factual, and accepting the main premise without proper justification will only lead to you accepting others with a similar lack of justification.

Interesting angle!

I would say that biblical literacy involves knowing what it says, without reference to ones view on what it says means. If I could recite the whole book from Genesis to revelation, verbatim I would consider myself highly Biblically literate, whether I believed it was a literal account or whether I believed it to be a Harry Potter type fairytale.

I agree that since some bits of it are evidently erroneous unless one twists and reinterprets the literal meanings, there is no validity to the position that all of it must be taken literally. Equally just because some of it is untrue does not follow that none of it is true.

[Jacob(smooth)]

This one is especially for simon moon

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[Rayaan]

Would you mind if I redirect you? I cracked off a thread called "most important reason I'm a xtian" because someone asked me that on another thread. Rather than derail this thread on biblical illiteracy, if you want to know my personal theology, it's there (although I'm sure I don't know why anyone would be interested!).

Okay, I found your answer to my question (although it still wasn't too clear to me) about the role of Jesus and what you think of him. You said that it was the hardest question by far.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-22345-po...#pid554623

So, from that post, it looks to me that you don't believe that Jesus is God because you wrote that he was "somebody" whose love with humanity is very special to you ...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Would you mind if I redirect you? I cracked off a thread called "most important reason I'm a xtian" because someone asked me that on another thread. Rather than derail this thread on biblical illiteracy, if you want to know my personal theology, it's there (although I'm sure I don't know why anyone would be interested!).

Okay, I found your answer to my question (although it still wasn't too clear to me) about the role of Jesus and what you think of him. You said that it was the hardest question by far.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-22345-po...#pid554623

So, from that post, it looks to me that you don't believe that Jesus is God because you wrote that he was "somebody" whose love with humanity is very special to you ...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

"I don't believe" is perhaps overstating the case. I simply don't know. I choose to work on the basis that Jesus is God (although I'm not at all clear on what that means), but I do so knowing that my conception of it is oversimplified and probably wide of the mark. Its probably not right in an absolute sense but its as close as I can comprehend to it being right.


In medicine we have things called "placeholder" diagnoses. These (usually syndromes rather than diagnoses) are what we put in place when we don't really understand whats going on very well... but we know that there is a set of symptoms / circumstances about which we can make some general observations. Chronic fatigue syndrome is the usual example but I'll use "headache" as a simpler example. You know the symptoms in broad strokes (pain in the head) and you have some broad treatment options (like pain killers). But headache is not really a true diagnoses, it covers migraine, hangover, muscular tension pain, referred pain, neuralgic pain, etc etc.

For me, "Jesus is God" is a placeholder theology. I'm pretty sure there is more to it than I understand but it serves to keep the slot open. That's why I don't like stating it as a fact, or even a firm opinion, because Its very open to finding problems with (like placeholder diagnoses). There is something there... but I don't know what.

Sorry I'm not able to be clearer. "I don't really know" features exceedingly heavily in my views on religion (and everything else for that matter). I used to be convinced that the little space between my ears was a pretty good representation of objective reality. These days, I'm not too certain of anything any more. To paraphrase morpheus , what is real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. On that basis God is real, and I believe in her.

[Rayaan]

"I don't believe" is perhaps overstating the case. I simply don't know.

I know you don't know. That's why I asked you whether you believe Jesus is God or not. I didn't ask you anything about your knowledge of Jesus, did I?

Anyway, thanks for elaborating. I will disengage from this topic now since what we have been discussing here is not exactly the subject of the OP, although it is related. I will remember what you said in response to my question, and I'll probably even jab you again with this same issue when there comes a more relevant thread for discussing this in the future - so beware.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I look forward to jabbiage

[Bad Writer]

As an ex-Mormon, we had an Article of Faith that stated "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. ..." It was the consensus among my peers that the book was a source of limited spiritual knowledge, which meant it became a haven for cherry picking. Yet, at the same time, it also became a scripture in our canon that didn't really need to be taken seriously. When I lost my belief that the Book of Mormon was at all true, it was then just as easy to throw away the Holy Babble because I instinctually took its words with a grain of salt anyway.

However, I will say that I still had to contend with what it said back when I was Mormon, which meant I did study quite a bit of it. A lot of Mormon doctrine, though found in the Book of Mormon and other sources, stems from the Bible. My literacy was admirable, even if I didn't believe it all.

Someone mentioned earlier that being an ex-Christian helps an atheist with Bible literacy, and I'd say that certainly plays a huge part in that fact. A lot of us here are living proof of this.

[freedomfromforum]

I look forward to jabbiage

Kitanatos may be able to help you with that

[ThomM]

Sorry - but YOUR claim is wrong - and I was correct - IF YOU ACTUALLY read the study - which you could have found yourself rather than asking for a reference.

Only Mormons and White Evangelical Xtians knew more about the bible than atheists and agnostics

However - those two group Do not represent the majority of Xtians -
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...of_members)
Catholics are the majority of Xtians - and then come white mainline Xtians -and black and Hispanic Xtians - all of which the Atheists and Agnostics handily outscored


So - in fact Atheist DO know more about the bible than most xtians

---

I agree that since some bits of it are evidently erroneous unless one twists and reinterprets the literal meanings, there is no validity to the position that all of it must be taken literally. Equally just because some of it is untrue does not follow that none of it is true.
[/quote]

Ah - but for centuries - xtians were taught that the bible was the absolute and inerrant inspired word of god - and even today there are sects that teach that very thing.

The fact is - there are LOTS of things in the Bible that are not true - not just bits. And when you accept that there are things that are not true - the idea that some COULD be true leaves that major question - WHICH ones?

THe only way to determine that is by proof from OUTSIDE of the bible - since the bible itself is no longer a reliable source.

So - for example - there is not a single document that can be dated to the supposed time of the "christ" that mentions his name. There is no mention of his supposed "miracles" in the historic record - or birth or death date as well. In fact - we have no record of Israel before 1210 BC. Israel does not appear in the list of nations under the control of egypt that exists as well.

WE already know that the earth is far older than about 6000 years as well. WE know that there was NO worldwide flood in the 3000 years of the magnitude claimed in the bible. We know that the SUN had to exist before the earth as well.

So - where is the proof outside of the bible?