Everyone Interprets, Some Just Admit It

June 20, 2012 By 67 Comments

Libby Anne is wondering about a certain atheist trope: reading the Bible makes you an atheist.

First, because while I’m sure there are plenty of Christians who don’t read the Bible, everyone in the evangelical community where I grew up read it on a daily basis, and not just the easier books like the Gospels. Second, because I read the Bible through numerous times before I even graduated from high school, and doing so didn’t shake my fundamentalist/evangelical faith one iota.

I think there’s a difference between reading the Bible and having the Bible explained to you. Let me try to explain it this way:

What The Bible Says vs. What We Say the Bible Says

There’s the Bible, a collection of letters and books produced by different authors over the course of five or six hundred years. But then there’s a field of interpretations surrounding that Bible, a mixture of explanations and stories associated with the Bible that get passed down through tradition.

Well before you ever read the Bible – well before you can read – you have already begun to encounter that field. You are told what the Bible contains, what the Bible means, how it is used, what authority it possesses and so forth. You hear Bible stories and hear snatches of the Bible quoted authoritatively. Even if you were not raised Christian, you most likely encountered that field countless times.

The most obvious example is the nativity story. Before you came to know good from evil, you probably encountered the nativity story a dozen times, either by hearing the story told and preached or by seeing a creche. You heard about the shepherds and the angels and the three wise men. You heard about the trek to Bethlehem and the murderous King Herod.

But of course, there are actually two different stories there that have been mixed together. And there are no “three wise men,” that’s just a traditional guess. But many people have grown up with that story, and so opening the Bible they see that story in Matthew and Luke and do not question the idea that the two stories should be combined. They do not note that the wise men are not numbered.

Such people are not encountering the Bible directly, they are only perceiving it as it is visible through that field of interpretation. And those interpretations come to them through their community.

Let It Challenge You

When I was young, my family was Episcopalian, but most of my friends were Evangelicals. I got fed up with the way Episcopalians would evasively answer questions about what certain passages in the Bible meant. “What do you think it means?” was a typical response. In contrast, most of my Baptist friends could expect clear authoritative answers.

In hindsight, I recognize that my community was very conscious of that field. They were trying to avoid giving me pat answers. Better for me to be challenged by a Biblical passage than to through life anchored to some interpretation simply because of something my Sunday school teacher said.

Most of the Evangelical families living in the semi-rural south with me actually did believe that there were pat answers. They had no problem teaching the answers which they had learned from their families. And in this process the problems of the Bible are papered over, the challenges are swiftly removed and the contradictions are given a gloss that minimizes them. And since this process has been going on for generations, most of these answers are quite good and sound very reasonable.

Of course, this means that these families are not encountering the Bible directly. They were dealing with the field of interpretation that hovers around the Bible, while insisting that it really was the Bible all along. This field distorts the text, highlighting some passages and covering others – picking and choosing.

I write all this, partially to respond to Libby Anne’s questions, but also as a response to people in the recent discussions of Progressive Christianity who were arguing that at least the Fundamentalists don’t cherry pick the Bible. As I’ve pointed out before, they most definately do pick and choose what verses apply to their lives.

Or rather, they let the field do it for them. That allows them to say with a straight face that they accept the authority of the Bible while still ignoring large sections. They’re unaware that they’re still miles away from the Bible, interacting with the field of traditional interpretations that their community has passed on to them.

So the difference between Fundamentalists and Progressives is not that one the first take the Bible literally and the second pick and choose. Both groups interpret the Bible in ways that minimize or remove certain sections and highlight others. The difference is that the Progressives do it consciously.

Filed Under: Bible, Christianity 67 Comments
  • http://www.noyourgod..com NoYourGod

    My neighbor – a good friend – is an evangelical and a bible literalist. Yet even this person who proclaims every word in the bible is true (“if god can create man, the earth, and the entire universe, don’t you think he could find a good publisher?”), one evening he was describing how jesus was actually a reappearance of adam… I am not aware of any reference to jesus=adam in the bible…

    Odd to see interpretation from a literalist.

    • vasaroti

      There are no literalists, as Libby Anne points out. Back when I bothered to engage with people who describes themselves as Bible-believing, I had fun pointing out all the things they did that the Bible says will doom them to hell. Oh, and I don’t know anyone who’s killed their kids for disobedience.

    • John C

      ‘Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of ADAM, WHO IS A TYPE OF Him who was to come’. (Rom 5:14, NASB)

      There are various other verses which contrast & compare them to one another.

      • dmantis

        So your point is…shit happens?

        Instead of the quote you could have done something much simpler. You could have typed:

        Man: Hey God, this whole death and destruction thing is kind of a bummer.

        God: /shrugs

      • Galloway

        What’s interesting about that verse to me is how the Bible really is an ad hoc explanation of events, but always from the point of view that God was responsible. To me, this is what makes the Bible so contradictory, because life events truly are random and unpredictable, so the resulting bible narrative will appear equally nonsensical and contradictory. God kills people in the Bible for very perplexing reasons, like the guy who tried to stop the Ark of the Covenant from tipping over, and when he reached out to save it, God smote him. Or Onan, who masturbated or spilled his seed on the ground, and God smote him. And the many other people God smote back then, but for some reason these same events are not smotable crimes today. Conclusion? We’re not talking about God, even though the people who wrote the Bible thought so. The difference between why things seemed to happen this way in ancient times but not today is a solid argument for atheism.

    • SG

      He may have been referring to the idea that Jesus is the “New Adam”. Paul talked about that idea in the NT. He wasn’t saying that Jesus was literally Adam reappearing but rather that Christ was a type of Adam (in the opposite direction). Adam’s disobedience plunged the world into sin but Christ’s righteousness saved the world. I am not sure if your friend was referring to that or not …

  • http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com Jonny Scaramanga

    Spot on. I never made it cover-to-cover, but I tried hard to read the Bible as a Christian. I’m sure I’ve read the New Testament, and I definitely read the Old Testament through to the end of the law.
    What’s amazing is that, even though I did that, when people point out contradictions and atrocities from those bits of the Bible, they’re still news to me. I never noticed them when I was reading, because I wasn’t looking for them, and I had my Jesus-glasses on to compensate for the text.

    • http://eleazartimes.wordpress.com David “Eleazar” Kitchens

      The only “contradictions” in scripture are those people find when they take things out of context. Context context context….:)…Shalom!

      • Custador

        And who exactly decides on the context? Yeah, that’s what I though. The only right interpretation is the one you agree with, taken in the context you think is the right one. Please don’t play those semantic games, it’s boring and puerile to boot.

        • Steven

          Context isn’t subjective. If, 2000 years from now, people watched South Park and expected a good insight into what our culture was like, but without the context of it being a parody, they would have a wildly different idea about our culture.

          Context isn’t our context. We don’t get to put it in whatever context we wish. When people say verses are “out of context” it often sounds like a cop out. That’s because it is for most people. However, for their Pastors who tell them this, it means something different. Pastors and scholars study context to find meaning. Context isn’t “the one you think is the right one,” context is a complex mixture of the verses surrounding the passage, huge patterns of thought in philosophy and knowledge at the time of the biblical writing, smaller patterns and schools of thought, references to other things in the text, what’s actually happening at the time, phrases that mean something in the original, but nothing to us, cultural phenomena and expectation, and a whole slew of other factors. Context isn’t something people get to decide, it’s a studied field where people look at history to determine what the author meant.

          • Kodie

            Another word for ‘context’ might be “excuses.”

          • Jabster

            “… it’s a studied field where people ‘look’ at history to see how they can change what the author probably meant to fit in with their own view point and conclusions.”

            … fixed it for you.

      • http://krissthesexyatheist.blogspot.com krissthesexyatheist

        When is it in context to dash your child upon rocks to show God you have faith. When is genocide in context. hope i didn’t misinterpret you. Awesome.

        Kriss

      • http://fugodeus.com Nox
      • Kodie

        Like a magician performing a trick. “Context context context,” the rabbit becomes a dove! The lovely assistant is not sawn into pieces! The bible becomes consistent!

        What kind of illiterate morons do you take us for that you can just wave your hands and make up lies?

        • trj

          “Watch now, as I say the magic word, how the scripture will amazingly come to mean whatever fits my belief.”

  • mikespeir

    Just admit it? It sounds like the broken record I play all the time. On the other hand, this idea that Evangelicals/Fundamentalists/Pentecostals are inevitably Bible scholars is way off the far end, too. I grew up Pentecostal. Yes, when I later switched to Methodism I was seen as kind of a Bible expert. This is because I had been so thoroughly drilled in the Bible as a Pentecostal as compared to the average Methodist. But I’d dare say most Pentecostals haven’t read the Bible through, cover-to-cover even once. Rarely are the nastier passages dealt with from the pulpit. The believer has to approach those on his own; and if he chooses to, he usually prances through quickly on tip-toes so as to avoid burning his tootsies. That’s why we have to harp on those places and their contrary implications.

  • http://notsosecretsecretblog.blogspot.com/ abeille

    My sister is a Pentecostal; I’m not sure she has ever read the bible from cover to cover. She reads odd bits, here and there, “studies” a chapter, now and then, has a multitude of verses and basic stories memorized.

    I can’t imagine reading any* book the way so many Christians do. Flip open to a random page, start reading for a few verses, flip to another random page, read a few more. Connect this word – glory – to that passage- women’s hair- and suddenly you’ve got an entirely different different meaning than “Cover your hair in church”. Read this chapter, knowing the rough story, but gloss over the bits when your protagonist does something ruthless, because the antagonist that you’re unfamiliar with probably deserved it.

    It would be like reading The Count of Monte Cristo and not knowing who Mercedes is, or not having ever read about Danglars. Try to understand what is going on in the chapters where his character meet theirs, not understanding the back story. Dante is rewarded at the end; he must righteous. If he is righteous, then he was never unethical. Or, at least, he wasn’t unethical in the society at the time.
    Its just a messy way of reading and understanding.

    *okay, any is the wrong word. Most would probably work better but not sound as good in the sentence.

  • Star

    With an atheist dad and humanist mom, I grew up without the Bible field or any of the stories or interpretations. I once found a Bible on the bookshelf at a teen and tried to read it cover to cover. (Because, well why not?) I really tried to read it cover to cover. I ran into so many things that went against my notions of the world in Genesis alone (and really, at 14, I knew ‘everything’). I gave up in frustration.
    I can imagine though that someone growing up with typical interpretations of passages and ideas. Even if they read the actual text later, it might still taint the reading with those pre-concieved notions. I know my own pre-conceived notions certainly effected my reading.

  • http://fugodeus.com Nox

    Brilliant as always. Thank you Vorjack.

    I was just trying to figure out how to make this same point on another thread.

    There are no biblical literalists. Believing that the bible is entirely true is very different from actually believing all the stuff in the bible. There are those who say they literally believe everything in the bible. There are those who earnestly believe that they literally believe everything in the bible. But there is no one anywhere who actually does literally believe everything that is in the bible.

  • http://www.brgulker.wordpress.com brgulker

    So the difference between Fundamentalists and Progressives is not that one the first take the Bible literally and the second pick and choose. Both groups interpret the Bible in ways that minimize or remove certain sections and highlight others. The difference is that the Progressives do it consciously.

    I’ve probably missed the larger conversation that was referenced in the OP, but my experience in moving from fundamentalist/literalist to some type of progressive Christian (as much as I hate labels) is much more complex than “picking and choosing.” That’s a very reductionist way of explaining the complexity of my (or most other progressive) approach to the Bible.

    Also, I haven’t yet met a Christian progressive who just removes/ignores parts of the bible. The progressives with which I’m familiar take the “hard” parts of the bible (e.g., a literal flood, the conquest of Canaan, etc.) very seriously. That we don’t believe the same things about God as the ancient Israelites did (or at least those who wrote down the oral history) isn’t explained accurately by saying we “ignore” or “remove” hard biblical passages.

    I’m not a Creationist, but I don’t pretend the Genesis creation narratives don’t exist. I don’t see any evidence for a global flood, but I don’t ignore the flood narrative of the Old Testament. On the contrary. The types of passages have been the object of intensive study in my life, not just personally, but also academically.

    And that’s why I object to the “pick and choose” language.

    By way of an imperfect analogy…

    I have “picked” and “chosen” my spouse. But I didn’t just pick and choose her. To say I just “picked and chose” her isn’t untrue, but it’s far from a complete description, and it’s even farther from accurate.

    • Mary

      You have a good point. My personal opinion is that these stories are symbolic in nature. I have posted a response on an article posted today on this patheos website. The blog is titled “Primates fall” on Exploring Our Matrix. I posted my theory on the meaning of the story of the Garden of Eden, if you are interested in reading it.

    • dmantis

      brgulker,
      You sound like a very honest and rational person. I really liked your post so don’t take what I am about to say as an attack. If it comes off that way then I truly apologize.

      “The progressives with which I’m familiar take the “hard” parts of the bible (e.g., a literal flood, the conquest of Canaan, etc.) very seriously.”

      “The types of passages have been the object of intensive study in my life, not just personally, but also academically.”

      Then what is your take on them? Are they metaphors? Are they embellished written stories based on incomplete oral tradition? Are they misunderstood translations?

      I think the point here is that Christianity is often viewed as a well-defined system of faith. It is sold as a religion with rational, clear and precise core beliefs WHILE AT THE SAME TIME using the bible to answer questions, settle arguments or provide clarity of difficult issues.

      It simply does not follow that you can have a well-defined, rational set of moral beliefs while using a book that is filled with genocide, slavery, misogyny and so many contridictions as to be almost meaningless when trying to ascertain a coherent theme.

      • http://theroundearthsimaginedcorners.blogspot.com Rosemary Zimmermann

        “It simply does not follow that you can have a well-defined, rational set of moral beliefs while using a book that is filled with genocide, slavery, misogyny and so many contridictions as to be almost meaningless when trying to ascertain a coherent theme.”

        Sure it does; through most of Christian history, tradition, the Bible, and the church (however defined) have shared a balance of power. It’s one of my huge frustrations in some of these discussions when folks (usually atheists, sorry) tell me, “You’re being hypocritical! You’re ignoring your own Bible! You can’t interpret it like that!” Well, yes, I can, because that’s what *Christianity teaches.* Christianity =/= Bible. Christianity is itself an interpretive framework.

        It’s kind of like . . . oh, being a feminist literary critic and discussing gender roles in Shakespeare. I’m sure Shakespeare never intended all of that to be read into his plays, but that doesn’t mean you’re a bad feminist literary critic for doing it. In fact, you’re a GOOD feminist literary critic for looking at Shakespeare in that new light. Other schools of thought (pragmatists, the deconstructing people, whoever) could argue with you over whether your school is the right one, but it’s ridiculous to say that the feminist is being untrue to the point of feminism by seeing some things in Shakespeare and not others. *That’s the whole point of feminist literary criticism.*

        So ideally, a rational Christian should be able to acknowledge that the Bible is a tremendously difficult book, admit that they interpret it (because yes, we all do), be able to explain what their interpretive framework is (and there are many such frameworks within Christianity), and maybe give a few examples.

        Does that make sense?

        • UrsaMinor

          It does not make sense. You are arguing that the Bible is not authoritative for Christians, and that Christians may pick and choose and create their own theologies from the things they find in it. What meaning, then, has the word ‘Christianity’? Or to put it another way, what relevance does the Bible retain to your religion?

          • http://theroundearthsimaginedcorners.blogspot.com Rosemary Zimmermann

            I’m doing this out of order.

            “What meaning, then, has the word ‘Christianity’?”

            Lots of meanings. If one thinks about it, there isn’t actually a pure, Platonic “Christianity” floating out there in the ether. “Christianity” is shorthand for what people who call themselves Christians think, do, and believe. What I’m trying to point out is that one of the things Christians *don’t* think or believe is that the Bible is the *sole* basis of the faith (or at least Christians with any education on what it means to be a Christian; not necessarily random pew-sitting Christians).

            “You are arguing that the Bible is not authoritative for Christians, and that Christians may pick and choose and create their own theologies from the things they find in it.”

            I’ll come back to authority later, but essentially yes. Not ‘may’ pick and choose, either; we DO and MUST pick and choose. That’s the whole point of Christianity; it’s one big a picking-and-choosing mechanism. So is Judaism; that’s how both religions can read the same text and come up with different conclusions. (It might be more accurate to say that Jews and Christians each start with different presuppositions about what’s in the Bible.)

            Each individual Christian (and Jewish) sect also has its own picking-and-choosing mechanism.

            “Or to put it another way, what relevance does the Bible retain to your religion?”

            It’s part of a system of checks and balances, sort of. The other checks and balances are the tradition of the Church (so all of the creeds and ancient councils, etc.), and the living church (so ministers and pastors and elders and the hierarchy, if one is in a hierarchical denomination). The Bible is authoritative sort of like the Constitution is authoritative. The Constitution isn’t THE ONE SOURCE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, even though we Americans tend to talk about it as ‘our founding document.’ There are reams and reams of case law written about it, and those are relevant, too. There’s a Supreme Court whose job is to interpret it, and who interpret it in varying ways. There’s an entire academic discipline around the thing. Then there are lots of constitutional lawyers, who look at the document itself, the prior case law, and the current thinking, to make an argument about how the Constitution should be applied in a certain setting.

            Saying that the Constitution is America’s founding document is true, but constitutional law is way, way, WAY more complex than just reading the Constitution and doing what it says. Is that a better analogy?

            • Elemenope

              I’ll happily grant that is is by far the most interesting attempt to respond to this particular criticism I’ve read in a long time.

              I think there are many fruitful parallels to be had in a metaphorical juxtaposition between the code of laws and adjudication thereof of US constitutional government and that of the development and evolution of Christianity over history. As a descriptive tool, it is a fascinating frame for the conversation. But I think it is more poorly suited to make the normative point that you’re attempting to make with it.

              It fails because underneath everything the US Constitution and the Bible have two extremely different sources of authority. One is presented as the work-product of (some obviously crafty and intelligent) human beings who were nonetheless aware of their fallibility and intended for their document to be a somewhat flexible instrument and change with the times. The other is presented as being either directly authored or directly inspired by a perfect unchanging being that knows what’s best for humans and visits horrible consequences on those who stray from His dictations.

              If Christianity were merely a human institution and had no pretensions toward outside ultimate authority, the metaphor would be apropos. But even in its most liberal incarnations, at the bottom of everything Christianity is claiming something quite different, and what it is claiming makes the notion of the Bible being a somewhat loose guidebook as a corrective for evolving Christianity to be untenable.

            • Theory_of_I

              Elemenope:

              >>”But even in its most liberal incarnations, at the bottom of everything Christianity is claiming something quite different, and what it is claiming makes the notion of the Bible being a somewhat loose guidebook as a corrective for evolving Christianity to be untenable.”

              That’s the sum of it — as Henry Ford said of the Model T — “You can have any color you want, as long as it’s black.”

              However, Rosemary, although she probably doesn’t see the parallel (and wouldn’t admit it if she did) when she says”…we DO and MUST pick and choose. That’s the whole point of Christianity; it’s one big a picking-and-choosing mechanism.” has identified an interesting chicane used throughout the industry of Christianity:

              The hawkers and pitch-men of the industry have variations of all kinds…step right up, ladies and gentlemen and choose your favorite from among our 900 plus models of the Absolute Truth. If you don’t like this one, try any of the others, we’re sure you’ll find the perfect one for all your needs. Simply say the magic words, pay the preacher and polish our pews for the rest of your life and you too can be promised your personal salvation, replete with your own favorite style of “The One True Faith.”

              Followed by the fine print disclaimer that no warranty is expressed or implied and that any disobedience constitutes a breach of contract, the penalties for which are unspeakably inhumane.

            • http://theroundearthsimaginedcorners.blogspot.com Rosemary Zimmermann

              Hi again, if anyone is still following this, I just wanted to pop in to apologize for instigating (this particular topic is one of my hot buttons; I do apologize) and then dropping off the face of the earth. I don’t want to be a drive-by troll, but I had a rough night at work last night, capping off a rough three weeks generally, so instead of ARGUING with people who are WRONG on the internet (http://xkcd.com/386/), I am going to read Terry Pratchett (Thud!) and have a drink. The Bible says so. ;-P

              Fondly,
              -Rosemary

            • Custador

              Thud’s a good book, but Night Watch is better.

            • Elemenope

              It’s weird, I had a doozy of a day at work yesterday too, and it seemed that everyone I talked to had a similarly harrowing day.

        • dgtmantis

          I second Ursa.

          Rosemary, that is an extremely bad example. Feminist literary critics do not base their existence on Shakespeare. Literary criticism itself is an acedemic pursuit wholly seperate from any particular work. It is easy to ask the question “What is feminist literary criticism without Shakespeare?” It is quite another to ask the question “What is Christianity without the Bible?”

          Regardless, you missed my point. Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical if it, 1) establishes the Bible as a difficult book, 2) acknowledges that there is indeed interpretation required, 3) condemns, answer questions, settle arguments or provides clarity of difficult issues using this Bible.

          Also, please enlighten me as to what Christianity “teaches” and where does one find this information if not in the Bible?

          • http://theroundearthsimaginedcorners.blogspot.com Rosemary Zimmermann

            “Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical if it, 1) establishes the Bible as a difficult book, 2) acknowledges that there is indeed interpretation required, 3) condemns, answer questions, settle arguments or provides clarity of difficult issues using this Bible.”

            See above analogy using the American constitution. It’s pretty close, I think.

            “please enlighten me as to what Christianity “teaches” and where does one find this information if not in the Bible?”

            Depends on the denomination. Catholicism is easy; just look up the Catechism and there you have it. That’s what they teach. Included in it is a framework for how Catholics interpret the Bible. Most other denominations have similar documents. I’m going to choose one at random that I don’t know much about—the Presbyterian church of the USA. One sec, I’m hitting google.

            All right, I’m back, here it is (what I’d never heard of before but knew I would find): Their book of confessions. http://www.pcusa.org/resource/book-of-confessions/

            That’s what Presbyterians believe. It contains information about how they perceive the Bible. I’m a Quaker; I belong to New England Yearly Meeting. Ours is also on-line, here: http://neym.org/fponline/ It contains information about how WE perceive the Bible.

            ‘Christianity’ isn’t a monolith, and it’s hard to come up with a perfect definition of what it is. Every denomination will answer it differently. I’d say the centrality of Jesus as the revelation of God is necessary to call any belief ‘Christian.’ I can think of a few others, too, but it gets a little fuzzy, because so many Christians have believed so many different things.

            • dgtmantis

              Rosemary,
              I really do appreciate your attempt to provide clarity. You are definately presenting one of the most earnest arguments. However, this is again a somewhat bad analogy (although I think it is getting close). Definately better than the feminine literary criticism argument:)

              Where this analogy fails is that the Consititution is a document written for the sole purpose of designing a democratic government. It is intended to create a structured and organized framework to build democratic government around. The Bible is an oral history put into words (very poorly in some instances) that in many cases is only at best a means to understand societal influences during the times it was believed to be written.

              Now you could make the argument that the Bible contains modifications, translations or copying errors that are analgous to case law and the cumulated rulings of the Surpreme Court ‘translating’ the Constitution. However, this reasoning would still be incorrect. Case law and the Supreme Court provide exactly the rulings based on precedent and modern intepretation of current jurisprudence because the Constitution is written for this exact purpose. Interpretation is built into the system. In addition, there is a means to change this interpretation if we realize that it was incorrect. Another Surpreme Court case can overturn a problematic ruling or there can be an Amendment to the Constitution enacted.

              Again, I am not trying to imply that intepretation itself is a bad thing. I am only suggesting it becomes hypocritical when certain elements are taken as fact while other ‘problematic’ elements are merely metaphor or subject to interpretation.

              For instance, if I am to interpret the stoning to death of disobediant children in Leviticus, then why can I not interpret the entire life of Jesus as a metaphor or merely a rewrite of pagan ideas? Where does the line stop and at what point does it fall apart?

              Again, thank you for your earnestness. It is very much appreciated:)

  • Mary

    When I was young I believed everything in the Bible. I read it over and over and didn’t see a thing wrong with it. Yes we are brainwashed into seeing only what others want us to see. Not entirely intentionally though, since they are seeing what they have been taught. Anything that is inconvenient to look at is ignored or lightly explained away such as the creation account is literally true because “science is just another religion and they are trying to brainwash our youth”. Atrocities are explained away as saying that other people deserved to be murdered, raped, enslaved and so on, “because God was punishing them and besides everything changed when Jesus came.” Which begs the question, what does it say about a God who would approve of these things in the first place? Maybe God has multiple personalities? And I have never heard anyone address the brutal human sacrifice of an innocent virgin girl promised to God by her own father for God’s help in winning some stupid battle. I never learned about THAT in Sunday School!

    I have even encountered Christians who resort to lies to deny these things are in the Bible. I referered someone to the website http://www.evilbible.com to look at what the Bible says about slavery. She came saying that even an athiest website condemned evilbible.com. First of all, the website was a CHRISTIAN website called truefreethinkers.org and second they LIED by saying that the only slaves were Hebrew slaves that were set free after 6 years (presumably they sold themselves into slavery for a limited amount of time). Yes there were Hebrew slaves but there were ALSO foriegn slaves that were kidnapped and sold to owners as property and NEVER allowed their freedom!

    Are these Christians so weak in their faith that they have to LIE about it? Come on! These are supposed to be the “MORAL” majority?

    I have no problems with Christians who attempt to live up to the standards of the best of Christianity and don’t force their views on me. But if they LIE to me then why should I have any respect for them at all?

    Many people could point out that the actrocities in the O.T. don’t matter because we don’t do those things today. Actually IT DOES MATTER A LOT. The reason why is that you can have any fanatic get in power and justify their views based on the Bible. Hitler did. There are many who argue that Hitler was not a Christian, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that he USED the Bible to seduce a whole nation into commiting genocide.

    And now we have freaks who think that all the bad things that have happened in the world, including 9/11, are because of those EVIL homosexuals. Of course then there are also those “kind and reasonable” Christians who just think they should be denied their human rights.

    After having said all that, I at least give progressive Christians credit for acknowledging these difficult parts of the Bible and recognizing that these things were wrong then and are wrong today. Frankly the fundamentalists scare me because in their zeal to protect their precious Bible they cannot see what kind of evils against mankind they are advocating when they say that we need to go back to “GOOD OLD FASHIONED CHRISTIANITY.”

    By the way, I am not an athiest, although I may sound like one ;). I embrace POSITIVE SPIRITUALITY, not the evil gloom and doom of traditional Christianity. Frankly I see that as the ONLY HOPE of mankind.

    • Mary

      Ooops! I didn’t notice that this was an athiest blog. I hope I didn’t offend anybody with my last remark! You are free to believe what you want ;)

      • mikespeir

        You’ll have to do better than that if you want to offend anyone here! ;)

      • Custador

        I can’t say it offended me. Anybody else offended? Nope. Good. That’s that sorted then :-)

    • dmantis

      Offended…far from it. Great comment!

  • SamuelD

    The bible that you read is a translation of a translation of a translation based on the original Hebrew with a system of codes given over orally to the Jews. Without knowing Hebrew and the codes your difficulty in understanding and making errors is guaranteed

  • http://afrolatinoatheist.tumblr.com dantresomi

    You are so right.

    I have read the Bible cover to cover twice and I found passages and books that most Christians simply ignored. I found stories I never heard referenced before. When I bought it up, people swore I was lying. It really made me ask who was actually reading the Bible. I encountered scores of preachers who never read the book from cover to cover. Back then I was shocked.

    On line I encountered someone who claimed to have read it 15 times. I knew he had to be lying, so I quizzed him on some stories. Of course he got most of them wrong. I can’t see someone reading it more than twice from cover to cover and staying the church.

  • http://theaspirationalagnostic.wordpress.com Eva

    As an agnostic, who has read the Bible cover to cover (Seriously, Judges and Numbers nearly killed me), I’ve been lucky to be brought up in an environment that never entertained the possibility that the Bible was literal. Now, through meeting people online, I’m learning that many people are falling away from their faith when they actually begin to use their criticle reasoning skills, and realise that there’s no way what they have been taught is true. I find it sad that what could be a genuine source of comfort and inspiration has been so twisted that people have to flee from their faith rather than let it evolve as they do. It seems to be the ‘all or nothing’ approach that is so unsustainable and damaging.

  • jerry lynch

    If God is love, if the law is fulfilled by love, and if love of neighbor and enemy alike is to be as perfect as the father in heaven, the whole objective of the Bible is to become this love, to be as Christ was in the world. “Faith in Christ expressed through love is all that matters. Whatever the interpretation, if it does not open us to greater love and service it needs a re-read.
    The Bible is a children’s book and unless you “turn, and become as a little child” all intrepretations will miss the mark. .. and the kingdom of heaven.

    • Custador

      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17, NIV.

      “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34, NIV.

      Matthew thinks you’re a girly peacenik hippy liberal. Just saying.

      • jerry lynch

        Cus, lol, funny. Do you know that is the usual response I get from most Christians. This misunderstanding over the nature of love is common. Yet oddly your first verse lends support to what I said.
        Love is a”girly peacenik hippy liberal” thing? God is love: what does that make him? Out of this love came all creation and perfect justice: is that weak?
        The “two great commandments” are to love and the law is fulfilled by love: is the fulfillment of the law and these commandments just for girls? hippies? peaceniks? liberals?
        I suppose if you take Mt10:34 to mean actual violence with weapons of this world, then I am what you say I am.

        • trj

          The Law of Moses is fulfilled by love? How exactly?

          • Kodie

            I think I get it. I might be wrong. Jesus is god, right, so Jesus said he wants everyone to love each other, but not like the hippie dippyJesus, but the Jesus is god Jesus. I get this, it makes a lot of sense. By “love,” he means like god loves everyone by threatening them. So to be A Christian, to love your neighbor, means to treat them like garbage so they know it’s serious and they can get into heaven. Loving someone so they don’t end up in hell, no matter how you accomplish that is “love”. It doesn’t mean tolerance and acceptance and all the usual things that love usually means, the usual shit recited at weddings where love is kind love is patient love is not jealous, yadda yadda, the way a normal human being understands what love is. A christian understands to be like Christ is to tough love them for their own protection, which might mean punishing them for being gay, not letting them come over for barbecue if they’re gay, teaching them to be straight by only letting them get married to someone of the opposite sex, being disgusted by people who ignore what god said, being mean to them, sometimes killing them, which I really… don’t understand. If you are a Christian and you believe in that warped love, you should always want to spare another human being rather than kill them and have them sent to hell. Even in war. Even if they’re gay. Even if they are fucking your wife. Or your husband.

            Love means never murdering someone and hastening their trip to hell. Of course, idiocy means assuming there’s a god and that their version of hell isn’t being loved so hard by you. Christians are really intolerant. I’m not saying they’re murderers, but…. I heard a rumor of a story of a preacher who said to his congregation that X number of people every minute are entering hell and you don’t give a SHIT! People were all, “oh dear” and “oh my” and scooting their children out and being a little bummed about the turn the service had taken – so the preacher said while people were filing out the door, you are more worried that I said “shit” than all those people going to hell, and the “moral” of the story is how many people did you save from going to hell today?

            So yeah, the ranting and raving and hating and protesting and voting and rights-trampling, I know you just LOVE everyone so much, but there’s no hell, so stop it and mind your own fucking business.

    • k.holdom0790

      Lol, it’s John C with less quote marks and rambly rambling!

  • http://eleazartimes.wordpress.com David “Eleazar” Kitchens

    A majority of the comments on this thread have one similar thing in common and that is, “In my opinion”. The question I would like to ask is this…

    Question: Have you considered God’s opinion?

    This is quite different from “human” opinion.

    • UrsaMinor

      Have you considered Vishnu’s opinion? This is quite different from God’s opinion.

    • mikespeir

      Busted. Okay, I admit it. Every opinion I hold is my own.

    • Custador

      It’s interesting that out of an actual species and a myth, the one that actually exists is the one you put in inverted commas.

    • Kodie

      God’s…. opinion? Wha?????

    • Yoav

      If god would post on this forum and provide his opinion I’ll be happy to consider it.

    • trj

      Have you considered that God never actually tells anyone his opinion, but instead we always have to rely on humans telling us what his opinion is?

    • Nelson

      TRJ,

      You know you have a point. Since we can’t agree that the bible is god’s opinion, how do write god to get his opinion? And if he remains silent then besides “human” opinion, what should we use? Remember also, the bible is nothing but human opinion of what god wants.

      • Kodie

        God doesn’t stay silent, he makes the weather or you late for an appointment to teach you right from wrong.

      • trj

        Nothing but human opinion is available. It’s what we’ve always been using, though some like to pretend their opinions are divinely mandated.

  • leper

    Mark Shea, a Catholic blogger here on Patheos, wrote a book about this topic — Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did. (This is not advertising – I don’t get anything.)

    One can’t approach the Bible like a newspaper or a comic book. The Bible was written over a long time, in different cultures, and in different genres of literature. Some of the language is plain while other language is poetic and metaphorical. Most people will miss the historical or cultural references since we’re not aware of the particulars of the times of 1500 BC or any of the other Biblical times. And we haven’t gotten to figures of rhetoric, like exaggeration and understatement or the inherent difficulties in translating.

    • mikespeir

      We’re not ignorant of all that here.

    • Kodie

      God really did a good job making it crystal clear what he wants and what you have to do. Well, at least some people will say that stuff is crystal clear, and the rest they modify to their wants. Any way you look at it, because the bible needs to be interpreted and can’t be interpreted consistently, it fails to be a message from a perfect god. Every literary analysis of it is done by a person to communicate to other people. If the bible is written or inspired by actually god and not just someone else’s “interpretation” of stories and events*, it fails on clarity. People usually believe what they want and find some justification for their correctness later. It doesn’t matter if this comes from their own mind, an academic analysis, or some warped church – they are being appealed to believe any of it in some form.

      *People “interpret” meanings for real events (such as earthquake/tsunami in Japan or Hurricane Katrina, or the War on Terror, etc.) and there’s no reason to think this wasn’t how the bible was written – by people, always “interpreting” events as if there were a god.

      • dmantis

        Well said, Kodie.

    • Johan

      Uh… the first christians didn’t have a bible.

  • Cole

    If only Christ had founded a Church on one of his disciples whose authority with respect to the interpretation of faith, scripture and morals were infallible.

    Just being cheeky.

    But seriously, unless you want to pass into a sordid subjectivism, you have to propose a “canon” reading of the bible, or else you have no grounds from which to condemn Christians. Either you come up with a standard reading from which the Christians you disagree with differ by being overly literalistic, or else you come up with a standard reading from which the Christians you disagree with it differ by not being literalistic enough! Also, I don’t understand your (and other atheists’) commitment to criticizing the OT: Christianity does not proclaim the OT, she proclaims the good news, the evangelion – the gospels. Shouldn’t you judge Christianity based on what she is primarily about rather than what she isn’t? It seems only fair.

    • UrsaMinor

      The OT is part of Christian canon. It could have been rejected as irrelevant to the new religion, but it wasn’t. No Christian sect that I am aware of rejects it. And many modern practicing Christians heartily believe in it, particularly the creation myth. As such, it is fair territory to tackle when criticizing Christianity.