- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I notice terms like Bronze Age and fairy tales keep coming up again and again in anti-religious rants online. “Novel” is another one. However, some of these posters are not as clever as they think they are.
Firstly, very little of the Bible conforms to the strict ethnographic definition of a fairy tale. Myth maybe in some cases, legend in others, fairy tale no.
Secondly, the idea of the Bible as a novel is patently wrong on a number of levels. It is a compilation, not a single work, and the work of a number of authors some of whom had no conception of one another. The Book of Mormon is closer to being a novel in some ways, but it too defies the form, partly through its mix of genres and non-narrative elements.
Thirdly, Bronze Age? Well, this certainly applies to some of the Old Testament, although I would argue some elements such as the Adam and Eve story may originate in the Stone Age. Other parts of the OT appear to be from the Iron Age. An atheist billboard –
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xkkCWZcPm74/T1dq31yiDHI/AAAAAAAABek/cWas1CtLBqM/s400/Colossians+3_22.jpg [/img] Except in this case, the verse quoted is from the New Testament. It is thus not Bronze Age (which finished over a thousand years before it was written), nor Iron Age, but from the Roman imperial period which is arguably post-Iron Age and thus from the late Classical Era.
The billboard in question went down like a cup of cold sick, and backfired greatly. I suspect some white thought it would be a great way to divorce African Americans from Christianity.
The point of this? There seems to be a lot of snappy and trite criticism of religion online, and elsewhere, but sloppy critiques and slogans don’t suffice anyone.
I agree that the more outspoken and “militant” (evangelistic?) atheists are often not as clever as they think they are, nor do they usually have a knowledge of the scriptures (understandably so, I suppose). Although religionists are prone to take scripture out of context to prove a specific point, atheists don’t seem to be as good at it. Atheists would likely be more effective arguers if they actually studied the Bible. Quoting out of context from the Bible is something Christians do as well… but it’s interesting that a lot of skeptics take a quasi-fundamentalist view of scripture, that Christians have to agree with everything in it and take it all literally. In reality, Christians often take a nuanced view. There are a lot of verses in the OT we have moved on from. Someone quotes a verse at me about not eating shrimp or mixing fabrics and I think “so what? Those were rules for the Jews.” (Although it is worth being very careful round shellfish.)
I don’t see that verse from Colossians as endorsing the institution of slavery so much as an extension of turn the other cheek. It’s not a sentiment I wholly endorse. The billboard also ignores the fact that Christians – both black and white were instrumental in bringing down the Atlantic slave trade.
The billboard I believe attracted a lot ot negative attention – using African American slavery to land a cheap point is in very bad taste.
SamBee wrote:
Quoting out of context from the Bible is something Christians do as well… but it’s interesting that a lot of skeptics take a quasi-fundamentalist view of scripture, that Christians have to agree with everything in it and take it all literally. In reality, Christians often take a nuanced view.
MOST Christians believe the bible to be 100% the word of God, literally and completely true… until they actually take the time to read it.
😯 Most Athiests recognize the biblical incongruancies, and point out in those flaws to counteract Christianity’s trust in the authority of the bible. Homosexuality is a good example, where many Christian literalists oppose it on the grounds that it is opposed in the bible. While I am a strong believer in many of the commandments, standards, and philosophies found in the scriptures, I need better reasons than that.
Not at all. I was raised in a Christian household, didn’t meet a fundamentalist until I was a teenager. Outside America, very few Christians have been the Biblical literalists that the lunatic end of atheism thinks they are. It’s easier to ridicule a snake handler in a tin tabernacle than a theologian in a respected university.
I heard a good argument pro homosexuality from scripture along the lines of the verses concerned being Old Testament and thus superseded by the New Covenant.
I agree, Sam. Very few Christians I know consider the Bible literally. I have known some more fundamentalist types that do believe it quite literally, though. Most atheists I have encountered believe all Christians believe in young earth and literal creationism, also a fallacy.
I don’t think the people that paid for that billboard were trying to present facts, they were trying to be insulting. It was a way to get attention, positive attention or negative, it’s probably the same for them. SamBee wrote:
Outside America, very few Christians have been the Biblical literalists that the lunatic end of atheism thinks they are. It’s easier to ridicule a snake handler in a tin tabernacle than a theologian in a respected university.
Each “side” has their lunatics.
I’m reminded of Uchtdorf’s talk Come, Join with Us. Sometimes we assume things about people. Why would someone leave the church? They were offended, lazy, or sinful. We answer the question for others instead of listening to one another.
In this case atheists are making assumptions about Christians. I’ve seen it go the other way.
Last year during the Korihor lesson of Sunday School a part of the discussion was about how Korihor was mischaracterizing the faithful… but we had spent the first half of the lesson mischaracterizing atheists. We all see through our respective lenses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.