"Bible is as Toxic as Quran, but Christians Don't Believe the Bible Literally"

[Rasofy]

"Bible is as Toxic as Quran, but Christians Don't Believe the Bible Literally"

British evolutionary biologist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins asserted in a recent interview that the Bible is just as "toxic" as Islam's holy book, the Quran, but reasoned that the difference between Muslims and Christians is that most Christians are taught to believe the Bible "metaphorically."

In an interview with Fox News Radio's Alan Colmes earlier this week, the 74-year-old Dawkins, a zealous atheist who authored the 2006 book The God Delusion, was asked a number of questions on topics such as the 2016 presidential race, America's "secular" founding and the "toxicity" of religions.

When Colmes asked Dawkins if he believes one religion is "sicker" or "more toxic" than the others, Dawkins stated that it is not unfair to say that in the today's world, Islam is to blame for the "maximum toxicity in religion."

Dawkins asserted that "it's partly that [Muslims] are taught to believe that the Quran is literally true."

Colmes responded by saying that many Christians are also taught that the Bible is literally true.

Dawkins agreed but further argued that there are not as many Christians who take the Bible as literally as Muslims view the Quran.

"There are but they are not that numerous," Dawkins stated. "The Bible itself is as toxic as the Quran but most Christians are not taught to believe it literally. Most Christians are taught to believe it metaphorically or allegorically."
[...]

Atheist Richard Dawkins Claims 'Bible as Toxic as Quran,' but 'Christians Don't Believe the Bible Literally'


Discuss.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

When intelligent people talk about how they know God is not real, etc, it reinforces what a fool they really are. (fool being a biblical term)

God is not something that can be proved or known by intellectual thought exercises, pHDs, or philosophical debates. Belief and faith are largely irrational processes.


And I believe your title is misleading. And slightly baiting. I get where he was coming from. He was referring to jihad. What he does not realize is that it's not that Christians take the Bible metaphorically, it's that CHRIST teaches love first and foremost. He wouldn't understand that because he is an atheist.

 

[Rasofy]

When intelligent people talk about how they know God is not real, etc, it reinforces what a fool they really are. (fool being a biblical term)

God is not something that can be proved or known by intellectual thought exercises, pHDs, or philosophical debates. Belief and faith are largely irrational processes.


And I believe your title is misleading. And slightly baiting. I get where he was coming from. He was referring to jihad. What he does not realize is that it's not that Christians take the Bible metaphorically, it's that CHRIST teaches love first and foremost. He wouldn't understand that because he is an atheist.

There is a word limit to the titles, so sometimes the full idea can't be expressed.

I'd say the Old Testament God isn't exactly about love first and foremost, but I suppose being an Atheist prevents me from acknowledging that?

 

[Cellmold]

There is a word limit to the titles, so sometimes the full idea can't be expressed.

I'd say the Old Testament God isn't exactly about love first and foremost, but I suppose being an Atheist prevents me from acknowledging that?

Atheists can't even read religious texts. When they attempt to look at the words God(s?) transforms those words in their minds into meaningless jargon.

Apparently when Christopher Hitchens tried to read the Bible every word came out as "squawk".

 

[Lark]

Dawkins?

Yeah, I'd expect him to be an authority on religion. Probably objective, fair and balanced too.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I don't really see a center theme of discussion presenting itself...

My personal contention and conscious belief: is that the Bible is not written for historical merit, or "scientific" merit... its written in order to share something like "spiritual" knowledge. Obviously there is lots of controversy about what that can mean, and must entail, and the vulgar atheistic view is that it must always be 'stupid' in some sense. But this is all to do with definitions of first principles, and teleological outlook; which is funny because, that is the central grounding that spiritual knowledge is able to supply; while as far as I know, Atheism must has no way to escape its pluralistic outlook (which is a decadent point of view which can only be excused by feeble rhetoric and fallacy).

A spirit is to do with a direction, or an outlook applied to a particular context. A good example of the correct use of the word spirit would be the famous Marx quote on religion (which proves that the word holds merit even in a secular sense (that in my view, is the same meaning as the word given in the Christian Scriptures))

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Marx has also said about religion:
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun". . .

---
In the above contexts, I would agree with Marx fully, I would even add there are Christian Scriptures that mirror these sentiments, which I have even quoted before on this forum..

I will perhaps digress back to these points that Marx draws out after dealing with some of Dawkins claims more directly.

Obviously I don't count many so-called (self-professed) Christians to be 'believers' as I understand the Christian faith. Dawkins is obviously commenting in a rather Sociological fashion, which is incoherent in its treatment of the veracity of such 'types' of faith as he lumps together. However then, although my beliefs don't engage Dawkins in any direct way (as he is addressing some nebulous-group of huddled-"Christians" which must either all be covered by a single counter-argument or Dawkins could just correctly tout that you wouldn't be addressing his obtuse claims head-on), to me its obvious that the Bible is to be taken as an account on "psychological reality", and the mechanics of the psyche at its core, which seek to share this knowledge in the only ways of doing so: mystery to be unlocked by understanding, of which the Scriptures state clearly and is popular for the arbitrary reason that it's not so easy to overlook as so many other points of doctrine in the bible which are commonly overlooked. This can be described as 'metaphorical' writing, I don't know if I would call it metaphor myself, because it has no factual counterpart, it is speaking of the immaterial nature of the psyche, none of it is meant to be grounded into a concrete appearance of Godliness ("The Kindgom of God comes not with observation"), it's meant to be sublimated into (and 'banked' as) discerning. Which is why the Scriptures talk about a discerning spirit being the one that relates to the true God. And also while the last book of the bible is just a fully related account of a dream: how many 'concrete' dreams has anyone every had, and yet their meaning is quite possibly made full concrete, by what?

Discerning.

 

[anticlimatic]

I disagree with the assertion.

I have a lot of experience with various christians, and I can tell you that most on the fundamental protestant side take it very literally. Like, 'the earth is 12,000 years old' literally. Like, get red in the face and scream at you if you suggest otherwise literally. Catholics are probably the best Christian denomination at taking the Bible metaphorically, with Lutherans a close second, but most of the random 'Churches of Give Us Money' do not.

Why Christianity works and Islam does not is that the bible has a new testament, which 'fulfills the old' according to them. So all the wife beating gay bashing first born slaying can be chalked up as pre-christ, therefore not necessarily (or literally) gospel. The religion is more like a redemption story, and you're supposed to follow your main character role model only after the third act transformation. Islam doesn't have that. Take out the New and the Old looks a lot like the Quran. What Muslims need is a Jesus to come along and form a new branch of Islam in his name, so the lore can be kept but the blood transcended.

Mohammad was no Jesus. A prophet isn't enough. Only the son of Allah will do.
It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it. Any volunteers?

 

[Coriolis]

Atheist Richard Dawkins Claims 'Bible as Toxic as Quran,' but 'Christians Don't Believe the Bible Literally'


Discuss.

Yes and no. The Bible is as "toxic" as the Quran, and equally able to be used to justify violence and bigotry. Sadly, though, plenty of Christians do take it literally, at least the parts that appeal to them and can be used to justify their lifestyle and point of view. The big difference is that primarily Christian nations/societies operate with significant separation of church and state, which at least in theory, places all religions on an equal footing. Anyone can be a literalist, but no one can impose their literal interpretation on anyone else.

 

[Rasofy]

I'll concede that my experience and Dawkin's might be somewhat ignorant of American reality; there seems to be more Christians nutjobs there than I had initially assumed

 

[Beorn]

He's out of his element.

 

[1487610420]

 

[21%]

Yes and no. The Bible is as "toxic" as the Quran, and equally able to be used to justify violence and bigotry. Sadly, though, plenty of Christians do take it literally, at least the parts that appeal to them and can be used to justify their lifestyle and point of view. The big difference is that primarily Christian nations/societies operate with significant separation of church and state, which at least in theory, places all religions on an equal footing. Anyone can be a literalist, but no one can impose their literal interpretation on anyone else.

This. Especially the bolded

 

[Luke O]

This is more true in the case of how Christianity is seen in Europe in general, outside of Europe, a more literal interpretation of the Bible is taken. The UK is one of the more secular European countries, though we do have senior religious figures in our governmental upper house, and dotted around the country we have people who really take the Bible seriously, the "2+2=5" level of seriousness. Our head of state is also referred to as the "Defender Of The Faith" (as in Supreme Governor of the Church of England) and our Prime Minister also refers to us as a Christian country. We definitely don't enjoy separation of church and state here.

Maybe Richard Dawkins should do what Christopher Hitchens did so he can see more of the level of crazy that Christianity can get to and go live in Texas. It's not Daesh pushing gay men off the top of buildings crazy (they must be fans of Leviticus over there) but it's the crazy he needs to see more of.

Is Christianity in general becoming more literal lately?

 

[geedoenfj]

Both books can be misinterpreted for the benefit of some parties that's for sure

 

[Luke O]

Both books can be misinterpreted for the benefit of some parties that's for sure

It can and it is, including those in power who want to stay in power or have more power. As in power over others really. Religion is a form of control.

 

[geedoenfj]

It can and it is, including those in power who want to stay in power or have more power. As in power over others really. Religion is a form of control.

My INTJ mother always say that if you put your personal issues aside and use your brain and heart carefully you're less likely to be mislead

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Atheists can't even read religious texts. When they attempt to look at the words God(s?) transforms those words in their minds into meaningless jargon.

Apparently when Christopher Hitchens tried to read the Bible every word came out as "squawk".

This is by 'design', clearly.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The bible thumping evangelists in my family do interpret it as literal, word-of-god truth.

The other christians in my family interpret it as allegory. I guess it depends on the individual and the denomination.

I used to work with an egyptian guy and he seemed to interpret the koran more metaphorically than literally. He interpreted jihad to mean a personal or spiritual struggle and not necessarily to mean a physical, earthly war or battle.

I always thought if I were going to submit to a theocratic religion, islam would be the way to go. True monotheism right there...none of this trinity bullshit.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

There is a word limit to the titles, so sometimes the full idea can't be expressed.

I'd say the Old Testament God isn't exactly about love first and foremost, but I suppose being an Atheist prevents me from acknowledging that?

I think any Christian would admit the Old Testament God was not a 'loving one' but do you know why? There are reasons and dogma entwined in all of this that makes arguing religion pointless, really.

Because religion is also about interpretation and that is why there are many different religions and I could explain the above from a Christian perspective.

From an Orthodox belief I couldn't because they interpret the text differently and place emphasis on other things and I haven't studied enough of their religion to pretend to be knowledgeable.

Catholics have a different Bible they use than Christians. They have books in it that Christians don't use. Again, interpretation and emphasis.

You either don't believe or you do. The majority of religious people in the world are doing less harm than atheists would like to admit.

That isn't to say humans haven't exploited and used religion to manipulate and control. I think any belief system can be abused and twisted.

So this is an alarmist view. It could be just as bad as x if taken literally....

Well, yes. Anything in extreme can be dangerous. The Catcher In The Rye was a muse for a murder. So what does that mean? We censor religion texts just like other books that people deem too controversial or dangerous?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I think any Christian would admit the Old Testament God was not a 'loving one' but do you know why? There are reasons and dogma entwined in all of this that makes arguing religion pointless, really.

Because religion is also about interpretation and that is why there are many different religions and I could explain the above from a Christian perspective.

From an Orthodox belief I couldn't because they interpret the text differently and place emphasis on other things and I haven't studied enough of their religion to pretend to be knowledgeable.

Catholics have a different Bible they use than Christians. They have books in it that Christians don't use. Again, interpretation and emphasis.

You either don't believe or you do. The majority of religious people in the world are doing less harm than atheists would like to admit.

That isn't to say humans haven't exploited and used religion to manipulate and control. I think any belief system can be abused and twisted.

So this is an alarmist view. It could be just as bad as x if taken literally....

Well, yes. Anything in extreme can be dangerous. The Catcher In The Rye was a muse for a murder. So what does that mean? We censor religion texts just like other books that people deem too controversial or dangerous?

Strictly speaking, Catholics are Christians and the largest organization of Christians in the world. Your reference to "Christians" when in relation to Catholics would be better stated as Protestants. Not that it's a huge deal because I get your meaning but I'm a stickler about semantics like this ( blame Ti ).

Dawkins' point of view is that faith is a virus because its antithetical to reason. Therefore, he views faith in general or any kind of ideas that require suspension of reason as 'toxic.' Any resource material such as the Bible or Quran that require faith in order to believe their truth value is therefore, toxic.

I understand his line of reasoning and agree with it from an intellectual point of view. I'm also an atheist.

However, I do agree with you when you say:

The majority of religious people in the world are doing less harm than atheists would like to admit.

I agree with you. The majority of religious people I've ever known have been fine people who care about doing the right thing in general. In fact, I appreciate the fact that they care about morality even in the abstract rather than being amoral relativists like some atheists I know. The only caveat I would throw in here is that I disagree with teaching children about heaven and hell and some unprovable god judging their every action. I think it's perfectly legitimate to teach about the consequences of right and wrong but I don't think a supernatural element that judges you is required, especially for impressionable children.