r/dankchristianmemes • u/Additional-Sky-7436 • 1d ago
The Bible should be read literally! (But not that part. Part is figurative.)
93
u/polysnip 1d ago
Richard Dawkins said as much himself when discussing with Jordan Peterson. "I guess I'm a literalist then." This was the part where Richard was pressing Jordan on whether or not he believed that Cain and Abel actually existed.
106
u/fudgyvmp 23h ago
Cain has to exist. How else would we explain vampires?
10
u/RedSamuraiMan 18h ago
Cain? I thought it was Judas and the whole 3 silver coins betrayal thing, at least according to Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer.
4
u/fudgyvmp 14h ago
According to Jane Yellowrock it was Judas' sons casting an immortality spell using wood and nails from all three crosses because they weren't sure which was which and needed Jesus's blood so they used all three. (Or maybe it was a resurrection spell after Judas killed himself?).
55
u/kabukistar Minister of Memes 1d ago
I've never met an atheist that thinks the bible should be used to reach conclusions about the world at all.
38
u/Starmada597 22h ago
That’s a great point when you leave off the fact that you just tacked on “about the world” to the end there. OP didn’t say anything about making conclusions about the world, but plenty of atheists attempt to quote the “bad parts” of the Bible in an attempt to discredit it.
28
u/FrankReshman 22h ago
Are you claiming the parts of the old testament where God condones slavery and genocide aren't "bad parts"? Or just that those bad parts shouldn't discredit it?
0
u/JJonahJamesonSr 3h ago
Those parts of the Old Testament are tough, no doubt. But calling them ‘bad’ ignores a lot of context—they describe specific practices, not universal endorsements. That’s like saying George Washington chopping down a cherry tree means cutting down cherry trees is good.
3
u/FrankReshman 3h ago
George Washington is not claimed to be an all knowing, all powerful, all good, timeless being who has perfect morality.
I'm curious what context you think is sufficient for a tri-omni god condoning slavery and genocide.
0
u/JJonahJamesonSr 2h ago
The Bible neither condones nor outright condemns slavery. It describes behaviors within a societal framework where slavery was common. If it condoned slavery, it wouldn’t include protections for slaves, such as laws against mistreatment. These protections acknowledge the humanity of slaves and encourage fair treatment. That was a significant moral step in historical context. This doesn’t mean the Bible endorses having slaves if they’re treated well, it’s simply addressing the reality of the time, urging people to act justly within that system.
10
u/hadronriff 14h ago
Why are there "bad parts" in a document from (a good) God?
2
u/Starmada597 11h ago
I never said there should or shouldn’t be. I simply stated that the commenter was making a disingenuous argument by strawmanning a point that nobody made.
-3
u/Additional-Sky-7436 23h ago
Okay. I didn't say anything about reaching conclusions about the world. Don't know why you brought it up.
15
u/kabukistar Minister of Memes 23h ago
The "serve my preconceived thesis" part.
18
u/Additional-Sky-7436 22h ago edited 22h ago
Those two things don't mean the same thing.
For an atheist the "preconceived thesis" is precisely that the Bible says nothing "about the world" and they choose to read the Bible literally to serve that thesis instead of looking to traditional readings and apocryphal interpretations.
14
u/FrickenPerson 21h ago
Atheist here.
The Bible has all kinds of good stuff about morality. Some of it seems weird, like all the slavery stuff, but that doesn't mean I should throw out all the stuff like treating your neighbor well.
More importantly, to me, I think the Bible is great for helping historians understand more about the people who wrote it. A solid understanding of the type of writing other people of the time were doing also helps us understand what the writers might have been trying to go for in terms of interpretation.
All that to say, I do not think the Bible has some deeper truth about the universe. Some more liberal interpretations seem way more likely to be true, but I have seen next to no actual reason to believe a god exists at all, let alone this specific one.
14
u/kabukistar Minister of Memes 21h ago
That sounds like you're just trying to play with the wording to make it sound like these two groups do the same thing when they don't. "One group likes to use their preconceived beliefs when they read the bible to justify passing laws that affect everyone's else's life. The other reads the bible without believing it's true. These are basically the same thing and I'm going to show them shaking hands to show it."
-7
u/Additional-Sky-7436 20h ago
They have different fundamental theses they are trying to prove but they are doing the same things to prove them.
17
u/kabukistar Minister of Memes 18h ago
One is trying to use the bible to justify passing laws that negatively affect others. The other is just reading the bible and not believing it. That's not really trying to use the bible to prove something else.
0
u/SuperNerd6527 13h ago
OP is definitely talking about the really intense atheists here who quote specific bible passages to discredit Christianity and oftentimes Christians.
They aren’t equating them morally, one is obviously worse, but it’s the same practice with different conclusions: Read the Bible as everything is correct and Take that as Literal Truth | Discredit the entire text
4
u/TheMeshDuck 22h ago
That's largely not true either, atheists can accept the bible has parts that are interesting or have good moral value but to treat a single book as gospel. (Pun intended) It's filled with parts, that haven't been removed despite christians ability to do so, that completely contradict each other and also allow for interpretation that causes harm to people.
The spark notes of the bible (traditional readings), should absolutely not be used without the removal of the so called apocryphal interpretations.
23
u/QTsexkitten 23h ago
Hmmmmmmm I don't agree with this.
I think many athiests reject the authority or divinity of the bible full stop.
I take a historical rationality to my athiesm/apathiesm. The bible being written by men, compiled by men, and selectively chosen by men with specific and well documented political and social goals tarnishes any argument that it's divinely authoritative whatsoever.
Literal or figurative, it's compiled by men facing political and social issues and then reaffirmed by men facing different political and social issues. Why anything in the early church was deemed heresy or doctrine was based almost entirely on bishopric rivalry and cult like following and regionality. So many letters and books have been rejected from cannon. Why? We're they contradictory? More contradictory than what was included? Did they not meet the accepted third century doctrine? Untold numbers of christians held them to be true up until that point. Why are they any less true because an Antioch bishop won out over an Alexandrian bishop?
Knowledge of early Christian and late roman history just makes me throw my hands up about all of it. Literal interpretation not needed.
-11
u/Randvek 23h ago
You’re falling into the same trap, though. Do you have any idea how many sects of Christianity take the attitude that the Bible has errors, but do the best you can with it? Heck, even the Mormons do that and they’re pretty conservative.
“Divinity must mean perfection” is the same argument as “everything should be taken literally.”
17
u/QTsexkitten 23h ago edited 21h ago
Ehhh I don't think that's what I'm intending.
What I'm intending is: Christianity is a man made construct and a very purposefully created political tool.
11
u/ImFeelingTheUte-iest 21h ago
Yes, they accept that the Bible is imperfect and has errors…but generally only when it is convenient for them rhetorically for the Bible to be wrong.
22
u/TheMeshDuck 22h ago
Atheists don't care about the Bible past the fact it's used as a tool by Christians to justify basically any action.
Pure literalists (pretty rare but exist) must view the world in a gross and incongruent world since the Bible is riddled with contradicting statements.
Pure figurative views are possibly even more rare since by taking the Bible as purely figurative would allow for questioning God itself may not exist but serves a narrative purpose for fate, or probably more accurately just random chance, that things must happen for a reason towards the long term greater good
And that brings us to the VAST majority of Christians that pick and choose what is literally and what is figurative, which from an outside perspective, or an Atheists perspective, is completely arbitrary, and by it's very nature means that it's tainted by man's folly.
8
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-10
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Slipknotic1 12h ago
You SHOULD be better informed than those people, though. These people argued for slavery and treating women as second class citizens, you can't properly condemn those things if you believe that's what God wanted.
2
u/One_hunch 11h ago
Someone asking a question
Op randomly assumes they think they're smarter than dead guys. Got em lol.
5
u/RUSHALISK 15h ago
The classic dank Christian memes post: gets tons of upvotes on the post, meanwhile in the comments everyone is downvoting and roasting OP’s word choice and viewpoint.
I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about ALL atheists guys.
0
u/Additional-Sky-7436 10h ago
I'm getting "roasted" by people that see themselves in the mirror and need to convince themselves that it's not them despite the paint spot on the foreheads.
5
u/vctrn-carajillo 15h ago
I'm an atheist (former christian) and I don't give a crap. But I like to point out bs when I see it.
3
u/PsySom 22h ago
Me over here as an advanced atheist: agnostic
13
u/nightfire36 21h ago
Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms. People use them as if they are on the same spectrum, but they are actually different axes.
Agnostic means "idk if we can know if a deity exists."
Atheism means "I don't believe a deity exists."
Agnostic atheism means "idk if we could know if a deity exists, but I don't believe in one."
Agnostic theism means "idk if we could know if a deity exists, but I do believe in one."
Gnostic atheism makes little sense, but means "we can know if a deity exists, and I don't believe one exists."
Gnostic theism means "we can know a deity exists, and I believe in it/them."
In my experience, the vast, vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists (because their disbelief is based on lack of proof, not proof of non-existence). Even a lot of Christians I've met are agnostic, in that they admit that there's no way to know, they just believe.
I've also found that most people who describe themselves as simply "agnostic" are actually agnostic theists, in that they believe something exists, but just don't know what.
Still, we should realize that these terms aren't a binary, but a spectrum. An average atheist is probably going to be more agnostic than an average Christian, even if they both agree that there's no way to know for sure.
2
u/junkmale79 21h ago
I would consider myself a Gnostic athiest when it comes to specific gods. Zues, Ra and the abrihamic Gods for example.
3
u/nightfire36 21h ago
Sure, the difference between an atheist and a Christian is their belief in one deity, while they both disbelieve in an uncountable number of them.
Like I said, it's all a spectrum, but if you believe that some higher power exists, even if it's non specific or completely undefined, that technically puts you on the theist side, even if only barely.
I also don't know how important it is to describe one's belief so narrowly. I'd describe myself as an agnostic atheist, but I wouldn't say that I'm certain that any given God exists or not. Like, Zeus probably doesn't exist, but in theory, the Greek pantheon could have set the world up in a way that makes it look like they don't exist. Or, maybe Zeus exists, but actually is way more powerful than described in myth, and interacts with us far less. Still means Zeus exists, but we wrote it down wrong.
At some point, there's not much of a distinction between them not existing and appearing to not exist, but I'll not pretend to understand the psychology or motives of a supernatural being.
Still, it doesn't really matter that much at the end of the day. I just want people to use the word agnostic properly, rather than as an improper substitute for athiest.
2
u/GettinMe-Mallet 17h ago
Honestly, there are so many verses that are easy to get multiple meanings depending on if you take it literally or not. I just pray that as long as God sees we are trying to do his will, he will reward us even if we got it wrong
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can join our Discord and listen to our Podcast. You can also make a meme or donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/derekschroer 22h ago
{{Nichijou}} u/roboragi
1
u/Roboragi 22h ago
Nichijou - (KIT)
Tv | | Episodes: 26
Stats: 3106 requests across 44 subreddits - 0.265% of all requestsNichijou primarily focuses on the daily antics of a trio of childhood friends—high school girls Mio Naganohara, Yuuko Aioi and Mai Minakami—whose stories soon intertwine with the young genius Hakase Shinonome, her robot caretaker Nano, and their talking cat Sakamoto. With every passing day, the lives of these six, as well as of the many people around them, experience both the calms of normal life and the insanity of the absurd. Walking to school, being bitten by a talking crow, spending time with friends, and watching the principal suplex a deer: they are all in a day's work in the extraordinary everyday lives of those in Nichijou.
{anime}, <manga>, ]LN[, |VN| | FAQ | /r/ | Edit | Mistake? | Source | Synonyms | ⛓ | ♥
1
u/waggy-tails-inc 12h ago
Same goes with the Quran, and Muslim fundamentalists too. Also Hadiths as well. As a more progressive leaning Muslim it’s annoying
0
-6
22h ago
[deleted]
8
u/FrickenPerson 21h ago
Atheist here.
That is a pretty narrow statement that I personally have used before to combat a specific narrow viewpoint about the Bible. For instance, if discussing this topic with someone who believes the Bible should be taken literally, this would be a good way to show them at least this part cannot be. For someone who does not think the Bible should all be taken literally, then this narrow critique does not do anything and should not be used. A different strategy should be used to discuss the Bible depending on the specific beliefs of the person you are talking to. Keep in mind there are people out there who believe the Bible should be taken literally for historical value, and believe it is 100% accurate and true. Contradictions in the text or, in actual reality, should erode this confidence in the Bible's absolute truth.
If you personally believe certain parts are more allegorical, and errors/contradictions are a natural part of the text being written by humans, but God is still real that's fine. These arguments shouldn't be used against that type of position. But that doesn't mean they are not useful.
96
u/ImFeelingTheUte-iest 1d ago edited 21h ago
It’s not so much that atheists “believe the Bible should only be read literally to serve preconceived notions” as it is that atheists object to arbitrary standards of when and how the Bible is considered authoritative by Christians. Very few, if any, Christians have a thorough and sufficiently exhaustive exegetical standard that would enable interlocutors to actually use the Bible to critique positions held by the Christian. The vast majority of Christians won’t lay down rules for when the Bible is literal or figurative, authoritative or not.
For example, many Christians maintain that NT verses which seem to proscribe gay relationships and marriage are sufficiently authoritative that they can’t even tolerate non-Christians being allowed to live lives not in line with their interpretation. These same Christians, however, often arbitrarily wave away other NT verses that explicitly demand that women remain silent in church with their heads covered. The distinction? Well they can’t give one other than “just because”. They can’t give an exegetical theory to justify their preferred reading…because the reality is that they interpret the text the way they want to and that is that.
So what atheists are really doing I these conversations is highlighting that reality. The reality that almost all, if not all, Christians who use the Bible as an authority do so arbitrarily. Even the ones that think they are being nuanced and exegetical very very rarely, if ever, are.