I've got this in my documents because it's one of my favorite ones:

"Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies."

In all religions, the sense of the divine can only be communicated in metaphors.

I’m not religious and I’ve had atheists call me an apologist for religion. Why? Because I’ve pointed out that fundamentalists are merely an extremely vocal but politically influential minority among Christians, and because I’ve said the Bible should be evaluated as a historical and cultural artifact by many different writers instead of wholly good or wholly bad morally. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to be offended by the idea of telling Christians they’re reading their book incorrectly.

And I’ve had fundamentalists claim I favor destroying religion. Why? Because I say that whenever fundamentalists make purported claims of fact, especially about divine punishment in this life or a supposed next life, they are doing wrong and violating other people’s boundaries. If they’re going to make such claims, they should present evidence. Even though millions of people believe in deities as metaphors, when other millions of people claim as fact that deities exist, the claims should be open to challenge just like claims that previously undiscovered planets or species exist.

Whenever I become friends with an admitted atheist, I ask them to tell me all about the character and the characteristics of this God they don't believe in.
Invariably they describe the supernatural theism of normative Christianity.

The average believer takes the holy and sacred metaphors for the divine literally, which [literally] kills the spirit.

“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”
--Joseph Campbell

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.

Question. What happened to Ben?

It's a classic straw man fallacy. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are easy to critique, morally and logically.

Really savvy atheists won't stoop that low. Instead, they lead with the personal psychological and ethical benefits they *personally* enjoy from their commitment to atheism.

Yep.That's why I'll never debate an atheist. First, I respect their courage of conviction. And secondly, they have reasoning and (theists lack of) evidence on their side

Atheists don't believe in the Christian God so looking into the bible is typically only for a negative purposes as in the bible is a work of fiction, etc. However, the bible is far more complicated than that containing historical information that exists nowhere else. If we discount that information what replaces it?

Not sure why this is making the fb rounds again, but there you go! Jesus was not the 'Founder' of Christianity, Saul of Tarsus was. Jesus never even heard the word 'Christ', more less used that word. And Jesus never said word one about abandoning The Law. To the contrary - "not one jot nor title", and all that. Is the Earth still here? (looks around) Yup. Thus not 'all' has been fulfilled, and thus The Law still applies - unless Jesus was misquoted.... Cherry picking the data to find the conclusion one wishes to reach doesn't tend to provide reasonable conclusions. The logicians tell us that if you assume contradictory postulates to be true, you can 'prove' anything you'd like. Thus it is with Biblical interpretation. Anyone can 'prove' anything they'd like by cherry-picking Bible quotes. (It was also Saul of Tarsus who spread the idea that adhering to Jewish traditions/laws like circumcision and avoiding pork/shellfish weren't necessary so as to be more able to market his new mystery religion to the Greeks and Romans who were his target audience.)

If Paul was the 'Founder of Christianity' then why don't his Epistles state that?

Jesus' followers were Jews. Jesus did not want to be worshipped, he urged only that his listeners follow him.

Paul founded nothing, he wrote about Jesus and his teachings -- to Jews & Gentiles, & Romans, alike.

Constantine founded Christianity and "Romanized" it to meet his own needs -- starting with the Nicene Creed, Canon, and Doctrine, which lives on (in many forms) to this day.

Saul/Paul was the one who created the 'Christ' myth out of his epileptic hallucinations, and then tied it to the poor recently executed Jesus, inventing the whole 'resurrection' nonsense, and the rest of the 'miracles' out of whole cloth.

See https://www.amazon.com/Myth... for the evidence and argument that Paul invented Christianity. Constantine just took what Paul invented and ran with it.

Note carefully that the few bits of contemporary text that were not directly influenced by the Paulists were deemed 'blasphemous' and 'non-canonical'. (Like the 'Gospel of Peter') There's a reason for that.

Note carefully that there is ZERO non-Christian evidence that any of the miracles described in the gospels actually took place. Note carefully that the 'Testimonium Flavianum' - the part of Josephus' "The Antiquities of the Jews" that mentioned Jesus - is known to be a FORGERY which was inserted into the Josephus text LONG AFTER his death. And who is our best bet for who that forger was? None other than Church Father Bishop Eusebius - that self confessed 'liar for god'. (see http://www.jesusneverexiste... for more on that)

Jesus was a very wise radically revolutionary rabbi who taught people not to fear - which is why he was killed by the powers that be, who depend on fear to keep the 'hoi polloi' in line - still to this day.

"Jesus was a very wise radically revolutionary rabbi who taught people not to fear"

Isn't this the important part of what Christianity is all about? (Or was supposed to be about?)

Paul didn't have to be deceptive or malicious for any infirmity that he might have had to lead him to write about Jesus ... "a very wise radically revolutionary rabbi who taught people not to fear."

I care more about the message than about the "facts" surrounding it.

He had more to say on that subject.
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Christianity started when Jesus began His ministry. It is true that Constantine took advantage of the movement. but it also true that Christianity lives on and will not be stopped.
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
That is why the bible is the greatest selling book of all time. If it was from man it wild be long
forgotten.

The Bible is no different from the Vedas. Every culture has their 'sacred text'. The Christian one is no more 'special' than any of the others.

Come, come now. No different?
One person in a hundred thousand has even heard of the Vedas.
Everyone in the world knows of the Christian bible.
That's a gigantic difference.

Hundreds of millions of Hindus have heard of the Vedas. So I'm thinking the point still stands.

The fact that so many millions of people adhere to the faith of the Bible is probably a matter of historical happenstance - i.e. a whole bunch of things happened that were in the favour of Christianity's spread, and not necessarly anything intrinsic to Christianity as a faith. If there are people who choose to think of that as some sort of Christian Manifest Destiny, that's on them. And it's to be hoped that they won't harm the rest of us whilst doing so.

From my, admittedly atheist, perspective the Bible isn't particularly special for its content. It's an important text to read, like most holy books, if one wants to understand things about the people who hew to it. And it's culturally important because of the ubiquity of Christian iconography in western culture.

Other than that, it's just a book.

There are billions of Bibles in print and that alone makes it very different from any book in the history of man.

Hahaha.. No. There are also billions of Qu'rans in print.

So which is it Vedas or Qurans?

It's the Bardo Thodol (rather than Theol; which my ham hands & butter fingers actually typed) in my other reply to you; which Disqus won't let me edit. Apologies to any Tibetan Buddhists.

Did I miss a reply?

There's a reply below... or however Disqus - may its name be thrice vilified - has chosen to display the thread.

You said very few people had heard of the Vedas, I provided an approximate figure as a rebuttal to that claim; you said that the Bible is unique for having billions of copies in print, and I provided a counter-example. No more, no less.

I get it, the Bible is your holy book, and you're invested in it being special and unique. But you need to be aware that for a significant fraction of humanity, probably more than half, the only thing special about the Bible is that it's known to be the book that Christians venerate. Its content is unique, certainly, but I could also trivially say that about almost every other book ever written (barring Borgesian Pierre Menard- style shenanigans, that is).

That doesn't make it better or worse than any other holy text imo, it's merely particular to one sectarian group. And I'm sure that each sectarian group believes that their own holy text is as special as you believe the Bible is. You may, of course, believe that they're wrong to do so - if you're a Christian, I suppose you kind of have to.

From my, again admittedly atheist, perspective, the Bible is special in the exactly same way that the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bardo Theol etc. are special; i.e. millions or billions of people hold them as guides to core ideals in their lives.

Atheists, like "Christians" vary widely in their attitudes toward the Bible , which is, like the King Arthur legend, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and Gilgamesh, a foundational work in the Western tradition. It is something every educated person should read and analyze because so many other works depend on references to it. Obviously, I read it as an anthology of traditional stories, poems, genealogies, proverbs, letters, and legends, but not all atheists agree with me, just as not all "Christians" agree with you. As atheists, we have encountered many (in fact an increasing number of) "Christians" who insist that every single word in the current edition of this tome was penned by the deity"himself" and thus should be taken literally. Now I don't agree with this, and you don't either, but these people also think they are "Christians" and represent themselves forcefully as such. In the name of words from this book they have launched into an unprecedented attack on the human rights of people who don't even belong to their group. If you wonder why I am putting "Christians" in quotation marks, it's because that word now covers as wide a spectrum of philosophy and belief as atheism. As far as people being judgmental about a teen contestant, I have to wonder why in 2018 we still have meat markets (aka beauty pageants) for young women. I think it's time for those tasteless sexist parades to die. Who watches them? This is not 1952.

The bible has many contradictory things in it. What we take out of it, atheist or fundamentalist, says more about us then the bible.

I don't think it's about they interpreting the bible literally, but rather, it's about holding people to the standards they profess. If they claim that the entirety of the bible is literally true and infallible, then they should be held to the standard. The only real problem I can see is if they hold all Christians to a standard, even progressives who don't maintain a literalist or inerrant view of scripture.

So, if we look at what her church believes (and it's fairly safe to assume that she holds these beliefs too, given she's reported to be involved in the student ministries team there, at least until she gives us a reason to believe otherwise), they do subscribe to a literalist view of scripture "Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error." http://www.wearecalvary.com.... I think given this context it's not unfair to hold her to her professed beliefs...

No, the Bible can be true and infallible, but have different standards for different people at different times.

Interestingly, I thought your article was right on point. Although, raised in Pentecostalism have grown spiritually to what I call a radically inclusive philosophy and in discussions with my Atheist friend who constantly reminds me that my interpretation of Scripture isn't a true interpretation. I call him the 1st. Atheist fundamentalist, sanctified and filled with the Holy anti-ghost and with fire. He still manages to be more fundamentalist than a fundamentalist Christian in his debates.

Yep. "Atheists and fundamentalists each tend to read the Bible in the same wooden, overly literalistic manner. The difference is that atheists reject what they read in that manner, while fundamentalists believe it."
Read more at "16 Ways progressive Christians interpret the Bible" http://www.patheos.com/blog...

Roger Wolsey, author, "Kissing Fish: christianity for people who don't like Christianity"

Liberal Christians were much more active in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly the National Council of Churches with protests about various social issues.

One reason that I don't discuss liberal or progressive Christians very much is that I have very little idea of what they believe. I was raised in a Methodist Church, and I could not tell you then or now if they had any communal beliefs. The liturgy was pretty traditional, but clearly a lot of the adults didn't believe in miracles, or bible stories, or that Jesus was a savior. When I tried to talk to the youth minister, he always answered a question with a question -- to this day, I sympathize with the Athenians who executed Socrates. I talked to the main minister when I was old enough for him to bother with me, and asked what it meant to be a Methodist, but there was an embarrassed silence until I took pity on him and changed the subject. This was about 45 years ago, but I often talk with two people who have belonged to the church for decades, and are very active; neither of them have been able to think of anything either. Someone argued on the internet that the Methodist Church has the Book of Discipline, which spells out their beliefs. But as the first comment said, the bishops ignore the Book of Discipline so surely no-one expects anyone else to take it seriously.

Maybe progressive/liberal Christians need to make themselves more visible if they want people to take them more seriously.

Think of it this way. There were the Catholics then after Luther there were Protestants. Then 300 years later there were Methodists. Today there are thousands of Protestant offshoots. Now there are Progressive Liberals. Each group has it's own variances from Catholicism. Who is right? Who is the true Christian? Each group does have one thing n common; they all believe they are the true church. We know one thing for certain; they all cannot be right.

Does each member have the responsibility to vet his organization - Yes!. Do many do this - No! But some decide to verify their beliefs and are shocked when they discover that their beliefs differ from the bible. When they inquire they get the same reaction that you did. That becomes the point of departure for many and then the search begins in earnest.

I agree with the last paragraph but traditional ministers will not bother their congregations about what Jesus taught or why it is important to our lives. The mystics, those with the most to offer the spiritual among us, don't generally have congregations, just followers (like Jesus did).

One reason that I don't discuss liberal or progressive Christians very much is that I have very little idea of what they believe.

A prominent atheist once remarked that debating a progressive Christian is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Which I think captures it perfectly; there's so much hand-waving going on that you can never get down to the actual subject, but instead waste your time on rhetorical games and unsuccessful attempts to define terms.

The fundamentalist, by contrast, is more than happy to state firm ideological commitments, and to vigorously defend them without resorting to obscurantism. But fundamentalists tend to be literalists, and so an atheist ends up debating on those terms (that is to say, the fundamentalist's, not the atheist's). Since the interesting, attention-grabbing squabbles are usually between fundamentalists and atheists, observers like Dr. Corey get the impression that atheists as a rule share the literalist views of their opponents.

That's my hypothesis, anyway, and I'm stickin' to it.

Well said!

>Frito Pendejo

I agree with you. I read a Progressive Christian book at the request of a friend, and it struck me how important the catchy phrase is to them. So many of the Progressive Christians speaking and writing are professional wordsmiths and so I think that they often focus on technique more than content or plausibility.

It reminds me of the artist Ad Reinhardt. He is most famous for his black paintings, that is, the surface is pretty much covered with black paint. Critics get all excited about the fact that the black is made up of individual black squares. I have never figured out, or had anyone explain, why that matters. It is all the same to me whether it is individual squares or he used a roller brush on the entire surface. But then I am focused on the painting as a whole, and they are more interested in technical details.

As a progressive Christian (Quaker actually) I'd say the reason for being a bit jelly like (I'm English too. So you'll have to translate from proper English into American) is because we're not fixed in our thinking like fundamentalists. We change our minds, we don't think of the text as somehow pinned down like a dead butterfly in a cage. Some atheists seem to have the same way of thinking (fixed and immutable) as your average fundamentalist.

Steven, you are hilarious, and you pinned down the point when you said "some atheists." All atheists do not believe in a "god." That's in the word. Apart from that, we differ on many points. We have no unifying philosophy. We have no teacher, charter, or text. We have no hierarchy to dictate our beliefs. Nor do we have beliefs to change. We are not a religion. Some atheists do try to get believers to step aside from religion. but many of us just want religious nutters to let us be.

I missed this reply. "Some atheists" is right - but there are some who seem to troll progressive Christian pages just to provoke some kind of "they're really fundies under the skin" response. We liberal religious types are often working things out as we go along though; and we're quite ok with our own uncertainties, doubts and questions. Some atheists (again, not all) find that annoying. So be it.

Pax. I don't care what you believe. I just would appreciate it if your brethren would respect my right to privacy and self-determination, especially as a woman. I once stumbled into one of the other sections of Patheos before I understood how the site worked and commented. No problem. They blocked me, banned me, and deleted my comments unceremoniously.

I am very late to this discussion, but here goes. The image of Christianity in popular culture has, since about 1980 or so, been of a Fundamentalist. Compare this with, say, Reverend Sloan from Doonsbury. Our Atheist brethren have more often than not grown up thinking that Christian=Fundamentalist. And who has been at the forefront of this message? Fundamentalists, of course. They are only too happy to affirm, should the subject arise, that Liberal Christians aren't really Christians. Of course "conservative" Christianity often is anything but conservative, and "liberal" Christians' understanding of scripture is in many cases far more traditional, but the lived experience of the typical American runs the other way, hearing how "conservative" Christians are holding onto traditional religion while "liberal" Christians are making it as they go along. Most people, whether Christian, Atheist, or something else entirely, aren't students of history. Historical discussions don't resonate the way lived experience does.

The irony is that the modern Atheist firmly asserts that Fundamentalists have lied to them about everything except this. Who counts as a real Christian is the one topic where Fundamentalists are utterly reliable.

From the outside, the view is different. Christianity is utterly fragmented and each faction claims it is the true one. We atheists think it's kind of funny.

I agree with part of what you are saying. I once addressed a comment to my fellow atheists, skeptics, etc., warning them that fundamentalists are not the only Christians, and that one day they are bound to challenge someone with their favorite fundie folly and find that the other person doesn't believe that either. I got no comments, so I doubt it did any good.

Atheists have often boasted that they understand more about religious people than non-Atheists understand about us, and I am dismayed when this isn't true.

On the other hand, I think that your counter-example is off-base. You can certainly take the Jewish laws as a description, but despite what you say, they are written prescriptively. I will leave you to argue with Orthodox Jews about that. I know someone who might qualify as a Progressive Christian, and he is also a New Testament studies Ph.D., who kept quoting Bible verses at me as statements with moral authority. I could generally quote back an opposing verse. Finally, I told him that the Bible is so cherry-picked-over by Christians of all stripes that I failed to see how it could quoted with any authority.

Blocked! Bye, bye Duane!

Liberal Christians.

Do not fool your selves.

many Atheists may defend with you, agree with you and are on the same side of many social issues with, but are NOT on the same side when it comes to believing your Religion like you.

Atheists aren't on the side of believing a religion? Well duh, didn't everybody know that? If they believed in a religion, they wouldn't be atheists, would they?

keep worshipping santa claus, you fukking dupe

Do you really have to stoop down in the cesspool with your immature gutter talk when a Christian points out your foolishness?

Fundamentalist Christians source and often espouse their morality from the BIBLE and the god portrayed in it!!

Where do Liberal Christians source their morality from?

I use secular reasons for my explanations, for better or worse.

This is more an exercise in trying to keep the Religion LOOK palatable to outsiders, when in reality it is a house of horrors.

Atheists intelligent or not, will not rate these mental gymnastics a high score.

because there are fundamentalist Christians that read the bible like actual fundamentalists.

Let's not sweep these inconvenient Christians away, that I am confident wipe the floor of liberal Christians when it comes to understanding and knowing their Bibles!

Liberal Christians can fault their fundamentalist brethren's all they wan't, however they don't engage them enough on a theological level that's considered impressive, because they get and often source their moral judgments from the very same book Liberal Christians do, and if using more secular arguments and reasons is the preferred method to engage fundamentalist Christians, why continue to use the Bible as the guild to morality?