If you believe a literal interpetation of the Bible...

[Meoton]

If you believe and proselytize a literal interpretation of the bible, shouldn't you have read it at least once?

I keep meeting Christians who debate me about things from evolution, gays, morality,..etc...etc..
And if I quote a bible verse to them they often stare at me in disbelief. I show them the verse, and then tell me it must mean something else. So, I read the verses before and after it to show it's context. Then they say they need to ask someone about it, because it can't mean what it says.
I ask them if they have ever read the bible and more often than not, they haven't read hardly any of it.
But the will still swear by it as the absolute literal truth of the world and our existence.

[Tubbsalot]

Most people intelligent enough to actually read the Bible are also intelligent enough to not subscribe to a literal interpretation of it.

[Karsol]

People should be critical of their faith...but they should at least go over the material at least once.

[Roten]

If you believe and proselytize a literal interpretation of the bible, shouldn't you have read it at least once?

I keep meeting Christians who debate me about things from evolution, gays, morality,..etc...etc..
And if I quote a bible verse to them they often stare at me in disbelief. I show them the verse, and then tell me it must mean something else. So, I read the verses before and after it to show it's context. Then they say they need to ask someone about it, because it can't mean what it says.
I ask them if they have ever read the bible and more often than not, they haven't read hardly any of it.
But the will still swear by it as the absolute literal truth of the world and our existence.

That happens all the time when I debate Protestants (I'm Catholic). First they are shocked that a Catholic reads the bible (most rarely do), and that their sola scriptura is a poor basis when they continually take things out of contest (especially the 'saved by faith alone' doctrine. That's why James says "Man is NOT saved by faith alone but by works"). Certainly, everyone should read the bible. Catholics especially should take the time to read some of the tomes of theological discussion written over the past 2000 years.

--I'm actually fairly literal when I read the bible (excepting of course Revelations)...in the sense that when Jesus says "This is" I don't take it to mean that he means "This is like sorta figuratively".

[Timhaukia]

Doesn't it say in the Bible that working on a Sunday is a sin punishable by death?

If this is true, I wonder if people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible know this?

[Imperial Domtopia]

Doesn't it say in the Bible that working on a Sunday is a sin punishable by death?

If this is true, I wonder if people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible know this?

I think it's Saturday.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The pain of the smilies.

[Karsol]

The pain of the smilies.

At least he isn't as bad as NM.

His smilies make me rage.

[Allbeama]

Nice smilies at the end there. Makes it seem like the SRS BSNS it is.

[Meoton]

I think Catholics and Protestants read slightly different versions of the Bible. But I also believe that most Christians off the street couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I often think of writing my own version of the Bible, ala Jefferson, and giving it to Christians to see if they can tell the difference. My guess is no, since they won't really read it anyway.

[Tubbsalot]

At least he isn't as bad as NM.

His smilies make me rage.

Can't deal with a bit of passive-aggressive eye-rolling? You poor sensitive soul.

[Meoton]

The smilies express the emotions that tend to run through me. Surprise, confusion, disbelief, rage.

[Karsol]

At least he isn't as bad as NM.

His smilies make me rage.

Can't deal with a bit of passive-aggressive eye-rolling? You poor sensitive soul.

Cut the sarcasm or you're going over my knee mister. D:<

But nah, its the way he shoves several bowing and clapping smiley's every time a dysfunctional conservative does something barbaric.

[Meoton]

Few Christians will ever truly know the wisdom of Tae Kwon Leap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Y6231uAmo&feature=PlayList&p=FAE3B761B4278EA6&index=14

[Imsogone]

Not only should they have read the Bible, they should know the source of the Bible. It isn't, as they so blithely insist, the word of God. It's the words of many people about many gods and put together by one group in a format and with a spin that was designed to justify their ascendency over those many groups and to later rationalize their defeat and assimilation by other groups.

[Meoton]

And Cthulhu said, "Take no other Gods before me.....not that it will matter, I will still devour you all."

[Karsol]

And Cthulhu said, "Take no other Gods before me.....not that it will matter, I will still devour you all."

He is a jealous but fair god.

[RedBird777]

I am a Christian, and something that a lot of people seemed to get mixed up on is taking things in context.

For instance, the book of Leviticus is a book written to the Levites long before Jesus came to the earth. The Levites were the priestly tribe of the 12 Hebrew tribes, and had special rules. These rules were set in place for them for a reason, and not to the others.
There are also many other verses, chapters, and books that can not always be taken completely literally (i.e. Revelations) do to its imagery and symbolism.

What I do have to say is that Christians SHOULD read the Bible and understand it. If they do not understand something, then they definitely need more prayer and meditation on whatever subject it may be. Just because you seem to have run into "bad eggs" doesn't mean that all of us are as naive or stupid.

[Acadzia]

Yes, but I don't think Christians are the only culprits. There's a growing willingness for people to just Wikipedia stuff and assume they know it, rather than wrestle with the material themselves. This can apply to most any subject.

We're degenerating into a society of search engines, blog posts, and internet forums. None of these are acceptable sources of information, beyond a basic, cursory glance.

[Roten]

I think Catholics and Protestants read slightly different versions of the Bible. But I also believe that most Christians off the street couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I often think of writing my own version of the Bible, ala Jefferson, and giving it to Christians to see if they can tell the difference. My guess is no, since they won't really read it anyway.

There was a fake bible written in the middle ages. It was written by people that didn't think the bible had enough miracles in it...so it has things like when Jesus awakes from the tomb, he walks forth and with every step he gets larger until his head is crowned by the clouds.

there were also many fake gospels as well...such as one gospel of St. Thomas that contains, mostly, a story from Jesus' childhood where some kid insults Jesus, so Jesus strikes him dead. Joeseph says, "now, that wasn't very nice Jesus, you put it right." So Jesus brings the kid back to life. Then the 'gospel' states several times, emphatically, that it is true, and that everyone should believe it, and that Jesus really did that. Written in the 12th century. (Can someone say fake?)

It's usually pretty easy to tell whether a version is fake or not: fake ones tend to be more spectacular, and less deep than the bible. The miracles are less sublime, the messages more direct. If an author had just made up the parting of the Red Sea, then a beautiful crystal bridge made out of ice would form, and the Hebrews would cross it, but the weight of the Chariots would collapse it, drowning them all.

[Karsol]

Yes, but I don't like Christians are the only culprits. There's a growing willingness for people to just Wikipedia stuff and assume they know it, rather than wrestle with the material themselves. This can apply to most any subject.

We're degenerating into a society of search engines, blog posts, and internet forums. None of these are acceptable sources of information, beyond a basic, cursory glance.

Alot of sites now store scientific journals and theological texts in digital form.

[JJ Place]

If you believe and proselytize a literal interpretation of the bible, shouldn't you have read it at least once?

I keep meeting Christians who debate me about things from evolution, gays, morality,..etc...etc..
And if I quote a bible verse to them they often stare at me in disbelief. I show them the verse, and then tell me it must mean something else. So, I read the verses before and after it to show it's context. Then they say they need to ask someone about it, because it can't mean what it says.
I ask them if they have ever read the bible and more often than not, they haven't read hardly any of it.
But the will still swear by it as the absolute literal truth of the world and our existence.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:10

22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Why must everything end in a Death Sentance, I wonder? Not to mention, this quote:

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4

just to bring out one example, as well as the Bible stated that Witches should be burned, and Wizards should be stoned, persecution against Homosexuals, as well as bigotry towards dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of groups of people, coupled with such sections as Exodus 29 and shortly thereafter Leviticus 4, the Bible falls apart about having any real "meaning". The sad thing is, most people who blinding follow the Bible and it's 'teachings' have read even less of the Bible than I have; yes, I've been making it a resolution of mine to get through the entire Bible this year, even though I believe not a word of it, I'm trying the best I can manage.

[Melkor Unchained]

Most people intelligent enough to actually read the Bible are also intelligent enough to not subscribe to a literal interpretation of it.

This. The Bible can not and should not (for the record, I haven't been received by the Church yet, but consider myself nominally Catholic partly on account of family background) be taken literally because it's been passed down and reinterpreted so many times. At best, a modern Bible is English translated from Latin translated from Greek translated from Aramaic. Anyone who has ever played "Telephone" knows the intrinsic flaws in passing information through ten people, much less millions of people over two millenia who speak different languages. The Word of God, powerful though it may be, is likely not above human corruption over such a span of time.

[Acadzia]

Yes, but I don't like Christians are the only culprits. There's a growing willingness for people to just Wikipedia stuff and assume they know it, rather than wrestle with the material themselves. This can apply to most any subject.

We're degenerating into a society of search engines, blog posts, and internet forums. None of these are acceptable sources of information, beyond a basic, cursory glance.

Alot of sites now store scientific journals and theological texts in digital form.

Mm, JSTOR is a good one that slipped my mind. Then again, an academic directory isn't really the same as Google or "Bing" or About.com which is what I had in mind when I wrote "search engines."

[Big Jim P]

Anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible is probably too dumb to read in the first place.