What's the proper way to read a religious text?

[Insomniac]

Both as a believer and as a skeptic.

I think we've well established that the bible should (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=12770) be read (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=16960). And I think that would apply for most mythological and religious works of note. But reading a Greek creation myth is different from reading Genesis, if only because of how other people perceive the two, let alone how you might as a Jew or Christian.

Everyone is a skeptic, some people just make a particular exception. So how should you read something as a skeptic, we can all answer. However, it is a bit more complicated to answer that for genuine believers.

So, I'm religious. I say skeptics ought to read what they don't believe without malice, as atheists (at least of that religious work) and not anti-theists. As a religious person, intellectual honesty is even more important, and what you read should be a starting point of mental activity, not the end of it, with literal, literary, theological and even skeptical assumptions as you examine it. This isn't always possible for anyone including myself, and isn't possible at all with some people, but I think if it was the rule and not the exception, atheists of the world would have a lot less to complain about, and there might even be less of them.

[Das Kahlua]

Left to right, up to down.

Unless it's in Hebrew or Arabic, then it's right to left.

[Das Kahlua]

So, I'm religious. I say skeptics ought to read what they don't believe without malice, as atheists (at least of that religious work) and not anti-theists. As a religious person, intellectual honesty is even more important, and what you read should be a starting point of mental activity, not the end of it, with literal, literary, theological and even skeptical assumptions as you examine it. This isn't always possible for anyone including myself, and isn't possible at all with some people, but I think if it was the rule and not the exception, atheists of the world would have a lot less to complain about, and there might even be less of them.

There is a saying that the ability to hold to conflicting thoughts at the same time is the sign of intelligence. When dealing with religion, it pushes even that to its boundries.

The biggest fault of all major religions, and I will group hard-core atheists in with this since they have formed their own belief, is that they demand total and complete allegiance and compliance, with no room for change. I do believe in God; I was raised Roman Catholic, and I still believe what I was taught, but I am not naive enough to think that humans on Earth have the intellectual capacity to understand even a small portion of what 'God' is. Thus, every religion is fundamentally flawed.

For what it's worth (probably not that much), here is something I thought about the other day. It was way too early in the morning, after a long night of drinking, but it freaked me out so much I couldn't fall back asleep.

Religion is fundamentally flawed because it's humanity's creation in order to become closer to God. Creation is fundamentally perfect because it's God's creation in order to become closer to us.

We don't have to understand everything that is going on in the world, we only have to understand that God understands, and accept that.

[NoGravitas]

We don't have to understand everything that is going on in the world, we only have to understand that God understands, and accept that.

That sounds like a massive cop-out for humans everywhere. People should try and understand as much about the universe as they possibly can. Even God if it exists could (and should) be studied eventually.

As for answering the question i think the only way to read the segments of religious texts that contain Gods, demons, angels and magic are as a morality teaching fables. Even if you believe God exists it would be silly to think that he was more active at the time of the events of the texts than now. People should accept that the supernatural stuff was only put in to control the easily impressed people of an earlier time.

[Das Kahlua]

That sounds like a massive cop-out for humans everywhere. People should try and understand as much about the universe as they possibly can. Even God if it exists could (and should) be studied eventually.

As for answering the question i think the only way to read the segments of religious texts that contain Gods, demons, angels and magic are as a morality teaching fables. Even if you believe God exists it would be silly to think that he was more active at the time of the events of the texts than now. People should accept that the supernatural stuff was only put in to control the easily impressed people of an earlier time.

Why is that a cop-out?

Let's say that you and I were to accept right now that all of creation as we know it was created without any divine intervention.

The statistical chance that everything would have aligned perfectly to create what we see before us today is so infinitesimally small that the human brain cannot even come close to grasping it. So, by your reasoning, it's better to place one's faith in a mathematical, statistical, scientific probability that no one can fully understand rather than a spiritual entity that no one can fully understand. That somehow one unknowable entity is superior to another.

Isn't that the exact same close-minded, exclusionary mindset that you're accusing the Catholic Church of?

[Okie Medicvet]

That is why I cannot understand how we are supposed to have to choose between science and a spritual faith. I think in this instance we can and should be able to, metaphorically speaking, have out cake and eat it too. Man walking with dinosaurs, no. Intelligent design, yes.

[Das Kahlua]

That is why I cannot understand how we are supposed to have to choose between science and a spritual faith. I think in this instance we can and should be able to, metaphorically speaking, have out cake and eat it too. Man walking with dinosaurs, no. Intelligent design, yes.

My view is that both sides have something to offer, but since no one who is alive today was alive 100+ years ago let alone 1000 or 1,000,000 years ago, we can only make guesses as to what the world was like. They may be educated guesses, but they're still just guesses.

If anything, we should be trying to get and incorporate more information, not less, in that everything combined will help us with a better world view. As I said before, I don't believe that any organized religion can provide a full and complete picture for the vastness and complexity of 'God,' but nor do I think that our relatively rudimentary understanding of science can either prove or disprove God's existence.

The fact is, we know more about our solar system than we do about our own ocean depths. We are quick to make judgments of far away lands without knowing what is going on in our own backyard.

Forgive me if I wait a little before granting 'science' with the title of ultimate arbiter.

[NoGravitas]

Why is that a cop-out?

Let's say that you and I were to accept right now that all of creation as we know it was created without any divine intervention.

The statistical chance that everything would have aligned perfectly to create what we see before us today is so infinitesimally small that the human brain cannot even come close to grasping it. So, by your reasoning, it's better to place one's faith in a mathematical, statistical, scientific probability that no one can fully understand rather than a spiritual entity that no one can fully understand. That somehow one unknowable entity is superior to another.

Isn't that the exact same close-minded, exclusionary mindset that you're accusing the Catholic Church of?

Im really tired of this "its very unlikely so it could never happen" argument. Yes the evolution of certain things seems massively unlikely. There are near infinite odds against it. Fortunately we live in a nearly infinite universe. So statistically it was bound to happen somewhere. The Earth and its organism are not special - just the one in the one in a trillion chance. Also there may be multiple universes therefore increasing the likelihood even more it would happen somewhere. So there, it seems i DO fully understand the relatively simple maths behind it.

And i dont try and pick on the catholic church specifically (in fact i dont think i named any religions). They are an example, however, example of fools who claim to have all the answers but dont and dont even have evidence to back up what they proclaim. So no im not the same as the catholic church. Also im poorer, a singular being and get regularly laid with chicks above the age of consent.

[NoGravitas]

Forgive me if I wait a little before granting 'science' with the title of ultimate arbiter.

If you are not giving it to science can i have it? Most awesome title ever.

[Archangel]

The only way is to read it while being aware of its epistemological context. For one, I always keep saying that mankind grows much as an individual does - thus, texts which were written in the infancy of civilisation are more likely to make use of tropes to illustrate abstract ideas, much as children tend to personify things and concepts.

That doesn't make it "wrong", as the more retarded among atheists contend; Santa Claus, to a child, can very well legitimately illustrate certain concepts associated with Christmas -however, the personification/apotheosis is far from an actual comprehension of all those abstract notions.

One of the dichotomies plaguing religion today is that to keep up a literal comprehension of Scripture, people today would need to feel the same sense of wonder as those who saw every wind as the breath of a god, every river as the home of nymphs. And that is impossible today unless you're an unlearned idiot, or indeed a child; our abstractly trained consciousness, however, rejects these attempts at personification or manifestation as immature - and our arrogance distances us from it. The bearded man whom the imbeciles criticise is not of our times, nor is he relevant to them: The thing is, it is absolutely ridiculous to dismiss the idea due to the shortcomings of the representation.

What I love about (some) atheists is that if I were to draw a flawed picture of Plato's allegory of the cave, or Descartes's waxen candle, they would dismiss those thoughts because of my inability to properly allegorise them.

[NoGravitas]

I agree completly that it is perfectly acceptable (even pleasant) to use imagery to convey a point so long as those preaching the imagery admit that it is just imagery and should not be taken literally.

There is no just reason for not doing this and the only reason it has been done is to gain the interest of the impressionable.

[Archangel]

I agree completly that it is perfectly acceptable (even pleasant) to use imagery to convey a point so long as those preaching the imagery admit that it is just imagery and should not be taken literally.

There is no just reason for not doing this and the only reason it has been done is to gain the interest of the impressionable.

Yeah, but most people are: If a religion wants to thrive, it has to target those, after all.

I mean, look, there's a long history of the debates regarding the pros and cons of imagery in the church. If you look at certain romanic monasteries, for example, their austerity and lack of imagery suggests a movement of certain scholars towards a more abstract understanding of matters of faith; on the other hand, the "image flood" of the Counter-Reformation was designed to overwhelm and convince impressionable peasants.

[NoGravitas]

Yeah, but most people are: If a religion wants to thrive, it has to target those, after all.

I mean, look, there's a long history of the debates regarding the pros and cons of imagery in the church. If you look at certain romanic monasteries, for example, their austerity and lack of imagery suggests a movement of certain scholars towards a more abstract understanding of matters of faith; on the other hand, the "image flood" of the Counter-Reformation was designed to overwhelm and convince impressionable peasants.

Therein lies the hypocrisy. The preachers of many of the worlds religions profit from taking advantage of the impressionable by the false allures of heaven and fears of hell. For those claiming to be the spiritual advisors and moral betters of the world this seems like quite a large evil.

[Das Kahlua]

Im really tired of this "its very unlikely so it could never happen" argument. Yes the evolution of certain things seems massively unlikely. There are near infinite odds against it. Fortunately we live in a nearly infinite universe. So statistically it was bound to happen somewhere. The Earth and its organism are not special - just the one in the one in a trillion chance. Also there may be multiple universes therefore increasing the likelihood even more it would happen somewhere. So there, it seems i DO fully understand the relatively simple maths behind it.

Oh, well, sorry that we never asked you what arguments you like and you don't like. I will let everyone know that it's off limits now.

So, in your mind, the statistical improbability of something happening is in fact proof that it happened? Interesting.

And i dont try and pick on the catholic church specifically (in fact i dont think i named any religions). They are an example, however, example of fools who claim to have all the answers but dont and dont even have evidence to back up what they proclaim. So no im not the same as the catholic church. Also im poorer, a singular being and get regularly laid with chicks above the age of consent.

Couldn't the exact same thing be said for science? How many scientific principles that are hardcore fact today were nothing more than an empty theory at some point? Science should be in the business of supporting its only theories, not tearing down others; disproving religion does not prove science, it only disproves religion.

Are there people out there who take every word the the Bible literally? Absolutely. Am I one of those people who believed that Moses was hanging out with dinosaurs? Not on your life. I believe that religion is a vehicle that allows us to reach a greater truth beneath the surface that no other specialization can touch. Science only touches on what is physically possible in life, whereas religion is our moral compass for how to live a good life. Science isn't a substitute for religion, and religion is not a substitute for science. They are separate but not mutually exclusive.

[NoGravitas]

.
So, in your mind, the statistical improbability of something happening is in fact proof that it happened? Interesting.


No...the fact that it happened is proof. Please tell me you are not going to debate whether or not the Earth and humans exist now

Couldn't the exact same thing be said for science? How many scientific principles that are hardcore fact today were nothing more than an empty theory at some point?I think the two things that sets scientific theory apart (at least in my mind) are that a scientific theory will always be based on a proven obeservation and that some quantifiable evidence for the credible ones is usually found within a relatively short timescale. Those for which no evidence is found are rightly abandoned.

Science only touches on what is physically possible in life, whereas religion is our moral compass for how to live a good life. Science isn't a substitute for religion, and religion is not a substitute for science.I agree completely.

They are separate but not mutually exclusive.They should be. Science should not teach morals and religion should not teach facts that go against science.

[Archangel]

That sounds like a massive cop-out for humans everywhere. People should try and understand as much about the universe as they possibly can. Even God if it exists could (and should) be studied eventually.

That doesn't work. Religion, as far as I see it, operates on the principle that the universe and life are indeed infinitely complex, and that the last unknowable is God.

Every time people think they've got it all figured out, every century or so, a totally new underlying truth pops up. Why does anyone think that that's gonna change?

Arrogance aside, obviously.

Not that it should stop us from trying, mind you.

Therein lies the hypocrisy. The preachers of many of the worlds religions profit from taking advantage of the impressionable by the false allures of heaven and fears of hell. For those claiming to be the spiritual advisors and moral betters of the world this seems like quite a large evil.

Yeah, but it's not like the buy Rolls-Royces with those profits. First, you do teach the good stuff along with the ancillary bullshit; second, you are aware that the Catholic and Protestant churches entertain a fucking crapload of hospitals, hospices, relief organisations, shelters, schools and universities, right? Ever wonder why that hospital is called "St Mary's"?

[NoGravitas]

That doesn't work. Religion, as far as I see it, operates on the principle that the universe and life are indeed infinitely complex, and that the last unknowable is God.

Every time people think they've got it all figured out, every century or so, a totally new underlying truth pops up. Why does anyone think that that's gonna change?

Arrogance aside, obviously.

Not that it should stop us from trying, mind you.



Yeah, but it's not like the buy Rolls-Royces with those profits. First, you do teach the good stuff along with the ancillary bullshit; second, you are aware that the Catholic and Protestant churches entertain a fucking crapload of hospitals, hospices, relief organisations, shelters, schools and universities, right? Ever wonder why that hospital is called "St Mary's"?

True. Guess the ends do justify the means on that one. Id say its ethical to take advantage of the naive to aid the helpless.

[Archangel]

The church gets a bum rap, but it's understandable; after all, if you claim to serve the One God and preach the One Truth, you're gonna be under some pretty tight scrutiny.

I am not excusing any of the bad shit that happens, because some of it is downright ghastly: But for every child molested by a priest, thousands more receive an education without any incident; for every church orphanage run by fucking animals, there are dozens more where children are treated well; for every person who dies of AIDS in Africa due to the Church's sexual morals, another is saved from starvation by a Church-run charity, and so on.

If it were any other group, people would recognise that they're rather more hit than miss; but as I said before, if you basically claim perfection, people are gonna hold you to it.

[Das Kahlua]

No...the fact that it happened is proof. Please tell me you are not going to debate whether or not the Earth and humans exist now

No. But the fact that we're here right now is only proof that we're here, not why we're here.

I think the two things that sets scientific theory apart (at least in my mind) are that a scientific theory will always be based on a proven obeservation and that some quantifiable evidence for the credible ones is usually found within a relatively short timescale. Those for which no evidence is found are rightly abandoned.

I'm going to disagree with one part of it, but mostly I agree. Scientific fact always begins as a theory which then has to be proven; if it's proven false, it's discarded, but if it can't be proven one way or the other it remains as a theory. I'm not saying that I think that evolution is false, but that doesn't mean that it's a finished law either, there are still a lot of holes that science hasn't been able to answer. Instead of throwing in the towel and saying that evolution is a finished product or that isn't categorically false, we instead should continue exploring and questioning. That is the only way we will get to the truth.

They should be. Science should not teach morals and religion should not teach facts that go against science.

I'm sorry, I wasn't that clear. I don't want science treading into religion's domain, and I want religion out of science, but certainly doesn't mean that a person of science can't also believe in God. It was Albert Einstein who said "God doesn't play dice with the universe." The universe is more complex than I or anyone else can fully comprehend; I'm certainly not going to criticize someone who believes that everything that we know and don't know is a product of a higher force rather than just dumb luck.

[NoGravitas]

No. But the fact that we're here right now is only proof that we're here, not why we're here.

Have lost track of the argument here. My only point with this one is that considering the size of the universe humans and the earth are a certainty. I obviosly cant prove that a higher power didnt intervene but my point is it didnt need to.

I'm not saying that I think that evolution is false, but that doesn't mean that it's a finished law either, there are still a lot of holes that science hasn't been able to answer. Instead of throwing in the towel and saying that evolution is a finished product or that isn't categorically false, we instead should continue exploring and questioning. That is the only way we will get to the truth.

I agree with you that science should be subjected to scrutiny. I just feel it very unfair that religions are not as vulnerable to the same kind of scrutiny. If i were to attempt to prove evolution as true by holding up a textbook and saying "no its true, its written here" id have my ass handed to me. Religion keeps demanding science come up with explanations for all the doubts in evolution and science comes through almost every time. Yet religion never has to come up with any answers for science other than looking in a book and having faith in it. Does that not seen wrong to you?

I'm sorry, I wasn't that clear. I don't want science treading into religion's domain, and I want religion out of science, but certainly doesn't mean that a person of science can't also believe in God.

I think we pretty much agree here.

[Das Kahlua]

I agree with you that science should be subjected to scrutiny. I just feel it very unfair that religions are not as vulnerable to the same kind of scrutiny. If i were to attempt to prove evolution as true by holding up a textbook and saying "no its true, its written here" id have my ass handed to me. Religion keeps demanding science come up with explanations for all the doubts in evolution and science comes through almost every time. Yet religion never has to come up with any answers for science other than looking in a book and having faith in it. Does that not seen wrong to you?

This might dove-tail with quite a few political debates, but I think it's fashionable to question certain religions and a major no-no to question others. As a whole, however, I will agree with you that historically religion has been much to isolated from criticism, something that I think is to the detriment of religion as a whole. If there is one major reason that Christianity as a whole has been waning over the last few decades it's that it's failed to keep pace with the evolution of modern society.

I think we pretty much agree here.

I have a feeling that we agree on more than we disagree on, and what we do disagree on are relatively minor differences.

[freegood]

Context is a good way to start. A Christian friend of mine flipped out over Rummy injecting bible versus in those Badass War Pictures For Bush. Particularly over quoting Isaiah 5 with pics of our army because in the Biblical context, that would make us an evil conquering rapist sumbich war-like nation.

Yeah, you'll have guys like Rumsfeld who doesn't give a flying shit about religion but will try to exploit it's fullest use, but the greater crime is a guy like Bush tolerating or ignorantly accepting that tripe.

Doesn't mean you must be a scholar to read a religious text. For some people, they want to. But for others, peeling that religious onion is a chore. I want to be saved NOW because American Idol is on in half an hour.

There's a lot to be learned for something that has lasted hundreds to thousands of years. It's not all about control, but with organizations lasting almost as long, that process can be refined too. Which goes back to the "right" and "wrong" approach to doing things.

If one is genuine about his faith, shouldn't he be compelled to learn and do more? Or is the quick fix all there was in joining in the first place....

[Phil Theehor]

Smart guys with good answers to this point... I'm going to throw in a very simple answer.

There is no right or wrong way to read a religious text. You can read it to learn the dogma, you can read it for the philosophy, you can seek answers, you can read it as a historical study (anthropological, more accurately, see into the minds of our forebears) or you can read it to better understand your friends or enemies.

Bottom line is that you can take as much or as little as you seek.

[Mustard]

Q: What's the proper way to read a religious text?

A: The same way I think about other stories, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

[Bizz]

Apparently the best way to read religious text is while full of ignorance.

[freegood]

Q: What's the proper way to read a religious text?

A: The same way I think about other stories, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

What if that text told you to sacrifice everything in the here and now and give up your wealth just for the potential of living after you die? A good afterlife isn't even guaranteed if you follow it but don't follow it correctly.

Is that still too good to be true?

[Archetype]

People should try and understand as much about the universe as they possibly can. Even God if it exists could (and should) be studied eventually.

1. Why?
2. No, He can't. It's a logical impossibility to be able to study God as God. We'll never be able to percieve something that crosses that many planes, dimensions, and classifications.
As for answering the question i think the only way to read the segments of religious texts that contain Gods, demons, angels and magic are as a morality teaching fables. Even if you believe God exists it would be silly to think that he was more active at the time of the events of the texts than now. People should accept that the supernatural stuff was only put in to control the easily impressed people of an earlier time.

The "supernatural stuff" allows for multiple levels of understanding. A lot of the stories don't teach morality at all. Many don't have any kind of clear lesson. And sometimes those are the most important stories, because of their complexity. I'm sure that even 5000 years ago parents added in stories of boogey men and trolls to scare kids into behaving, but likening the entirety of "supernatural stuff" as cheap magic tricks is silly. Ojibwa people believed in the existence of spirits, they believed in the Wendigo because of the cold, starvation, and psychotic cannibalistic breaks common in winter. There wasn't the strict distinction between metaphorical and literal interpretations for them. Other religions developed from that and became more complex, then eventually came up with this distinction.

I don't mean to say that no, it doesn't get taken advantage of. It does. Every religion has had a time when someone. or everyone, was. But religion can't be called "opiate of the masses" because it has too many different sections in it for it to be an opium tent. It's not all good, not all bad, some are better than others, some are way worse, but what no part of it is, is simple.

Im really tired of this "its very unlikely so it could never happen" argument. Yes the evolution of certain things seems massively unlikely. There are near infinite odds against it. Fortunately we live in a nearly infinite universe. So statistically it was bound to happen somewhere. The Earth and its organism are not special - just the one in the one in a trillion chance. Also there may be multiple universes therefore increasing the likelihood even more it would happen somewhere. So there, it seems i DO fully understand the relatively simple maths behind it.

I don't think you do. You understand the principle that someone told you the same way I do; the math, I'm pretty sure, doesn't exist. Doesn't make it not true, but it doesn't make it absolute either.

I agree completly that it is perfectly acceptable (even pleasant) to use imagery to convey a point so long as those preaching the imagery admit that it is just imagery and should not be taken literally.

There is no just reason for not doing this and the only reason it has been done is to gain the interest of the impressionable.
"Just" imagery?

[Hoser]

I went to a catholic grade school and high school. I got the moral lessons I needed through religion class. So for me the right way to read it is to not read it at all. I am still Catholic, but I do not actively follow or participate in any religion.

[NoGravitas]

1. Why?
2. No, He can't. It's a logical impossibility to be able to study God as God. We'll never be able to percieve something that crosses that many planes, dimensions, and classifications.

Never say never chump. I reckon one day in the distant future we will understand nearly everything. As to why? Humans are the only known creatures with the ability to try and understand our surroundings. Doing so advances our culture and technology. Thats why we should endeavour to understand all we can in the universe. Please explain to me why it is impossible to study it? You dont even know what God (if it exists at all) is so how would you be able to tell me that it cant be studied?


The "supernatural stuff" allows for multiple levels of understanding. A lot of the stories don't teach morality at all. Many don't have any kind of clear lesson. And sometimes those are the most important stories, because of their complexity. I'm sure that even 5000 years ago parents added in stories of boogey men and trolls to scare kids into behaving, but likening the entirety of "supernatural stuff" as cheap magic tricks is silly. Ojibwa people believed in the existence of spirits, they believed in the Wendigo because of the cold, starvation, and psychotic cannibalistic breaks common in winter. There wasn't the strict distinction between metaphorical and literal interpretations for them. Other religions developed from that and became more complex, then eventually came up with this distinction.

Why? Do cold, starvation and cannibalism exist? Yes. Are the caused by spirits? No. Are Wendigos real? No. So would they be classed as supenatural? Yes. I dont believe i claimed they were cheap magic tricks either. I have said that they are fine as a means of teaching children and other naive people who could not understand the true nature of the situation and would not pay heed if not told in an interesting manner.

I don't mean to say that no, it doesn't get taken advantage of. It does. Every religion has had a time when someone. or everyone, was. But religion can't be called "opiate of the masses" because it has too many different sections in it for it to be an opium tent. It's not all good, not all bad, some are better than others, some are way worse, but what no part of it is, is simple.

I think Archangel already convinced me that religion has some valuable good aspects that make the imagery a justifiable evil. I never called it the opiate of the masses btw.

I don't think you do. You understand the principle that someone told you the same way I do; the math, I'm pretty sure, doesn't exist. Doesn't make it not true, but it doesn't make it absolute either.

Yes i dont think anyone has wrote the maths out yet. Why? Because we havnt measured everything in the multiverse. Why? Because its fucking massive. As close to infinite as anything can be. So is it statistically probable (almost definite) that we would exist? Yes. Nobody told me this. I came to this simple conclusion on my own.

"Just" imagery?

Yes just imagery. If everything the preachers say was proven to be true i think we would be living in a very different world. For one thing this thread about whether to read religious texts as literal or methaphors wouldnt exist.

[Don Scrappy]

Both as a believer and as a skeptic.

I think we've well established that the bible should (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=12770) be read (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=16960). And I think that would apply for most mythological and religious works of note. But reading a Greek creation myth is different from reading Genesis, if only because of how other people perceive the two, let alone how you might as a Jew or Christian.

Everyone is a skeptic, some people just make a particular exception. So how should you read something as a skeptic, we can all answer. However, it is a bit more complicated to answer that for genuine believers.

So, I'm religious. I say skeptics ought to read what they don't believe without malice, as atheists (at least of that religious work) and not anti-theists. As a religious person, intellectual honesty is even more important, and what you read should be a starting point of mental activity, not the end of it, with literal, literary, theological and even skeptical assumptions as you examine it. This isn't always possible for anyone including myself, and isn't possible at all with some people, but I think if it was the rule and not the exception, atheists of the world would have a lot less to complain about, and there might even be less of them.


assuming there is a right way to view a a religious text is to assume that there is a point of view that is completely correct, and irrefutable and universal. We obviously cannot all agree on one view so the idea that there might be one correct way to view a religious text is nonsensical.

However, if we were able to speak with the writers of the text and ask them how to interpret them, then that would most likely be the correct way.

[Mustard]

What if that text told you to sacrifice everything in the here and now and give up your wealth just for the potential of living after you die? A good afterlife isn't even guaranteed if you follow it but don't follow it correctly.

Is that still too good to be true?
I have no idea what you just said.

[jessecoon]

Like an atheist. Only through this time honored tradition can one really grasp and understand the meaning of such a work. If they look at it from a pure subjective p.o.v., then they will only see what they want to. However, if they just look at the plain text with no preconceived notions of it whatsoever, then the text can be better appreciated and not just discounted as mere religious babble.

[NoGravitas]

Like an atheist. Only through this time honored tradition can one really grasp and understand the meaning of such a work. If they look at it from a pure subjective p.o.v., then they will only see what they want to. However, if they just look at the plain text with no preconceived notions of it whatsoever, then the text can be better appreciated and not just discounted as mere religious babble.

You need to make an intro.