I don't really understand why Hitchens insists that to be a "real Christian" you have to take every single thing in the Bible 100% literally. That if you are a Christian and believe in evolution (like many Christians actually do, even a fair number of evangelical Christians) then somehow you don't count and that you're just some weakling who doesn't take your faith seriously. Hitchens seems to have a very black & white, simplistic view of the world that doesn't allow for complexities.

if you don't believe in the bible as god's word, to be taken literally, then why would you believe anything the church tells you? isn't it true that most of the big christian corporations denominations state the bible IS the work of god?

People that sit on fences shouldn't throw stones.

For some reason many atheists have a more fundamentalist view of the Bible than your average Baptist preacher does.

I take the Bible seriously, and I take the intention and message of the authors literally, but that doesn't mean I have to take all of the stories related in the Bible literally. There is much metaphor and poetry in the Bible.

And.... I'm assuming the "metaphor" just happens to be the parts that are awfully distasteful?

Because so many Christians condemn people to hell for not believing the correct things. The fact they are selective in what they choose to disregard in the Bible doesn't make them any less forgiving of people who choose to believe none of it, rather than the "correct" 90 percent, 80 percent, etc.

"And.... I'm assuming the "metaphor" just happens to be the parts that are awfully distasteful?"

Not really. There's nothing distasteful about the Song of Solomon, is there? And yet the whole poem is full of metaphor. I don't explain away supposedly distasteful parts of the Bible as metaphor, but I do recognize the fact that not all parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally. I guess you want me to say, "oh wow, you're right, if I can't accept every single thing in the Bible as being literal then I'll just have to throw it all out and become an atheist!" Which seems terribly simplistic to me, to throw out a real and vibrant faith and relationship with God just because I don't believe the world was literally created in 7 days.

i love the bible as a work of art, and have read extensively it and researches about its composition. what is so fundamentalist about this i fail to see.

do you treat the bible as the work of god? can you pick and choose which laws should be followed? for example, many fundamentalist christians quote the OT laws about homosexuals and infidels, yet they are strangley silent about the laws in the same books about slavery, stoning, etc. i have no issue with anyone's faith, but to be honest it's hard for me to take seriously anyone who claims the bible, or any other book for that matter, to be a godly perfect creation.

but that doesn't mean I have to take all of the stories related in the Bible literally. There is much metaphor and poetry in the Bible.

if you get to decide that yourself, and your denomination supports that, then good for you. do you also acknowledge the bible is a collection of works by countless authors, sometime contradicting themselves over the same stories? at the same time do you still see it as your godly inspiration?

But your approach leaves you with this dilemma:

Did Jesus Christ actually exist? Or is it just a metaphorical story?

• If the bibile is an Authoritative Work on his existance - than what criteria do you use to distinguish between that "actuality" and the "metaphorical" guicand in Leviticus that REQUIRES you to stone to death children to talk back to their parents
  
  Who left you in authorit to decide on which works and acts of God actually are works and acts of God?
  
  OTOH
  .
• If the bible is a metaphorical work, then why are you bothering with all the ritual and hooplah associated with the celebration of "Jesus' Life and Works"? After all, like the rest of the bible those stories too must be metaphorical right?

The problem with being a Cafeteria Christian is that it puts you smack dab in the role of Agnostic rather than Faithful.

Most people in the churches I've seen are pretty agnostic. Or not very bright.

Cady:

... Which seems terribly simplistic to me, to throw out a real and vibrant faith and relationship with God just because I don't believe the world was literally created in 7 days.

In Eastern spirituality enlightenment is attained by energy moving up the 7 chackras, or energy centers. The similarity in the Christian Bible is that whenever the number 7 appears its followed by an enlightenment (of sorts). More examples of similarities, but I'd say that coming to the same realization in parallel on different continents, indicates there may be something to it.

Degsme,

Again, I don't understand why atheists have to view the Bible in such a narrow, literalistic, fundamentalist fashion. The Bible is just one of many sources that we have for our faith. Others are church doctrine, tradition, creeds, etc. To say that it's all just about the Bible and that we must believe every bit of it 100% isn't even a traditional way of looking at our faith. And yes, I believe Jesus Christ existed. Why would I even be a Christian if I didn't believe this? There's a big difference between believing that Jesus Christ is just a metaphor and believing that God creating the world in 7 days is just a metaphor. Jesus Christ existing is important in our faith and salvation, the literal 7-day creation of the world isn't.

Believing in evolution doesn't make me a "cafetaria Christian". I'm deeply serious about my faith and I do take the Bible seriously. It's funny how atheists are far more judgemental against Christians who believe in things like evolution than other Christians are.

"Who left you in authorit to decide on which works and acts of God actually are works and acts of God?"

I believe that everything in the Bible is a work and act of God. I may not believe the world was literally created in seven (or six to be precise) days, but I do believe that God created the world. And I believe that's the importance of the story. That God created the world and everything in it and that it was "good". I'm not saying that I look at a story in the bible (such as the creation of the world) and throw it out because I don't agree with it. I look at the spiritual truths and messages that are being relayed by the story about the creation of the world and the fall of mankind. The importance is that God created the world and through sin mankind has fallen. The Bible is true to me and I do take what it says very seriously.

"If the bibile is an Authoritative Work on his existance - than what criteria do you use to distinguish between that "actuality" and the "metaphorical" guicand in Leviticus that REQUIRES you to stone to death children to talk back to their parents"

Considering a huge part of the NT is about how we are no longer under OT laws, then what does this even matter? It's pretty easy for anyone to see anyway that rules and guidelines for living aren't supposed to be metaphorical. That's just common sense.

Cady,

Of course, you have every right to believe in what you want. If you want to believe that, say, God created the world (because the Bible says so) but not in 6 days (because the Bible says so), that is your business.

But I must confess to sharing Hitch's judgement on this sort of selective belief. After all, why do you believe some things but not others? Common sense, you say. But this is not a coherent explanation about why anyone should believe this, but not that. Such a coherent explanation is called a doctrine.

Churches, above all the Catholic Church (because of its great antiquity and resources), have spent much effort developing doctrines. According to Catholic doctrine, for example, it is not sufficient to believe Christ existed. You must believe that he was the son of God, that he was crucified, that he arose from the dead, and that he ascended to heaven. You must believe that his birth was a virgin birth, and that Mary's birth was also a virgin birth. You must believe in transubstantiation. I could go on and on.

So what?, you say. Maybe you are not a Catholic. Thus, you do not have to believe in transubstantiation. Maybe you belong to no organized christian church, or you attend one but reserve the right to not believe some of its doctrine. Again, you have the right to do this. But how Christian are you, really, when you do this?

Let me put the matter differently. What is the minimum set of beliefs that would qualify someone as "christian"? Not belief in God. Non-christians (muslims and Jews, say) believe in God. Not that God created the world (ditto). Not the existence of christ (ditto). That christ is the messiah? Now we're talking, but what does messiah mean? That he is the son of God? Surely. That he was crucified and so on? Almost certainly. That he turned wine into water? Maybe not, but why not? After all, it is in the Bible, so the evidence for this, such as it is, is exactly the same as the evidence for the rest.

Let me put the same point a third way. You claim to take the bible "very seriously". I would argue otherwise. You take some of what is in the bible seriously, but other parts are just stories. Uplifting stories, perhaps, but Miracle on 43rd Street is an uplifting story and nobody takes it seriously in the biblical sense. Consigning much of the bible to poetry or metaphor is not taking it seriously. It is treating it as a Dickens novel and, Scientology aside, religious belief is not built on novels.

Actually, the cultures in the Middle East had contact with the cultures of Asia (trade routes, even 2000+ years ago). So it's not suprizing that certain 'similarities' would exist.

I guess I just don't understand how all of these distasteful and outright wrong parts of the Bible, which Cady is obviously "interpreting" as metaphor, don't contradict the idea that this Book was either (a) authored by a divine being or (b) the best guide we humans have for living our brief lives here on earth.

If this were any other book, we would be laughing at the proposition. Somehow the fact that it's 2000 years old adds an air of credibility immune from the requirements of logical justification.