NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Not sure what that has to do with what I wrote about. If you had the hours it would take me to explain my beliefs, you'd know that they're quite nailed down.

Do you think fundamentalists outnumber 'liberal Christians' or is that just the perception due to how loud and ignorant they are?

This 'panel'... how many peopel were on it? It seems to me that if it's a panel, it's probably a rather small sampling of people which would not be an accurate representation of the Christian population as a whole.

But then I've never claimed to be your average 'liberal Christian'. Maybe I should get a whole new category?

In post #196 you responded to my quote...

Originally Posted by Cheese
of course many of todays "Liberal Christians" have changed the dogma to suit their own standards vs what is actually written in the tomes that they supposedly espouse.

You said...


This I have a problem with... language evolves as does knowledge. For God to use modern day terms when speaking with the Jews 2000+ years ago, no one would have understood what he was saying. Instead he used words that had meaning then and have meaning now. The jist of it is the same, the specifics change. Why weren't dinosaurs in the Bible? (As an example...) Well, they'd never seen dinosaur bones. Why confuse them?

Is it changing the dogma, or is it using the things we now KNOW (that'd be where science comes in!) that we didn't know before to help explain what is written? You've apparently already decided it's changing the dogma, but perhaps that's too narrow a view of the Word.

Hence my comment regarding Liberal Christianity. I know you support Christianity, I understand where you come from and I dont hold it against you. I do think you are what can be termed in todays vernacular...a "Liberal Christian". Not?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I don't doubt you are doing a good job, as a parent, in teaching your children how to be good people. However, you and I both know this does not always happen in the home, for whatever reason. Often kids are left to develop a less desirable sense of ethics and morality through exposure to bad parenting.

Whether they learn the things outlined above in the home, with or without God, or at Church with God, I'm alright with.

My point is that Church's do good things for children, especially for those that are disadvantaged by poor conditions at home.

Thanks ff...and I dont doubt you are a good parent either.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

In post #196 you responded to my quote...

Originally Posted by Cheese
of course many of todays "Liberal Christians" have changed the dogma to suit their own standards vs what is actually written in the tomes that they supposedly espouse.

You said...


This I have a problem with... language evolves as does knowledge. For God to use modern day terms when speaking with the Jews 2000+ years ago, no one would have understood what he was saying. Instead he used words that had meaning then and have meaning now. The jist of it is the same, the specifics change. Why weren't dinosaurs in the Bible? (As an example...) Well, they'd never seen dinosaur bones. Why confuse them?

Is it changing the dogma, or is it using the things we now KNOW (that'd be where science comes in!) that we didn't know before to help explain what is written? You've apparently already decided it's changing the dogma, but perhaps that's too narrow a view of the Word.

Hence my comment regarding Liberal Christianity. I know you support Christianity, I understand where you come from and I dont hold it against you. I do think you are what can be termed in todays vernacular...a "Liberal Christian". Not?

I asked if it necessarily has to be 'changing' the dogma... Rewriting it to suit their own beliefs. Certainly some people do that. It can just be a different interpretation though, it doesn't have to 'change' anything. Instead of responding to that, you quote some guy who talked with a few people and decided that every 'liberal Christian' changes the word from the fundamentalist perspective. That's simply not true.

And no, I wouldn't consider myself to be a liberal Christian. I'm actually fairly conservative when it comes to my beliefs. I don't know what I'd consider myself... perhaps a thinking Christian.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I asked if it necessarily has to be 'changing' the dogma... Rewriting it to suit their own beliefs. Certainly some people do that. It can just be a different interpretation though, it doesn't have to 'change' anything. Instead of responding to that, you quote some guy who talked with a few people and decided that every 'liberal Christian' changes the word from the fundamentalist perspective. That's simply not true.

And no, I wouldn't consider myself to be a liberal Christian. I'm actually fairly conservative when it comes to my beliefs. I don't know what I'd consider myself... perhaps a thinking Christian.

I didnt suggest Liberal Christians rewrote dogma. I suggested they changed it to suit their ideas...which was exactly why I posted the articles I did. The biggest issue with man made tomes is that everyone will have a different idea of what it stands for, or means....in other words, Interpretation. If the omniscient God actually wrote the bible for man, I would think its clarity would be straightforward for all generations...as he could foresee everything in advance of his creation(s), and ensure its clarity for all times.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Which, of course, is silly. You can't "disprove" the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn either, but nobody would seriously suggest that anyone should treat them as deities that actually exist. Once again, stating that religious beliefs are valid because God cannot be disproved is a fallacious argument.

Silly to you.

A belief in God is not supposed to be centered around physical truths.

Also, I never said a religious belief is 'valid' because God cannot be disproven. I said people will have a hard time changing their viewpoint because of the fact that God cannot be disproven.

You've never heard of St. Thomas Aquinas's "proofs" for the existence of God? Are you not familiar with the ontological argument for the existence of God?

And?

Whats your point?

Those are just two examples among many more. For centuries philosophers and theologians have been attempting to demonstrate God's existence through arguments that go beyond just faith. Clearly you are ignorant on this subject; here is a good starting point to better educate yourself on this.

Love the ignorance comment.

You have shown me nothing that a belief in God is centered around anything else besides faith. There is no 'physical' proof. Just because you cited two examples where someone 'tried' to provide 'proof' doesn't mean the proof actually exists.

But then again, I'm ignorant on the subject, so what would I know.

[MarchHare]

And?

Whats your point?

My point was the following:

You stated this:

Faith is the ONLY thing that has EVER existed in regards to a belief in God.

You asserted it so strongly that you even invoked the power of TYPING IN ALL CAPS to stress your point that faith, and faith alone, is the only thing that has ever existed to justify a belief in God.

This, of course, is a factually erroneous comment, since, as I pointed out, philosphers and theologians have been attempting for centuries to prove God's existance through methods beyond blind faith. St. Thomas Aquinas's five "proofs" are the most well-known of these attempts, but there are many others (refer to the wikipedia link).

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I didnt suggest Liberal Christians rewrote dogma. I suggested they changed it to suit their ideas...which was exactly why I posted the articles I did. The biggest issue with man made tomes is that everyone will have a different idea of what it stands for, or means....in other words, Interpretation. If the omniscient God actually wrote the bible for man, I would think its clarity would be straightforward for all generations...as he could foresee everything in advance of his creation(s), and ensure its clarity for all times.

Does that mean they're all wrong? Is the only interpretation a literal one? Because I'm pretty sure when the Book of Revelation was written, a hundred million man army would've been inconceivable...

Unfortunately, what's clear to you and I is not the same as what's clear to others. There are stupid people in this world, Cheese, and I'm sure God knew that. Unfortunately the fundamentalists mostly don't listen to the smart people of the world. Remembering that The Book was written with linguistic limitations and that knowledge is ever changing and expanding, I don't understand why you are so intent on using only the literal interpretation of the Bible as what you rail against. Clearly the Earth is not 7000 years old. You know that and I know that. Actually, I'd suggest that it's pretty clear now. Yet for you, that's the only interpretation allowed for a Christian. Why shouldn't the interpretation change with new information? Scientists thought the earth was flat, but they're allowed to change their thinking on the matter, why should Christian beliefs remain stagnant as more information is available?

It stands for the same thing, in the end it means the same thing. The conclusion is the same, the way we get there is different. Science can be 'fit into' the Bible. To ignore that is to ignore the very real possibility that the Book is the Truth.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My point was the following:

You stated this:



You asserted it so strongly that you even invoked the power of TYPING IN ALL CAPS to stress your point that faith, and faith alone, is the only thing that has ever existed to justify a belief in God.

This, of course, is a factually erroneous comment, since, as I pointed out, philosphers and theologians have been attempting for centuries to prove God's existance through methods beyond blind faith. St. Thomas Aquinas's five "proofs" are the most well-known of these attempts, but there are many others (refer to the wikipedia link).

And have they ever succeeded in proving their point? Proving that 'proof' exists in regards to the existence of God?

Faith IS the only thing to justify a belief in God. Anyone who tries to prove otherwise, or even thinks there is another way is a fool.

[flamesfever]

A good book to read which explains how Christianity has been gradually changing over the last 100 years is "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus J. Borg. As I interpret the book:

1. Rather than the Bible being a product of God, and having divine authority, it is being viewed more as a human response to God.

2. Rather than interpreting the Bible literally and factually, it is viewed as being metaphorical and should be interpreted in a historical context.

3. Rather than emphasizing an afterlife and what to believe or do to be saved, it emphasizes the transformation in this life through a relationship with God.

The book was recommended by a friend in response to the questions I was asking in a study group. I believe it helps one take a more intellectual approach to Christianity.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

A good book to read which explains how Christianity has been gradually changing over the last 100 years is "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus J. Borg. As I interpret the book:

1. Rather than the Bible being a product of God, and having divine authority, it is being viewed more as a human response to God.

2. Rather than interpreting the Bible literally and factually, it is viewed as being metaphorical and should be interpreted in a historical context.

3. Rather than emphasizing an afterlife and what to believe or do to be saved, it emphasizes the transformation in this life through a relationship with God.

The book was recommended by a friend in response to the questions I was asking in a study group. I believe it helps one take a more intellectual approach to Christianity.

The problem is, specifically in relation to this thread, the people who are attempting to make Intelligent Design part of the curriculum DO interpret the Bible as factual. The have built multi-million dollar Creation museums. They view the Bible as the inviolate word of God.

I have read on here how it is only a small portion of the population, the Fundamentalists, who espouse these strict views.

But a 1997 poll found that 44% of the US population believed God created Man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. link

44%!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Nobody is as open-minded as they think they are. Especially not in subjects like this.

The problem is both sides are speaking different languages to each other. It's like that embarassing lady in the 7-11 who, when the foreign cashier doesn't understand what she said, just repeats it louder. Rinse and repeat, perhaps adding wild gesticulating and flecks of spittle.

Further, not are they speaking different languages I honestly believe they are talking about two seperate things. I think people of faith need to re-evaluate what it is religion says about the world. It is no longer "The Book Of All Things". It doesn't tell us how the universe began. It doesn't tell us how life started. The purpose of religion is not to explain the natural world. It's to explain the human world, the human condition, and the human experience, things which science does a poor job (in my opinion) of explaining with any real meaningfulness.

Further I think the dogmatic atheists would do well to allow their science to explain the natural world and stop there, staying away from telling people about the nature and meaningfulness of their personal experience.

The world changed unbelievably quickly for religion in the last three centuries, and even more so in the most recent, and it's only now beginning to adapt. It was thrown overboard and it's just struggling to keep afloat. That a lot of what religion used to do for people is no longer necessary doesn't invalidate the concept of or disprove the existence of God.


edit: To clarify, I don't mean to suggest atheists can't make heads or tails of their personal experience. Religion is one system of thought that attempts to explain it; there are many others (including secular ones).

I pretty much agree... at least that is how it is for most people. For me though, I think they are the same language. My own spirituality is versatile enough that not only can it not be explained away by science, but it is affirmed by it.

For my own personal spirutual beliefs, I see it as music. Every principle and attribute of our natural world is like a note or beat. Science can tell us what that note is and the structure of a bar, but religion is the search for what the actual song or melody is. With each scientific discovery, we reveal more individual notes. When some people listen to music, they can pick up the melody(faith), but then for others it is just a bunch of noise (atheists). My personal opinion... I don't know for sure if there is a song playing, but if there are notes to be heard, then I think there is a chance there is and we should at least try to listen and find out.

The problem is that many organized religions jump to conclusions about how the song goes when we don't even have the complete intro yet. Even science to a lesser degree, lets us down frequently by jumping to conclusions.

I don't think any of the religions have figured it out yet, nor I don't see how they could, but I don't find the search for meaning to be illogical like some people here have stated. I also certainly don't think that people who follow religions deserve to be put down and made fun of as much as they are.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

A good book to read which explains how Christianity has been gradually changing over the last 100 years is "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus J. Borg. As I interpret the book:

1. Rather than the Bible being a product of God, and having divine authority, it is being viewed more as a human response to God.

2. Rather than interpreting the Bible literally and factually, it is viewed as being metaphorical and should be interpreted in a historical context.

3. Rather than emphasizing an afterlife and what to believe or do to be saved, it emphasizes the transformation in this life through a relationship with God.

The book was recommended by a friend in response to the questions I was asking in a study group. I believe it helps one take a more intellectual approach to Christianity.

Dont get me wrong ff, Im not trying to be a Bee in your Bonnet....however LOL, let me try.

1. Isnt your item 1 doing exactly what I suggested to Firefly above? Isnt that Liberal Christianity making the Bible suit what you want it to be? Why would you change thousands of years of tradition? What % of the Christian sect would follow along with your revisions? Why would you change something that was supposedly written by an Omniscient all powerful all loving all knowing God?...which moves right into Point 2...

2. So now someone within the Christian sect is suggesting the Bible is not to be taken literally? Which parts? Do you suggest that the part in Genesis where God creates everything is a myth or a metaphor? What possible metaphor lies in Exodus 4.24? And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. There is so much explaining to do on this topic alone I could spend weeks talking about it. Im sure it must confuse some parishioners after being told for years that the bible is to be taken literally.

3. This is also very interesting, afterall one of the biggest reasons religion exists, is the belief in the afterlife, with the all good all powerful creator, in a place only the righteous have a key to the door for. All the rest of the schmucks get Hell dont they? Now are they trying to suggest that Heaven is a transformation from High School to a working career or from an ugly duckling to a beautiful swan with the help of God? (yes Im being facetious). How can they believe in God when the previous point you made suggested the Bible which was supposedly written by God...or dictated by God to his minions is now nothing but a parable or metaphor?

Dont you see the absurdity here...Im sure this movement will severely injure the church and create more Atheists. Every time the church moves further away from its original doctrine the more that people move away from the church. People are growing smarter...they dont fear the unknown or death as much...they dont need a Priest or a Minister to help explain the unknown with parables from the bible because they are...well...educated, and quite frankly far more educated than Priests or Ministers. Im all for your religion ff...Im hoping it catches on and makes some public noise.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Does that mean they're all wrong? Is the only interpretation a literal one? Because I'm pretty sure when the Book of Revelation was written, a hundred million man army would've been inconceivable...

Unfortunately, what's clear to you and I is not the same as what's clear to others. There are stupid people in this world, Cheese, and I'm sure God knew that. Unfortunately the fundamentalists mostly don't listen to the smart people of the world. Remembering that The Book was written with linguistic limitations and that knowledge is ever changing and expanding, I don't understand why you are so intent on using only the literal interpretation of the Bible as what you rail against. Clearly the Earth is not 7000 years old. You know that and I know that. Actually, I'd suggest that it's pretty clear now. Yet for you, that's the only interpretation allowed for a Christian. Why shouldn't the interpretation change with new information? Scientists thought the earth was flat, but they're allowed to change their thinking on the matter, why should Christian beliefs remain stagnant as more information is available?

It stands for the same thing, in the end it means the same thing. The conclusion is the same, the way we get there is different. Science can be 'fit into' the Bible. To ignore that is to ignore the very real possibility that the Book is the Truth.

No doubt there are stupid people...as mentioned above over 40% of Americans, along with a good % elsewhere. There are also stupid people, (Remember these are your words not mine ), who buy part of if not all of the doctrine you are talking about.
As to the hilited comment above...um...you know that it was the literal reading of the bible that created the flat earth myth dont you? You also know that many who disagreed with this interpretation of the bible were um...well...dispatched to hell? Up until a very short time ago anyone who stood up and suggested that what was written in the bible was wrong were considered heretics and burned at the stake? I understand "some" Christian beliefs are changing, its not possible in any way or form for an educated people to believe in "most" of the nonsense written within any theistic endeavor. That is why the only locations in the world where Christianity is actually on the rise is places like Africa and South America...and mostly among the poor and downtrodden. In most parts of Europe Christianity is near death, and I would think that its in its final throes here in Canada.

Heres a timely article from Yahoo today...
Roman Catholics appeal for foregiveness

In the 1950s, prior to the Quiet Revolution, nearly 90 per cent of Quebecers went to church every Sunday. It was one of the most staunchly Catholic regions of the world.
Today pews sit largely empty. A survey in 2000 found just 20 per cent of respondents attended church on a weekly basis.


In only 50 years or less, the RC church in QC has lost 70% of its parrish.

[FlamesAddiction]

Cheese, I think you are being a little general. You seem to think that all Christians are fundamentalists who would never accept the idea of not taking the Bible literally.

In fact, most Christians already do not take the Bible literally. Not even the Catholic Church (which represents more than 50%) takes the Bible literally and hasn't for a long time.

It's funny how religious people seem to get flack from both sides. If they refuse to adapt and show versatility as society and knowledge changes, then they are seen as stubborn and outdated. When they do show versatility, they are trounced on for admitting that they have been wrong in the past.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

No doubt there are stupid people...as mentioned above over 40% of Americans, along with a good % elsewhere. There are also stupid people, (Remember these are your words not mine ), who buy part of if not all of the doctrine you are talking about.

And there are stupid people who buy into your athiestic viewpoint as well as they aren't smart enough to figure out how science and the Bible can co-exist.

As to the hilited comment above...um...you know that it was the literal reading of the bible that created the flat earth myth dont you? You also know that many who disagreed with this interpretation of the bible were um...well...dispatched to hell? Up until a very short time ago anyone who stood up and suggested that what was written in the bible was wrong were considered heretics and burned at the stake?

Mhmmm. So paint ME with a brush because 150 years ago Christians were idiots. That's a fantastic idea. I'm not so sure I've ever read in the Bible that the earth is flat. I'm pretty sure that such words aren't even in there. So that was the previous interpretation, and knowledge has changed. Did you know that even non-Christians have done bad things too? Or do you always have to point out that 'in the past, Christians killed others for not believing what they believe.' Maybe 100 years from now Athiests will be killing Christians for the exact same reason. Why don't you debate what I'm talking about instead of bringing up past injustices?

I understand "some" Christian beliefs are changing, its not possible in any way or form for an educated people to believe in "most" of the nonsense written within any theistic endeavor. That is why the only locations in the world where Christianity is actually on the rise is places like Africa and South America...and mostly among the poor and downtrodden. In most parts of Europe Christianity is near death, and I would think that its in its final throes here in Canada.

So you're calling me uneducated? Or are you saying that the educated masses who believe so fervently in science can't seem to get their head around The Bible? Perhaps it's an educated and yet narrow view of the world that's wrong. Something to think about.

Heres a timely article from Yahoo today...
Roman Catholics appeal for foregiveness

In the 1950s, prior to the Quiet Revolution, nearly 90 per cent of Quebecers went to church every Sunday. It was one of the most staunchly Catholic regions of the world.
Today pews sit largely empty. A survey in 2000 found just 20 per cent of respondents attended church on a weekly basis.


In only 50 years or less, the RC church in QC has lost 70% of its parrish.

Good for them. What's your point? More people are turning from God? Perhaps that's because we no longer bother educating our children on Christianity at all? It's been 2 generations at least since the 50s. My mom went to church regularly and then my family stopped going at all because we didn't have the time. (Life is busier nowadays, for many families, too busy for church. Does that mean they don't believe?) You don't have to go to Church to be a Christian. Likely that means that Christianity is down as well, but I know that when we stopped going to Church, I didn't bother to educate myself on religion again until I went to University. Why don't I go to church? I don't have time like many other Canadians. Again, I'm not sure what your point is in bringing that up.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cheese

In the 1950s, prior to the Quiet Revolution, nearly 90 per cent of Quebecers went to church every Sunday. It was one of the most staunchly Catholic regions of the world.
Today pews sit largely empty. A survey in 2000 found just 20 per cent of respondents attended church on a weekly basis.


In only 50 years or less, the RC church in QC has lost 70% of its parrish.

I think there are a couple of assumptions being made here that may not be true:

The first assumption being that the sole reason Catholics go to church (or used to go) is to worship. I would argue that for many, if not most Catholics, the main reason to go to church was cutural. That's right... Catholicism is not just a religon; it is also a culture. Historically, the church was a meeting place for friends and family to catch up and be in touch. It was important for bringing the community together. The most important part of going to church occurred before and after mass. People would bring food, play sports, talk about their lives, and young people would court each other.... for the most part, modern convenience have made this part obsolete.

In modern Canadian society, the cultural aspect has diminished significantly. The church is no longer the communal centre of society any more. Technology has changed all that. In poorer countries, the former still remains true. So what you see as a religious shift, I see more as a cultural shift. People are also busier and need to work or run errands on Sundays now. Time is a huge factor.

The second assumption is that those 70% who do not attend any more are still not members of Christianity. I would say that there is a good chance that most still identify as Catholics, or at least Christians. Of those 70%, many are probably just "liberalized" and don't feel their beliefs need to fit around a template.

And of course, some are probably atheist or "other". i doubt it is enough to justify the claim that Christianity is dying.

[peter12]

The real problem that both sides have in discussing the Bible is the fact that it does require quite a lot of education to understand such a complicated book. Even if you don't believe it is divine, it at the least is cultural tapestry of one of the West's founding civilizations. The myths, stories, and history it contains speak so much about what human beings long for, wish for, and how they see the world. I believe Northrope Frye once called the Bible, "The Codebook of Western Civilization". So it's important.

Both sides take different passages out of context and use them as weapons in the culture war of atheism vs religion. A lot of us lack the insight of cultural, social and historical context that would truly inform our opinions.

I do believe the Bible is a snapshot of God. Literal interpretations of the Bible are I believe fairly recent, mainly coming from certain Protestant sects. I know it's always been a problem. Millennarian groups have always interpreted the Book of Revelations as certain evidence of the coming end times. St. Augustine called literal interpretation, [I]fantasia fornicata[I], literally "f***ing with the symbols. It was never intended to be read that way.

St. Paul is someone who is also often misquoted. We do know that some of his letters, such as Timothy 1, were added later to the canon, with a specific agenda. However, a lot of what he says is beautiful and divine. Ultimately, to Paul, Christianity was about a transformation of the soul. We are all tyrants in the way we treat one another, the daily petty cruelties that we heap upon one another. I am still searching for answers myself, but what I see in the words of Christ or the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, is a divine presence that wants us to change that.

Could God have made us perfect in the first place? Perhaps, but then would he be God or just another tyrant bending his subjects to his will?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

The real problem that both sides have in discussing the Bible is the fact that it does require quite a lot of education to understand such a complicated book. Even if you don't believe it is divine, it at the least is cultural tapestry of one of the West's founding civilizations. The myths, stories, and history it contains speak so much about what human beings long for, wish for, and how they see the world. I believe Northrope Frye once called the Bible, "The Codebook of Western Civilization". So it's important.

All myths from all cultures do this, and should all be studied.

Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts -- but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. Myth tells you what the experience is.
-- Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

All myths from all cultures do this, and should all be studied.

Yes, absolutely. I didn't mean to state that the Bible is the only unique example of this. Ultimately, it comes down to where you think religion comes from. I tend to find it's unique presence in all cultures in all of history, quite remarkable.

Others might say it's a mis-firing of evolution. Or that it's a means of coping with the unknown.

To all of that, we really have no concrete answers.

[MarchHare]

The real problem that both sides have in discussing the Bible is the fact that it does require quite a lot of education to understand such a complicated book. Even if you don't believe it is divine, it at the least is cultural tapestry of one of the West's founding civilizations. The myths, stories, and history it contains speak so much about what human beings long for, wish for, and how they see the world. I believe Northrope Frye once called the Bible, "The Codebook of Western Civilization". So it's important.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is disputing that. In fact, in one of the last chapters of The God Delusion, Dawkins strongly recommends that more people read the Bible (or the equivalent religious text of the dominant religion of their part of the world), as it provides a greater understanding of the arts, literature, etc. of that society. Reading Shakespeare, Dawkins uses as an example, is greatly enhanced if the reader understands the Biblical references. So too would be the works of Michaelangelo and Bach, etc.

It's also interesting to note how many Christians really aren't aware of much of the Bible's content. Sure, everyone knows the common stories, like Noah and the flood, David and Goliath, Moses parting the Red Sea, etc., but what about the tale in Genesis where Lot freely offers his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by the mob in Sodom (and the same story being repeated with different characters and slightly different details in the Book of Judges). Not two years ago I told my parents about those stories and neither of them had heard it before, despite them both being lifelong Christians (my mother is the granddaughter of a traveling evangelical minister and my father was raised as a devout Catholic and received much of his education from nuns). They were in so much disbelief, in fact, that they made me produce a Bible to prove to them that I wasn't making it up! And then they made me produce a second Bible published using a different translation since they thought surely the first version must be wrong!

For the record:
Genesis version of the story
Judges version of the story

Literal interpretations of the Bible are I believe fairly recent, mainly coming from certain Protestant sects.

Yes and no. For centuries the Bible was regarded as the literal word of God and a completely accurate historical record. During Europe's scientific revolution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, once it became obvious that much of what was written in the Bible was completely incompatible with observable evidence (such as a geocentric universe and the world only being 6000 years old, for example) the idea of the "metaphorical" Bible rose to popularity amongst mainstream Christianity. Now, particularly amongst fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the United States, sects that believe in a literal interpretations of the Bible are returning to prominence. These people cannot be dismissed as radicals either -- as Bobblehead pointed out, surveys show that nearly half of the American population has this view, putting them very much in the mainstream!