How do you know that? When was that decided? If they are "symbolic", what does that even mean? Maybe heaven is "symbolic" maybe Jesus was a "symbolic" character. Like a mish mash of people and prophets. Maybe god is "symbolic"....at what point does it just become literature, no different than Homer?

It IS literature, and one of the ways to study it is as literature. Real Biblical scholarship--not the ersatz, bogus variety you get from, say, baptists--studies the languages, the sources, the history of interpretation, the context of the times, etc. (Ditchkins apparently has no knowledge of this ongoing endeavor.)

One brief example: In John's gospel, chapter 20 says that "Jesus breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" The word for "breathed," in Greek, is emphusao--we get our word "emphysema" from it. This is its only use in John's gospel.

Now, consider that in Genesis 2:7 it says that God "breathed" into Adam the life-giving breath. That same "breathed" is emphusao in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). John purposely used that same word. (John's gospel has many such connections with the book of Genesis. Heavens, they even start out the same way: "In the beginning...")

John's gospel is saying, therefore, that just as God breathed into Adam the life-giving breath, so Jesus breathes into the church the life-giving breath. That was John's point of view. He's teaching theology, not recounting a literal episode.

Thanks for asking. I kind of got wound up there.

So which is it? Are the bible's stories just fables not meant to be taken seriously, or are they the word of God?

Nobody seems to know. It's just whatever's convenient for that day's agenda.

For those of us in mainline protestantism--Lutheran, in my case--the Bible is taken seriously, but not literalistically. It was never meant to be taken that way. The scriptures were written "symbolically" and they communicate truth, we believe, but not necessarily fact. (Truth is much bigger than fact.)

We understand that Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is also the Word, but only when it communicates Christ, which is the True Word. Moreover, whenever anything or anyone "communicates Christ" that thing or person is also, in a sense, the Word. When you acted as Christ would to a sister or brother, you were "bringing Christ," even though you may not be a Christian. Way to go! :)

From our perspective--OK, mine--the religious right is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity in this country. It made it an object of derision. (Satan, on his best day, could never do the damage the religious right has done.

When Peter expressed his dismay when Jesus announced his coming death, Jesus said to him "Get thee behind me, Satan" -- a fine way to address his holiness, the first pope dont ya think? Matthew 16:23

Peter was advocating a path that did not include the cross. (The original story is in Mark, the first gospel to be written. Matthew follows Mark.) Peter has a vision of "messiahship" that does not include suffering, but only victory. That's why he gets called "Satan." (Incidentally, the portrait of Peter that emerges out of Mark and John is not flattering at all. Matthew and Luke are kinder.)

Jesus said: "In those days ... the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall." Of course this is nonsense. The billions of stars will never fall to earth and the moon does not produce its own light. Mark 13:24-25

This is fairly standard stuff for apocalyptic literature, of which Mark 13 is one example of that genre.

Would it be fair to say that the person who wrote this had a, shall we say... misunderstanding about astronomy?

It would be fair to say that the author didn't care a whit about passing on facts about astronomy. That was not his purpose.

Why do you believe this stuff?

I've been educated.

People need to understand ancient literature. The four gospels, for example, are not journalistic accounts of the life of Jesus. They are not history as we understand history today.

They are what I call "theology in narrative form." No, Jesus probably did not actually send some demons into some pigs, a story which appears in Mark's gospel. The story is meant to show Jesus power over demons, which are everywhere in Mark. Incidentally, demons are associated with religious and political power. (Some of you would like the four gospels if you'd ever hear them presented in a sane way.)

Likewise, Jesus didn't care about the literal truth of whether or not Jonah got swallowed by a whale. The comment he makes is meant to provide a model, or a way of understanding, the resurrection.

Christian theology, if it could be wrestled out of the hands of those who sully it, is actually a great thing.

Dawkins doesn't know shit from shinola about Christian theology. He knows about right-wing nut baptists, which is a small sliver of all there is to know about Christianity.

that today's atheists just aren't up to the standards of former days. It used to be that people of faith had to contend with real intellectual giants, like Bertrand Russell, or, indeed, Nietszche. Now, the average Joe thinks he's an atheist.

People need to realize that one-third of Christianity in the United States has completely soured the people on religion. The other two-thirds of American Christianity--mainline protestants and Roman Catholics--aren't that bad.

Lefty bloggers are still bitching about the Clintons?

Skip the article and go straight to the letters.

is blocked by demographics. If they don't reach out to minorities, they're sunk, but they can't do that because their base can't stand minorities.

In fact, it would be surprising if she won. Kansas does not elect Democrats to the Senate.

I, too, thought his answers were a little long and convoluted at times. Still, after an eight-year thought-drought, the American people will no doubt cheer having a president who actually knows what he's talking about.