Why are literalists literalists?

Not at all. The dichotomy makes perfect sense.ABE: for an explanation see the thread entitled "What we must accept if we accept evolution."This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-07-2006 11:18 AM

I'm giving you a reason why the literalists are literal. They see the logical implications of evolution and they reject these implications. One way to reject them is to put your faith in a holy book.

That's exactly what I mean, but we can't go into it here.I'm just telling you why somebody might decide to be a literalist, whether you agree with the logic of it or not.

I suppose I do have it ass-backwards. I was just thinking that if I were to become a Christian, I would logically have to reject evolution. And if I do that, I would have to accept special creation since I need some explanation of how we got here. Whether I'd have to become a strict literalist or not is another matter. I suppose I wouldn't HAVE to become a literalist.

I accept that you disagree with my argument. I don't know what else I can accept.

OK, but I was just speaking theoretically. What, logically, would be the minimum I would have to accept to be a Christian? I figure it's this:1. disbelief in evolution
2. belief in special creation
3. belief in the Fall
4. belief in Christ as divine savior.I think that's it. I would not have to have any particular belief about the Bible. I could say that some parts are historical and other parts are not if I chose.So I would not have to be a literalist.

I don't see the point you are making, Ringo. Are you hinting that geocentrism and slavery are morally wrong? Isn't all morality subjective?

I thought the point you were making was that majority opinion cannot be trusted: Case in point: geocentrism and slavery--which are morally wrong.That was your point, but you switched it up in this latest post.You used the word "fallible" not "changeable."

It most certainly does in this context.fallible--prone to error.
fickle--prone to change.Not the same thing. Now in what way would geocentrism and slavery be an error? Obvoiusly, it's a moral error. And where does such a view come from, that you automatically assumed would prove your point about how fallible majority opinion is?It comes from the current majority opinion, that's where.

I was saying that Ringo considered it obvious. But of course the main point is slavery.

I'm saying he called it an error. What other sort of error could it be than a moral error? He links it with slavery.Moreover, he takes it for granted that it will be obvious to all that geocentrism and slavery is an overwhelming indictment of majority opinion.Edited by robinrohan, : changed "it" to "he."

Okay.

Oh, he meant "geocentrism" in the astronomical sense? I was thinking of the other sense of the word.

The astronomical sense of the word might be the more usual sense, but I'm just more used to the other, more loaded, sense, which in an indirect way could relate to slavery. I'm just explaining that the astronomical sense is not what came to my mind, not suggesting here that Ringo's use of it was misleading.

It's the idea that my region is more civilised than others. And the further you go from my region, the more uncivilized you are. Some ancient Greeks had this idea.