The Danger of Literalism

From the why the exodus Myth exists thread:I thought we might have a number of opinions on this topic. I do now that others have pointed out that their faith was lost because it was held up to the facts. (see Chiroptera below)

I'm sure you can stick to your faith, Mike.However, you may want to consider the influence you might have on others. As I tried to point out if you do convince some of your logic and they are able to see the facts you could cause their loss of faith. I didn't think that was something a Christian wanted to do.As for believing every word. That is clearly impossible. Even for you. You choose here and there to take words as symbolism or things that need to be re-interpreted. However, the way you arrive at which pieces to take as "literal" and which as "symbol" is very confusing. It is also, apparently, not consistent between any two believers. In any case none of them believe "every word".

My aim is not to make believers unbelievers. But many evolutionists have said they lost their faith by not believing the history of the bible. Now in all honesty I think personally even today you can believe in the bible because of what it says about these issues itself. Yes you can believe in Jesus and evolution (hopefully) afterall I care a lot more for believing in Christ than being creationist. If anything I want to preach that you should believe in Christ, afterall he didn't say if you are not creationist you go to hell. Please do not think being creationist is my first wish. I'm just here to say thhat you CAN believe every word God says in the bible. If you choose not to fine, but it is unhelpful to your faith. I will quote scripture concerning Creation later on Ned, if it helps you to realise the reasons for me thinking this way.Now when are you going to ask why? instead of how

quote:

---

Now when are you going to ask why?

---

Why not?That's an easy one, Mike.------------------
Mrs. Krabappel: Are there any questions?
Bart: Yes, how would I go about creating a half-man/half-monkey type of creature?
Mrs. Krabappel: I'm sorry, that would be playing God.
Bart: God schmod! I want my monkey-man!

Ask why?It's not a question I get into very often. I think that is because I believe it is a question with no answer at the moment. I'm not sure that is what they're saying. I think, but I shouldn't put words in their mouth, that they lost their faith because someone had set it up as a contest between faith and history and science. That is the threat that creationism represents to Christianity.

However, are you going to deny that it is the evolutionists who put topics in 'the bible' section?
They are the ones confronting God's word. Only yesterday did Rei do this. So I think evolutionists do say'your a product of evolution'the bible is a myth, maybe not directly, but just look at what Rei done yesterday. Also people who say Christ didn't exist, and make out the historical Jesus is not the faithful one. Where do you draw the line. No - the best option is to believe God's words if you are christian.I'll leave you with this:' Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men'

I think it's not so much that they question has no answer as it is that there is no single, objective answer which applies to everyone. What I mean is, even though descriptions and explanations often equivocate between "how" and "why," objective scientific explanations will only ever really answer "how," and the answer to "why" must come from within each person individually. That's kind of a tough pill to swallow for most people since as a culture we're used to taking the answers to the "how" questions and identifying them with answers to the "why" question.Why does the sun shine? The answer we tend to accept: Well, because of the fusion of hydrogen and such. But that really only answers "how."Is there a reason for the shining of the sun? Science can never really fully answer that question -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has no answer. It simply means that the answer cannot be found outside ourselves. Why do I think the sun shines? Lots of reasons: So I can eat, so I can stay warm, so I can live, so I can enjoy seeing the tanned skin of a nubile young woman, etc... These answer the "why" question for me.I think when it comes down to it, the answer to the "why" question can be whatever you want to believe it to be, and once a person realizes that, it can be tremendously empowering.

Mike the Wiz writes:

quote:

---

Ned ,
Your right, you can still believe even if you just believe bits and bobs. All I'm saying is that it's better to believe every word - which I do. I don't see how I am de-crediting God's word by saying you can believe ALL of it. It is possible to believe all of it - Like I do, but maybe you need a very strong faith. And remember I'm only saying what the word says. If you want I will quote enough to convince you of that.

---

This view of literalism is so self-defeating, so futile, it knocks the wind out of me. Everyone, folks, everyone believes exactly what they want to believe, whether they attribute it to their belief in the God of the Bible or blame it on their frequent beatings as a youth.Saying it's God's Word doesn't make any difference, critical exigesis doesn't, a thorough knowledge of the original language doesn't. We all decide for ourselves, whether we're atheists or fundamentalists, what is good and why we think so.As Dan has pointed out, only an idiot would assert that bats are birds. Leviticus says so, though, so either the Bible is wrong, our translation is wrong, or we're wrong to think that the Bible is useless if it's not zoologically accurate. Leviticus also makes lots of statements about menstruating women being unclean, which is either an indication of the misogyny of an ancient culture, an excuse to hate women, or a clue as to how wrongheaded it is to use the Bible as a reference work on human anatomy. If you believe that the admonitions against gay sex in Leviticus still apply, then why don't the admonitions against wearing a cotton-wool garment?We choose for ourselves what is relevant, whether we admit it or not. Please stop calling it God's Word, as if that makes any difference to either of us.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 11-21-2003]

Is this directed at me? Because my answer is in 'we evo's think'Ned, need I say anymore about who the attackers of christianity are?
Already I have an individual evolutionist example. how many shall I collect to please you?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-21-2003]

quote:

---

Ned, need I say anymore about who the attackers of christianity are?
Already I have an individual evolutionist example. how many shall I collect to please you?

---

You missed the point of Hambre's post.It is impossible to sensibly believe the entire Bible is literally true. Read this as an attack if you want, but I don't think it's attacking Christianity to point out that bats aren't birds.So if you hang your hat on literalism, and turn things into faith vs. science, faith is going to lose. Because when it gets right down to it, you can have as much faith as you want that the Bible is accurate in every detail, down to every last word, but even a cursory glance at the exact words in the Bible will show that it isn't so. (If you are tempted to read this as an attack, I direct you directly back to the bats/birds business. Find me a plausible way one can believe that a bat is a bird, and I will withdraw my statement.)So why set up the distinction? Literalism is all or nothing. So one mistake in the Bible renders it meaningless. Why put yourself in the position where common sense has to be tossed out the window in order to maintain your faith? Why read the Bible literally?

Fair enough guys.
I apreciate if you don't want to take every word as stone. I'll keep that to myself. My only point is that I don't see how I am damaging the Creator by speaking creation - is that so wrong?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-21-2003]

Mike the Wiz states:

quote:

---

I apreciate if you don't want to take every word as stone.

---

The point, we keep trying to tell you, is that neither do you. Do you want to believe that bats are birds? Does your Creator want you to believe that wearing a cotton-wool shirt is an abomination before His eyes??The decision is yours, whether you admit it or not. If you continue to assert that you can believe every word in the Bible is the literal truth, then you've decided that it's an affront to your God to be sane and realistic.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Here is how I see Creationism (not "creation")1) To be a creationist one espouses the idea that:

• The earth is 6,000 (or so) years old
• There was a global flood about 4,500 (or so) years ago
• and a whole bunch of other things (no big bang, most of physics is wrong, most of geology is wrong, science can't find anything to be a real truth )
• The Bible tells one how, not just why, God created the universe, earth and all life.

2) The "proof" for this is that every word of the Bible is literaly true
3) If any part of the Bible is not true then it is all false.That is what I think a basic view of creationism is.The problem with this is that there then 100's, 1,000's and 10,000's of indivdual facts that have to be true for the whole house of cards to hold together. Then the creationists say that one's faith can't take any of them being not true. Now all it takes is for the faithful to be convinced of just one of these and the whole thing collapses in a heap.Is the earth that old? Did the exodus happen? Are there transitionals between kinds? Are there contradictions in the available texts of the Bible? Is there traces of a world wide flood all happening at once? Are some of what the creationist "scientists" saying a lie? There are too many links in the chaing of reasoning the creationist is trying to hold together. One weak link and it is done.This is what is wrong with creationism. The majority of Christians accept the Bible as an inspired message from God without demanding that it be the last word on all possible knowledge. They accept creation but not creationism.Two hundred years ago all (or almost all) Christians were creationists. Now a minority of the world's Christians are. If a Christian can make that change and hold on to their faith, good. However, if they start with the premises of todays creationists then it is much harder for them to hold on. That is what is wrong.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-21-2003]

However,
If facts are found that support Creation why can't you support creation?
There is evidence if you want it, however evolutionists suggest there is no evidence whatsoever which leads me to distrust them. Remember, in my personal situation I only heard that evolution was a fact, and no one ever even mentioned Creationism. The fact is this website exists because of this very issue. If anything I have only ever heard evolution being juiced up to an absolute certainty when in fact it isn't. I know enough now to know that I do not HAVE to believe in evolution. You said 'tough' to me yesterday, well I believe in creation, if evolutionists don't like that it is tough, because there is another side to this story. As for damaging christianity, I am christian and the stuff the evolutionists come out with about the bible makes me distrust them even more. To say I am damaging the message of Christ is not true, I support the Father he spoke of, should I doubt the father he spoke of?
- I don't have any reason to.

Ok, head off to one of the threads for it and "support creationism". If your idea of that is based on some of the stuff I posted above it will take some doing to support it.You have to measure the age of the earth and arrive at 6,000 years by objective measurement explaining how you got there.Then you have to explain how the various relationships between living things came about and why the fossils are distributed the way they are.