Why are literalists literalists?

In a sense I agree with Phat that all one REALLY has to believe is #4 in order to be a Christian, but I think I only agree with this in relation to someone who is simply uneducated in the whole meaning of the Biblical revelation. If someone knows the Bible rather well, and yet aggressively rejects the other three propositions I'd doubt he's a Christian. I'm not so sure. Those of us who are "literal" Bible-believers recognize it as a seamless whole without which the meaning of Jesus' death for us is lost.Recently my pastor referred to "Bible-believing Christians" in some context or other, and immediately felt obliged to add the aside, "and there are no other kind." I believe that is the case.

So I'm not a Christian in your mind, because I disbelieve the Creator of the universe would be interested in the early Jews' wars, and sticking swords in babies and raping women, as "the spoils of war".It's so very un Christian of me to not support sticking swords in babies.Yeah, surely the whiff of the burnt offering is something the most incredible intellect in history cares about. Lol. So what.I suggest you read the link I provided earlier thread.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-08-2006 06:36 PM

quote:

---

I'd like someone to explain to me why it is so necessary to their faith that every word of the bible be literally correct.

---

I did not find anyone who really answered the question of the first post, so I thought I would give it a try.This is the logic chain, as I (an agnostic) have heard when a Christian was trying to convince me.- Do you believe the universe was an accident?
- Could God exist and have created all this?
- Does life have meaning?
- If God exists, doesn't it make sense that He would be involved with His creation and not be completely "hands-off"?
- Don't you think that He would want to communicate with us?
- Instead of trying to figure out if God speaks in your head or if you are just imagining it, plus if He wants to communicate a lot of material for reference, don't you think He would communicate more effectively with written words?
- Of all the proposed written communication from God (Bible, Quran, Mormon book, etc.), which seems to be the most likely to be true? (i.e. what evidence backs up the claim?... note: this is usually based on belief in "testimony" of multiple people)
- Since the Book claims authority (in Timothy), if one part of the Book is NOT true, on what solid basis can you believe that any other part is true? (i.e. the whole thing unravels if any part is not explainable, at least in a context that can make sense)The last item is the key one, and one I have discussed with several self-proclaimed Christians on this Forum whom would be called by Fundamentalists "cafeteria religion" believers. And this is where ID-ers are vulnerable on the belief side: They have no basis other than a gut feel that their partial-Bible beliefs have a defenseable foundation from the claim that if you deny this part of the Bible why not deny this other part that you choose to believe?So, the crux of the matter for a Fundamentalist Christian is ultimately the belief in meaning of this life and the testimony (and the care given to that testimony over 1800+ years) that gives credence to the Book (written by men with guidance by God).

Just a few random thoughts in response:A literalist seems to be someone who is unable to take anything of worth from the bible unless they can believe that every word of it is literally true. This strikes me as rather simple-minded and intellectually lazy. I guess that's where my brain comes into play. I'm more than capable of reading something, evaluating it, and deciding what parts of it are worthwhile and what parts aren't. Furthermore, if I were of a mind to accept the idea of a supreme being worthy of my worship, it would have to be one that would expect me to use my brain and come to my own conclusions.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

A literalist seems to be someone who is unable to take anything of worth from the bible unless they can believe that every word of it is literally true. This strikes me as rather simple-minded and intellectually lazy.

---

As someone else pointed out, stop thinking of "literalist" and start thinking "inerrant". It is hardly simple-minded exercise to study the Bible and reconcile what appear to be errors in the context of the Bible as a whole. This also provides a convenient escape clause: "I can't answer your without further study, and it may take a lifetime to figure out, if even I last that long". Here is another escape clause: "I don't know why God chose to reveal only that much. He must have His reasons."

quote:

---

...use my brain and come to my own conclusions

---

Yes, so many brains, so many interpretations, many of which come to opposite conclusions.My question is, why even read the Bible and change your life based on a pick-and-choose philosophy? That makes it on par with any other self-help book.

No, I think I shall continue to use the term "literalist," because I think that most accurately describes the phenomenon I am discussing.In my mind, a literalist believes the universe was created in six 24 hour periods in exactly the manner described in the bible. A literalist believes that Noah actually took animals of every possible kind on the ark with him and his family. (I suppose we must assume that Noah and his family must also have been carriers of every possible viral and bacterial disease as well, colds, flus, parasites. The animals must also have been carrying diseases as well. Gotta figure Noah could have planned that a bit better, but who am I to question the judgment of god?) A literalist believes that Jonah was actually consumed by a great fish, and lived to tell about it.I imagine an "inerrantist" could easily believe the bible to be the true and inspired word of god, but also interpret some parts of it as allegorical stories, morality tales, or poetic tellings of important events in the history of the world.Those that I was inquiring about at the beginning of this thread were those who believe every word is literally true, not simply those who believe it to be inerrant. Well, that's kind of an inevitable conclusion anytime you have many different people using their own brains to come to conclusions, isn't it? I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if it were the case that there are more different denominations of christianity than there are other non-christian religions. Opposite conclusions, so what? And there are many who view it pretty much as just that. I don't happen to be one of those people, though. Most self-help books are poorly written drivel that inspire people to do nothing more than waste their money on other self-help drivel. The bible is beautifully written in places. Moreover, the main message of the bible, love your neighbor, is a pretty good philosophy of life. When you add the golden rule, borrowed from I forget where, there's actually a lot of good stuff in the bible.So I'll turn your question around on you. Why NOT read the bible, take from it what helps you, and leave the rest?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Subbie,There was a period when I entered into a study of the Bible. It started by reading the Bible myself. I quickly found that such an approach was just skimming the surface, and led to interpretations that I changed my mind on after entering a study and seeing how links to other parts of the Bible, history, and translation of original language affect how the reader "interprets" what is written.My study was with a fundamentalist group who did a good job of convincing me that their point of view had a foundation (see my "chain of logic" in earlier post) that loose-interpretationists stray from and consequently, do not really have a foundation to argue whether the "literal" text is what is true, or is to be followed, or is just a story and is just old advice.
Further, I brought up some contradictions published by atheists, and I wound up seeing how many were "apparent" contradictions, and the fundamentalists had ways of explaining those in a number of ways (they did not satisfactorily explain 10% of them to me, however).You have a practical approach, and I commend you for following it.
In my case, if I cast out some things in the Bible, I see (from the fundamentalist viewpoint) how the whole thing starts to unravel.
So, I am left with the "how can I justify believing this part, when I choose not to believe another". It becomes "self", and not "authority". That is not for me. I wish I had more time, because it is fascinating.Your approach must be pretty good for you, based on the nice tone of your responses. In the meantime, I am switching my time to another forum that really seems to be the heart of this discussion (i.e. the boundary between literal and interpretation).

The Fall is a conundrum. We have discussed and debated it to death (no pun intended!) and I am not totally convinced that there is not some sort of "knowledge interference" from a literal spiritual war of sorts. (Some call it willful ignorance) Of course since I cannot prove such a scenario...(nor would I particularly care to assist in "exposing" a literal evil spiritual realm anyway) I usually leave that one on the back burner, percolating innocently.As far as "special creation" I really dont know what that means. Can someone enlighten me?

Sing with me......I don't believe in evolution....I know creations true......Evolution: Library: Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist

Im wondering this myself. It is comforting to have absolute answers to everyday problems. It is not comforting to realize that humanity knows nothing! This blog raises some issues related to the topic which may prove helpful.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Hi FaithI am asking this question not to be argumentive but because I'm curious. As you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God I'm wondering if you have an opinion about how the human writers of the Bible were given the words to write.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I figure they just wrote what they knew to be the truth, in their own words, and their having the Holy Spirit gave them the spiritual discernment to keep them within the truth. It's a subtle thing. The Holy Spirit is like having increased vision, but you don't necessarily know you have it until you encounter people who don't have it. All who wrote and all who read and recognized God-inspired writings had to be men who lived in the sight of God, in prayer, in obedience.Beyond that, God simply guided the historical events that put together the final canon, again through His servants who were also filled with the Holy spirit and had the discernment to judge.Certainly there were lots of writings, both inspired and bogus and degrees of both, floating around in the early centuries, but the Spirit-guided believers knew which were inspired and which not, at least with those that never were under doubt. Still, even the Spirit- led are flesh and can err, but "in many counselors there is safety" and overall we trust that God oversaw events such that what He wants us to know is all there.Having written all that off the top of my head, I suppose now I should go see online if I can find what some of the greats have to say about it.

Thanks Faith

Which makes one wonder why there is no one Canon, doesn't it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought I was pretty clear that the process of choosing the canon isn't infallible, so some are better than others, certainly, but they have most books in common, don't they?