How to embrace God's wisdom?

[MRT144]

[Jon Miller]

Where is there any evidence in those links? The first is just someone spouting an opinion. The Wikipedia article doesn't support your contention either. In fact, it says: "Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author." Ta-da.

And that means that they aren't literalists in the sense that you deride them as. As people who who believe in literal monsters of revelation/etc. Who take everything as literal.

Yeah, except I actually have data to back up what I said, not "I don't think this is true, ergo it isn't." That's YOUR method.

Where is your data?

Notice how that author fully accepts that religious people have literalist minds, despite your protestations. Whatever *my* reading of the Bible in this context is utterly irrelevant, this isn't about my views.

"The literalist mentality does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism."

Thank you for reading.

I have spoken against literalism over and over again. More often against atheist/agnostic (the antireligious) than against the religious. I admit that literalism is an issue (among the religious), my statement was that biblical literalism for Christians doesn't mean taking the Bible so nonsensically literal as you and other anti-religious do and maintain that the religious do. For example, the beasts of revelation, the statue of Daniel, the description of the 4 corners of the earth. These are all things that (99.999+%) of Bible literalists read as non-literal.

For many parts of the Bible, the most 'literal', and devoid of symbol, interpretation is found on atheistic sites.

The few areas where the Christian Bible literalists focus on as a literal reading (where they get their name from), are the big ones of debate like Genesis 1. These passages are exceptions in interpretation technique among Bible literalists, not the rule.

JM

[Kidlicious]

The difference is I actually cited real poll data about the beliefs of Christians. This isn't about *my* reading of the text.

You sighted poll data so what? You still don't know what it means because you aren't listening. Instead you wish to believe that you know everything.

[Kidlicious]

I can guarantee no one takes the whole Bible literally. Instead some people tend to ignore parts that they have trouble understanding.

[Kidlicious]

I have spoken against literalism over and over again. More often against atheist/agnostic (the antireligious) than against the religious.

Are there any atheists who give a critical analysis of the Bible as it is with allegories, metaphors, similes, ironies etc...?

[Jon Miller]

Are there any atheists who give a critical analysis of the Bible as it is with allegories, metaphors, similes, ironies etc...?

Yes. Namely some theologians.

But not the ones you generally see on the internet, including all the ones who are vocal here on Apolyton.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

I can guarantee no one takes the whole Bible literally. Instead some people tend to ignore parts that they have trouble understanding.

There's a reason why no one takes the WHOLE Bible literally; the thing is filled with contradictions!

Christianity is internally inconsistent. So many passages directly contradict each other.

And then the response would be, they don't contradict each other if the context is understood... but then you're relying on the faulty intellect of mere mortals instead of the Word!

[Jon Miller]

God didn't dictate or write the Bible (except the Ten Commandments and a few other such bits).

God inspired it.

Humanity must be there at interpretation, humanity was also there as the instrument and method of expression. Even science has elements of interpretation in it (Which is often only visible when viewed historically). The only group who really try to remove all interpretation out of language are Randians, and they are delusional.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

As John Calvin (and hopefully even Alby is familiar with him) states:

Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. … If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. (Commentary on Genesis Vol. 1)

Basically, God speaks to people in their own words and their own ways, and therefore, depending on the era, their ways may be different than a prior or later time.

The people who believe God dictated or wrote the Bible out (on either the atheist or fundamentalist side) simply don't understand the Scripture.

[Al B. Sure!]

So yay! Theological subjectivism!

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is amusing to see that linked to Calvin .

Once again, you are seeing Christianity through the lens of Islam (which is strange for a non-Islamic American, but whatev). I'll give you one main difference as to how they aren't the same in terms of theology at all - in Islam the Quran cannot be translated from Arabic, because if it is God's Word, it was spoken in that language; in Christianity, there is every sort of translation for every language out there - in fact it is rare to find an ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek version unless you really look for it)

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran, we are friends on facebook and you know my name (Servant of the Merciful in Arabic) yet you find it strange?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I forgot your name . But still, yes.

[Elok]

It is amusing to see that linked to Calvin .

Yeah, few people in history have been more theologically rigid than John Calvin--Al, you know him as "that guy who nailed a paper to a church door, or something."

[Kidlicious]

There's a reason why no one takes the WHOLE Bible literally; the thing is filled with contradictions!

Christianity is internally inconsistent. So many passages directly contradict each other.

And then the response would be, they don't contradict each other if the context is understood... but then you're relying on the faulty intellect of mere mortals instead of the Word!

So your assertion is that people don't take the Bible literally because it wasn't meant to be taken that way. Thanks.