How to embrace God's wisdom?

[Kidlicious]

So yay! Theological subjectivism!

No. Boo. You still need to follow the Delphic command, "Know thyself." If you don't you won't understand the Bible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Well done (on this point ).

[Al B. Sure!]

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."

That was Martin Luther.

[Kidlicious]

[Elok]

:facepalm:

Is there any joke too obvious to fly over your head, Al? Yes, John Calvin and Martin Luther are two completely different people with nothing in common, other than being famous for the same general occupation during the same period in history.

[MRT144]

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

I forgot your name . But still, yes.

Friended BITHCES

[Imran Siddiqui]

@ Alby!

And yes, I remembered his name and now I'm MRT's friend

[Japher]

I see this thread took a turn for the better...

[Boris Godunov]

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.

No. You keep asserting that I'm saying that take things that are obviously allegorical as literal, when I've said I'm not saying that. Look at one of the quotes in your links:

Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, says, "I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26)..." [17]

If this is your argument, then it's a ridiculous diversion from the point. We're talking about people who DO take it literally that the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 days, that the Garden of Eden was a real place and Adam & Eve were real, that there really was a talking serpent and forbidden fruit, that there really was a flood that covered the entire earth, that Lot's wife was turned into an actual pillar of salt, etc. The examples Falkenberg cited are just ludicrous, because it ignores the very real issue of people believing stuff that is demonstrably not true.

Creationist Museum: It has displays showing people riding dinosaurs, for ****'s sake.

Do you think the theme park being planned in KY--the one expected to attract over a million visitors a year--is meant for people who don't think Genesis is literally true?

Where is your data?

Gallup: one third say Bible is literally true, "word for word."

Sorry if I didn't link it before. And note they were given the option of a middle choice, but 31% still selected "word for word." Not just "literally," but "word for word."

Is it probable that most of those people don't actually know what the Bible says word-for-word? Sure. Is that really relevant when we're talking about people who take Genesis as a literal account? No.

"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.

Holy ****, look at that bolded part. He's verifying exactly what I said! That contrary to your assertion, large numbers of Christians *do* believe in Biblical literalism! You just proved my ****ing point! Furthermore the wikipedia article mentions the Chicago resolution where 200 of the country's most influential evangelical pastors averred a literal reading of the Bible.

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.

I give full credit to Christians who aren't literalists. It's a stupid mentality. But once again, you've created a strawman by retreating to the notion that my criticizing Biblical literalism means I harp on Pi=3 or any of those little things, when in fact the big, huge, glaring problems with the literalist interpretations out there are the things that are undeniably believed in by the self-professed literalists: Young Earth Creationism/Anti-evolutionism, literal applications of Leviticus, and so on.

To talk about the problem of Biblical literalism, and have someone go "oh, but people don't really believe the earth has corners and is on pillars, hah!" while people do believe in a talking serpent, and talking burning bush, and all the other ludicrous fantasies in the Bible is just frustratingly inane.

Furthermore:
I did not say all Christians think that way.
I did not say all Christians have to think that way.
I did not say it is any way a problem for a Christian to not think that way.

My sole point is that Biblical literalism IS a widespread phenomenon and not some very rare occurrence, contrary to your assertion. It is something that a very large number of Christians believe in, even if it is contradictory and illogical and so forth.

Here's a recent example:

Intelligent Design guru William Dembski excoriated by Christians for suggesting that maybe the world could be 4.5 billion years old, and yet still all the Garden of Eden stuff is literally true.

There is indeed demonstrable intolerance among a significant number of Christian fundamentalists towards any deviation from a literal reading of the Bible.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

So... I have data backing up my point that Jon Miller's contention that Biblical Literalism is "rare" is simply not true. Even sources he linked cited it as a problem among believers.

Your problem is you don't have a ****ing clue what the argument is about and are just injecting yourself like a moron. Good day, sir.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are changing the debate. It was never about evolution, Garden of Eden, etc., but rather about things like homosexuality and whatnot that Jon Miller was responding to Alby, who was saying you have to read it as written directly by God and every word true.

And furthermore, not sure what your objection is to people believing that God came down to speak to Moses in a burning bush. Opposition to evolution and, even the flood (well, a worldwide one at any rate, but not a regional one) can be dismissed by scientific discovery, but other things aren't exactly the same thing.

[Boris Godunov]

You are changing the debate. It was never about evolution, Garden of Eden, etc., but rather about things like homosexuality and whatnot that Jon Miller was responding to Alby, who was saying you have to read it as written directly by God and every word true.

That wasn't my debate. I was contending with the statement that literalism is somehow a rare phenomenon. Why is this so hard to grasp?

And do you think that the 31% who expressed adherence to Biblical Literalism in the Gallup poll just *might* be coinciding with those who disapprove of homosexuality and "whatnot"?

And furthermore, not sure what your objection is to people believing that God came down to speak to Moses in a burning bush. Opposition to evolution and, even the flood (well, a worldwide one at any rate, but not a regional one) can be dismissed by scientific discovery, but other things aren't exactly the same thing.

See, this is why this is frustrating. Out of all the things mentioned, you harp on a minor quibble mentioned once. The burning bush is silly and has obvious fantasy elements, just like the talking serpent--that was why it was mentioned. If someone wants to believe that is literally true, despite the dearth of talking burning shrubbery in our modern world, while chalking up the "beasts of Revelation" as allegory, for instance, then I will concede that it's not as bad as thinking the world is 10,000 years old.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well you have to realize that there are TWO debates. People like Alby exist a lot, who say if you don't take everything literally to the letter, including some of the allegorical stuff, you are just making things up as you go. That's what usually tends to be the debate over literalism. And Jon is also making somewhat of a point that so-called Biblical literalists usually are not 100% literal reading when you come down to the nuts and bolts of it. There is always something they are easy to dismiss for whatever reason.

And I harp on a minor quibble to make the point. You believe the burning bush and talking serpent are evidences of crazy Biblical literalists, AKIN to those people who are Young Earth Creationists (at least until your clarification). The point I'm making is that people can believe in some, but not others, due to the context and time periods those books were written (a lot of Genesis, for example, was written or orally told waaaaaaaaaay after the events supposedly happened). I don't think you'd refer to me as a literalist in the slightest, though I do believe that God came down to Moses in the form of a burning bush (He may take many forms).

[Kidlicious]

So... I have data backing up my point that Jon Miller's contention that Biblical Literalism is "rare" is simply not true. Even sources he linked cited it as a problem among believers.

Your problem is you don't have a ****ing clue what the argument is about and are just injecting yourself like a moron. Good day, sir.

I love debating the gays.

Also, I agree that it's a problem. The point is that the poll data is misleading because most of the people who say they take the Bible literally would say that they actually don't if you asked them about specific things like "Do you think Jesus really meant to hate your family?" Most would say "no he didn't literally mean that."

[DaShi]

Kid might be the only person on this forum whom it would be politically incorrect to call a ****.