My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[Hyena Dandy]

A lot of people (including a lot of Christians) think that to be a good Christian, you need to believe every word of the Bible is true.

I am rather offended by this notion. The Bible is not, and should not be, considered a history book. That, to me, takes away the beauty of it. The Bible is more of a self-help book. It should teach us how to act, not just "What has happened."

I find it amusing that there are people running around trying to prove that there exist fishes that can eat a man and keep him alive for three days, rather than examining the message of the story of Jonah which, evidently to some people's surprise, is not actually about a man getting eaten by a fish. The fish isn't even the point of the story. It has a good message. Nobody is unworthy.

But it gets caught up in "OH MY GOD GIANT FISH."

To analyze just the events as having happened takes away the message, takes the moral from the story. History is always interesting, of course. But it doesn't tell you how to live your life, it just tells you how other people lived theirs.

In short, I think the Bible is far too beautiful for Biblical Literalism

[Ipecac Drano]

While humans are busy editing their God's Word, why don't they edit out the bad parts about killing each other, too, instead of pretending that those parts don't exist?

[HYHYBT]

A lot of people (including a lot of Christians) think that to be a good Christian, you need to believe every word of the Bible is true.

This is bad enough... but worse, a lot of people who aren't Christians, and particularly atheists, like to insist on the same thing, or else pretend that any other understanding of the Bible is "editing" it.

Apparently we're not allowed to think through what we actually BELIEVE, but instead must either take the Bible whole with all parts treated as equal, or else throw it all away, or else pick and choose based on what we'd *like* to find. I really cannot understand that mindset, regardless of which side it comes from.

[radiocerk]

Well, from the non-Christian point of view, I think you either need to see the whole of the work as a collection of parables, meant to be interpreted, or you need to see it as literal. Most Christians I've met are the type who are "well, this part's open to interpretation, but this next verse, that's literal. The verse after that, it doesn't apply anymore."

Why is consistency so much to ask from a religion?

[Hyena Dandy]

It also disappoints me that people think that not taking every word literally is EDITING the Bible. Its simply acknowledging that the Bible is not a history, but a collection of stories meant to teach us how to live our lives.a

[Ipecac Drano]

It also disappoints me that people think that not taking every word literally is EDITING the Bible.

I've never heard of anyone doing that. Is there a particular sect that says that, or is it just free-range fundamentalists?

Its simply acknowledging that the Bible is not a history, but a collection of stories meant to teach us how to live our lives.a

There is a lot of "history" in it; most of which is propaganda. An afternoon with a bible concordance will show that.

[Hyena Dandy]

I've never heard of anyone doing that. Is there a particular sect that says that, or is it just free-range fundamentalists?

I've never seen you contradict yourself in two consecutive posts like that. O_O

While humans are busy editing their God's Word, why don't they edit out the bad parts about killing each other, too, instead of pretending that those parts don't exist?

[HYHYBT]

Well, from the non-Christian point of view, I think you either need to see the whole of the work as a collection of parables, meant to be interpreted, or you need to see it as literal.

Why do we need to see it that way, and why would someone who doesn't believe any of it *care*, except that demanding what you call "consistency" makes arguments against religion easier?

[Ipecac Drano]

I've never seen you contradict yourself in two consecutive posts like that. O_O

There's a reason for that: I didn't.

What is meant by "editing the Bible" is when it went from one version to the next, not all of it made it. There were councils who would decide that some parts of a previous version of The Good Book shouldn't make it into the next version. Entire passages and even books would be excised; not even nearly the same thing as what you "think" editing is.

[Kheldarson]

Well, from the non-Christian point of view, I think you either need to see the whole of the work as a collection of parables, meant to be interpreted, or you need to see it as literal. Most Christians I've met are the type who are "well, this part's open to interpretation, but this next verse, that's literal. The verse after that, it doesn't apply anymore."

Why is consistency so much to ask from a religion?

From my understanding, it is consistent. It's based off word choice and history. Like when Christ says "This is my body", that's literal. He's literally equating the bread with his body as something to be shared because of the choice of word "is".

But then you have the creation stories which weren't even written down until the time of David. How literal are we to take those? Not too much. Those were passed by oral tradition. Things get lost and we know it historically.

[radiocerk]

But if you're going to take certain verses to be "the word and laws of God", take, for instance, a well-known verse in Leviticus, and then argue that none of the rest of Leviticus applies anymore, you are more than just being inconsistent, you are picking and choosing your rules.

I'd also like to know what happened to that second set of ten commandments....

[Rapscallion]

I've never heard of anyone doing that. Is there a particular sect that says that, or is it just free-range fundamentalists?

I think the Jehovah's Witnesses take it all as literal truth. I may be wrong, but I usually am not.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Radiocerk, anybody who argues that Leviticus still applies is being stupid anyway. Christ came to fulfill the law and gave plenty of examples and instructions about what essentially superseded the laws. Such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Leviticus was about how the Israelites would be able to survive. Yeah, it's harsh, but it was a harsh time and a new nation. Taken in that context, you can understand it, but Christ gave different instructions. That's what Christians are supposed to use.

[Ipecac Drano]

I think the Jehovah's Witnesses take it all as literal truth. I may be wrong, but I usually am not.

Rapscallion

This will be one of those usual times when you're not wrong.

[Skunkle]

I have NEVER asked anyone who the commonly-quoted verse of Leviticus still applies and the rest doesn't... most can't or won't answer... but the only person who ever gave me an answer actually SAID "Because the others no longer apply". Naturally, he could not explain WHY they did not, only that they did not.

Hyena, how well do you know your Bible? I don't much at all. Can you (or anyone else) tell me: I know it's been claimed that the anti-homosexual verse in Leviticus is corroborated by other verses elsewhere. Are there likewise other verses which support the other "laws" and according punishments laid down in Leviticus? Or is that, perhaps, the reason that some still accept that and only that verse - that, unlike the others, it is "supported" elsewhere?