My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[Hyena Dandy]

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?

Other verses are supported elsewhere as well. A lot of what Leviticus talks about there are people who do that in the Bible, and god smacks them. There are sections that corroborate (sp?) it, but generally they're rarely the point of the section.

Most of the support is a little shaky as well. For example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) is just as easy to interpret as being about proper hospitality. Or possibly about not raping angels.

Besides, right after that happens, Lot's daughters drug him and get knocked up. So, maybe not your BEST section of the bible to get your morals from, I think.

[crashhelmet]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The issue here is when Paul wrote this verse, he used the term "arsenokoite." It literally means "Man Bed" or something like that. Some translations of the Bible, like the NIV that I quoted from, have translated it as "homosexual offenders." But it's up for debate as others say it's male prostitution, and others say it's premarital sex of any kind.

However, the next verse (1COR 6:11) goes on to say:

"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Which means that regardless of your sins, you can still goto heaven if you're a Christian. If you're gay, you can still goto heaven if you're a Christian.

Romans 1:26-27 mentions Homosexuality as well, but if you read the verses before and after, it's talking about people that choose not to believe and choose to sin. It says that God will leave these people to live that lifestyle.

Romans1:32 says:

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The death mentioned here is the same death that's referred to in John 3:16, meaning that when they die they won't have "Everlasting Life."


***Addition....
I wanted to go back and add here that these two verses in the New Testament merely list homosexual intercourse as a sin, no different than the others listed with it. They do not carry with them the "punishable by death" stipulations that Leviticus did.

[Ghel]

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.

Yes, but Jesus also said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:18-19] As always, the Bible is a Big Book of Multiple Choice - you can find a passage to support almost any viewpoint. After lack of external support, internal inconsistency is the biggest problem with Biblical literalism.

[Kheldarson]

This is true, Ghel, and again, I don't support Bible literalism myself. Neither does the Catholic Church. Especially since it's recognized that each book of the Bible was written for a particular audience at a particular time. Matthew writes for the Hebrews, Luke for the Greeks. Are they going to address the same things? Write in the same words? No. That's why context is so important when studying the Bible.

[Greenday]

My feelings on the Bible are this: some stories are true to provide a timeline of the religion. Other stories are fabricated to fill in empty times and to help also provides morals. When it was written, it was written based on how people felt at the time and at the time, stuff like adultry and homosexuality were WRONG. Now, most of us realize they aren't wrong and we know not to take the fabricated stories so seriously. There are just some people that cannot understand this and take things too far.

Despite almost never going to church save once or twice a year, our minister was awesome. First time I heard her, she was talking about how "We all know that these stories aren't all real." I actually don't mind listening to her sermons. They aren't long. They aren't boring. They aren't meant for us to fear God or hell. She just picks a story and tries to relate it to today's times and how we can be better people for it. She gives me a quite refreshing look on Christianity.

The Methodist Church, the chilled back branch of Christianity.

[Ghel]

My feelings on the Bible are this: some stories are true to provide a timeline of the religion. Other stories are fabricated to fill in empty times and to help also provides morals.

How do you tell which are which? What criteria do you use? Do you just trust your minister to tell you the difference? How does she know?

Despite almost never going to church save once or twice a year, our minister was awesome. First time I heard her, she was talking about how "We all know that these stories aren't all real." <snip> She just picks a story and tries to relate it to today's times and how we can be better people for it.

If that's the case for the Bible, why not do the same with the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, or the sutras?

[Greenday]

How do you tell which are which? What criteria do you use? Do you just trust your minister to tell you the difference? How does she know?

If it's something that's generally impossible to happen or just awfully ridiculous, it's probably made up.

If that's the case for the Bible, why not do the same with the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, or the sutras?

Because then it'd be a book club, not a Christian church.

[Ghel]

If it's something that's generally impossible to happen or just awfully ridiculous, it's probably made up.

Like every miracle that Jesus is said to have performed. Like Jesus' purported resurrection.

Because then it'd be a book club, not a Christian church.

What I was trying to get at is that people draw inspiration from many sources. If many of the stories in the Bible aren't true (and I don't see any reason to think that any of them are true), then why hold it in higher esteem than any other book of myths and fables?

[Kheldarson]

Ghel, it's obvious that no matter what anyone says, you're going to find fault with it. This is because you're starting at an entirely different world view.

My logic starts with a basis of faith. My faith tells me and informs me that Jesus was truly the Son of God, that he died and rose again, that he died for our sins.

Following from that base, my logic further informs me that because he was the Son of God and came as our Savior, he was able to do things that most people cannot. Such as miracles. Such as curing the sick, raising the dead, healing the blind, the lame, the leper. It further follows that since he rose and ascended into heaven, and has a vested interest in us, it further follows that he can intercede on our behalf.

Logic also tells me that things written from the earliest of times are passed down by oral tradition and should be slightly suspect. Doesn't mean they didn't necessarily happen the way it was written, but it doesn't follow that they couldn't have happened that way either. That's faith.

I realize you're going to sit and tear this apart, and that's fine. I'm going to be ignoring your posts from now on, because you're refusing to even accept the possibility of a different starting point. Which is a shame because you keep pointing out the reasons why you should allow it in discussion. Yes, people draw inspiration from many sources. But sometimes a person's faith, their own convictions, determine which they hold as a greater source. I choose to believe in Christ and the teachings in the Bible. Gravekeeper has chosen the path of the Buddha. You've chosen the way of Science. Nothing wrong with any of that. But what is wrong is that in a discussion forum, you've chosen to completely ignore varying starting bases.

[radiocerk]

But believe in which teachings of the Bible?

I think it is unfair to disregard anyone just because you know they don't agree with you. I generally disagree with Christians (mostly because of that whole telling me I'm going to hell thing), but I will listen to their arguments. You never know, someday they might have a good point.

[Ghel]

...you're refusing to even accept the possibility of a different starting point.

Why should a different starting point matter when trying to determine the truth? Different fields of study come from vastly different starting points, but their results converge on the same model of the universe.

Religion is the odd man out. Granted, some religions are closer to reality than others, but Christianity, in particular, makes bald assertions about the nature of the universe without anything more to back it up than appeals to authority. When we try to compare Christianity's assertions to what we know from more reliable methods of gaining knowledge, Christianity tends to fail.

My logic starts with a basis of faith.

Ah, but logic that begins with false premises comes to false conclusions. If you cannot show your premises to be true, you cannot show that your conclusions are true.

Ghel, it's obvious that no matter what anyone says, you're going to find fault with it.

I consider that an unfair characterization, but totally irrelevant in any case. This isn't about me. This is about the accuracy of the Bible. How do you know the Bible is accurate about anything? If you have faith, why do you need the Bible? My earlier question also remains: assuming you don't believe the Bible to be 100% accurate, how do you determine which portions are correct and which portions are incorrect? How do you tell whether a passage is true, mostly correct, slightly exaggerated, or false?

If we want to determine how accurate the Bible is, we need to subject it to the same scrutiny as any other document from antiquity. The Bible fails at any number of points, but the most important one to Christianity is that there is not even one contemporary first-hand account of any of the events of Jesus' life. We can't even know for sure if the character of Jesus was based on a real person because, if there was any evidence of such a person, the Church has destroyed it.

[Greenday]

How do you know the Bible is accurate about anything? If you have faith, why do you need the Bible? My earlier question also remains: assuming you don't believe the Bible to be 100% accurate, how do you determine which portions are correct and which portions are incorrect? How do you tell whether a passage is true, mostly correct, slightly exaggerated, or false?

For 99% of it, does it really matter? If the point of the stories, whether true or false, are to teach the same morals, why does it matter?

[Hyena Dandy]

This is true, Ghel, and again, I don't support Bible literalism myself. Neither does the Catholic Church. Especially since it's recognized that each book of the Bible was written for a particular audience at a particular time. Matthew writes for the Hebrews, Luke for the Greeks. Are they going to address the same things? Write in the same words? No. That's why context is so important when studying the Bible.

Exactly.

There is a problem which I hear a lot from Evangelicals which bothers me.

"That is what the Bible says and that is what I believe, end of story."

That sounds like a praiseworthy stance, but the problem is no. You don't know what the Bible says.

For one, unless you are a truly impressive polyglot, you do not know what the bible says. You know what your translation of the Bible says. And a lot of those are translations of other translations of what the Bible says.

And even if, somehow, you did speak Hebrew, Greek, and every other language the Bible is in, how could you possibly say without a doubt what the Bible SAYS, you still are not living the life of a Greek, or a Hebrew, or a Roman. You are not an early Christian, so the Bible wasn't written to you. It was written to the Romans, the Greeks, the Hebrews, the Israelites, et al.

It sounds praiseworthy, but it is actually ridiculously prideful.

[radiocerk]

But which morals are you trying to pull from the book? Many of the lessons of the Bible, especially the Old Testament are violent and genocidal, and several lessons of the New Testament are misogynistic and hateful.

Are you suggesting we throw out everything that is negative and focus on the "positive lessons"? And if so, positive from who's point of view? The Religious Right and modern feminists would have differing opinions on what would constitute positive.

[Gravekeeper]

My logic starts with a basis of faith. My faith tells me and informs me that Jesus was truly the Son of God, that he died and rose again, that he died for our sins.

Following from that base, my logic further informs me that because he was the Son of God and came as our Savior, he was able to do things that most people cannot.

Logic and faith are two very different beasts that require some tricky training to keep in the cage together. What you speak of is not truly logic. It is faith, sorry. Logic is reason and inference. Drawing correct conclusions from fact. Deduction, if you will. You're speaking of faith. Logic would require the insertion of science and natural law, whether you wished it to be there or not. Whereas Ghel does have a tendency to drift too far in one direction, your statements drift too far in the other.

Logic also tells me that things written from the earliest of times are passed down by oral tradition and should be slightly suspect. Doesn't mean they didn't necessarily happen the way it was written, but it doesn't follow that they couldn't have happened that way either. That's faith.

Exactly. Because logic often times states they couldn't have happened that way. Thus is the problem.

Gravekeeper has chosen the path of the Buddha. You've chosen the way of Science.

<Buddha sentai pose>. Also, Buddha and science are not mutually exclusive and most schools of Buddhism will accept the rule of science should it overturn the rule of Buddha ( There's a bit of a standing "You got something better? Show me the proof and I'll accept it" rule ). Judeo-Christian religions, not so much to be honest.