Why do some people take the bible literally?

First off, I'm an atheist and I'm not here to bash the Christian belief.

The bible wasn't meant to be taken literally at all. When the bible says (for example) that homosexuality is a sin (somewhere), I don't think it was intended to outlaw homosexuality, but to show an example of hate and prejudice that was meant to be remedied through the teachings of love and compassion by the true Christian principles. This is just one example, but I think most of the wars and conflicts were not caused by religious differences, but by people taking their holy scripts literally and making religious conflict.

 

Well, I agree, mostly. The books of the Law are more or less literal. You read where it says not to eat pig, and it means you're not supposed to eat pig. Now, the Old Testament part about homosexuality says something like "for two men to lie together is an abomination" but the actual Hebrew says "for two men to lie together in a woman's bed is ritually impure". That's a paraphrase but pretty close. So you even have to take the "literal" parts with a grain of salt.

Of course, much of the rest of the bible is quite poetic, and we all know poetry is not meant for face value reading. Then you have Revelations, basically what sounds like a really bad trip. Whatever caused it, though, it's clearly symbolic. And Jesus hardly ever gave a straight answer, it seems, he spoke in metaphor, allegory, and parable. Not that EVERYTHING he said was like that, but it seems he liked to come at things sideways to give a better understanding of it. Again, I don't think it's so much about him laying down literal rules, but giving us spiritual insight and understanding OURSELVES. He's a teacher, not a lawmaker. So is, in my opinion, the whole Bible; Not a legal code but a book that helps us find deeper understanding.

 

sorry to butt in on this discussion man "but like first off I"m atheist and i"m not here to bash any christians...............dont yer just love those sayings man . its like all the racists here in britain going on ANL forums and saying .............like i am not a racist like BUTUNFUCKENBELIEVABLE...................see the racist fuckers miles off ........................ anyway i think ( for what its worth ) throughout time man has altered the the scriptures (for their own ends ) tho shall not ......... yet man we have all sinned i the past .......................................analyse this..............................world

 

*wipes brow in relief*

I agree.

Also, consider the perspective of the NKOTB, the Jewish race - Obviously, homosexual relations aren't going to go along with that whole "being fruitful and multiplying" bit. This Law applied the principle of strength in #s - Written from a *survival* standpoint (as in, preserving your people).

This hardly seems to be very much of an issue in a world that has, perhaps, an overabundance of people, at this point. After all, Christ implies the soul to be genderless.

Well, yes. You're right. But individual choices aren't necessarily the choice of all who brand themselves with a particular ideology's name.

Some people have such a strong desire to prove their faith in an absolute sense (which is really about power for *them* and NOT power for their god) that they become drunk on the pseudo-power that comes w/ the temporary fixes physical force rigs, & use it to oppress others. But that allows justified anger to fester, sure to spark the process all over again. Both sides need to make amends for the cycle to be dispursed, but who chooses to relinquish their pride until it is obvious that there's no other option...? Very Unfortunate.

 

When you read scripture, you must understand the origional meaning of what was said and more importantly why it was said. The Bible is a record book depicting not only man's enlightenment but man's shortcomings as well. It also illustrates what took place during a given time and why. For example, in Leviticus many prohibitions were listed. The reasons for many of the prohibitions were because of the harsh conditions that the people were living under during that time. They were in the desert and sanitaion was critical in keeping diseases at bay, hence restrictive codes of conduct were imposed so as to maintain the well-being of the community. Moreover, many prohibitions such as 'fornication' and 'adultery' are actually gross euphemisms for what might be considered in today's world as idolatry and betrayal, respectively.

 

Literalists seem to put a cap on their intelligence with this stuff. Then again, we see what we wish to see, and it all makes sense according to that perception.

 

Good to know.

That's your opinion.

As I understand it, only the fundie Christians take the bible 100% literally. But most of them have not even read the entire bible, and every time they quote a verse to defend their humanistic beliefs, a misantropistic can find many verses in the bible that contradict that one. Everytime a fundie uses the bible to defend their point, I'd say their argument goes down the toilet then.

 

Agrees with your point.

Laughable. Many may not take it word for word literal (for example, in the book White Teeth by Zadie Smith an aging Jamacian JW keeps a microwave on hand to heat up lukewarm food because she believes that lukewarm is of Satan based on a verse in Revelations) but "fundies" aren't the only ones who take it as the word of God and is to be adhered to. I think that you are applying the term fundie way to broadly.

Again laughable as i have never once been presented with any sort of stastistic to back up this claim...I wonder if there has ever been a study conducted on this. It seems to come up quite often...hmmm, if I am feeling ambitious one day I think I will try and figure this out (in the context of my town)

Well, what would you want them to use?

 

Prehaps a few others as well, but this is largely true.

Again this is largely correct, but I find it intersting that you would call their beliefs 'humanistic.'

I think that you have to understand that many people who embrace fundamentalist ideology had bad experiences (i.e substance abuse, relationship problems, trouble with the law, etc.) in their past or they are simply weak willed. They have hit rock bottom and are looking for answers. More often than not, they look for simple answers to complex issues, which fundamentalism seems to provide. They feel that this type of regiment gives their lives some sort of meaning. Because they feel that their lives have improved, they feel that others will benefit from the same sort of regiment and do their best to look for converts. They use religion not as an inspiration, but as a crutch.

 

Huh? I'm not laughing.

The bible makes no transpicious indication that it shouldn't be taken literally. I would venture to say that something meant to be taken as a work of fiction, usually starts with the words, "Once upon a time". And throughout the bible, it seems to go to great lenghts to depict it as the perfect word of God.

I have yet to meet a Christian who adheres to the entirety of the bible in a literal way.. except fundies.

It's funny and quite vestigal when fundies resort to a book full of impudent condradictions and fatuous linguistics.

 

You are correct, a whole lot of others do as well. It seems only when Christians are shown so much as an atomic error in the bible, that they cry, "that's not to be taken literally!"

Yes, what I meant was capricious, not humanistic.

Wow, that diatribe describes anyone controlled through a religion, as well as fundies.

 

What book, fiction or not, does?

We do find indications that a literal interpretation wasn't the only acceptable, or even the most preferable, way to read it;

Paul reads much of the OT allogorically;

Corinthians 9:8-10



For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.


He's not denying that it should be taken literally, he's just showing that it's literal interpretation is less important than it's social application.

there's another place where he relates the story of Hagar and says outright "which thing is an allogory" and goes on to explain how it applys to his congregation.

It's not like Paul was saying these things aren't to be taken literally (we don't know if he actually did or not), he's just saying that the literal interpretation is less important than allogorical interpretation.

He's saying the lesson is more important than the event, and the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law.

You can't designate mythology fact or fiction, it really fits better into it's own catagory.

It's a lesson represented by an event.

Whether or not the event actually ever took place is a secondary considerration.

you don't have to believe that there was ever a time when tortouses actually had races with hares to understand that "slow and steady wins the race".

On the other hand if someone wants to believe that Aesop was talking about an actual event, who cares as long as they understand the moral.

I don't see that. Most of Psalms depicts someone trying to talk to god rather than the other way around.
Alot of psalms and proverbs is involved on speculating on the nature of God, why would God speculate on his own nature?

As far as most of the rest of the books go (with the exception of some of the prophets and possibly Numbers) none of them open with "thus sayeth the Lord" or "This is the word of God" or give themselves any kind of divine endorsement anymore than any other historical account or work of fiction (take your pick).

Anytinme I've ever asked a christian why they think the bible in it's entirity is the "word of God" they always point to a passage in one of Pauls Epistles where he says "All scripture is inspired and suitable for..." etc, etc.

It's a weak endorsement to begin with and on top of that we don't even know if what Paul or any of the other New testement authors considerred scripture is the same thing that christians are calling scripture today;

exp: In the Epistle of Jude the author quotes a passage from the Book of Enoch as if he considerrs it scripture yet the book never made it into the canon and no christian would probably consider it scripture today.

 

I don't even know what you are even arguing anymore. My point was that althought each word may not be taken literally, the message behind them are taken literally by most Christians, not just "fundies". I am sure Catholics, Orthodox adherants, among other groups not filed into "fundie" status take the Bible quite literally.

Again, I don't know what you are arguing. As I stated, very few will probobly take it as a word for word literal message with no figuative language to speak of (remember, I posted an example about "lukewarm") but the majority of Christians take the Bible as a literal document to be adhered to.

Wow Mr. Superfluous, you're one to speak about "fatuous linguistics"

 

Does.....? Well then I guess we should all take the hobbits seriously. Alot of children's fables start with "once upon a time" and end with "happily ever after" or such mawkish things.

Your interpretation blows me away. I ran into alot of wacked-out bible tagmemics, but now I've seen it all. The reason that your using Paul to defend your views is bedlamite. Everything you said here is speculation at best.

Uhh, yes you can. There's a reason it's called (myth)ology. You're not being completely honest with us here.

Arrant, unorthodox, morphologic ballyho. You're being really elusive here.

No it's not. Do you believe in the flood? That Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and lived to tell about it? Well, the carpenter did, I don't think you want to argue with god's right hand man! (According to the defunct Jew, he sits at God's right hand, but God is omnipresent, so he has no such thing)

What? I repeat What? What is the relevance in this vacuous articulation? You're all over the place, man. Please stay on topic, thanks.

Yea, I really don't care whether people believe Aesop was speaking literally, or not. But let's be clear- the bible makes no clear distinction.

Wow, even Stevie Wonder can see that!
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripure is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness,

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active.

1 Peter 1:23-25
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the lord is perfect, reviving the soul.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.

Negative. Most of them are people talking about God, not to him.

Now you're diverting from what you previously stated, "Most of Psalms depicts someone trying to talk to God", but now you're saying alot of Psalms is people speculating about God. Geese, make up your mind, you're all over the place. I'm glad you're not a deciding juror on an important case.

I've already unambiguosly demonstrated how the bible goes to great dephs to show it's the word of an infallible God. Now you're denying the obvious.

 

Is there any point to this diatribe? I don't even know how to go about rebutting this phantasmagoric manifesto. Are you trying to show that you can be as vague as the God is that you claim exists?

 

(sigh) you said, "The bible makes no transpicious indication that it shouldn't be taken literally.

I said "what book, fiction or not, does"?

Meaning you can't expect a work of fiction to declare itself such.
No that doesn't mean hobbits are real, you can sleep with the lights off tonight.

LOL! So if Paul says "Which things are an allogory" and I say "Pauls speaking allogorically" I'm speculating?

Anyway, I'm not "defending" anything, just trying to teach you something. Guess that's a lost cause.

It's called mythology because that's what it is; a story mean't to convey a moral, not just pointless fiction. Any literary professor will tell you the same thing.

but you can call it anything you want if it makes you feel better.

the monkey put his hands over his eyes and shoved his head up his ass and said "you're not showing me anything!"

Beats me.

Probably not.

Why because he refered to the story? Like you're doing in this thread?

Wow! you're really pissed at christianity. Guess what, that's exactly what hardline christians want.

guess I lost you.

My whole point was that that doesn't matter.

wow! that's 4 whole sentences, and there's only a few hundred thousand in the bible. guess you proved your point.

I've never actually counted them but I'm still going to say most psalms are people talking to God.

If you want to count how many are addressed to him and how many are strictly about him and come back (with numbers) and tell me I'm wrong, be my guest.

You're right, if I were on a jury trying to determine whether you should be commited, you'd be in trouble.

So if I say "most" about something and say "alot" about the opposite I'm contradicting myself?

"Most birds can fly, but alot can't"--is this a contradiction?

you know nothing about the bible (and not much about the dictionary).

 

Well, I would assume one would take everything literally unless otherwise told. Even the very name "Gospel" means good news or truth, hardly suggesting mythology here.

Sure ya can. One can find Dr. Seuss books in the fiction/kids section of libraries, but I don't see the bible included there?

O man, that was so funny, you need to brush up on your stand up routine.

More word-twisting bullshit. So tiring, I was referring to the WHOLE diatribe you so aptly deposited.

Uhh, Paul isn't exactly on the level of dictating morals to anyone, let alone teaching them.

Being is you're so sure of what mythology is, I'm sure you won't mind providing a dictionary definition.

No, I'll call it what it is, a compilation of myths, nothing more, nothing less. The way I feel has no bearing on a poster on an internet forum's definition of a certain word, please stop emiting paltry, claptrap, incongrous ideas, thanks.

O geese, once again, PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC. I see you have a low attention span, that's ok if you rode the short bus to school.

"Beats me" You don't have any chimerical ideas about the bible? Are you a misogynistic?

Well if Jonah's escapade is fiction, why is any story true then? It's all or nothing, you cannot cherry-pick which situations are veritable and which aren't.

Surely. He never even hinted at that being fake the least, if anything, he believed. You can deny it till you're blue in the face, the fact remains that he referred to it as it was an actual event, basing pragmatic parables on it and others.

Guess what, after reading through the bible, I came to the conclusion that Christianity is not only bullshit, but rather barbaric, intolerant bullshit at that.

No, could you do me a favor and re-phrase your previous preposterous articulation, so as you don't come off so stupid, thanks.

I think it would matter to a perfect man sitting in a cloudy throne, if humans were to mangle his words and not take them seriously.

Well it stands, that is until you provide verses that refute these, until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I think there are some 150 songs in Psalms. You are correct in saying some are addressed to God, but some are describing God's characteristics as well. They are a collection of people's innermost feelings about God.

Nope, you are making the assertion of most Psalms being addressed to God, therefore the burden of proof lies with you, chap.

Again, twisting my words around. There's some 150 songs in it, I'd say "most" means more than 1/2 right? So then there'd be less than 75 comprising it. I would hardly label that "alot."

Cry, cry. Christians always seem to spout this protocal response when their hypocracy is confronted.

 

Sorry, I didn't have time to read the other posts.

But the answer to the first question is easy: Convenience.

 

Hey Naykid, I never knew you were a Christian

 

Well, that pretty much sums it up--I'm not even a christian you moron.
I just know how to read and I don't like liars no matter what team their playing for.

Everything you've said is based on rediculous assumptions, defended with dissembling, motivated by an agenda.

You're here to "prove" something.
I'm not, so, I'm not going to waste anymore time with you.