I’m with Mosier. The disconnect between literalists and creationists puzzles me. Qadgop is correct that there’s no necessary logical inconsistency, but I have a hard time figuring out how one gets to creationism except by literalism. The disparity suggests to me that one poll or the other is measuring the wrong thing. Or perhaps both are.
They’ve also had studies that show that a majority of people believe in angels. Do those same people believe in ghosts? After all, they’re the yin to the angels’ yang. They’re the same idea, but without the great publicity. (I’d guess no). Do the same people that believe in angels think that the Bible is the literal word of God? Do some people that believe in angels believe that the Bible is completely man-made?
The literal interpretation is just a flavor in America’s religious lunacy. There are other flavors, although the Bible and its genesis is a prevailing flavor.
[QUOTE=PBear42]
I’m with Mosier. The disconnect between literalists and creationists puzzles me. Qadgop is correct that there’s no necessary logical inconsistency, but I have a hard time figuring out how one gets to creationism except by literalism. The disparity suggests to me that one poll or the other is measuring the wrong thing. Or perhaps both are.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Someone might believe that Genesis is totally correct, while also accepting errors in Chronicles or something, or not believing that Samson really lived. These people would have to answer no to the Bible being 100% true question. Many of them no doubt have not learned or do not understand how evolution works, and take the “easier” explanation.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
They’ve also had studies that show that a majority of people believe in angels. Do those same people believe in ghosts? After all, they’re the yin to the angels’ yang. They’re the same idea, but without the great publicity. (I’d guess no). Do the same people that believe in angels think that the Bible is the literal word of God? Do some people that believe in angels believe that the Bible is completely man-made?
The literal interpretation is just a flavor in America’s religious lunacy. There are other flavors, although the Bible and its genesis is a prevailing flavor.
[/QUOTE]
Angels come from God, and are in the Bible, while ghosts pretty much aren’t. (The only exception I can remember is in Samuel, not counting Casper the Holy Ghost, of course.) I remember the poll on angels. Lots of people claimed they had met angels - and gave as examples people being nice to them in airports.
I suspect that angel belief is down now, since they were hot for a while. Nick Cage probably killed the whole field. 
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
There would, I presume, be no point in running through, for the 114th time, an explanation of the idea that God can motivate people to do things, including being fallible human beings writing things, which can be studied by the collection of tools together called Biblical criticism, which Diogenes, not a Christian, has dealt with at greater length and far more scholarship that I am capable of, numerous times here already.
Hint: it’s called Christianity, not Bibleanity, for a fairly good reason. You probably could figure it out with that much help.
[/QUOTE]
I’d love it if there was a Biblical analysis algorithm which would come up with the same answer for all people. The ones we have yield results ranging from none of the Bible being inspired (or at least no evidence of such) to all of it being correct. Not to mention all the people who interpret and live by the Bible without any Christ at all. It’s not at all clear to me that Christians are better or worse at this than other religions.
I still think that any deity with decent literary skills would inspire people to write holy books that didn’t require the Talmud to decode. James Joyce got nothing on this guy.
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
Well, one needn’t believe the bible to be completely literally true to believe that God created man in his present form.
[/QUOTE]
True. You just have to be stupid.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Well, that’s interesting, because that’s not what most non-Evangelical catechisms teach. You fail to realize, I gather, that literalism is a fairly new phenomenon and is not related to the teachings of most of the Christian sects. You can try insisting to the Pope that he needs to take the Bible literally, and he’ll point you to a couple thousand years of theology that say no such thing.
[/QUOTE]
The trouble, of course, is that the Pope would tell you to take him literally when he’s speaking ex cathedra. But people don’t; they pick and choose. Birth control? Pfft!
I continue to submit that “Christianity” has no fixed meaning, even when you talk about sects or denominations in the aggregate. For the individual user, “Christianity” means “my Christianity,” one made up of bits and pieces of the Bible, bits and pieces of doctrine, and bits and pieces of heresy and outright error. The difference between literalists and non-literalists is that the non-literalists are at least little more honest about the fact that they’ve picked and chosen.
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
In fairness to the literalists, if you’re not taking the sacred books, the holy word of God, literally, then what are you doing, if not picking and choosing on the basis of completely extra-biblical criteria?
It’s a basic problem with the Christian religion: if you’re not taking things literally, then you’re basically just making up the religion that suits you, while if you are taking things literally, then you’re sort of an idiot, because the Bible contradicts itself in many, many, many ways, and has abundant counterfactural assertions besides.
[/QUOTE]
The very canonization of the individual books as we know them today was mostly the work of bishops at the Nicene Council in 325 (I think), and allowing for a few intentional omissions or additions by various sects, that’s the Bible that all Christians use today. I imagine that the theological justification for the canon is that the bishops were divinely inspired in their choosing, but to me it just seems like they were “cafeteria Christians”, only with a much larger menu to choose from. They chose some books to be included, and others to be excluded.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I am a theist, but still get attacked by Christian literalists. I usually reply that when looking at the Contents page of the Bible I see nothing in the Bible written by God. That I realize all the authors were inspired by God, just as my writings, and everyone else’s are also inspired by God. This does not mean that all the Bible is useless, or bad. Like any book it contains some great stuff and some not so great stuff. Read it all the way through and you will see what I mean.
Years ago I wrote an article about “Christian Criticism of Near Death Experiences” which is my thing. It has been pretty shocking to most Christians. If you wish to read it look here.
http://aleroy.com/forums/index.php?topic=32.0
[/QUOTE]
It sounds similar to what I have been reading lately: the daily musings at www.christianagnostic.com and Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.
Are you familiar with either?
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
The trouble, of course, is that the Pope would tell you to take him literally when he’s speaking ex cathedra. But people don’t; they pick and choose. Birth control? Pfft!
[/quote]
And what is your point? That only an absolutist, hide-bound, rule-governed set of activities can classify as a religion? How, exactly, pray, did you come to this conclusion? Did you, perhaps, come across some General Theory of Religions (maybe on gold tablets you found after falling and hitting your head?) that stipulates the rules and regulations for how a religion ought to be? Because it’s sounding to me a lot like only a cult can possibly suit the description of religion that you seem to think is valid.
A few miles from me I have large communities of ultra-conservative Jews, some of whom spend literally a lifetime studying large parts of what I’d call the Old Testament and all of whom try to live their lives adhering to rules that come from a minute reading of it, especially the book of Leviticus.
Aren’t they Bible literalists? And why are people like the OP seemingly not mentioning them? If the idea is that they’re OK because they don’t evangelize and/or try to push political views, I’m afraid that I can present several annoyed non-Orthodox Jews and defeated politicans who would beg to differ.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Not at all. Someone might believe that Genesis is totally correct, while also accepting errors in Chronicles or something, or not believing that Samson really lived. These people would have to answer no to the Bible being 100% true question. Many of them no doubt have not learned or do not understand how evolution works, and take the “easier” explanation.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what you’re saying, but it doesn’t track for me. Surely, as between the poetic Genesis and the historical Chronicles, if one is going to split the baby, it’s the former which is figurative and the latter which is literal. Further, in my observation, the loud creationists (e.g., creationism.org) generally are upfront that inerrancy is why the fight is worth the candle. Agreed, some number of nonliteralist creationists probably are just taking the easier explanation, but it’s still a disconnect. In any event, frankly, the creationism numbers scare me more than the literalism numbers.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’d love it if there was a Biblical analysis algorithm which would come up with the same answer for all people. The ones we have yield results ranging from none of the Bible being inspired (or at least no evidence of such) to all of it being correct. Not to mention all the people who interpret and live by the Bible without any Christ at all. It’s not at all clear to me that Christians are better or worse at this than other religions.
I still think that any deity with decent literary skills would inspire people to write holy books that didn’t require the Talmud to decode. James Joyce got nothing on this guy.
[/QUOTE]
You know, for some odd reason your statements disagree with those posted under the names Quiddity Glomfuster and Tomndebb, when everyone knows that rational analysis should mean that the contents are identical. I therefore can conclude definitively that there is no such thing as the hypothetical SDMB – it’s self-contradictory.
In a world where God exists but human beings have free will to go against him, it’s entirely plausible, and in accord with history, that people might write down stuff for various reasons, like writing letters or keeping track of family genealogies, and then somebody collect it all together.
In other words, you’re buying exactly into the fundy “God wrote the Bible” mindset in order to refute it by excluded-middle. And there’s a pretty big ‘middle’ you’re excluding. Including what in any other field would be considered conclusive scientific proof.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
And what is your point? That only an absolutist, hide-bound, rule-governed set of activities can classify as a religion?
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. Because otherwise, what people are calling “religion” is a religion of one. If people feel like they have the divine authority to jettison whatever they find inconvenient from the holy writings or religious traditions, they become, in effect, the final – not to say only – authority on their religion.
Polycarp talks of the middle ground, but I’m not entirely sure what it looks like. To me it feels like a question of simply jettisoning less, of hewing closer to the tradition. But still, things have been jettisoned, and who is the authority on that, except the one doing the jettisoning? Is there any authority higher?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
No doubt true, but I still don’t find the 30% figure to be out of line. I suspect there are a lot of people who have read the Bible, are well aware of the contradictions contained there, but who still think it is literally true. Don’t ask me how they hold on to that belief…
[/QUOTE]
They have a museum that correctly interprets what scientists have so erroneously interpreted all this time. :dubious:
Seems to me, since I’ve been a member of SDMB, there are two types of people who have deep, intimate knowledge of the Bible – the truly faithful, whether somewhat liberal folks like **Polycarp ** and tomndebb, or die-hard fundies like Jerry Falwell; and the more articulate atheists like Diogenes the Cynic, Der Trihs, and Christopher Hitchens.
I’m surprised at how many people who frequently attend church are quite ignorant of what’s actually in the Bible. I think it would be interesting to see how many people believe the Golden Rule is actually cited in the Bible. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people quote the “God helps those who help themselves” as biblical (“It’s in Proverbs, I think.”) Working-class, church-going people frequently confuse American adages, legal precedent, and Bible passages.
Actually, the Golden Rule is in there, and from JC himself no less: Matthew 7:12.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Actually, the Golden Rule is in there, and from JC himself no less: Matthew 7:12.
[/QUOTE]
And, obviously, I’m in that vast sea of biblically ignorant folk. :smack:
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
You know, for some odd reason your statements disagree with those posted under the names Quiddity Glomfuster and Tomndebb, when everyone knows that rational analysis should mean that the contents are identical. I therefore can conclude definitively that there is no such thing as the hypothetical SDMB – it’s self-contradictory.
[/quote]
What percentage of the Dope is divinely inspired (outside of my posts, that is)? We’re not talking about content here. I can imagine fights about which of several editions of the Bible are correct, but in our world the text is pretty well accepted. I also trust that you are neither worshipping nor living your life based on the precepts of the SDMB. Maybe I should start a thread in IMHO about which parts of the SDMB should be considered Holy Writ.
Well, thanks for confirming my words about the meme. But you are totally wrong about what I wrote. First, my link showed 50% of Americans accept only part of the Bible as literal, and I never disputed this. Second, my whole point was to ask how theists figured out which was which. If I thought they should consider it all inspired, the answer would be easy. Now, obviously I think none of it is inspired, but I have never, ever, claimed that the “part of it is inspired” position is inherently flawed. To repeat my question yet again, it is that given the belief by most theists that only part of the Bible is inspired, how do they determine which part? I’ve given my answer already - it depends purely on the intellectual, moral and social background of the reader. That explains why people like you and Zoe, for example, extract very reasonable moral positions from the Bible (translation - I agree with them) while others don’t.
It’s not like I don’t understand the partially inspired position. When I went to Hebrew School, our “history” section started with Abram, giving the general impression that the parts before were more or less mythology.
I don’t get why God would require certain beliefs and/or actions for salvation, while allowing the source of information about which beliefs and/or actions are necessary to be corrupted. I rather think he could keep the Bible fairly accurate without violating anyone’s freewill. But even accepting that he didn’t, my point about interpretation still holds.
So, could you please stop accusing me of expecting or demanding inerrancy, and respond to the point?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Well, thanks for confirming my words about the meme. But you are totally wrong about what I wrote. First, my link showed 50% of Americans accept only part of the Bible as literal, and I never disputed this. Second, my whole point was to ask how theists figured out which was which. If I thought they should consider it all inspired, the answer would be easy. Now, obviously I think none of it is inspired, but I have never, ever, claimed that the “part of it is inspired” position is inherently flawed. To repeat my question yet again, it is that given the belief by most theists that only part of the Bible is inspired, how do they determine which part? I’ve given my answer already - it depends purely on the intellectual, moral and social background of the reader. That explains why people like you and Zoe, for example, extract very reasonable moral positions from the Bible (translation - I agree with them) while others don’t.
It’s not like I don’t understand the partially inspired position. When I went to Hebrew School, our “history” section started with Abram, giving the general impression that the parts before were more or less mythology.
I don’t get why God would require certain beliefs and/or actions for salvation, while allowing the source of information about which beliefs and/or actions are necessary to be corrupted. I rather think he could keep the Bible fairly accurate without violating anyone’s freewill. But even accepting that he didn’t, my point about interpretation still holds.
So, could you please stop accusing me of expecting or demanding inerrancy, and respond to the point?
[/QUOTE]
Well maybe 4 cents…alright …a buck 25.
We had a real interesting thread here a few months back where someone, I forget who, very wisely and correctly pointed out that since there are so many personal interpretations of the Bible possible and many well intentioned people {as well as those with bad intent} draw different meaning from it the only logical conclusion is that it’s meaning springs from within the individual rather than from the words on the page or even the author or the authors ultimate muse.
I was intrigued by that very logical observation. I remember talking to a friend about the term scripture and what is considered holy inspired divine {chose a word} writing and what isn’t. My own take on it is that the holy spirit is the word of god and nothing else can claim the title. How can we determine the level of inspiration from say Paul with his own outlooks and influences and say Shakespeare. It doesn’t matter. It is the individual who must determine whether the text is meaningful to them and on what level. Whatever inspiration is involved springs from within ourselves not from any printed word. The author may or may not have been inspired. Were the copyists? Were the men who selected what books would be included or excluded. Were the interpreters? In the end it doesn’t matter because it is what spirit lives and moves within us that determines what we get out of it. I can be equally moved by great writing from authors who do not claim a divine source.
OTOH realizing this places the responsibility for whatever our interpretation is and how we respond to it. where it belongs. Squarely on the individual. IMO some people seek to avoid that personal responsibility by chooses words like “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” or allowing someone else tell them what it all means.
They can make that choice alright, but I think it needs to be pointed out to them that it is indeed their choice. Their interpretation.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
since there are so many personal interpretations of the Bible possible and many well intentioned people {as well as those with bad intent} draw different meaning from it the only logical conclusion is that it’s meaning springs from within the individual rather than from the words on the page or even the author or the authors ultimate muse.
[/QUOTE]
Whoa whoa whoa there! That’s the most blatant misue of “the only logical conclusion is” I’ve seen in a long time!