1 in 3 Americans Bible literalists

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
Yes. And the people who are non-literalists; who think their “liberal Christianity” is a balm that helps soothe the idiocy of the conservative/literalist Christians are a HUGE problem. They give cover, respectability and the comfort of conviction to the conservative/literalist Christians. By making the delusions seem halfway normal, they help keep society’s most destructive disease alive (the disease is ALL fundamental organized religions, not just Christianity).

You see a good amount of that “holier-than-thou” preening here on the SDMB from some of the “liberal Christians”. I hope they can move past this unfulfilling and hazardous compromise posture soon, because right now they don’t seem to even realize (or won’t admit) how much of the extant draconian, fundamentalist Christianity they are in a large part responsible for.

Please–either believe in the entire Christian Faith and its Bible as literal so we can just dismiss you as an idiot (but an honest one with conviction, at least), or admit that you are creating your own a la carte religion that might as well be Jainism for as much as it contradicts the Christian Bible. If you among the latter group, PLEASE just give it another name and drop the whole Christ shtick so we can marginalize the kooks who actually DO believe the fairy tales and get back to progressing as a civilization.
[/QUOTE]

You mean, how** dare** I believe something that is my own honest, sincere, heartfelt belief and which corresponds to my understanding of reality far better than either atheism or fundamentalism, but which frustrates you from being able to stick me into one of your preconceived pigeonholes?

I know, it’s terribly egotistical of me, and I’ll try to work on that. Right after I achieve lasting world peace, mkay?

82

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I don’t think Liberal Christians can do anything and still remain Christians. They are personally living their life in a good way, and not bugging anyone else to live the way they do. But, the moment you open the door for any kind of deity with an overriding morality, you open the door to having those with a different sense of that morality talking about God not wanting a woman to have an abortion.

You say the important thing is whether the events of the NT happened, but as far as I can tell a Christian of any stripe will say they accept that these things did happen on faith. Even if you decided you wanted to live exactly like a Christian, you’d have an excellent reason for not enforcing your way of life on others - that you doubt its roots. One who takes the Resurrection to be true doesn’t. They feel the need to consider some parts of the Bible true, and others false, but I’ve been looking for a sorting algorithm beyond “it seems right” and I’ve never found one.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve wondered about that myself. Why do people who claim to value the truth so highly cling to beliefs in spite of solid evidence that those beliefs are not very likely. Why do they insist that things are absolute fact when they have no real way of knowing.
Over the years I’ve observed in myself the very gradual willingness to let go of the need to believe certain things are true. I’ve wondered why I held onto then for as long as I did. Much of it seems to be an emotional attachment to tradition and the church being a powerful surrogate family. Across the spectrum of christian belief I think much of the differences reflect people working things out for themselves. Gradually letting go of long held tradition and letting personal honesty rise above peer pressure. It’s a slow process.

Personally I find it very freeing to realize it’s perfectly okay to not know which parts of the Bible might touch on a real event and which ones don’t. It doesn’t prevent me from enjoying the story of Jesus and drawing what I can from his teachings. Jesus can be the icon that we use to move ourselves forward and that’s a perfectly normal and healthy thing for anyone to do. Others may use Buddha or some other icon. Organized religion is heavily influenced by tradition. There seems to be some fear that letting go of certain traditional beliefs for a couple of reasons. One seems to be that letting go of certain belief might require something more of the individual than they are prepared to deal with. Another seems to be that letting go of a strongly rooted traditional belief will somehow lead to a crumbling of the very foundation of our belief system. I can testify that is not true. You can value the words of Christ that resonate for you without believing he healed the cripple and blind, raised Lazarus, was crucified, rose three days later, etc. None of those things matter at all when it comes time for us to decide what we value and how we will act toward others. It’s tragic irony that so many hold so fast to traditional beliefs about Jesus that they allow themselves to become separated from others which IMHO is missing the point.

83

Here’s another illustration of the fact that 100 is the average IQ (by design). If you think of a bell curve distribution with 100 in the middle, genius and moron on the edges, 30% just plain stupid people sounds about right. Then there is mental illness. No accounting for that.

The bible is quite silly when you try to take it literally. In genesis, everyone lived at least 900 years, and one dude and his sons could gather up 2 of every critter on the planet with enough food for all of them to live for a few months in a big boat thing that they built - can you imagine the smell? God hung out and talked to people all the time. Adam and eve populated the whole world despite Cain killing his brother (minor setback). Everybody found a husband or wife and was fruitful and multiplied. Where did all these other people come from? Was there a whole lot of incest or what?

Modern critical analysis by scholars and historians reveal that hardly any part of the bible was written by it’s supposed authors - anachronisms and inconsistencies show it to be impossible. Moses likes to talk about himself in the third person and describes his own death for example. So he was just crazy and psychic I guess. He was a prophet after all. It’s full of things like that, that just make no sense historically or logically. Archeology and historical sources can support almost none of what supposedly took place in the old testament. If you could ask the ancient Pharohs about those slaves and that annoying Moses guy with all the plagues. They’d tell you you’re on crack, or whatever they were smokin’ back then.

If it’s the literal word of g-o-d, you would expect it to be well written and coherent. Wouldn’t you?

So back in the day, they called this kind of talk heresy and that could get you tortured and/or killed by the catholics, et al., or at least locked up for life. This went on for over a millennium. No wonder there wasn’t a lot of critical analysis going on. It was strictly forbidden. Why do you suppose they went to all that trouble to shut everybody up?

84

[QUOTE=Longdoggie]
Here’s another illustration of the fact that 100 is the average IQ (by design). If you think of a bell curve distribution with 100 in the middle, genius and moron on the edges,** 30% just plain stupid people sounds about right.** Then there is mental illness. No accounting for that.

[/QUOTE]

I love irony. :slight_smile:

85

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
Please–either believe in the entire Christian Faith and its Bible as literal so we can just dismiss you as an idiot (but an honest one with conviction, at least), or admit that you are creating your own a la carte religion that might as well be Jainism for as much as it contradicts the Christian Bible. If you among the latter group, PLEASE just give it another name and drop the whole Christ shtick so we can marginalize the kooks who actually DO believe the fairy tales and get back to progressing as a civilization.
[/QUOTE]
I will believe what my mind and spirit guide me to believe, thank you very much, and if it doesn’t fall within your narrow paramteters, perhaps it is you who has the closed mind.

86

Best literal example of a “damned if I do and damned if I don’t” situation. :wink:

87

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I don’t think Liberal Christians can do anything and still remain Christians. They are personally living their life in a good way, and not bugging anyone else to live the way they do. But, the moment you open the door for any kind of deity with an overriding morality, you open the door to having those with a different sense of that morality talking about God not wanting a woman to have an abortion.

You say the important thing is whether the events of the NT happened, but as far as I can tell a Christian of any stripe will say they accept that these things did happen on faith. Even if you decided you wanted to live exactly like a Christian, you’d have an excellent reason for not enforcing your way of life on others - that you doubt its roots. One who takes the Resurrection to be true doesn’t. They feel the need to consider some parts of the Bible true, and others false, but I’ve been looking for a sorting algorithm beyond “it seems right” and I’ve never found one.
[/QUOTE]
For purposes of this discussion, I’m remembering who I was and what I believed when I was a Liberal Christian (as you’re using the term). Honestly, I don’t understand what you mean when you say I wasn’t a Christian. For me, the key belief is simple. Was Jesus the Son of God, crucified and raised from death? As far as I’m concerned, this is the defining belief of a Christian and, so, I was one. What do you mean when you say I was not?

As regards the second paragraph, the point isn’t whether one has doubt. It’s whether one chooses to believe. You and I do not, and so perhaps will suffer in Hell. I don’t lose much sleep over that, and assume you do not either.

88

[QUOTE=PBear42]
For purposes of this discussion, I’m remembering who I was and what I believed when I was a Liberal Christian (as you’re using the term). Honestly, I don’t understand what you mean when you say I wasn’t a Christian. For me, the key belief is simple. Was Jesus the Son of God, crucified and raised from death? As far as I’m concerned, this is the defining belief of a Christian and, so, I was one. What do you mean when you say I was not?

As regards the second paragraph, the point isn’t whether one has doubt. It’s whether one chooses to believe. You and I do not, and so perhaps will suffer in Hell. I don’t lose much sleep over that, and assume you do not either.
[/QUOTE]

You misinterpret me. (My fault.) You believed by faith, right? I’m sure you were influenced by your upbringing and environment, but your belief was not based on evidence the way your belief, later that F=ma was. The belief by faith is what religion is all about.

Now, when you chose to believe only in what was evidenced, that’s when you lost your true Christianity, liberal or otherwise. The best you can say is that maybe he was. Was Jefferson a true Christian when he disavowed all the supernatural parts of the NT?

As for doubt, I think the question is how is the doubt resolved? You can admit it, but renounce it, and have faith, which I think is the traditional approach. You can investigate, and come down on one side or another. But doubt is an unstable situation. I wasn’t seriously into religion, except for a short period, but when doubt entered through reading about who really wrote the Bible, I investigated and toppled into atheism pretty quickly. I don’t know of your situation was the same.

So, I’m not disputing that you were a real Christian, and that I was a real Jew.

89

Creationism vs Evolution?

Creationism espouses Truth based upon passages written in a Book.

Evolution espouses truth based upon tangible, concrete facts and scientific conclusions rigidly derived from those facts…written in the very substance of Creation itself.
Which Truth has more backing it up?

90

[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
In my view, this is trivial. The consequential question for theists concerns the Bible’s instrumentality - in other words, how is it used.

To me, if you believe a falsehood and consequently act better towards others, then I’m all for it.
[/QUOTE]

But which falsehoods do you believe, if it’s all supposed to be the word of god? I think all believers are, to an extent, literalists. I mean, you have to believe in the supernatural to believe that christ rose from the dead or that he’s the son of god. I find it amusing that each person draws the line at a different level of belief, some claiming this part or that part as not to be taken literally, but then believe the most basic piece of the story.

91

[QUOTE=PBear42]
FWIW, although I’m an atheist, I think cosmosdan’s point is well taken. Folks in the center are not responsible for the fringes. This is true of all religions, all politics and, indeed, all philosophies.
[/QUOTE]
They’re not “responsible” for them; they lend authenticity to their claims.

92

I think there is, to some extent, and argument to be made that moderates do provide cover for extremists, just because they will almost inevitably be more on the defensive than others due to the similarities of belief. If a complete nutjob believer/atheist/animal rights/death penalty/right/left-wing/whatever person starts spewing their nonsense, if any attack goes towards or even mentions the underlying belief it can be construed as an attack on the moderates. A “You moron; why should we care about elephants?” will get a “Well, you know, while I don’t agree with them, there is a good point to be made…” reply.

Plus there’s the problem of conflating the underlying view and the craziness. In most cases, to suggest that some nutjob is crazy because of their viewpoint (i.e. “Of course he’s nuts, he’s a Republican!” “Typical Democratic bullshit”) is nonsense. Thus when a point could be made that the craziness is there in any small amount because of the view, moderates may attack it (rightly or wrongly).

93

[QUOTE=Enola Straight]
Creationism vs Evolution?

Creationism espouses Truth based upon passages written in a Book.

Evolution espouses truth based upon tangible, concrete facts and scientific conclusions rigidly derived from those facts…written in the very substance of Creation itself.
Which Truth has more backing it up?
[/QUOTE]

What is truth?

94

Thank you, G. P. Pilatus.

95

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I think there is, to some extent, and argument to be made that moderates do provide cover for extremists, just because they will almost inevitably be more on the defensive than others due to the similarities of belief. If a complete nutjob believer/atheist/animal rights/death penalty/right/left-wing/whatever person starts spewing their nonsense, if any attack goes towards or even mentions the underlying belief it can be construed as an attack on the moderates. A “You moron; why should we care about elephants?” will get a “Well, you know, while I don’t agree with them, there is a good point to be made…” reply.

Plus there’s the problem of conflating the underlying view and the craziness. In most cases, to suggest that some nutjob is crazy because of their viewpoint (i.e. “Of course he’s nuts, he’s a Republican!” “Typical Democratic bullshit”) is nonsense. Thus when a point could be made that the craziness is there in any small amount because of the view, moderates may attack it (rightly or wrongly).
[/QUOTE]

um…doesn’t your second paragraph contradict the first one?

96

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
They’re not “responsible” for them; they lend authenticity to their claims.
[/QUOTE]

care to elaborate?

97

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Thank you, G. P. Pilatus.
[/QUOTE]

Any time. :wink:

98

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
um…doesn’t your second paragraph contradict the first one?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. Basically the first paragraph is suggesting that moderates may be driven to defend aspects of extremists with the same underlying view if they’re attacked based on that view. The second part is saying that it’s more complicated since at times they’d be right to defend and at times they wouldn’t.

I did have an example, but I didn’t use it because it was one of my own ideas and I didn’t want to risk a hijack. In the interests, of clearness, though; imagine that some nutjob religious person is doing as they do. I, a moron, attack them and suggest if we had no religious people, this asshattery wouldn’t occur. You as a faith-having person yourself might then be drawn into defending not the person per se, but being religious. Hence the basic idea of covering, though it’s perfectly reasonable of you to defend religion in this case; the guy’s a nutjob, it’s not anything to do with his religion. OTOH, let’s say this nutjob has then gone and picketed an abortion clinic. I attack him and say that if only we had no religion, bad stuff like this wouldn’t happen. Again, you might be drawn in to defend religion; except this time, I do sort of have a point; asshattery itself isn’t related to belief, but this particular form of asshattery generally is.

Basically i’m saying that sometimes covering is reasonable and understandable, but sometimes it isn’t. Either way, i’m pretty sure it does happen.

99

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I don’t think so. Basically the first paragraph is suggesting that moderates may be driven to defend aspects of extremists with the same underlying view if they’re attacked based on that view. The second part is saying that it’s more complicated since at times they’d be right to defend and at times they wouldn’t.

I did have an example, but I didn’t use it because it was one of my own ideas and I didn’t want to risk a hijack. In the interests, of clearness, though; imagine that some nutjob religious person is doing as they do. I, a moron, attack them and suggest if we had no religious people, this asshattery wouldn’t occur. You as a faith-having person yourself might then be drawn into defending not the person per se, but being religious. Hence the basic idea of covering, though it’s perfectly reasonable of you to defend religion in this case; the guy’s a nutjob, it’s not anything to do with his religion. OTOH, let’s say this nutjob has then gone and picketed an abortion clinic. I attack him and say that if only we had no religion, bad stuff like this wouldn’t happen. Again, you might be drawn in to defend religion; except this time, I do sort of have a point; asshattery itself isn’t related to belief, but this particular form of asshattery generally is.

Basically i’m saying that sometimes covering is reasonable and understandable, but sometimes it isn’t. Either way, i’m pretty sure it does happen.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a given that liberal Christianity and extremist conservative Christianity have certain beliefs in common so of course a more liberal Christian would defend those specific beliefs. What I don’t get is how sharing some beliefs is equated with liberal Christians offering tacit support for the more extreme beliefs. That seems to be what is implied when these statements are made and what I Love Me, Vol. I seems to be saying very bluntly. So, for me , it’s put up or shut up time. Make the case or stop spouting a meme that someone glomed onto simply because they don’t like religion.

100

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s a given that liberal Christianity and extremist conservative Christianity have certain beliefs in common so of course a more liberal Christian would defend those specific beliefs. What I don’t get is how sharing some beliefs is equated with liberal Christians offering tacit support for the more extreme beliefs. That seems to be what is implied when these statements are made and what I Love Me, Vol. I seems to be saying very bluntly.
[/QUOTE]
Ah. Well, it’s not what i’m implying, I think. I’m not suggesting that because people are more likely to defend beliefs that share simiarities with their own that they’re therefore supporting those nutso beliefs. Just that by defending the more reasonable parts or the underlying basis that the moderate and the extremist both share, the extremist gains some amount of legitimacy overall, not that their particular views do. Although I also don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.