Religion
Related: About this forumWhat is a Biblical literalist?
What is a Biblical literalist?
I ask because I have been accused of being a Biblical literalist. And the term is used enough here in the religion group, that it would be helpful to define what is meant. I did a quick search and came up with a very few references.
First,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
So, using this as a starting point, we come to:
One thing I would note is that when the word obviously is used, what obviously means is not always in fact obvious. So obvious is anything but.
And another view:
Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html
All three of the definitions seem to agree that a Christian Biblical literalist is someone who holds that the Bible is generally the exact, inspired word of God. My view is much the same.
So when discussing religion here, if one is called a Biblical literalist it should be understood that the term refers to those Christians who believe that the earth is approximately 5800 years old, and that the Universe was created in 6 literal, 24 hour days. And that Adam and Eve are actual humans and not archetypes.
Thoughts?
True Dough
(17,358 posts)from this saint...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)No sense repeating that joke.
True Dough
(17,358 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Those accusing you of this don't know you enough to make that call.
There are parts I take as true and other parts I think are allegorical.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But even in a discussion, it helps to have a common accepted meaning when using such terms.
I think many of us take your approach.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Now it's just about drawing a line.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Birth, ministry, trial, death, resurrection, and ascension I take literally. But a Bible thumper I am not nor amI the most religious person on the planet.
okasha
(11,573 posts)There's history, embellished history, epic narrative (may or may not have historical basis), poetry, allegory, political and social commentary, and especially in the New Testament, a heavy dose of theology.
For an informed reader, there's more than just literal or not-literal.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)My point is that people who believe that Jesus is the son of god are, to some extent, literalists. To say that literalists are a pain in the ass is to just not like what THEY take literally because what you take literally is, of course, logical and makes sense.
I see the whole thing as fiction. It's much easier to deal with the lessons in there that way.
okasha
(11,573 posts)doesn't mean the same thing throughout the New Testament. If you follow the Adoptionist interpretation, are you a literalist? How about the opening passage of John's Gospel? If you believe that ""In the beginning was the Word....and the Word was God," it becomes rather dificult to separate that identity into father and son. Is that literalism or acceptance of a paradox?
Chesterton once said that "Orthodoxy is my doxy. Heterodoxy is some other man's doxy.". Which is witty, but oversimplified.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)A biblical literalist believes something in the bible is literally true.
--imm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My last example is a person who claims to believe that everything in the Bible literally happened.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)do you think actually happened.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As I said, I believe that most of the chronologies represent a history of the ruling families and various wars.
My view of Genesis is that it is allegorical.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)for me, that is an earmark of a literalist. Someone who believes those early stories, Eden, Babel, Noah, Moses, etc...
Which run up against every known fact about history, archeology, geology, and so on, would be a literalist.
Believing the NT story verbatim would be similar.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am not one of the children of Ham.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Trying to add a bit of humor to the forum.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)use some of it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)There are parts that directly contradict each other. Taking the whole thing literally would be akin to making a square circle. It can't logically be done.
So for what is a literalist, we are left with: "Someone who takes at least some of a holy book literally."
Thus, you're a literalist. You take some of the Christian bible literally. You believe there is a literal creator of the universe. You believe there was literally a person named Jesus who literally died for your sins - sins like lying, for instance. Or insulting others. Those kinds of sins.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)a literalist does accept that every word of the Bible is literally true. If one does not take every part as true one cannot be a literalist.
Can there be degrees of literalism? I would argue no, that by its nature it is an either/or proposition.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because as I pointed out, there are direct contradictions in your bible, and so to take each contradiction literally is impossible.
You do take many parts of your bible literally, though. So you are a biblical literalist. Clearly you don't take the parts about contrition literally though.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)we can only debate with ourselves. An interior debate.
Feel free to present a definition of literalist.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)This is lots of fun. Are you ready to make amends yet? Retract and apologize?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Biblical literalists are generally adept at reconciling the contradictions to their own satisfaction, if to no one else''s. Ken Ham does so without a ripple of doubt.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And that is fine, but if taken too far we are left in a position where nothing can be said without debate about the literal meaning of every word.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)or not thinking logically. Literalists don't actually exist if we're talking about someone who actually does take every word of the bible literally. They do exist if we limit the defenittion to those who believe they take every word literally.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Meaning that they literally believe that every word, every letter, is divinely inspired and literally true.
I can understand the inspiration, but literalism does not allow for metaphor, poetry, any symbolic language.