Christians: Do You Take The Bible Literally?

[Zhade]

Poll question: Christians: Do You Take The Bible Literally?

It seems there are many Christians who do not take the bible literally, but instead see it as a source of wise teachings via allegory and parable.

I can dig that idea. Jesus' words as allegedly recorded in the bible are pretty good teachings, especially the Two Laws.

I think that a lot of non-Christians mistakenly think all Christians believe the bible is literally true and infallible. Obviously, this is impossible given the contradictory nature of the bible itself, and science has shown that beliefs such as "the world is 6,000 years old" are incompatible with reality.

If more people understood that many Christians don't take the bible's many absurd-if-literal claims at face value, perhaps there would be less anger toward Christians in general. After all, it's easier to hate a faceless, monolithic group when one doesn't recognize that there are wildly different beliefs in that group.

So, DU Christians, do you take the bible literally? Semi-literally? What parts, to you, are actual historical facts and what parts are not?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I think you're too optimistic.

But when I get Bible quotes spewed at me to justify everything from anti-Choice to Iraq wars, I think there are A LOT of people, way too many, who take the Bible literally.

[no name no slogan]

2. And so many of those quotes out of context, too

especially Leviticus (about gays). If we stoned all the gays, we'd also have to stone those who eat shellfish, who grow two different crops in the same field, who wear wool/cotton blends, who don't keep the sabbath, etc.

Hell, if we went to RNC headquarters, we'd be out of stones before we finished the first floor.

[Tux]

11. Er

Stones can be reused.

[Zhade]

30. HAHAHA! Excellent point!

:D

[Igel]

15. Sabbath-breaking was a capital crime, but

the eating shellfish or mixing crops or fibers ... nah.

[Zhade]

5. I wonder if it's taken literally, or merely opportunistically.

They can't all be ignorant enough to take the bible literally. I think many just use literalism as a tool to force their own beliefs on others.

[Doctor Pedantic]

3. Other

There are many parts of the Bible that I don't think are meant to take literally -- e.g., the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the Book of Job, etc. What I tend to take literally are the greater moral teachings and the Big Picture issues. I believe that God created the universe, and if part of that creation involved setting into motion the evolution of microorganisms into humans, that's no less miraculous to me than him making Adam out of dirt. And I don't think God cares if people believe in a literal six-day creation or believe in evolution.

What's important to me are things like Jesus saying that we have to love God and love each other, and that when He returns to earth He will judge us according to how we treated "the least of" our sisters and brothers -- i.e., did we feed the hungry, take care of the poor, comfort the sick, etc. I think God cares very much about these issues. And there are plenty of other Christians (including other Evangelical Christians) who believe this as well. So please don't call all believers anti-intellectual or judgmental or stupid or hateful. Some are, some aren't.

[Zhade]

6. Did I call any of them any of those things?

No. In fact, I agree with your "overall themes" concept. I don't have a belief in any god, but I agree with those kinds of teachings.

I do think it's anti-intellectual and ignorant to take the bible completely literally, but I wouldn't throw that in anyone's face if they don't attack me first. As long as they advocate the kinds of things you did in your post, I'm perfectly happy to leave them be.

[Doctor Pedantic]

14. Oops...let me clarify.

I wasn't suggesting that you call people those things...that was more of a broader request because there is a lot of religion-bashing on the DU boards and in the broader liberal community at large. I think we liberals talk a lot about tolerance but then tend to become very intolerant when it comes to this one issue. I struggle with that as well because I tend to associate things like creationism with immaturity and a lack of smarts -- I used to believe those things, too...when I was a little kid. But as St. Paul himself said, when people become adults, they should "put away childish things...."

[Zhade]

31. Hey, no biggie, I figured out later that's what you meant.

I think a lot of the intolerance comes from both sides expecting the other to be monolithic in their views and beliefs, and that understanding the amazing amount of variety in groups helps humanize them to where we can learn from each other.

Take me, for instance - I'm an atheist, thus I lack belief in any gods, yet I do think there is something more to reality than we quite know. Maybe that could be called God, I don't know. But some expect me to hate Christians because I'm an atheist, which couldn't be more wrong about my feelings toward those who truly follow the teachings of Jesus.

That's why I really appreciate someone like Az, who tries to open up communication.

[Az]

4. I wish the more obnoxious examples would take it more literally

I could own them lock stock an barrel with Luke 6:30. But everytime I present this one to them they find a way to wriggle out of it.

[Zhade]

7. What do they say?

NT!

[Az]

10. I have heard every excuse imaginable

But to a person they have all rejected this particular quote from Jesus when put to the test.

My favorite was during the Atheist march in DC. We were flanked by screaming fundamentalists all along our march. There was one particularly nasty group that had a group of biker types with a bullhorn shouting that we were all damned to hell. I approached the biker with the bullhorn and asked him if he had a bible handy. I then asked him to read Luke 6:30. I then said, "Can I have your bullhorn".

He sat their flumixed for a bit and then started sputtering that I was taking it out of context and such. I asked him to read the rest of the chapter to see if it was out of context (its not). He stammered a bit more before finally coming up with the excuse that it wasn't his bullhorn.

For some reason he wouldn't talk to me after that.

[youthere]

43. I love it when people shut them down.

These fundies focus so much on Revelation and cherry picking whatever verses support it they forget all about the Sermon on the Mount-and that is what the core of what Christianity is about. The spend so much time twisting "the word" that they've pushed away "the Word made flesh."(IMHO)One of my personal favorites:

15"Be wary of false preachers who smile a lot, dripping with practiced sincerity. Chances are they are out to rip you off some way or other. Don't be impressed with charisma; look for character. 21"Knowing the correct password--saying "Master, Master,' for instance--isn't going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience--doing what my Father wills. 22I can see it now--at the Final Judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying, "Master, we preached the Message, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking.' 23And do you know what I am going to say? "You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important. You don't impress me one bit. You're out of here.'

Matthew 7:15-23
from "The Message"

[Stunster]

12. Suppose you are robbed on the street

Would police officers advise you to ask for your stuff back?

[Az]

16. I'm not a Christian

I would make sure the cop got my stuff back. How bout you? Would you tell the cop you don't want your stuff back?

[Stunster]

18. I see

So you would comply with the injunction, "do not ask for your property back from the one who robs you" ( the Jerusalem Bible translation).

Instead, you would ask the police to get it back for you. But you wouldn't ask the robber himself, because it would not be prudent to go that route in most cases, nor would such a request be likely to be granted voluntarily.

But what if there wasn't any police force?

[Az]

19. No, thats not what I am saying

I am saying specifically (now stay with me) that if someone stole something from me I would demand it back. If a police officer arrived on the scene I would ask for the police officers assistance in returning my property to me including using force if the theif resisted. I am not a Christian. I do not live by the rules set down by Jesus. Because I do not claim to follow the words of Jesus I am not a hypocrit for demanding my property back from someone that has stolen from me. My property has meaning to me and value.

[Stunster]

20. Let me ask the question again

What if there was no police force?

[Az]

21. I would demand my property back

If they refused I would do whatever was in my power to retrieve my property short of killing them.

[Stunster]

22. Do you think that it would make sense

not to---that some people might, in other words, sensibly not choose to follow your example?

[Az]

23. Sure, never presumed otherwise

In fact by my reading of Luke 6:30 it seems clear that Jesus is advocating not demanding your property back. Literally. I can see some measure of wisdom there on a couple of levels. The point isn't whether its a good idea or not. The point is that many fundamentalist Christians read this verse, are shown that it is a teaching of Jesus, and turn their back on it as soon as it is put to the test.

[Stunster]

24. That's true

about some fundamentalist Christians. But I think all fundamentalist Christians are wrong anyway, so their being hypocritical about this verse merely adds to the coals that they deserve to have heaped upon them.

The verse itself bears a reasonably unobjectionable construal, however, even on a fairly literal reading.

Jesus also said, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." I think most Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, would acknowledge that they don't comply. But it wouldn't follow that there's anything wrong with being perfect.

[Az]

25. So how would you react

If I asked you for your wallet? What would be your limit? At what point do you reject the verse and hold on to your material goods? Or do you believe that the verse does not speak to you? Or is there another path out of this? I have heard a good many excuses. None really seem to hold to the attitude being conveyed by this teaching though. I can acknowledge imperfect individuals recognising their own flaws. But I still find that a dodge rather than a reason to reject this verse.

[Stunster]

26. Asked for, or robbed?

In general, I would not be inclined to demand of robbers that they return my wallet---especially if there was no police force.

If you asked me for money, like a panhandler, I might give you some.

However, I think one should take into account that in the time of Jesus, there was no welfare state. Begging and almsgiving were accepted forms of helping the poor. Nowadays, we organize various more comprehensive ways of helping the poor, and Jesus could now be interpreted as saying, when the Feds ask you to cough up your taxes, do so without hesitation, and in fact give even more money than just your taxes to help the poor.

So I would comply with the teaching of Jesus by paying my taxes gladly and also contributing to charity. But no, I would not myself use force to return stolen property belonging to me. In the context of Jesus's time, there was no socially organized way of forcibly returning stolen property to owners.

People did pursue lawsuits, and in such cases Jesus recommends settling out of court if possible. He seems to have been critical of being litigious in general. I'm not a litigious person.

My grandfather had a business, a cafe. A young woman who worked there was strongly suspected of, and later admitted, stealing. We did not report her to the police.

Previously, back in the 1940s, armed robbers stole a large sum of money from my grandparents. They knew who it was, but did not pursue it.

Very devout Catholics, my family.

[Az]

27. My kudos to your grandparents

I can well honor and respect people abiding by deeply held beliefs. I hold to the same premise myself. I just differ on the specific beliefs.

As to your response. It seems to drift too far from the intent behind his teachings. The context of this is how to deal with people as you go about spreading the good word. Specifically it is how to deal with those opposed to the teachings. Nothing is more valuable than the message. And if material goods stand in the way to conveying that message then they should be of no concern.

Furthermore clinging to material goods is foolish considering the long term agenda. In fact the desire to keep material goods itself leads to evil and sin. So in this light denying a person your property is turning your back on Jesus and heaven in favor of simple material property.

[Stunster]

28. I think that is the correct interpretation

But even if it's not contextualized to the specific situation of going around preaching the Kingdom, it's still possible to live by it.

I'm sure Ghandi didn't rush around trying to get his property back from robbers. Of course, he made sure he didn't have a lot to be robbed, to begin with.

The teaching might also be applicable to apostolic communism, as in "If the apostles rob you for the sake of the community, let them."

But no, I think your interpretation is right, and so Luke 6.30 can be put to bed. Just because some Christians don't live by it is no big deal. Most Christians don't live by Christianity perfectly, and indeed most human beings don't live by whatever moral code they have, perfectly. I've never met anyone who claims to have lived by their own moral code perfectly.

[youthere]

44. But the fundamentalist argument

on Scripture is that it is timeless and indisputable-at least when it suits them. You've given a great example of how a fundie might argue Luke 6:30.

On the old testmanent attitude towards homosexuality I might argue that at that time gender roles were clearly defined-the man was clearly dominant. If two women are in a relationship who would be dominant? Who would care for the home and who would earn the money? Today this is not an issue so the old testament take on homosexuality is "outdated"
But when this argument is presented to a fundie they insist on the "timeless argument"

In the Luke 6:30 example, it seems the "timeless" principle does not apply.

[Stunster]

13. What if....

....Jesus is teaching that we should be non-violent, not merely in the sense of not initiating violence, but also in the sense of acting in ways that are liable to prevent an escalation of violence that has already occurred, or been inflicted upon us?

Police officers, so I've heard, recommend that when one is confronted by a mugger, you should give the mugger your wallet and not resist, since resisting is liable to lead to worse consequences.

Now, think of 1st century Palestine. You're out with your family, and some robbers come up to rob you. What should you do? Try to fight them, or just let them have your stuff?

Or should you call 911 on your cellphone? Wait a minute--they didn't have cellphones in those days, or 911, or an organized police force. Police forces are relatively modern inventions.

So, here's Jesus living in a society which doesn't have police forces in our modern sense. What is a robbing victim to do---form a posse? Go and violently take his stuff back from the robber? Organize vigilante groups?

Or, simply act like the Civil Rights marchers when they were set upon with clubs and waterhoses and dogs?

[Az]

17. The verse seems to me

to be more a case of that people should be more concerned about their spiritual wealth than their material wealth. What does a material good matter in the cause of advocating the good news?

And yet we have so many Christians concerned about their earthly posessions. How do they expect to advance to heaven if they can't let go of the things they have collected down here?

[Zeke]

8. Yeah!

Especially the part about frauds
like Bush Inc. returning to Hell.

[beyurslf]

9. Not a Christian... just wanted to see if any "liberal Christians" took

the Bible literally. :)

[youthere]

45. Is it possible to be a liberal

politically and a biblical fundamentalist? I don't know..I'm just asking. It doesn't seem like it would be.

[ButterflyBlood]

29. no

the Bible was somewhat inspired by God and contains much of His guidance, but much of it is metaphor or no longer relavant. Anyone with common sense can see that the Universe was not created 6000 years ago or that we shouldn't stone adulterers.

[H2O Man]

32. Why, of course!

Christians, by definition, are totally lacking in intellectual ability. Chiristians also take Aesop's fables literally. Thank God there are atheists following the Divine Plan and are willing to take their time on the road to Jericho to enlighten Christians.

[Zhade]

34. You know, Waterman, I usually like your posts.

It seems you have a real problem with atheists, though. I watched you attack Az the other day, and it really saddened me.

Like it or not, many people - including Christians themselves - think it's ridiculous to take the bible literally. Naturally, not all Christians believe the exact same thing, as I made clear in the original post. That you want to somehow claim I believe or stated the opposite is either due to a misreading or your desire to attack atheists. I'm guessing it's the former and not the latter.

So please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say, and I will return the favor. Good day.

[H2O Man]

36. cranky, eh?

I didn't put any words in your mouth .... didn't attribute any quote to you. I think a few atheists are having a little tongue-in-cheek fun on the "relion & theology" thread .... and while I recognize that atheism is an unintentional religion .... I'm not anti-atheist. In fact, I am an atheist, among other belief systems.

I don't think I've ever attacked the person you mention ... just the opposite, I attempt to engage that person in meaningful conversation, and even give broad hints to potentially assist in strengthening the other side of the debate ....

Sorry if my attempt at humor rubbed you the wrong way. I assumed your post was also an attempt at humor.

[Stunster]

35. What about this guy?

Read his biographical information here.

The guy is a well known devout Roman Catholic. Also Wykeham Professor of Logic at Oxford University. The rest of his bio is also interesting.

Are you seriously suggesting Michael Dummett is "totally lacking in intellectual ability"?

Because if you are, then you must be a moron.

[WeirdHoward]

33. It is a historical document

The Bible provides kind of a history of religious thought in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and also references historical events. Naturally, the history is not always accurate, and that is why there is a whole community of Biblical Historians. If some people get some solace from the Bible, so be it. If they use it as a tool to discriminate, judge, and punish here on earth, then it is a source of evil self-righteousness.

Howard

[Dookus]

37. I won't vote since I'm not a christian

but I will state that if it is NOT literally true (and I'm convinced it is not) and it is "partially divinely inspired" or otherwise not the literal, guided word of God, then it is just another book with absolutely no authority beyond that of any other.

The book itself says it is the inerrant word of God. Yet, we know it contains errors. So the claims it makes it for itself are no more true than L. Ron Hubbard's claims about his own work.

[Dob Bole]

38. I take the Bible SERIOUSLY...

There are some parts of the Bible that just aren't meant to be taken "literally." A vast portion of it is made up of songs, allegory, novels, Jewish law, etc.

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. Did you see the Moyers column on January 30?

[Rabrrrrrr]

40. No, of course not.

God gave us brains, and wants us to use them.

[More Than A Feeling]

41. Here are my thoughts on the Bible

Greatest book ever. A treasure trove of hundreds of years worth of history, culture, wisdom, violence, sex, and carpentry advice;)

Does it matter whether everything in the book literally happened exactly as describe? No, it does not.

Is everything in it applicable to today? No.

To me, two things are important about the Bible: What did the stories in it mean to the people who wrote them, and what do they mean to me today.

That is all the truth I need from the Bible.

Learning which parts actually happened is interesting, to be sure, but it has nothing to do with my faith.

[Selwynn]

42. There are four types of biblical passages. FOUR:

1. Passages which are both theological appropriate and historically/scientifically accurate
2. Passages which are theological appropriate but historically/scientifically inaccurate
3. Passages which are theologically inappropriate but historically/scientifically accurate
4. Passages which are both theologically inappropriate and historically/scientifically inaccurate

In addition to these four types of passages, the following literary criticisms should be applied to reading the bible:

1. What was the original intent of the author?
2. Who was the original audience of the author?
3. What does the text literally say? (questions of translation and interpretation)
4. What is the historical context of the author and the writing?
5. What is the form and mode of the text? (i.e. is it presenting itself as literal history, allegory, poetry, parable, metaphor, etc?)
6. What are the common interpretations of modern day readers and why do they make them?
7. Is this text historically irrelevant (meaning it has no relevance to our modern day reality?
8. If not, what is the relevance?
9. How is this text to be understood through you given lens of interpretation?

Everyone brings an interpretive lens to the bible (or any other book.) If you're looking to discredit a source, that's the interpretive lens you bring to the source. If you approach a source with a belief that its theme is about "Justice," then you'll interpret what you read through that lens. It's not possible to come without a lens of any kind, no matter how much we want to boast about objectivity. We all bring a certain degree of bias or personal perspective to anything that we do. Understanding what our lens is is important.

For example, personally my lens is largely a few core beliefs I hold by faith about the nature and character of that which I believe may rightfully be called "God." That is an interpretive lens by which I ask the first four questions listed.