The Laziness of Biblical Literalism

Top 103. Feb 16, 2005 10:44 PM

» ArthurRuger - Re: Literalist/Fundamentalist

In response to Literalist/Fundamentalist posted by Satirie:

Arthur, are you talking about "fundamentalists" or "literalists"? Isn't it literally impossible to be a true literalist?

Oh man ..... I've always had an aversion to labels and the on-going plague on me was the original reference to fundamentalists and literalists I made in my earliest posts.

Most of what get's my dander up is the use of Biblical verses in a literalistic "one true and absolutely restricted meaning" upon which the only agreement is found within a particular group.

But you know ... I must be a literalist myself since my disagreement with others is founded in the same thing. For example, I assume that fathers all ought to act like the Father of the Prodigal Son.

I guess the bottom line has to do with additional assumptions, such as the one I infer which is that God agrees with my assessment of the Prodigal's father.

So, I don't know ... maybe I speak of "rigid, inflexible, literal fundamental Biblical evangelical theological absolutists." (Now I need to go wash my mouth out with soap.)

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Top 104. Feb 16, 2005 11:05 PM

» _Boanerges_ - 3rd time and Uhmm.. no response [yet] [from] Arthur?

In response to Uhmm.. no response Arthur? posted by _Boanerges_:

I'm still waiting for an answer, Arthur.... Do you think you can really avoid answering these questions?....

re: Is this the Liberalism of the 21st Century?

Arthur, you specifically said: "and Robertson on God killing off judges"?

but now you say: Robertson: God "will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly"

I will requote your statements above in light of this obvious misleading information....

You said: "Don't you think that a more common denominator for you in these discussions would be to stop hiding behind Bible quotes and write about how you see the teachings of Jesus being reconciled to the behavior of the literalists?"

But I ask you Arthur.......

Don't you think that a more common denominator for the obvious and intentional misleading information within these discussions be more helpful by not misquoting the Bible and other people, and instead, write about how you see the teachings of Jesus being reconciled to the behavior of those who mislead by making false quotes?

-- posted by _Boanerges_

http://mediamatters.org/items/2005010400...

Top 105. Feb 17, 2005 8:29 AM

» ArthurRuger - Re: 3rd time and Uhmm.. no response [yet] [from] Arthur?

In response to 3rd time and Uhmm.. no response [yet] [from] Arthur? posted by _Boanerges_:

Hm.... I have a thick head and dang if it didn't take you three repeated posts to get through to me.

I think you are correct and I am wrong. Mr. Robertson's conversation with God, which he published and broadcast, consisted of God not promising to kill off the judges - as I erroneously implied - but, it appears, to somehow (and you have to make some kind of inference) "influence" the judges to step down - to retire.

In fact, Robertson said we should pray that they retire and implies that God will answer the prayers of the righteous by exercising divine power to "remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly."

And as you have pointed out, I am in no position to express what divine influence God might use to remove the judges.

The longevity of judicial service (the length of time our Supreme Court Justices have remained on their jobs -some into their 80's) has been a testament to the commitment of these learned citizens to the system itself. The system, which includes the very nature of checks and balances that are included as a means for citizens to check attempts at consolidated power in the republic, has proven to be wise and vital - as the founding fathers intended.

So no, I don't think God would "kill off the judges" as a means of vindicating Pat Robertson, or of publically announcing His divine support of our Christian in the White House and repudiating liberal judges and all who advocate a liberal political philosophy. Why .. that would then be a public repudiation of all those Christians who disagree with Pat and George.

But then again, I don't think that God intervening in human affairs and removing human obstacles to His divine purposes is what God does and are not acts of divine wisdom or omnipotence.

It is the insecure among us who worry that God is not doing enough or that God needs humans to intervene and interfere as instruments of his divine will.

Now ...

But I ask you Arthur....... Don't you think that a more common denominator for the obvious and intentional misleading information within these discussions be more helpful by not misquoting the Bible and other people, and instead, write about how you see the teachings of Jesus being reconciled to the behavior of those who mislead by making false quotes?

The original intent of this thread was to discuss reconciling the teachings of Jesus to the behavior of those who mislead by making false quotes.

As I have erred and confessed my error, I would be among the first to say that what I do is not justified because of what someone else does.

Thank you for your correction.

Jesus spoke to the misleading of people thru narrow use of scripture many times. The Good Samaritan is an example, contrasting human behavior with blind adherence to a written letter of the law.

The entire thrust of those particular religionists intent on restructuring our government, our constitution with its emphasis on equality, separation of church and state and the integrity of diversity in all its forms is based on that "sin" that you have raised.

I look for someone among the celebrities or the common folk who support them to make the same reconciliation you have demanded of me.

And it's your turn ...

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Top 106. Feb 17, 2005 9:19 AM

» _Boanerges_ - And it's your turn ...

In response to Re: 3rd time and Uhmm.. no response [yet] [from] Arthur? posted by ArthurRuger:

Hi Arthur....

As I have erred and confessed my error, I would be among the first to say that what I do is not justified because of what someone else does. Thank you for your correction.

I appreciate your honesty.. Thanks for demonstrating that you can take back that which was wrong.. So then, there is no blame....

Maybe then, we (liberal and fundamental) could find a way, together, to achieve the same goal. After all, as a fundamental Bible believing Christian, I agree we cannot let some 'way out in left/right field' dictate what we 'ought' to do...

I just think, and feel, that the only way to do this properly, is come to terms and work together, not opposing each other, but working for the common goal of freedom, life, liberty, justice, and so forth.

I do agree.. there are radicals on both sides of this theological/political attempt to do that which each sides oppose. But then, civil war is not the answer...

Again, I appreciate your effort for correction, and as such, you have earned my respect for such an attempt. I do agree with some things you state, which is clearly true, but that, I do not want to lose any respect for your obvious effort to make things better. We can work together, this is to say... __W

<<-------back to you...

p.s.>> I am okie if you would like to delete some of my repeat messages, and edit your corretions from the orginal message. All is fair, in love and war smile

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Top 107. Feb 17, 2005 7:15 PM

» Satirie - Re: Re: Literalist/Fundamentalist

In response to Re: Literalist/Fundamentalist posted by ArthurRuger:

...the use of Biblical verses in a literalistic "one true and absolutely restricted meaning" upon which the only agreement is found within a particular group.

Perhaps there's a bit of literalistic belief in most Bible-based religious groups. The two terms are confusing.

...maybe I speak of "rigid, inflexible, literal fundamental Biblical evangelical theological absolutists."

Well, that does narrow it down some. lol

-- posted by Satirie

Top 108. Feb 17, 2005 8:03 PM

» _Boanerges_ - Re: Re: Re: Literalist = Literal? A question....

In response to Re: Re: Literalist/Fundamentalist posted by Satirie:

question about; literalists, or literal.. or, maybe, fundamental?

Heb:11:7: By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house;

#1 Did Noah build an ark, to save his *house*?
#2 Did Noah build an ark, for the *saving of*...?
#3 Did Noah build an ark, to save *his* house?

Hmmm.....

Now, as a person who believes the literal word of God, I know that Noah, built an ark, to save those OF (within) his house.. i.e., wife, sons, and their wives... How do I know this? Well, because elsewhere, it says so... That is literal... fundamentally speaking, of course...

Yet, here is another example:

Revelation 12:4: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Well, seriously, if a third of the stars were cast to the earth, I am certain that there could be no record of this, nor even an earth.. so then, that cannot be... literally... and fundamentally. Even, Liberally this cannot be... So then...

Well.. need I say more? smile ? ___W

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Top 109. Feb 17, 2005 9:38 PM

» ArthurRuger - Re: Re: Re: Re: Literalist = Literal? A question....

In response to Re: Re: Re: Literalist = Literal? A question.... posted by _Boanerges_:

Well literal or not with that tail having that much effect on stars and stuff, maybe that's why he's called a "draggin."

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Top 110. Feb 17, 2005 10:39 PM

» _Boanerges_ - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literalist = Literal? A question....

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Literalist = Literal? A question.... posted by ArthurRuger:

smile LOL smile ...!!.. nice... I suppose we all have seen one too many draggins in our day..

Hey? you're beginning to sound like a literalist with this draggin stuff.. lol..

__W

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Top 111. Sep 28, 2005 8:30 AM

» mordrell - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not All Literalists ...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not All Literalists ... posted by Satirie:

You said, "I literally believe God created the earth ..."

I think one of the central questions to determine if you are a true literalist, at least for me, is: Do you believe God created the earth in six calendar days? And that every piece of physical evidence to the contrary is simple hooey, or mistaken, or planted by Satan? And should we throw out the teaching of biology in schools and replace it with that doctrine?

I should tell you that I do believe God created the earth--but I also believe he created natural selection as a means of creation, or an aspect of nature, and that much of Genesis is a divinely-inspired Hebrew folktale. That does not diminish its validity, but I believe the whole "young earth" and "intelligent design" flap is pure malarky promulgated by people who can't stand the idea of independent thought and disagreement.

-- posted by mordrell