10 Signs You Take The Bible Too Literally

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/bible-literalism-_b_5785340.html?ir=Religion

Pete Enns
Author of THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO

Posted: 09/09/2014 10:24 am EDT Updated: 09/09/2014 12:59 pm EDT


ballyscanlon via Getty Image

Here are 10 signs that you take the Bible too literally:

1. You laugh when you read about dinosaur fossils, because you know they are really God's little inside joke to confuse atheists.

"And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind." ... And it was so... . God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them... . God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

Not bad for a day's work. Now why isn't that in the new common-core curriculum?

2. When confronted with a snake, your first impulse is to try to reason with it.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God say, "You shall not eat from any tree in the garden"?'" (Genesis 3:1, NRSV)

The universal lesson from all stories like this one, including the Harry Potter series, is that if a snake starts to speak to you, run--do not reason with it.

more at link

[Gothmog]

1. Thanks for posting

In Texas, home schoolers are not being taught any lessons because the end times are near

[cbayer]

6. I have heard that before and it's a pretty scary situation.

Aren't there laws about meeting certain standards when kids are home schooled?

[Mariana]

7. Not in Texas.

I home schooled my daughter there for a couple of years. There was zero oversight.

[cbayer]

8. Is anybody working on correcting that?

It seems really wrong not to have any kind of structure for all these kids. At the very list, they should have to pass some standardized tests.

[Mariana]

10. I have no idea.

I don't live there anymore. I suspect it's not very high on the priority list.

[LiberalAndProud]

12. The short answer is, Yes.

http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/policy-issues/policy-recommendations/
http://hsinvisiblechildren.org/

It seems that homeschooling alumni are spearheading these efforts. The Invisible Children link is heart rending.

[cbayer]

20. That is good to hear.

[okasha]

36. Yes, there are.

Homeschoolers are legally required to work through their local school districts. How stringently that law is enforced can be a very different matter, depending on the district's staffing.

[cbayer]

37. That's good to hear. There really needs to be some sort of oversight.

[trotsky]

2. Why are these signs that you're taking it "too literally,"

but believing that a man really did die and come back to life 3 days later (technically a day and a half) isn't?

[cleanhippie]

3. Thanks for posting this, cabayer. It's always interesting to see you mock the things YOU find absurd

After chastising those that mock other absurd religious beliefs.

You get extra credit for at least being consistent.

[Goblinmonger]

4. It's either the word or God or it's not.

Once we can all realize it is just a collection of stories, then we can move forward with this. As long as we are still saying that you can take it TOO literally and that SOME things in there are true but others are just silly, then we still have the interpretation problems we see from cherry picking.

And once we realize it is a collection of stories, it kind of goes away as not being all that awesome a collection of stories. It's not really that great of literature. Or, overall, have that incredible of a theme.

[cbayer]

5. Who is we and all? It's a complicated set of texts.

You have a way of seeing it and describe that way here. You seem to want everyone else to see it as you do and also seem to think that that would make everything just peachy.

But it's just not like that. People see it differently. Some parts appeal to some people and some don't.

Nothing wrong with cherry picking at all. Like most sets of books, some parts are better than others.

For many it is going to continue to be an awesome collection of stories and many will see an incredible theme. You don't? No problem.

The article was humorous and on point, imo. There are people who do take it too seriously and the literalists find themselves in a very awkward position, as there are many contradictions.

[Goblinmonger]

11. There's nothing wrong with cherry picking as long as

you realize you are cherry picking. And as long as you realize that as a result of cherry picking that you have decreased the authority behind the document. I mean I'll never see is as a "word of god" text, but if you are going to try and tell others how to live their life, then cherry picking from a text does very little to help the argument that the text is worth referring to.

I don't like Hemingway very much. And there is a lot of stuff in his writing that kind of sucks. His Antisemitism that seems to peek through once and a while as an example (specifically from Sun Also Rises). So when I talk to students about Hemingway and why he is considered a good author, I just ignore that stuff. I may tell them it is an argument against him but that he is a good writer because of these other things. I cherry pick. But if I stood in front of the class and said that Hemingway was the best writer ever and there were no problems with his writing and then I started cherry picking, I'd be intellectually dishonest.

But as long as people realize they are cherry picking and that it decreases the authority behind that text...fine. Too many people I meet in real life cherry pick but still want to tell me that this book is a moral guide that is inspired by god.

[cbayer]

17. Pretty much everyone cherry picks.

If you meet someone who doesn't and claims the entire book is an absolute and literal authority, then I think you can make the case. But I doubt your will meet many people like that around here.

[edhopper]

13. Is it

Alright to cherry pick the parts that say Homosexuality is evil, adulterous women should be stoned and children sold?
Nothing wrong with that?

[cbayer]

18. As I have stated repeatedly, using any thing to support actions which inhibit the rights of others

is something I object to. So my answer would be that it is not alright to take actions based on cherry picking those parts of the bible.

Did you really think I would say that I think those things are all right?

[edhopper]

21. You said there is nothing wrong with cherry picking

but you think there is something wrong with cherry picking when you differ with those beliefs.
Or is it there is nothing wrong with any belief as long as no one acts on them, which is an absurd notion, because people always act on their beliefs.

[cbayer]

22. You are making an incorrect assumption.

I don't think there is anything wrong with cherry picking. Full. Stop.

I do think there is something wrong with using religious texts to justify behavior that infringes on the rights of others or harms others.

If you take the position that everyone always acts on their beliefs, then I can see how you would have a problem with people holding certain beliefs.

I don't agree with you, however, and have a high degree of tolerance for people believing whatever they want, as long as their actions do not harm others.

Am I being clear or are you going to dismiss my POV as being "absurd"?

[Goblinmonger]

23. So you are saying

that you have never heard of or seen the "values, beliefs, attitudes, actions" concept? I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that you are going to say that that is wrong.

Of course our beliefs affect our actions.

[cbayer]

24. "So you are saying" is a bad way to start a conversation, imo.

If you are unsure of what I am saying, just ask me.

I agree that beliefs can effect actions, but some beliefs are private and unrelated to actions, imo. They are just beliefs.

I googled "values, beliefs, attitudes, actions" concept and came up with a bunch of psychobabble and nothing definitive.

Again, if you hold the position that all beliefs are expressed in actions, then your position is understandable.

[Goblinmonger]

25. I am asking you to clarify

I didn't go any further than to try understand what your position is.

I never said that all beliefs are always acted upon. I said there is a clear connection between our beliefs and our attitudes. My vegetarianism is a result of my values and beliefs. If one believes that abortion is wrong, then one would vote in a way as to make abortion illegal (unless a more core belief is that that decision is personal and should not be legislated). I'm not saying the line between beliefs and actions is clear and easy to determine.

[cbayer]

26. But do attitudes necessarily lead to actions?

Sometimes, but not always would be my response.

I'm not the mind police (despite what some others may say about me, lol). I'm not interested in trying to control what people think or judging them on what they believe, as long as that is not translated into harmful action. That would include the outrageousness of the WBC and those that act on their beliefs at the ballot box to invoke things that restrict the rights of others.

If one believes abortion is wrong, chooses not to have an abortion and doesn't vote to restrict the rights of others, why would it be any of my business what they believe?

That's their choice.

[trotsky]

28. Who gets to define what "harmful action" is?

People whose religious belief includes the notion that human life begins at conception would say that others who support abortion rights are translating their beliefs into harmful action. (I.e, murder.)

So by your logic, they are perfectly justified in opposing abortion rights for all. Direct conflict in your perfect logic.

[edhopper]

30. I am not dismissing it as absurd

I am clearly stating that I find it absurd.
Others have done a good job of pointing out the illogic of your position.

One caveat, we are talking about cherry picking what God wants, or what part of the scripture is the true dictate of God.

Cherry picking the Bible for a philosophical underpinning, saying "I like that concept" and thinking it makes sense, is different from deciding what is proclaimed by God.

[cbayer]

31. I don't think anyone has pointed out the "illogic" of

my position.

Only that they disagree with it.

I will give you the example I gave above. If a person believes that abortion is wrong, chooses not to have an abortion themselves and does not vote to restrict the rights of others, then their belief is really none of my business.

I also do not find it illogical to say that some parts of the bible could be genuine and other parts not so much. Even if one believes in a god, the transcriptions were done by humans, and there is a real possibility for error there.

[edhopper]

32. But if there belief is that

abortion is murder and do nothing to prevent it, they are immoral, but good in your book?
You want people who see something as a great evil to do nothing because it doesn't agree with your position.
Do you think that people who fight for abortion rights, imposing their beliefs on the people who feel it is akin to murder or slavery are wrong to do so?

[cbayer]

33. Who said anything about murder?

You have totally twisted this debate to make the point that you were fighting against.

That's pretty funny.

See, it's about choice. Nothing else.

[edhopper]

40. We should give people the choice to do something

even if the God that is the basis of their morals says it is murder.
What other things that harm an innocent life should we leave to choice and not "impose" it on others.

[cbayer]

41. Ok, people have the right to do lots of things to support their beleifs.

This discussion is not about that though. It's about whether it is possible to have beliefs that don't result in actions that harm others.

You really have completely switched this around to the point that it is not even recognizable.

[edhopper]

42. Okay

let me go back and reread our subthread to see what I initially disagreed with.

[edhopper]

43. I probably took your line

"There is nothing wrong with cherry picking" to literally and it went from there.
No need to rehash our argument about belief vs actions.

[Starboard Tack]

34. Abortions don't have rights. Women have the right to choose.

If you disagree on moral grounds then you are free to express your opinion and try to deter a woman from making that choice. Not by force, though.

[edhopper]

39. So if someone thinks something is morally wrong

and evil and harms a innocent life, they shouldn't try to make it illegal?

[Starboard Tack]

44. Sure, why not? If that's what they think is morally wrong.

Each citizen has the right to speak out for whatever they believe in.

[edhopper]

45. That includes a woman's

right to choose? If they believe it, it's okay to pass laws to do away with it?
If it's against the law than it can be enforced, correct?

[Starboard Tack]

46. If who believes what?

Laws are enacted by legislators. Some are unpopular, some not. Sometimes they are challenged and laws change. Nothing is written in stone. I support a woman's right to choose, but let's say, hypothetically, that it could be proven that life starts at conception, how would that affect current law regarding abortion?
Maybe homicide laws would have to be rewritten to include abortion under the definition of justifiable homicide, like the death penalty.

[edhopper]

47. This is about people acting on beliefs.

you said;
"If you disagree on moral grounds then you are free to express your opinion and try to deter a woman from making that choice. Not by force, though."

Not sure if you are talking about abortion and current law, I was talking about acting on beliefs in general.
Perhaps we are talking across one another.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Regardless of current law, people have the right to express their beliefs.

For example, current law gives the right for people to carry guns in public, pretty much anywhere in the US. I try to dissuade people from exercising that right. That does not mean I am denying them of that right, or trying to deny them of that right. The same goes for those who try to dissuade pregnant women from having an abortion.
Would you rather live in a society where it were not OK to challenge these things?

[edhopper]

52. That's very true

and my discussion with CB was about challenging beliefs and why I have a problem with "nothing wrong with cherry picking".
But we resolved that.

[trotsky]

14. For the umpteenth time, no, there is nothing wrong with cherry-picking in and of itself.

I really wish you'd drop that meme, that somehow those who disagree with you are just against cherry-picking.

It's great when people can discard all the nasty, homophobic, hateful, xenophobic, bigoted, and misogynistic parts of the bible. Truly, it is. But if someone is justified in picking just the parts they like and saying, "Yup, that's what god wants," why isn't everyone justified in doing the same?

And before we go off screaming about "literalists" essentially being the bad guys, let's not forget about the verses that liberals take literally but conservatives don't. Like the part about the rich guy entering heaven.

You really want to believe it's simple, so you can put people into boxes or teams - enemies and friends - and heap scorn or praise depending on how they please you. But the world is so much more complicated than that.

[goldent]

15. Great post.

The idea that people use the parts of the Bible that seem to apply to them is a simple concept to understand, I'd think.

[cbayer]

19. I think most people do just that.

And to say that the whole book should be tossed is a extreme as saying the whole book should be embraced.

[trotsky]

27. Seriously, WTF?

On this very thread, you bristled at the notion that someone was attempting to put words in your mouth:
"So you are saying" is a bad way to start a conversation, imo.

But here you are doing it to others.

KNOCK IT OFF!

[Warren Stupidity]

9. 3. you think a dead person stood up, walked out of his tomb, and wandered around

for a while talking to all his buddies and then vanished again.

[rug]

16. Sounds like scottie.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. .

[Starboard Tack]

35. Lol. These guys are a hoot.

They remind me of an old friend who started a radio station, broadcasting live music from his bedroom, but his signal was so weak it only reached the houses on either side of him.

[okasha]

48. They remind me of the Lennon Sisters.

All singing the same words to the same tune, and boring, boring, boring.

[Starboard Tack]

49. In a sound proof booth with the mikes turned off.

Makes one wonder. Do they really think they have an audience?

[okasha]

50. They'll always have each other.

Rather touching, really.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. I don't eat shellfish.

Although I admit that's because of BP and Thai shrimping boat slavery, not because of Leviticus.

[JEFF9K]

54. Funny that the "Religious" Right doesn't take liberal verses literally ...

Matthew:

19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.