Not All Christians Are Bible Literalists

[MineralMan]

That is a true statement.

Many Christians Are Bible Literalists.

That is another true statement.

Most fundamentalist and evangelical denominations declare the Bible to be a true account, without error. That's part of their doctrine. In today's world, evangelicals, fundamentalist, and conservative Christian denominations are powerful forces in our political world, as well. The Dominionist movement, which is heavily represented in the Trump administration, actively seeks to replace our system of government with an old-testament style theocracy.

To pretend that Christianity accepts that much of the Bible as metaphorical or allegorical is to ignore the large, vocal group which rejects that idea vehemently. Indeed, even the Roman Catholic Church, the largest denomination of Christianity, often treats biblical content as factual and accurate and binding on us all. Many of its core doctrines, such as transubstantiation, demonstrate that literal view of scripture.

Christianity is not uniform in its views of scripture. Not by any means.

[erronis]

1. This seems wide open to the question: Are Bible Literalists really Christian?

I don't know shit from shinola but my limited time spent on this mortal coil gives me a perspective that the loudest Christians are the leastest followers of Christ.

[marylandblue]

2. There is no membership card for Christianity

You become a Christian by saying you are one. In Protestant denominations, you also get to interpret the Bible for yourself, so you yourself are judge and jury of whether you are following the teachings or not.

[Major Nikon]

4. Doesn't that make you a definer?

[marylandblue]

5. Yep.

[MineralMan]

6. Exactly. As a Non-Christian, I Have to Accept Such Declarations.

So, I take them at face value, regardless of the individual's personal positions on doctrine.

[erronis]

8. I also accept everyone's declarations about themselves. Not about how I should lead my life

especially when leading my life involves blindly following some born-again pastor who needs to make some bucks.

Been there.

[marylandblue]

9. Well, if you were so inclined, a non-Christian could define Christianity too

I don't see why you have to take their word for it. Then again, most atheists probably don't care enough to bother.

[MineralMan]

10. Reciprocity. I don't like it when religious people try to tell me what atheism is.

So, I don't tell them what their religion is. I follow the rule of reciprocity as well as I'm able to. Being human, of course, I sometimes fail in that regard, though.

I might ask a person who claims to be a Christian what he or she thinks Christianity is. That's fair. I'm happy to answer such questions about how I define atheism.

[Major Nikon]

3. Kinda strange when a Christian uses the term as an insult

...in a funny kind of way.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, if the implication is that Christians aren't literalists,

yes it is strange. One should only speak for oneself, I think, rather than speak about Christians in general.

I give you the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. Should you choose to accept, I will disavow you at once.

[Major Nikon]

15. For the vast majority of their history virtually all Christians were "literalists"

Those that weren't often found themselves as the star attraction at the town BBQ. Catholics kept the bible under lock and key for centuries to keep people from making alternate interpretations. Non-literal views are actually a recent phenomena, and those that are can thank free thinkers for ushering in the freedoms they have to do so.

I'm guessing theists who use the term "literalist" as an insult do so to distance themselves from the crae crae wing of the club. The problem is without them nobody would know who Christ is.

[MineralMan]

17. It's an odd phenomenon, I think.

We end up by having non-literalist Christians attempting to insult atheists for being Bible literalists. But, since atheists generally consider the entire Bible to be an ancient work of fiction, there's a comical flaw in the accusation.

And then, there are those who go so far toward the boundaries of the non-literalism spectrum that they are unable to articulate what they believe to be true and what they understand as metaphor.

Personally, I see that as a very short step away from outright atheism. That must be a frightening place to be standing, I would think.

[TlalocW]

11. That would be because

Most Bible non-literalists have a superior morality than what is preached in the Bible.

TlalocW

[MineralMan]

12. I don't know whether I'd agree that is true or not.

I don't have enough evidence.

[TlalocW]

13. Let's say "Many" then

And I'd have to say that I would rather hang out with the Christian who ignore what the Bible says on homosexuality than the Evangelicals who don't.

TlalocW

[MineralMan]

14. There you go. Qualifiers are always in order.

[Major Nikon]

16. By ignoring it they are providing cover to those who don't

Better to hang out with those who acknowledge the inherent fallibility of the bible than those who give it a pass. Those who try to pretend the bible doesn't say what it was obviously intended to say are just less honest.

[safeinOhio]

18. Something like 30,000

Christian Sects in the world. Each with a different take on Scripture. Makes one think that the text are not all that clear.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, in many cases, it's a very narrow difference that separates

sects. Sometimes, a single passage of scripture is the sticking point.

[edhopper]

20. All Christians

are partially Bible Literalist.

To say that another way. All Christians take some part of the Bible literally.

But try asking them what part of the Bible is factually true and be prepared not to get a straight answer.

[MineralMan]

21. That is most certainly true.

The question has been asked here, but not answered. Frustrating.

[Iggo]

22. Christians Are Bible Literalists.

Also a true statement.

Also almost guaranteed to elicit the first statement from your OP.

[trotsky]

23. Your post is tongue-in-cheek but of course there is some validity to it.

Does one have to take the ENTIRE bible literally to be called a literalist? I doubt it, because no one can do that. There are parts that directly contradict other parts.

But then the question becomes.. how MUCH of the bible do you need to take literally to be a literalist?

Because the kicker is, if you consider yourself a Christian, you MUST take at least a few verses literally. Bare minimum the stuff about what Jesus allegedly said, right?

[Iggo]

24. Football Players Score Touchdowns.

Not all football players, some might say.

Even so...

[Major Nikon]

25. A better question is how literally do most Christians take it

Since we are talking about a subjective determination the question is kinda like asking how do most Americans like their eggs.

However there is some empirical data that can give us an idea. 38% of Americans believe in young earth creationism according to Gallup. In a country where about 75% of the population identifies as Christian, that suggests the majority of Christians believe in a rock hard literal interpretation of the bible.

[Glamrock]

26. No shit brother.

A large portion lives by these creeds:
Fuck the poor.
Fuck the homeless.
If you can't afford health insurance, fuck you too.
Harass and vilify the stranger.

Definately not biblical literalists.