Gallup Again - The Bible

[Brian37]

Saw this one today - Gallup is on a roll.

Fewer in U.S. Now See Bible as Literal Word of God

As someone who wants to believe as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many false things as possible, as well as encourage others to do so as well, this is encouraging.  For me, this was probably the first major domino to fall and everything else accelerated quickly thereafter.

It now stands at about 20%, roughly half of the 38% in 1976 and 40% in 1980.  A few points of that went from "actual" (ie: literal) to "inspired", but most of the shift was all the way to "fables".  Not surprisingly, the literals tend to be older, less educated, republican, conservative and protestant (much of which is further broken down in the pdf linked in the story).

Of course, it's still terrifying to me that 20% of Americans apparently believe in talking snakes and beating their slaves, but there you go...

I just had a very good friend, and well intended Christian liberal, visit me today and basically say, "I don't literally believe in a magic man called Jesus, but I do believe he existed and was a good person.". Well certainly far less insane than "I'll chop your nuts off and feed them to my dogs if you don't worship me", but still flawed logic. 

I explained to her, that Jefferson felt the same way. He didn't believe in a man/God, but he still believed that God existed, but simply stepped aside after making us and let us make our own mistakes. And that Jesus was still a real mere mortal with good morals. 

Well, not so fast my dear friend and Jefferson. It is absolutely true that you CAN find nice motifs of caring for the poor, railing at pure greed, and helping others. The Jesus character of the NT certainly had some nice moments off seeming compassion and empathy.


BUT, here is the rub. If he was a mere mortal but still a messenger of the God who made everything but stepped aside to let us make our own mistakes, there is a VERY HUGE flaw in that logic. Jesus is still supporting the jealous vengeful God of the OT who had a beef with an adult Pharaoh King and not only punished the king, but sanctioned his followers to murder all the firstborn males of Egypt, even if they were not adults even if they were merely toddlers or even babies.

It is not Anti Semitic to point out mere bad logic. I do not want to stick all Jews in an oven for believing a flawed logic story. 

But, just like the trend you rightfully point out in this survey. The further back in time you go, the more literal people took the words of their holy writings. And that was true for all of antiquity, even in polytheism and Buddhism. 

Ask a lot of Buddhists or Hindus whom are more liberal if they believe in the literal superstition of magical revenge called "Karma" which is a bullshit superstition. Stalin went his entire life never being punished for the monster he was. So bad people can go their entire life without being punished.

So subconsciously, instead of flat out ditching the word "Karma" they attempt to strip it of its mythological superstitious past, and try to water it down to metaphor not realizing or simply not wanting to accept the further back you went in time, in both Hinduism and Buddhism the more people truly believed there was some magical force like Yoda defeating Darth Vader.

So lets take Malachi 2:3 in the bible for example. I literally debated a theist about that verse. "Behold I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces." He stupidly tried to counter, "That comes from the KJV version, in the NIV version it uses the word "refuse" not "dung". HE REALLY FUCKING ARGUED THAT BULLSHIT.

I responded, "I DGAF, if you say dung or refuse, do you literally believe it would be ok to punish an adult even if their only crime was not kissing his ass, by spreading dung or trash in their faces?"

He answered, "No, it is just metaphor."

No shit Sherlock. But the further back in time you go the more people who interpreted either version thought spreading trash or shit in your face if you didn't behave, even if your only crime was not wanting to be in the same club took that as a real lagit punishment.

[Belacqua]

I understand that arguing this is hopeless, because people here believe myths that serve their ideology, not historical truth.

This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Augustine:

At Milan he underwent the influence of Bishop Ambrose (339–397), who taught him the allegorical method of Scriptural exegesis

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/

In De Genesi contra Manichaeos, De vera religione, and De Genesi ad litteram Augustine insists on allegorical interpretations of significant parts of the Bible.

Paul, in the New Testament, interprets Old Testament stories allegorically. Paul is more important to Christianity than Woolston.

Jesus, in the New Testament, speaks largely through parables -- that is, non-literal means of expression. Jesus is more important to Christianity than Woolston.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I understand that arguing this is hopeless, because people here believe myths that serve their ideology, not historical truth.

This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Augustine:

At Milan he underwent the influence of Bishop Ambrose (339–397), who taught him the allegorical method of Scriptural exegesis

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/

In De Genesi contra Manichaeos, De vera religione, and De Genesi ad litteram Augustine insists on allegorical interpretations of significant parts of the Bible.

Paul, in the New Testament, interprets Old Testament stories allegorically. Paul is more important to Christianity than Woolston.

Jesus, in the New Testament, speaks largely through parables -- that is, non-literal means of expression. Jesus is more important to Christianity than Woolston.

All of which is perfectly true and correct, but none of which will matter to the 20%.  It isn't how certain bits of the Bible are meant to be understood, but how they are understood that causes all the trouble.

Boru

[Belacqua]

From the Wikipedia entry on the Song of Songs:

The literal subject of the Song of Songs is love and sexual longing between a man and a woman, and it has little (or nothing) to say about the relationship of God and man; in order to find such a meaning it was necessary to resort to allegory, treating the love that the Song celebrates as an analogy for the love between God and Church.[6] The Christian church's interpretation of the Song as evidence of God's love for his people, both collectively and individually, began with Origen. Over the centuries the emphases of interpretation shifted, first reading the Song as a depiction of the love between Christ and Church, the 11th century adding a moral element, and the 12th century understanding of the Bride as the Virgin Mary, with each new reading absorbing rather than simply replacing earlier ones, so that the commentary became ever more complex.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_So...ristianity

emphasis added

Christian allegorical interpretation of this book began with Origen, who lived c. 185 – c. 253. That is, a little while before Woolston.

Jews accepted the book into their canon based on allegorical readings circa 2nd century.

[Fake Messiah]

Song of Songs was always taken as a metaphor since it was a poem just like some of Jesus' parables, for example, the prodigal son. And since Bible is such a self-contradictive mess, some parts had to be taken as a metaphor because they would negate other parts of the Bible.

But pretty much all events and people in Bible were considered historical. So to say that theologians considered everything in the Bible to be a metaphor is stupid because Christianity is based on the notion that Adam was a real person who sinned and Jesus came to redeem that he ate from a wrong tree.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

From the Wikipedia entry on the Song of Songs:

The literal subject of the Song of Songs is love and sexual longing between a man and a woman, and it has little (or nothing) to say about the relationship of God and man; in order to find such a meaning it was necessary to resort to allegory, treating the love that the Song celebrates as an analogy for the love between God and Church.[6] The Christian church's interpretation of the Song as evidence of God's love for his people, both collectively and individually, began with Origen. Over the centuries the emphases of interpretation shifted, first reading the Song as a depiction of the love between Christ and Church, the 11th century adding a moral element, and the 12th century understanding of the Bride as the Virgin Mary, with each new reading absorbing rather than simply replacing earlier ones, so that the commentary became ever more complex.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_So...ristianity

emphasis added

Christian allegorical interpretation of this book began with Origen, who lived c. 185 – c. 253. That is, a little while before Woolston.

Jews accepted the book into their canon based on allegorical readings circa 2nd century.

Again, none of that is the issue. It doesn’t matter if a particular passage is allegorical, it matters whether people believe it to be so. It’s all very well and valid to point out that Church fathers and theological philosophers support an allegorical interpretation of scripture, but it’s what the rank-and-file believe that matters more.

Test: 100 000 non-witches murdered because people believed Exodus 22:18 was a literal instruction.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Five hundred years ago one would have been burned alive for publicly questioning the Bible being the literal Word of God.  Progress, I suppose.

You think that in 1522 a person could be burned alive for announcing that large parts of the Bible are to be read as allegory or parable? 

Citation needed.

That's not what I claimed at all. Rather, the view of Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, can be found here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providentissimus_Deus

[Belacqua]

The further back in time you go, the more literal people took the words of their holy writings. And that was true for all of antiquity, even in polytheism and Buddhism. 

I see no evidence that this is true.

Is this something you can demonstrate, or is it just a belief you have?

[The Grand Nudger]

Fuckin amazing. Its something trivially easy to demonstrate by reference to history, culture, and cultures throughout history.

[Jehanne]

The further back in time you go, the more literal people took the words of their holy writings. And that was true for all of antiquity, even in polytheism and Buddhism. 

I see no evidence that this is true.

Is this something you can demonstrate, or is it just a belief you have?

Compare the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the Roman Catechism, written first in Italian and then translated into Latin) with the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you don't see any major changes, well, then you don't; one word that is virtually absent from moden-day Catholic writings is the word "heretic"; it shows up in a few places but otherwise is virtually expunged from modern Catholic thought.

In short, religions change over time, much more consistent with an evolving meme than a divine being who is slowly changing his/her/its mind over time.