Schneibster

I'll be up front here, I'm definitely an atheist. I'm not trolling looking for an argument; I am, however, frustrated along with my curiosity so be polite. I realize that this has probably been discussed a hundred times here; I've done some poking around, though, and I just don't see any good answers, although I've certainly come across a lot of people being impolite to one another.

I see a great deal of activity that I consider to be dangerous to the state of democracy in the US at best, and destructive to the social order at worst, that is centered around a bunch of people apparently attempting to destroy or suppress anything- biology, physics, and astronomy seem to be prime targets- that seems to require the Bible not being literally true, as if having to interpret it is some sort of a problem. Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is about, although it is clear to me that it seems very important to these people, more important at least to them than what I consider to be most important, which is the state of our Union and the status of our freedoms, and the state of knowledge in general and science in particular.

I'm looking for some discussion with both the religious and those of the same persuasion as me of why it is so important to the religious that the Bible be literally true in every word for it to be... hmmm, how shall I put this, "useful?" "Usable?" "Worth believing in?" I don't quite know, but that kind of gets the idea across, I guess- feel free to fill in a term here if you have one you think is better, and then explain your opinion on this to me.

Thanks in advance for remaining civil and for your answers.

judge

The only idea I have is that in the west when protestantism challenged Roman Catholicism they rejected the authority of Rome. As a result they needed their own authority.
Thereofre they turned the bible into some kind of authoritative document in an even greater way than it had been.
This may have led to current ideas?

Xeriar

In terms of Creationism, many Christians feel that a non-literal interpretation of the Bible which allows for evolution means that there can be no original sin, and thus, no need for Jesus, and thus, no need for Christianity.

David B

For most christians, I don't think it is important that the whole bible be literally true. The Catholic Church has just released a teaching document which states explicitly that some parts ain't true, for example.

Most mainstream protestants that I know certainly don't believe in the Genesis accounts of creation.

It seems to me that most of the schools of xianity that are biblical inerrantists come from small cults with charismatic leaders, which consciously or unconsciously use manipulative cultic techniques on their followers. Unfortunately, some of these have grown, especially in the States, it seems.

I'd sugest that the answer to your question lies more in psychology than in logic. except for the idea that when you start believing one part of the bible, where do you stop?

Most of us here, I'd suggest, haven't stopped until we reject all supernatural claims in the Bible, and then there's not a lot left. Though I understand that there is a line of thought within some churches that is prepared to reject the virgin birth, and the ascension, but still see something worthwhile in Christianity. By cherry picking Christian ethics, I suppose.

David B

Asha'man

I think the core reason is pretty simple: if the Bible is clearly inaccurate in one place, then it has little credibility in other places. Any part of it might be wrong, since it loses it's status as a magical text.

Many Christians build their faith entirely on the truth of the bible. They know that the world gives little appearance of an active interventionist God, and that praying feels awfully similar to talking to the ceiling. They are sitting on a one-legged stool, and get very defensive if you try to kick that one leg out from underneath them.

anthony93

I think this is pretty close to heart of the question. One of the reasons Christianity has survived and thrived was the early insistance of the Church 'Fathers' ( pendantic and prone to bad faith in their reasoning as they were, for example Eusebius ) that the canon be inviolable. In other words, the Apostolic times were the period when the scriptures were written and after that everything else was commentary. The Church (of Rome) of course also held that tradition was also a source of 'revelation' (or whatever) and has held that line consistantly up to now.

Well, when the reformers came along they looked back to primitive Christianity (though we now know, thanks to Nag Hamadi and biblical scholarship that the early church was hardly unsophisticated) and more or less tossed everything that was considered a Roman addition. So, the sacraments, the cult of Saints, relics and everything else that made Roman Catholicism fun went. (A really good example of taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion is Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons Just Google if you need a good laugh.)

Anyway, the point is that they couldn't add anything, since the reasoning for ditching Catholic doctrine was that it was merely human addition to the revealtion of the New Covenant etc. That left the Bible. With the 'democratic' Protestants, 'believers' could come to their own conclusions as to what God wants/means/said but there had to be some authority to base an argument on. And thus the Bible became the inspired Word of God, then the substance of revealtion itself and now, in the last 150 or so years, as the literal (as in each and every 'jot-and-mark') WORD OF you-know-who. The fact is, if the Bible goes, many if not most Protestants don't have anything left to hang their hats on.

Which, I think, is the answer to the question that started this thread. Having backed into theological corner of thier own making, the fundamentalists feel (correctly) they are making their last stand, as there is no fall-back position.

I hope none of them read Robert Price.

Chili

Nice metaphor Asha'man but let me add that they have attached their salvation to some of these passages that they have neetly bundled into different packages on which they soar though midheaven. So their fall will be great and more like a crash which usually is at the foot of the cross where they will sing songs of patient endurance until they die, sooner or later, nonetheless.

Chili

The problem is that they threw the baby our with the bathwater.

The reign of God is found beyond theology where Pure Reason makes the bible infallible or it would not be the word of God.

Sven

Somewhat related: Why assume inerrancy?
It boiled down to two "reasons":
(1) Well, because I do.
(2) some sort of TAG
:banghead:

Schneibster

Thanks for all your answers. Thanks in advance to anyone else who provides more.