Literalist Belief

Are there basically two types of literalists? the positive religious and the negative non-spiritual?


the positive religious literalist is one who imagines a spiritual thing as literally looking or behaving from an anthropormorphic view point and doesn't need, or possibly even want, empirical proof?

the negative non-spiritual literalist is one who literally rejects anything spiritual because it hasn't yet been proven, nor will they even try to understand because again it doesn't fit into their scientific database?


now, if both were to suspect that what is being described in words is not necessarily literal but figurative and test it in reality, might they discover a new science, a new knowledge, or way of looking at something creatively?


really? isn't the self the judge on how to word an experience? or imagine it and then create it?


and isn't this basically theory without works is dead? or james 2:14



The Matter of Truth

Religious literalist lacks common sense to understand and recognize mythological hystory and history as we know it today. He denies the difference. The same with "scientifical" explanations. Look for example at this response of a literalist to someone proposing a sound mythological interpretation:

Genesis: Myth or History? - creation.com

The non-religious literalist (materialist) sees the myth but doesn't see the spiritual truths conveyed in the story. He sees only the imaginative part and scientifical errors of ancient pre-scientifical worldview and throws away the whole thing.

"Myth" has two meanings. One is positive one is negative. Both literalists fail to see the myth in the positive meaning of the word.

PearlSeeker said:

"Myth" has two meanings. One is positive one is negative. Both literalists fail to see the myth in the positive meaning of the word.

Click to expand...

Good explanation.