• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it matter if its factual ?

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.
see my recent thread title.....This is a Test
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
What made you become an ex-literalist?

Good question. Lots of things. The real issue for the literalist is (Is it factual) NOT what is the text speaking to me about.
In answer to your question I think the fruit that I saw fundamentalism create. I think that fundamentalism is attractive to insecure and fragile people who need some absolutes in their life.

Judgment
Segregation
Pride
Blindness
Arrogance
Close mindedness

are all the fruits I observed in fundamentalism
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Good question. Lots of things. The real issue for the literalist is (Is it factual) NOT what is the text speaking to me about.
In answer to your question I think the fruit that I saw fundamentalism create. I think that fundamentalism is attractive to insecure and fragile people who need some absolutes in their life.

Judgment
Segregation
Pride
Blindness
Arrogance
Close mindedness

Nice. Wanted to probe a bit (thanks RF!) You said it made you judgemental? How would seeing the bible literal let You judge? In my opinion, it would make your point or view (not you) ignorant. I agree the important thing is what you get out of a said story not believe only two thousand years ago people has the ability to wake the dead.

Though, faith revolves around more your revelation (imo). Was other Christians views a big chunk in why you became a ex literalist or was there something that made change? Was your view a a fact then you found it it was a lie?

What was the conversion factor? (Others? Self? Revelation?...)
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between symbols and signs. A sign is literal while a symbol is less linear and much more spatial.

As an example, if I said the Stature of Liberty, the literal sign is a large copper statue of a female in NYC. As a symbol, the statue represents the concept of liberty, which is less definitive and requires studying, pondering and intuition to fully grasp.

The left brain is more about differential thinking were we break down reality into it parts. We see differences.The right brain is more integral and integrates the same data into a spatial whole. The sign is more left brain and the symbol is more right brain.

If you look at small children they love fairly tails. The literal signs of Genesis are useful in the sense of creating a type of easy to remember compression sequence of the symbol, that appeals to children. As we get older, the adult learns to fluff up or decompress the popcorn kernels and explore its 3-D symbolic meaning. The child like the state of liberty while the adult thinks deeper about its decompressed symbol.

Science is more differential and will tend to think in terms of literal signs and distinct data. It argues from the face value of the sign. Science is not yet 3-D, so it does not want to there, but stops short. The change in some people, like myself, from sign to symbol, is to attempt to puff up the sign into a symbol.
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Nice. Wanted to probe a bit (thanks RF!) You said it made you judgemental? How would seeing the bible literal let You judge? In my opinion, it would make your point or view (not you) ignorant. I agree the important thing is what you get out of a said story not believe only two thousand years ago people has the ability to wake the dead.

Though, faith revolves around more your revelation (imo). Was other Christians views a big chunk in why you became a ex literalist or was there something that made change? Was your view a a fact then you found it it was a lie?

What was the conversion factor? (Others? Self? Revelation?...)
Good questions, that require a book to answer which I dont have the time to write.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Good question. Lots of things. The real issue for the literalist is (Is it factual) NOT what is the text speaking to me about.
In answer to your question I think the fruit that I saw fundamentalism create. I think that fundamentalism is attractive to insecure and fragile people who need some absolutes in their life.

Judgment
Segregation
Pride
Blindness
Arrogance
Close mindedness

are all the fruits I observed in fundamentalism

I suspect that such strong attitudes arise out of the context of abuse whether sexual, physical or the all-inclusive emotional kind.

The story of the Jewish people appears to be one in which they have often suffered abuse from a stronger military power. This leads to narratives that glory in death dealing retribution for such sufferings. The Bible becomes a magnet for many victims of abuse to relish the thought of a literal revenge or justice.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Good questions, that require a book to answer which I dont have the time to write.

You can keep it simple. You mentioned people in your OP. Some say self. Meditation. External environent (god gave me insight). Internal (I found it in reflection). Revelation (aha moment).

Doesnt need to be your experiences. For example, my conversion factor that woke me up was a few things. Creativity...looking back at my family and founding they are all creative. Authors. Artists. Musician. So forth. I took from them. Another aha was the actual practice. I'm reading this book that uses art to heal. It's spiritual and experiential.

Study. Exploration.

That's me in a nutshell.

I assume that you want to discuss your OP? Doesnt need to be a book. Just curious.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.

Sounds if if you quit half way into your revelation.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I grew up (or at least tried to) in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught literalism, and it was basically anti-science (and quite racist I might add) to boot. Even in high school back in the early 1960's I had difficulty swallowing their spiel, and I even had prior thoughts about going into the ministry. Shortly after finishing my undergrad studies I left that church, never to return except to bury my patents.
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
You can keep it simple. You mentioned people in your OP. Some say self. Meditation. External environent (god gave me insight). Internal (I found it in reflection). Revelation (aha moment).

Doesnt need to be your experiences. For example, my conversion factor that woke me up was a few things. Creativity...looking back at my family and founding they are all creative. Authors. Artists. Musician. So forth. I took from them. Another aha was the actual practice. I'm reading this book that uses art to heal. It's spiritual and experiential.

Study. Exploration.

That's me in a nutshell.

I assume that you want to discuss your OP? Doesnt need to be a book. Just curious.

Like I said the fruits that I saw in myself and others were not good. If you read back through my post its blinding obvious why I moved away from it. Sorry if it wasn't clear for you.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
There are some who have characterized our paths in religion in terms of stages of development, much like the stages of cognitive development that are well-established in fields like psychology. These models are somewhat controversial, but I've found them useful when it comes to approaching how different people understand religion. It introduces the idea that it's not so much that someone thinks it matters if something is taken literally, it's that the person is not capable of approaching or processing literature in any other fashion. For example, abstract thinking - which is required for non-literal approaches to literature - does not develop in humans until around the teen years. We also know that this "operational stage" of thinking is not used in all aspects of someone's lives or by all cultures. There are definitely people who do never apply abstract thinking to their religion - both as a matter of culture and as preference. It's certainly not something to feel sorry for someone about.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Like I said the fruits that I saw in myself and others were not good. If you read back through my post its blinding obvious why I moved away from it. Sorry if it wasn't clear for you.

Please reread my post. Geesh. I read your OP and I'm genuine curious about your conversion. Im sure you posted the OP for discussion?

:( Cant win these days. In your OP you talk about christians and what you discovered about your views via christians views. Is that it? You dont need to write a book. Just wondering if it stops dead at your OP and what you want to talk about.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.
There are lots of non-literalist interpretations of a piece of scripture. When you say that you "reject literalism," what's your approach?

- "the author intended this to be factually true, but the author is a fallible human, so I can overlook factual errors and focus on the overall message."

- "the author didn't make any mistakes; he intended this to be interpreted poetically/allegorically/etc. from the outset."

- "I recognize with modern knowledge that this scripture is obviously false if taken literally, but I'm still attached to it, so I'll interpret it non-literally even though I have no reason to believe that this is what the author intended."

I think a lot of "non-literalists" go for the third option.

Now... if you have good reasons for your non-literalist approach, great. I think that good scholarship tries to delve into the author's intent and state of mind, and we should definitely follow the evidence in that regard.

OTOH, I don't think the mere fact that a literal interpretation is embarrassing or ridiculous to modern readers is a sign that the author intended a non-literal interpretation... especially if the reasons we now consider it ridiculous wouldn't have been known to the ancient author.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I grew up (or at least tried to) in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught literalism, and it was basically anti-science (and quite racist I might add) to boot. Even in high school back in the early 1960's I had difficulty swallowing their spiel, and I even had prior thoughts about going into the ministry. Shortly after finishing my undergrad studies I left that church, never to return except to bury my patents.
Why would the fact that a literal interpretation was racist mean that the interpretation is wrong? Maybe the author really did mean to express racism.

Edit: and why would we expect an ancient author to agree with modern science from thousands of years after he was alive?
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
the author intended this to be factually true,

I think this is a dangerous assumption and in my opinion supplies the fuel that inspires the literalist. I think the truth is probably more like (none of the writers of the Bible ever imagined their writing would ever be read as literal stories) As John Spong says its a Gentile Heresy
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think this is a dangerous assumption and in my opinion supplies the fuel that inspires the literalist. I think the truth is probably more like (none of the writers of the Bible ever imagined their writing would ever be read as literal stories) As John Spong says its a Gentile Heresy
Instead of pulling half-sentences out of context from my posts, how about responding to them properly?
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Good question. Lots of things. The real issue for the literalist is (Is it factual) NOT what is the text speaking to me about.
In answer to your question I think the fruit that I saw fundamentalism create. I think that fundamentalism is attractive to insecure and fragile people who need some absolutes in their life.

Judgment
Segregation
Pride
Blindness
Arrogance
Close mindedness

are all the fruits I observed in fundamentalism

Thank you for that explanation
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think this is a dangerous assumption and in my opinion supplies the fuel that inspires the literalist. I think the truth is probably more like (none of the writers of the Bible ever imagined their writing would ever be read as literal stories) As John Spong says its a Gentile Heresy
So the Bible was written by imaginitive atheists? o_O

How do you think they did intend them to be taken, and how do you know?

Considering that, in most cases, there's nothing in the Bible that would have been obviously impossible to a Bronze Age audience, why would an ancient author not even imagine that the stories might be taken literally?
 
Top