The Economics of Biblical Literalism - or...

[Snow]

The Economics of Biblical Literalism

or

Denying Science for Fun and Profit

I. Biblical literalism is a specific type of interpretation that holds that (for the purposes of this thread) events described in the Bible really happened, as a historical and factual matter, ie a donkey really did talk; God really did order his followers to murder, enslave, kidnap, steal and rape; God really did conspire with the Devil to kill the family of Job on a wager; Adam really was the very first human and before or concurrent to he and Eve, there were no others; there really was a world wide flood up to the tops of the mountains with 2 (or 7 - depending of which Bible story you believe) of every animal preserved from drowning on a big boat.

II. People do what they do (or in this case believe) what they do, because they derive some gain, advantage, or utility (perceived or real) from it.

I submit, that on a rational basis, there is nothing to be gained from a blanket literalistic interpretation of the Bible and, in fact, there is only disadvantage and disutility.

Take literalism:

Does such an interpretation make you more worthy to enter the temple? No. It’s not one of the criteria.

>Does it make the atonement have more purchase on your soul? Of course not.

>Does it contribute to a higher degree of faith? Just the opposite as explained below.

>Does it make you more obedient or righteous? Get serious - you don’t need to believe in talking donkeys to obey God.

>Does it make you of greater service to your fellow man? Only if you think that companionship in the wonder world of evolution disbelief is a valuable commodity.

>Does it make you smarter, more physically fit? Hardly

What utility, then, is to be gained from believing that God conspired with the Devil or that Mt Everest was completely underwater mere thousands of years ago?

Answer: None.

On the other hand, take a view that does not require that each event from the Bible be interpreted as literal and historical, for example the story of Eve - you need not believe that she was created out of mud (or a rib, depending on which Bible story you believe and that prior to her and Adam there were no other humans - rather you could believe that the story is allegorical - symbolic of God’s relationship and covenant with mankind. Note that you need not abandon the belief that there really was a historical human we know as Adam that in some way he represented the first of the race. What are the advantages of such a point of view?

>First, it’s faith promoting rather than faith detracting (per the literalistic view). You don’t have to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile faith and reason, science and religion, understanding that both are compatible and merely subsets of the larger epistemological system of theology.

>You don’t have to labor to reconcile Old Testament immoral acts attributed to God with the concept of a good and just god.

> You don’t have to deny the validity of scientific fact and the best available scientific theories.

>You could get a paying job as a real scientist who is paid to discover more about the reality of his scientific beliefs.

> You can get A’s on school papers where you have to demonstrate the validity of your beliefs on the origin of the species.

> You aren’t the butt of jokes and marginalized by the scientifically literate.

In short, there is only downside to a literalistic view and nothing but upside, utility and faith promotion to a non-literalist view.

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO LDS have less need for literalism. Catholics are the same. The Church can anchor you to some bedrock doctrines, and to spiritual authority and direction. For Evangelicals and Protestants, we need a good deal of literalism, because the Bible is our final authority. If it is largely allegorical, meant as inspiring tales, and open to cultural and philosophical re-interpretation, well then, there really is no anchor or bedrock at all. We truly can be tossed by every wave of doctrine.

At this point in my life I'm too much of a theological libertarian to join either you or the Catholics, so I guess I'm stuck with this disadvantageous literalism. :-)

[Gatorman]

Snow, in an effort to understand your position better, I have a question. Have you ever been through a full session in the temple?

[hordak]

You left out my favorite. Elisha and the bears.

The advantage of literalism is a lack of conflict with other stories in the bible.

If donkeys don't talk because it's not possible scientifically what makes walking on water real?

If the world flood didn't happen because of the mathematical impossibility how did 2 fish and 3 loafs feed thousands?

I should note i'm not a bible literalist and think many of the storys ,including the NT, are embellished.

[Seminarysnoozer]

You know, a lack of abstract thought process is one of the features of dementia.

[rameumptom]

While I believe there is a lot of allegory in the Bible, I have no problem with many of the events being literal. The crux comes in two things: determining which are literal, and of those literal events, determining just how they were understood anciently.

Given that God could make a donkey talk does not bother me, whether it is literal or not.

Job 1 tells us about the divine council. Satan or Adversary (whether it was the actual being we called Satan or not is unknown) was a divine son attempting to challenge Yahweh for preeminence among the divine sons. The challenges always worked through their earthly kingdoms, as we see in Job. For God, a few people dying, but then receiving their eternal salvation would mean nothing - after all, if we are to reject God allowing the death of Job's children, how do we or God justify ANYONE dying?

Your concern that God commanded the slaughter of cities betrays a modern worldview. It does not match up with the ancient views, nor with an eternal viewpoint. IOW, you are attempting to disbelieve certain events, simply because they are distasteful to you. Your view destroys the concepts found in 2 Nephi 2 regarding agency and choice. Just like us, God sometimes has to choose between two lousy things. He chooses the one that promotes his goals the best. Else, why allow Jesus to be sacrificed? Why allow all the suffering on earth? Why not just save everyone from all the pain, corruption, and sorrow? You seem to suggest an all powerful God who is powerless when it comes to miracles (talking donkeys). Yet the LDS God is not all powerful. He abides by celestial law and his goal is the immortality and eternal life of mankind (Moses 1:39). If people die early, either from natural or violent causes, what is that to us? If God determines an innocent person's death, do you not think he has the power to make up for that injustice in the eternities?

[Traveler]

One of the biggest problems I have with religion is the ever present need to be 100% right and correct about everything. With life we learn that whenever we draw a “line in the sand” or “cast it in concrete” we will eventually encounter the “exception”. If we say that we believe the Bible as the authority on doctrine there is always that passage to goes contrary to “the doctrine”. If we say we follow prophets there is always the one thing that brings a question. The basis of religion is that no matter what evidence there is to the contrary we reject it on the notion that we are being tempted, tested and must proceed on faith.

The problem is that with such attitudes exceptions and evidence begins to pile up against the hope against hope until one either rejects mounting truth and barricades themselves in ignorance (the ostrich head in the sand trick) or they throw out the entire concept of belief and faith and declare themselves an atheist. I see both options as extreme inability to cope with the body of truth a person has and moving forward into discovery of new and exciting truths and possibilities.

There are some serious flaws in the Bible, there are problems with the Book of Mormon and there are questions about Prophets and other “church” leaders – including my bishop that I know too well. So what is a person to do? Well one of the best attitudes about such things I find in the Prophet Nephi. When Lamen and Lemual presented Nephi directly with things that did not make sense – Nephi asked them a really simple question. Have you inquired of the L-rd? What a marvelous concept?

Some will argue that there was something they prayed about 15 years ago and G-d never answered them – This sounds a lot like the responses of Lamen and Lemual. I keep a question journal. Every time I come across a religious thing that does not make sense to me – I write it in my question journal. During my life time I have gotten more questions than answers – but the point I am trying to make is that I have gotten answers. True – it does seem that for every answer; I get 10 more questions but the reality is that I am always getting answers – I get answers because I have the audacity and the nerve to ask the L-rd my questions. BTW seldom if ever do I get answers just because I asked and some answers have come more than 30 years later – after I had forgotten I had even asked when out of the blue there is the answer and I wonder and marvel.

I also have learned that you must be willing to accept an answer – especially an answer you do not want to hear in order to get the answer. This sounds logical but it amazes me how many people pray for what they will not accept. Yah – I have caught myself even doing that.

Some think honest inquiry is contrary to faith in Jesus Christ. No – I am not kidding. Many will not search for a more excellent way because they are afraid they will find something that excludes Jesus or something else in their faith. If I could find something (or if the L-rd would show me) better than the LDS – I would drop the LDS faith in a heartbeat. That is part of my faith. I have found many exceptions but nothing better.

I have found lots of exceptions in the Bible – but I have not found a better source of divine knowledge. I have found lots of exceptions in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price but when I combine these books with the Bible – I have found nothing better. I have found exceptions with our LDS prophets and other leaders but for all my experiences in this world – I have not found better - anywhere. I have no problem with Anti-LDS pointing out our flaws. But it is not the flaws that interest me – I want something better. Until someone produces something better – I am not interested. I have plenty of my own flaws and questions to deal with.

I guess what I want to say is that there are two big problems- First the person that will not admit that problems are possible (like with the Bible) and the second is the person that will not inquire of the L-rd about it.

The Traveler

Edited October 16, 2009 by Traveler

[Gatorman]

I guess my take is not what Snow thinks it is at all. When there is 'grey' area, I favor what my faith tells me versus the philosophies of men. Especially when it comes to mingling with scriptures. So, my faith teaches me that Adam and Eve are the first people on earth and that they are the point to which we all trace our lineage. No amount of hominids, apes, chimps, or grits will change that.

Now, am I claiming that all the evidence is wrong? No. I am simply stating that there is either another answer that we have not found, it is confounding teaching, or we are mistaken. I have made a point before that the bible does not eliminate evolution and evolution does not disprove the bible. Perhaps, one possibility is, evolution was the process Heavenly Father used. We don't know. So, what is important. The important part for our salvation is that Adam and Eve were the first humans and are the 'parents' of us all. I have yet to see anything in the plan of Salvation that says we have to accept that hominids are our ancestors. I prefer to keep my trust in my faith and my eye on the ball of what is needed for salvation. The other knowledge is gravy and may bring about great things, but, if it ultimately does not increase my understanding of the plan of salvation and how to return to my heavenly father, it is unimportant.

[Dravin]

In short, there is only downside to a literalistic view and nothing but upside, utility and faith promotion to a non-literalist view.

What about the fun and profit? Don't tease me like that, I was looking forward to some fun and profit from denying science!

[Maxel]

Some of the Bible is literal. Some is allegorical. Deciding which is which is an exercise in futility without additional information. That's why God restored His Church when the Earth was prepared for it. Deciding that Biblical stories are either all literal or all allegorical is dangerous and faulty, as is a premise that 'anything that doesn't make sense to me couldn't have actually happened' is dangerous as well.

Can we avoid another "A-and-B-and-C-didn't-happen-because-the-idea-is-absurd-and/or-doesn't-jive-with-my-personal-ideas-of-what-God-is-like" thread? Those are nothing but eyesores and bring the entire forum down (at least, all the participants).

[prisonchaplain]

In seriousness, my default is to take a Bible account as literal. There are times when allegory, hyperbole, parable, etc. are obvious. Further, to take much of the Psalms, which are song and poetry, literal would be silliness. But, if the Bible contains an account of a prophet riding a donkey, and the donkey speaks, do I dismiss it out of hand as fantastical, or do I figure God did some outrageous to get his attention? It's not necessarily superstitutious to think that at least some of the miracles were, well, miraculous.

[MarginOfError]

Snow, in an effort to understand your position better, I have a question. Have you ever been through a full session in the temple?

I'm confused about the relevance of this question. I certainly hope you aren't implying that everything in the endowment is to be taken literally.

[Snow]

IMHO LDS have less need for literalism. Catholics are the same. The Church can anchor you to some bedrock doctrines, and to spiritual authority and direction. For Evangelicals and Protestants, we need a good deal of literalism, because the Bible is our final authority. If it is largely allegorical, meant as inspiring tales, and open to cultural and philosophical re-interpretation, well then, there really is no anchor or bedrock at all. We truly can be tossed by every wave of doctrine.

At this point in my life I'm too much of a theological libertarian to join either you or the Catholics, so I guess I'm stuck with this disadvantageous literalism. :-)

I think I understand the Evangelical point of view that you have to accept the whole Bible, as is, inerrant and absolute because if you question one then, then that leads to questions about other things and so goes the slippery slope... but that's just the point of view that you choose to accept, there is nothing that necessitates such a point of view. For example, I doubt that I think it is pretty clear from the archeological record (science) that the kingdom of David and Solomon was nowhere near in size and scope what is described in the Bible but understanding that has absolutely no bearing on my conviction that Jesus in the Christ and that He atoned for my sins.

What benefit do you derive from disbelieving pre-adamic humans?

[Snow]

You left out my favorite. Elisha and the bears.

A literal interpretation of which requires you to believe that God and his prophet worked together to kill children who teased the prophet for his alopeica.

The advantage of literalism is a lack of conflict with other stories in the bible.

No so. There are two separate creation accounts that do not match. There are two flood accounts that do not match. There are various birth narratives that do not match, etc

A literal interpretation is a problem, not an advantage.

If donkeys don't talk because it's not possible scientifically what makes walking on water real?

If the world flood didn't happen because of the mathematical impossibility how did 2 fish and 3 loafs feed thousands?

That's not the point I was making. While disbelieving the donkey story, I maintain that, of course, it COULD have happened, just that there is no value, and likely negative value, in believing that it actually did happen.

[Snow]

Snow, in an effort to understand your position better, I have a question. Have you ever been through a full session in the temple?

Yes Gatorman, for almost as long as you have been out of your Huggies. (said with a touch of warmth and humor).

[Maxel]

Snow, you have drummed out the problems of Biblical (and scriptural) literalism for so long with the same results... Negativity, contention, and a lack of productivity. What's the point in bringing it up again- do you just like to fight? You're going to persuade no one, no one will be persuaded by you, the same old arguments will be rehashed...

Maybe you can just post a thread listing all the crazy Bible stories that you believe shouldn't be taken literally, and explain why you think they're in the Bible (the story is allegorical or completely made up, etc.)?

I seriously wonder what the point of this thread is, other than another shot at Biblical literalism. One problem I have with your OP is that you seem to divide people into two camps: those who see the Bible as wholly literal and those who see it as wholly allegorical. There's spiritual danger in BOTH camps, yet you extol the virtues of non-literalism and decry literalism as horrible.

Perhaps there's a point to this thread other than "the Bible's not to be taken literally because there are no benefits to it"?

[hordak]

A literal interpretation of which requires you to believe that God and his prophet worked together to kill children who teased the prophet for his alopeica.

Exactly. The literal account is the most absurd bible story. I should have put rolling eyes to point out my distaste for the literal version.

No so. There are two separate creation accounts that do not match. There are two flood accounts that do not match. There are various birth narratives that do not match, etc

A literal interpretation is a problem, not an advantage.

That's not the point I was making. While disbelieving the donkey story, I maintain that, of course, it COULD have happened, just that there is no value, and likely negative value, in believing that it actually did happen.

Literal interpretations can make one look odd, to the scientific. But with so much unscientific stuff in the bible (even the important stuff will all the value, like the resurrection) picking and choosing can make you look biased.

But i do understand what your saying, much of what people take literal doesn't matter either way. I'm just saying it makes them consistent. Which could be seen as an advantage.

[lattelady]

For MANY people, the idea that a man could hang on a cross all day, get stabbed in the side so that blood and water flowed, be confirmed dead by a soldier who didn't even feel the need to break his legs because he had already passed away, get placed in a tomb--and THEN come back to life three days later--LITERALLY--seems ludicrous.

I accept the Bible as literal; my relationship with God is such, and what I learn from scripture is such that it's important for me to take God at His Word. The parts that are poetic or allegorical are just that, and sometimes it takes some guidance to know what is what. The things that are literal that bother our minds or hearts because they're confusing or seem cruel--I'm learning to take all those things in the light of the Bible as a WHOLE and in the light of what I know of God's character; when I'm still confused, I ask the Holy Spirit to teach me--"What am I supposed to learn from this?"

[Gatorman]

Yes Gatorman, for almost as long as you have been out of your Huggies. (said with a touch of warmth and humor).

Wow. You must be about ready to retire the walker for a scooter chair. :)

Anyway, I asked for this reason. It will help you understand my statement, which applies to how I feel. I do not apply this to others, per se. I see science as a Philosphy of Men. I use the term specifically. Now, as is the intent wrapped around that statement, it is meant to take parcels and shreds of truth and make them seem like more importnant than the flaws. So, when one takes science to disprove the bible, I see a promise from the other side being followed up on.

Does the fact that we have found no scientific evidence of a grand flood of the scale that seems to be indicated in the bible mean that the story is not valid? No. It could mean that we just haven't found proof. It could mean that it did not happen. Or, it could mean that from the perspective or view of the person writing it, the whole of the earth they knew was covered. There is a belief that one of the floods around the Black Sea, I think, could have occurred in such a way as to be construed as a 'Great Flood'. Regardless, when others push that it is foolish for us to believe that a flood occurred because science does not back it up, I see the Philosophy of Men coming forth. On the other hand, if they want to discuss that maybe there are other plausible answers, other ways that a type of great flood could have occurred, or, perhaps even better, what the purpose of the story truly is, then I would find worth in their conversation.

Another example, Revelations. Look at the descriptions of the various things fighting. How could such fantastical creatures exist, right? No way science could back up such fantastical creatures. Unless, one stops for a minute and asks, what would the weapons of our day, our tanks, helicopters, etc, appear to be to John the Revelator? And, even if John understood what they truly were, how would the people of that time make sense of the story if he wrote about the iron tanks and the helicopters? But, does it make the story any less important? Or, does it make it any less likely he saw what he claims he saw? No.

So, there is great value to me in believing what the bible teaches. And, since I have faith in what the bible teaches and I do not have faith in the science of men, I choose to believe the bible more closely. This does not make me any less of a person, any more crazy than someone who believes in science.

[john doe]

I think that religion, truth, and science are inter-related. Science sometimes tries to explain truth while discounting religion, and that becomes its downfall. By the same token, sometimes religion tries to explain truth while discounting science, and that has its own set of pitfalls. The trick is in finding a happy medium, that helps us mesh science and religion to find the truth. I believe that God completely understands the laws of science, and uses that knowledge to perform His work on the earth.

Was the whole earth covered by water in one global flood? I don't honestly know. Did God really make a donkey talk to a man? I don't know. But does it really matter? What is the spiritual point of those stories? That would be the important aspect if you ask me. Who was the intended audience of the OT anyway? What were the lessons they were supposed to get from those stories? If you notice, even the Gospel Doctrine lessons we get today from those stories don't focus on the physicality of those stories, but on the spiritual lessons we can take away from those stories to strengthen ourselves. I know, it's late, and I may not be making sense, so if it doesn't, please excuse me.

[prisonchaplain]

What benefit do you derive from disbelieving pre-adamic humans?

Actually, whether or not there were other beings near or prior to Adam & Eve is largely irrelevant. Genesis does not bar that possiblity--it merely leaves out any signficant hint of such. Additionally, I suppose I'm an "old earth creationist," in that the 7 days of creation need not be 24/7 to fit an overall literal (i.e. historical) viewpoint of scripture.

[prisonchaplain]

A literal interpretation of which requires you to believe that God and his prophet worked together to kill children who teased the prophet for his alopeica.

Maxel made a request...and this seems as good a story as any to ask it. What, Snow, do you believe the author meant to convery with this story? And, what was God's purpose in having it included?

I took this to mean that God's prophets are chosen by Him, and they should be respected as his representatives. Similar stories are told by Moses (God gives leprosy to his competition). If this story is some fantastic tall tale, what's God's point?

[Moksha]

And, what was God's purpose in having it included?

Sounds like an attempt to justify barbaric behavior by saying God made us do it. A few days ago a number of people here were asserting that God is bound by the rules that he sets, ie. "He would cease to be God". If you believe that, then the command to not kill should be a nonnegotiable two way street.

.

[Snow]

Snow, you have drummed out the problems of Biblical (and scriptural) literalism for so long with the same results... Negativity, contention, and a lack of productivity. What's the point in bringing it up again- do you just like to fight? You're going to persuade no one, no one will be persuaded by you, the same old arguments will be rehashed...

Maybe you can just post a thread listing all the crazy Bible stories that you believe shouldn't be taken literally, and explain why you think they're in the Bible (the story is allegorical or completely made up, etc.)?

I seriously wonder what the point of this thread is, other than another shot at Biblical literalism. One problem I have with your OP is that you seem to divide people into two camps: those who see the Bible as wholly literal and those who see it as wholly allegorical. There's spiritual danger in BOTH camps, yet you extol the virtues of non-literalism and decry literalism as horrible.

Perhaps there's a point to this thread other than "the Bible's not to be taken literally because there are no benefits to it"?

Feel free to not discuss or read or respond to my posts if they cause you to be contentious. As for me I certainly harbor no ill will for you or your ideas and believe that they - your ideas - should be given free reign and subject to open and vigorous discussion - if you so chose. It would never dawn on me to suggest that you should be silenced or that you remain silent.

You are right about one thing, Some people who are driven by their dogma will never change they mind no matter the history, the fact or the proof. The believe what they believe because they believe it. You have described the circular trap perfectly. Your faith tells you... ie your belief is what causes you to believe what you believe.

For myself, I am firmly committed to testing all my beliefs to, to the very highest degree possible against facts, and science, and history and reason - the very tools with which God has endowed us. Why just tonight I learned several things that I did not believe before or consider before or at least with as much import. As it so happens I learned them personally from what/who I think is the Church’s foremost theological philosopher; and, as it turns out, he taught me some gospel truths through the application of logic and reason which provide the fertile ground in which the young shoots of faith spring forth - that is, I was persuaded by a superior argument. I reject no idea or vector because it contradicts my faith - what I have chosen to believe. I’d easily buy a literalistic interpretation of a Bible story if there was a compelling reason to do so. But to that end, you haven’t even offered an attempt at explaining, not even the literalist perspective, but a relative advantage that is gained from viewing it that way. And, by the way, this is not rehashing old material as you claimed. I’ve never even see a post, let alone a thread that discusses the central thrust of this thread. And finally, I’ve never met anyone who thinks that the Bible should be taken “wholly allegorical” and certainly don’t divide anyone into that camp.

So as I say, feel free to not respond or read.

[Snow]

Maxel made a request...and this seems as good a story as any to ask it. What, Snow, do you believe the author meant to convery with this story? And, what was God's purpose in having it included?

I took this to mean that God's prophets are chosen by Him, and they should be respected as his representatives. Similar stories are told by Moses (God gives leprosy to his competition). If this story is some fantastic tall tale, what's God's point?

Ah, you assume that there is a purpose, but that is a very big, and unsupportable I think, assumption. We don’t even know who wrote the account let alone know what God thinks of it. God Himself just isn’t weighing in on the matter so it could well be that there is no purpose. It’s just there. OT authors weren’t historians as we understand one who records history. They attempted to paint Israel inside a religious and moral framework. They advocated for a certain type or pattern of religious life and depicted what God’s kingdom should be like. Historical balance or accuracy was not an issue for them. So, it’s not a matter, unless you have good evidence to the contrary, of what God wanted from the account, but what concept the author was trying to convey. Your thoughts on the matter make some sense; or the author could be saying, don't mess with authority figures or we'll kill you. I don't know but what I do know is that it couldn't have happened the way it was described. It contradicts our belief in a just God. It may have been a real event but if so, there was a lot more to the story.

Not to beat it into the ground but there are three options:

-God is not just

-The story is false

-The story is not accurate or complete.

... then there is simply appealing to mystery - in this matter a wholly unappealing tact.