User:Arbeiter/Sandbox

Among those Copernican critics who would actually look through Galileo's telescope, many were unwilling to generalize that the telescope was providing true images, or that the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter were actual evidence for the Copernican system.

Wikipedia has a "official policy" for dealing with seemingly contradictory policies that I will follow for this subject. I have, however, maintained the spirit of the....

"Martin Luther has had a profound and confounding effect on German history. He attempted to restore the order of the Middle Ages. He was opposed to the Renaissance and insisted on a literalism of belief. Luther's literalism or fundamentalist reading of the Bible dominate..." --Reinhard Mayer, PhD.

But I suppose you want more. This is not a problem. If you had read my (now deleted) references, you would have seen that Biblical literalists number in the millions. If you had read your own references, you would have seen that Biblical literalists number in the -- Whoa! They're countless! A brief Google search lead me to several more specific references, but I'm sure you would find them all equally deletable -- just like my previously posted references. Of the 350 references I have added to Wikipedia, only 2 remain today. I have come to the conclusion that the fate of Wikipedia articles are ultimately decided by Holy revert-warriors. I have no interest in this, so farewell Wikipedia! I may return if I become bored and senile.

Divide and conquer

By unilaterally removing entire sections, ScienceApologist and ScienceApologist have "proposed" that this article be split so that supporting historical evidence may be parted from the sections to which it lends credibility. This effectively cripples both article fragments so that each may be ridiculed or picked apart at a later date. Interestingly, Martin Luther was the only historical section ScienceApologist allowed to remain. This, however, created the unfair impression that Luther was the sole proponent of the interpretations. Once Luther was removed, the remaining references appear less convincing in the face of conflicting interpretations. Should we allow "divide and conquer" approaches to destroying articles?

Oppose: Stripping articles of their supporting references sets a terrible precident for Wikipedia. --

Slaves should obey and serve their masters wholeheartedly as if serving God

• Ephesians 6:5-8 according to Paul's preaching
• Colossians 3:22-24 according to Paul's preaching

Biblical literalism is a belief that goes beyond acceptance of Biblical inerrancy. Biblical literalists regard Biblical Scriptures as literal statements of truth. This is established by comparing Scriptures such as Proverbs 30:5-6 with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 to affirm that the Bible is flawlessly true. This is contrasted with claims that metaphorical and allegorical statements are inherently untrue at some level. It is also contrasted with claims that the numerous metaphorical and allegorical interpretations of Scriptures splinter the Bible's meaning and provide an inconsistent -- and therefore flawed -- message.

Arguments against Biblical literalism

• Many Scriptures contradict widely accepted scientific theories. For examples, compare Biblical cosmology to astronomy, or compare Creationism to the theory of evolution, or compare Geocentrism with the "Big Bang" theory.
• Biblical literalism results in its adherents...
  • ...adopting cruel ethical standards that would return us to a less civilized time. (1)
    • "...it is only the relation of domestic slavery as authorized by God, that we defend." --Robert Dabney (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7)
  • ..."believing that God is sadistic, brutal, vengeful, callow, cruel, and savage —a killer beyond reckoning." --Bill Moyers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)
  • ...believing that God sanctioned human sacrifices. (1, 2, and possibly 3)
  • ...being tempted to perform the unthinkable. (1, 2, and 3)
  • ...rejecting or harming their own family members. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8)
• Many Scriptures are inconsistent with other Scriptures (or even themselves). These must require some type of abstract interpretation. Examples include:
  • Does God cause confusion? Compare 1 against 2 & 3.
  • Does God change his mind? Compare 1, 2, & 3 against 4, 5, & 6.
  • Does God play favorites? Compare 1, 2, & 3 against 4, 5, & 6.
  • Does God punish children for the sins of their parents? Compare 1 & 2 against 3, 4, & 5.
  • Is God deceitful? Compare 1 & 2 against 3 & 4.
  • Is God omnipotent? Compare 1 against 2.
  • "When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!" -- Deuteronomy 25:19 KJV

Arguments for Biblical literalism

• If the Bible is occasionally poetic, then it is possibly poetic at any time -- even on the first verse, even on the last verse, even on every verse.
• If the Bible is occasionally poetic, then it can be selectively interpreted to suit almost any belief or desire, and therefore loses all meaning.
• Biblical literalists claim that those who view certain Biblical passages as absurd simply lack imagination or faith, and point out that, in God, all things are possible, including the supernatural. (1 and 2)
• Biblical Scripture is God's inspired work and requires neither compromise with nor testimony from competing philosophies such as science, other religions, or external ethics. It is a Christian's duty to believe the "Word of God" above any perceived "wisdom of man". (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)
  • "We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." --Martin Luther
• Traditional Judaism and most of the early church fathers believed in a young earth. [1]

Biblical pragmatism

Biblical pragmatism is a goal-oriented approach to the Bible in which only certain Scriptures are identified as worthy for belief. Individuals subscribing to this approach may pick-and-choose which Biblical Scriptures to believe (or sometimes even recognize) in order to reconcile with or legitimize pre-conceptions or desires. Inconvenient Scriptures are typically identified as poetic (or otherwise metaphorical or allegorical). Also see philosophical pragmatism.

By declaring that modern Christian denominations have rejected Scriptures studied by Jesus or his apostles (see canonical books of the Bible), some have argued that nearly all Christians practice Biblical pragmatism to meet the goals of their denomination.

Movements supported by literal interpretations of Scripture

• Conservative Christianity
• Creationism
  • Young Earth Creationism
• Flat Earth Society
• Geocentrism
• Religious intolerance (1, 2, and 3)
• Slavery

See also

• Biblical cosmology
• Biblical hermeneutics
• Creation-evolution controversy
• Internal consistency and the Bible

Further reading

• Bullinger, E., W.. "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible". Baker Book House. 1970.
• Morgan, Donald. "Biblical Inconsistencies". 2006. Reproduced at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
• Ash, Thomas. "A Few Bible Contradictions". 2001. Produced at http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-biblecontradictions.shtml