Bible Literalist Church

Here's a nutty idea - maybe so-called "Biblical Literalists" are only literal about the things that are convinient to enforce or keep certain members in positions of authority (like men)?

My dad (a university professor and of generally sensible intellect) has more or less the same assumption. Now, he's no biblical literalist (although his church is, he, as a man of letters, sees how things can be mythically true - that is, express truth while not being a historically literal account) but his assumption is that if he doesn't understand some dogmatic point, the fault is with him and not the dogma. (He's got a big problem with the Trinity. As he says, "I can count to three, and three isn't one.")What I can't understand is why a reasonable person would come to such an assumption. If it can't be made to make sense - not only by you but by anyone - why assume the fault lies with all humanity? Personally I reject ineffability arguments. If a just, loving god exists, why would he be so ineffable? His assumed "infinte" power is not an answer. We can understand infinity. We use it in math all the time. It's not easy but it's possible. Even an infinite god could be understood.

But it's possible to accept as true the position that ultimate truth is inaccessable to the human mind (as we can only experience the universe through our imperfect senses). Thus, it can be stated that nothing we can know is strictly "true".But then, only a crazy or ignorant person sets up "truth" as a bivalent condition. The reality is, truth is a spectrum - some things are more or less true than others. Science is a process (for instance) where scientific models, over time, approach truthfulness. How do you tell the difference between something that was added and something that was "always there", especially in a work that has come down to you, translated through several intermediate languages? And how do you know that it's not the case that ALL biblical content was "added"; i.e. made up by people to support doctrine? Doesn't that make you a solipsist? If your assertation is that only the bible is true, but it's just your opinion that the bible is true (which must be the case, or everyone would agree with you), then haven't you, by extention, said "only my opinion is true"? If this were true nobody would have to interpret the bible. There would only be one church instead of thousands. Everyone would agree. That everyone doesn't agree suggests that there is no inherent truth to the bible - it's all in interpretation. As Mr. P said, even literalism is a kind of interpretation - due, in part, to the mutability of language.

But if the bible makes claims that directly contradict our experience of reality, which is more likely? That 6 billion humans are somehow self-deluded or hallucinating, in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY; or that one book, written by a couple of people with all-too-limited knowledge, might not be accurate?Me, I'm inclined to believe my senses and reason, as opposed to believing in something for which there is no evidence. But I guess I'm crazy like that, or something.

Not just the world, but reality as we know it. Isn't that a kind of madness? Granted. But unless you can show me a way to experience the words of your god other than through my senses (needed to read the book) and my reason (needed to turn symbols into language and therefore meaning), the bible is no different than any other method of determining truth, and thus we must judge it by how well it corresponds with our experiences.As it turns out, the bible isn't bad in that regard. Clearly the people who wrote it were insightful observers of the human condition. But they weren't any better than, say, Shakespeare. And no one argues that he was divinely inspired.There's nothing in the bible that is so great that it had to have been written by a god. There's plenty that's so wrong, however, it could only have been written by humans. Limited knowledge is a condition of being human. In no ones' experience has it ever been otherwise, nor has a mechanism that would allow for unlimited knowledge been proposed. Thus it incumbent on you to provide positive evidence for the ultimate knowedge of the bible writers. Simply saying that I can't know for sure that they weren't doesn't count.Like I said, there's no way to experience the bible except through our senses and reason. Since you agree that these can err, how can anyone experience the bible free from their own interpretation?