Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God - Sensationalist Headlines

[t]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/4u95sklnqeshxuzj4jqzeg.png[/t] [QUOTE]WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." This is the first time in Gallup's four-decade trend that biblical literalism has not surpassed biblical skepticism. Meanwhile, about half of Americans -- a proportion largely unchanged over the years -- fall in the middle, saying the Bible is the inspired word of God but that not all of it should be taken literally.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx?g_source=Social+Issues&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles"]http://www.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx?g_source=Social+Issues&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles[/URL]

24% is still a really high amount

The only reason this worries me is because American Christians just seem to generally be so over the top and overwhelming with their religion. Like, I want this number to go down only for the sake of just the pure power and bias they got, where people with power are applying Christian philosophy to America. Like, that one representative who held a prayer in a political space. That shouldn't be happening, but it does.

Would be much better not just religiously, but politically in the US if everyone just went with the "inspired but not taken literally" aspect.

Near 25% is a worrying amount to me. I can't come up with statistics for Ireland, however. Considering that I know in our Religion Education course (which is a fairly neutral course, even though I went to a "Catholic Ethos" secondary school (read: most of us had to go to Mass every once in a while, but there were people there of different faiths and we were never forced into any particular beliefs)) we were thought that the Catholic Church at-least states the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) is not to be taken literally, that religious fundamentalism is dangerous etc. etc. So I'd hope that we'd have a much lower percentage of people taking any religious text literally.

This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240504]This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.[/QUOTE] It's not a stupid question lol. The bible is meant to be the literal word of God, and I think the people who claim to believe that can understand when God is using an allegory. The only reason people aren't literalists is because they feel the need to cling to a faith and doctrine they can't actually follow properly and which demonstrably doesn't reflect the real world.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240504]This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.[/QUOTE] [url]https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/[/url] [url]http://creation.com/6000-years[/url]

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52240541]It's not a stupid question lol. The bible is meant to be the literal word of God, and I think the people who claim to believe that can understand when God is using an allegory. The only reason people aren't literalists is because they feel the need to cling to a faith and doctrine they can't actually follow properly and which demonstrably doesn't reflect the real world.[/QUOTE] The question doesn't say that it is the literal word of God. It says that the Bible should be taken literally. Nobody, not a single Christian, takes the entire Bible literally. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;52240547][url]https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/[/url] [url]http://creation.com/6000-years[/url][/QUOTE] So if people take the creation literally, then they must take every single part literally? What kind of crap logic is that?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240561] So if people take the creation literally, then they must take every single part literally? What kind of crap logic is that?[/QUOTE] Okay, find me a verse you think people don't take literally and I'll find you someone that does.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240561]The question doesn't say that it is the literal word of God. It says that the Bible should be taken literally. Nobody, not a single Christian, takes the entire Bible literally. [/QUOTE] A lot of people think they do though apparently. Probably those that haven't read it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240561]So if people take the creation literally, then they must take every single part literally? What kind of crap logic is that?[/QUOTE] It isn't really that easy to believe you when you are posting in a thread about a study that shows that 24% of Americans seem to take the bible literally

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52240596]Okay, find me a verse you think people don't take literally and I'll find you someone that does.[/QUOTE] Luke 14:26 says that every follower of Jesus must hate his family. Can you point to a church that teaches this literally as opposed to the obvious interpretation of Jesus using exaggerated language to get the point that he is infinitely more valuable than even your own family. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gokiyono;52240606]It isn't really that easy to believe you when you are posting in a thread about a study that shows that 24% of Americans seem to take the bible literally[/QUOTE] That's why it's a stupid question. The idea of taking something literally is confused and not at all clear. Hell, the word "literally " is often used figuratively in modern English.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240625]Luke 14:26 says that every follower of Jesus must hate his family. Can you point to a church that teaches this literally as opposed to the obvious interpretation of Jesus using exaggerated language to get the point that he is infinitely more valuable than even your own family. [/QUOTE] It's a really bad example because 'hate' is a mistranslation. I can post what I have, but if you have another one that might be better... That being said, WBC exists..

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52240670]It's a really bad example because 'hate' is a mistranslation. I can post what I have, but if you have another one that might be better... That being said, WBC exists..[/QUOTE] The Christians are still reading the English. So it would still apply, even if a bad translation. It's not even really a bad translation. The word means hate, but can be either figurative one literal depending on context. Even the WBC doesn't hate their family within the WBC.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240625]Luke 14:26 says that every follower of Jesus must hate his family. Can you point to a church that teaches this literally as opposed to the obvious interpretation of Jesus using exaggerated language to get the point that he is infinitely more valuable than even your own family. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] That's why it's a stupid question. The idea of taking something literally is confused and not at all clear. Hell, the word "literally " is often used figuratively in modern English.[/QUOTE] Shall I tell you what jesus may have actually implied when it came to that verse? The clue to that is in the same chapter, verse 33: [quote]In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.[/quote] Jesus was telling his followers that whoever didn't have the courage and fortitude to give up everything, even their families, had no business following him. He wanted absolute trust from his disciples, for them to place faith in Him and his Father in heaven, in order that their faith would win them Eternal Life.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52240698]Have you considered people may take it literally, but still not follow it to a T? Because people can be hypocrites.[/QUOTE] Sure, if there was any evidence of it. Show me an example of it being taught literally.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240504]This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.[/QUOTE] see the church of latterday saints.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52240730]see the church of latterday saints.[/QUOTE] I heard those guys don't even allow their followers to celebrate birthdays, the monsters. :ohno:

[QUOTE=snookypookums;52240737]I heard those guys don't even allow their followers to celebrate birthdays, the monsters. :ohno:[/QUOTE] Latter-day Saints are Mormons. You are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons are pretty "normal" aside from their afterlife beliefs.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52240711]Or if you're looking for that specific verse, I have no idea. I am not a church go-er, and I do not seek out ignorant peoples taking the bible literally. However, this poll would agree that people do take it literally "word for word."[/QUOTE] Taking it "word for word" is called believing that it's inspired, not taking it literally. You guys keep trying to rephrase the question to make it more sensical, but that isn't what they did. They asked if the Bible was "literal," not if they took it word for word or if it was literally the word of God, or any other rephrasing of the question. If they wanted to actually ask useful questions that apply to real Christian theology, then they should have asked the following: 1) Do you believe that the Bible is the final authoritative source of all Christian doctrine. 2) Do you believe that the entire Bible is authoritative? These represent the two ideas of [I]sola scritura[/I] and [I]tota scriptura[/I], the actual theological positions of more hardline Christians.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52240742]Latter-day Saints are Mormons. You are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons are pretty "normal" aside from their afterlife beliefs.[/QUOTE] They're also the really creepy "super nice" ones, right, out in Utah? We work with a company that's about 99% mormon - the colleagues all refer to each other as "brother" or "sister". We thought it was just a cute office culture thing, then we realized it was a religious thing and we got really weirded out because they'd always spare 10 minutes at the end of every status update meeting talking to us about our "spiritual life". :unimpressed: [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-10-people-posthumously-baptized-by-mormons-2012-3?IR=T"]Also, they keep trying to convert dead people to Mormonism, which is also pretty fuckin' weird.[/URL] Stop trying to harvest Gandhi's soul, dammit, the man has nukes! Also, Jehova's Witnesses - they annoy the shit out of me by ringing the bell when I'm in the shower [I]and[/I] they don't celebrate birthdays? That's just fuckin' diabolical, man.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240504]This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.[/QUOTE] You haven't talked to many Young Earth Creationists, then. They literally believe the Earth was created as described in the Bible and have spent several decades trying to explain away the billion scientific inconsistencies this belief-based theory causes. On this topic, sgman is [I]sort[/I] of right, as the article is glossing over the nuances of Biblical literalism. RationalWiki tends to be an unreliable source, as they make no bones about their editorial bias (and, as it is a wiki tended to by multiple independent authors, this bias changes from page to page depending on who has put the most effort into editing the article), but they offer the following on [URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism"]their page about Biblical literalism:[/URL] [QUOTE]It is important to distinguish between the related, but separate concepts of biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, and biblical infallibility. Some are used interchangeably depending on who you ask. But, going by strict definitions for reasons of precision, they are different — many doctrinal bases or confessions for churches and organised sects require adherents to view the Bible as "inerrant" but do not support literalistic interpretations like creationism. - Self-interpretation: The most extreme form, this argues that there is a singular true meaning which will be made evident to any "real" believer by simply reading the text. This typically forms an excessively text-literal reading which treats the text as though it were scientific data; all apparent contradictions will be held to be factual and "harmonised" with this in mind. This attitude may regard a specific translation as the only correct one (for example, Jack Chick regarded only the King James Bible as truthful). It is often criticised by less insane literalists as worshipping the Bible instead of God. - Biblical literalism: A literalist approach means that one reads the Bible in a plain and straightforward manner, attempting to discern the author or authors' original intent. Biblical literalists believe that the original authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit and drafted scripture in various literary genres and styles of the period. Thus, biblical literalists accept that, for example, poetry and allegory in the Bible are literally true but may not necessarily be written as a historical document. They examine the circumstances of scripture to determine how it should be understood. - Biblical inerrancy: This is the basis that the Bible simply doesn't contain any errors. There is a subtle but important difference between this and historical accuracy, as stories can be interpreted as allegorical, but their meanings remain true. - Biblical infallibility: The least radical position. It holds that the Bible is an infallible source regarding questions of faith and redemption, but not on questions of science and history. These people may be willing to accept scientific facts like evolution as true. The actual interpretation of these questions further depends on the various denominations and theological schools of thought.[/QUOTE] So, it's not as simple as saying "they believe every word is literally true"; Bible scholarship is far more nuanced than that.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240561]The question doesn't say that it is the literal word of God. It says that the Bible should be taken literally. Nobody, not a single Christian, takes the entire Bible literally.[/QUOTE] This is a very pedantic strawman.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52240782]You haven't talked to many Young Earth Creationists, then. They literally believe the Earth was created as described in the Bible and have spent several decades trying to explain away the billion scientific inconsistencies this belief-based theory causes.[/QUOTE] When did I disagree with that? I know there are people who take parts of the Bible literally that I don't believe are literal. My argument is that no one takes the ENTIRE Bible literally. It's simply not a real position. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;52240792]This is a very pedantic strawman.[/QUOTE] Words matter, and those two phrases have very different meanings. Your restating of the questions as being "literally the word of God" simply means that every part of the Bible contains truth. It does not mean that anything has to be taken literally. The phrase "The Bible is to be taken literally" means that every part of the Bible must be interpreted literally. That's what the statement means in normal English.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240794]When did I disagree with that? I know there are people who take parts of the Bible literally that I don't believe are literal. My argument is that no one takes the ENTIRE Bible literally. It's simply not a real position.[/QUOTE] Except, if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that there [I]are[/I] people who do. But they often get lumped in with people who have far less radical interpretations of the Bible while still maintaining "literalism" as the outsider sees it, and that supports the essence of your argument, that the statistic is being misconstrued to paint a large swath of Christians with the same brush.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;52240772]They're also the really creepy "super nice" ones, right, out in Utah? We work with a company that's about 99% mormon - the colleagues all refer to each other as "brother" or "sister". We thought it was just a cute office culture thing, then we realized it was a religious thing and we got really weirded out because they'd always spare 10 minutes at the end of every status update meeting talking to us about our "spiritual life". :unimpressed: [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-10-people-posthumously-baptized-by-mormons-2012-3?IR=T"]Also, they keep trying to convert dead people to Mormonism, which is also pretty fuckin' weird.[/URL] Stop trying to harvest Gandhi's soul, dammit, the man has nukes! Also, Jehova's Witnesses - they annoy the shit out of me by ringing the bell when I'm in the shower [I]and[/I] they don't celebrate birthdays? That's just fuckin' diabolical, man.[/QUOTE] Jehovah's don't celebrate any holiday and they also have a pretty strong refusal of medicine. The Mormons aren't particularly "creepy", they do tend to be very nice people though. They have a huge following in Utah since that's where their religion was basically founded. I live in Florida, right by the ranch that is owned by the Mormon church, and it was a majority of my high school when I was there. Can't say I have heard their titles being used outside of their church or in particularly "mormon" gatherings. Usually it's "Elder" for guys who have been on their mission, and "Sister" for the female. The dead people thing is more of just a honorary mention of sorts.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52240807]Except, if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that there [I]are[/I] people who do. But they often get lumped in with people who have far less radical interpretations of the Bible while still maintaining "literalism" as the outsider sees it, and that supports the essence of your argument, that the statistic is being misconstrued to paint a large swath of Christians with the same brush.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're referring to. The rest of your post is some dude's opinion that doesn't even make sense. His definition of a biblical literalist is someone to takes poetry and allegory to be "literally true." That's a nonsensical statement with no meaning. Figurative phrases can't be "literally true." Clearly, the respondents of this question wouldn't all be working under this odd definition of literalism.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240794]Words matter, and those two phrases have very different meanings. Your restating of the questions as being "literally the word of God" simply means that every part of the Bible contains truth. It does not mean that anything has to be taken literally. The phrase "The Bible is to be taken literally" means that every part of the Bible must be interpreted literally. That's what the statement means in normal English.[/QUOTE] That is ~literally~ not what it meant. "Actual word of God, to be taken literally." Means god handed every word down, not that God doesn't know how to use a metaphor lmao

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52240820]That is ~literally~ not what it meant. "Actual word of God, to be taken literally." Means god handed every word down, not that God doesn't know how to use a metaphor lmao[/QUOTE] Take the phrase: "John is an ox." If I were to tell you that these are literally the words of Sgman91, then you would probably believe that Sgman91 said them and that he meant to express some meaning through it. It might be metaphorical, talking about a super strong guy, or it might be literally talking about an ox named John. We can't tell based on the fact that they are literally the words of Sgman91. That just means I actually said them. If I were to tell you that this is to be taken literally, then you would, rightfully, think that it's talking about an ox named John. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] That's what it means to take something literally.