Literalism: Difference between revisions
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The key feature of literalism is that [[scripture]] is assumed to be a literal depiction of [[historical]] events instead of [[allegory]]. This interpretation necessitates the existence of [[supernatural]] beings and forces that are incompatible with [[materialism]]. It also flies in the face of every lesson ever taught by an English teacher. | The key feature of literalism is that [[scripture]] is assumed to be a literal depiction of [[historical]] events instead of [[allegory]]. This interpretation necessitates the existence of [[supernatural]] beings and forces that are incompatible with [[materialism]]. It also flies in the face of every lesson ever taught by an English teacher. | ||
Literalism can more precisely be described as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy Inerrancy], which acknowledges the fundamental nature of language while still claiming that [[scripture]] is [[historically]] and factually correct. Here's a great [[podcast]] that dives into the [[theology]] behind this. [https://www.straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/episodes/its-in-the-code-ep-82-the-proof-of-inerrancy/] | |||
Any reading of [[scripture]] as [[allegory]] is potentially compatible with the [[pantheistic]] [[universalist]] interpretation of [[god]]. | Any reading of [[scripture]] as [[allegory]] is potentially compatible with the [[pantheistic]] [[universalist]] interpretation of [[god]]. | ||
Revision as of 09:42, 18 January 2024
It can refer to any fundamentalist religious belief based on any scripture.
The key feature of literalism is that scripture is assumed to be a literal depiction of historical events instead of allegory. This interpretation necessitates the existence of supernatural beings and forces that are incompatible with materialism. It also flies in the face of every lesson ever taught by an English teacher.
Literalism can more precisely be described as Inerrancy, which acknowledges the fundamental nature of language while still claiming that scripture is historically and factually correct. Here's a great podcast that dives into the theology behind this. [1]
Any reading of scripture as allegory is potentially compatible with the pantheistic universalist interpretation of god.
Religion and spirituality are not the opponents of truth, as atheists would claim. The only opponent is literalism.