Literalism - Revision history

Fractalguy at 05:46, 16 February 2025

2025-02-16T05:46:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:46, 16 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Literalism-inerrancy-scripture-biblical-fundamentalism.jpg\|thumb\|[[Allegory\|It ain't necessarily so...]]]]		[[File:Literalism-inerrancy-scripture-biblical-fundamentalism.jpg\|thumb\|[[Allegory\|It ain't necessarily so...]]]]
	Literalism can refer to any [[wikipedia:Fundamentalism\|fundamentalist]] [[religious]] belief based on any [[scripture]].		Literalism can refer to any [[wikipedia:Fundamentalism\|fundamentalist]] [[religious]] belief based on any [[scripture]].<blockquote>''"A lot of us grow up and we grow out of the literal interpretation that we get when we're [[children]], but we bear the scars all our life. Whether they're scars of beauty or scars of ugliness, it's pretty much in the eye of the beholder."'' -[[wikipedia:Stephen_King\|Stephen King]]</blockquote>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.

	Any reading of [[scripture]] as [[allegory]] is potentially compatible with the [[pantheistic]] [[universalist]] interpretation of [[god]], as long as those allegories are interpreted as references to things in the [[material]] [[universe]].		Any reading of [[scripture]] as [[allegory]] is potentially compatible with the [[pantheistic]] [[universalist]] interpretation of [[god]], as long as those allegories are interpreted as references to things in the [[material]] [[universe]].

Fractalguy: /* Most People Aren't Literalists */

2025-01-02T11:30:00Z

Most People Aren't Literalists

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 2 January 2025
Line 16:		Line 16:
	[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].		[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].

	Unfortunately, the [[secular]] movement has typically focused on the lower-left quadrant, since they tend to be the more strictly [[rational]] and [[activist]]. The non-literalists on the right are more willing to explore their [[spirituality]] and don't always stay [[Scientific\|scientifically]] grounded, which makes [[Atheists\|lower-left]] say snarky things about them. If instead they would use the [[psychology]] of [[persuasion]] to help the non-literalists find [[rational]] [[allegorical]] interpretations of their [[beliefs]], they could do a better job at advancing the cause of [[science]] and [[Evidence-Based Best Practices\|evidence]].		Unfortunately, the [[secular]] movement has typically focused on the lower-left quadrant, since they tend to be the more strictly [[rational]] and [[activist]]. The non-literalists on the right are more willing to explore their [[spirituality]] and don't always stay [[Scientific\|scientifically]] grounded, which makes [[Atheists\|lower-left]] say snarky things about them. If instead they would use the [[psychology]] of [[persuasion]] to help the non-literalists find [[rational]] [[allegorical]] interpretations of their [[beliefs]] ([[metaphor mapping]]), they could do a better job at advancing the cause of [[science]] and [[Evidence-Based Best Practices\|evidence]].

	All three of the non-fundamentalist groups have much more in common than they do with theistic literalists. This is due to the fact that they have all moved past the magic/mythic stages of [[cognitive development]] to more [[rational]], [[pluralistic]] and [[universalist]] mindsets. As such, their ethics, politics, and other important values are significantly more aligned. There would be overwhelming [[democratic]] [[power]] in recognizing and building coalitions based on these commonalities instead of focusing on differences that don't significantly impact [[life choices]].		All three of the non-fundamentalist groups have much more in common than they do with theistic literalists. This is due to the fact that they have all moved past the magic/mythic stages of [[cognitive development]] to more [[rational]], [[pluralistic]] and [[universalist]] mindsets. As such, their ethics, politics, and other important values are significantly more aligned. There would be overwhelming [[democratic]] [[power]] in recognizing and building coalitions based on these commonalities instead of focusing on differences that don't significantly impact [[life choices]].

Fractalguy: /* Literally Videos */

2025-01-02T11:28:30Z

Literally Videos

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 2 January 2025
Line 28:		Line 28:
	<br>		<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>

Fractalguy: /* Literally Videos */

2025-01-02T11:28:09Z

Literally Videos

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 2 January 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:
	== Literally Videos ==		== Literally Videos ==
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0_J998UD9s\|\|center\|Why religion is literally false and metaphorically true\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0_J998UD9s\|\|center\|Why religion is literally false and metaphorically true\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZH4LfQCQWU\|\|center\|Should we read the Bible literally?\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZH4LfQCQWU\|\|center\|Should we read the Bible literally?\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>

Fractalguy: /* Literally Videos */

2025-01-02T11:28:00Z

Literally Videos

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 2 January 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:

	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZH4LfQCQWU\|\|center\|Should we read the Bible literally?\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZH4LfQCQWU\|\|center\|Should we read the Bible literally?\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}

Fractalguy at 22:12, 29 December 2024

2024-12-29T22:12:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 29 December 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Doctrine of Inerrancy ==		== Doctrine of Inerrancy ==
	Literalism can more precisely be described as the [[doctrine]] of [[wikipedia:Biblical_inerrancy\|Inerrancy]], which acknowledges the fundamental nature of language while still claiming that [[scripture]] is [[historically]] and factually correct.		Literalism can more precisely be described as the [[doctrine]] of [[wikipedia: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/ SWAJ - The Proof of Inerrancy]		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/ SWAJ - The Proof of Inerrancy]

Fractalguy: /* Most People Aren't Literalists */

2024-10-05T12:02:25Z

Most People Aren't Literalists

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 5 October 2024
Line 16:		Line 16:
	[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].		[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].

	Unfortunately, the [[secular]] movement has typically focused on the lower-left quadrant, since they tend to be the more strictly [[rational]] and [[activist]]. The ~~lower-right~~ non-literalists are more willing to explore their [[spirituality]] and don't always stay [[Scientific\|scientifically]] grounded, which makes [[Atheists\|lower-left]] say snarky things about them. If instead they would use the [[psychology]] of [[persuasion]] to help the non-literalists find [[rational]] [[allegorical]] interpretations of their [[beliefs]], they could do a better job at advancing the cause of [[science]] and [[Evidence-Based Best Practices\|evidence]].		Unfortunately, the [[secular]] movement has typically focused on the lower-left quadrant, since they tend to be the more strictly [[rational]] and [[activist]]. The non-literalists on the right are more willing to explore their [[spirituality]] and don't always stay [[Scientific\|scientifically]] grounded, which makes [[Atheists\|lower-left]] say snarky things about them. If instead they would use the [[psychology]] of [[persuasion]] to help the non-literalists find [[rational]] [[allegorical]] interpretations of their [[beliefs]], they could do a better job at advancing the cause of [[science]] and [[Evidence-Based Best Practices\|evidence]].

	All three of the non-fundamentalist groups have much more in common than they do with theistic literalists. This is due to the fact that they have all moved past the magic/mythic stages of [[cognitive development]] to more [[rational]], [[pluralistic]] and [[universalist]] mindsets. As such, their ethics, politics, and other important values are significantly more aligned. There would be overwhelming [[democratic]] [[power]] in recognizing and building coalitions based on these commonalities instead of focusing on differences that don't significantly impact [[life choices]].		All three of the non-fundamentalist groups have much more in common than they do with theistic literalists. This is due to the fact that they have all moved past the magic/mythic stages of [[cognitive development]] to more [[rational]], [[pluralistic]] and [[universalist]] mindsets. As such, their ethics, politics, and other important values are significantly more aligned. There would be overwhelming [[democratic]] [[power]] in recognizing and building coalitions based on these commonalities instead of focusing on differences that don't significantly impact [[life choices]].

Fractalguy: /* Most Believers Aren't Literalists */

2024-10-05T12:00:43Z

Most Believers Aren't Literalists

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:00, 5 October 2024
Line 13:		Line 13:
	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/ SWAJ - The Proof of Inerrancy]		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/ SWAJ - The Proof of Inerrancy]

	== Most ~~Believers~~ Aren't Literalists ==		== Most People Aren't Literalists ==
	[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].		[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].

Fractalguy: /* Most Believers Aren't Literalists */

2024-10-05T11:59:20Z

Most Believers Aren't Literalists

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 5 October 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Doctrine of Inerrancy ==		== Doctrine of Inerrancy ==
	Literalism can more precisely be described as [[wikipedia:Biblical_inerrancy\|Inerrancy]], which acknowledges the fundamental nature of language while still claiming that [[scripture]] is [[historically]] and factually correct.		Literalism can more precisely be described as the [[doctrine]] of [[wikipedia: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/ SWAJ - The Proof of Inerrancy]		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/ SWAJ - The Proof of Inerrancy]
Line 15:		Line 15:
	== Most Believers Aren't Literalists ==		== Most Believers Aren't Literalists ==
	[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].		[[Religion]] and [[spirituality]] are not the opponents of [[truth]], as [[atheists]] would claim. The only opponent is [[literalism]]. Most [[religious]] practitioners are not literalists, as the chart below shows.[[File:Literalism-allegory-scecular-spirituality-four-quandrant.png\|none\|thumb\|500x500px\|A coalition of non-literalists would be enough to form a supermajority. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx] [https://ncse.ngo/creationists-how-many-who-and-where]]]While there is not survey data that distinguishes between literalist and non-literalist [[atheists]], it is useful to make this distinction. Those [[atheists]] that consider most believers to be literalists, and the mythological interpretation of [[scripture]] to be the correct one, tend to be more anti-[[religious]]. The ones that acknowledge the [[allegories]] may describe themselves more as "[[spiritual]] but not [[religious]]," and form a much larger percentage of the [[population]].

			Unfortunately, the [[secular]] movement has typically focused on the lower-left quadrant, since they tend to be the more strictly [[rational]] and [[activist]]. The lower-right non-literalists are more willing to explore their [[spirituality]] and don't always stay [[Scientific\|scientifically]] grounded, which makes [[Atheists\|lower-left]] say snarky things about them. If instead they would use the [[psychology]] of [[persuasion]] to help the non-literalists find [[rational]] [[allegorical]] interpretations of their [[beliefs]], they could do a better job at advancing the cause of [[science]] and [[Evidence-Based Best Practices\|evidence]].

			All three of the non-fundamentalist groups have much more in common than they do with theistic literalists. This is due to the fact that they have all moved past the magic/mythic stages of [[cognitive development]] to more [[rational]], [[pluralistic]] and [[universalist]] mindsets. As such, their ethics, politics, and other important values are significantly more aligned. There would be overwhelming [[democratic]] [[power]] in recognizing and building coalitions based on these commonalities instead of focusing on differences that don't significantly impact [[life choices]].

	== Literally Videos ==		== Literally Videos ==

Fractalguy at 11:39, 5 October 2024

2024-10-05T11:39:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 5 October 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
			{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 2 January 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:

	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZH4LfQCQWU\|\|center\|Should we read the Bible literally?\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZH4LfQCQWU\|\|center\|Should we read the Bible literally?\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 5 October 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKCpqE2A2E\|\|center\|Should we interpret the Bible literally?\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
			{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYB-dM2Tsd0\|\|center\|Literally Every Time Chris Traeger Says "Literally"\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm4iySOfFk\|\|center\|Literal - The Calm Blue Sea\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_zwppYj8I\|\|center\|Brimheim - Literally Everything\|frame}}
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOCI6iwq_k\|\|center\|Ayesha Erotica - Literal Legend\|frame}}