2 ms·

People don't think God is literally a shepherd or he literally makes people lie down beside still waters. It doesn't mean they don't think psalm 23 isn't true.

People don't think God is literally a shepherd or he literally makes people lie down beside still waters. It doesn't mean they don't think psalm 23 isn't true. They just read it as a poem. Part of the problem is that people used to call something "fundamentalism" but then the word "fundamentalist" started being a negative word and people had to find some other ways to describe themselves. When people say they are "biblical literalist" (yeah, words drift), they basically mean that they trust the Bible to be absolutely trustworthy. It doesn't mean they don't practice critical analysis such as accounting for genre. It does mean they don't, say, commit adultery because "the Bible isn't literal".

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Part of the problem is that people used to call something "fundamentalism" but then the word "fundamentalist" started being a negative word and people had to find some other ways to describe themselves. Literalism was not coined as a term in response to fundamentalism becoming negative with other groups; fundamentalists still call themselves fundamentalists. Literalism has always been a term for a doctrine within they fundamentalist and Evangelical traditional, which is distinct from the simple inerrantism that is a more common Christian doctrine (simple inerrantism is basically the doctrine that the Bible, understood as intended, is correct in what it teaches; there are slightly different forms of this doctrine in the Protestant and Catholic communities, but they are generally similar and similar in how they differ from literalism.) > When people say they are "biblical literalist" (yeah, words drift), they basically mean that they trust the Bible to be absolutely trustworthy. No, that’s just inerrantism. Literalism at least purports to be a stronger position. (In practice, I agree that it's actually not and that “literalism” is an empty conceit.)

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Part of the problem is that people used to call something "fundamentalism" but then the word "fundamentalist" started being a negative word and people had to find some other ways to describe themselves. Literalism was not coined as a term in response to fundamentalism becoming negative with other groups; fundamentalists still call themselves fundamentalists. Literalism has always been a term for a doctrine within they fundamentalist and Evangelical traditional, which is distinct from the simple inerrantism that is a more common Christian doctrine (simple inerrantism is basically the doctrine that the Bible, understood as intended, is correct in what it teaches; there are slightly different forms of this doctrine in the Protestant and Catholic communities, but they are generally similar and similar in how they differ from literalism.) > When people say they are "biblical literalist" (yeah, words drift), they basically mean that they trust the Bible to be absolutely trustworthy. No, that’s just inerrantism. Literalism at least purports to be a stronger position. (In practice, I agree that it's actually not and that “literalism” is an empty conceit.)