(just thinking out loud)
so it's always seemed to that, regardless of how ludicrous biblical literalism is, it is at least the most forthright Christianity there is. believing that what the book says is what the book means and that's that (to the extent that they do that) rather than, as most Christians do, picking and choosing the parts they want to believe and casually discarding the parts they don't want to or can't believe, is far more honest it seems to me.
i was just reading a post
on John Luftus' blog and it strikes me as ridiculous that a Christian can reject much of what's in the bible but still have faith in their particular religion. certainly the fact that not a shred of the meaningful parts of the bible narrative are true historically should make all Christians renounce their faith. otherwise what really are they placing faith in? we've looked everywhere we'd expect to be able to confirm the bible's narrative and found nothing more than that many of the cities technically existed and some of the in some state but that there's no truth to the narrative in any meaningful sense.
at least the literalists, in their rejection of the findings of textual critics, in their rejection of the lack of archaeological evidence confirming the narrative (not to mention the wealth of archaeological evidence specifically refuting the narrative), in their rejection of evolution to explain in naturalistic ways the diversity of all life, and their insistence on the inerrancy of the account, can keep their faith because they believe the bible is the true, accurate, innerant word of god. the moderate and liberal Christians flatly disregard huge chunks of the bible as having no relationship to history but still have faith in the religion.
now to be clear, i'm certainly not saying that biblical literalism is more reasonable than are moderate or liberal Christianities. certainly the rejection of much of the silliness in the bible is much more reasonable than believing in it. i'm simply saying that to tacitly and sometimes explicitly acknowledge that the account doesn't offer much of anything in the way of truth while still keeping your faith is quite a bit of mental gymnastics. why aren't the moderate and liberal Christianities tied to the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative?
what do you guys think?