Are people who take the bible literally simple minded?

I was watching the end of a show about the antichrist on the Discovery channel, and there was this guy who made the statement that people who take Revelations literally are simple minded people. He clamed that they cannot understand complex coded imagery, and they want it to be simple. Did you see the show, and what do you think?

I haven't seen the show, but I'm inclined to agree with the man.
Of course, I'm not criticizing people's beliefs, but for me at least, in order to believe something, I have to see some sort of proof that it's real.
"Simple minded" maybe isn't the right term, "gullible" sounds better.
For more than a thousant years religion itself was practically used to control the masses of "simple minded" people.

Revelations holds a lot of imagery. It was not meant to be interpreted. No guesses we can make will ever be entirely right about its meanings. I believe that to truly understand some of the deeper meanings hidden within the Bible it is impossible to be simple minded.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
... people who take Revelations literally are simple minded people. He clamed that they cannot understand complex coded imagery, and they want it to be simple. Did you see the show, and what do you think?

First some thoughts:

Time flows and everything has a symbol or type in history.

Given this, the symbols and types are difficult to grasp as to the entire meaning, or proper meaning.

Revelations is complex due to aspects that may be literal and aspects that may be wholly symbolic, as well as time frame is not well described in Revelations. Anyone that claims that the text of Revelations is wholly "complex coded imagery" is making it too simple.

One must remember that, if the events in Revelations refers to our time or later, many things that John saw may have been beyond his understanding or capability to place appropriately into words.

Our prophet, the LDS prophet, made a statement concerning these verses during one of our worldwide conferences.

Revelations 14:6-7

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Stating that this verse was in reference to the satellites that were broadcasting the his words to the LDS people throughout the world. Given this it could be said that this verse would be considered literal by the LDS people.

My opinion:

When Christ came the first time the educated men of Jewish religion, for the most part, did not recognize him. The Sadducees and Pharisees had preconceived notions as to what he would be. If Jesus was the Christ, as I believe, then these preconceptions were in error, even while being based in scripture. Now, I believe this to be a type of what will occur at his second coming. People will have preconceptions about the method of his coming, many will be wrong. Those that recognize what occurs for what it is will be those that are open minded enough to understand that their preconceptions were in error. Therefor, I have my opinion of what it will be like, but I understand that just about anyone else may be more correct as to their view of how it will occur than I am. Or maybe everyone is wrong. Making statements that demean other's views is a poorly considered and educated manner of behavior that ignores the mistakes made by those that were well educated religious men in history.

You can't say that.

Think of clergymen, etc. Many of them are Doctors, historians, etc., and would hence require higher-intelligence.

BTW:
LDS = "Latter Day Saints"?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Revelations holds a lot of imagery. It was not meant to be interpreted. No guesses we can make will ever be entirely right about its meanings. I believe that to truly understand some of the deeper meanings hidden within the Bible it is impossible to be simple minded.

Lol, people should stay away from making absolute statements as to these things, especially if "no guesses we can make will ever be entirely right about its meanings."

Originally posted by Belegûr
You can't say that.

Think of clergymen, etc. Many of them are Doctors, historians, etc., and would hence require higher-intelligence.

I can say it and did.

I'm sorry, but the most knowledgeable Jewish scholars of Christs day said he was not Christ because he did not fit their view. The most knowledgeable Religious scholars of our day are not necessarily correct either. It is probable that similar will occur as to preconceptions.

Originally posted by Belegûr
BTW:
LDS = "Latter Day Saints"?

Yes

Originally posted by Regret
Lol, people should stay away from making absolute statements as to these things, especially if "no guesses we can make will ever be entirely right about its meanings."

Originally posted by Nellinator
I agree with you. My wording did not properly convey my meaning. I am trying to say that while we can interpret it is important not to take any interpretation as fact because we can not know for certain until it has already happened.

I agree.

Originally posted by Regret
I can say it and did.

I'm sorry, but the most knowledgeable Jewish scholars of Christs day said he was not Christ because he did not fit their view. The most knowledgeable Religious scholars of our day are not necessarily correct either. It is probable that similar will occur as to preconceptions.

Yes

Nae, I was referring to the first poster saying that "believers" are simple-minded.

I don't think they are simple minded. But they are deluding themselves.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was watching the end of a show about the antichrist on the Discovery channel, and there was this guy who made the statement that people who take Revelations literally are simple minded people. He clamed that they cannot understand complex coded imagery, and they want it to be simple. Did you see the show, and what do you think?

Hey Shaky. 🙂

Yeah, I saw it last night, but it was the history channel, no?

Anyway, that was one point of view.

Many were given throughout the show, from Bible-beliveing preachers, to scholars, to historians, etc....

Some claimed that writings of "an evil leader who sets himself on high, even above God and rules the earth" may have only been a Muslim king of the day, or Roman emporer Nero, etc....

Some made the claims that you mention, that revelations is all imagery and subtext, and not to be taken literally.

While others claim that the "leader" would indeed be the anti-christ, and that Revelations is to be taken literally.

My thoughts: They are two different interperations, two different points of view, about the same text.

Since the author is not around to ask, and all the people on each side of the debate are college-educated professionals, its hard to say that either side has "got it right" for sure.

So are Christians simple-minded for taking Revelations literally?
(without proof.)

Yes.

But no more so than those who say that Revelations is not true, or is misunderstood, when all they have are guesses as to what it could be talking about.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was watching the end of a show about the antichrist on the Discovery channel, and there was this guy who made the statement that people who take Revelations literally are simple minded people. He clamed that they cannot understand complex coded imagery, and they want it to be simple. Did you see the show, and what do you think?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was watching the end of a show about the antichrist on the Discovery channel, and there was this guy who made the statement that people who take Revelations literally are simple minded people. He clamed that they cannot understand complex coded imagery, and they want it to be simple. Did you see the show, and what do you think?

* the Bible (in its entirety) is not always figuratively written... the book of Revelation also had its share of literal passages, not all are figurative (although majority really is)...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the Bible (in its entirety) is not always figuratively written... the book of Revelation also had its share of literal passages, not all are figurative (although majority really is)...

But how can you tell for certain what is figurative and what is literal?

I heard this interpretation of Sodom and Gomorra:

I heard that God had not punished the men for homosexual acts, he had punished them for committing rape, for forcing younger men to engage in unwanted sexual acts with them, while at the same time promoting violence against all who would resist being raped...etc.

I could be mistaken, but this would make sense to punish. It doesn't make sense for a Loving God to burn down a city, just because a bunch of men wanted to have consentual sex...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hey Shaky. 🙂

Yeah, I saw it last night, but it was the history channel, no?

Anyway, that was one point of view.

Many were given throughout the show, from Bible-beliveing preachers, to scholars, to historians, etc....

Some claimed that writings of "an evil leader who sets himself on high, even above God and rules the earth" may have only been a Muslim king of the day, or Roman emporer Nero, etc....

Some made the claims that you mention, that revelations is all imagery and subtext, and not to be taken literally.

While others claim that the "leader" would indeed be the anti-christ, and that Revelations is to be taken literally.

My thoughts: They are two different interperations, two different points of view, about the same text.

Since the author is not around to ask, and all the people on each side of the debate are college-educated professionals, its hard to say that either side has "got it right" for sure.

So are Christians simple-minded for taking Revelations literally?
(without proof.)

Yes.

But no more so than those who say that Revelations is not true, or is misunderstood, when all they have are guesses as to what it could be talking about.

Yes, I think it was the history channel, now that I think about it. And I only saw the last part of the show. I will have to see if I can ketch it on a repeat.

Nearly anything from 'religion' has to be taken largely as a metaphor, or else it falls apart under scrutiny.

Simple-minded might be taking it a bit far, but it's probably on to something about the human desire to keep things simple even in the face of reason.

The Catholic Church has never, or at least not for a very long time, insisted that the Bible must be read literally. Allegorical and metaphorical readings have long been standard, in contrast to fundamentalist approaches.

VATICAN CONDEMNS LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
VATICAN CITY, Italy - The Vatican criticized a literal interpretation of the Bible and said the fundamentalist approach to scripture was a kind of intellectual suicide. A Vatican document said fundamentalism refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language... by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.
The 125-page document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, was written by the Pontifical Biblical Com-mission, a group of scholars who assist the Pope in the study of scripture. It noted that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible had been gaining strength. The Vatican is increasingly concerned about the number of Catholics, especially in Latin America, who have abandoned the church for fast-growing fundamentalist sects. The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life, the document said. Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible began during the Reformation, when Protestants showed an increasing concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of scripture.
The document said fundamentalism refused to admit that there was a human element in the transmission of the Word of God. One member of the commission, Jesuit Father Joseph Fitzmeyer, said fundamentalists failed to recognize that several years elapsed between the time Jesus spoke and the time when the gospels were written. There was no stenographer, no one with a tape recorder on that time, said Fitzmeyer. The Star, 1994 Manila, Philippines VATICAN.

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

And so the Catholic Church is starting to crumble. They have forsaken their greatest principle and the backbone to their belief.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1.
"All scripture is God-breathed" 2 Timothy 3:16.
"My words will never pass away" Matthew 24:35.

This Jesuit Father is obviously not a supporter of the idea of divine inspiration and that is his choice. I choose to disagree with him. It is as peejayd said: some verses are figurative, others are literal, some are even both. Sometimes it is clear what is figurative and what is literal. Sometimes it is not and that is why we must study the scripture so that we may uncover the mysteries that it holds.
"But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries" Daniel 2:28.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And so the Catholic Church is starting to crumble. They have forsaken their greatest principle and the backbone to their belief.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1.
"All scripture is God-breathed" 2 Timothy 3:16.
"My words will never pass away" Matthew 24:35.

This Jesuit Father is obviously not a supporter of the idea of divine inspiration and that is his choice. I choose to disagree with him. It is as peejayd said: some verses are figurative, others are literal, some are even both. Sometimes it is clear what is figurative and what is literal. Sometimes it is not and that is why we must study the scripture so that we may uncover the mysteries that it holds.
"But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries" Daniel 2:28.

Respectfully, the only problem I have with your point of view is, that can leave a person in a position to be controlled by people with evil intent.