Why do some Christians support a literal reading of the Constitution but not a literal reading of the bible?

Answer 1

they are able to read the constitution in its original language and don't need it translated.

The constitution was meant to be taken literally, large parts of the bible weren't. Aesops fables are not meant to be taken literally (which most definitely does not make them worthless, actually taking them literally makes them worthless).

The cultural background between the writers and readers is very similar, which makes it much more likely that communication happens.

Answer 2

Becuase the constitution doesn't have talking donkeys, unicorns, gross historical inaccuracies, and mythical symbols.

The constitution is a solid, clear and historical document that is not in any doubt as to its authenticity and its power. We know who wrote it, when, and for what purposes.

The same is not true of the bible, the bible is ambiguous and muddled, it's self contradictory, it doesn't correlate with actual history or reality, nobody's sure who wrote it, there are several gospels that weren't used, and so on. The bible is a very murky, violent and obnoxious piece of myth.

Answer 3

"As he kept studying, the light bulb finally came on and he began to understand the material."
"The cord for the lamp was partly cut through and we had to jiggle it a little before the light bulb finally came on."

Would you support a literal reading for both of these sentences?

(BTW, I support reading the bible literally where it's meant to be read literally and figuratively where it's meant to be read figuratively. As the above two sentences demonstrate, it isn't really that hard to figure out, although it might take time with cultures we're unfamiliar with).

Answer 4

Because moderate christianity makes no sense.

Answer 5

cherry picking taken to its logical conclusion

Answer 6

Yeah, and they do that with poems too, darn them.