How does a religionist 'know' when to take a 'holy' text literally or not?

Question

Main Entry: re·li·gion·ist
Pronunciation: -'li-j&-nist, -'lij-nist
Function: noun
: a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot

(Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Mike M, how about answering the question without being insulting? Give it a try?

Answer 1

If it suits their ideology.

For instance:

Religionist: "I love pork ribs, but I hate them homos."

Religionist 2: That is okay, we can hate the homos because it is in the bible."

Religionist 3:" But it says not to eat pork."

Religionist 1: "But I loves my pork, loves my pork."

All: "Then it is ok."

Answer 2

OK, one more time, here is how Christian Fundamentalists interpret the Bible. I cannot answer for the liberal Christians, or people of other faiths:

----------------------------------
The historical-grammatical method (also called grammatico-historical) is a component of biblical hermeneutics that strives to find the intended original meaning in the text. This original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations. The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning and the significance of the text. The significance of the text includes the ensuing use of the text or application.

The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture."

Many practice the historical-grammatical method using a general three-fold approach to the text: 1) observation, 2) interpretation, and 3) application. Each step builds upon the other, and so they follow in order. The first step of observation involves an examination of words, structure, structural relationships and literary forms. After observations are formed, then the second step of interpretation involves asking interpretative questions, formulating answers to those questions, integration and summarization of the passage. After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context. There is also a heavy emphasis on personal application that extends into all aspects of the practitioner's life. In fact, Robert Traina said that "The applicatory step is that for which all else exists. It respresents the final purpose of Bible study."

Answer 3

because, if you assume to understand a scripture on one sense, yet that conclusion creates a contradiction with another scripture, then you are wrong on one or the other.
This is true regarding any and all topics.
There are no contradictions, only incorrect assumptions.
If you see what appears to be a contradiction, one of your parameters is wrong, you need to go back, check your parameters, and remove the contradiction.
By doing this, one can easily overturn all the apparent contradictions of the Bible, which are in fact created by those in the past who attempted to explain the Bible using pagan terms an philosophy.

Answer 4

I'm not sure what a "religionist" is, but you know when to take something literally by the context and by approaching the piece exegetically.

Answer 5

I am not a "religionist". I am an atheist. I compare that text with others on the same subject and contrast authors.

Answer 6

The Holy Spirit guides us Christains into all truth.

Answer 7

You see, theists (with the exception of Agnostics) have to admit to themselves when something sounds completely stupid (besides the entire text itself) and then they must swear up and down that it is not supposed to be taken literally and that their God(s) is/are so poetic and clever.

Answer 8

The real question is:

When does a critic/agnostic know when to keep his thoughts and opinions to himself?

Answer 9

It depends on their IQ.

The lower the IQ the more literal they take it.

Answer 10

Easy never none of it should be taken litterally, you don't take the startrek series seriously do you.