Well, Pete, I think that the rigid, combative literalism of many biblical fundamentalists of the current day, is just wrong. Trying to prove scientific or historical information from the Bible is foolhardy.

I do not believe that the Bible or the Qur'an or other sacred writings were intended to be taken as literally as modern fundamentalists take them. Many even ignore the context of what they read, and try to prove things with single, out-of-context verses. They lose sight of the spiritual impact and importance of these sacred writings, because they're too bound up trying to use the Bible to disprove science and history.

On the other hand, I do think that some people overly intellectualize religious belief, to the point where non-intellectuals can feel uncomfortable. When I teach Bible study, I ask people to read large passages, at least half a page, and then think about how the passage affects them - without intellectualizing the thing.

And yeah, I think that "someone [who] takes the biblical narrative as historically trustworthy," has been misled. Their rigidity makes a laughingstock of the Bible, and of religious belief in general. I wish I could be more generous, but I truly believe that fundamentalism is wrong. I think that the Bible was written within a historical context, but it is not intended to teach science or history. There are ways to be conservative without buying into the rigid extremes of the fundamentalists - but rigid biblical literalism, is just wrong. It's an embarrassment to Christianity, as Islamic fundamentalism is an embarrassment to Islam.

-Joe-