"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[Belacqua]

I mean, have you read the book? Despite all of the glaring contradictions you could point, it's a pretty hateful, intolerant work. Ridiculously violent and angry.

Maybe so, but this doesn't answer my question at all. 

If a Christian doesn't take the OT literally, then it isn't a hateful intolerant work. If they say that love and tolerance are what God wants, then they are not doing what you say.

When you create a thing and give it a definition, but, over time, that thing becomes something else entirely, you usually change the name of that thing. A tadpole becomes a frog. You don't continue to call it a tadpole just because that was its original name.

Granted, things change over time. What surprises me is that you feel qualified to decide what the true definition is. That YOU judge what is True Christianity.

[EgoDeath]

Maybe so, but this doesn't answer my question at all. 

If a Christian doesn't take the OT literally, then it isn't a hateful intolerant work. If they say that love and tolerance are what God wants, then they are not doing what you say.

The Bible is supposed to be directly from god. There's no reason to believe it isn't meant to be taken literally. It is a holy text, not a novel.

Also, I hate when people only quote the Old Testament as containing hateful sentiments or crazy/strange verses, But, never mind that. If a Christian doesn't take the Bible literally, they then have to reconcile what parts are to be taken as instruction and what parts are to be taken as metaphor. And since there will be as many interpretations of that as there are Christians, then it still stands to reason that most of them are probably getting it wrong.

Even then, there are some verses that can only be taken as literal instructions. How do the "the Bible is a metaphor" Christians reconcile those verses with the idea that it's supposed to be a purely allegorical work?

Granted, things change over time. What surprises me is that you feel qualified to decide what the true definition is. That YOU judge what is True Christianity.

It's not about me deciding what true Christianity is... The Bible is, supposedly, a holy text dictated to man directly from god. Once again, it's not a novella. And while there are certainly literary aspects to the Bible, like I said, certain verses cannot help but to be taken literally.

Not sure what's so tough to comprehend about this.

So let me be clear, are you arguing that the Bible is a literary work and not meant to be taken literally? what's your evidence for this?

[Belacqua]

The Bible is supposed to be directly from god. There's no reason to believe it isn't meant to be taken literally. It is a holy text, not a novel.

As with everything else, Christians disagree about this. 

"Directly from God" can mean "literally true" or "inspired by God but written out by fallible humans" or any number of other things. 

A "holy text" need not be a literal statement of exactly what happened. In fact many of them are taken to be prompts or puzzles or challenges that people have to deal with. 

It would be convenient for us if all Christians had one view of hermeneutics, but they don't, and I don't want to assert that only one of those many views is the True Christian way.

Even then, there are some verses that can only be taken as literal instructions. How do the "the Bible is a metaphor" Christians reconcile those verses with the idea that it's supposed to be a purely allegorical work?

By recognizing, accurately, that the Bible is an anthology of many stories from many sources with many different methods. They will usually say that it is neither purely literal nor purely allegorical. Sad to say, people have to use their brains and interpret things as best they can. 

The Bible is, supposedly, a holy text dictated to man directly from god. Once again, it's not a novella. And while there are certainly literary aspects to the Bible, like I said, certain verses cannot help but to be taken literally.

It is that, supposedly, to some Christians and not others. True, it's not a novella. The Book of Job is a lot like a novella, but Deuteronomy isn't. Certain verses should no doubt be taken literally, and others clearly aren't. (This is the opinion of just about any Christian who has read a book.) 

I think we have to acknowledge that in history, a lot of important books have operated unlike a science text or a journalistic report. If someone is saying that the Bible is only those two things, he is a bit simple-minded about things. 

Not sure what's so tough to comprehend about this. 

So let me be clear, are you arguing that the Bible is a literary work and not meant to be taken literally? what's your evidence for this?

I am arguing that for a very long time Christians have acknowledged that parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. My evidence for this is the writings of Augustine and many other important Christians, who said as much. 

I am, moreover, arguing that it is not for me or for you to judge what True Christianity consists of.

[The Valkyrie]

I often wonder why a god who wrote, directed to be written, dictated, or inspired a book would allow its followers to change, edit, or even leave out parts (gnostic gospels) of said book.

It’s like the god doesn’t care, is powerless to influence its followers, or doesn’t exist.

[EgoDeath]

The Bible is supposed to be directly from god. There's no reason to believe it isn't meant to be taken literally. It is a holy text, not a novel.

As with everything else, Christians disagree about this. 

"Directly from God" can mean "literally true" or "inspired by God but written out by fallible humans" or any number of other things. 

A "holy text" need not be a literal statement of exactly what happened. In fact many of them are taken to be prompts or puzzles or challenges that people have to deal with. 

It would be convenient for us if all Christians had one view of hermeneutics, but they don't, and I don't want to assert that only one of those many views is the True Christian way.

Even then, there are some verses that can only be taken as literal instructions. How do the "the Bible is a metaphor" Christians reconcile those verses with the idea that it's supposed to be a purely allegorical work?

By recognizing, accurately, that the Bible is an anthology of many stories from many sources with many different methods. They will usually say that it is neither purely literal nor purely allegorical. Sad to say, people have to use their brains and interpret things as best they can. 

The Bible is, supposedly, a holy text dictated to man directly from god. Once again, it's not a novella. And while there are certainly literary aspects to the Bible, like I said, certain verses cannot help but to be taken literally.

It is that, supposedly, to some Christians and not others. True, it's not a novella. The Book of Job is a lot like a novella, but Deuteronomy isn't. Certain verses should no doubt be taken literally, and others clearly aren't. (This is the opinion of just about any Christian who has read a book.) 

I think we have to acknowledge that in history, a lot of important books have operated unlike a science text or a journalistic report. If someone is saying that the Bible is only those two things, he is a bit simple-minded about things. 

Not sure what's so tough to comprehend about this. 

So let me be clear, are you arguing that the Bible is a literary work and not meant to be taken literally? what's your evidence for this?

I am arguing that for a very long time Christians have acknowledged that parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. My evidence for this is the writings of Augustine and many other important Christians, who said as much. 

I am, moreover, arguing that it is not for me or for you to judge what True Christianity consists of.

Early Christians took the Bible literally. Now, Christians do not. A decrease in a number of behaviors shows this. Christians have strayed from what Christianity used to be. I'm not going to split hairs with you here and go back and forth; there's no debate to be had. Christians used to burn people at the stake for being pagans or witches. Now, your average Christian probably "sins" ten times before breakfast.

Whether or not the Bible is "meant" to be taken literally is completely beside the point; most modern scholars realize how insane it would be to take the Bible literally, so of course the popular notion now is that it is more allegorical than literal.

That doesn't change the fact of how Christians used to behave versus how they behave now.

Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all.

When a thing changes so much that it is no longer synonymous with the original thing, you change the name. Christians today shouldn't even call themselves Christians.

[Belacqua]

Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all.

I'm always surprised how confidently atheists judge who is truly a Christian and who isn't.

[Anomalocaris]

Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all.

I'm always surprised how confidently atheists judge who is truly a Christian and who isn't.

Of course, what is surprising even to a person with as overarching a command of all that is true and appropriate as that possessed by one belaqua must be a very outrageous thing indeed.

[Belacqua]

overarching a command of all that is true and appropriate as that possessed by one belaqua must be a very outrageous thing indeed.

Thank god there's not two of me.

[Anomalocaris]

overarching a command of all that is true and appropriate as that possessed by one belaqua must be a very outrageous thing indeed.

Thank god there's not two of me.

I will only thank god when there is also not one of you.

[Belacqua]

I will only thank god when there is also not one of you.

Well the mountain behind my house is looking pretty crumbly, and we're still in typhoon season, so you may get your wish!

Pray for rain, I guess!