[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

Nope, you are quite clear that they are wrong and even calling them stupid.

In my opinion they are wrong to interpret many parts of the Bible literally. In my opinion it is not smart to do that. 

Does this mean that they aren't True Christians? Why? 

What constitutes a True Christian? I don't know. 

Actually quite the opposite. 

The Song of Solomon 4:1 includes the line: "Your eyes are doves behind your veil." 

Does this line refer to a bizarre human-animal hybrid? Or is it a metaphor? 

If it is normal to read it as a metaphor, then we can show that at least one sentence in the Bible is not meant literally. After that we have the task of working out all the rest of them. 

Start with character of Jesus himself who was literalist believed in the Flood, Jonah, six day creation. 

I don't know what Jesus himself believed, if he even existed. It may be that the guy who wrote the gospel described him as believing literally in those things. Is this literal? 

Or let's say we take the story of Adam and Eve as only as a metaphor. So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? Seems barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.

If we begin with the commitment that all Christians are barking mad, then it's easy for us to accept that they believed what you say literally. 

On the other hand, when we see a number of people recounting a story that is obviously ridiculous if taken literally, we could consider the possibility that they are using it in a non-literal way. 

I expect that any number of Christians have believed the story literally. Others didn't. Which are True Christians? I don't know -- maybe both, or maybe we need some other standard by which to measure their Trueness. That doesn't really matter to me. 

Then explain me how can a group of Christians be true Christians and interpret Bible completely wrong?

Are you saying that if a group of Christians interprets the Bible wrongly they are not True Christians? I wouldn't make that judgment. 

I can explain how they interpret it in a way which it hasn't been interpreted, historically. Or I can explain how a literal interpretation will result in believing stupid things, like Noah's flood. 

I am not the one talking about who is a True Christian so I don't know to make this standard of judgment.

---

It seems to me that it is OK to say "no true X does Y" if it is really a definitional thing.

So for example, "no true bachelor is married" is fine. That's not a fallacy, because it's the definition of "bachelor."

As I recall, the story behind the Scotsman thing is like:

A: A Scotsman would never eat eggs for breakfast.
B: But MacTavish in Glasgow eats eggs for breakfast.
A: Yeah, but no TRUE Scotsman eats eggs for breakfast.

That's a fallacy because it's silly.

If you can show that there is some definitional thing that all Christians must have to be True Christians, then you could tell me who is a True Christian and who isn't. But I don't think such a thing exists. I think that Christianity is a big baggy category with a zillion variations, and for any given characteristic you can find someone who calls himself a Christian who doesn't have that characteristic.

So if somebody says that you have to interpret a certain chapter literally to be a True Christian, I'll just find you a minister somewhere who doesn't interpret it literally, and you'll be left in the position of saying MacTavish isn't a Scotsman.

But seriously, if you have some single characteristic that's definitional for Christianity, please let us know.