[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[EgoDeath]

If we consider what common denominator might characterize all those whom Belaqua might smarmily claim to possibly be true Christians, it would appear the only characteristic required to be a true Christian is to be less moved by the risibility and grotesquery of the "Christ" than by the conviction that men could deserve no better, even though it would not be stretching it to say majority of mankind represent less despicable specimens of insanity and immorality than the character Jesus.

I suspect that @Belaqua wants this concept to be impossible to pin down. He would rather that no one can define what a Christian is; that way any criticism of specific behaviors, ideas or thoughts is only a criticism of one of MANY interpretations of the Bible and Christianity, and therefore not an actual criticism of Christianity or Christians as a whole. It's a sly variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy... he can (attempt to) discredit any criticism you may have by simply saying, "Well that's just one school of thought and doesn't define Christianity, so what does your criticism matter?"

It's disingenuous at best.

If we take the Bible literally, all the way, through and through, it's a grotesque, violent book portraying an archaic time and people who were using fairytales and myths to understand the world around them.

If we take a more dynamic interpretation of the Bible, it's still pretty much the same thing.

But Bel wants to paint Christians as people who just understand metaphor and nuance and allegory and other literary tropes so much more than us silly atheists!