[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Darwin1245]

Any text could be understood non-literally, and still seem right. You are basically finding ways to understand a statement in a way that you think makes sense, which does not necessarily mean that it makes sense to others, but only to you. More importantly, in the future, there would be other valid interpretations, and encouraging people to interpret texts this way will likely cause more division among people believing in the same religion. The original religion, which Jesus, supposedly, believed in, would not be the same as what people believe in, because everyone would come up with his/her own interpretations, and, therefore, it should not be called Christianity any more.
You said you do agree that interpretations are arbitrary, and that they depend on the person's personality and other factors. It is not acceptable that a psychopath interprets the texts in his own way that probably involves violence.

Jesus didn't address a single word to how we drive our cars. But that doesn't mean that the lessons he supposedly taught are irrelevant when we drive. The fact that he taught in parables, open to interpretation in different circumstances, means that we draw lessons from them that are not specific to the details of the parable.

Well, he was surely specific about other things that they did have in the age he lived in; therefore, he likely did not intend that people interpret texts non-literally. Believers interpret his lessons in ways that are only relevant to their own minds in this age. The relevant lessons are more likely to be moral, which is one thing that did not change much from when he existed.
It is obvious that people prefer to believe in myths because they are consoling, and because they provide explanations for things like death that are relevant to us. Most will, therefore, hold their beliefs tight by finding plausible interpretations of texts that were actually meant to be literal. Any text could be interpreted non-literally; if the reader feels the need to find plausible meanings, he would try very hard. This happens in many fields other than Religion.
No, it is not wise to make the Bible non-literal (which he did not,), or at least not something that makes Jesus/God wiser than poets; you are right that it probably lengthens lifespan of religions, but it also promotes more division, which is not wise at all.

It would have been wiser to make the "holy" texts literal so that they can be interpreted the same way by everyone no matter how different their personalities are and what age they live in. The religion would have been abandoned years ago if this had been the case, unless Jesus with his "SUPERNATURAL" powers came up with a literal text that somehow makes sense in ALL circumstances, which he supposedly had. Unfortunately, for some reason, he did not use his magical power.

However, if religions are to continue to exist, I would prefer that people believe in them non-literally, and interpret them in accordance with today's culture, which, both, allows them to keep believing in some selected, consoling myths, and be peaceful and following the law. I believe that is what people already do (excluding extremists), and this is probably why you keep arguing for this. Nevertheless, people should realize that this is not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc; it is an arbitrary religion, and, since religions claim that all the statements in their "holy" books are flawless, it proves that each respective religion is not right, and that there is no evidence that supernatural beings exist.