The OP might have a little merit if determining "what was meant to be taken" literally (or not) was straightforward enough that there would be only two Christian denominations: the autistics and the non-autistics. Alas -- there are, even by the most charitable reckoning, dozens of camps that exist. Some would say, tens of thousands. And many (though not all) of the differences hinge on how literally to take certain passages. More proximally, the differences hinge on different hermeneutic systems (interpretational systems) but when you unpack the differences, a lot of the differences in hermeneutics are differences in what to read in (or not read in) / infer from the text, and what context to see (or be blind to), a great deal of that is about what to take (non-)literally.
All the OP amounts to is a version of "our group's interpretation (or possibly, MY interpretation) is self-evidently right and anyone who disagrees with me must be a reprobate / heretic / dunce / sinner / autistic".
All the OP amounts to is a version of "our group's interpretation (or possibly, MY interpretation) is self-evidently right and anyone who disagrees with me must be a reprobate / heretic / dunce / sinner / autistic".
