I've met Christians of lots of different franchises in several parts of the world (UK, Ireland, US, NZ, Egypt, a few others) and it seems to be that the non-literalists outnumber the literalists by a fair margin. As a rule, the non-literalists seem to have an argumentative edge, but not a substantive one.
By this I mean that it is more difficult to dismiss the arguments (AS arguments) of Christians who tend to view the uncomfortable or obviously inaccurate bits of the Bible as true, but true only in a metaphorical sense.
Take Genesis as an example, particularly the Fall. A non-literalist might argue that the story is untrue in the sense that there was no Adam, Even, Eden, magical tree or talking serpent, but that it IS true in the sense that rebelling against God is going to get you into trouble. But in the end, a non-literalist interpretation doesn't do much to rescue the position that a loving, all-knowing God would ever punish anyone for anything. Thus, this view isn't any more substantive when it comes to resolving Bible issues than is the literalist view.
As for the pick-and-choose 'cafeteria' Christians, they strike me as the easiest to get on with. They tend to focus on the beatitudes and some of the 'nicer' instructions, and don't even attempt to justify the horrible bits.
Boru
By this I mean that it is more difficult to dismiss the arguments (AS arguments) of Christians who tend to view the uncomfortable or obviously inaccurate bits of the Bible as true, but true only in a metaphorical sense.
Take Genesis as an example, particularly the Fall. A non-literalist might argue that the story is untrue in the sense that there was no Adam, Even, Eden, magical tree or talking serpent, but that it IS true in the sense that rebelling against God is going to get you into trouble. But in the end, a non-literalist interpretation doesn't do much to rescue the position that a loving, all-knowing God would ever punish anyone for anything. Thus, this view isn't any more substantive when it comes to resolving Bible issues than is the literalist view.
As for the pick-and-choose 'cafeteria' Christians, they strike me as the easiest to get on with. They tend to focus on the beatitudes and some of the 'nicer' instructions, and don't even attempt to justify the horrible bits.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
