A discussion around family table.

[Scented Nectar]

Then there is no point in arguing with you, SN, because you are refusing to take a look at our Christian interpretation of the Christian Bible.

You have literally just stated that you willfully choose not to look into a metaphorical interpretation of any kind of the Bible. This is not logical. Do you not look for metaphors in any other book when you read them? Do you take it lierally when, say, the villain of a book advocates some terrible crime as meaning that the author of that book also advocates the crime? Certainly that's a terrible way to read a book.

Why would I waste time trying to counter all the many re-interpretations? I only care about that on an individual basis, and even then only sometimes. For wider than just one person purposes, I'm going right to the source, the bible, which very clearly does not say 'this one is a metaphor, and that one is real'.

I have told you to re-observe the way the Bible is written- it lacks the details of an ordinary, literal-meaning book.

Well, it is rather bad as far as artistic literary aesthetics, but that's not my point. Followers will not be saying 'this one must be a metaphor, since after all, look how non-ordinary the writing is...' You may be different, but Christians in general are expected to believe the stuff written in their bible.

It is written specifically in the way of a metaphor, and is clearly meant to be interpreted as such. Now, siimply because some morons interpret it some ways which seem very literal and/or foolish, does not mean those morons' interpretations are correct. There are many right-minded Christians/theists, as I said, who are appalled at notions like the Fundamentalist God interpretation and all of its meanings.

Then, please show me these specifics which show it to be metaphorical. Also, unless these vague 'specifics' indicate that the whole thing, including God, is just a metaphor, then I will also need to see where it says which parts are metaphors.

But that God is clearly not real, or we'd be looking at an awfully traumatizing world, wouldn't we?

Yeah, that's kind of my point. Setting aside though whether he's real, do you think highly of his morals? Do you worship him due to being truly infatuated and in love with him, or because you are ordered to?

You mention that the Bible is the 'inspired word of God' in your post, and to some degree I have come to find that phrase an obnoxious one. It has continually misleadmany a Christian and atheist for some time now. When you look at that, you are assuming that it means the Bible is literally God's word, written down by people who heard it of Him. Wen I look at the term 'inspired word of God', I believe that it means the Bible is a book written by human men, inspired by God and God's 'word' as they understood it.

I'll stop mocking its so called inspiration when xtians stop claiming it IS magically inspired. If you don't believe it's inspired by some deity, and that mere humans wrote it, then why is it given divine status among xtians? If it is not inspired, why do you believe the claims of magic inside?

The term 'Word' here does not mean a literal word of mouth. Once again, you must read into it, and be smart enough to apply your own life-learnings to it to understand the meaning of the 'Word.'

Yeah, yeah, nothing's literal, sure, sure. Except when conveniently fitting in with what you want to believe anyways. I guess I've heard it before. 'That one doesn't count, it's a metaphor, and that one has a different context because of the year it was then, and that one is real - if you question it you will go to hell.....' Until all of you claiming to be christians can agree on what is metaphorical, and can show why this is the case, I must assume that the authours of the bible intended it to be believed the way it is written.