Some interesting replies in this thread (brings me out of lurk -- plus I can't really sleep for some reason, any advice?) If the Bible is meant to be taken non-literally, that is, it's the message that's important, then aren't some sections superfluous? Per the other thread, what are the reasons for: - Some sections in II Kings and II Chronicles where it's a long list of names - How about, turn the other cheek... but just sometimes? - The Pentecost / Acts - Relevations - Daniel's visions I suppose my point is that when the Bible is taken in a non-literalist way, it opens itself to a lot of biased interpretations that depend on the times, political agendas, personal struggles, and public opinions. For me, I think parts of the Bible are meant to be historical records and parts are poetry and parts are parables and well -- there are a lot of parts. I suppose that's the hard thing about it -- the Bible defies easy categorization and interpretation. I just wish that God didn't make it so hard to interpret.. if there was lightning from the sky and a booming voice that said 'this is the meaning of life' -- it would be so much easier to believe. But I suppose that's the twist of 'seek and ye shall find', I've just never been able to reconcile the human ego/motives against divine inspiration.
Still waiting on the names of those Churches in the NASA area that spread this "you're going to hell if you don't believe all of the Bible"...
I meant to say most churches around here are more liberal about it, especially Catholic. And I already told you my personal account about my Uncle and the church he grew up in that pretty much did so. So it does happen.
I don't see it that way, I see you as being taken up on a challenge and you are using a "misunderstanding" of my posts as an excuse. Let me quote an earlier post of yours... Please show me these Christians in the NASA area who believe that literalists/creationists are off their rockers for believing the Bible literally... I have NEVER been to a church that said either stance on the issue was right or wrong but somehow you've been to churches in the NASA area (the area I've lived my entire life) that chastize and or praise one side of the issue or the other? Of course there will always be some belief-set sects of all faiths but it is hardly as wide spread as you lead on in your posts... I see your "oh yeah it happens all the time" even though you KNOW it doesn't or don't know because you don't go as a direct attack on Christianity beacuse you despise it so much. So again, please feel free to come up with the names of those churches or admit that you said it only to inflame your argument.
This board has more non-believers on it than most boards i've been to. Of course this poll will be skewed. There is a 10 to 1 non-believer to believer ratio on this board.
im catholic and most other catholics i know and have discussed it with do not take the bible literally. actually, i have never heard a priest straight up say that the bible is the literal truth and everything happened exactly as it did. every priest that i have talked to directly about this issue say that even they dont take everything in the bible literally.
do you mean to imply that if you dont take the bible literally that you are a non-believer in christianity or just the stories?
Man you like to type a lot. 1. I'm confused and tired. I dont even remember the question. 2. Of course its not the official stance or anything. I'm just saying it's more common for Christians who work for a science based company like NASA to not be literalists/creationists. I don't have any numbers or specific churches etc. It's just the feeling I get living here for 30+ years and knowing a bunch of people. And I could introduce you Christan couple that I know whose daughter married a goofy literalists/creationist and aren't to thrilled with it if you really want.
If you don't have the proof then don't go spreading BS to try and make your point... somehow you've gone from "a lot of churches in the NASA area" to "a Christian couple I know."
It's most that I know, if not all. I really don't think I have talked to any creationists since my grandparents died 20 years ago.
Hmmmm. You don't seem to have any proof about The Great Flood but hat did not stop you from spouting your BS. I am sure that there is a really big and important difference between this and that. Could you wait a few minutes before your reply? I have to go out buy some more tissues to wipe away all of my tears when I read your reply and cry like a little girl.
IMHO the story of Noah is an allegory to a major event that did in fact occur long ago in human history ~ i'm a little surprised so many consider it to be literal.
I never stated my beliefs as fact, I beleive them to be true but I'm sure as crap not going to hold it against someone who disagrees. The flood is something that would have happened thousands of years ago, yet he is mentioning something that may be happening right now, all over the "NASA Area" the area I live... and I called BS loud and clear on it, and he stumbled all over himself. Yeah, so you're right it is the same thing...
