/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>10191

>The bible repeatedly uses clear and obvious allegory and metaphor all over the place

Nobody disagrees with you

>The authors of the bible never suggest it is the word of God.

They don't just suggest it, it's explicitly stated to be the word of God

>How is a letter from Paul to some Christians the word of God?

2 Tim 3:16

>How do literalists

Literalist is a strawman term, this is the real position you have to argue against:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical_method?wprov=sfla1

>decide which parts must be literal and which are ok to interpret metaphorically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics?wprov=sfla1

Have a nice day

>>10192

>Nobody disagrees with you

Yes, plenty of people do. If you do not, then you are obviously not in a position to answer for those who do.

>2 Tim 3:16

Inspired by God does not mean the word of God. All our skills and abilities are also inspired by God, that does not mean that what we do with them is created by God.

>Literalist is a strawman term, this is the real position you have to argue against:

No it is not, and no it is not. I am not arguing against anyone, I am asking literalists how they arrived at their beliefs so I can understand them. The fact that you are not a literalist does not mean they do not exist.

>>10194

Im telling you that the so called literalists are actually subscribers to the historical grammatical method of hermeneutics. Literalist is usually used as a pejorative, like "fundamentalist".

Find me a single person who's a literalist in the strict sense you just defined; that the Bible is entirely without metaphor or allegory.

>>10195

>Im telling you that the so called literalists are actually subscribers to the historical grammatical method of hermeneutics

I saw that. And I told you that you are incorrect.

>Literalist is usually used as a pejorative

So?

>Find me a single person who's a literalist in the strict sense you just defined; that the Bible is entirely without metaphor or allegory.

There's a bunch of them posting in threads on this board. Go read a few threads that actually relate to the bible and not just denominational shit flinging.

>>10196

I'm in those threads. I'm arguing against you in those threads. I don't, not do my peers reject the claim that the Bible has metaphor and allegory.

You said that plenty of people believe that, you should be able to name a church or a pastor or even a blogger, right?

You can't, because it's a strawman.

>>10197

nor*

>>10197

We've already concluded this discussion. You are not a literalist, so you can not answer for literalists. I have no interest in discussing the historical-grammatical method, I already understand why idiots do that, I have no questions to ask you.

I think a lot of it boils down to common sense and reading passages in context.

Obviously some things are hyperbole or metaphor, but there are too many people who like to take verses with direct meaning and try to twist them to suit their own means.

>>10219

It seems much more like it is just a refusal to understand the bible, and a deep desire to cling to the incorrect and absurd understanding they gained through pop culture. Like how some of them will insist that Adam and Eve ate an apple, because that's how it is portrayed in pop culture.