Potoooooooo

This has been touched on in a variety of ways at iidb, Many liberal and moderate Christians claim that some , much or most of the Bible was never meant to be taken literally and never was until comparatively modern times. This is said by them to be especially true in the case of such hot button issues as the origins of life on earth , the existence of Hell, condemnation of homosexuality etc. Critics of this position clam that these liberal and moderate Christians are merely interpreting ancient works in order to make them as acceptable to modern sensibilities and modern science and that historically Christians (and Jews) have believed in a literal reading of Genesis, condemnation of homosexuals etc.
Now what I want to know is what are the pro and con arguments for each side?:huh:

Febble

It seems to me the first problem in your question is lies in your use of the passive voice. According to whom? By the writers? By God? By those who assembled the canon?

Potoooooooo

Good point, How about by the writers

Chili

All metaphor except when stated to be otherwise such as in John 6:55 where "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." What else could the word real mean in this context?

Potoooooooo

Please elaborate!

Chili

There is nothing to elaborate except to say that real food is the body of Christ and real drink is the blood of Christ. For this to become a reality the transformation must take place in our mind and not the substance wherefore transubstantiation is real and consubstantiation the lie of literalism.

Potoooooooo

What about issues like hell and Genesis?

Chili

They are not related but if a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other hell must be just as real as heaven and exists in equal proportion as such.

Genesis is presence that exists in each one of us with a life that we call our own until we have a life of our own and that is when Genesis becomes history. Go figure.

Febble

Well, in that case, it would depend which which writers.

I suppose I qualify as a "liberal Christian", and I regard the books of the bible as being of varied purpose and quality, and subject to the state of understanding of the natural world at the time, as well as to the prevaling social mores. But containing both evidence and wisdom.

I see absolutely no reason at all to take any of it literally on principle.