Biblical literalists and literalisms

I presume most Christians in here believe that the teaching of the infallibility of the bible, also means the literalness of it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Most of the biblical related arguments I have with Christians in this forum are driven by the above premise. For example:

- The garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit. Is is all literal?
- Eternal suffering in hell. Is it literal?

Of course not.

I started a thread a couple of years back about the Trees in the garden and it turned into a big row with me being slagged off for various reasons, including begin a child of Satan, or something similar. Can't find the the thread, sorry.

Anyway, come on guys...this stuff CANNOT be literal. The bible is full of parables, analogies, stories, poems and songs.

There is a REAL tree of knowledge of good and evil, with REAL juicy fruit, and if you eat it you die. REALLY??

Where is it now then?

Originally posted by @divegeester
I presume most Christians in here believe that the teaching of the infallibility of the bible, also means the literalness of it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Most of the biblical related arguments I have with Christians in this forum are driven by the above premise. For example:

- The garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit. Is is all literal?
- Eternal sufferi ...[text shortened]... d and evil, with REAL juicy fruit, and if you eat it you die. REALLY??

Where is it now then?

There are two endpoints in this subject.
(A) One where everything is wrong,
(C) one where everything is right.
and (B) everything in between.

(A) is too far. Of course there are correct things there. Somewhere.
(C) is an easy solution. Everything is correct. No need to interpret. No thinking necessary. If it says so, then it is so. Final.

(B) is the big problem. Some is right, some is wrong. Then who decides what is right and what is wrong.
And here is the answer of the question: Why are there so many christian denominations?
Answer: Because people cannot agree what is right and what is wrong.

There are so many discussions where christian people aren't agreeing, even call eachother names, even in this Spiritual Forum. It is easy to understand that christianity isn't one, and one only, religion. A lot of them mutually exclusive. Fights are common among christians.

Stop for a while. And think. What is it to be a christian. Who decides what is right and what is wrong. Why not unite in these issues? Why not have one christian religion?
Who is up for that?

Originally posted by @divegeester
I presume most Christians in here believe that the teaching of the infallibility of the bible, also means the literalness of it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Most of the biblical related arguments I have with Christians in this forum are driven by the above premise. For example:

- The garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit. Is is all literal?
- Eternal sufferi ...[text shortened]... d and evil, with REAL juicy fruit, and if you eat it you die. REALLY??

Where is it now then?

REALLY.

Indigenous to the Middle East apple trees were non-existent. But among all the countless plants and trees in the Garden, one could see solely one single apple tree.

After G-d created Adam and Eve, these protohumans had no concept of “good” and “evil” and had lack of morality, they were living in the Garden like happy gods. It was cool in the Garden, even the animals had an eternally sweet time in eternal peace with no bloodshed. The lions were eating kinoa and the crocs juicy avocados. Any changes? No, Sir. Pure sunshine, although moonshine was a rare bird. Everybody was drinking just plain water. Pure and crystal clear water alright, but even that was inferior even to that awful thingy they enjoy up north in Canada, the Crown Royal.

And suddenly one day G-d deceived the protohumans into making them believe that the Apple was poisonous, whilst the one of a kind wise sneaky snake convinced ole Eve of the truth: Snakey told her the darn fruity was not poisonous, adding she would simply gain knowledge of good and evil if she ate it and that’s all.

Naturally born curious, girl pushes eager to excel boy –was the apple tasty? Go figure. They ain’t kick the bucket and everything was OK for a while, but then G-d drove loco and cursed Snakey and boy and girl and the ground and all, and on the spot Adam and Eve pictured what “becoming into full humanity” means: they ended up in an animal status with the sense of morality.

In fact, to sum it up:
G-d told Adam and Eve that the fruit was poisonous, which is literally a lie. They kept up living alright.
Snake told them the truth: Adam and Eve did not die on the spot because of that apple, and also they developed a sense of morality for the very first time.
And G-d knew that Eve was curious and Adam almost as bright and meticulous as Mr. George W. Bush, or even as the 45th American president, therefore it would be more good for the whole humanity and morally better to treat the kids right. G-d could tell them beforehand what exactly would happen, and then let them choose according to their free will. This only would be fair.

However I admit that Eve as a hardcore lass would probably go for it anyway and Adam would run after her, as is the case the last billion years –some insist that the right number is 6,000, oh well. So here we would be again dead in the water, staring directly them blurry eyes of that antelope chewing crocodile who ain’t veggie anymore.
😵

Originally posted by @divegeester
I presume most Christians in here believe that the teaching of the infallibility of the bible, also means the literalness of it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Most of the biblical related arguments I have with Christians in this forum are driven by the above premise. For example:

- The garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit. Is is all literal?
- Eternal sufferi ...[text shortened]... d and evil, with REAL juicy fruit, and if you eat it you die. REALLY??

Where is it now then?

How would repentance work for example if not taken literally? When should it be taken literally and when not?

Originally posted by @divegeester
I presume most Christians in here believe that the teaching of the infallibility of the bible, also means the literalness of it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Most of the biblical related arguments I have with Christians in this forum are driven by the above premise. For example:

- The garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit. Is is all literal?
- Eternal sufferi ...[text shortened]... d and evil, with REAL juicy fruit, and if you eat it you die. REALLY??

Where is it now then?

The main problem isn't with clarity over parable vs. not a parable; the main issue is with Christians that certain aspects of the bible just don't fit with modern sensibilities. The creation account is one of the biggest examples, with some educated Christians feeling a need to defend the inaccuracy of the bible with "it's not literal".

I've debated Christian women who vehemently deny female submission to men, with all sorts of verbal contortions about allegories and such. In fact, I've seen Christians pretty much imply the entire OT is allegorical; that women were never really commanded to be stoned for premarital sex, but that it's merely to show how bad such actions are.

http://religionnews.com/2017/07/12/notable-christians-whove-had-a-change-of-heart-on-lgbt-issues/

More and more Christians are coming out against gay discrimination. There are even gay Christians (like the gay Christian musician in the article). In order to reconcile their faith, they either have to:
a) Minimize the anti-gay quotes (like by squarely focusing on the "love" parts)
b) Say those parts aren't literal

The anti-literal movement isn't a surprise, given that the bible dates back well over 3,000 years. In order to excuse belief in ancient texts with ancient beliefs, anti-literal views are a major requirement for many Christians.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How would repentance work for example if not taken literally? When should it be taken literally and when not?

Repentance is literal. Of course.

Originally posted by @vivify
The main problem isn't with clarity over parable vs. not a parable; the main issue is with Christians that certain aspects of the bible just don't fit with modern sensibilities. The creation account is one of the biggest examples, with some educated Christians feeling a need to defend the inaccuracy of the bible with "it's not literal".

I've debated Ch ...[text shortened]... ient texts with ancient beliefs, anti-literal views are a major requirement for many Christians.

I don't disagree.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Repentance is literal. Of course.

Sure, so how do you tell when it's literal and when it's not?

Originally posted by @divegeester
I presume most Christians in here believe that the teaching of the infallibility of the bible, also means the literalness of it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Most of the biblical related arguments I have with Christians in this forum are driven by the above premise. For example:

- The garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit. Is is all literal?
- Eternal sufferi ...[text shortened]... d and evil, with REAL juicy fruit, and if you eat it you die. REALLY??

Where is it now then?

I'd be surprised to hear you say you believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

The scriptures are not just infallible, they're inerrant.

Originally posted by @josephw
I'd be surprised to hear you say you believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

The scriptures are not just infallible, they're inerrant.

Excluding the errors and rampant contradictions.....

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Excluding the errors and rampant contradictions.....

Name one. Good luck.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Sure, so how do you tell when it's literal and when it's not?

That's a good question; what do you do?

Originally posted by @josephw
I'd be surprised to hear you say you believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Your nasty jibes have no effect on me josehpw, but they will be having an effect on you.

Originally posted by @divegeester
That's a good question; what do you do?

I'm guessing it's easy enough to recognize parables and poetry, what do you think?

Originally posted by @josephw
The scriptures are not just infallible, they're inerrant.

Nevermind infalibitiy and errors, this is not what this thread is about.

Do you have the courage and fortitude to state whether or not you believe everything in the bible to be literal, and if not then what isn't literal and why?

I won't be expecting an honest clarity riven response.