(Continued)

On another note though Foxy, you approach this as if you are Christian, and others have said that you are a Christian. I say this because you acknowledge God in your reply saying that all we can do for them is pray for them. That is a wonderful approach. Give the issue to God. Trust Him enough to hand the situation over to Him in prayer. Honestly we should be doing this more often and continually, instead of as a last resort, if done at all. Asking from a Christian perspective of things I want to challenge you on how much you trust God and in the same stance how much you trust the bible? If the scriptures in the bible are God breathed and trust worthy, as it's written about in 2 Timothy 3:16-17; then trusting what the bible says is in line also with trusting God. I'm not talking about doctrine and theology, and trusting those as if they are from God, but taking the actual words of the bible and counting them as reliable.

As a Christian to another Christian, I implore you to think on what it really means to interpret bible events in a non literal way. To ask if a miracle happened, if Jesus was born as described, and died and resurrected as described, or even if the times angels are included in the testimony of bible events. How can you take any of these things in a non literal way and still take it seriously?

Or consider 1 Corinthians 15:14 and 15:17 with regards to Jesus's reserection. Paul makes a good point there.

NNS,

I understand what you're saying.
And fully appreciate it.
However, although my personal feelings on this
subject are my own and they run very deeply I
really don't see my job as being one to
enlighten others. That's an emotional burden that
I don't want placed on me. People have to find their
own path. I trust that you shall understand.

To Foxy.

If you can clarify, why do you say that it's an emotional burden to try to enlighten others? Looking back my best guess is that you mean this in response to my question of why you can't argue with those who take the bible literally. Or the other guess is because of my long reply has become an emotional burden to try to argue against? You'd rather let it all go instead of enlightening me of your views of hat you hold dear?

Those are just guesses, and if either of those are the cases please let me know. If you mean something different that still is about taking biblical events in a non literal way, then I'm not understanding what you mean, or where you're coming from.

I'm sorry if presenting your beliefs is a burden. And I get it if that is all you are trying to say. When I was young and first deciding to be a Christian, I had two big issues to face. (At least at the time they were big to me). Those were coming to terms with a mess of theological or doctrinal perspectives that I was aware of. Things that I didn't study, but we're just things I was aware of that were conflicting Christian views. Eventually my solution was to study the bible for answers, and that really helped. However the burden of belief was still there even without anyone else to talk to or enlighten. The second issue wasn't doctrine or theology, but it was social. At the time I thought my non Christian friends were pushed and prodded by religion being shoved down their throat. So the conflict there was with feelings to protect them or anyone else from religious pressure (including a dose of self censorship) versus the aspects of being excited about my faith and wanting to share the treasures of it with those who were close to me.

(Continued)

(Continued)

If either of those two things are the cause of feeling a burden for you, then I do get it. But I want to caution you also. Don't let the outside influence of others stifle you from your faith and your trust in God. Don't let protecting others from religious abuses be the reason for you to reject what God has done, or what He has said. Just as well don't let their views be something you adopt at the expense of the teachings in the bible. This is why I've argued strongly against the idea of non literal interpretation. It's basically a cop-out to justify people rejecting certain parts of the bible, while still telling themselves that they haven't rejected anything. With that in mind it seems like a poison or a moldy fungus on the ability to trust God by trusting His word and relying on them.

Either way, if you tire of this conversation then I'll let you go. I've given you my thoughts and my conclusions on the matter, in the hopes that they can help and strengthen you. If you're not tired though, then I still have three questions. Answer any you feel comfortable with, or all of them if you can. The first is stated above about clarifying what you mean by a burden to enlighten others, or how you meant that in the context of this conversation. The other two questions are from previous replies. "Would you consider any other form of history in a non literal way; if not, what does that say about taking bible events non-literally?" " And "why is it hard to argue with someone who holds a literal interpretation of the bible?"

NNS,

I thought it was an excellent analogy you gave of a witness testifying in court, based on what they saw or said.

A magistrate would have every right to throw out 'evidence' that was given in a non-literal way, e.g. allegorically or symbolically. In fact, people who appear on the witness stand know they need to deal with facts and not feelings or opinions.

In Luke 1:1-4 (NIRV), Luke reported how he obtained the information for the gospel associated with him:

"Many people have attempted to write about the things that have taken place among us. Reports of these things were handed down to us. THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO SAW THESE THINGS FOR THEMSELVES from the beginning. They saw them and then passed the word on. With this in mind, I myself have carefully looked into everything from the beginning. So I also decided to write down an orderly report of exactly what happened. I am doing this for you, most excellent Theophilus. I want you to know that the things you have been taught are true" (emphasis added).

This information could be tested in a court of law, thanks to a literal understanding.

Foxy,

<<People have to find their own path.>>

Please help me to understand how you arrived at this conclusion.