How most Christians in the modern world are willing to accept the bible with a pretty big grain of salt and understand that it's often a book of metaphors, yet many people here who go on long rallies against Christianity do it by using the bible for literal interpretations. I just find it a bit ironic.
It's easier to criticize it literally, obviously. Understanding the bible at all takes a lot of effort, something most people can't be bothered with.
Have you ever noticed that, over the centuries, the Literal Bible has increasingly become more and more metaphorical as science has shown us the true light? Its as if christians are picking and choosing what becomes metaphorical and what remains literal. Genesis is metaphorical, yet 3 day old dead people coming back to life is perfectly literal. Walking on water is literal, yet global drowning is metaphorical... and you wonder why others ridicule christian beliefs? Y'all believe in spirits and demons as literal without a shred of evidence of existence, yet as soon as science reveals evidence of something that couldn't happen as claimed in the bible you claim its meant to be metaphorical. I think some people find this intellectually dishonest and deserves debate, if not ridicule.
I'm not at all sure that most Christians regard the Bible as a book of metaphors or have a symbolic understanding. Many, esp. U.S. evangelist types, seem to regard it as literal truth. That explains a lot of the railing against c/anity that goes on. But even if you believe it is a book that requires a symbolic understanding, that doesn't at all imply 'taking it with a grain of salt', which means not really taking a thing seriously.
US evangelicals are a small, incredibly vocal, christian minority. To assume that these people speak for all, or even most, Christians is akin to saying that the french conservative party speaks for all of Europe. It ignores thousands of years of differences, debate, and culture. The largest Christian church, the Catholic church, has for some time now preached that parts of the bible, most notably the creation stories in Genesis, are metaphors.
Well actually I never said that right wing us evangelists are a majority of Christians (actually I wonder if they are Christians at all) - you're just reading that into what I said (wonder why?) Still, there are a lot of fundamentalists out there - or if only a small number as you claim, then they're exercising an undue influence. My own view, although I am not a Christian, is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the most valid forms of this religion.
I re-read your post, and i apologize for inferring that you thought christians were literalistic. maybe my own prejudices are flaring up again. Anyways, I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is one of the most Valid forms of christianity? They've arguably deviated from the script more than any other sect, adding and subtracting concepts as they see fit (Purgatory and Limbo, Papal infallibility, Confession and Penance, original sin, life begins at conception, all ideas foreign or contradictory to the bible.)
It may be partly my own prejudice, as I have a Catholic background. Personally, I think that the mystical traditions within Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very intetesting - I have looked in vain for anything resembling this in protestantism. I am also quite interested in the Marian side of it, which again, is minimalized under protestantism. However, I agree there are many absurd things in Catholicism - papal infalablility being one such. I also think that the Bible is only one source for Christian teachings. Time honoured traditions also have a big value, at least for some people.
Literal readings have become more popular in the US recently, possibly as a result of people feeling that their faith is under fire. But certainly in this country it's rare for anyone to honestly claim that, for example, the Earth is only a few thousand years old or to make the weird science arguments I've seen on US-dominated forums to suggest that it's literal if, like, a year was long back then, or something? A big problem with literalism is that you've got 21st century people reading a 2000ish-year-old text that has been translated God knows how many times as if it were written yesterday. Anyone who's studied literature will tell you that you just can't do that. Even something as comparatively recent as Dickens requires the reader to re-orientate themself in the way that they interpret the text; if anything, a literal reading of the Bible requires a lot more interpretation than a symbolic one! I can see the guy's point though. There are indeed a lot of attacks on the specifics of the Bible, rather than the intent and tone, the general sense of it. Which is crazy, because it's not like there's nothing to criticise about the intent, the basic guts of the religion, and very often it's a disagreement with those basics that causes a person to give up the faith, rather than the specifics of a very obvious fairy story that a few people halfway round the world might be dumb enough to take, no pun intended, as gospel.
the bible is the center of faith and a common faith holds together community . community is the real experience that a people protect and love . when a Blessing comes upon the whole congregation and every heart is touched - this is special - and with the words they hold in common the source of the holy Oneness blessing can be named and thanked . then , understanding the mystery of it all seems more complete . surely , other peoples have this mystic communal experience with no christian bible . aren't christians are a mix of many tribes relating through a holy book and a common story ... and it works rather ok .
