Strictly literal interpretations deserve all the intellectual criticism they bring upon themselves.
Atheists see the fact that there is not much more expressed ignorance in this world than a literalist thumper with a bible in his hand.[/qjuote]
There has been a dumbing-down of the original concept of Fundamentalism versus theological Liberalism, which was not initially a dispute of literalism versus allegory but was a dispute of the authority of scripture.
An original Fundamentalist might interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but either way asserted its absolute theological authority. A Liberal might also interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but deny its absolute theological authority either way.
But today's dumbed-down Fundamentalism insists that all things must be interpreted literally in order to be Fundamentalist.
As I mentioned earlier,
nobody teaches Song of Songs as anything but an allegory. I sure would like to be in a study of what it means literally, though.
They are right to see such as driveling idiots imho. Those people drive me crazy too. Not that I don't think people like Phil Roberson aren't saved or don't have the right to their personal religious opinions, but biblical literalist thumpers too often forget the position that all of us have, that of being sinners.
Being a believing sinner in exaltation over other sinners is an intellectual and theological crime of mostly minor proportions but they have been crimes of major proportions against our neighbors in the past. Even against other believers.
It's more like the distinction between being an alcoholic in AA who has not drunk in 10 years (a "dry" alcoholic) compared to the alcoholic lying in the gutter in a drunken stupor.
The dry alcoholic is well aware that he's only one drink away from that gutter every day of the week. But he is
not there
today, and that is an important distinction he clings to.
The dry alcoholic is also aware that the man in the gutter is not his enemy. His enemy is always the bottle and his own inner weaknesses that yearn for the oblivion the bottle promises. The man in the gutter is not his enemy, the man in the gutter is a
victim just as he was.
"There but for the grace of God go I."
I have to understand that sentence does not say I'm God's favorite, yay me. That verse says, "I missed a bullet I didn't even see coming--that guy didn't see it coming any more than I did."
Does the fact that the tower of Siloam fell on those guys instead of us mean that they are more sinful than we are?
Jesus said, "I tall you, nay! You must repent of your own sin!"