Which parts to take literally

[HoustonHorn]

I was raised a very literal Christian, but was baptized as a Baptist (ABA) a few years ago. Since then I've come to the conclusion that I cannot accept a totally literal interpretation of the Bible, which seems to conflict with the views of the churches I've been to. I considered trying to find a more liberal church to belong, but I can no longer understand how Christianity works without taking the Bible 100% literally.

My understanding is that there are Christian denominations that don't take the Bible literally, or at least not all parts. How do they decide which parts to take literally and which parts are just stories, fables to teach a lesson?

Of the stories in the Bible that make the least literal sense, the resurrection seems to be high on the list. There are many stories that are fairly easy to accept as having happened. Stuff I could picture at least partly happening today. But the idea of someone being crucified, burried, coming back to life, going down to Hell, and ascending to Heaven seems a likely candidate not to be taken literally.

Without a literal belief in the resurrection Christianity falls apart. So how can a liberal Christian be 100% sure that the resurrection literally happened when other stories are not to be taken literally?

 

[tapero]

I was raised a very literal Christian, but was baptized as a Baptist (ABA) a few years ago. Since then I've come to the conclusion that I cannot accept a totally literal interpretation of the Bible, which seems to conflict with the views of the churches I've been to. I considered trying to find a more liberal church to belong, but I can no longer understand how Christianity works without taking the Bible 100% literally.

My understanding is that there are Christian denominations that don't take the Bible literally, or at least not all parts. How do they decide which parts to take literally and which parts are just stories, fables to teach a lesson?

Of the stories in the Bible that make the least literal sense, the resurrection seems to be high on the list. There are many stories that are fairly easy to accept as having happened. Stuff I could picture at least partly happening today. But the idea of someone being crucified, burried, coming back to life, going down to Hell, and ascending to Heaven seems a likely candidate not to be taken literally.

Without a literal belief in the resurrection Christianity falls apart. So how can a liberal Christian be 100% sure that the resurrection literally happened when other stories are not to be taken literally?

I take the literal parts literally. The parables as parables. I believe that Adam and Eve is literal, that the flood is literal, the parting of the reed sea as literal, etc. I especially take the resurrection as literal. I don't think you have to worry much about what you take literal, except for the resurrection. That is important to believe and we believe by faith. We can only go by the what the bible says so you have your dilemma of whether or not to believe it or not. If he wasn't resurrected then we won't be either. Our hope rests on that. Tapero

 

[HoustonHorn]

I take the literal parts literally. The parables as parables.

But there's not a note in the margin next to the literal parts saying "literal" and "parable" next to the parables. (And thanks, I've been trying to think of the word "parable" all day.)

How do you make the distinction?

 

[bunnysfriend]

But there's not a note in the margin next to the literal parts saying "literal" and "parable" next to the parables. (And thanks, I've been trying to think of the word "parable" all day.)

How do you make the distinction?

hey, this might be usefull to you http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/liberal.htm
also if you wanna know more about liberal christianity your probablyu better of asking here http://www.christianforums.com/f119-liberal-theology.html
there are a lot more liberal christians there.

 

[tapero]

But there's not a note in the margin next to the literal parts saying "literal" and "parable" next to the parables. (And thanks, I've been trying to think of the word "parable" all day.)

How do you make the distinction?

The parables are stories Jesus told that were stories. Usually it says, the parable of the sower, or something in the heading before the stories. The parables of the Kingdom of Heaven. Does your bible have headings on it? Matthew 13:1 is the parable of the sower.

I went to biblegateway.com and did a word search and put in parable, new testament to find the first parable in the gospels.

So parables are often said that they are parables so you know it's not literal.

Literal are the main ones I mentioned in my previous post. Let me know if you can think of some scripture that you're not sure is literal or not. Not all Christians believe that certain things are literal, but I do.

I hope this helps, and thanks for the question. Tapero

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

. . . how can a liberal Christian be 100% sure that the resurrection literally happened when other stories are not to be taken literally?

Jesus resurrection enabled all people to receive a new Life - God's nature - by receiving His Spirit.

Your best proof is to receive this:-
Acts 2:4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance . . . .33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. . . .39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.