My point is that there is also no direct link between a literal interpretation and remaining in the faith. I was mistaken, back then, for assuming that their faith was deeper than mine was, merely because they made grander claims and seemed more certain.
Most people are actually surprisingly shallow, so when they say something very emphatically, it doesn't really mean much. I was impressed, but that was me projecting my own inner ocean onto their pond.
I think this generally something that very cerebral/scholastic people struggle with: people who never question their own faith, who make massive, sweeping claims, but skip on the follow through. Makes the whole thing seem like a joke. They are a terrible witness and they do a lot of damage to evangelization.
I think you're obviously operating on a higher plane than I am, but I think people like me also have a place in the Church.
You don't have to apologize to me for disagreeing with me. I'm an adult; I can handle it.
But I think this discussion sort of highlights my scepticism about the "literally" thing, because the schism in the Church is partially an artefact of which parts some faction took literally. Catholics tend to take everything Jesus said directly to His disciples absolutely literally because the people of the Early Church took them literally and the New Testament was put together years later, under their direction and divine inspiration.
These things Jesus said, with emphasis, are the Biggest Biblical Claims because they're the metaphysical claims. They're the wildest, most-outrageous parts of the whole Library, but they're also the parts that are impossible to disprove on Earth.
You can't go dig in the ground and find Heaven, but you might find Eden. In other words. But who really cares about Eden, when there is _literally_ Heaven?
And, like, Jesus said Mary is our mother, but y'all are like, He didn't mean that literally. Yes, He did! He legit took a break from dying to make the point. Seems like He thought it was an important point and that we should remember it and maybe even, eventually, write it down.
Determining what is _literally_ true, is what the Church has been fighting over for a couple of millennia, and we haven't even managed to reach universal consensus on Baptism.
I'm from the South and there's a lot of ambient religiosity there, for cultural reasons, and it sometimes gets mistaken for piety or real reverence.
I think this is generally the case, in any region; that there are ethnic artifacts, or habits, that have sort of been integrated into the local religious practice. But my impression is that Protestants often can't tell that they've done that because it's all sort of "social/philosophical", rather than "traditional" (like with Catholics, where you can point to painting styles or relics and processions, and whatnot). Like, claiming it's unchristian to drink alcohol, or claiming that everyone can speak in tongues or handle snakes or whatnot. It _sounds_ like theology, but it's just whatever they're into around there.
And I tend to lump the Young Earth stuff into the same category. There was a surge of scientism, in the American past, and that is a locally-derived reaction to it, that doesn't translate well to someone sitting in Siberia, Buenos Aires, or Paris, because we are raised on people demanding we take a stance on that. We are very focused on the New Testament and the Traditions.
Showing page 1 of
1 pages
