Am I to understand that you ARE a bible literalist?
Pretty much. I thought that was pretty clear.
That doesn't mean I abandon the rules of context, and it doesn't mean I ignore the various literary devices used throughout the bible.
The parts of the bible which I believe are meant to be taken literally, I believe.
I realized last night why this hasn't been clear to me - "literalist" and "pretty much" are somewhat contradictory. Literalist doesn't strike me as a word with much flexibility, so your "pretty much" position is actually rather ambiguous.
I realize that you are probably offended when you see references to the magic decoder ring that we joke about needing to correctly interpret the Bible, but you yourself are guilty of saying the exact kind of things (see the bold
remark above) that raise the question of your process of interpretation
. And you never answer it.
I'm not even saying that you do it "because you know it's bullshit" - I do believe that you actually believe this stuff. But your refusal to address this particular question intrigues me.