So if something isn't taken literally, all the time, then it's "inaccurate"? I think we've had this discussion before, but to re-iterate, (in case not), there are plenty of times when clearly Scripture shouldn't be taken as "literally true". No one can possibly say otherwise.
So, who decides when it's literally true and when it's not? You? All the YEC'ers/ID'ers? What makes their hermeneutic any better than mine?
Goodness. So many are so eager to say "you're not a real Christian if you believe in evolution" and the ultimate rationale is that their hermeneutical style is better than mine, iow, their opinion is better than mine, for no other reason than "it just is".
I've never said people who believe in a literal Creation aren't "real Christians". What ever happened to the notion of Christian charity? Or have we finally decided that there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture? If so, what Church is that?
Oh. OK. Then its just my ex. "What ever happened to the notion of Christian charity?"
Young-Earth Creationist posts are charitably allowed on FR, despite their obvious, and embarassing, disconnection from reality.
"Or have we finally decided that there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture?"
Ummm...no. I think you got lost somewhere on your way to the religion threads. This thread is about SCIENCE, which is a completely different discipline.
Mea Culpa.
Not really. We say that BELIEVEING in Evolution will make it HARD to be a Christian.
Darwin sure thought so!
No matter WHICH side of the C vs E thing you fall on, it'll be your faith in Christ that is the determing item, heaven wise.