[Zionist Conspirator]

Somebody actually told you that you weren't a Catholic because you believed in a literal interpretation of Scripture?

I find that very hard to believe, but, if it did happen, it shouldn't have. You are free to believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture if you wish. It is not an article of Faith, one way or the other.

Then why is it that (with the exceptions of wideawake, Black Elk, and a few others) every time this comes up the Catholic FReepers come down on literalism like it's the only thing that'll send a person to an otherwise unoccupied Hell? Face it sinkspur, the Catholic Church is opposed to a literal interpretation of the "old testament" for the same reason it's opposed to the observation of Jewish holidays or laying tefillin--it regards it as "heretical Judaizing."

You should get some help. You are cheesed off for no good reason, and it has caused you to speak and think irrationally.

In other words, I have no reason to be jealous of the different way the poor and simple of other ethnicities are accepted by the Catholic Church. Why, because everyone is supposed to know that rednecks are undesirables?

Wait a minute! Is this Al Sharpton???

You were never required, as a matter of faith, to give up your belief in a literal interpretation of Scripture.

Then why are you so against it? Why do you treat it like an inherently anti-Catholic poison?

Where Israel fits into this whole deal is beyond my understanding.

Oh, excuse me, Mr. Sinkspur, I thought you were the big bad "pro-Jewish" liberal. Turns out you're no different from a sedevacantist or a Feeneyite.

Be glad you don't read Hebrew. The Biblical quote in my tagline would offend you.

[SoothingDave]

I'm sorry you ran into some liberal priests who tried to "enlighten" you on your "error" in taking the Bible literally. But that's no reason to inveigh against an entire religion and to develop wild conspiracy theories. (And invisioning your own plight as that of the generic American "redneck" is just a tad on the megalomaniacal side.)

SD

[zencat]

Follow Christ. The rest is details, and at worst obfuscation.

"Every day we weep for the loss of money, property, ourselves, and loved ones. Yet, if for one moment we would weep, in earnest, for the truth of Christ, certainly we would attain it."

[sinkspur]

Then why are you so against it? Why do you treat it like an inherently anti-Catholic poison?

I don't consider biblical literalism to be anti-Catholic; I consider it to be anti-intellectual. Jonah in the belly of a big fish for three days is one example of how one must resort to "it was a miracle" to explain something that can easily be explained by realizing the story is just that: a story.

Those who maintain biblical literalism seem unable to allow even the smallest tittle in Scripture to be explained any other way, lest their entire house of cards collapse. Their defense of the literalness of Balaam's ass obscures the truth behind Balaam's ass.

That's why I rarely get into a discussion about biblical literalism because I and the biblical literalist start from irreconcilable positions.

I'm sorry I got into this one because it seems as if you see your worth as a human being tied up in your belief in biblical literalism.

I really mean no offense, but I just don't get it.

Biblical literalism accepts only one explanation for a particular occurrence in Scripture, whereas biblical historicism is always open to a better explanation of the event, since a better explanation can only enhance the biblical truth behind the occurrence.

As a Catholic, you are free to believe in biblical literalism. However, you should not be surprised if other Catholics do not accept that particular approach to Scripture.

You should not be sent into fits of rage because someone disagrees with you about biblical literalism.