Why do the majority of Christians take the symbolic fictional parts of The Bible literally?

He probably means your OP sounds like a description of protestants, who aren't the majority even in the US. Catholics tend to think the bible doesn't even need reading because it's mostly made up stories. Catholics tend to be the majority in a lot of the colonies of Western powers and beyond.
Most people who say
>why do Christians
mean
>why do Protestants in Murrica
and even in Murrica, Catholics outnumber Protestants.

Catholics tend not to proselytize, while Protestants do, so you're more likely to hear the views of a fractional minor protestant church than hear a more mainline Christian (Catholic) view.

Orthodox christians take it literally too, I think.

>symbolic

What was symbolic? Genesis? Are you fucking kidding me? You believe in evolution? No. No, no, and no. Genesis was not symbolic. We were created and are created every time we are born.

What else?
The flood? Considering we actually have physical evidence of a flood and multiple different sources document said flood? No, no no.

What else...

The seven plagues? How could that be fake when there is evidence of different ethnicities within Egypt? When there is evidence of a great migration from Egypt of a population?

Jesus was a historically confirmed person!

You are simply asking to get schooled by people who actually have a knowledge of history.

This

There are more than twice as many Protestants than Catholics in the US you mong

>protestants, who aren't the majority even in the US
>what.jpg

We can simply look to Saint Clement of Alexandria (150-211)
In his proto-ecclesiastic paideia he divided his students into different stages, as a student advanced from primary catechetical level they advanced in reading from literal to moral to spiritual.

Those who aren't quite capable of grasping deeper study or those who don't have the time to study are designated to have to take the scriptures at face value as literal in order to get anything out of them.

Let me also say that protestants aren't christian anymore, it is some pseudo-christian cult nonsense. It really has no content. That being said Vat2 and Communized Orthodoxy have been gutted and a new organization will soon rise to represent Christ's Church in the end times.

>Let me also say that protestants aren't christian anymore, it is some pseudo-christian cult nonsense. It really has no content. That being said Vat2 and Communized Orthodoxy have been gutted and a new organization will soon rise to represent Christ's Church in the end times.
Sede?

Yes sede, technically/legally
Although my faith in the institution is non-existant. Never been a fan of community, and being that Catholics get excommunicated no point grasping on to the institution like most sedes do.

Is this bait? Most non-mongoloids believe in evolution, there may have been some deluge type of deal that gave rise to all the different mythological flood stories but Noah didn't put two of every animal on a fucking boat, and evidence of different ethnicities doesn't have anything to do with seven plagues.
Biblical literalism is horseshit, just stop.

Is THIS BAIT? I READ COMPLEX SHIT ALL DAY JUST TO GET SHIT ON BY SOME 22 YEAR OLD FAGGOT PROBAABLY GIGGLING TO HIMSELF LIKE A BABY WHILE READING THIS FUCKING POST RIGHT NOW.

FUCK YOU BABY. COOCHIE COO COOCHIE COO LAUGH SOME MORE AT YOUR STUPID FRESHMAN COLLEGE TIER UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE

That's if you add up all the fractional churches which believe opposing things.

If you take the very broad denomination of Baptists (including everything from the southern Baptist and mainline churches) you don't get as many Baptists as Catholics, and the same thing with the Methodists and other large denominations within Protestantism.

The only way to rig the stats that there's a larger church in Protestantism, which believes in a coherent shared point, in the US is to group all evangelicals as one religion (meaning you combine Baptists, Adventists, Methodists, and everything else into one "religion").

Since we're not adding the Orthodox Catholics, the Syriac Catholics or other forms of Catholicism to the Roman denomination when counting that, I'm going by denomination.

>(meaning you combine Baptists, Adventists, Methodists, and everything else into one "religion").
Considering the invisible church vs visible doctrine is one of the defining cruxes of protestantism, that seems like a very reasonable thing to do.

Take your pills

Only in America.

That's until the Baptist says the Methodist has the devil in him for drinking, and the Adventist says they both have the devil in them for eating meat.

because those morons would actually have to think critically to analyze the bible and it's symbols

Not even the majority of American Protestants are Biblical literalists, just certain evangelical and fundamentalist denominations.

Guilt by Association.

>and the Adventist says they both have the devil in them for eating meat.
Kind of unrelated but doesn't Romas 14 quite explicitly state it's fine to eat meat?

Baptists claim that they aren't Protestants, so grouping them with Protestants is not reasonable if you're basing your groupings on doctrines.

Adventists rely on Leviticus and keeping kosher as a minimum, but most are vegetarian and into health because of their founding. I'm not sure what their doctrine for vegetarianism is, but they also observe the Sabbath in ways that Jesus overruled in the gospels, so I doubt the letters to the Romans would have swayed them on meat.
This too.

>Romans 14:1-2
>Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
I can see why you catholics get mad at protestants sometimes

I'd argue this is due to the enlightenment. When greek values of reason and logic were introduced to the Christian worldview the two structures of how to see the world had to be merged, but, the original stories were not created in cultures that possessed these values. The cultures did not make a distinction between "this is red" and "you should not murder" both were just "true" and there was no difference between the kind of truth. Since enlightenment values were of the 'is' kind, the entirety of the cannon had to be interpreted as 'is.' The result is horrific inconsistencies and absurd claims which inevitably led to the fall of the religion over the last couple hundred years.

Don't know what others think of my hypothesis.

Adventists aren't Catholics.

Fundamentalists are a minority

You mean protestants. Mainly filthy amerilard protestants who preach prosperity theology out of their stadium size McChurches.

my favorite episode: atheists tell christians what "real" christianity is

epic, truly epic

stop pretending to be Catholic

Christianity could never have changed over time because GAWD said that isn't possible. Checkmate!

It's like these non Christian's don't even believe in god or something.

>those digits
Proof that satan exists and therefore god as well.

All of the Church Fathers believe in an historical understanding of scripture. Paul and Christ both talk about Adam as if he were an actual person. >symbolic
At the same time, they find deep symbolism in the events. It's not a choice between believing that scripture gives a true record of history or believing that scripture is symbolic.
Spend less time worrying about Protestants and more time reading the Fathers.
>Orthodox christians take it literally too
They do, as do traditional Roman Catholics.

Remember children, read the Bible like you read the Comedy: fifteen correct simultaneous interpretations for every verse.
Because protestantism.
I wouldn't say it was ever a tradition of wisdom, but americans have thoroughly embraced the second part.

>adopting an esoteric system for biblical exegesis

Not really a new hypothesis, but pretty spot on. The Enlightenment was a mistake as far as I'm concerned