Spot on

[loinburger]

[A warlord conducts a genocide]
God: Meh, it'll work itself out

[A medieval copyist makes a transcription error]
God: I'm on it!!! [zaps book with his Anti-Transcription-Error ray]

The Problem of Evil becomes a lot sillier when you introduce biblical inerrancy

[Elok]

I always assumed a rich man getting into heaven was as easy as capturing a camel, killing it, pureeing it, and pouring it through the eye of a needle.

Not quite. You have to buy a lot of them, and THEN liquefy the whole batch. That way you're not rich in money or camels. Just in camel puree, which the poor will eat provided they have no other options.

[Lorizael]

Agreed. I didn't call anyone an idiot, that was all Boris.

As for the OP, I think it makes a good point. A lot of the Bible is not literal, like the parables of Jesus. But a lot is, and what isn't has a point of being there. The liberals are on a dangerous road as I see it, see last image. They risk being deemed as ashamed of Jesus, and that is serious business for a Christian.

This sounds very reasonable, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

"Some parts of the Bible are metaphorical in nature, and some people are in disagreement as to which parts are metaphorical. I better write a seemingly witty, troll-ish (but actually long and boring) webcomic that ridicules those people who disagree with me about which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken metaphorically."

[DaShi]

This sounds very reasonable, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

"Some parts of the Bible are metaphorical in nature, and some people are in disagreement as to which parts are metaphorical. I better write a seemingly witty, troll-ish (but actually long and boring) webcomic that ridicules those people who disagree with me about which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken metaphorically."

TBF, I would have done the same thing.

[-Jrabbit]

Not really. Divine inspiration, it's a thing we Christians believe in. All of Scripture is God breathed and useful. As a Christian, you can interpret differently, but you can't cut things out.

I've still never heard anything remotely convincing regarding identification of, and protection against, the reverse case: the word of man masquerading as what you call "God-breathed Scripture." The Bible's changes across centuries and across translations suggests this to be a significant problem, and the word "faith" does nothing to explain it away.

n.b. While it must be killing Ben to see a biblical(-ish) discussion he can't participate in, I have to say that I find this thread's civility and relative calm in his absence to be downright refreshing.

[ricketyclik]

Wait! Jonah is from the bible? I always thought he was fictional

[Boris Godunov]

Not really. Divine inspiration, it's a thing we Christians believe in. All of Scripture is God breathed and useful. As a Christian, you can interpret differently, but you can't cut things out.

Er, people cut things from the biblical canon on a fairly regular basis for quite some time. I'm guessing you don't think the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is valid scripture.

[Boris Godunov]

*enter idiot with no grasp on reality*
Jonah was an image, a forebear on Jesus. He died, and rose after having been in the stomach of the fish for three days. I believe in a God that has the ability to create the universe by speaking. Why not this?

Stating you believe in other silly things doesn't make your believing in a particular silly thing any better, you know. I'm sure you don't believe in the tortoise and the hare as being literally true, but why not? It's just as much a fable as Jonah.

[-Jrabbit]

Wait! Jonah is from the bible? I always thought he was fictional

Well played, sir.

[Imran Siddiqui]

TBF, I would have done the same thing.

Yes. But you are a dick .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Er, people cut things from the biblical canon on a fairly regular basis for quite some time. I'm guessing you don't think the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is valid scripture.

Infancy Gospels of any sort were never in biblical canon.

Biblical Canon pretty much shook out as we have it today. I mean, yes, it was somewhat an organic sort of picking and choosing of what is useful over something like 200 years, but by the time of Origen of Alexandria (early 200s) it was basically worked out.

Anyways, divinely inspired doesn't mean divinely written. Otherwise it would have said so. People can be inspired by the Holy Spirit to this day, but aren't magically rendered divine or perfect during that sermon or song or work of art or whathaveyou. So yes, all Scripture may be divinely inspired (and I believe it to be), but that doesn't mean the writers were without blemish or biases. Of course they were. And they were writing for particular people in particular times, using language those people would have understood (hence why a lot of deeper study of the Bible goes into what certain phrases would have meant to folks in the era in which it was written, because the plain text may mean nothing to us while it may have been a revelation, no pun intended, for the folks hearing the specific phrases). In addition, the great theologian Karl Barth (neo-Orthodox, not liberal) referred to the Bible as a record of revelation, which I think is a good way to put it. Records have, naturally, embellishments or biases in the telling. It happens. It's the story of God and His people, and getting caught up fighting over how to look at a tree while ignore what the entire forest is telling you seems very... well, unGodlike.

Basically, does it matter in any way whether Jonah's tale actually happened or if it was parable or if it was mythologized history to demonstrate the great things God was doing? So why get caught fighting about it when it isn't essential for the faith?

It comes across as some of the liberal theologians who you mock are trying to look more at the forest than you who are stuck looking at a carving in a tree that says "Jesus loves..." with a name that's been scratched out, wondering who that name is.

[dannubis]

The liberals are on a dangerous road as I see it, see last image. They risk being deemed as ashamed of Jesus, and that is serious business for a Christian.

Yes, they apply critical thought to dogmatic belief sets which is dangerous to any religion.

And personally I am more ashamed of a lot of dogmatic christians than I am of Jesus...

[Berzerker]

jonah was in a submarine

[self biased]

[dannubis]

Actually spot on :

"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death — however mutable man may be able to make them — our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."

Stanley Kubrick