Comments

The messages of the Bible are admirable to society and a lot of progressive Christians see the Bible not as a literal scripture but interpret it as a guide to morals. I don’t believe in this wholly as a Catholic but I can appreciate parts of it, of course. I don’t want to be someone who judges people for what they do regardless of my beliefs, so I hope I don’t come across as that.

I just wanted to say that the writers of the Bible however, did put emphasis on wanting us to take the scripture both metaphorically and literally, that is what the Bible is meant for. Those are the two ways to interpret the Bible, and knowing the distinction is important for theologians/historians. I believe this notion has been established in councils? Let’s use your example in this sense: man should not have sex before marriage. He endorses the idea of love over lust, but the literal implication is established there as well.

The Bible is typically directed towards Christian followers who are taught not only to believe in the deeds and morals of the stories inside of it but to be faithful of the existence of God and all of the events that had happened, and I’m sure Paul puts emphasis on this somewhere after the Pentecost.

Perhaps you view the Bible from a secular sense though, which is fine, I’m not going to force you into thinking otherwise. I have suspicions about the origins about the Bible myself, wondering is the translations of the Hebrew manuscript were alterations in secret. 

Besides all of that I’ve wanted to go to other denominational churches too out of curiousity. Could you maybe tell me what their church rituals/teachings were?