I realize that most "religious" discussion I have with others, especially the ones in which we are disagreeing on some issue, usually come down to one basic, maybe even foundational, issue, and that is how each of us view and understand the Bible.
For instance, in my awesome apologetics class (sarcasm) we are discussing the deity of Jesus and how some 'idiots' (the reading material might as well say that, I AM NOT SAYING THAT) do not think that Jesus is the Son of God... how can the son and the father be the same age (kind of a strange hang up maybe, but valid logic if you ask me, but whatever).
This brought up a discussion within the class about Jesus being God's son. I made the point that the "Son of God" was a title given to Jesus which held significant political weight in the 1st century. A tittle usually given to Caesar.
This didn't seem to sit well with other class mates, for I began to receive many references where Jesus is called the Son of God or God's son (all from the book of John of course)so this was suppose to be proof that Jesus had to literally be God's son.
Because for them, the bible says it, so it is literal as if God and Jesus would go out in the backyard and have a Father and Son game of catch when Jesus was merely a young "Word" of God and before the foundations of the earth.
Something else I wrote that didn't earn me any fans in class was that Jesus has not always been around, he was created, conceived, and born. I didn't think much of the statement, but apparently I shouldn't have said that.
It seems the bible, for many, serves as some sort of history book (or science book which is even worse) which purpose is to portray exactly what happened instead of being full of stories, agendas, and metaphors to convey truth.
What do you think? And if in fact we do view the bible differently, how do we get past our different views? Is it possible to still find common ground?