Scriptures in which most Baptists are not 'literalists'

If 'name gives authority', then baptizing in the name of Jesus carries the authority of Jesus, who is one with the Father; therefore such authority is not exclusive of the Father and inclusive of Jesus only..

But this gets to be a silly argument if you take one position or the other, as if Jesus v. Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are in opposition when they are inseparable. What we are baptized IN is water. The water does not transubstantiate into one or more persons of God [I think I have heard of such a claim one time; where some guy said when you are lowered into the water you must be shouting "JESUS!" in order to be baptized IN His name .]

You can also look at this from the perspective of doing ALL that we do "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians 3:17).

 

I agree mostly. Timothy evidently was especially vulnerable to stomach disorders from drinking the water. But that certainly can be true for people anywhere. I have done other polls in which some say that even if alcoholic drink is used as a medicine prescribed by a physician, it still must be totally avoided. This passage is not true for anyone anywhere, but it's not false everyone everywhere either.

2 Figurative only. After all regular use of (for example) tobacco can make one very ill indeed.

Sure, it can make one ill, but there is nothing to indicate illness was the meaning of "defile" in this and surrounding passages; rather it was about 'clean' and 'unclean' animals, and in the mind of the Pharisees (and most other Jews) you were defiled if you eat the forbidden ones regardless of sickness or health. The point was that you are not defiled by eating pork, shellfish, snake, et al, but by what comes forth from your inner motives. Personally, I don't think tobacco "defiles" a person, based on any biblical definition, but that of course is not saying its use is wise.

3 Hate in the context of this passage means put in second place, allegiance to Jezus goes before ties to family. It's just that the most obvious definition of hate in this passage isn't the right one.

I am not a Greek scholar, but looking at the word "miseo," it is used as relational or comparative, as in "love one [master] and hate the other," or to make one first choice and the other second or further down. All in all, I think the 'traditional' understanding of this word in Luke 14:26 is correct.

4 This passage seems to have no truth, the alternative being an almost complete lack when it comes to the gift of prophecy among the members of most churches.

This one simply goes back to the common question, "Are spiritual gifts for today?" Some say Yes, some say No, some say SOME of them. The only thing for sure about prophecy is the biblical test of 100% accuracy. If someone claims to have this gift and it can be shown they are less than 100% accurate in what they say within its scope, then Bah-- humbug!

5 Literal application of this commandment is linked to peculiar cultural excentricities of the Middle East, or so I tell myself.

It’s not exclusive of the Middle East that people wear the type of “shoes” in dry soil that feet need washing when the pedestrian journey is over; but the point is that it was a lowly servant’s job to wash the feet of travelers or guests, and we should have the attitude of such a servant toward each other, IMO regardless of what particular act of serving may be needed.

6 Go sacred dance!!!!!!!!!!!!, now where is my timbrel?

I am mostly with you here, although I am not a dancer (of any kind) myself. But the only instrument I play with any quality at all is the harmonica. Everyone doesn't have to dance, or play the timbrel, or the piano... but one reason for corporate worship is to share our particular talents in the acts of praise. Dancing, of course, need not be part of our worship, but to repudiate the act itself as having no NT instruction is a position that needs to consider that there is also no NT instruction on using instruments.

7 figurative only, if not I simply don't have the balls to do it and that is totally acceptable in a women (I hope).

Is your language figurative ? But a literal reading of this passage somewhat contradicts Jesus' own teaching that evil desire is within us. So if we have a problem with lust, and we actually do pluck out our eyes, what then? Maybe we start collecting nude statues to feel what we can no longer see. The problem is really not solved. But a figurative reading here would say that we should remove ourselves from temptation to the extent possible. So don't go to the beach if that is what stirs your fire, don't join certain types of clubs,...

8 I'd say a figurative reading is warranted on this one, if not go Catholics!

We should hope so. Baptists branched off from groups which had already branched off from Catholocism, and became liberals in this issue in the same sense that some Baptist groups 'go liberal' today and ordain women or remarry a 3-time divorcee. The only way to show it must not be literal is logic-- which in the end means little in doctrinal discussions.

9 Written before anybody worried about the whole concept of the Trinity.

I don't think Matthew 28:19 was said by Jesus and written by Matt because of 'worry about the whole concept of the Trinity.' But I have previously in this thread given more detailed reasons why I think that's an argument over nothing.

10 At the time it was written strong drink was what we would consider normal wine, while what was described as wine was always wine diluted with water.

I think that misses the point. This is said in Proverbs as a continued explanation why a king should not drink wine-- he should be happy with all that he has without it; while a poor man, depressed man, or a man with a 'bitter' life by comparison may have justification for strong drink to alleviate such bitterness or depression, even if it is only artificially for a short time.