It really reads as if it’s intended to be as clear and unpoetic as possible.
I’m not really interested in liberal Christians. The churches I’ve gone to and my relatives, etc, are conservative. I like my discussions with them about their beliefs rather than trying to convince liberals that their beliefs don’t fit the Bible very well. My discussions with conservatives are a lot richer.
DrFidelius:
BTW those genealogies are repeated in Luke 3… it suggests that those people were real ancestors of Jesus rather than just characters in a poem.
Just like in Tolkien’s books.
The Bible isn’t a history text. Parts disagree with other parts. There are things that are make no sense or are impossible. Sections are clearly metaphors, allegory, poetry, vague prophecy, political commentary, or cribbed from older stories.
If you want to believe that one section is literally true, fine. Understand that you cannot use logic to support that belief and you won’t get any disagreement from the peanut gallery.
Does ANYONE think that his books involve real history?
If the genealogies in Genesis and Luke 3 aren’t real history then does that mean all of those people were made up? If that part of Luke isn’t literally true then maybe the virgin birth and resurrection aren’t literal either?
So that kind of thing are the genealogies in Genesis and Luke 3? Are they “clearly metaphors”? Please justify your answer.
Anything but “wrong” or “lies” though, correct?
edited to add: This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the Bible compared to works of Tolkien.
Tolkien was telling a fictional tale-He made it all up.
And so?
The current Emporer of Japan has a well-documented geneology which goes all the way back to the Sun. Does this mean that he is literally descended from the Sun, or is this a metaphor?
Remember, for the Shinto people of Japan, their beliefs and traditions are fully as serious as the Bibliomancy practiced by Fundamentalists Christians.
And do you think that the religious mythology of Sumer or Babylon is “real history”?
Christianity and its claims are just as transparently false to non-Christians, as the falsehood of other religions is obvious to Christians. All religion is obvious nonsense to anyone but those who believe in that particular religion.
Well, as Jamie Hyneman is won’t to say: “There’s yer problem!”.
The answer to your question, in that case, is: Satan did it.
I should have asked:
"Literalist Christians - Why are scientists more likely not to be literalist. I’m not interested in liberal Christians.
Critical thinking capacity tends to be markedly higher in scientists; ergo, more non-believers. The exceptions are those who can compartmentalize beliefs, not applying their skills to religion, as well as those who can function well in their sphere of work while being blithering idiots elsewhere (religion, politics, other scientific fields).
Google “Nobel disease” to learn about some of these exceptions.
Well, you should be interested in other viewpoints. Only listening to people you already agree with is as useless as talking only with yourself.
This is why we engage you in “conversations.” We are trying to understand how you function.
There’s unlikely to be many literalist Christians here.
What I mean is that the genealogies of Genesis and Luke 3 seem to meant to be taken as history rather than being a poem. It doesn’t mean that it actually involves real history…
As far as the Emperor of Japan goes, there isn’t a large amount of people who believe in that genealogy. On the other hand many Christians (the ones I’m interested in) take the Bible genealogies seriously.
Above all reasons, I think it is because scientists tend to be smart, and Christians not so much.
From a historical perspective, what are the chances that so many generations would be accurately recorded in that part of the world at that time?
No apostrophe necessary 
80 to 90 percent of the population of Japan is Shinto. Even if only 10% of them are “Fundamentalist” Shintoites, that is many more persons than belong to any of the Conservative Christian sects in the world.
That is like this thread’s title
“Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers?”
I should have called it:
“Literalist Christians: Why are people on these forums more likely to be non-believers?”
Could you explain why you think that it’s unlikely that there would be many literalist Christians on these forums… what evidence do you have that that is the case? Do you have statistics, etc?
There are hundred(?) of viewpoints… I think it is a waste of my time to investigate them all.
I’m listening to people who are Christians and I am an agnostic - i.e. we don’t “already agree”.