(October 9, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: So you're admitting that the bible isn't literal historical fact?
It's not a history book no, it has some history in it sure. You use it to understand your own relationship with God. And you do have one.
Quote:Are you sure you want to go down that path? Because once you start claiming that certain passages are metaphorical, how do you determine that all of it isn't metaphorical? Who gets to judge which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal?
It doesn't matter what literally happened and when and to who, the only major supernatural event/miracle you're required to believe in is the resurrection. I would suggest the faith was started by someone after some kind of profound experience. If you're not assuming physical naturalism, which is a belief in it's own right as far as I'm concerned, you won't have much of an issue with that.
Quote:Ah, I see. The good parts are literal, while the embarrassing inconvenient parts are metaphorical.
Many of the good parts aren't literal at all, I'm a big fan of the Genesis creation myth for instance.
Come all ye faithful joyful and triumphant.
