William T. Goodall wrote:
Some Anglican clergy in England (or so I have heard) have the position thatTrue, it's probably not the interpretation of all Christians who are not fundamentalists, but it's at least pretty close to the interpretation of this particular (more or less) Christian who is definitely not a fundamentalist.
the Bible is parable and metaphor, that some of the historical events *may*
have taken place (although that doesn't really matter), but that none of the
miracles actually happened, that there was no actual resurrection, that
Jesus (if he was a historical figure) was not literally the son of God
(since God doesn't literally exist) and so on.
Under this interpretation the Bible could be interpreted as not making any
counterfactual claims and therefore possibly not lying.
But I don't think that is the interpretation of all Christians who are not
fundamentalists.
The original thing that started this whole discussion was a "proof" that religion is evil because of lies. If, in my case, my religion is not a lie, then in my case, at least, religion is not evil based on that proof.
Now, if you'd care to revise the proof...
:-)
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
