I'm curious as to why this person's assertion about what the Christian bible is should weigh more heavily than someone else's - say a literalist's? Do they offer some kind of proof of this assertion?

I'm not saying it's untrue - after all, this is a constant tension in traditional Judaism as well (are the Hebrew scriptures to be understood literally, or are they metaphoric? This is particularly a strong tension for traditional Jews -as why follow the law, if the books are simply metaphors and the laws aren't from God?

OTOH, with Christians where the paradigm is belief, I have trouble seeing in either case how it would work out. If you're a literalist how can you eat pork or a cheeseburger, and simultaneously insist that homosexuality or paganism, or worshipping other gods, or multiple sex parters are a problem (perhaps these aren't good examples to use given those who read this journal - how about, say killing, perhaps in a war, or perhaps not); for the hmm, inspirationist, how do you know what you're believing in, if the Christian scriptures are merely metaphoric. How could there be salvation through belief in Jesus, if you don't know if anything in the stories actually happened as it says? Wouldn't that include stories about Jesus? Is resurrection just a parable? Is the inspirationsist willingto go that far? If not, how can a distinction be made?)

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31