Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand
From: jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (Diaz)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism
Message-ID: <675@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 13:11:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.675
Posted: Wed Jun 19 13:11:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 09:43:47 EDT
References: <15117@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18

>    It is possible to accept that "the vine" is a metaphor, and tohave
> any of a large range of opinions about the literal truth of other statements
> in the Bible -- such as, to take a hoary example, Jonah and the whale.
>    Personally I do not find it either necessary or desirable to take
> every such statement as historical truth.  There is a line in one of the
> traditional catechisms -- a Presbyterian one, I think -- which describes
> the Bible as "the only infallible rule of faith and practice", and I
> find that a more helpful approach than trying to take it as an infallible
> history or science book.

My question here would be, if the author of the Bible <God> is not reliable
in the fields of history or science, why should I think that he is
reliable in the fields of 'faith and practice'?  Either he knows everything
and is infallible, and we should listen to him, or he is not infallible,
and I may as well live my life without listening to anyone else.

				Jean Marie Diaz
			"Never play leapfrog with a unicorn."