on 27/11/02 7:33 pm, Reggie Bautista at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > William T. Goodall wrote: >> Some Anglican clergy in England (or so I have heard) have the position that >> 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. > > True, 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 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...
But you don't actually have a religion, just 'spiritual beliefs'. Under the definition of religion DanM was trying to foist on us (as far as I understand him) you aren't religious at all. Under the more generally accepted definition of religion that I cobbled together from respectable sources and posted earlier, you aren't 'in a religion' either - you have a kind of California spiritual buffet belief system. One of the keynotes of a religion is that you don't get to pick and choose - it is all or none. This is of course what led to the reformation... -- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
