Originally Posted by Fellowship
So you think that all of the Bible and what is within the covers of the Bible has to either be all literal or all parable?
Of course not, and there's no way you could logically deduct that from what I wrote.
What I'm saying, is that there are parts of the Bible that are literal and parts that are parable, allegory, metaphorical, etc.
What I'm saying is that you can't claim that you know exactly which passages are historical fact and which are not. If you claim that you can, I'm calling you out on that. How do you know?
Much prayer, much reading of the Bible and much seeking.
Seek first the Kingdom. If you do you will be amazed at what is revealed.
If these methods cannot produce consistent results between different observers, then they cannot be accepted as a revelation of truth. The writer of the article interpreted the bible differently than the Pope, who interpreted the Bible differently than Franklin Graham, who interpreted the Bible differently than Dale of Texas, who interpreted the Bible differently than your fellow parishioners. Fellowship -- are you the only one
who really knows the truth? Could there be something you've found in your prayers that might not be truth?
And I am offended that you called me a bigot in that tone. I did not present that article as any comment on your views toward homosexuality. Homosexuality was only the context of the article. The meat of the article was that Faith and Faith alone cannot teach you all that needs to be taught.