Reply #39: Why are there only either/or binding/not-binding fiction/non-fiction

[papau]

way of viewing religion/Bible?

At a personal level I like yes/no. Which is why real science drives me batty at times. The world of physics is no longer action/re-action. And as Scientific American noted this month, the world of math has gone the way of physics where some tings just are the way they are and the truth of that state can not be derived from a great theorem - it can only be stated.

I am curious as to "using it as a crowbar" - what action does this refer to?

As to Work of fiction - no it is not fiction, IMHO - but I believe you see a bright line between fiction and "truth" and have rules for how your "truth" is labeled "truth". I do not believe we have the same rules. as I do not see any need to explain contradictions, yet you seem to hang your hat on such temporal inconsistency as the only and correct way to prove truth, and you then use the inconsistency to reject whatever.

I certainly agree that there are contradictions - as I noted Judas's end is an obvious one.

So I said the Bible is not a science/history text - and I think we agree on that.

Where we disagree is my seeing "truth " - truth that is "binding" - in the Bible, when and where I suspect you do not.

I have never been a "fundi" and therefore can not discuss how they see the Bible - as in the binding question of yours. I know the Fundi and I both see the Bible as binding as to message - but how they get the message they see as binding is not well known to me. Everyman is his own Priest has a few thousand years behind it - and is very true - at least in my world.