Do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Mechaman]

I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus almost as much as I believe there is some invisible dude in the sky watching me crap: very very little.

[President Mitt]

I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus almost as much as I believe there is some invisible dude in the sky watching me crap: very very little.

This is the correct answer.

[RI]

After collecting my thoughts a bit on this, I have a few questions. Take the Catholic Church for example, and forgive me if I am just being ignorant. They openly believe in the theory of evolution, and in doing so believe that the Book of Genesis is inherently metaphorical in its depiction of the creation of the Earth, and, by extention, that Noah's Flood is aliteral as well. I have also personally attended masses where the priest declared that many of Jesus's miracles, such as walking on water, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, and healing the blind were metaphorical events that did not happen on a physical level, but a metaphorical and spiritual level.

As such, it is clear that the Catholic Church acknowledges that not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but rather it contains "stories with purposes" meant to tell something to the reader about their lives and not about actual events. Being this the case, on what basis does the Church discriminate between metaphorical stories and historical stories? How can they tell the difference between them without doing so arbitrarily? How can they assert that the Resurrection was literal but not Genesis? or the Flood? or any other "story with a purpose"?

The same question applies to any non-fundamentalist Christian church.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

After collecting my thoughts a bit on this, I have a few questions. Take the Catholic Church for example, and forgive me if I am just being ignorant. They openly believe in the theory of evolution, and in doing so believe that the Book of Genesis is inherently metaphorical in its depiction of the creation of the Earth, and, by extention, that Noah's Flood is aliteral as well. I have also personally attended masses where the priest declared that many of Jesus's miracles, such as walking on water, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, and healing the blind were metaphorical events that did not happen on a physical level, but a metaphorical and spiritual level.

As such, it is clear that the Catholic Church acknowledges that not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but rather it contains "stories with purposes" meant to tell something to the reader about their lives and not about actual events. Being this the case, on what basis does the Church discriminate between metaphorical stories and historical stories? How can they tell the difference between them without doing so arbitrarily? How can they assert that the Resurrection was literal but not Genesis? or the Flood? or any other "story with a purpose"?

The same question applies to any non-fundamentalist Christian church.

why do you assume logical inconsistencies have a logical basis?