(October 28, 2019 at 2:53 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 28, 2019 at 2:29 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: First, he's not a priest but bishop of Oxford.

Second, Paul did interpret Genesis literally, for instance he was known of saying stuff like that he doesn't permit women to teach or to have authority over a man because Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory

Paul is not seeing the Abraham story as an allegory but he is creating an allegory from the story that Abraham had two sons. You just need to continue to read that paragraph.

For instance, this is how christian theologians see it:

Quote:Galatians 4:24, NIV: "These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar."

Paul builds an allegory from Scripture, illustrating the difference between being born into slavery and being born into the promise by faith in Christ.

https://www.bibleref.com/Galatians/4/Gal...-4-24.html

(November 1, 2019 at 3:31 pm)mordant Wrote:  ... Or adhere to a "dual interpretation". It is clear that Abraham is presented as a historic person and his story is supposed to be literally true. Paul here is doing a "dual interpretation", a literal one with a symbolic one superimposed on it.

Yes, this is a good point. 

It's been common for a long time to do four-level readings, with the literal meaning being one of those. 

And as I've pointed out before, early commentators used the word "literal" to mean "what the original author had in mind," so that paradoxically, if the original author intended a metaphor, then the literal reading is metaphorical. Some had different meanings "superimposed" later, and some had it from the get go.

As everybody knows, the Bible is an anthology of a variety or writing produced by different people, in different styles, for different reasons. There is no reason to think that all of it was intended to be literal (in our modern sense) when it was written. Tropes and symbolism were part of it from the beginning.

You say "everybody"...but I think you might want to go explain to christians that their god started out as a bundle of symbolic tropes.

Bel grossly overestimates the intelligence level of the average Christian.

Not really. Bel -is- an average cultural christian. Very much in awe of the fairy tales and certain that atheists have it wrong, somehow.

Cultural christian =/= christian. But i hear what youre saying. Hes strangely sympathetic to it all - but I doubt that most christians take this "cultured" and "nuanced" view of religion that he supposedly takes. In fact, the numbers show that they dont... At least not in the US. Here, an alarming number of people take the whole deal quite literally. Its bizarre.

It seems to me that Belacqua has rather been influenced by Joseph Campbell when it comes to religion/ christianity



And there are kinds of Christians who consider themselves to be Campbellian Christians, like Russell Brand is one.

(November 2, 2019 at 3:29 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: It seems to me that Belacqua has rather been influenced by Joseph Campbell when it comes to religion/ christianity



And there are kinds of Christians who consider themselves to be Campbellian Christians, like Russell Brand is one.

Brand is a pompous douche - especially on the subject of religion. Hes convinced that "theres something" yet considers it arrogant to be an atheist. Strange, right?

(November 2, 2019 at 2:03 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(November 2, 2019 at 3:29 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: It seems to me that Belacqua has rather been influenced by Joseph Campbell when it comes to religion/ christianity



And there are kinds of Christians who consider themselves to be Campbellian Christians, like Russell Brand is one.

Brand is a pompous douche - especially on the subject of religion. Hes convinced that "theres something" yet considers it arrogant to be an atheist. Strange, right?

I've never read any Joseph Campbell. He was popular when I was in high school, so I guess I read some magazine articles or something. Not enough to judge.

Here's how it looks to me:

1) Carl Jung -- kooky but worth reading once
2) Joseph Campbell -- Jung watered down for people who think Star Wars is deep
3) Jordan Peterson - Campbell watered down for people who think Star Wars should be only white men

But again, I haven't read the last two, so I'm just joking. 

As for Russell Brand, he looked charming in the total of 3 minutes I've seen him on YouTube. Is there any reason at all why we should listen to him on religion? 

I've said a dozen times on this forum, but once more: why should I care about the opinions of stupid people? Stupid Christians, stupid Hindus, stupid atheists -- why waste time? If you think they're a danger to your hometown then get off this forum and run for school board. Posting here changes nothing. 

But bigotry is always bad. And by bigotry I mean when someone looks at an enormous diverse group of people and judges them all by the behavior of their very worst members. This is bad. 

If someone here says "Christians are X," but I know for a fact that the most important Christian writers, artists, and thinkers in history are not X, then the statement is a bad statement.

Bel, grow a pair and just say what you want to say.