RE: Literal and Not Literal
September 4, 2019 at 12:12 am
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2019 at 12:22 am by GrandizerII.)
(September 3, 2019 at 11:28 pm)Acrobat Wrote:(September 3, 2019 at 11:19 pm)Grandizer Wrote: That just means you didn't appreciate what those people appreciated. You can't speak for hypothetical people in a hypothetical scenario that I made up myself. Lol ...
I’ve given you all the freedom to develop your hypothetical myth, In which all that took place was a story of how God made an impressive rock. The rock served no other function, according to your myth other than as showcase of God impressiveness.
Maybe you need to develop you myth more with this divinely formed rocked served some necessary purpose for the community, other than an awe of its impressiveness. I mean your rock myth, doesn’t even showcase a god with any concern for these people, or their lives.
They already believed before the rock incident in gods that gave them hope and purpose. The rock just fosters that faith. You accept the rock serves that function.
I don't get what's difficult about this.
Quote:(September 3, 2019 at 11:25 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Some people would argue these stories are meant to be taken allegorically. What exactly would your argument to that be?
That it was to be taken as both, as real and symbolic.
Christ death was tragic defeat for the messiah, an irreconcilable fate, unexpected even by his own followers. If the resurrection wasn’t real, than their hope was more a product of desperation, than real, a desperate attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. It’s becomes more or less the reality of nihilism, a clinging to hope that doesn’t exist.
The cross becomes the human symbol of despair, not of any victory or defeat of it, but the triumph of misery.
That's what you would argue with people who question the literal interpretation of the accounts of the resurrection? They could just simply say you're wrong. The Resurrection happening literally would he absurd. It makes sense only if taken symbolically.
Anyway, your argument is similar to how fundies would argue regarding Genesis. If Genesis did not truly happen, then man is not in sin and therefore needs no salvation, and this would also mean God created a cruel world from the start.
