(September 4, 2019 at 12:39 am)Acrobat Wrote:(September 4, 2019 at 12:12 am)Grandizer Wrote: 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.
Faith, hope, trust in God are similar concepts. You seem to acknowledge that the purpose of myths are to foster hope and meaning in their communities. It's not terribly hard to recognize the importance of hope in such communities, absent of hope such communities would be unlikely to survive.
So a myth about a divine rock wouldnt be about its impressiveness, but one composed in a way to convey hope, like the rock giving water in time of famine. A god providing for his people, when all hope is lost.
And the rock story is accepted as literally true as a result of that faith.
Quote:Quote: 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.
Absurdity isn't a reason to take an account symbolically. Sandy hook conspiracy theories are absurd, but they're not symbolic, they're just false beliefs.
It makes more sense to take the resurrection if it wasn't literal, as the desperation of his early followers, trying to cope with an irreconcilable tragedy, rather than purely symbolic. It would make more sense they had hallucinations of a risen Christ, or just made it up, than to read it as meant purely symbolically.
Refer back to my ETA about how fundies argue for literal Genesis in much the same way you're arguing for literal Resurrection.
And no the early Christians didn't have to make up anything or hallucinate or literally view the resurrection. They could have written the stories mainly as allegories instead of to be taken literally and would have seen the notion of resurrection differently from how you see it. Jesus may not have even been real.
Why is this a big no no in this case but not in the case of Genesis? Fierce is right; you're cherry picking.