[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[GrandizerII]

You have your mind set up already, though I don't quite understand this level of unwarranted certainty you possess. There's no point arguing with you.

Sure, I have a naturalistic alternative view of how and why religions developed, that I find better able to account for its development, than the one your trying to convey. Because the one you’re trying to say makes little sense, hence why i pointed out the flaw in your rock example?

What purpose would anyone have trying to sell their community on some divinely formed rock? Why would such a thing be so important that they would want their children and subsequent generations to know this as well?

It's an impressive rock that prompted one person to think it was placed there directly by the gods ... It became a story as a result ... People loved the story about that impressive rock and it became true to them

People saw snake skins shed in the wild. They made stories out of them. That's the way it went back then. To satisfy their curiosity in the absence of proper scientific tools and mindset, that's what they had. They had other types of stories, sure. They also had this type of story.

---

You have your mind set up already, though I don't quite understand this level of unwarranted certainty you possess. There's no point arguing with you.

Regarding certainty, my certainty develops in any particular conclusion, based on explanatory power, the ability of a conclusion to resolve more questions than it creates. That if you could poke reasonable holes in my conclusions like the way I do yours, I might have to rethink them.

You're asking why questions, you're not poking holes, lol.

Perhaps you can explain to me then the whole thing with the resurrection.

Was it intended to be a true account from the start?