Lazy Atheism?

[emjay]

Sure I can accept that some parts of the Bible are allegorical, but as I've said before, I think it's clutching at straws to consider Genesis allegorical. It for instance gives the names and locations of rivers, which is just something you wouldn't do if you were speaking allegorically/metaphorically, so to me it's blatantly obvious that it's meant to be taken literally as a factual record.

[The Grand Nudger]

The original compilers were hellenized non christians. That they included multiple conflicting accounts of creation (not just in genesis, all throughout the ot) suggests that they did not see genesis the way that christians must, it's literal interpretation being fundamental to the christ myth in ways that it isn't fundamental to judaism. The message in the ot, from all of those accounts - is that god created the world for us and uniquely endowed us with godlike powers. A what, and not a how. You might want to look at regional details like flavor text for specific audiences. That's not to say that the author or authors of the individual texts weren't raving loons who really did believe crazy shit - but even for them, the message was clearly more important than accuracy.

[emjay]

The original compilers were hellenized non christians.  That they included multiple conflicting accounts of creation (not just in genesis, all throughout the ot) suggests that they did not see genesis the way that christians must, it's literal interpretation being fundamental to the christ myth in ways that it isn't fundamental to judaism.  The message in the ot, from all of those accounts - is that god created the world for us and uniquely endowed us with godlike powers.  A what, and not a how.  You might want to look at regional details like flavor text for specific audiences.

Interesting... but flavor text still implies it was meant to be taken literally by those specific audiences, right? Ie the fact of including details such as that is just not something you would do if you were speaking allegorically to any audience?

[Ahriman]

Sure I can accept that some parts of the Bible are allegorical, but as I've said before, I think it's clutching at straws to consider Genesis allegorical. It for instance gives the names and locations of rivers, which is just something you wouldn't do if you were speaking allegorically/metaphorically, so to me it's blatantly obvious that it's meant to be taken literally as a factual record.

Well, it's not meant to be taken literally as a factual record.

[emjay]

Sure I can accept that some parts of the Bible are allegorical, but as I've said before, I think it's clutching at straws to consider Genesis allegorical. It for instance gives the names and locations of rivers, which is just something you wouldn't do if you were speaking allegorically/metaphorically, so to me it's blatantly obvious that it's meant to be taken literally as a factual record.

Well, it's not meant to be taken literally as a factual record.

If that helps you to believe then good for you, I guess, but I've already given my reasons why I think otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

Interesting... but flavor text still implies it was meant to be taken literally by those specific audiences, right? Ie the fact of including details such as that is just not something you would do if you were speaking allegorically to any audience?

It's exactly what you would do if you were trying to disseminate a single message to multiple disparate audiences.  Consider the way that pundits and politicians today will generally attempt to speak directly to a regional audience by including some pablum about the region connecting them to whatever message.  The literal or literal seeming elements of genesis are largely just-so stories used as introductions to the religious or political content. Outside of genesis they tend to appear as justifications for the greatness they perceive in god, or accusations that others are somehow idiots for not believing what they do. Even if they were meant to be taken literally, that's how they appear in the body of work. That could be an effect of it's construction or it's editing but it's there no matter how we choose to approach the issue.

The flavor text example is even more direct. You don't have to believe in the balrogs backstory to play the card. Rabbis figured this out long before christianity as we know it was a twinkle in a con mans eye. That's the simplest distillation of why christainity has felt the need to eradicate judaism.

[emjay]

Interesting... but flavor text still implies it was meant to be taken literally by those specific audiences, right? Ie the fact of including details such as that is just not something you would do if you were speaking allegorically to any audience?

It's exactly what you would do if you were trying to disseminate a single message to multiple disparate audiences.  Consider the way that pundits and politicians today will generally attempt to speak directly to a regional audience by including some pablum about the region connecting them to whatever message.  The literal or literal seeming elements of genesis are largely just-so stories used as introductions to the religious or political content.  Even if they were meant to be taken literally, that's how they appear in the body of work.  That could be an effect of it's construction or it's editing but it's there no matter how we choose to approach the issue.

The flavor text example is even more direct.  You don't have to believe in the balrogs backstory to play the card.

Okay, I stand corrected then. So you think it could have been intended allegorically or at least partially allegorically... but just with a smattering of local tidbits to curry favour with specific audiences?

[The Grand Nudger]

Bel pointed out the kind of passages that we can't reasonably doubt to have been intended that way. I think it was a great example because there's a contemporary christian literalist interpretation that itself takes the characters and their obviously metaphoric erotica as an allegory for the christian religion, while judaism has long considered it an allegory for gods love of the isrealites specifically. Researchers have pointed out that whether this is supposed to be someone talking about boning their bff or an allegory for...whatever...it also happens to take the form and style of a type of poetry super popular in drinking establishments and whorehouses of the time.

Literally gospel night at the strip club.

[Ahriman]

(4) There was no jesus to write those things down.  He's a composite character in a work of fiction.

......what does that have to do with anything?

[Ahriman]

Bel pointed out the kind of passages that we can't reasonably doubt to have been intended that way.  I think it was a great example because there's a contemporary christian literalist interpretation that itself takes the characters and their obviously metaphoric erotica as an allegory for the christian religion, while judaism has long considered it an allegory for gods love of the isrealites specifically.  Researchers have pointed out that whether this is supposed to be someone talking about boning their bff or an allegory for...whatever...it also happens to take the form and style of a type of poetry super popular in drinking establishments and whorehouses of the time.

Literally gospel night at the strip club.

Sounds more like a Dionysus sort of thing.