Zed

You're not applying the theory correctly. People who buy stock in losing companies are not "irrational" in the sense that they're intentionally acting against their bad interest, but they could be gullible, listening to bad advice or stupidly ignoring bad signs, etc.

So I'm not making an exception for religion. I agree that religious people are seeking to maximize benefits and minimize costs, but they seem to lack the right tools of evaluating ideas. There are also other reasons: emotional, cultural, etc.

I disagree. When I dispute the claims of people who believe in horoscopes, I am not engaging in astrology.

I'm pretty sure that is not what I'm saying. I already said that I believe the Bible was intended to be taken literally (especially the New Testament) because its authors said as much, and their audiences for two thousand years accepted as such. I see nothing anywhere in the Bible or other contemporary sources that indicate otherwise. And you have presented me with no evidence either.

What I also said was that I reject the Bible on two levels: (1) scientifically/historically if we were to interpret it literally, and (2) morally, whether we chose to understand it literally or symbolically.

That means that if I were to concede that the Bible was entirely meant as an allegory, which would eliminate any scientific or historical objections to it, I would still reject it on a moral basis. I don't see how that's equal to closed-mindedness.


Who are the producers and purveyors? Do you include modern people, like the Pope? And are the consumers the "tricked" ones? I do know that some ministers study the Bible one way (and they don't believe it literally), but teach it another way, literally, because that's the only way their "consumers" will accept it. But those are the exception, not the rule.


Christianity succeeded because it combined the antiquity element of Judaism (Romans looked down on newly invented religions, and respected ancient ones), with the ideas more common and acceptable in the Roman world.

spamandham

No they didn't. You demand evidence, and when given, you pretend none was given and demand evidence again. ...not sure what game you're playing, but you're welcome to believe literalist nonsense totally out of place for the time period if you wish.

Zed

If evidence was given and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't see any.

Joan of Bark

Good points, Cege. Not sure how this affects the 'symbolism vs literalism' argument though.

Zed

I'd be willing to concede the point on the Old Testament. But the New Testament seems to have been intended literally, and understood as such by its audience, except the parts that were explicitly designated as parables or dreams (which if you think about it, why label some part a parable if the whole thing is a parable?)

I strongly stand by my belief that the immediate audience is the best judge, and the audience of the NT makes it clear what they think about it. The irony here is that I'm accused of subjecting the ancient text to my modern standards, when I'm doing the exact opposite: I'm attempting to let its contemporary audience, not myself, be the judge.

spamandham

Can you please cite what your are referring to that makes you think the author intended for either the water-to-wine miracle or the fig tree miracle (?) to be taken literally?

The fact that later writers took it literally means nothing, as even today, there is a whole Jedi cult that has sprung up who argue that Lucas meant for the force to be taken literally.

He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

Zed

Spamandham,

Your passage is taken out of context. It quotes Jesus, not the authors of the gospels, explaining to his followers why he, not the authors of the gospels, always speaks in parables.

I mean if that's all you got, I really feel more confident in my position than ever. That's just such a desperate attempt.

Now let me present some blindingly obvious evidence, that the gospels were intended as history, as their writers themselves often implied or said as much, and their audience understood it as such. The first chapter of Luke, emphasis mine. Just freaking tell me how this is intended as an allegory, and not as literal history...

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea ...

2-J

Yes, but that's Luke and maybe by the time we reach Luke (even as early as that) some people had started to take it literally. Just a thought...

Zed

If the argument is that the gospel authors (like Luke, around 70 A.D.) started treating the story as literal history, when it was intended and understood as an allegory in the 40 years prior to that, where is the evidence for that? Luke and others claim to have investigated the very historicity of the gospel stories, so their intention is obvious.

In fact, the Q hypothesis says that the miracle stories were added to the original traditions and accumulated gradually, and those stories were historical claims that Luke claims to have documented after seeking the testimony of eyewitnesses.

I don't see any indication from anyone involved in the making of the gospels that they were ever intended as an allegory.

JoeWallack

JW:
You seem unaware that the average poster here thinks "Mark" wrote the original Gospel narrative in the 2nd century and if you are not familiar with Marcion, in the words of the underage chick at the Delta House bar, "You have a lot of catching up to do."


Joseph

ErrancyWiki