Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Higher Ed \u0026 Our Cultural Inflection Point: JB Peterson/Stephen Blackwood" video.

I agree with him on many things. But sometimes, a story about a god drowning millions of people because they have displeased him is just that. It's not a metaphor. It's literal. In the bible, Peterson see's what he wants to see. Not what's there.
1
@afonsodeportugal Nonsense. When some nut pastor proclaims that the latest hurricane is god's punishment for allowing gay marriage or because not enough people go to his church, what 'deeper meaning' does that include?
1
@afonsodeportugal Peterson's interpretation supposes that the bible is a metaphor. Non-literal. Not real. Because although you can interpret real events, real events are not and cannot be metaphors. Foreign backpackers strip off on a sacred mountain in Malaya. A hurricane devastates the area. And that is interpreted as the wrath of the gods. Any additional interpretation layered on top of that initial interpretation is unnecessary. Just as in the biblical flood story, the belief is in god's literal wrath. As God is not meant as a metaphor. Because if he is, he doesn't exist. And those that believe in gods do so literally.
1
@afonsodeportugal While its true that most, if not all, religious people are hypocritical in their faith (as in, not believing everything 100%), its simply not the case than nobody believes in a literal interpretation of Adam & Eve. It may be the case that those who do take such stories literally are in the minority today, but that hasn't always been the case. After all, what other explanations were there thousands of years ago for how we came to be? And that is the point. These stories are old. They existed to explain man's origin at a time when there were no other explanations. And yes, people took them literally. The foundation of religion (imo) is based upon the need to understand the natural world. Things like hurricanes, storms, earthquakes, etc. And it's true that religious people are more likely to attribute agency to natural forces (the storm happened because we did this, the earthquake happened because we didnt do that - assigning natural forces the same thoughts and feelings as we have ourselves - anger, resentment, generosity etc). The ability to appease these things were life and death to people who didnt have the knowledge that we have today - You need a good harvest. You need that rain. You can't afford to have people get ill. Its a kind of OCD, which again, is all about trying to control things around you. So it is important not to upset those forces (a god or gods). Because otherwise your little civilisation gets wiped out. So no. These stories were and are seen as literal. The power of god/or the gods are seen as very real. Noah and the flood is not meant as a metaphor. The bible is not metaphorical.
1
Jordan Peterson interprets the bible stories as metaphorical. He talks of biblical sacrifice as representing the idea that, say, in order to enjoy a secure future we must make sacrifices (investment of work or time) today. But that is not what religious sacrifice is. The Aztecs did not metaphorically sacrifice people to their gods. They did it literally. As an expression of appeasement. Slaves (or non-slaves) were valuable. Food is valuable. These get sacrificed (wasted) not because the gods need them (altho perhaps they do) but because it is evidence of your devotion to them. You need to appease them, and you do so by showing them how devoted you are to them. And you do that by giving away your valuable things. After all, the sacrifice of unwanted or worthless things is no sacrifice at all. But the sacrifice of a son, shows true devotion.
1