So correct me if I'm wrong

>religion is not literally true but symbolically true
>the stories told are prescriptive and have factual real depth
>in essence the Bible's a mental health manual developed before psychology was understood

christcuck’s razor: if you need a reason to believe, you don’t — and if your belief depends on justification, you’re not a true believer, you’re a functional atheist pretending for comfort. real faith doesn’t argue, explain, or beg to make sense. it simply is. the moment you start defending it with logic, morality, or social utility, you’ve already confessed you don’t trust it on its own. you don’t believe in god — you believe in the idea of belief, because the alternative terrifies you.

>>24540349 (OP)
>symbolically true
anything can be symbolically true, because the interpretation of symbols and metaphors are up to us, and it's easy to connect any symbol to any true thing. Gilgamesh or Iliad are just as symbolically true as the bible.
>factual real depth
what does that mean? One can cherry-pick the stories that seem wise and helpful, and carefully "overlook" others that, say, call for the total eradication of one's enemies etc.
>in essence the Bible's a mental health manual developed before psychology was understood
fair enough, but that's just about the weakest defense of it possible, and rather an argument for its obsolescence.

>>24540365
my only question is do you see Buddhism in the same way?

>>24540448
Christianity is fundamentally a word-based religion. Its power lies in scripture, proclamation, doctrine, and the authority of revealed text. It begins with "In the beginning was the Word," and from there builds a structure of belief on language—creeds, confessions, sermons, names. God speaks the world into being, and followers are saved through belief in what is written and said. Christianity relies on the interpretation of symbols and metaphors, and one's relationship with the divine is mediated through stories, laws, and verbal declarations of faith.

Buddhism, by contrast, is not rooted in the authority of words but in direct experience. It acknowledges that language is limited, often deceptive, and ultimately empty—just more grasping at forms. The teachings (dharma) are merely rafts to be discarded once one reaches insight. Where Christianity points to salvation through belief, Buddhism points to liberation through silence, awareness, and the letting go of mental constructions. Words may be used, but they are never mistaken for truth itself.

>>24540349 (OP)
It's a grift because no one is going to read the Bible seriously without believing in Judeo-Christianity, and he knows it. He's trying to get your foot in the door. It's like telling a girl you only want to put the tip in. You're gonna fuck her.

>>24540448
what same way? I was referring to how OP summarized the Peterson book, not what Christianity/Judaism might or might not be. I think saying something is symbolically true is a weak defense, and Buddhism doesn't seem to have a lot of people that defend it like that, probably because it's quite a bit more abstract than the Abrahamic religions to begin with, and can be engaged with "literally", in what it actually claims rather than some symbolic reading.
As far as mental health, Buddhism seems to do wonders for some people too, but that again would not be a good defense of its Truth. Maybe what the world is really like would be highly mentally disturbing.

>>24540365
>the interpretation of symbols and metaphors are up to us
no, symbols have objective meaning

>>24540556
source?

>>24540349 (OP)
>wwww
what a horrible title

>>24540362
Lowlife trash, Jesus never told Thomas that he didn’t believe, and in fact affirmed that Thomas was a believer. What Jesus explained was that those who believed WITHOUT first seeing (that Jesus has risen from the dead) were especially blessed. In Jesus’ time, it was EASY to be a believer because you could see with your own eyes that he had risen from the dead. Belief would be HARDER in future generations when there would not be such a spectacular miracle to witness, so Jesus indicated how blessed future believers, who would be believers without having seen evidence — because belief without seeing direct evidence is more difficult. You and many others continue to get filtered.

>>24540650
you just spent a paragraph proving the razor right. belief without seeing = real faith. belief that needs proof = weak cope. thomas was a filtered bitch and so are you.