>>514983347
yeah i'm sitting here wondering how on earth anyone thought that was a good point
>this myth means X
>actually right after it the literal god himself says it means Y
>that's just "commentary"
>okay why would that matter on nullifying that meaning
>ugh i don't have the requisite advanced degrees to explain this to you
remember when bush era fundamentalists were criticized for jumping between literalism and metaphor arbitrarily? "theme" and "commentary" is the same thing here, "only i get to decide which parts are deep and meaningful and which parts are trite and irrelevant"
like i suppose you can argue the case that you are assuming the unreliability of a character speaking but given that the character is *god* it's like you're presupposing the falseness of religion while trying to argue its intrinsic true meaning which is retarded