u/RRK96

I'm not really arguing about slavery in the Old Testament here, because Christians are not living under the Old Testament covenant. I'm talking specifically about the New Testament and the purpose of the epistles.

The New Testament does not give us a political programme for abolishing slavery. But that is very different from saying that Christianity morally endorses slavery.

We also have to understand the historical reality. The New Testament was written within the Roman Empire, a society that relied heavily on slavery. There were no modern human rights institutions, no democratic system capable of simply abolishing slavery, and openly challenging the entire social and political structure could bring severe consequences.

The epistles were not written by people sitting in political authority with the ability to reform Roman society. Their primary purpose was to spread the Christian message and establish Christian communities. And the message had to travel through the existing social and political structures of the Roman world.

This is where the pragmatic aspect matters. If the Christian message had openly demanded that every Christian master immediately free all of his slaves and directly challenged the entire Roman institution of slavery, that message would have been much harder to spread through the society it existed within. It could have been suppressed before it had the opportunity to reach the people Christianity was trying to reach, including slaves, the poor and people with very little social power.

So Paul telling slaves how to live within their circumstances isn't necessarily an endorsement of slavery itself. Exploitation would continue regardless of whether Paul explicitly condemned the Roman institution. His priority was to establish a Christian way of life that could survive and spread within the society that actually existed.

And this is something people sometimes miss when reading the Bible. Christianity doesn't always begin by changing the external political structure. It can begin by changing the person living inside that structure.

The New Testament repeatedly changes the way people understand status. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). Whatever Paul's exact position on legal abolition was, that language radically changes the relationship between the people involved.

The Old Testament itself also contains stories where people begin in very low social positions, in servitude or bondage, and through wisdom, faithfulness, good work and character eventually gain recognition and influence. Joseph is an obvious example. The biblical message isn't simply “your social position determines your worth.”

The New Testament is primarily about the Good News, transformation, spirituality, wisdom, love and becoming Christ-like. It isn't primarily a political manifesto.

That doesn't make slavery good, and it doesn't require us to defend the social structures of the Roman world. It means we shouldn't judge the purpose of the epistles as though Paul had written them as a modern political constitution.

The Christian transformation begins with the person, the community and the way they treat one another. The political and social consequences can develop from that transformation, rather than being the primary subject of the epistles themselves.

I'm not really arguing about slavery in the Old Testament here, because Christians are not living under the Old Testament covenant. I'm talking specifically about the New Testament and the purpose of the epistles.

The New Testament does not give us a political programme for abolishing slavery. But that is very different from saying that Christianity morally endorses slavery.

We also have to understand the historical reality. The New Testament was written within the Roman Empire, a society that relied heavily on slavery. There were no modern human rights institutions, no democratic system capable of simply abolishing slavery, and openly challenging the entire social and political structure could bring severe consequences.

The epistles were not written by people sitting in political authority with the ability to reform Roman society. Their primary purpose was to spread the Christian message and establish Christian communities. And the message had to travel through the existing social and political structures of the Roman world.

This is where the pragmatic aspect matters. If the Christian message had openly demanded that every Christian master immediately free all of his slaves and directly challenged the entire Roman institution of slavery, that message would have been much harder to spread through the society it existed within. It could have been suppressed before it had the opportunity to reach the people Christianity was trying to reach, including slaves, the poor and people with very little social power.

So Paul telling slaves how to live within their circumstances isn't necessarily an endorsement of slavery itself. Exploitation would continue regardless of whether Paul explicitly condemned the Roman institution. His priority was to establish a Christian way of life that could survive and spread within the society that actually existed.

And this is something people sometimes miss when reading the Bible. Christianity doesn't always begin by changing the external political structure. It can begin by changing the person living inside that structure.

The New Testament repeatedly changes the way people understand status. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). Whatever Paul's exact position on legal abolition was, that language radically changes the relationship between the people involved.

The Old Testament itself also contains stories where people begin in very low social positions, in servitude or bondage, and through wisdom, faithfulness, good work and character eventually gain recognition and influence. Joseph is an obvious example. The biblical message isn't simply “your social position determines your worth.”

The New Testament is primarily about the Good News, transformation, spirituality, wisdom, love and becoming Christ-like. It isn't primarily a political manifesto.

That doesn't make slavery good, and it doesn't require us to defend the social structures of the Roman world. It means we shouldn't judge the purpose of the epistles as though Paul had written them as a modern political constitution.

The Christian transformation begins with the person, the community and the way they treat one another. The political and social consequences can develop from that transformation, rather than being the primary subject of the epistles themselves.

I understand that 1 Corinthians 15 sounds literal. Paul talks about Christ being raised, people seeing him, the resurrection of the dead, and being changed at the last trumpet. I understand why someone would naturally read this as Paul describing a literal supernatural event.

But my question is: what if the language is theological and allegorical rather than straightforward historical reportage?

The New Testament itself sometimes does this. Jesus says that someone must be “born again,” and Nicodemus initially understands this literally, asking how someone can physically be born again (John 3:3–6). Jesus then makes clear that he is talking about being born “of the Spirit.” Likewise, Jesus speaks about destroying the temple and raising it in three days, while the Gospel explains that he was speaking about the temple of his body (John 2:19–21).

So I'm wondering whether Paul could be doing something comparable with resurrection.

What if “resurrection” is theological language expressing an existential reality rather than simply describing a corpse physically coming back to life?

For example, think about the idea that “love conquers death.” That doesn't necessarily mean that love literally stops biological death. It can mean that someone can die, yet their love, teachings, example and cause continue to transform other people. The messenger dies, but what they embodied continues to “live” through those who have been changed by them.

I could imagine resurrection functioning in a similar way: the person dies, but the meaning, message and way of life they embodied continues to awaken people and transform them. The “resurrection” is therefore expressed as an existential reality: the old way of being dies and a new way of being emerges.

That could also explain why resurrection language is so closely connected with transformation. Paul talks about being changed from corruption to incorruption, weakness to power, dishonour to glory, and ultimately death to life.

And when I look at Corinthians as a whole, I'm struck by how much Paul is actually concerned with how people live.

For example:

- 1 Corinthians 4:20: “The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.”

- 1 Corinthians 6:9–11: Paul connects participation in the Kingdom with the kind of people people are becoming and how they live.

- 1 Corinthians 12–14: Paul discusses spiritual gifts but ultimately directs everything toward love, especially in chapter 13.

- 1 Corinthians 13:2: even having extraordinary knowledge and faith is meaningless without love.

- 1 Corinthians 13:13: “faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

- And after his entire resurrection argument, Paul concludes in 1 Corinthians 15:58 by telling them to be steadfast and “always abounding in the work of the Lord.”

So I'm wondering whether we're sometimes putting too much emphasis on the question “Did Paul believe a corpse literally came back to life?” while overlooking what the resurrection language is actually doing within the theological argument.

My tentative interpretation is that Paul may be mixing remembered historical events, theological interpretation and symbolic language to communicate something about transformation and a new mode of existence.

In that reading, Christ isn't merely a historical individual who physically came back from death. Christ represents the reality that death does not have the final word over a life oriented toward the good. A person can be killed, but their message can continue. Someone can encounter that message and undergo an inner “resurrection” themselves: dying to an old way of living and becoming something new.

I'm not claiming this is definitely what Paul meant. I'm genuinely asking scholars:

By that, I don't mean that I’m secretly an atheist who has simply kept the nice moral teachings of Christianity. I genuinely consider myself Christian. I just understand Christianity differently from someone who reads every biblical narrative as literal supernatural reportage.

For me, the Bible is a collection of narratives, symbols, metaphors and religious language that embeds knowledge about reality and ourselves.

The point isn't necessarily that every story is literally describing what happened. The story itself can be the vehicle through which something deeper is communicated about human nature, wisdom, suffering, morality, consciousness, relationships and how we should live.

Christianity also has its own symbolic language: God, Spirit, Father, Holy, resurrection, faith, born again, salvation, Kingdom of God, and so on.

I don't necessarily understand these as literal descriptions of supernatural objects or events. They give us a religious language for talking about experiences and realities that ordinary secular language doesn't always capture as deeply.

For example, when I say “God comforts me,” I don't necessarily mean that I imagine a supernatural person physically intervening in my life. I can mean that through prayer, faith and following this spiritual path, I experience peace, strength and meaning even when life is difficult.

The language is experiential and existential, not merely intellectual.

My girlfriend and I are planning to get married, but we've recently been arguing about when and how we should do it.

I previously told her that we would get married this year, and she now wants us to get married in October 2026. However, after thinking more carefully about what I want our wedding to be like, I feel that October is too rushed. I would rather have a proper Christian wedding next year, after she finishes her studies in April, with enough time to organise it properly.

For me, marriage is something meaningful. I'd like us to have a proper Christian wedding ceremony with a pastor, make our vows, have our families aware and involved, and ideally have the legal marriage and Christian ceremony on the same day. I don't really want to have a quick registry-office marriage with two witnesses this October and then have the ceremony months later.

We both agree that we don't want an expensive or extravagant wedding. We'd be perfectly happy with something simple, modest and decent. But I feel that even a simple wedding needs some minimum amount of planning and preparation if we want it to be meaningful rather than rushed.

My girlfriend feels strongly that she wants to be married this year, while I feel that waiting until next year would allow us to have the kind of wedding we actually want. We've been arguing about this, and I don't want the disagreement to turn into a question of whether I actually want to marry her, because I do.

I recognise that part of this is my responsibility because I previously promised that we would get married this year. At the same time, we haven't booked a venue, church or registry office yet, so there isn't an existing wedding plan that we're cancelling or changing.

I'm trying to find a way forward that respects both of us: she genuinely wants to enter into marriage soon, while I want the wedding itself to be meaningful and properly prepared.

TL;DR: My girlfriend wants us to get married in October 2026, and we've been arguing about it. I previously promised we'd marry this year, so I recognise my part in that. However, I now feel October is too rushed and would rather wait until after she finishes her studies in April and have a simple but meaningful wedding with a pastor, our families involved, and the legal marriage and ceremony on the same day. We haven't booked anything yet.

I am in episode 8 of season 4, one thing i should have realised earlier is that Lex Luthor could just simply sue Lous Lane for difarmation/false accusations instead of going insane psycho on her and her family.

Not only that, he could still have a relationship with his daughter while claiming justice. I mean he is a high genius CEO, and he did not think about simply suing her?

I have worked for a company for 5 years, it was my first time career. I have worked for a technician role although i have an engineering degree.

My issue with the company i work is that there is no opportunity for growth, they keep me in a technican role. It's quite unorganised, can be difficult to work with manager. Also this year, they refuse to increase my salary, put me in review and demand that i come to the office on friday.

I also suspect the company to intentionally hire ethnic indian people while they offer low-salary job. They have been recruiting new people and they almost all ethnic indian, all grow up from india. I suspect they recruited me and another colleague because we are ethnically indian without need of visa/sponsorship and have master degree for a job that do not require one.

Although i have some engineering works, i know the company take advantage of my sutuation. I have been trying to search for a new, i do get multiple interviews and even reach final interviews stage but get no offers.

I am having enough of working for the company and so i give my notice to them without any job lined up. I got two final interviews from two different jobs and i oray i get one of them.

I am 30m, looking for another collapsenik to chill with.

I have been in a bad relationship with my current manager for years and it's getting worse. I am under review and I do not mentally feel well coming to work.

​

So i have been searching for a way out , a new job,: so I have been searching for about 10 months one and i do reach to final second stage interviews but only to get rejected.

​

i recently learned about bad references from my employer, apparently they can give you a reference in the UK. If it is that case i would never be hired because of my bad relationship and performance with my employer.

​

To the point, i am ashamed to reveal this but i am getting some suicidal thoughts. I am getting calls from recruiters and if i do get an offer but then rescinded by bad references, that would kill me. I mean what if no one wants to hire me because of a bad reference?

Hi,

​

I'm a 30-year-old guy living in the UK, and I'm looking for a mentor.

​

I've been working as an Engineering Technician for the past 5 years, mainly in electronics. I've been involved in PCB design, hardware testing, troubleshooting, documentation, and supporting product development.

​

For the last year, I've been trying to move into an Electronics Engineer role, but I've been struggling. I've had multiple interviews, including several final-stage face-to-face interviews, but I keep falling short. The latest feedback was that I have some gaps in my technical knowledge.

​

To be honest, I'm feeling a bit stuck.

​

My current job isn't going well. I don't see much opportunity for progression, and my relationship with my manager has become increasingly difficult. I've been applying for jobs for nearly a year, and the repeated rejections are starting to affect my confidence.

​

Outside of work, I don't really have much of a support network. I don't have many friends, and I don't know any senior engineers I can turn to for advice or guidance. Most of the time I feel like I'm trying to figure everything out on my own.

​

I'm looking for someone who has a bit more life experience, engineering experience, or career experience and would be willing to offer advice, perspective, accountability, or guidance from time to time.

​

Whether you're an engineer, manager, business owner, or just someone who's been through difficult career transitions, I'd be grateful to hear from you.

​

Thanks.

I am reaching out because I genuinely need some help.

​

​

I have been trying to move into a new electronics/hardware/PCB design engineering role and recently got rejected after another final-stage interview.

​

​

To be honest, this one hit hard because it wasn't my first rejection. I have now had multiple face-to-face final interviews that didn't lead to an offer. Each time I get close enough to think I'm there, only to fall short.

​

​

A bit about my background:

​

​

I have been working as an Engineering Technician for about 5 years. During that time I've been involved in PCB design, hardware testing, troubleshooting, documentation, validation work, and supporting product development. Although my title is still technician, I've spent a lot of time doing engineering-related work and trying to grow my skills.

​

​

The problem is that there is no progression within my current company, which is one of the reasons I've been trying so hard to move on.

​

​

I'm still applying, still interviewing, still studying, and still trying to improve. But if I'm being honest, I'm starting to feel stuck.

​

​

One thing that doesn't help is that I don't really have a professional network. I don't have senior electronics engineers I can regularly ask for guidance, challenge my thinking, or tell me where I'm falling short. Most of the time I hae been trying to figure everything out on my own.

​

​

At this point, I feel like I need help from people who know the industry better than I do.

​

​

Ideally, I am looking for someone based in the UK who understands the UK electronics/hardware engineering industry, what employers expect, and what skills are currently valued. Someone who has experience in electronics design, PCB design, hardware.

​

I am not looking for someone to hand me a job.Sometimes I feel like I'm aiming at the wrong targets.

​

I know nobody owes me their time, but if anyone has been in a similar position or would be willing to offer some advice, guidance, or mentorship, I'd be incredibly grateful.

​

Just don't think I can keep figuring everything out alone.

I am reaching out because I genuinely need some help.

​

​

I have been trying to move into a new electronics/hardware/PCB design engineering role and recently got rejected after another final-stage interview.

​

​

To be honest, this one hit hard because it wasn't my first rejection. I have now had multiple face-to-face final interviews that didn't lead to an offer. Each time I get close enough to think I'm there, only to fall short.

​

​

A bit about my background:

​

​

I have been working as an Engineering Technician for about 5 years. During that time I've been involved in PCB design, hardware testing, troubleshooting, documentation, validation work, and supporting product development. Although my title is still technician, I've spent a lot of time doing engineering-related work and trying to grow my skills.

​

​

The problem is that there is no progression within my current company, which is one of the reasons I've been trying so hard to move on.

​

​

I'm still applying, still interviewing, still studying, and still trying to improve. But if I'm being honest, I'm starting to feel stuck.

​

​

One thing that doesn't help is that I don't really have a professional network. I don't have senior electronics engineers I can regularly ask for guidance, challenge my thinking, or tell me where I'm falling short. Most of the time I hae been trying to figure everything out on my own.

​

​

At this point, I feel like I need help from people who know the industry better than I do.

​

​

Ideally, I am looking for someone based in the UK who understands the UK electronics/hardware engineering industry, what employers expect, and what skills are currently valued. Someone who has experience in electronics design, PCB design, hardware.

​

I am not looking for someone to hand me a job.Sometimes I feel like I'm aiming at the wrong targets.

​

I know nobody owes me their time, but if anyone has been in a similar position or would be willing to offer some advice, guidance, or mentorship, I'd be incredibly grateful.

​

Just don't think I can keep figuring everything out alone.

I'm reaching out because I genuinely need some help.

I've been trying to move into a new electronics/hardware/PCB design engineering role and recently got rejected after another final-stage interview.

To be honest, this one hit hard because it wasn't my first rejection. I've now had multiple face-to-face final interviews that didn't lead to an offer. Each time I get close enough to think I'm there, only to fall short.

A bit about my background:

I've been working as an Engineering Technician for about 5 years. During that time I've been involved in PCB design, hardware testing, troubleshooting, documentation, validation work, and supporting product development. Although my title is still technician, I've spent a lot of time doing engineering-related work and trying to grow my skills.

The problem is that there is no progression within my current company ln, which is one of the reasons I've been trying so hard to move on.

I'm not posting this because I'm giving up. I'm not.

I'm still applying, still interviewing, still studying, and still trying to improve. But if I'm being honest, I'm starting to feel stuck.

One thing that doesn't help is that I don't really have a professional network. I don't have senior electronics engineers I can regularly ask for guidance, challenge my thinking, or tell me where I'm falling short. Most of the time I've been trying to figure everything out on my own.

At this point, I feel like I need help from people who know the industry better than I do.

Ideally, I'm looking for someone based in the UK who understands the UK electronics/hardware engineering industry, what employers expect, and what skills are currently valued. Someone who has experience in electronics design, PCB design, hardware.

I'm not looking for someone to hand me a job.Sometimes I feel like I'm aiming at the wrong targets.

I know nobody owes me their time, but if anyone has been in a similar position or would be willing to offer some advice, guidance, or mentorship, I'd be incredibly grateful.

I'm not quitting. But just don't think I can keep figuring everything out alone.

I'm reaching out because I genuinely need some help.

I've been trying to move into a new electronics/hardware/PCB design engineering role and recently got rejected after another final-stage interview.

To be honest, this one hit hard because it wasn't my first rejection. I've now had multiple face-to-face final interviews that didn't lead to an offer. Each time I get close enough to think I'm there, only to fall short.

A bit about my background:

I've been working as an Engineering Technician for about 5 years. During that time I've been involved in PCB design, hardware testing, troubleshooting, documentation, validation work, and supporting product development. Although my title is still technician, I've spent a lot of time doing engineering-related work and trying to grow my skills.

The problem is that there is no progression within my current company ln, which is one of the reasons I've been trying so hard to move on.

I'm not posting this because I'm giving up. I'm not.

I'm still applying, still interviewing, still studying, and still trying to improve. But if I'm being honest, I'm starting to feel stuck.

One thing that doesn't help is that I don't really have a professional network. I don't have senior electronics engineers I can regularly ask for guidance, challenge my thinking, or tell me where I'm falling short. Most of the time I've been trying to figure everything out on my own.

At this point, I feel like I need help from people who know the industry better than I do.

Ideally, I'm looking for someone based in the UK who understands the UK electronics/hardware engineering industry, what employers expect, and what skills are currently valued. Someone who has experience in electronics design, PCB design, hardware.

I'm not looking for someone to hand me a job.

Sometimes I feel like I'm aiming at the wrong targets.

I know nobody owes me their time, but if anyone has been in a similar position or would be willing to offer some advice, guidance, or mentorship, I'd be incredibly grateful.

I'm not quitting. But just don't think I can keep figuring everything out alone.

A lot of modern criticism of the Bible feels unconvincing to me because it often begins with a very specific assumption: that the text is primarily trying to make literal claims about supernatural beings and historical events. Once you read it that way, it becomes easy to object on scientific or historical grounds. But that framing already narrows what the Bible is doing, and in many academic and literary approaches, it misses the deeper function of the text.

A significant body of biblical scholarship treats Scripture as a collection of symbolic, literary, and theologically shaped narratives that aim to communicate meaning about reality and human existence, rather than function as straightforward descriptive reporting.

For example, scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann argued that the “mythological” form of biblical language should be understood as expressing existential truth, truth about human existence, anxiety, guilt, meaning, and transformation, rather than literal cosmology or supernatural mechanics. In a different but related direction, Paul Ricoeur described biblical texts as operating through “symbolic depth,” where narrative and metaphor disclose layers of meaning that cannot be reduced to literal propositions. Similarly, literary scholars like Northrop Frye interpreted the Bible as a vast archetypal and symbolic structure through which cultures understand human experience, rather than a simple record of empirical events.

Even within Christian thought, this symbolic and literary reading is not unusual. Thinkers like C. S. Lewis emphasized that myth, story, and imagination can communicate truth in ways that go deeper than literal description, and that ancient texts often work through narrative form to express meaning rather than abstract explanation.

Seen through this lens, many biblical narratives function less like literal reports and more like structured reflections on reality. Creation narratives can be read as expressing the intelligibility and order of existence. Wisdom literature explores patterns of human behavior, justice, and consequence. Prophetic texts use symbolic imagery to articulate moral and social critique. And the Gospels themselves are structured not only as accounts of events, but as theological narratives shaped to convey meaning about identity, purpose, and transformation.

The Garden of Eden story and the idea of the fall is a key example. In much modern scholarship, it is not read primarily as a historical account of a talking serpent or a specific moment in time, but as a symbolic narrative about the human condition, the emergence of moral awareness, the experience of alienation, the tension between desire and responsibility, and the loss of pre-reflective innocence. It describes, in narrative form, what it feels like to become self-aware beings capable of both moral insight and moral failure.

From this perspective, much criticism of the Bible ends up targeting a simplified, literalist version of the text rather than engaging with its symbolic and philosophical depth. It can also sometimes carry an implicit prejudice against ancient people, as if they were naïve or incapable of symbolic thought, philosophical reflection, or complex literary expression.

Even writers like C. S. Lewis pointed out that dismissing ancient texts as primitive often reflects modern assumptions more than ancient intellectual limitations.

Finally, this also reframes what Christianity is at its core. In this view, being Christian is not primarily about intellectually affirming a set of supernatural claims as if they were scientific facts. It is about following Christ as the highest expression of the good, the true, and the human ideal, an embodied model of love, moral clarity, forgiveness, and alignment with what is ultimately meaningful in human existence.

More broadly, religious life itself is not primarily an intellectual system of propositions to be accepted, but an experiential way of life, something lived, practiced, and encountered through transformation, perception, and action rather than purely abstract belief.

The “problem of evil” is often presented as a logical refutation of theism: if God is all-good and all-powerful, why does suffering exist?

However, this argument typically rests on a specific assumption about the Bible namely, that it is intended as a literal, scientific-style account of how reality is directly managed in every detail. This is not how large portions of the text have been understood in academic biblical studies or within many theological traditions.

Modern scholarship widely recognises that the Bible contains multiple genres: mythic narrative, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, symbolic history, and theological reflection. Scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann argued for “demythologising” biblical language to uncover its existential meaning, while narrative theologians emphasise that Scripture often communicates truth through symbolic and story-based forms rather than literal mechanism. Even within the text itself, parables are explicitly non-literal teaching devices meant to convey meaning through narrative.

In this sense, much of the Bible is better understood as a symbolic account of human experience: creation and chaos, exile and return, suffering and redemption, guilt and forgiveness. Its aim is not primarily to answer scientific or philosophical problems in abstract form, but to articulate meaning within lived human existence.

From this perspective, faith is not primarily a theoretical explanation of why suffering exists, but a practical and interpretive framework for living within it: how to endure suffering, respond to it with compassion, sustain hope, and orient oneself morally under conditions that are often unjust and uncertain.

So the “problem of evil,” while a serious philosophical argument in its own domain, does not function as a refutation of what biblical faith is actually conveying. It primarily engages a model of God as a literal explanatory mechanism for every instance of suffering while much of biblical theology operates on a different level: symbolic, existential, and interpretive, focused on meaning rather than mechanical explanation.

The “problem of evil” is often framed as a logical refutation of the faith: if God is all-good and all-powerful, why does suffering exist?

But this argument depends on a particular assumption: that the Bible is meant primarily as a literal, scientific-style account of how reality is directly managed in every detail. That is not how large parts of the text have been understood in academic biblical studies or in many theological traditions.

Modern biblical scholarship widely recognises that the text is made up of multiple genres: mythic narrative, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, symbolic history, and theological storytelling. For example, scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann argued for “demythologising” biblical language to uncover its existential meaning, while others in narrative theology emphasise that these texts function primarily to communicate meaning about human existence rather than literal mechanism. Even within the text itself, parables are explicitly non-literal teaching devices used to convey truth through story.

In that sense, much of the Bible is better understood as a collection of symbolic narratives reflecting human experience: creation and chaos, exile and return, suffering and redemption, guilt and forgiveness. It is not primarily attempting to answer modern scientific questions, but to explore existential ones.

From this perspective, the purpose of faith is not to provide a full theoretical explanation of why suffering exists, but a practical framework for living within it. The emphasis shifts from explanation to response: how to endure suffering, how to act with compassion in the face of it, how to maintain hope, and how to live morally under conditions that are often unjust and uncontrollable.

So the “problem of evil” is not so much a refutation as a category mismatch. It challenges a system that is not primarily claiming to function as a complete explanatory model of reality, but rather as a lived, symbolic, and practical orientation toward human suffering and meaning.

A lot of modern criticism of the Christian faith tends to focus on a narrow form of biblical literalism, treating Scripture as if it were meant to function only as a scientific or historical report. But within the Christian religious tradition itself, faith has often been understood in a much deeper and richer way.

From early figures like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa to later thinkers such as Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann, Christians have long recognized that Scripture speaks on multiple levels at once:historical, moral, symbolic, and spiritual. In this view, biblical truth is not limited to surface-level descriptions of events, but is communicated through narrative, symbol, and revelation that point toward deeper realities of humanity, and existence.

In these approaches, the Bible is not primarily trying to function as a scientific or historical account. Instead, it communicates through narrative, archetype, and symbol: human awakening, moral struggle, alienation, transformation, suffering, and renewal. Genesis can speak about consciousness and identity, Exodus about liberation, the Cross about self-giving love and confrontation with suffering, and Resurrection about the re-emergence of hope and meaning.

Seen this way, Christian faith is not weakened by depth of interpretation, it is expressed through it. The core of the faith is not rigid literalism, but a lived engagement with truth as it is revealed through Scripture, tradition, and spiritual experience. Reducing that faith to only literal propositions can miss the broader way it understands reality, meaning, and transformation.