NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 All due respect notblinded, if you MUST change anything you find odd or unexplainable in the bible to metaphor and allegory, then it is YOU who are prejudiced against these ancient writers. If you cannot believe that intelligent people could have taken these verse literally you insult them. You imply that your interpretation is the only correct one for those who think, and anyone who doesn't agree? Well, they aren't as smart, are they? They are superstitious children, aren't they? It is an insult. Even to all of us who once believed, it is an insult. Primitive childlike ancient people who knew little of everything? That may be how you and Ssel see the ancient tribes of the world, but I would never insult them in such a way. All due respect taken Cerise. Don't people use metaphors to talk about the things that can't be described such as emotions? Maybe I did come across too strong and if so, I apologize. But, this is something that unites the bible and all the great religions and philosophies together. I do think that the writers were very intelligent and purposefully wrote in this manner in order to get the point across. Then more intelligent people came along and saw how powerful the bible could be when taken literally and preached that message and tried to destroy anything and anyone who would understood the esoteric language. Yes, they were very smart indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 All due respect notblinded, if you MUST change anything you find odd or unexplainable in the bible to metaphor and allegory, then it is YOU who are prejudiced against these ancient writers. Intelligent people do not read such an obviously silly story about seas dividing and people walking on water without instantly realizing that there is something more about the story especially in light of such stories having such significant effect on world powers. You are proclaiming that mere myth is enough to fool those same people who manage to become kings and emperors as well as their entire counseling staff and governors. We are giving them credit for having enough intelligence to see beyond the obvious and being much brighter than common fundamentalists. Try to remember that these scriptures were written at a time when the common masses couldn't even read. They were written for priests and advanced people of understanding, not for the common masses. Jesus spoke more to the people directly and Christianity eventually supported education of the masses, but this is a very recent occurrence. Only 3 generations ago, the common catholic was still forbidden from reading the Bible. They gave in only due to the English using the book as a motivation and uniting tool. The western "free world" began spreading the damn book to everyone and his uncle. But the catholic warned that it could NOT be read without the help of a teacher to interpret it. This wasn't their first option, but they agree that it is strongly metaphor. They believe that if all people see all of the metaphor, then bad things will happen. But those things have already begun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 How could that change the meaning? What would change if I said, don't boil a colt in its mother's milk? Nothing would change. It is a metaphor like saying "dont throw the baby out with the bath water." Even if they didn't refer to children as kids, the meaning is the same. It is an offspring...that is what matters. You don't find allegory or metaphor in the commandments... If this was indeed a metaphor, if it was allegorical, then it's the only example of it. (not likely at all, considering the context... it's all literal at that point) They were Laws from God... not teachings, and one thing you fail to find in those Laws is any kind of metaphor... But, how do we know that it's literal...any of it? Isn't that based on what people took it to mean after the destruction of the eariler, metaphoric teachers and their works? This verse surely must be metaphoric also: Exd 23:5 "If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. " Wouldn't there be a deeper meaning here other than literally taking the load off of your enemies ass? Regardless if it was an ass, camel, horse or even a car for that matter, wouldn't it have a greater meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 You are assuming that such great shapers of the world of Man are no brighter than you. Here is the Jewish understanding of the command not to seethe a kid goat in it's mothers milk, it certainly makes more sense than your understanding of the scripture. Link Here Ha ha ..so it's okay for a rabbi to twist a meaning into something palatable, but no one else? When a Christian preacher tells you of how wonderful the Bible is, do you accept him too with such faith? Do you think that preachers and rabbi's are never fundamentalists? You argue about a book which you have absolutely NO understanding of other than on the surface it appears childishly magical. YOU insult the writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 The "laws" pretty much cover anything NBBTL...even on how to discard of poop, what is the deeper meaning of covering your poop? The Jewish people believed that god gave that as a health law, to say that it has a deeper meaning is to insult a persons intelligence. It's considerate, and kind and respectful to properly dispose of one's feces but exactly what is the allegory? There are commands to be loving and kind outright, those laws simply expound on how to do it.I thought you didn't believe in any of it? How can you say what the laws were for and which of them were metaphor if you believe it is all fantasy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 Just as has been said for 100s of years, you can't see the entire meaning until you can see it all at once. Such is the way of metaphor. You can not take one piece alone and be sure that you are seeing the right metaphor or even be absolutely certain of the apparent metaphor. Metaphorical understanding requires a lot of thinking and work. Thus is doesn't suit today’s instant "gimme" generation. The judgment that a book has no metaphorical understanding requires even more work when done justly. But the easy thing to do is just say "I don't like having to comply with it, so I'll deny it has any relevance" "If I don't like it, then I can't define it as anything I like, therefore it is meaningless." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I don't think the bible is the word of god either and yes, they are commandments from people that wrote it. It has been through many other's interpretations also. We are all in agreement with that. The bible just tries to point to something that can't be described and the only way to get a point across when dealing with the metaphysical is to describe in the physical. I think that anytime anything/anyone is speaking about a god/being/all there is, it must be metaphoric. To literally read it as a description, limits this being/or whatever it is. It has to be understood on a much deeper level, like the feeling certain poems, or works of art can inspire in the viewer. How would one decribe that feeling? Words must be used and it must relate to something known but it isn't what is being said that is important...that is just a pointer, it is what it is referring to that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 It's a two way street there hypocrite. Of course, I think your little quote has no meaning and it's only right in YOUR mind. Except for one small problem. I specified my qualifiers for belief. You haven't except to demonstrate that your god is simply your desires. You wants control what you see. Your wants control what you believe. Your wants and desires are your god. And your god is then what ever you want. True freedom from rational sanity, it's all just a thought. We are not trying to convert you, Serenity, just point out your lack of logic. ---- The purpose of this thread is not to convince anyone of the use of metaphor. That topic is far too much work to present in this kind of forum. I would like to progress onto unholiness aspects concerning the logic of the NT. In the OT such things are very easy to spot. In the NT they are not nearly so easy. Many threads on here have gone into potential discrepancies and inconsistencies. I am focusing more on the simple logic aspects. Logic doesn't require archeological digs or crossed referenced evidence to support timings or names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 The only one I see using the moniker of "mere" to describe mythology is you. Everyone else seems to have a great deal of respect for the role mythology plays in the lives of people.But you see them as having influence ONLY because people believe in the superficial Santa Claus version. You are not accrediting the very intelligent rulers, kings, and emperors as have far more intelligence than you. Enough to be able to easily see metaphor, when you can't. You are assuming that such great shapers of the world of Man are no brighter than you. The arrogance is yours. Ssel, can you conceive for a moment that perhaps I do not think there is something "superficial" about believing in a literal interpretation of the bible? Or that perhaps I don't degrade those who believe in mythology like you do? Why must you insult everyone who does not agree with you? Is your self-esteem really that low? Must we all bow to your interpretation, and agree that those who take the bible literally (those who have done so for centuries) were all children without intelligence? That's it. I am finished talking with you. You have nothing to offer besides bile and hatred and an astounding sense of superiority. All due respect notblinded, if you MUST change anything you find odd or unexplainable in the bible to metaphor and allegory, then it is YOU who are prejudiced against these ancient writers. If you cannot believe that intelligent people could have taken these verse literally you insult them. You imply that your interpretation is the only correct one for those who think, and anyone who doesn't agree? Well, they aren't as smart, are they? They are superstitious children, aren't they? It is an insult. Even to all of us who once believed, it is an insult. Primitive childlike ancient people who knew little of everything? That may be how you and Ssel see the ancient tribes of the world, but I would never insult them in such a way. All due respect taken Cerise. Don't people use metaphors to talk about the things that can't be described such as emotions? Maybe I did come across too strong and if so, I apologize. But, this is something that unites the bible and all the great religions and philosophies together. Must you unite them in order to make them meaningful or relevant? I think that is a sad thing, but if you must... I do think that the writers were very intelligent and purposefully wrote in this manner in order to get the point across. Then more intelligent people came along and saw how powerful the bible could be when taken literally and preached that message and tried to destroy anything and anyone who would understood the esoteric language. Yes, they were very smart indeed. Ah but you have secret knowledge of esoteric languages, yes? And those who disagree, well, they are unintelligent children, yes? I hope you are not saying this, but SSel certainly is. Before you agree with him completely, think of what you are actually saying when you claim that all is metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 All due respect notblinded, if you MUST change anything you find odd or unexplainable in the bible to metaphor and allegory, then it is YOU who are prejudiced against these ancient writers. If you cannot believe that intelligent people could have taken these verse literally you insult them. You imply that your interpretation is the only correct one for those who think, and anyone who doesn't agree? Well, they aren't as smart, are they? They are superstitious children, aren't they? It is an insult. Even to all of us who once believed, it is an insult. Primitive childlike ancient people who knew little of everything? That may be how you and Ssel see the ancient tribes of the world, but I would never insult them in such a way. All due respect taken Cerise. Don't people use metaphors to talk about the things that can't be described such as emotions? Maybe I did come across too strong and if so, I apologize. But, this is something that unites the bible and all the great religions and philosophies together. Must you unite them in order to make them meaningful or relevant? I think that is a sad thing, but if you must... I do think that the writers were very intelligent and purposefully wrote in this manner in order to get the point across. Then more intelligent people came along and saw how powerful the bible could be when taken literally and preached that message and tried to destroy anything and anyone who would understood the esoteric language. Yes, they were very smart indeed. Ah but you have secret knowledge of esoteric languages, yes? And those who disagree, well, they are unintelligent children, yes? I hope you are not saying this, but SSel certainly is. Before you agree with him completely, think of what you are actually saying when you claim that all is metaphor. No, I don't think that at all. Everyone is where they are at because of their own life experiences. Where I am doesn't mean that it is correct, it just means that I have found a unifying theory that puts all the arguing aside about who's religion is right and who's is wrong, or there is no god and there is a god. All these opposites no longer conflict when viewed from this philosophical standpoint. I would like to state that when I agree with Ssel it is because of the last 8 months of searching my own life. It would just appear that he has reached the same conclusion as I have. When I say the bible is metaphoric, I mean that it relates to people's lives (their inner journey) and if that includes actual people, actual events, and actual life settings or not, it doesn't take away from the message itself. I really no longer care if the events can be proven to be real or not. I do think that real life places and situations were used to express metaphor because understanding would go unheeded if there would be nothing to relate to metaphor to. Although people, time and places change, the message doesn't. Personally, I don't think the entire bible was written with an esoteric understanding; therefore, there are many parts of it that probably won't fit into any understanding. There is a method of understanding the metaphors and I don't understand them all. There used to be entire schools that taught this and there is no way that I can understand all of it. I am just saying, what if it were true? What if this is what Jesus was referring to here: "How terrible it will be for you experts in religious law! For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering." Luk 11:52 New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 How could that change the meaning? What would change if I said, don't boil a colt in its mother's milk? Nothing would change. It is a metaphor like saying "dont throw the baby out with the bath water." Even if they didn't refer to children as kids, the meaning is the same. It is an offspring...that is what matters. You don't find allegory or metaphor in the commandments... If this was indeed a metaphor, if it was allegorical, then it's the only example of it. (not likely at all, considering the context... it's all literal at that point) They were Laws from God... not teachings, and one thing you fail to find in those Laws is any kind of metaphor... But, how do we know that it's literal...any of it? Isn't that based on what people took it to mean after the destruction of the eariler, metaphoric teachers and their works? The whole thing about metaphorical teachings is almost exclusive to the NT... that particular commandment is OT. Come to think of it, I can't recall any metaphorical commands from God in the OT at all. So, since they supposedly came straight from God, and since God didn't muck about with metaphors when it came to commands, it is much more likely to be literal than metaphorical and fits the language useage of the time, something that Ssel's interpretation fails to do. This verse surely must be metaphoric also: Exd 23:5 "If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. " Wouldn't there be a deeper meaning here other than literally taking the load off of your enemies ass? Regardless if it was an ass, camel, horse or even a car for that matter, wouldn't it have a greater meaning? Why must it be metaphorical? Why should it have greater meaning? Why can it not just mean what it says? Here's a thought... without being the Author, we have no idea what extra meaning, if any, there is in any part of the Bible. Since there are many parts that are literal, and unarguably so at that, we know that an extra meaning is not a given. We also know that different people come out with different meanings... so, when something has a clear meaning there is a very good chance that it is literal. Another thing is, how do we decide what is metaphor and what isn't? Do we decide it is if we can find a possible "hidden" meaning? And what about those who find a different "hidden" meaning? The moment you start looking for a hidden meaning to something, you are no longer trying to understand what the author was trying to say... you have started trying to understand your own idea of what the author seemed to be saying. No, when you do that, you are re-writing it... not understanding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I would like to state that when I agree with Ssel it is because of the last 8 months of searching my own life. It would just appear that he has reached the same conclusion as I have. When I say the bible is metaphoric, I mean that it relates to people's lives (their inner journey) and if that includes actual people, actual events, and actual life settings or not, it doesn't take away from the message itself. Even if the Bible is supposed to be metaphorical, why should we believe any of it? It doesn't prove there is a god, much less that that god is Biblegod. Besides, something that is supposedly truth should not be shrouded in mystery. How can anything be true if it must hide in shadows within shadows within even more shadows? Then it is not truth, but obscured lies. Truth is something that is self-evident. It is not hidden with some sort of esoteric meaning that only the super special secretly-chosen Mary/Marty Sue-types can understand. The Bible is fiction. At best, it is poetry (though violent and hate-filled) and at worse, it is lies. Take it however you want to, but either way, it doesn't prove anything. And I will not apply such a hateful philosophy to my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 No, when you do that, you are re-writing it... not understanding it. Or re-discovering it. This method of understanding it is ancient. What if this is what Jesus was referring to here: "How terrible it will be for you experts in religious law! For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering." Luk 11:52 New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust Yet it is this same "jesus" who then purposefully speaks in parables with deceitful intent to those with whom he is teaching. Looks and sounds like a hypocrite to me. It isn't until he has the disciples gathered together that he lets him in on his little explanations as to the true revelation. What if Jesus didn't exist at all? There is much evidence to support there not ever being a historical Jesus, then what of all the metaphors then. And how is it that you all who read the bible in a metaphorical way, suddenly switch to real when it comes to Jesus? I mean that respectfully as possible. Why isn't jesus just a metaphor? I believe just like Pritishd, CT and others who can plainly see what was supposed to methaphorical and what was supposed to be literal. I wish you would have seen me last February. I was a hard-assed non-believer myself. I don't care if Jesus was real or not. It makes no difference. The words are only words that are trying to get a deeper message across. The difference in what I quoted and what you referred to is that one believed and the other didn't. The lawyers are the blind telling the blind what to see. Jesus (doesn't matter if he was real or not) entered the kingdom of heaven (knowing god was in him) and then could show others the truth. The lawyers never found the inner heaven (knowing god was in them) so by what right did they have to stop others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I don't care if Jesus was real or not. It makes no difference. The words are only words that are trying to get a deeper message across. The difference in what I quoted and what you referred to is that one believed and the other didn't. The lawyers are the blind telling the blind what to see. Jesus (doesn't matter if he was real or not) entered the kingdom of heaven (knowing god was in him) and then could show others the truth. The lawyers never found the inner heaven (knowing god was in them) so by what right did they have to stop others? So practically, what is this deeper truth you have uncovered and how is it superior to the freedom that comes with rejection of religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Even if the Bible is supposed to be metaphorical, why should we believe any of it? It doesn't prove there is a god, much less that that god is Biblegod. You shouldn't look at it as proof for a god, only as it being part of an ancient philosophy that points towards an unknown. There are no proofs for a god. Besides, something that is supposedly truth should not be shrouded in mystery. How can anything be true if it must hide in shadows within shadows within even more shadows? Then it is not truth, but obscured lies. This is due to the belief that knowing that god is in one could bring about powers that could have been used for bad in the wrong hands. I am not saying I believe this to be true, I am just saying why they did it. Truth is something that is self-evident. It is not hidden with some sort of esoteric meaning that only the super special secretly-chosen Mary/Marty Sue-types can understand. This is what they believed and they felt is should be kept secret until all of mankind had evolved (spiritually) enough to handle the truth. I don't know what all their secrets are, they just felt it was important to obscure the truth. I don't know what that truth is either other than knowing that it all makes perfect sense to me when viewed like this. The Bible is fiction. At best, it is poetry (though violent and hate-filled) and at worse, it is lies. Take it however you want to, but either way, it doesn't prove anything. And I will not apply such a hateful philosophy to my life. I don't want it to prove anything other than being what it is. I happen to think it is just another group's way of describing the unknown in the only language that can do that, metaphoric language. It most definately doesn't prove a god and I am not trying to make it do that. I am just trying to say that the reasons there are so many similarities between the bible and other myths is because they are all trying to describe the same thing through the use of metaphors and symbols. How else could they? I don't care if Jesus was real or not. It makes no difference. The words are only words that are trying to get a deeper message across. The difference in what I quoted and what you referred to is that one believed and the other didn't. The lawyers are the blind telling the blind what to see. Jesus (doesn't matter if he was real or not) entered the kingdom of heaven (knowing god was in him) and then could show others the truth. The lawyers never found the inner heaven (knowing god was in them) so by what right did they have to stop others? So practically, what is this deeper truth you have uncovered and how is it superior to the freedom that comes with rejection of religion? The deeper message is that god is not out there someplace, but inside everything. (God doesn't mean to me what it might mean to someone else). Even if I didn't believe it, the message would be the same and it is inclusive amongst the greater religions and spiritual teachers. It is superior to me because it is unifying and not dividing. When I rejected all religions, I was against them. It wasn't very pleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 The deeper message is that god is not out there someplace, but inside everything. But nobody can prove that. And it is still dividing when it's used by people (not you, but others) to say that they are better than everyone else just because they believe in one myth over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I wish you would have seen me last February. I was a hard-assed non-believer myself. I don't see myself as a hard-ass but if you say so. I apologize for the implication. But, I was a hard-ass! I don't care if Jesus was real or not. Do you feel the same about heaven and hell? If the story isn't true, then how does one know whether or not the message of heaven and hell is? Afterall, there is no mention of an afterlife in the OT, only a place where the dead go and a place where the gods live. OT, says that Moses did not get to go to the promiseland. If a metaphor for heaven instead of meaning the literal land flowing with milk and honey that was promised, then Moses didn't go to heaven. That is in direct conflict with the NT that says Moses is in heaven. Only reason I am asking you is because you have posted your thoughts of how you feel the bible is to be interpreted. It really doesn't matter, but because you are the one with the belief that you feel is truth, I don't think it wrong to challenge you with pointing out inconsistencies. Yes, heaven and hell are just states of mind and what is a state of mind becomes a projection into reality. Sin is nothing more than "missing the mark." I understand this to mean not understanding that we are part of the whole of Being. And in this mis-understanding, we project our thoughts (egoic) into our world and get back just what we project. Call it 'karma', 'we reap what we sow', or metaphysical justice. We create our own hell. It's not wrong at all for you to challenge me. I can't say whether Moses found heaven in himself or not. The new testament had many people with egoic reasons to make such proclamations. It really doesn't matter to me that it all fits into a nice package (the bible). It was just a way to find oneself spiritually until it's purpose was misconstrued in order to gain power. We can see what happened when the message was used for egoic purposes. If the results of this is not karma, or metaphysical justice, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 The deeper message is that god is not out there someplace, but inside everything. (God doesn't mean to me what it might mean to someone else). Even if I didn't believe it, the message would be the same and it is inclusive amongst the greater religions and spiritual teachers. It is superior to me because it is unifying and not dividing. When I rejected all religions, I was against them. It wasn't very pleasant. But what does that mean exactly in practical terms? That world peace will be forthcoming? That you yourself become more tolerant of other's beliefs? Do you get a buzz knowing that god is in you? I don't know. I personally just don't need anything spiritual. Perhaps it's just a personality preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 The deeper message is that god is not out there someplace, but inside everything. But nobody can prove that. And it is still dividing when it's used by people (not you, but others) to say that they are better than everyone else just because they believe in one myth over the other. Nope they can't prove it, but it doesn't change the message (true or not). And the ones that see themselves as better than others are still just using that egoic mind pattern and in turn will suffer for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 If the results of this is not karma, or metaphysical justice, I don't know what is. Frankly you are going to have to do a lot of convincing to get me to accept the concept of karma. Humans by their evolutionary nature have a propensity to find patterns where none exist. This helps us make sense of the world and helps us practically in a lot of ways. It also misleads us into believing things which just are not true like "what goes around, comes around." You will need to prove this statistically. My guess is that some injustices don't get paid for while the ones that do get burned into our minds. We remember the instances that fit the pattern and forget the ones that don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 But what does that mean exactly in practical terms? That world peace will be forthcoming? That you yourself become more tolerant of other's beliefs? Do you get a buzz knowing that god is in you? I don't know. I personally just don't need anything spiritual. Perhaps it's just a personality preference. Yes...I became more tolerant of other's beliefs and in being tolerant on a macro scale just might bring world peace. And no, I don't get a buzz knowing that god is in me because it is not something that is separate from what I am. And the unifying part is that it is not separate from anything else either. I am not an entity apart from nature. I am made of the same stuff the stars are made of (I stole that from somewhere, but I don't remember where. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I apologize for the implication. But, I was a hard-ass! I will vouch for NBBTB on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 If the results of this is not karma, or metaphysical justice, I don't know what is. Frankly you are going to have to do a lot of convincing to get me to accept the concept of karma. Humans by their evolutionary nature have a propensity to find patterns where none exist. This helps us make sense of the world and helps us practically in a lot of ways. It also misleads us into believing things which just are not true like "what goes around, comes around." You will need to prove this statistically. My guess is that some injustices don't get paid for while the ones that do get burned into our minds. We remember the instances that fit the pattern and forget the ones that don't. Maybe you're right. I can't prove anything other than knowing if I treat someone bad, they are going to reciprocate the action most of the time. I apologize for the implication. But, I was a hard-ass! I will vouch for NBBTB on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I am made of the same stuff the stars are made of (I stole that from somewhere, but I don't remember where. ) Babylon 5, Delenn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I am made of the same stuff the stars are made of (I stole that from somewhere, but I don't remember where. ) Babylon 5, Delenn. Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a excerpt from Plato: Plato, The Republic, Book II [...] "First of all, I said, there was that greatest of all lies, in high places, which the poet told about Uranus, and which was a bad lie too,-- I mean what Hesiod says that Uranus did, and how Cronus retaliated on him. The doings of Cronus, and the sufferings which in turn his son inflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought certainly not to be lightly told to young and thoughtless persons; if possible, they had better be buried in silence. But if there is an absolute necessity for their mention, a chosen few might hear them in a mystery, and they should sacrifice not a common [Eleusinian] pig, but some huge and unprocurable victim; and then the number of the hearers will be very few indeed." "Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarrelling among themselves as of all things the basest, should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one another, for they are not true. No, we shall never mention the battles of the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments; and we shall be silent about the innumerable other quarrels of gods and heroes with their friends and relatives. If they would only believe us we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any, quarrel between citizens; this is what old men and old women should begin by telling children; and when they grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them in a similar spirit. But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer--these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts." The purpose of this thread is not to convince anyone of the use of metaphor. That topic is far too much work to present in this kind of forum. I would like to progress onto unholiness aspects concerning the logic of the NT. In the OT such things are very easy to spot. In the NT they are not nearly so easy. Many threads on here have gone into potential discrepancies and inconsistencies. I am focusing more on the simple logic aspects. Logic doesn't require archeological digs or crossed referenced evidence to support timings or names. Oops...derailed again. Sorry! (I am really bad at that dang-it!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts