[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It helps your understanding if you do the same drugs as the authors did while writing it.


Especially Revelations.....

Since modern people are more familiar with drugs than with ancient Hebrew symbolism, it sometimes seems that the Revelation of John must be drug-fueled. It's kind of a "cool kid" way of avoiding the work that has to be done to get into the text. 

I've had people tell me they don't like William Blake's longer poems because they don't like drug stuff -- even though he never took any drugs. He's just using so many tropes and methods that are unfamiliar to us that people assume he's a nutcase. In fact it was very much his intention to make his meaning[s] difficult to discern, and, being a genius poet and amazingly informed about ancient esoteric traditions, he was able to weave great depth into each sentence.

---

The idea that holy texts mean different things to different people ('Moreover, part of their value is that the prompt they give will be different for every reader, and that this is what the writer wants.') is a pretty compelling argument that these texts are human in origin, and not divine or even divinely inspired, taking 'divine' in the literal, narrow sense.

This is assuming that you know how a God would operate, and that it would do what you would do. 

Since God wants people to get to Heaven (per the text), it would be in the best interests all parties concerned that the text be  interpreted in the same manner.  BUT...if the texts are intentionally ambiguous and open to as many interpretations as there are readers, the clear conclusion is that the texts were concocted by human writers who were writing from imperfect knowledge and the typical human emotions (greed, fear, prejudice and greed).

Or it may be that if there were a God, it wouldn't want its texts to be clear and unambiguous. Speaking for myself (i.e. not for an omniscient existence) I think that part of being good is figuring out how to be good. It requires individual work. And I think that someone who had a perfect knowledge of typical human emotions might know that these are variable, that they manifest differently in different people, and that therefore a single clear statement couldn't cover every possible instance. 

In short, the holy texts aren't 'holy' at all.

If you're defining "holy" as a set of clear unambiguous rules, then you're right. If, on the other hand, it's possible to be holy and difficult, demanding hard work and discernment, then you're not right.

1. I quite like Blake's artwork, his poetry somewhat less.  I do admire his contrarian spirit, but I also agree with Wordsworth that Blake was somewhat off his nut.

2.  But you said the writers intended to elicit a different prompt from each reader.  This is hardly compatible with a God who wants all to be saved.

3. I'm sure we can 'figure out how to be good' without benefit of holy texts.  We managed it for millennia without them.  And if a single clear statement can't cover all possible instances, why don't Levitical laws include the word '...except...'?  The writers clearly intended that their texts WOULD cover all possible cases ('Thou shalt not commit adultery' isn't 'Thou shalt not commit adultery unless her husband be away on a business trip.').

4.  No, I'm defining 'holy' as 'promulgated or approved by God'.

Boru