[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

A proper reading of ancient texts always includes one informing himslef of the background of the time the stuff was written in, the person who wrote it and the possible audience. When i took latin classes and we translated classic roman literaure, 50% of the time was devoted to this background, in orde to be able to understand the text from the persepctive of the times it was written in.

It depends on what you mean by "proper." You are proclaiming what "proper" means for everyone, when it might be different for different uses of the text. 

Historians must know the background. That's their job. Interpreters of myth, on the other hand, use the text differently.

In your studies did you read Plato's Symposium? Do you recall how the different speakers use the mythical figure of Eros as a jumping-off point to think about love, without reference to the historical origins of the character? 

A teacher who intentionally keeps his disciples confused is an ass imho.

You would have voted to kill Socrates. 

If the subject is difficult it is false to pretend it's not confusing. Offering a too-easy solution is as bad as lying. We hope, in the long run, that students reach some kind of understanding, but part of teaching them (if I were Socrates, which I'm not) is first to show them that they don't know what they think they know. In other words, we have to reveal their actual confusion to them so they can get past it. Unless, like Boru, you just want to hand them the answer. But I think that what we find is more valuable to us than what we're handed.

---

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.

As I said, Blake was intentionally very difficult, and the first response was to just assume he was nuts. No disrespect to Wordsworth, who didn't have the benefit of much familiarity. 

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.

Well, I say it is compatible. Because maybe each reader has to find a meaning which addresses his or her own situation. And maybe the hard work of finding that solution is part of the solution. 

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.').

I agree that people can figure out how to be good without holy texts. On the other hand, people don't think in a vacuum -- we need dialogue, and the texts, whether we like it or not, have provided the basis for dialogue in European history. 

Jews will tell you that Levitical laws do have exceptions. You can start a fire on the sabbath if you're freezing to death. 

The change to Christianity (which is unfair to Jews) is that Moses' laws were TOO detailed, allowing people to follow them without thinking about how to be good. Christians say that Jesus made the laws more ambiguous -- and more difficult -- by writing one big law on the hearts of his followers. Basically, BE GOOD. And this is vastly more difficult because we have to think for ourselves about how to follow it. Each case, lacking a specific rule, must be considered on its individual merits.

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

Well, I don't know what's approved by god. 

I would define "holy" as -- that which is held to be holy by people.