RE: Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
August 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
As I have repeatedly explained to you, yes, any interpretation of a fictional story is acceptable so long as we're not insinuating that our interpretation is anything more than that -our interpretation-.
How was it determined that the author of Little Red Riding Hood intended the moral you've offered? How, also, might Little Red Riding Hood differ from the narrative that this all began over? If you made some observation about Little Red Riding Hood, would it then follow that this observation must apply to the narrative of the last supper?
Why do you keep assuming that I agree with you on things which I explicitly state my disagreement on? Is this also a part of the socratic method? How many times will you rephrase (or simply repeat) the same assertions and questions, and how many times must I rephrase (or simply repeat) the same responses.
2 full pages ago. The comment at the end seems as appropriate now as it did then.
A few more pages farther back then that. Does the narrative itself (or the writers intent -whatever it may have been) seem to have imposed limits on these two groups of people? On the one hand we have people who essentially call this a pretty story (symbolism) and o the other we have people who propose that this is an act of reproduceable magic, so important and so literal that it is an article of faith. If those are the kinds of limits the authors intent imposes then I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. There is a veritable canyon of difference separating these two interpretations. - and you...apparently, have your own as well.
Limits indeed....
How was it determined that the author of Little Red Riding Hood intended the moral you've offered? How, also, might Little Red Riding Hood differ from the narrative that this all began over? If you made some observation about Little Red Riding Hood, would it then follow that this observation must apply to the narrative of the last supper?
Why do you keep assuming that I agree with you on things which I explicitly state my disagreement on? Is this also a part of the socratic method? How many times will you rephrase (or simply repeat) the same assertions and questions, and how many times must I rephrase (or simply repeat) the same responses.
(July 31, 2012 at 1:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The true meaning of a story, as intended by the writer (and whatever that may be), is absolutely powerless in the face of the reader. Again, we are not having the same discussion.
2 full pages ago. The comment at the end seems as appropriate now as it did then.
(July 30, 2012 at 11:14 am)Rhythm Wrote: Now, why would Catholics, for example, decide to partake of communion? Well, the narrative describes a covenant made which they would like to opt in on, and so they have their medicine man perform a ritual to reenact the particulars of this covenant. Protestants presumably feel that this particular ritual is just magic (which it is), they have a distaste for this kind of magic (though they are perfectly fine with other types of magic) and so they opt out (specifically on the magical bits), instead preferring to view this as symbolic in nature. Transubstantiation, in this example, has very little to do with the narrative, because jesus himself is not performing magic at the table with believers in the here and now. It is a story which has been elaborated upon and institutionalized by one sect and downplayed by another. The text doesn't say two things on this issue, two differing sects do.
A few more pages farther back then that. Does the narrative itself (or the writers intent -whatever it may have been) seem to have imposed limits on these two groups of people? On the one hand we have people who essentially call this a pretty story (symbolism) and o the other we have people who propose that this is an act of reproduceable magic, so important and so literal that it is an article of faith. If those are the kinds of limits the authors intent imposes then I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. There is a veritable canyon of difference separating these two interpretations. - and you...apparently, have your own as well.
Limits indeed....
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
