Vorkosigan

You can't "prove" an allegory in a rational way, Chili. It has to come as a poetic insight that links two ostensibly unrelated stories. In your case, since the allegory is entirely your own, without support from any scholar or literary expert, it needs hardly be stated that you will never convince anyone here.

Everyone knows this. But a non-literal perspective already exists that satisfies everyone who is not a crazed fundy. Yours is totally idiosyncratic. It tells us nothing about the text that we would like to know.

You'll have to decide, Chili, whether sticking around in a forum where nobody listens to you and where there is no hope of ever convincing anyone your view is right is a good use of your time and theirs. But it looks like the answer to that question in both cases is No, it is not. Surely there must be a forum somewhere where people trade such interpretations. Infidels, however, is not it.

Vorkosigan

Chili

You are the literalist who claims that the bible is wrong because Mt Ararat is not the tallest mountain. My suggestion was that it must be the tallest mountain in the myth to give meaning to the reality presented by the myth.

It is this reality behind the myth that makes room for Judaism to be a valid religion that Catholics left behind and replaced the flood part with the period of Advent in their religion. But you would never understand that, of course not, since you insist that the mountain is real but the height of the said mountain is wrong.

The bible never "came along" for me but it was people like you who caused me to take a look it it.

Boro Nut

Er… No it’s not. Considering the whole shebang is an extremely badly written attempt at recording a ridiculous series of fictional events, which is chewed over endlessly by millions of YEC’s, who by definition hold it to be truer than the fundamental laws of physics, we are well within our rights, nay, duty bound by the spirit of the game, to engage in the spurious debate on a truly level playing field. Therefore it’s a bit much to ask us to feel any guilt for ridiculing their preposterous fables, especially the more interesting ones they simply forgot to put in, or were to stupid to think of in the first place.

My logic is flawless, and I have countless written testimonials from the majority of today’s leading scientists supporting it 100%.

Boro Nut

(Sorry, I still had my YEC head on for a minute there . I mean of course I have written many testimonials from the majority of today’s leading scientists supporting it 100%. And they‘re not even scientists).

Dharma

I am not a literalist, but there are literalist Christians or do you deny this? And to those literalist Christians Mt. Ararat's height is a big downer. In fact, there are whole bunch of archeologists searching for Noah's ark... will you tell them that it is a myth...?

You are a Christian saying it is a myth. Now why is biblical myth better than any other myth? Didn't Catholics say the Bible is the REAL word of God and ONLY word of God for 2000 years and literally killed millions for THIS MYTH...?

For a book of myths, the church sure did kill many people and destroyed many a soul..
:down:

Boro Nut

It clearly made a damn sight more sense to you than to me. But you obviously have the unfair advantage of being incoherent.

I can't believe I missed out on you all the time you used to be Amos. Keep up the good work. You set em up, I'll add the punchline. What a team.

Boro Nut

Chili

That depends on your definition of proof. I would say that to explain allegories in a way that removes all contradictions from the bible is a good beginning.

Poetry is lyric vision that leads to mysticism with vague images of reality that can easily be wrong. The bible was written from noetic vision that cannot be wrong but requires the same amount of insight to be brought to understanding. This makes the critic the judge and the poet the advocate under scrutiny by the philosophic mind of the judge who knows the intricate details of the story long before the argument was presented.

My interpretations are not my own since there is no copyright on truth. I often lean on literature to add weight to my argument but that makes it even more complicated since then, as in this case, we must compare the validity of 'white candle' with a 'dove,' or a visit to a county fair or in a hundred other ways that I have come across in literature since the flood is the most telling part of the rising action that ends in the crisis moment that brings change about. I disagree. Most literalists end up in a combination of history and myth wherein myth must explain the physically unacceptable part. We saw this just recently with the crucifixion and resurrection and now with the size of the mountain. Let me say again, the ark is real, the animals are real, the flood is real and everything else is exactly as stated, but only in the parable of the myth.

Mine is idiosyncratic only because it removes the entire purpose of theology as a worthy pursuit towards understanding. I've said before that bible study is the yeast of the pharisees or the baggage loaded on Nietzsche's camel that prevents one to reach the oasis of abundance in life.It was never my idea for anybody to listen to me and least of all to believe me at will. I find reading the bible very boring (never read the OT past Gen.3), but find it interesting to see that even Infidels defend the old grip it once had on them. Remember also that I am the only one here who argues against bible study to avoid becoming a burned sacrifice yourself.

I am banned from most boards within days (4 times from Carm, the last time as Seafarer here at Christmas without warning) and would never write the things I write here on a Catholic board.

Chili

But there is no difference between you rejoicing in 'the height' being a "big downer" and them measuring it. I will explain the myth and that will be the end of the story . . . except that neither one of you will believe me and that is exactly what makes you the same kind of fundamentalist as they are, except that you lean heavy on the side of doubt while they are heavy on faith.I am not a Christian and have never claimed to be one.

Nobody, at least I would never, claim that one myth is better than any other. I might comment on the artistic beauty of the metaphor and the function it serves as a parable but that does not make it intrinsically better. Here I claim that the complexity of the mythology is a reflection of the complexity of the civilization it serves. Next, myths are mythology sensitive to avoid Buddhist from being 'dragged' into heaven, for example, and vice versa, and so on.

Oh, Catholics were very careful to kill only those who attempted to destroy their civilization (they had an inquisition first). They were all protestants, in one form or another, unless the Catholics were not responsible for the killing.

Dharma

you are aware, chilli, that there are other flood myths in the world... and your interpretation of the biblical one is not really all that fantastic or original...
well if you can call that a civilization. For 1000 years it was blasphemy for a commoner to even read the Bible and such people were put to death. That is how their "civilization" started. For 1000 years Europe was brain washed into accepting foreign myths that trashed their ancestors as pagan idiots, when all they got for their troubles were just a bunch of other myths from a civilization that was inferior to their own.

Chili

It's a beautiful allegory if 6000 years later educated people are still aguing over it. Don't you see who the pig herder is here?[quote]

Dharma

isn't it amazing we still talk about the plague as well?
:devil3: