Chili

Sacred? Holy even with piety first so their eyes will be opened as if it was Eden, and do not feed them BS after grade-school so they will always remember what a taste of 'heaven' was like and know that they are lost long before they hit the gutter . . . and least of all teach them a sense of righteousness aquired to walk away from.

Chili

To elaborate on this, the 2 trees in the garden were the TOL and the TOK and to water this garden a river rises in Eden to be the river of life, also in this poem here above, and so we become river-merchant in our journey of life.

And this river divides to become, not one, but two branches that run parallel between 'good and bad' is it winds thoughout the land of pleasure and pain, that as humans we surely will follow in pursuit of happiness in a land of our own. And there is gold there, and of all things that can be said about gold, this gold is good, and bdellium and lapis lazulli is also there so we can decorate each other and leave our name on the gift that we give, as surely we remember the pain as we journey along.

So then this third river we see [back home] in the East flows instead of winds and we wanne go there again to be in the carefree love we once knew.

But notice that this river does not wind nor does it flow, but just is as I am wants to be in a land of our own where all will be bright, and so the Eu-phrates is called.

The poem is actually fun to read in this context and explain aways all the movment and words.

Tenorikuma

I'm pretty sure that stuff about political symbolism in Wizard of Oz has been debunked. Baum didn't intend any of it. (But I'm too lazy to look up sources on my iPad.)

stephan huller

Please let me know if that's true. Would very much like to know that when you get a chance

Toto

Political_interpretations_of_The_Wonderful_Wizard_ of_Oz

tanya

political symbolism

tanya

1. I disagree. I think that many "small children" do understand the distinctions of racism, and selfishness versus public sharing of wealth.

2. I agree. That's why the nonsense about baptizing infants is so critical to expose.

3. How old was Mozart when he wrote his first composition--three or four years old?

I will bet you a wooden nickel, that sotto voce, already as a child, understood notions of injustice. The average age of a person who read Wizard of Oz, in USA, was 8. By that age, I bet two wooden nickels that spin and stephan huller both already had attained literacy in Hebrew and Greek.

tanya

Sorry, my error. Mozart was five years old when he wrote his first composition,
K1a

Ok, she's not Bach, but, I can picture Anna Magdalena, watching this six year old girl.

I can't even play this minuet from the Anna Magdalena Notebooks

sotto voce

Same here.

Dorothy Gale and her black dog, Toto, who does not speak.

Dorothy, from δῶρον (dōron), "gift" + θεός (theós), "god".

Gale, meaning 'powerful wind', metaphor for the Holy Spirit.

Toto, meaning 'totality'. The letters of 'dog', reversed, spell 'god'. The 'reverse' of black is white, that symbolises purity. So Toto, the constant companion whom Dorothy loved dearly, indicates completely pure deity, whereas Dorothy Gale indicates the expression of that deity to mankind.

Scarecrow lacked understanding

Tin Woodman lacked compassion

Cowardly Lion lacked courage

So Dorothy Gale went with three characters to find a wizard, one who turned out to be a trickster, like 'the father of lies' (Jn 8:44). One character, the lion, needed courage, and courage of commitment would have provided the understanding and the compassion that the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman lacked. Dorothy, the gift of God, the Holy Spirit, was with them all the time, to provide courage (or rather, faith), the mind of Christ, and his compassion, too.

The slippers (ruby, or silver, it does not matter) were lost in the desert.

'Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, because wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her.' Pr 8:10-11

Baum wrote that "The story of 'the Wonderful Wizard of Oz' was written solely to pleasure children of today" (p. 1). But maybe, like some others, he wrote more than he knew?

outhouse

Well you would be dead wrong.


Yesterday as today, there were people who believed different things.


There were many who viewed the legend as allegory, including the original audience. Remember, at the time this was a vast minority view and there was not a major following when it was written.


"Son of God" itself was allegory for a important leader. Not a literal "son of god" as viewed today.

The reason we see contradictions in the early synoptics is because they didnt view it literally and there was no conspiracy to create anything. Early on it was all allegory to rememeber a important figure in their lives and pass on morals and other lessons in life.