Amos

The Exodus myth is a living legend and very much alive today in America.

Moses parted the waters to lead the children of Israel into the promised land where they died nonetheless from unbelief despite the manna they received from heaven through Moses.

Their problem was unbelief as in rebel, repent, rebel, repent, until they died nonetheless. Their manna was second hand through Moses and not directly from God in heaven and therefore soon to whither and could never sustain them through the following night. The allusion here is to bible reading which is not the same as inspiration from God (Jn.5:39-40) . . . wherefore they failed to mature and so remained "children of Israel" instead of "one with Israel."

The reason why they did not get inspiration from God is because the waters had been parted to lead them into the promised land. The proper way is to follow the footsteps of Jesus and walk on the waters (celestial sea) and so into the promised land.

It is living legend that is alive and well in America today because all/most born-agains are led into the promised land before their own time (which is equivalent to the parting of the waters), and must read scriptures daily to sustain their ideal of salvation and often waiver in the saved sinner complex of the rebel, repent, rebel, repent mode until they die nonetheless and their physical death must finally resolve the paradox of their delusion.

So much for the glorification of Moses.
So much for the glorification of Billy Graham.

MortalWombat

Glep frop ninkum mustlywout. Iffmeq framm spelki jon forskmish ovil yetyet.

OK, a show of hands. Which of these two posts was most understandable?

Triple Six

Brilliant effort MortalWombat

You've almost managed the impossible but you can't beat the champion.

None the less this is the best second place I've ever seen. I salute you.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Amos

What???? It is simple language and a child can understand it. Is it the imagery you have trouble with or the reality of it?

David Gould

I think Amos is pretty clear, really. He believes in a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible and attacks the literalists.

I agree with his attack on the literalists but diagree with his metaphorical interpretation, although I think there is some validity in using the bible as an analysis of the journey of the self.

However, i suspect that many books can be interpreted in similar ways.

From what I understand, Amos also believes that other cultrues/religions echo the biblical metaphors in their own stories.

Is this correct, Amos?

Amos

All Romantic literature is Romantic in the same way and all cultures have this same reality behind their metaphors.

It is always the fundies that fight the bloody war because they are wrong and often become the scapegoat of religion to hide behind. In Catholicism we have the Church Millitant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. The Church Triumphant can become the instigator of the Church Millitant and later is able to blame the error of its ways on the erroneous view of the pastoral interpretation. This is both good and bad. It is good in the long run but bad from the shallow surface point of view. The game is played for keeps and that is what counts in the end.

Triple Six

You mean the "reality" of using metaphorical interpretations of an old fairy tale to comment on others who have fallen for the same fairy tale in a different way? Rather incestuous. If your argument is based on an unsubstantiated fantasy it comes out looking like...

Well you guess

Similar analogies with life in the world today can be made from just about any work of fiction you care to mention.

And as for that last post <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

sullster

It never ceases to amaze me that Amos can post so many extreme anti-protestant fundamentalist statements and never has he been opposed by a fundy. He is more virulent in his antipathy towards the fundamentalists than many of the atheists around here. He is stridently catholic, with his own intepretation of course.

Is it because fundy lurkers have not read his posts? They are hard to understand but he has always been very clear about his attitude towards the protestants. Is there some unwillingness to fight another religion while in the midst of secularists and atheists? It is a puzzle to me.

When will a fundy arise to take on Amos? Where is the anti-Amos? That would be a good battle to watch.

Amos

If you can do that why does my post confuse you?

Amos

Maybe that is why I end up in "the basement" with you guys (thank God for that or I would be kicked off).

Notice that there never is anger in my tone because for me they are just fun arguments to expose some truth.