Google| Subject | Re: OT:Christianity |
| From | Graeme |
| Date | 2002-05-01 23:50 (2002-05-01 23:50) |
| Message-ID | <20020501175025.00866.00006378@mb-me.aol.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | James Bell |
| Followups | James Bell (3h & 3m) |
intolerance. Your post has made that much crystal clear to me.I don't believe literal translations are any more dangerous than religious
Jim
The danger is the danger of making an error. And it's almost guaranteed if you insist on taking every word of something literally. It isn't possible to discuss things beyond the range of the five senses without resorting to figurative language. If you insist that "every word must be taken litereally", you'd be in danger of being logically compelled to regard Christ as a plant, because he said straight out "I am the true vine."
do you believe that when he said that, somebody tried to water him, or do you think maybe they regarded it as metaphorical? Insisting on 100% literalness is the flipside of the error of simply regarding everything one doesn't like as a metaphor for nothing in particular and disregarding it.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
