busterdog
Senior Veteran
Sorry to say this, but I think this shows that you're just reflecting the idea that somehow a story is "less truthful" than something that is factual. That represents contemporary scientism, not the status of the truth that the story represents.
***
Who by? Any really serious historians take it as an accurate account? Sounds more like the kind of nonsense I used to read from the likes of Hal Lindsay than anything else...
Is a story about the idea of living forever as good as living forever?
I am as into the spirit of what a writer says as the next guy.
But, isn't the whole point here a distinction between life and death?
How do we decide where to stop being metaphorical/spiritualizing and where to start taking things literally? Common sense and even "serious historians" have never done a great job with such things.
Upvote
0