I dunno. It reminds me of the pseudo-intellectual new-age reverse philosophy where people say "You don't have dinner. The dinner has you." It sounds profound but ultimately is saying nothing, it's utterly meaningless.
To say that an absolute exclusionary statement is not meant to be taken literally is to say that NOTHING from that source is to be taken literally, and therefore NOTHING is to be trusted.
is not meant to be taken literally.
It is a statement designed to make you think, since these the two things seem to be contradictory.
I dunno. It reminds me of the pseudo-intellectual new-age reverse philosophy where people say "You don't have dinner. The dinner has you." It sounds profound but ultimately is saying nothing, it's utterly meaningless.
To say that an absolute exclusionary statement is not meant to be taken literally is to say that NOTHING from that source is to be taken literally, and therefore NOTHING is to be trusted.