Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Atheists & Agnostics] know more about your religion than you!

13468911

Posts

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    I agree that neopaganism isn't inherently any sillier than mainstream religions, but but by the same token I don't think it is any more logically consistent. It is just another flavor of mumbo-jumbo, whether its adherents are pantheists or literal polytheists (which some are; as a whole neopaganism is an almost uselessly broad umbrella term).

    What is logical consistency in the context of a religion?

    What?

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Mormons are really nice folks.

    Nothing's nicer than taking away my right to marry.

    MrMister on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mormons are really nice folks.

    Nothing's nicer than taking away my right to marry.

    I meant nice in the "pleasant demeanor" sense, not the "moral paragon" sense.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • HavelockHavelock Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I don't know, I grew up in a heavily Mormon area and the niceness always struck me as incredibly put upon and forced. They were an incredibly exclusive group, and the Mormons who made up our school board had no problem instituting rules based on their social norms.

    I never really had any problem with Mormons in the area I lived in (Northern Cal, 30-40 minutes West or so of Sac), and I've heard that the region supposedly has the highest concetration of Mormons outside of Utah. That said, most were genuine and good people, really open and nice.

    Though that didn't stop the overwhelming tide of yellow Yes on 8 posters from popping up when the Prop 8 stuff was on. That was irritating.

    Havelock on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I actually went to a Mormon-run charter school for my 8-9th grades. The "current events" class always turned into discussions about whether everything's just a polar bear's dream or what? I think that's where I started really going after religion pretty hardcore.

    My teacher, a pretty serious Mormon dude, loved me. I miss that place, it was good times.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • HavelockHavelock Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I went to a public high school, and a sizeable portion of the student body was Mormon. But yeah, the current events stuff was more or less the same with me, though I was a practicing Episcopalian at the time so it by and large didn't bother me much, unless we got into fundamentalist-type stuff. But the mormon kids for the most part were pretty decent.

    We had a funamentalist family living about a block away from the school who taught creationism/intelligent design to kids who would opt out of Evolution. They'd get pretty heavy with the black markers in school books to make sure that their kids wouldn't be exposed to anything that would challenge their faith or whatever. That bothered the crap out of me.

    That was probably one of the many things that started of my slow shift from Episcopalian to agnosticism then to atheism.

    Havelock on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    When we were in cross country the men had shorter shorts than the women, because you know sex.

    That and holding hands got you in school suspension. They would force you to miss classes for holding hands.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The differences in the study don't come from education level or critical thinking, they come from conversion.'most religious people were raised into their religion, and often take it for granted. Most atheists and agnostics made decisions about religion later in life.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The differences in the study don't come from education level or critical thinking, they come from conversion.'most religious people were raised into their religion, and often take it for granted. Most atheists and agnostics made decisions about religion later in life.

    Particularly in this survey, which seems to have "Atheist/Agnostic" as a separate category from nonreligious people; at least there's a category for "Nothing in particular." I'd say in general the former category is people who make a conscious choice to be nonreligious, while people in the latter category are that way by default.

    KalTorak on
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Yeah, I'm currently going to a bible study (never had any exposure to a bible before) and I'm basically being a huge asshole asking all these questions.

    "You mean he literally was in a fish for 3 days"

    "Yes."

    "Seriously?", at this point I was losing the battle to not laugh.

    "Yes"

    And you can pretty much guess how the rest of the conversation went. Trying to decipher these parables is pretty silly too. You can basically twist them to say just about anything, but there is always a 'correct' interpretation that everyone but me learned from Veggie Tales or someting.

    Casually Hardcore on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Well, technically whales are mammals.

    KalTorak on
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yeah, I'm currently going to a bible study (never had any exposure to a bible before) and I'm basically being a huge asshole asking all these questions.

    "You mean he literally was in a fish for 3 days"

    "Yes."

    "Seriously?", at this point I was losing the battle to not laugh.

    "Yes"

    And you can pretty much guess how the rest of the conversation went. Trying to decipher these parables is pretty silly too. You can basically twist them to say just about anything, but there is always a 'correct' interpretation that everyone but me learned from Veggie Tales or someting.

    I can highly recomend an Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 3rd Ed. It uses the NRSV translation which, while not as interesting at times, is far more accurate than the abominable King James or even the more common NSV.

    The "annotations" are going to be very helpful with the obvious questions like that stuff and help you get down to the real issues with the books.

    edit: They are expensive new, but since this is the bible by far used the most in college / academia it is often available on the cheap from used book stores near universities.

    RiemannLives on
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Most Mormons are pretty nice. And they will nicely tell you some of the most fucked up evil shit you'll ever hear about people who aren't like them.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    edit: They are expensive new, but since this is the bible by far used the most in college / academia it is often available on the cheap from used book stores near universities.
    I managed to get one at a used bookstore in a small town for cheap.
    Well, technically whales are mammals.
    The Bible just calls it a big fish.
    In Jonah 2:1 (1:17 in English translation), the original Hebrew text reads dag gadol (דג גדול), which literally means "big fish." The Septuagint translates this phrase into Greek as ketos megas (κητος μεγας). The term ketos alone means "huge fish," and in Greek mythology the term was closely associated with sea monsters, including sea serpents.[11] for more information regarding Greek mythology and the Ketos.) Jerome later translated this phrase as piscis granda in his Latin Vulgate. He translated ketos, however, as cetus in Matthew 12:40.

    At some point cetus became synonymous with "whale" (the study of whales is now called cetology). In his 1534 translation, William Tyndale translated the phrase in Jonah 2:1 as "greate fyshe" and he translated the word ketos (Greek) or cetus (Latin) in Matthew 12:40 as "whale". Which states "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Tyndale's translation was later incorporated into the Authorized Version of 1611. Since then, the "great fish" in Jonah 2 has been most often interpreted as a whale.

    Couscous on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    edit: They are expensive new, but since this is the bible by far used the most in college / academia it is often available on the cheap from used book stores near universities.
    I managed to get one at a used bookstore in a small town for cheap.
    Well, technically whales are mammals.
    The Bible just calls it a big fish.
    In Jonah 2:1 (1:17 in English translation), the original Hebrew text reads dag gadol (דג גדול), which literally means "big fish." The Septuagint translates this phrase into Greek as ketos megas (κητος μεγας). The term ketos alone means "huge fish," and in Greek mythology the term was closely associated with sea monsters, including sea serpents.[11] for more information regarding Greek mythology and the Ketos.) Jerome later translated this phrase as piscis granda in his Latin Vulgate. He translated ketos, however, as cetus in Matthew 12:40.

    At some point cetus became synonymous with "whale" (the study of whales is now called cetology). In his 1534 translation, William Tyndale translated the phrase in Jonah 2:1 as "greate fyshe" and he translated the word ketos (Greek) or cetus (Latin) in Matthew 12:40 as "whale". Which states "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Tyndale's translation was later incorporated into the Authorized Version of 1611. Since then, the "great fish" in Jonah 2 has been most often interpreted as a whale.

    Yeah, well, the Bible also says pi = 3. It was written in a much simpler time by much simpler people, and I feel that picking at scientific inaccuracies in it is kind of a cheap shot.

    Perfectly valid if you're arguing with a literalist though. Those motherfuckers be crazy.

    Raiden333 on
    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I feel that picking at scientific inaccuracies in it is kind of a cheap shot.
    Especially when you can make fun of all the people God murdered.

    I like how the Oxford Annotated Bible basically says, "nope, the serpent is probably just a serpent. Other interpretations appearing later."

    Couscous on
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yeah, I'm currently going to a bible study (never had any exposure to a bible before) and I'm basically being a huge asshole asking all these questions.

    "You mean he literally was in a fish for 3 days"

    "Yes."

    "Seriously?", at this point I was losing the battle to not laugh.

    "Yes"

    And you can pretty much guess how the rest of the conversation went. Trying to decipher these parables is pretty silly too. You can basically twist them to say just about anything, but there is always a 'correct' interpretation that everyone but me learned from Veggie Tales or someting.

    I can highly recomend an Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 3rd Ed. It uses the NRSV translation which, while not as interesting at times, is far more accurate than the abominable King James or even the more common NSV.

    The "annotations" are going to be very helpful with the obvious questions like that stuff and help you get down to the real issues with the books.

    edit: They are expensive new, but since this is the bible by far used the most in college / academia it is often available on the cheap from used book stores near universities.

    Is there any reason why you choose the third edition over the 4th edition?

    Casually Hardcore on
  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    And you can pretty much guess how the rest of the conversation went. Trying to decipher these parables is pretty silly too. You can basically twist them to say just about anything, but there is always a 'correct' interpretation that everyone but me learned from Veggie Tales or someting.

    Not necessarily. A lot of these stories have multiple interpretations: for example there are those who believe that Abraham failed the test with Isaac, and God stepped in to prevent him from doing any real harm.

    There's also an interesting interpretation that posits that Judas may have made the ultimate sacrifice. Since Jesus needed to be betrayed one of his apostles had to agree to do it, and be remembered for all time as a monster. Judas was the only one willing to sacrifice his legacy.

    There's still a lot of scholarship and contemplation going on in certain areas, and a lot of linguistics work being done on the ancient greek.

    Cultural Geek Girl on
    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    And you can pretty much guess how the rest of the conversation went. Trying to decipher these parables is pretty silly too. You can basically twist them to say just about anything, but there is always a 'correct' interpretation that everyone but me learned from Veggie Tales or someting.

    Not necessarily. A lot of these stories have multiple interpretations: for example there are those who believe that Abraham failed the test with Isaac, and God stepped in to prevent him from doing any real harm.

    There's also an interesting interpretation that posits that Judas may have made the ultimate sacrifice. Since Jesus needed to be betrayed one of his apostles had to agree to do it, and be remembered for all time as a monster. Judas was the only one willing to sacrifice his legacy.

    There's still a lot of scholarship and contemplation going on in certain areas, and a lot of linguistics work being done on the ancient greek.
    I actually remember hearing that this interpretation of the Issac/Abraham parable is a fairly common Jewish understanding of the text.

    And I've been a fan of that interpretation of Judas for quite some time. It's vastly more compelling than the alternative. Not that I'm a believer, but I do like a good story.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    And you can pretty much guess how the rest of the conversation went. Trying to decipher these parables is pretty silly too. You can basically twist them to say just about anything, but there is always a 'correct' interpretation that everyone but me learned from Veggie Tales or someting.

    Not necessarily. A lot of these stories have multiple interpretations: for example there are those who believe that Abraham failed the test with Isaac, and God stepped in to prevent him from doing any real harm.

    There's also an interesting interpretation that posits that Judas may have made the ultimate sacrifice. Since Jesus needed to be betrayed one of his apostles had to agree to do it, and be remembered for all time as a monster. Judas was the only one willing to sacrifice his legacy.

    There's still a lot of scholarship and contemplation going on in certain areas, and a lot of linguistics work being done on the ancient greek.
    I actually remember hearing that this interpretation of the Issac/Abraham parable is a fairly common Jewish understanding of the text.

    And I've been a fan of that interpretation of Judas for quite some time. It's vastly more compelling than the alternative. Not that I'm a believer, but I do like a good story.

    The Judas interpretation is even more compelling if you incorporate the fate Dante gave him into it.

    IIRC, after Jesus died he spent a weekend in Hell before coming back and winding up in Heaven. After Judas made his sacrifice? An eternity of being Satan's personal chew-toy. Who's the Lamb of God now?

    KalTorak on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I really like Harvey Keitel's Judas in The Last Temptation of Christ, but I love just about everything about that movie.

    It's stunning to see how a movie that open and supportive of divine power and the place of Jesus in the Christian faith is shunned by so many as being blasphemous.

    Atomika on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I know. It's as if a bunch of idiots relied on third-hand misinterpretations of the movie and were 100% incorrect about it. It's a positive depiction of Christianity FFS.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Glorious CretinGlorious Cretin Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Yeah, well, the Bible also says pi = 3. It was written in a much simpler time by much simpler people, and I feel that picking at scientific inaccuracies in it is kind of a cheap shot.

    If its adherents claim it was inspired by an omnipotent, all-knowing being, it's a perfectly legitimate route of criticism. You'd think their god could have at least gotten the basics right.

    Bunnies don't chew cud, either.

    Glorious Cretin on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    I know. It's as if a bunch of idiots relied on third-hand misinterpretations of the movie and were 100% incorrect about it. It's a positive depiction of Christianity FFS.

    It's very likely the same people who protested Dogma on similar grounds.

    Apparently, for some, new interpretations of Christianity are tantamount to damnable heresy, regardless of how positive and engaging they are or how much it draws people into the faith.

    It's like, I dunno, restaurant patrons throwing a shit-fit because someone new came in and had the chef make them something not on the menu. The chef and the owner certainly won't care and appreciate the money just the same. Fuck the old patrons.

    Atomika on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    But the study says that a lot of people don't eve went to Catholic School for 12 years and that one would probably trip me up a bit. I always get a little confused between Nazareth and Bethelham. :P

    This is my new pet peeve.

    Nazareth didn't even exist then, and Jesus fairly clearly had no relationship to Nazareth, it's the result of a confusion with "the Nazerean" and subsequent mistranslatations

    Eeeeee.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Well, technically whales are mammals.

    Most versions of the Bible describe the creature that swallowed Jonah as a "great fish" (Jonah 1:17 in the KJV uses "great fish", the NIV just says "fish"). The whale thing is interpretation. There's a great scene in "Religulous" where Bill Maher is asking a guy about "Jonah and the whale" and how the whole thing makes no literal sense, and the guy corrects him, noting that the text says "fish" and not "whale", as if that somehow makes it better.

    The ancient Hebrews didn't make a distinction between whales and fish (just like birds and bats in Leviticus). In the Old Testament Book of Jonah, the Hebrew is translated as "big/great fish". When Jonah is referred to in the New Testament, the creature in question is called "ketos megas". Ketos means "big fish", so the Greek emphasizes that this is a big, big fish. When the whole thing is first translated into Latin (which differentiates fish between piscis and cetus, with whales being included as cetus, though cetus may not exclusively refer to whales), the creature that swallows Jonah is referred to as "cetus". When we get into English translations of the Bible in the 16th century, people had a better idea that whales and fish aren't the same and "cetus" had come to refer to whales. Since the early English Bibles are translated from different sources (New Testament generally from the Latin vulgate, Old Testament from the Textus Recepticus in Greek), early translators translate "ketos megas" as "big fish" in the Old Testament Book of Jonah and the Latin "cetus" as "whale" in the New Testament references to Jonah.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Havelock wrote: »
    I don't know, I grew up in a heavily Mormon area and the niceness always struck me as incredibly put upon and forced. They were an incredibly exclusive group, and the Mormons who made up our school board had no problem instituting rules based on their social norms.

    I never really had any problem with Mormons in the area I lived in (Northern Cal, 30-40 minutes West or so of Sac), and I've heard that the region supposedly has the highest concetration of Mormons outside of Utah. That said, most were genuine and good people, really open and nice.

    In all honesty, you'd be surprised how nice someone is when they are convinced you're going to burn and he's not.

    I'm not even joking. Anecdotal or not, I've had people talk to me like the sweetest people in the world despite my saying I'm an atheist (it came up in conversation, I don't just throw it around :P), and their closing statement was I was such a well-mannered young man..."It's too bad he's going to burn in Hell."

    Obviously they had the social tact to not say this to my face, but still.

    The Muffin Man on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Havelock wrote: »
    I don't know, I grew up in a heavily Mormon area and the niceness always struck me as incredibly put upon and forced. They were an incredibly exclusive group, and the Mormons who made up our school board had no problem instituting rules based on their social norms.

    I never really had any problem with Mormons in the area I lived in (Northern Cal, 30-40 minutes West or so of Sac), and I've heard that the region supposedly has the highest concetration of Mormons outside of Utah. That said, most were genuine and good people, really open and nice.

    In all honesty, you'd be surprised how nice someone is when they are convinced you're going to burn and he's not.

    I'm not even joking. Anecdotal or not, I've had people talk to me like the sweetest people in the world despite my saying I'm an atheist (it came up in conversation, I don't just throw it around :P), and their closing statement was I was such a well-mannered young man..."It's too bad he's going to burn in Hell."

    Obviously they had the social tact to not say this to my face, but still.

    Well, how else does one keep a completely irrational belief in check without the constant specter of eternal damnation?

    Huh? Huh?



    Generally, the more batshit-crazy a religious belief is, the stronger the ecumenical response to non-faith usually is. It's why you don't see too many Buddhist martyrs.

    "Shit, if I kill myself I'm just coming right back. That solves nothing."

    Atomika on
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Well, technically whales are mammals.

    Most versions of the Bible describe the creature that swallowed Jonah as a "great fish" (Jonah 1:17 in the KJV uses "great fish", the NIV just says "fish"). The whale thing is interpretation. There's a great scene in "Religulous" where Bill Maher is asking a guy about "Jonah and the whale" and how the whole thing makes no literal sense, and the guy corrects him, noting that the text says "fish" and not "whale", as if that somehow makes it better.

    The ancient Hebrews didn't make a distinction between whales and fish (just like birds and bats in Leviticus). In the Old Testament Book of Jonah, the Hebrew is translated as "big/great fish". When Jonah is referred to in the New Testament, the creature in question is called "ketos megas". Ketos means "big fish", so the Greek emphasizes that this is a big, big fish. When the whole thing is first translated into Latin (which differentiates fish between piscis and cetus, with whales being included as cetus, though cetus may not exclusively refer to whales), the creature that swallows Jonah is referred to as "cetus". When we get into English translations of the Bible in the 16th century, people had a better idea that whales and fish aren't the same and "cetus" had come to refer to whales. Since the early English Bibles are translated from different sources (New Testament generally from the Latin vulgate, Old Testament from the Textus Recepticus in Greek), early translators translate "ketos megas" as "big fish" in the Old Testament Book of Jonah and the Latin "cetus" as "whale" in the New Testament references to Jonah.
    A gigantic fish that's very similar to a whale, then. So you're saying that clearly Jonah was swallowed whole by a whale shark, right? Because Jonah and the shark sounds pretty awesome...

    JihadJesus on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    How can Jonah breathe inside an aquatic creature's belly for three days?

    emnmnme on
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Well, technically whales are mammals.

    Most versions of the Bible describe the creature that swallowed Jonah as a "great fish" (Jonah 1:17 in the KJV uses "great fish", the NIV just says "fish"). The whale thing is interpretation. There's a great scene in "Religulous" where Bill Maher is asking a guy about "Jonah and the whale" and how the whole thing makes no literal sense, and the guy corrects him, noting that the text says "fish" and not "whale", as if that somehow makes it better.

    The ancient Hebrews didn't make a distinction between whales and fish (just like birds and bats in Leviticus). In the Old Testament Book of Jonah, the Hebrew is translated as "big/great fish". When Jonah is referred to in the New Testament, the creature in question is called "ketos megas". Ketos means "big fish", so the Greek emphasizes that this is a big, big fish. When the whole thing is first translated into Latin (which differentiates fish between piscis and cetus, with whales being included as cetus, though cetus may not exclusively refer to whales), the creature that swallows Jonah is referred to as "cetus". When we get into English translations of the Bible in the 16th century, people had a better idea that whales and fish aren't the same and "cetus" had come to refer to whales. Since the early English Bibles are translated from different sources (New Testament generally from the Latin vulgate, Old Testament from the Textus Recepticus in Greek), early translators translate "ketos megas" as "big fish" in the Old Testament Book of Jonah and the Latin "cetus" as "whale" in the New Testament references to Jonah.
    A gigantic fish that's very similar to a whale, then. So you're saying that clearly Jonah was swallowed whole by a whale shark, right? Because Jonah and the shark sounds pretty awesome...

    Yup. It's totally a plausible story that actually happened, and not allegory at all.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm got to get back to my distributed computing application that precisely calculates the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. :)

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    How can Jonah breathe inside an aquatic creature's belly for three days?

    Jonah was actually another name for Pinocchio.

    Couscous on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yup. It's totally a plausible story that actually happened, and not allegory at all.
    Are you doubting the power of almighty God?

    Bama on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    How can Jonah breathe inside an aquatic creature's belly for three days?

    Jonah was actually another name for Pinocchio.

    That's all well and good for a wooden boy but how did Jiminy Cricket, Geppetto and the kitten Figaro breathe inside Monstro the whale's belly? Hell, Geppetto was in there for, like, weeks.

    emnmnme on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yup. It's totally a plausible story that actually happened, and not allegory at all.
    Considering that it has been taken as historical or literal since forever, a purely allegorical reading is kind of hard to justify. It isn't like the Bible doesn't have a ton of other insane miracles that make no goddamn sense. For example, the plagues. Why do angel's need lamb blood to tell who to kill?

    Couscous on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    How can Jonah breathe inside an aquatic creature's belly for three days?

    Jonah was actually another name for Pinocchio.

    That's all well and good for a wooden boy but how did Jiminy Cricket, Geppetto and the kitten Figaro breathe inside Monstro the whale's belly? Hell, Geppetto was in there for, like, weeks.

    Jiminy was small enough to survive. Geppetto was actually a Highlander. Figaro was a zombie.

    Couscous on
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Yup. It's totally a plausible story that actually happened, and not allegory at all.
    Considering that it has been taken as historical or literal since forever, a purely allegorical reading is kind of hard to justify. It isn't like the Bible doesn't have a ton of other insane miracles that make no goddamn sense.

    I can't disagree with that. I was just commenting on the mindset that seems to be present in the guy from Religulous - if we can just figure out what type of creature the text actually refers to, a task that is essentially impossible because we're dealing with an ancient people who didn't understand the difference between whales and fish, it will make literal sense. My own attitude is that if there's any value whatsoever, it's in the allegorical sense - much like how one doesn't need to believe in literal talking ants in order to appreciate the point of Aesop. Certainly, though, there are plenty of adherents who take the text at face value and call it a day.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Myths have plenty of value. Heracles' trials don't become less interesting because they didn't happen.

    Couscous on
  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Actually there's substantial evidence that, historically, almost all religious allegory was taken as allegory. In fact, if you ever have time to read the dryest, most insanely difficult to plow through book ever, read "Hamlet's Mill". It's a book about how huge numbers of our classic myths, legends, and religious stories may, in fact, be meticulous astronomical calculations and records, put into story form to prevent them from being forgotten.

    Cultural Geek Girl on
    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • HavelockHavelock Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Havelock wrote: »
    I don't know, I grew up in a heavily Mormon area and the niceness always struck me as incredibly put upon and forced. They were an incredibly exclusive group, and the Mormons who made up our school board had no problem instituting rules based on their social norms.

    I never really had any problem with Mormons in the area I lived in (Northern Cal, 30-40 minutes West or so of Sac), and I've heard that the region supposedly has the highest concetration of Mormons outside of Utah. That said, most were genuine and good people, really open and nice.

    In all honesty, you'd be surprised how nice someone is when they are convinced you're going to burn and he's not.

    I'm not even joking. Anecdotal or not, I've had people talk to me like the sweetest people in the world despite my saying I'm an atheist (it came up in conversation, I don't just throw it around :P), and their closing statement was I was such a well-mannered young man..."It's too bad he's going to burn in Hell."

    Obviously they had the social tact to not say this to my face, but still.


    Well, yeah. But that goes for most people. They're all nice and smiles in social settings, but behind backs and closed doors the public facade comes off and you get to see their true colors.

    Anecdotal for me too, but back when I was still 'in the Faith', I experienced sort of the same thing, though the person in question lacked social tact, because it was high school etc. Tried to suggest a mishmash combination of Creation and Evolution that was more in favor of Evolution (I was wrestling with reconciling my love for science and the faith at the time, so I was having Ideas). For my imagination I got told that thinking such a thing was blasphemous and that I was going to go to hell if I didn't accept what the bible said, period. Needless to say, my reaction was very much :?

    But anyways, that's another one of the things that turned me off from the stuff.

    Havelock on
13468911
Sign In or Register to comment.