My daughter and I were getting Grandad's room ready for him at assisted living, when a friendly nurse stopped by to say hello. Grandad was not there yet, just Th'O'lette and myself. We chat a bit about teenagers and boyfriends, and then the nurse says to Th'O: "Just be sure that when you decide to marry, choose a nerd and a Christian."
We didn't know what to say to this, neither of us being Christians, so we just smiled weakly and waved bye-bye. After she left we rolled our eyes at each other.
I am guessing that she meant to be nice (?) but I have to wonder if she's said the same thing to us if we looked Middle Eastern or Asian rather than our blonde, blue-eyed middle class-looking selves. Do you think she was assuming too much? How could I have replied without seeming to be crabby?
I guess I could have said, "As long as he's nice, we don't care what religion he comes from."
Aren't 'nerd' and 'Christian' mutually exclusive? ;)
Most of the nerds I know are atheists.
Some people are utterly thoughtless about possible assumptions their statements might make.
Ain't it cute? /sarcasm
I feel like I could have given her some kind of heads-up about how thoughtless it actually was. When I think about it, it was really uncalled for, and bordering on rude. But did she mean it that way, or was she truly naive? I feel so uncomfortable when I'm caught off guard.
Hard to say from here, but I'm voting for truly naive, or at least not intentionally rude.
To someone a little ruder, I might be tempted to wonder out loud if it was a good idea to marry a Christian, since they are bound by the words of their Lord to give away all their positions to the poor and desert their families. ;)
Bigoted and thoughtless. That's what I'd say she is. I'd probably would have given her a Look (woo frown power!).
Quote from: Opsa on January 26, 2012, 09:07:50 PM
"Just be sure that when you decide to marry, choose a nerd and a Christian."
Quote from: Swatopluk on January 26, 2012, 09:18:54 PM
Aren't 'nerd' and 'Christian' mutually exclusive? ;)
She must be relatively tolerant if she was advocating polyandry. ;)
I'm half-surprised she didn't specify an American or 'a white man' while she was at it. Perhaps she considered that so self-evident that it was not worth mentioning.
Not so in our family; both my sister and I seem to prefer exogamy. :mrgreen:
Sounds like the sort of thing you'd hear around the Ocean o'Sand.
My translation: when ya get done sowin' your wild oats (or the grrrly equivalent thereof) choosa fella in a stable, professional position who'll make a ton of money so ya don't haveta work, sweetheart. And a Christian so ya'll know he's committed to bein' a faithful (not that there'll be any temptation in his safe, boring office) husband and a good father.
She probably has no idea why any of this is irrational, let alone offensive.
I must confess that I would have a great deal of fun in future interactions with her, wearing confusingly pagan jewelry; referring affectionately and off-handedly to my husband, Rabbi X -- no -- wait! my better half Rabbi (female name from *any* other ethnicity!); noting the time with shock and apologetically having to dash as I'm leading the esbat; that sort of thing ... but only if I were sure that my jokes wouldn't result in any problems for the relative entrusted there.
;)
She couldn't help being stupid and bigoted. She meant well, so a simple punch in the face would have been quite adequate. No need to go to extremes.
(I say the following despite the fact I am a nerd) ;) :
Socially awkward and intolerant? ::)
---
There are other interesting assumptions made by Xtians, for instance, two nights ago I was waiting for my places call in the opera in the rehearsal room and two other choristers were there. I know many sing in churches (that's how some make a living) but their topic changed from singing to rapture, and then they spoke about it in a matter of fact way that was a bit new to me, at least in the setting of the opera. One of them was talking about the frequent conspiracy theory about the world government, the single currency, how the crisis of the Euro was one of the signs and how he wasn't voting for Obama, because that way rapture would come sooner, and how the world will be remade after the second coming, plus some specific interpretations about the book of revelations. I held my tongue and when I got tired of the stuff I just politely left the room to wait somewhere else.
While I listened silently I pondered if there was a way -if any- to engage that level of lunacy commitment, and the conclusion was that they were too far gone to do anything about it. I couldn't stop feeling some disappointment that otherwise reasonable people could have such strong fringe beliefs, but I guess is to be expected. :-\
Leaving Revelation in the canonical Bible was an all-around bad decision, IMHO (I also take the perspective that the 'little scroll' the angel slipped him may have been what Hunter S. Thompson would call 'high-powered blotter acid').
I'm not the only one:
QuoteIn the 4th century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including Revelation because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the risk of abuse.
Combining Revelation with a literalist view of the Bible is like combining a chimpanzee with an open flame and pre-fused dynamite. Probably worse... the chimp may have the sense to resist playing with fire. ::)
Patmos where the Book of Revelation was written according to tradition was the central trading place for certain types of mushrooms in the Mediterranean. Not the ones you'll put into your normal dinner, if you know what I mean. St.John may have been a friend of Amanita muscaria at the time he produced that book.
Wow. Can you imagine Revelation being illustrated by Ralph Steadman?!? That would really add a new dimension.
I've heard that the author of Revelations (he was certainly not an apostle, but someone purporting to write in the style of one-- a common practice to gain authority) was high in the same rye fungus that infected those infamous accusers of the Salem Witch trials (if you accept that theory at any rate).
But another hypothesis is that Revelations was a combination of alcohol, a high fever and a starvation diet; an all too common habit of the "deeply spiritual" in those days. The fever coming from the high starvation diet. Some poor fools thought that the hallucinations they frequently had when in this state was somehow... more "spiritual" or something.
Unfortunately for the world's health? This idiot was also ... literate (or had a literate sycophant-- more likely). Some foolish folk would flock to these "holy men" due to their constant fever-dreams...
As already noted? It was considered a really bad move to include Revelations.
But what could Constantine do? He desperately needed justification for his pogroms of force-conversion to Xianity; and without the Revelations "I am the only way" statements, he'd not have his exclusive clause to justify murdering anyone who refused to join his new religion.... so Revelations was in. And the rest is... well. ::)
The diffrence would be between deliberately induced hallucinations (fly agaric) and accidental ones (ergot).
There were a lot of choices between apocryphal scriptures, man yof which could have been abused. Revelations is actually pretty anti-Rome. And the author even stated explicitly that he spoke in simple code (e.g. that Babylon was code for 'the city on seven mountains' and the 666-Beast code for a specific human).
And apart from Revelations there is the Book of Daniel with its sequence of empires (gold=>silver=>bronze=>iron and clay). That last one, although likely originally aimed at the successor states of Alexander the Great, was interpreted at the time we are talking about as the Roman Empire (and later, even today, by protestants as the power share of Roman state and Roman church).
I've been always a bit suspicious of Revelation 1:10 :
Quote
10 On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet
I'd be curious of what translation has done to the phrase "in the Spirit" and what the original meaning was.
one could also read this passage as "I was drunk on Sunday, and farted" :mrgreen:
Greek
γίνομαι ἐν πνεῦμα ἐν ὁ κυριακός ἡμέρα καί ἀκούω ὀπίσω ἐγώ φωνή μέγας ὡς σάλπιγξ
(πνευμα pneuma pnyoo'-mah: ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind.)
Latin Vulgate
1:10 fui in spiritu in dominica die et audivi post me vocem magnam tamquam tubae
They both plainly say in (the) spirit and are no help at all. All the modern European-language versions I can understand say exactly the same.
The Holy Ghost turned from female (Hebrew, Genesis 1) to neutral (Greek, NT) to male (Latin, Vulgata) and at least the last step was deliberate (iirc St.Hieronymus harps on God being male and that his spirit must be too).
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on January 28, 2012, 07:46:46 PM
They both plainly say in (the) spirit and are no help at all. All the modern European-language versions I can understand say exactly the same.
Thanks. The term 'spirits' for strong drink originates much later, which shoots down that theory. ;)
If the guy was doing 'shrooms then spirit applies perfectly (although demon might be a better description).
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on January 30, 2012, 04:44:29 AM
If the guy was doing 'shrooms then spirit applies perfectly (although demon might be a better description).
Dunno, have you heard of what Bill Hicks has to say about them? :mrgreen:
CAUTION: STRONG LANGUAGE [youtube=425,350]EkF9NZjrSIE[/youtube]
not advocating, mind... Amanita poisoning is quite another matter, however.
There is quite a difference between species of Amanita. Fly agaric might get you a bad trip, the ominously named Death Cap (A.phalloides) and Destroying Angel (A.bisporigera and A. ocreata in eastern and western North America, and A. virosa in Europe) are another goblet of water hemlock.
This interests me, because only last Tuesday I was saying to the tutor of my church architecture course that the designer of the wonderful 12th-century "Herefordshire School of Sculpture" must have been at the magic mushrooms which grow on the Black Mountains. I was only half joking. Look at the font at Castle Frome:
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu198/RamblingSyd/CastleFrome.jpg)
Quote from: Aggie on January 30, 2012, 06:32:39 AM
Dunno, have you heard of what Bill Hicks has to say about them? :mrgreen:
Those seem like different mushrooms from the ones BH took, or it was one heck of a bad trip.
Different mushrooms, certainly.
Quote from: Swatopluk on January 30, 2012, 09:20:57 AM
There is quite a difference between species of Amanita. Fly agaric might get you a bad trip, the ominously named Death Cap (A.phalloides) and Destroying Angel (A.bisporigera and A. ocreata in eastern and western North America, and A. virosa in Europe) are another goblet of water hemlock.
I had always thought the fly agarics dangerously toxic, if not as deadly as the white ones (and I did know different poisons were responsible). I'm not sure, after a bit of looking about the internet, if that is completely true.
Quote from: Swatopluk on January 29, 2012, 10:41:35 AM
The Holy Ghost turned from female (Hebrew, Genesis 1) to neutral (Greek, NT) to male (Latin, Vulgata) and at least the last step was deliberate (iirc St.Hieronymus harps on God being male and that his spirit must be too).
It seems like the height of vanity to make a god be like yourself. Why didn't he just make a golden statue of himself and get it over with?
It is my understanding that Walt used an image common from Europe without being aware of its other capacities. This bit has always mad the adult me smile, regardless.
[youtube=425,350]MeMIzUJSpsA[/youtube]
From what I read the fly agaric has a similar reputation as the wolf, i.e. seen as a lethal threat of the first degree despite not a single case of proven death by it for centuries. (iirc the last unprovoked wolf attacks on humans reported in Central Europe happened during the 30 Years War when starvation not only hit humans). Also the fly agaric sticks out optically. The legend probably grew from there. They are definitely not healthy.
Btw, in antiquity they were THE favored hallucinogenic in Persia and were hideously expensive because they had to be imported from Greece. The hallucinogenic ingredient passes through the body mostly unaltered and leves it via urine. People that could not afford a regular supply of the shroom..eh..recycled..several times over.
----
DavidH, I see nothing especially mad about the sculpture there. Regular celtic knotwork and a comparitively naturalistic lion (apart from the wings of course, but those are a common additive too).
----
God left the making of golden statues to his earthly stand-ins. There is a golden statue of pope John Paul II. next to the cathedral of Mexico City (the church with the magic coat showing the black virgin Mary of Guadeloupe).
Quote from: SwatoDavidH, I see nothing especially mad about the sculpture there. Regular celtic knotwork and a comparitively naturalistic lion (apart from the wings of course, but those are a common additive too).
True - I must look out a better example. I agree, it's not mad, just very imaginitive.
Ancient Cypriotic vase painters seem to have taken some shrooms given the results.
Or some expressionists got hold of a time machine and deposited those vases as a joke.
Oh Pieces, I just love that mushroom dance!
As for wacky images, creative people can easily achieve them without pharmaceutical help. Children can come up with wonderfully weird creatures, too. It's just that many of us get trained away from imagining what is not real. Drugs sometimes loosen that grip, but they are not necessary for some of us.
Disney, though... what a druggie! ;) ::)
Quote from: Opsa
Disney, though... what a druggie! ;) ::)
Quote from: Snopes.comOf the notion that the imagination displayed in Disney's animated films was drug-induced, animator Art Babbit, who drew the dancing mushrooms in "The Nutcracker Suite" portion of Fantasia said; "Yes, it is true. I myself was addicted to Ex-lax and Feenamint."
:)
Ya gotta love him!
Actually, having been in the animation business, most animators I knew were more prone to alcohol. Animation is extremely detail-oriented work and you need to loosen up the ol' retentive area after a while.
^ which is why all the Gothic saint statuary is so lacking in ... animation?
Absolutely no looseness allowed in this group!
(http://download.agefotostock.com/fotos/bajaage/cached/2554/IBR-1203332.jpg)
Quote from: Opsa on February 01, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
Actually, having been in the animation business, most animators I knew were more prone to alcohol. Animation is extremely detail-oriented work and you need to loosen up the ol' retentive area after a while.
Hence the laxative abuse. ;D
Hey, there's a lobster in that cathedral!
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on February 02, 2012, 05:35:51 AM
Hey, there's a lobster in that cathedral!
Quote from: St. Lowys Carroll
"Will you pray a little faster?" said a saint swathed in a veil,
"There's a bishop close behind us, and he's treading on my tail.
See how eagerly the lobsters and the lambs of god advance!
They are waiting on the mullions—will you come and join the dance?
Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance?
Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, won't you join the dance?
"You can really have no notion how delightful it will be
When they take us up and throw us, with the lobsters, out to sea!"
But the monk replied, "Too far, too far!" and gave a look askance—
Said he thanked the lady kindly, but he would not join the dance.
Would not, could not, would not, could not, would not join the dance.
Would not, could not, would not, could not, could not join the dance.
"What matters it how far we go?" his blessed friend replied.
"There is Another Shore, you know, upon the Other Side.
The further off from England the nearer is to France—
Then turn not pale, beloved grail, but come and join the dance.
Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance?
Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, won't you join the dance?
^ (http://www.venganza.org/forum/images/smilies/worship.gif) (http://www.venganza.org/forum/images/smilies/worship.gif)
Thank you, DavidH. :blush:
Also, I had meant to acknowledge this very fine joke! :D
Quote from: Aggie on February 01, 2012, 08:39:05 PM
Quote from: Opsa on February 01, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
Actually, having been in the animation business, most animators I knew were more prone to alcohol. Animation is extremely detail-oriented work and you need to loosen up the ol' retentive area after a while.
Hence the laxative abuse. ;D
Too much brilliance going on in here! I need my anti-glare sunglasses.
:depp_hat:
In answer to the OP, it is a disease of certain people to make certain assumptions. Such is the human condition. I would have politely said that I was not a Christian (maybe "I'm a godless heathen" or "I deny Jeebus" would work well), and that the only requirement I wish for my daughter's future relationships is her happiness; nothing more, nothing less. If I was feeling especially naughty, I may have taken a leaf out of Pieces' book, and mentioned something about Paganism or Satanism (not LaVeyan (sp.) ), but then I have a nicely evil streak in me.
There are so many people like this, who think that they're being nice when they say things like this, as to them it's the height of achievement. No wonder there are so many issues in our society, when the most a woman is expected to achieve is to marry a rich Christian (shouldn't that be an anathema to a Christian, what with the camels and eyes of needles?). The same is true when dealing with loss and bereavement, especially of a child. They think they're saying something nice, such as "God will look after her in Heaven" or "God has a plan for us all" (does that last one negate free will?), when what they really mean is, "I have no idea what to say, so i'll use the same tired old platitudes in the hope that you agree with me". It may not be meant to offend, but it's definitely a "them and us" attitude.
To cover the shrooms (lol), St John was definitely on something when he wrote or dictated that book. I'm surprised it was kept in, especially when you realise that there were people back then who were prescient enough to know what would happen. Then again, considering how many conflicting things there are in the Bible, and not just between the OT and the NT, it's not surprising at all.
There's nothing wrong with writing books that are obviously influenced by drug intake (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Naked Lunch come to mind), but to pass one off as a religious text shows true self-delusion. Unfortunately, hallucinogenics have a long history with "helping" humankind commune with the gods, from tribes in the jungles of South America, to European shamans, to mad old men sitting alone in caves in the middle eastern desert. What St John did was nothing but one of the oldest pastimes of our race (apart from prostitution), and we are unfortunate enough to be having to deal with the decision made over 1500 years ago to base [part of] an entire religion on it.
I've never truly understood the rationale behind wanting the world to end. It's almost as if the people who enthuse over it cannot deal with the current one.
You should read some of the stuff that did not get into the (generally accepted) bible. St.John is by no means the worst.
I'd say bad fan fiction (even prawnographic*) was very alive then already.
In one of the more notorious (that heavily influenced Roman Catholic Mariological thought) there is an attempted vaginal inspection of Mary to check her virginity after the birth of Christ (who got less born but beamed) with nasty consequences for the (female) inspector. In another text pre-teen Jesus kills other kids to demonstrate his resurrection skills afterwards (and has other Frankensteinian habits too).
*You know, the OT did not make prawn an abomination for nothing ;)
That's what should have been included in the Bible. That's the Jesus who kicked buttock. Also, what's with exams for virginity? Some men have a real fetish for it. I've read excerpts here and there of different non-canonical texts, but nothing in its entirety (where it exists). I really must do that soon.
Keeping slightly on-topic, i've often wondered about Judas Iscariot. Why is he hated, and assumed to be evil (touched by the devil), so to speak? He was only doing what he was destined to do (no free will again?) so that we could all be "saved". If he hadn't have done that, we would all be damned. When I learnt of a gospel of Judas, and read some of the stuff from it, it said pretty much what i'd been thinking.
Same reason people hated Jews for so long?
Quote from: Swatopluk on February 27, 2012, 12:17:05 PM
You should read some of the stuff that did not get into the (generally accepted) bible. St.John is by no means the worst.
I'd say bad fan fiction (even prawnographic*) was very alive then already.
In one of the more notorious (that heavily influenced Roman Catholic Mariological thought) there is an attempted vaginal inspection of Mary to check her virginity after the birth of Christ (who got less born but beamed) with nasty consequences for the (female) inspector. In another text pre-teen Jesus kills other kids to demonstrate his resurrection skills afterwards (and has other Frankensteinian habits too).
*You know, the OT did not make prawn an abomination for nothing ;)
Ok, clearly I need to take a bit to read more than the Gospel of Thomas because what.the.hell.
Quote from: Roland Deschain on February 27, 2012, 12:30:56 AM
There are so many people like this, who think that they're being nice when they say things like this, as to them it's the height of achievement. No wonder there are so many issues in our society, when the most a woman is expected to achieve is to marry a rich Christian (shouldn't that be an anathema to a Christian, what with the camels and eyes of needles?).
Prosperity Gospel. Appeals to innate monkey nature by offering the proverbial free lunch and the opportunity to climb the social ladder (believe in our version of Jesus and don't question it, and God will reward ye with money/social esteem).
Quote from: Roland Deschain on February 27, 2012, 12:30:56 AM
I've never truly understood the rationale behind wanting the world to end. It's almost as if the people who enthuse over it cannot deal with the current one.
It's a strange, confusing, alarming, sometimes painful place and they don't have the guts or will to make the best of it by giving their lives their own meaning. Instead, they'd rather wail about the world being that way, how unfair it is, and how they
deserve better. And the vision of the afterlife offered by select varieties of Christianity is what they think they deserve.
Quote from: Swatopluk on February 27, 2012, 12:17:05 PM
...there is an attempted vaginal inspection of Mary to check her virginity after the birth of Christ
?
After the birth? There would be no "evidence" after the birth. Shutting the stable door comes to mind. If only the Magii had not turned up so late LoL.
Well, the 'evidence' is that the hymen is still intact despite the birth having taken place.
I wonder, if the placenta too beamed out instead of going through the proper channel.
Or did fetus Jesus not need one? If so, why did he need Mary?
There are no less than 11 'genuine' foreskins of Jesus worshipped in different places. But where are the holy afterbirth and the holy umbilical cord?
OMGE (O My Great Everything, as we Toadfish sometimes say here), don't get me started on the whole vaginal inspection thing, what with all this republican talk of having girls inspected before they can get an abortion. There's some really creepy carp going on right now here in the U.S. with this election.
I will say I admire Roland's comment:
""The same is true when dealing with loss and bereavement, especially of a child. They think they're saying something nice, such as "God will look after her in Heaven" or "God has a plan for us all" (does that last one negate free will?), when what they really mean is, "I have no idea what to say, so i'll use the same tired old platitudes in the hope that you agree with me". It may not be meant to offend, but it's definitely a "them and us" attitude."
I'm glad you're here.
I too read all I could about the gospel of Judas when it came out, and thought it was wonderful. I loved the stuff that implied that Jesus really hated prosthelytizing and would not have approved of any religion based on him.
There is no positive way to prove anything, you would require:
- Genetic tests to both mother and child to prove both are related.
- Documented (photographs/video) inspection pre and post partum of said virginity.
- Video evidence of live birth proving that the child came out of the mother.
The only plausible explanations of virginity before birth would be genital rubbing or more unlikely, in vitro fertilization. The only way to remain virgin after pregnancy would be a C section but at the time the likelihood of a) have the procedure done, and b) surviving it would be incredibly small.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on February 28, 2012, 11:49:58 PM
The only plausible explanations of virginity before birth would be genital rubbing or more unlikely, in vitro fertilization. The only way to remain virgin after pregnancy would be a C section but at the time the likelihood of a) have the procedure done, and b) surviving it would be incredibly small.
Caesarian? Um... Caesar.... Um Roman..... presume they worked ok and people survived them. No?
Perhaps Jesus came out of Mary's tummy button?
You misunderstand. Baby Jesus turned into a ray of light, went out of Mary, and rematerialized.
That still does not answer the question about the placenta and umbilical cord. And what about the amnion? Did it stay intact too or did the whole package undergo the beaming process (and Jesus appeared in a bubble with attached life support system)? Btw, a baby born still covered by the amnion is considered a Lucky Kid.
Of course Jesus could have been the result of true parthenogenesis. This would only presume that he was a girl and kept it secret to the very end (so those that believe that the guy at the cross was actually someone else could be right). As for DNA testing, that has been debated fiercely. Depending on whom you ask, Jesus either had none, it was single-stranded, 100% Mary, 50% Mary 50% Joseph, 50% Mary 50% someone else, 50% Mary 50% King David, 100% non-Mary (she was only the vessel)....
And then there is that theory about 4 guys looking for the plot of a bestseller hiring a guy named Gabriel to rape that poor underage girl and blackmailing her geezer husband into silence in exchange for parts of the royalties.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on February 29, 2012, 04:20:03 AM
Caesarian? Um... Caesar.... Um Roman..... presume they worked ok and people survived them. No?
No. If I remember my Roman history correctly Ceasar's mother actually died in childbirth and so Ceasar was then cut out of her belly with a sword. Great for Ceasar, not so good for his mum...
The most notorious Caesarean takes place off-stage (actually before the play) in Macbeth and that's Middle Ages. It is not said, whether the mother survived ;)
According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesarean#History):
Quote from: wikipediaCaesarean section usually resulted in the death of the mother; the first recorded incidence of a woman surviving a Caesarean section was in the 1580s, in Siegershausen, Switzerland: Jakob Nufer, a pig gelder, is supposed to have performed the operation on his wife after a prolonged labour.[20] However, there is some basis for supposing that women regularly survived the operation in Roman times.[21] For most of the time since the sixteenth century, the procedure had a high mortality rate. However, it was long considered an extreme measure, performed only when the mother was already dead or considered to be beyond help. In Great Britain and Ireland the mortality rate in 1865 was 85%.
Apparently there was a cesarean like procedure in the Talmud sadly the article provides no details, but in the abstract of the source it mentions that it was regularly performed when the mother died. The wiki article also has this:
Quote from: wikipediaEuropean travelers in the Great Lakes region of Africa during the 19th century observed Caesarean sections being performed on a regular basis.[22] The expectant mother was normally anesthetized with alcohol, and herbal mixtures were used to encourage healing. From the well-developed nature of the procedures employed, European observers concluded that they had been employed for some time.
Perhaps one of the magi came from the environs of lake Victoria? ;) :P
Back to why the sad drug-book "Revelations of John" was included topic.
My current working theory is this-- Constantine needed a quick and dirty way to pacify the peasants of his empire.
If you study the traditional NT, there is scant mention of Jesus being the sole and exclusive method to heaven, in fact, there are a couple of implications that he's not--anyone walking the good walk, fighting the good fight would qualify (the old if they aren't against us, they are with us shtick).
But along comes Revelations, with it's exclusively Jesus Only clause. Justifying Constantine's later tactic of force-converting peasants to his newly minted religion.
So in it goes.
I'd say, without Contantine's little committee and his later pogrom of convert-or-die (many chose to die) 'christianity' would have dwindled to nothing like all the other cults of that day.
And modern society would still have access to the fantastic thoughts of the most ancient of philosophers--
-- we'd no doubt have had colonies on Mars for hundreds of years by now...
I cannot remember which author, but somewhere on my bookshelf there is a passage where the writer starts musing on Revelation -- after having been to Patmos and waiting for the ferry to return to the mainland. Apparently, the mind-numbing boredom of the 'scenery' naturally lead to hallucinatory fantasies about getting away. Coupled with local 'herbal' and other fermented remedies, this led to the disjointed scribblings which were, alas, discovered by third parties, mistaken for Holy Writ, and preserved for posterity.
Here endeth the lesson.
Personally I am suspicious of the Magii bearing gifts, especially such strange ones. I posit they were illegal substances, everyone got stoned, and no one could work out where Jesus came from while they were all out it, so they opted for Mary as the only woman present. Jesus was probably dumped in the manger by some teenager prostitute getting rid of him. All makes much more sense.
Jesus was an adopted son of a wh....! That would make waaay more sense and would explain why he was so tolerant with working girls!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Quote from: Opsa on February 28, 2012, 07:45:36 PM
I'm glad you're here.
I too read all I could about the gospel of Judas when it came out, and thought it was wonderful. I loved the stuff that implied that Jesus really hated prosthelytizing and would not have approved of any religion based on him.
Thanks, Opsa. It's good to be here, even if I have been absent for a little while.
As opined above, the NT is a political statement, and not necessarily a wholly religious one. We can hypothesise all we like about what
could have been if Christianity wasn't adopted, but the truth is, we will never truly know (I want my damn Holodeck!).
If John really was on mushrooms, that was one hell of a trip. I took some mushrooms years ago, and all I did was giggle for an hour. Considering that I was at a rock/metal festival at the time (Download), i'm glad I didn't see all that he did. It would have made being at the front for Machine Head, Slipknot, Slayer, Archenemy, and Cradle of Filth a bit of an eye-opener, that's for sure! :o
I remember a while ago reading about Manna, as allegedly eaten in the desert by the Jews in Exodus, actually being a type of hallucinogenic mushroom that grows on dew pockets, or some such. Can't remember where I read it now, as it was a long time ago, but it certainly seems as if hallucinogens are part and parcel of religious experience.
Quote from: Bluenose on February 29, 2012, 02:21:08 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on February 29, 2012, 04:20:03 AM
Caesarian? Um... Caesar.... Um Roman..... presume they worked ok and people survived them. No?
No. If I remember my Roman history correctly Ceasar's mother actually died in childbirth and so Ceasar was then cut out of her belly with a sword. Great for Ceasar, not so good for his mum...
Oh!! I always thought Caesar moonlighted as a surgeon ;)
Quote from: Griffin NoName on March 12, 2012, 12:26:19 AM
Oh!! I always thought Caesar moonlighted as a surgeon ;)
Well, he was always surging. ;)
Isn't Liberty (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/liberty-isnt-free-liberty-university-inside-jerry-falwell-u) great? :censored: :puke:
Had to add that to my Favourites!!
Curious how the name is completely Orwellian.
The only correct way to use free will is to completely renounce it and become exactly the kind of mindless, obedient puppet which god created free will in order to not have...
(http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/huhsmileyf3.gif)
It's part of the same philosophy as:
• The only correct use of the intellect is to completely renounce it and operate by faith alone...
• The only correct use of natural euphorics and painkillers is to renounce them entirely as the soul-killing creations of the devil...
• The only correct use of human gonads is to ignore them completely...
• If ^ is impossible, they are to be kept out of sight at all times and used only without joy during godly incidents of the most depraved sin known to man, a sin so terrible it must be reserved solely for the One You Love...
Quote from: pieces o nine on May 14, 2012, 08:50:16 PM
The only correct way to use free will is to completely renounce it and become exactly the kind of mindless, obedient puppet which god created free will in order to not have...
I was thinking on that one today after I met one of those funny individuals in a shirt/tie I met in the parking lot of a walmart today who wanted to "share" some "scripture" with me today. I politely sent him on his merry way, but later I couldn't stop thinking if I could (or should) have engaged him. The only thing I could think of is asking "How likely do you think it is for
me to change
your beliefs?" before starting. Perhaps an honest answer could give a glimpse if any further conversation is worth the effort. :devil2:
Not religious but to a degree even more Orwellian and restrictive.
http://coreyrobin.com/2012/03/08/lavatory-and-liberty-the-secret-history-of-the-bathroom-break/
One shudders to think about that one, Swato...
^ That attitude lives and thrives wherever very wealthy men have convinced blue, white, and pink collar workers that *all* of amurka's ills stem from the damned unions and their unreasonable demands (in a few cases, perhaps), not from the 2007 average of four hundred times more per hour than their employees.
Or all that pensions/benefits weight that belongs 55%+ to management, or how those poor people don't pay taxes and have [gasp!] a fridge and a TV in 70-80% of cases!
The more I know about these people the more I consider Robespierre's approach to the problem.
I was doing some thread necromancy over at Topix, and someone uncovered this one, what I wrote about a year or so ago. Enjoy.
-------------------------------
But Wait! I have an even BETTER plan, regarding Noah's Story.
Since murdering a person pretty much is usurping his free will anyway, here's the New And Improved Noah's Story:
-----
God: "Noah! We Need To Talk."
Noah: "Okay, God, what's this all about, anyway? If it's about last night, I can explain---"
God: "Nevermindaboutthat! I Have Decided. I Am Going To Destroy The World!"
Noah: "Destroy the---wait, what? You just built it only two thousand years ago...!"
God: "Oh, I Know. And It Is Barely Paid For. But People Have Become Evil: I Wish To Start Again."
Noah: <gulp> "Even me, Lord? Have I not slaughtered enough virgin animals?"
God: "Oh, Noah, Noah, Noah: Your Slaughter Is Most Pleasing To Me, So Obviously, You Will Be Spared. But, Nobody Else!"
God: "What about me sons? They helped with the raising and the killing, after all."
God: "Oh, Okay-- Including Your Sons."
Noah: "And the missus? Hard to make more sons without a misses."
God: "True. Okay-- The Missus Too."
Noah: "How about me son's wives? They aren't **that** bad."
God: "Okay-- But No More! I Will Destroy All The Rest--By Drowning."
Noah: "Okay. That's an excellent plan, I'm sure. But won't all the animals drown too? And the plants? What about barley and hopps? You canna make good beer without those. And I have a fresh crop of baby animals I was plannin' on sacrificing to you, Oh Lord-- what about those?"
God: "You Have A Point. So, What To Do, Then? Make Some Sort Of Boat?"
Noah: "Well, a big boat does sound like a really good idea, but how about this: since you're planning on drowing'em anyhow, why not just CHANGE everyone?"
God: <intrigued> "Hmmm. Keep Talking."
Noah: "I know free will is a big thing with you, but drowning someone is pretty much against their free will anyhow, right?"
God: "Right. I Think I See Where You Are Going."
Noah: "I mean, why not just Fix the problem, instead of washing it under the carpet, so to speak? You could simply change all the minds of the adults into good, decent people-- sure, they'd not have free will but so what? This way, they would raise their kids to be good, instead of evil, and you'd not have to drown the babies, too. Then, when the time was right, you simply kill the adults without free will, say from a nice disease or old age or somethin'."
God: "Okay. I Like That Plan. I Had Not Thought About The Drowning Babies. Good."
Noah: "And no mess to clean up for afters, either."
God: "True. Okay-- Let It Be So."
-----
And so it was. And all the world lived Happily Ever After.
There is wee problem with the Noah story as told in the Bible most people are unaware of.
Noah must have been a gazillionaire. There is consent that the Ark was built in Mesopotamia somewhere between Ur and Babylon.
But timber was extremly expensive in that region. Large pieces of wood were so luxurious that only temples and the kings's palace could use them in architecture at all. Given the size of the Ark (the Bible gives exact numbers) it would have used up far more timber than all of Mesopotamia has in use at the time. So, Noah would have had to first dismantle all religious and royal buildings to get the first stacks of wood and then import several times that from Lebanon. That would have taken an army of workers and another army to protect them and the building material on the way. Even if he had been supreme ruler of the land he would have not been able to afford it (and kings have been demoted for lesser misconduct). And it would have taken several years. In comparision the rounding up of the animals would have been easy. Building a zoo would not have drawn that much suspicion and it could have been additionally justified with the intended breeding program.
The epic of Gilgamesh is far more logical there. Utnapishtim was king, he used reed not wood as building material, and he conducted a campaign of disinformation with support by one of the gods. He even had a plan for the workers, so he could make off with the boat unimpeded (the gods provided a neat extra diversion, a shower of plenty, so no one had any suspicion that doom was just hours away).
Maybe Noah used Faux Wood (http://www.fauxwood.co.uk/)
And it is termite resistant!!!
:mrgreen:
Why not Pykrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete)?
At the intended size it would have easily lasted the intended 40 days (and with constant cloud cover and rain it was probably not that warm in the first place). This would also explain the absence of large wood remains on Mt.Ararat.
You could make a similar substance with hay and ice, to provide fresh feed and bedding for the animals as the top melted.
But still not cold enough for pykrete to survive.
Quote from: Aggie on May 21, 2012, 04:54:32 PM
You could make a similar substance with hay and ice, to provide fresh feed and bedding for the animals as the top melted.
I thought the saw dust would at least serve for the bedding part
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 21, 2012, 04:59:07 PM
But still not cold enough for pykrete to survive.
The US test ship survived one full summer a 1000 ts. The Ark, which was far bigger, had to last less than 2 months (no data in what season the Flood took place*) . And a deity that was able to rise water levels by more than 8 km in 40 days should have been able to provide a few cold spells round the thing.
*the Sumerian Ark was probably launched in late autumn. Reed for boats is traditionally cut in August because then it floats best and lasts longest. The hut that provided the building material for the first stage would not have been enough for the full ship, so Utnapishtim would have had to get some fresh reed. The time between cutting and launching would depend on the drying time. So, he likely ordered fresh reed to be cut and dried while he started the building with the material from the hut. When that was used up the first delivery of new reed was probably ready. Meanwhile the animal catching was underway too. So my estimate is that all was ready in late October or early November. The flood would have subsided in time for the spring bloom, so the animals disembarking from the Ark would easily find fresh food. Another sign that Enki was a better organizer than Jahweh.
How did they get the two pandas to breed? They are notoriously difficult.
Or should that be in the Easy Questions thread?
8 km sounds too much ;) but how about 500mts/1km? I guess the height could be any number, 10 mts is enough to cover a (not so) small town that would be perceived as the end of the world. Babylon is only 35mts above sea level so a 50 mt raise would've meant the end for most of the known world, more considering that the mountains are far away enough (both to the east or the north west).
Obviously the literal approach is untenable and the historical one... well, there was a flood of the rivers, and some trader with his boat with goats ended up well into the gulf and survived to tell the tale. :P
Utnapishtim probably landed in what is today Bahrein.
Iirc the flood went over the top of all mountains. Do not forget that the Ark stranded at the summit of Mt.Ararat (>5000m), the Quran is more modest with another mountain of only 2100m.
Of course the flood could have been a wandering depression just fast enough not to allow anyone to run out of.
Btw, a novel explanation why animals can be gay, although they are not directly recruited by the homosexual agenda through TV and advertisement:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/18/former-navy-chaplain-insists-gay-demons-can-infect-animals/
^ sigh.....
methinks te gentleman doth protest -- entirely -- too much
Of course we don't know about the animals' advertising campaigns - they are bound to have made them secret.
I was going to say that religious fundies do not believe in animals having the capability for that but then I remembered the guys calling for renewed animal trials (leading e.g. to the stoning of orcas and the extinction of bearkind*)
*they are great proponents of collective punishment, i.e. not just perpetrators of evil but their whole family too
I love the Noah's Ark story, especially all the special pleading that inevitably has to go with it. I've been privy to several threads about the subject on Facebook, the discussion taking place between Christians (mostly fundie, with a smattering of Catholics and other denominations), pagans, and atheists/agnostics. My favourite special pleadings are the following, but please note these are put into my own words:-
- Where did all the rain come from? - It's been proven that there was a huge water vapour cloud covering the Earth at that time.
- Could you provide this proof, please? - *gives link to answersingenesis.com*
- How could all those animals have fit on the Ark? - They were all young ones, so took up less room.
- No, seriously, how could all those animals have fit on the Ark? - God did it. Also there were less species back then, all current ones having diverged from them (only micro-evolution, before you become excited).
- What about all the food? (apart from the Termites) - God made it so they didn't need to eat, or not eat much.
- What about all the poo? - God had them starve themselves before going on. Also see previous point.
- Where did all the water go? - It went into underground caverns.
- Err, do you realise exactly how much water that is? It's multiples of what there is now in all the oceans - God did it.
- What about all the saltwater fish who suddenly had an influx of freshwater? - *ignores comment or mumbles something incoherent about the power of God*
- What about all the other flood myths, such as in the Epic of Gilgamesh? - They were all copied from the Biblical Flood, or spread by Satan.
- But what about... - God did it, ad infinitum.
That pretty much sums up the explanations. It's such a shame that none of them really make any sense.
Oh yeah. Gay demons infecting animals? :giggle:
EDIT: Whenever I hear, read, or say "Noah's Ark", I always think of "Noah's Arcade" from Wayne's World, complete with that awesome interview scene between Wayne and the owner.
He blows goats...I have proof.
Some more modern fundies (claim to) believe that Noah stored all those creatures in embryonic form. Easy with bird eggs but into which animal did Noah implant all those embryos after the trip.
My guess is, it were the female dinosaurs. But Noah implanted too many at a time, so they did not survive giving birth to so many kids (even if they were not born Alien-like or by Caesarean section).
If it were put into bird eggs, were they chicken? and if so, why did we not have flu jabs centuries ago?
Also, we only know there were dinosaurs around with Noah because the world was only created 600 yeras ago or something otherwise it would not work.
Fundamentally (sic) this is all about miracles, don't you think?
If God does it it means it is not miraculous
Oh yes, I forgot that. Easy mistake to make.
When you think about it, it sounds very Harry Potterish (like the magic tents, or the multiplying objects, etc). I wonder if that is a way to tackle those comments: "So those animals fitted on the ark because it was magic like Harry Potter's tent?"
:mrgreen:
---
On a different note, I went to the bathroom in the office and found a little pamphlet about funny one liners. It looked innocent enough until I got to the middle of it where there was a blatant Xtian 'editorial' about sin and how only through the lord and savior blah, blah, salvation, etc. The sneaky proselytism bothered me and I destroyed the pamphlet.
:barf:
Leave a note for the unknown donor, thanking them for the bum-wipes. :mrgreen:
Ah! Now I see it all clearly. The Tardis is made of gopher wood - that explains it perfectly. The same mechanisism that Noah used to fit all the animals in must be what makes the Tardis bigger on the inside than on the outside and here's the kicker - the Tardis is clearly made of wood!
:ROFL:
Quote from: Bluenose on May 24, 2012, 12:14:42 AM
Ah! Now I see it all clearly. The Tardis is made of gopher wood - that explains it perfectly. The same mechanisism that Noah used to fit all the animals in must be what makes the Tardis bigger on the inside than on the outside and here's the kicker - the Tardis is clearly made of wood!
You know, I got me a shiny new Conservapedia membership back when DaveL (back at TOP) was considering leading a pirate raiding party on them. I've never yet used it, but suddenly! an opportunity to do so is presenting itself... Truly,
HE works in mysterious ways.
If anyone wants to collaborate on writing something acknowledging the awesome power of gopher wood [nodding discreetly to DW and the Tardis] that might be smuggled into their Compendium of Knowledge -- for however brief a shining moment -- let me know. I've never been banned from a website before, but being banned from Conservapedia in the service of the Doctor would be an hono(u)r.
:k9-affirmative:
[DISCLAIMER] natcherly, thee monastery woodint be himplicayted
[/DISCLAIMER]