• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Stature

NP Monday November 25, 2019

Recommended Posts

Yeah, the whole practice of "Wealthy and powerful people can go and sin and have it forgiven by giving to the Church" was one of the big issues that Martin Luther (the original, NOT Reverend King) had about Catholic Church practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Well what's the point of being filthy rich if you can't do dirty deals and end up looking squeaky clean?

But everyone knows that dirty deeds are done dirt cheap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Oi, @hkmaly, today's strip actually sums up Evangelicals perfectly! I couldn't have put it more succinctly or elegantly myself. :demonicduck:

18 hours ago, ijuin said:

Yeah, the whole practice of "Wealthy and powerful people can go and sin and have it forgiven by giving to the Church" was one of the big issues that Martin Luther (the original, NOT Reverend King) had about Catholic Church practices.

Actually, that was one thing which threw me off a little when I read that Evangelicals are supposed to be Protestant ... I mean, when original Protestants started protesting about this, how did they manage to do such U-turn?

BTW, do you also think that at the point Susan gets to the "can donate to the church" stage she will have so much money she can make herself angel without going broke? Assuming she will ever get from this city, I mean.

10 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

"Just like the Bible says, assuming one hasn't read it." is frilliant! (effing brilliant)  I'm going to have to start abusing that one.

Considering various things Bible DO says if you actually read it ...

(Especially on topics of women rights and sexual minorities.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Considering various things Bible DO says if you actually read it ...

(Especially on topics of women rights and sexual minorities.)

I have read the entire thing. Not in one sitting; bits and pieces at a time. Most of it several times. More than one translation.

Twenty years ago, I would have denied that the Bible is full of contradictions. I was wrong; it is riddled with contradictions. It has to be. Either it is or is not what it purports to be. In either case, contradictions are necessary. Why? Well, if it's no, it should be obvious. If it is, well, God is complex; that is to say, even if you don't believe in God, the hypothetical God that people do believe in would have to be a complex being. You would have to know context to know what exactly is being said, and we tend to lack that context. Hence, full of contradiction, either way.

It is also full of hyperbole, poetic metaphoric wording, and is often unspecific; the scope of what is being discussed is often unclear. Some if it taken at face value is clearly contra-factual. (I'm looking at you Great Flood) And yet there is a veracity to it; said great flood recorded some event that appears to have actually happened, because the Bible account is not unique; the same story is in the writings of other ancient cultures, albeit with different names. <shrug>

Whatever revelation there is from a divine origin in the Bible, it is written down by, and colored by the culture and perceptions of, men; human authors who add their own flavor, possibly some of their own agendas, into the mix. (The Bible actually says this, a bit that escapes many believers.) It is also not as unique as is supposed, if you will allow the basic premise of what it is; because it claims that God gives (i.e. revelation) to all who seek him. So it's either zero or kind of wide open.

In any case, it leaves a lot, and awful lot, of room for misinterpretation and abuse. YMMV, but from what I've experienced, religion is toxic, and I've reached that conclusion not for lack of trying to find otherwise. Don't take me wrong, I'm a believer, but I view that as a very personal thing, not something to be shoved at anyone not used to pound on them. I no longer attend a church, haven't for well over a decade, although I will attend if I have a reason to, generally weddings or funerals.

Re: (Especially on topics of women rights and sexual minorities.)

Repeating, even if it is revelation, it is coming through the conduit of men, who perceive the revelation through the filter of their own culture. In many ways, revelation or not, it is an untrustworthy source; the (alleged) Word of God, transmitted through unreliable narrators. For instance, what is the first thing in the Bible? Genesis? Nope. Translators' Notes, or as I like to call them, The Disclaimer. That's where they tell you, "When we translated this, we made sure that it agrees with what we already believe." Something to that effect is in every Bible that I can recall.

I wouldn't even recommend reading it to anyone, unless you are really willing to dig and find out what is really being said. You are not going to accomplish that in a weekend.

So case in point, the Bible seems to come down heavy on sexual minorities. And shrimp. Now, Jews, sorry, I can't help you out here, I don't know the logic that would apply, but for Christians, Jesus says over and over, "Don't judge." And if hating the gays is important, he is oddly silent on the subject. Except that one time, where the lawyer was testing him, and he said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and be sure you hate the gays, and especially the transsexuals." Oh, wait, that's not what he said. he said, ... and your neighbor as yourself." Eh, I guess he forgot. Actually, it's probably similar logic, no?

Sorry, can't explain Paul's couple of harsh words about gays.

My personal experience might be useful here. At some point in the past, I was pretty linear in my thinking about this. Exposure to an elderly lesbian senior software administrator at one of our customer sites in the Mid West was an eye opener. I could not deny that she was basically a very decent human being. Then I had occasion to house a young lesbian and help her get through her final year of high school. She was adorable. I think that is how most folks open up to new ideas, through exposure. Perhaps today through training or peer pressure, but I had the opposite training and peer pressure in my background.

So I feel like I did the right thing with this young lady, and she in turn is thriving, and I'm thinking, "Huh, I guess grace extends further than I thought." Then my one son informs me he's my daughter, and we have a chat, and I say, "This is going to change your life." and she says, "Yeah, this is going to change my life." There are personal things I can't share, they are not mine to give away, but I start seeing how toxic churches can be.

A couple of years later, I learned a new thing about the Centurion. He's in a couple of the Gospels, Luke 7 has a good account. The gist is that his servant is sick (subtext seriously sick). and he asks Jesus to heal his servant, but he does it though intermediaries. So Jesus is going to his place, and he sends another group to say, "I'm not worthy to have you come to my place, but just say the word, and it will be done as you command, for I, too am a man under authority." Then something very unusual happens; Jesus marvels at the man's faith. You would take note, if you read the Gospels, that Jesus is not said to have marveled at much, nor even been taken by surprise.

So, some background. The man is not named, but he is a centurion. It is a moderately high rank for the day, a commander of 100 men, in a time when armies were small. Roughly a senior captain or a major. He is a member of the Roman Army occupying Judea, and the first group of people that come to Jesus on his behalf are the local Jewish elders, who appear to be sincerely concerned about his welfare. He must have made quite a good impression.

So, as I was saying, many years later, I run across an explanation of a detail about this man that I did not know. You know where it says, "servant"? That's actually, "slave". You know how if you are into woodworking, "wood" is "oak", or "cherry" or "beech" or "mahogany" or ... Or if you are into cars, you know inline 6, slant 6, v 6, opposed 6 ... If you are into something, there are a lot of words for the something exposing a lot of detail in a succinct fashion. Farmers have words for their stock at every significant stage of growth.

Well, Rome was a slave culture. They had lots of words for slaves, functional words, words that all translate to "slave" unless you add other words to spell out the details. The word used for this servant is a companion slave, with sexual overtones. Oh, and hey, another fact that no one in any church ever told me, military personnel in the Roman Army were not allowed to marry and bring spouses, they were expected to use same sex companion slaves. (I suppose there is an "If they were of high enough rank that they could afford to" in there.)

Technically, he was not "gay" as we understand it, well he may have been, but it is not required; but he was in a culturally mandated same sex relationship. Along with every thing else, army of occupation, yada, yada, I'm pretty sure the Jews knew this. And they came to Jesus on his behalf. And Jesus marveled at his faith. I consider that well hidden and significant.

So, here's a question for you, if Jesus is who he is alleged to be, who would he rather hang out with, this centurion, or Fred Phelps?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Sorry, can't explain Paul's couple of harsh words about gays.

It has been posited that he might not even have meant homosexuals and that the word used might have meant something different. And that homophobes later on quietly edited it to, what was that phrase? "When we translated this, we made sure that it agrees with what we already believe."  :(

I am damn near sure that I have linked to it before, but this really excellent article discusses how the Bible has not only constantly mutated in meaning but also been subject to the equivalent of a fifteen centuries long Wikipedia edit war. It is a fascinating read and a good place to start if you want inspiration for some serious research.

By the way, I would like to recommend this Dumbing of Age strip and the two which follow it. They are kinda relevant.  So is this one, though it is rather more poignant.

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

So case in point, the Bible seems to come down heavy on sexual minorities. And shrimp.

Goldarn shrimp! They will drag us all kicking and screaming down to Hell! :doom:

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I wouldn't even recommend reading it to anyone, unless you are really willing to dig and find out what is really being said. You are not going to accomplish that in a weekend.

Back when I was thirteen I was already a voracious reader. At school we got handed free copies of the Bible due to some sort of campaign push for a new edition. So I decided to read it from end to end like any other book. Nobody told me that that wasn't how you were supposed to do it. It was an interesting experience but even then I noticed some conflicts and things that just struck me as odd. I asked my mother about it and she told me, "That is a very old and important work, but a lot of it is metaphorical and needs a lot of study to get in context. My advice to you is to pay attention to what Jesus says. Those are the important parts."

I did, and liked a lot of it. Mom's advice stuck and these parts are still important to me even now when my Christianity is a distant memory.

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

So, here's a question for you, if Jesus is who he is alleged to be, who would he rather hang out with, this centurion, or Fred Phelps?

In that case I wouldn't presume to speak for him. For all I know he would want to hang with Fred Phelps in the hopes of changing him. After all, the Centurion already seemed to have his heart and faith in the right place.

All I know is that I would really love to speak with him, but I can't make myself believe that I'd be important enough to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

It has been posited that he might not even have meant homosexuals and that the word used might have meant something different. And that homophobes later on quietly edited it to, what was that phrase? "When we translated this, we made sure that it agrees with what we already believe."  :(

Yeah, I don't really know, but I expect you're right, it's something like that. Especially in the Greco-Roman culture.

 

7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I am damn near sure that I have linked to it before, but this really excellent article discusses how the Bible has not only constantly mutated in meaning but also been subject to the equivalent of a fifteen centuries long Wikipedia edit war. It is a fascinating read and a good place to start if you want inspiration for some serious research.

I will read it. I find good information in unexpected places. For instance, atheists tend to know a lot about the Bible; I thought "Why would they have an interest in it?", but I guess they do, and maybe not having a vested interest in the answers, they tend to be very frank and lucid in their discussions.

 

7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

By the way, I would like to recommend this Dumbing of Age strip and the two which follow it. They are kinda relevant.  So is this one, though it is rather more poignant.

Ah, yes, David Willis and his autobiographical surrogate, Joyce. I think the strip is a catharsis for him.

One of the more frightening recent trends it the gullibility of Becky's dad toward Amber's dad. Played like a fiddle. It strikes me as all too plausible.

 

7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Goldarn shrimp! They will drag us all kicking and screaming down to Hell! :doom:

If you are what you eat, I'm a good percentage seafood God doesn't like. Mmm, shrimp. Lobster. Crab. Had me some good calamari over the weekend.

 

7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Back when I was thirteen I was already a voracious reader. At school we got handed free copies of the Bible due to some sort of campaign push for a new edition. So I decided to read it from end to end like any other book. Nobody told me that that wasn't how you were supposed to do it. It was an interesting experience but even then I noticed some conflicts and things that just struck me as odd. I asked my mother about it and she told me, "That is a very old and important work, but a lot of it is metaphorical and needs a lot of study to get in context. My advice to you is to pay attention to what Jesus says. Those are the important parts."

I did, and liked a lot of it. Mom's advice stuck and these parts are still important to me even now when my Christianity is a distant memory.

That's some awesome advice. You were fortunate. Actually historical, or mythical fiction, the character Jesus has some really good lines.

I saw odd things as well, and I got in the habit of praying about them and asking, "What does this mean?" Decades later, the answers began coming in, but it took me maturing to the point where I could receive them. The whole, "Yeah, I don't actually hate the gays." thing, for instance. But I'm definitely a work in progress, I think I've seen maybe the tip of the iceberg.

 

7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

In that case I wouldn't presume to speak for him. For all I know he would want to hang with Fred Phelps in the hopes of changing him. After all, the Centurion already seemed to have his heart and faith in the right place.

That question was based on a similar question. I was visiting one of my daughters, and she wanted me to watch George Carlin's talk about the Ten Commandments. To keep it short, his conclusion was, "It boils down to 'Don't be a dick.'" I thought about it, and realized, though it was crude, it wasn't a bad summary; similar to Jesus's summary, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Then I got a voice in my head kind of question, "Which would you rather have lunch with, George Carlin, or Jerry Falwell?". It was particularly weird, because I hadn't thought of Jerry Falwell in years that I recall. Both had already passed away at the time. I thought, "That's not really much of a choice; George Carlin is funny and insightful, and behind the rough image is what appears to be a very compassionate man. He'd be fun to have lunch with. Jerry Falwell, on the other hand, is a judgemental, disingenuous, money grubbing televangelist. I think lunch with him would be a bad experience." I got a response; it stunned me. "What makes you think I feel any different than you do?"

 

7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

All I know is that I would really love to speak with him, but I can't make myself believe that I'd be important enough to matter.

I think you would be surprised. Maybe it's like petting cats and dogs to him.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I will read it. I find good information in unexpected places. For instance, atheists tend to know a lot about the Bible; I thought "Why would they have an interest in it?", but I guess they do, and maybe not having a vested interest in the answers, they tend to be very frank and lucid in their discussions.

Life can be odd like that. Reading Rick Wilson, I just realised that the man had some good and cutting observations about the left wing. I didn't like them very much at first, but I was compelled to concede that he has a point.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Ah, yes, David Willis and his autobiographical surrogate, Joyce. I think the strip is a catharsis for him.

I agree. I enjoy that strip a lot.

(I have recently been reminded of something called 'the bad webcomic wiki.' I have very mixed feelings about the existence of such a thing. I do not blame people for having a site where they can vent about things they dislike, and I do not expect them to like things that I like, but this seems peculiarly assumptive and crude. Also, when how I learn of it is through EGS being of it and next I hear about it is that DoA is on it, too, I start to wonder if they have other criteria than mere 'badness' going for them...)

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

If you are what you eat, I'm a good percentage seafood God doesn't like. Mmm, shrimp. Lobster. Crab. Had me some good calamari over the weekend.

:laugh:

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

That's some awesome advice. You were fortunate. Actually historical, or mythical fiction, the character Jesus has some really good lines.

My memories of my mother are very mixed. When she was well, she tried very hard. She still couldn't manage, and then when she went back into one of her bad times... well. *sigh*

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I saw odd things as well, and I got in the habit of praying about them and asking, "What does this mean?" Decades later, the answers began coming in, but it took me maturing to the point where I could receive them. The whole, "Yeah, I don't actually hate the gays." thing, for instance. But I'm definitely a work in progress, I think I've seen maybe the tip of the iceberg.

Life is a work in progress. I am still learning.

When I stop learning, someone please put me to bed with a shovel.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

That question was based on a similar question. I was visiting one of my daughters, and she wanted me to watch George Carlin's talk about the Ten Commandments. To keep it short, his conclusion was, "It boils down to 'Don't be a dick.'"

Well, basically that was what Jesus' admonitions boiled down to for me, too.

As it happens, I think I would prefer Mr. Carlin's company, too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

(I have recently been reminded of something called 'the bad webcomic wiki.' I have very mixed feelings about the existence of such a thing. I do not blame people for having a site where they can vent about things they dislike, and I do not expect them to like things that I like, but this seems peculiarly assumptive and crude. Also, when how I learn of it is through EGS being of it and next I hear about it is that DoA is on it, too, I start to wonder if they have other criteria than mere 'badness' going for them...)

I've glanced at that a couple years ago, and from what I recall they only covered up to Sister II in the review so it was likely done back in 2008ish and I'd be curious if they'd change their minds about it if they took another look later on.

Actually....I just went to look it up on that wiki again and can't find it listed anywhere in their review index, maybe they did more recently take another look and decide that the comic had developed enough that they no longer felt it deserved "bad" status?  DoA is still up there though it looks like it might have been done 5 years ago?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I agree. I enjoy that strip a lot.

Renounce magical thinking and embrace empirical evidence. Happy birthday, Dina. (I think I want a poster of that one panel.)

 

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

(I have recently been reminded of something called 'the bad webcomic wiki.' I have very mixed feelings about the existence of such a thing. I do not blame people for having a site where they can vent about things they dislike, and I do not expect them to like things that I like, but this seems peculiarly assumptive and crude. Also, when how I learn of it is through EGS being of it and next I hear about it is that DoA is on it, too, I start to wonder if they have other criteria than mere 'badness' going for them...)

 

Yeah, I haven't found them particularly useful; like you say, I like a lot of what they don't. <shrug> Different strokes, I guess.

 

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

When I stop learning, someone please put me to bed with a shovel.

" ... I mean, if y'all can find the pieces."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I am damn near sure that I have linked to it before, but this really excellent article discusses how the Bible has not only constantly mutated in meaning but also been subject to the equivalent of a fifteen centuries long Wikipedia edit war. It is a fascinating read and a good place to start if you want inspiration for some serious research.

You did. On February 18th, 2018. But it's worth re-reading.

16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

By the way, I would like to recommend this Dumbing of Age strip and the two which follow it. They are kinda relevant.  So is this one, though it is rather more poignant.

I did mentioned how much about Bible I found in comix, right?

15 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In that case I wouldn't presume to speak for him. For all I know he would want to hang with Fred Phelps in the hopes of changing him. After all, the Centurion already seemed to have his heart and faith in the right place.

That question was based on a similar question. I was visiting one of my daughters, and she wanted me to watch George Carlin's talk about the Ten Commandments. To keep it short, his conclusion was, "It boils down to 'Don't be a dick.'" I thought about it, and realized, though it was crude, it wasn't a bad summary; similar to Jesus's summary, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Then I got a voice in my head kind of question, "Which would you rather have lunch with, George Carlin, or Jerry Falwell?". It was particularly weird, because I hadn't thought of Jerry Falwell in years that I recall. Both had already passed away at the time. I thought, "That's not really much of a choice; George Carlin is funny and insightful, and behind the rough image is what appears to be a very compassionate man. He'd be fun to have lunch with. Jerry Falwell, on the other hand, is a judgemental, disingenuous, money grubbing televangelist. I think lunch with him would be a bad experience." I got a response; it stunned me. "What makes you think I feel any different than you do?"

Well, just because Jesus would rather hang out with Carlin doesn't mean he wouldn't feel obligated to at least try the lunch with Falwell.

15 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

All I know is that I would really love to speak with him, but I can't make myself believe that I'd be important enough to matter.

I think you would be surprised. Maybe it's like petting cats and dogs to him.

That's assuming he's really divine ... which seems to be mostly added into bible by later authors, as mentioned by text The Old Hack posted.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

(I have recently been reminded of something called 'the bad webcomic wiki.' I have very mixed feelings about the existence of such a thing. I do not blame people for having a site where they can vent about things they dislike, and I do not expect them to like things that I like, but this seems peculiarly assumptive and crude. Also, when how I learn of it is through EGS being of it and next I hear about it is that DoA is on it, too, I start to wonder if they have other criteria than mere 'badness' going for them...)

Obviously, comic must be popular to get there. Because if a comic is popular, you can like it or dislike it. If it's not popular, well ... you never heard about it. It needs lot of experience in hypocrisy to dislike something you don't know to exist.

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

When I stop learning, someone please put me to bed with a shovel.

Soooo ... are we discussing euthanasia in context of mental illnesses like dementia?

... (what kind of emoticon is supposed to be used for black humor? :sasmile:?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Soooo ... are we discussing euthanasia in context of mental illnesses like dementia?

Not even necessarily that.

There are some people who simply close themselves off to new opinions and cling to what they know with a determination past all reason. Who will not change their minds no matter the evidence presented. Or who believe they know all there is worth knowing and dismiss any other opinions.

This can happen even in the case of quite intelligent people. I consider that absolutely abhorrent and this is not a person I would ever wish to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
32 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Soooo ... are we discussing euthanasia in context of mental illnesses like dementia?

Not even necessarily that.

There are some people who simply close themselves off to new opinions and cling to what they know with a determination past all reason. Who will not change their minds no matter the evidence presented. Or who believe they know all there is worth knowing and dismiss any other opinions.

This can happen even in the case of quite intelligent people. I consider that absolutely abhorrent and this is not a person I would ever wish to be.

It's definitely abhorrent but suggesting euthanasia in such case SHOULD be exaggeration. Or, alternatively, the suggestion might be taken literally, although it does have similar potential like traditional head of horse put into bed ...

(Personally, I think that when my mental health gets so bad I won't be able to enjoy pokemon not because it's too repetitive and boring but because it's too complicated, euthanasia might be in order. Although saying that, I suppose next season of pokemon will be deeply philosophical just to prove me wrong.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That's assuming he's really divine ... which seems to be mostly added into bible by later authors, as mentioned by text The Old Hack posted.

RationalWiki takes that view, although also questions if he's even historical.

As I said, I'm a believer, but that's based on subjective evidence, and friends and family members have experienced the same evidence and not reached the same conclusion. Also, interpretation of circumstantial evidence, such as "Why is there an indigenous church in India if this is all made up?" I've heard of objective evidence, but the sources were always very questionable, or unverifiable. Or outright fraud.

Anyway, to your point, "added later", what else could it be? Today we might record sessions, or hire a stenographer, but at the time, (assuming he's an actual person, of course), they just wanted to hear a charismatic teacher. After the fact, some folks got the bright idea to record what they remembered. Did they embellish? I would have to admit, it's possible, and there are two very different accounts of Judas's death, for instance, that are difficult to reconcile.

While I believe Jesus was both human and had a divine nature, religious people tend to be a strong turn off. there is a core set of assumptions intrinsic in their culture that makes them difficult to be around; for instance, if you had to pick out a key feature of religious people, wouldn't "judgemental" be one you might pick? This, in spite of that being the one thing that Jesus repeatedly said, "Don't do"? (In this case, it doesn't matter if he's historical or not. The character of record, the protagonist in the narrative, said don't do exactly what the people who believe in that narrative are noted for.)

And, as I said in a previous post, my understanding of this and my outlook is a work in progress. It's not at all like I have all the answers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

And, as I said in a previous post, my understanding of this and my outlook is a work in progress. It's not at all like I have all the answers.

If it's any consolation, I don't have all the answers either. For that matter, I don't even think I have all the questions. And to be perfectly honest, my first gut reaction as soon as I meet someone who claims to have all the answers is to be very, very wary of every single word they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Although saying that, I suppose next season of pokemon will be deeply philosophical just to prove me wrong.)

Pokémmanuel Kant uses Categorical Imperative!

It is SUPER EFFECTIVE!

I was thinking more about something like Digimon.

17 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Anyway, to your point, "added later", what else could it be? Today we might record sessions, or hire a stenographer, but at the time, (assuming he's an actual person, of course), they just wanted to hear a charismatic teacher. After the fact, some folks got the bright idea to record what they remembered. Did they embellish? I would have to admit, it's possible, and there are two very different accounts of Judas's death, for instance, that are difficult to reconcile.

First, I think stenographer would be technically possible back then as well. Not sure if the idea occurred to anyone, but it's not like stenograph need some advanced technology.

Second, Ezekiel saw a spaceship. If God could send spaceship, he could send a recording machine. Or, like, write the Bible directly using miracle instead of relying on humans. Apparently, the contraindications are deliberate on God's part.

Third, I meant that it was added HUNDREDS YEAR LATER.

Fourth, does those "two accounts" include the one where he's turned into vampire and is killed by Mary Heller or is that another one?

17 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

While I believe Jesus was both human and had a divine nature, religious people tend to be a strong turn off. there is a core set of assumptions intrinsic in their culture that makes them difficult to be around; for instance, if you had to pick out a key feature of religious people, wouldn't "judgemental" be one you might pick? This, in spite of that being the one thing that Jesus repeatedly said, "Don't do"? (In this case, it doesn't matter if he's historical or not. The character of record, the protagonist in the narrative, said don't do exactly what the people who believe in that narrative are noted for.)

Yup. The hypocrisy is strong in this. (And yes, it doesn't matter WHO says that for this to be hypocrisy.)

10 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
17 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

And, as I said in a previous post, my understanding of this and my outlook is a work in progress. It's not at all like I have all the answers.

If it's any consolation, I don't have all the answers either. For that matter, I don't even think I have all the questions. And to be perfectly honest, my first gut reaction as soon as I meet someone who claims to have all the answers is to be very, very wary of every single word they say.

Totally agree with that strategy. After all, it can be quite easily PROVEN that noone has all the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

First, I think stenographer would be technically possible back then as well. Not sure if the idea occurred to anyone, but it's not like stenograph need some advanced technology.

They had scribes. They were slow. Until the invention of the printing press, the written word was for the wealthy. A king or governor would have had a scribe present when he held office, though.

Also the production of paper was a slower process that improved (well, sped up) over time. If you've never been in the vicinity of a modern paper mill, try not to be. They stink to high heaven. They used better materials back in the day, though, tended to last much longer.

A stenograph machine is on the order of complexity of a typewriter. Maybe in the renaissance, a Leonardo could have made one. Or the Greeks and Romans could have, if they had the vision of the usefulness; it's less complex than the Antikythera Mechanism.

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Second, Ezekiel saw a spaceship. If God could send spaceship, he could send a recording machine. Or, like, write the Bible directly using miracle instead of relying on humans. Apparently, the contraindications are deliberate on God's part.

There is a record of Ezekiel seeing something that could be taken to be a UFO kind of spaceship. That was my first impression reading it as well. Of course, that is an interpretation, conjecture.

That is hardly the only weird thing in Ezekiel. When he's measuring the temple, the dimensions are huge. Not just Trump huge, actually really big. The four creatures with four faces are trippy as well. (Four each)

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Apparently, the contraindications are deliberate on God's part.

Seems so.

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Third, I meant that it was added HUNDREDS YEAR LATER.

The canon, the formalized selection of books to include, dates from hundreds of years later, and there is not universal agreement about some of them. The books themselves, the canonical ones, anyway,  date from much earlier, although RationalWiki points out that what we have today could be the consolidation of even earlier works. If I recall correctly, the Revelation and maybe a few of the letters were written by someone elderly at the time, who could have still known Jesus. Flipside, Paul, who wrote a lot of the letters, never met Jesus.

If you want to see something bizarre, check out the "KJV only". It's not actually a terrible translation, for what it is and when it was done, but it has no special merit either. It's written in a unique dialect that is basically English but is now full of anachronistic phrasing, and even in it's day was somewhat unlike the language people used. It is largely 3rd generation translation, to Greek, then to Latin, then to its unique English. On the plus side, you're unlikely to have to deal with a fourth generation translation, because one of the tenets of this movement is that "It looses something if you translate it out of English", kind of how Islam views the Quran and Arabic. A friend of mine in Albuquerque used to joke about how it was "The English that Jesus and Paul spoke", tongue firmly in cheek.

I knew some folks that believed in this. We were students in an advanced engineering program, and they were otherwise intelligent, but you could not sway them on this.

On the other hand, the KJV does have the very concrete advantage that it is entirely in the public domain.

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Fourth, does those "two accounts" include the one where he's turned into vampire and is killed by Mary Heller or is that another one?

In two different gospels; Matthew and Luke. This site actually has a reasonable hypothesis.

So, yeah, the fictional story would be a different one.

That's a rather unusual Dracula origin story.

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Totally agree with that strategy. After all, it can be quite easily PROVEN that noone has all the answers.

Russel & co. did a good job of butchering some of the questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

First, I think stenographer would be technically possible back then as well. Not sure if the idea occurred to anyone, but it's not like stenograph need some advanced technology.

They had scribes. They were slow. Until the invention of the printing press, the written word was for the wealthy. A king or governor would have had a scribe present when he held office, though.

Also the production of paper was a slower process that improved (well, sped up) over time. If you've never been in the vicinity of a modern paper mill, try not to be. They stink to high heaven. They used better materials back in the day, though, tended to last much longer.

A stenograph machine is on the order of complexity of a typewriter. Maybe in the renaissance, a Leonardo could have made one. Or the Greeks and Romans could have, if they had the vision of the usefulness; it's less complex than the Antikythera Mechanism.

Stenograph is not a machine. It's human using shorthand system of writing. Which was actually ALREADY USED from 2nd century BC onwards. In Ancient Rome to record speeches in senate. (You made me look.)

So yes, if they would LIKE to, they could totally hire someone from those rapid writers working for senate to record what Jesus was saying.

47 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Third, I meant that it was added HUNDREDS YEAR LATER.

The canon, the formalized selection of books to include, dates from hundreds of years later, and there is not universal agreement about some of them. The books themselves, the canonical ones, anyway,  date from much earlier, although RationalWiki points out that what we have today could be the consolidation of even earlier works. If I recall correctly, the Revelation and maybe a few of the letters were written by someone elderly at the time, who could have still known Jesus.

Read the link provided by The Old Hack.

On 11/26/2019 at 8:25 AM, The Old Hack said:

but this really excellent article discusses how the Bible has not only constantly mutated

It says that specifically the parts about Jesus being God instead of son of God was put into bible only AFTER First Council of Nicaea, AD 325.

52 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Fourth, does those "two accounts" include the one where he's turned into vampire and is killed by Mary Heller or is that another one?

In two different gospels; Matthew and Luke. This site actually has a reasonable hypothesis.

So, yeah, the fictional story would be a different one.

That's a rather unusual Dracula origin story.

Might not be more fictional than Matthew and Luke :)

But yes, "everyone knows" that Dracula is Vlad III Dracula, Voivode of Wallachia. Which also doesn't make much historical sense, but it's how Bram Stoker (who didn't spend too much time researching history) meant it.

56 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Totally agree with that strategy. After all, it can be quite easily PROVEN that noone has all the answers.

Russel & co. did a good job of butchering some of the questions.

They formalized a way how to NOT ask the questions which wouldn't have answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yup. The hypocrisy is strong in this. (And yes, it doesn't matter WHO says that for this to be hypocrisy.)

I'm not well versed in the bible, but my understanding based on what I've heard in the whole "Jesus died for our sins" thing was that he basically went against the ruling class because they were corrupt and exploiting the people that Jesus was trying to help. Everything I see today makes me think that christianity isn't a celebration of Jesus as a savior, but as an example of what happens when you go against anyone in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Stenograph is not a machine. It's human using shorthand system of writing. Which was actually ALREADY USED from 2nd century BC onwards. In Ancient Rome to record speeches in senate. (You made me look.)

So yes, if they would LIKE to, they could totally hire someone from those rapid writers working for senate to record what Jesus was saying.

You're right, I misused the term for shorthand for the machine, " For machine stenography, see stenotype."

And you're right, they could have used shorthand of sorts, it's an interesting conjecture. I would likely depend on if someone with resorces took enough of an interest.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Read the link provided by The Old Hack.

It says that specifically the parts about Jesus being God instead of son of God was put into bible only AFTER First Council of Nicaea, AD 325.

I like the article; definitely has a flavor of author bias, but that's fair, and he's not just making stuff up, he seems to have done some homework. Jesus's own term for himself when he is quoted is more often Son of Man.

I've played MMORPGs, and in the game world, you may run across a GM, Game Master, a term from pen and paper RPGs. They will typically have uber levels and/or gear, and edit rights. This is how I view Jesus's role in our world. When he talks to the weather, and it does what he says, this makes no sense, but I can relate to it as a software admin, where I can change the behavior of a server by clicking on a tab in a drop down box. He can be characterized as God's avatar, God's representation of himself in our world. If I see my friend's avatar in an MMORPG, I might refer to him by his in-character name, or I might address the person. I mean, I've seriously done both in chat.

Anyway, the titles are all different hats, roles he is fulfilling. And though the controversy of his alleged divinity may have been codified in a creed at a late date, and yes, leading to conflicts, it was already a controversial topic in his own day and much of the reason he was hated by the Pharisees. (The fundies of the day)

Getting late, may pick this up again tomorrow.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Might not be more fictional than Matthew and Luke :)

YMMV

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

But yes, "everyone knows" that Dracula is Vlad III Dracula, Voivode of Wallachia. Which also doesn't make much historical sense, but it's how Bram Stoker (who didn't spend too much time researching history) meant it.

 

I'm curious why Vlad Tepes makes no sense as proto-vampire? Who would you pick? Elizabeth Báthory seems highly qualified; i think she's at least in the running.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

They formalized a way how to NOT ask the questions which wouldn't have answer.

They played around in the sandbox, yes, but that box of sand is still there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this