What Drippy can never understand, apparently, is the concept of literature. The Homeric tales are apparently the oldest example of Western literature and were told/retold and read for centuries. We have no idea of how common Homeric themes were in ancient literature because most of it has been lost by the action of time or deliberate destruction by idiot xtians. Fortunately for the West the islamic revolt against learning came late enough for much to have been transferred before they became fundie assholes, too.

One of the concepts in question here is katabasis and here is a list of just the Greco-Roman heroes who went to Hades.

Quote: Adonis/Tammuz is mourned and then recovered by his consort/mother Aphrodite/Inanna/Ishtar
The god Dionysus, to rescue Semele from Hades[3]
Heracles, for his twelfth labor, on which occasion he also rescued Theseus
The god Hermes, to rescue Persephone from Hades
Orpheus, to rescue Eurydice from Hades
Persephone and Demeter
Psyche
Odysseus
Aeneas, to speak to his father in the Aeneid
Theseus and Pirithous try to abduct Persephone; they fail, and only Theseus is rescued by Heracles

The idea is shown in Sumerian and Egyptian literature as well so it far pre-dates Homer.

But Drippy looks at all this and says "but my god is different." No, Drippy, it isn't. It is the same old shit.

(June 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Pandas United Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 1:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The only thing that is fatally flawed is your silly-assed god story.

Total shit from the word go.

Is this what people are like on this forum? If so, I think I may have made a mistake in coming here. I'm looking for substantive dialogue, not these cheap shot remarks that add nothing to the conversation.

If you give substantive dialogue, you'll get it......If you start doing the christian two step........prepared to get hammered.

(June 4, 2013 at 11:04 am)Rhythm Wrote: Sigh, Drich...just sigh, common themes and devices in common narrative styles......your lack of appreciation for literature never fails to leave me unimpressed. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the contention is not that jesus-is-odysseus....or vv......

"But but but, my character has a different name, and the details of my story are different in minutae" No shit Sherlock, different authors different narratives.....

The contention, my uninterested friend, is that the author used a narrative style that would be familiar to his audience (and respected/admired/otherwise positively valued) - mimesis- to convey a dissimilar (in some regards...and not in others) message. That this narrative style is one that we would classify as fiction (intentionally so) leads one to surmise that the narratives message was most likely more important than it's contents - and that the author realized this full well...and never intended it to be anything other than-much like the feeding of the multitudes bit that you so casually shit on in our other thread. Get it now?

This is why you are in lala-land when you imagine yourself to be the triumphant christian warrior valiantly defending the gospel of christ. No one's attacking it. In fact, people are highlighting it's well developed literary style, the education of the author - and it's value as a vehicle for delivering a message that would be so readily available to it's readers. You can talk about the differences of beliefs espoused therein all day long - and you will -not- be discussing the narrative style, the narrative devices, or the common literary "culture" of the audience and their receptiveness to a narrative based on those factors. I get that this is not enough for you, your personal faith demands that this be a dry fucking historical document. Tough titties, because it isn't. Can anyone establish the intent of a long dead author with certainty? Absolutely not. We can, however, compare their styles and draw parallels and dissimilarities. We - of course- being those of us who are actually interested in these stories and their manufacture to begin with.

If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

(June 4, 2013 at 12:40 pm)tokutter Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Is this what people are like on this forum? If so, I think I may have made a mistake in coming here. I'm looking for substantive dialogue, not these cheap shot remarks that add nothing to the conversation.

If you give substantive dialogue, you'll get it......If you start doing the christian two step........prepared to get hammered.

I really get tired of both theists and atheists that think language and choice of words is offensive, when what should really offend them is their own use of logic and the religious violence that results from human gullibility. That is the really offensive stuff not "your claim is fucking stupid".

Imagine how much more peaceful the world would be if the worst most of us had to worry about is being offended.

I would not call "The earth is not flat you moron" a "cheap shot". I would call it cold water on the face in order to get someone to wake up. Otherwise if we always avoided offending others we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

---

(June 5, 2013 at 8:04 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 4, 2013 at 11:04 am)Rhythm Wrote: Sigh, Drich...just sigh, common themes and devices in common narrative styles......your lack of appreciation for literature never fails to leave me unimpressed. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the contention is not that jesus-is-odysseus....or vv......

"But but but, my character has a different name, and the details of my story are different in minutae" No shit Sherlock, different authors different narratives.....

The contention, my uninterested friend, is that the author used a narrative style that would be familiar to his audience (and respected/admired/otherwise positively valued) - mimesis- to convey a dissimilar (in some regards...and not in others) message. That this narrative style is one that we would classify as fiction (intentionally so) leads one to surmise that the narratives message was most likely more important than it's contents - and that the author realized this full well...and never intended it to be anything other than-much like the feeding of the multitudes bit that you so casually shit on in our other thread. Get it now?

This is why you are in lala-land when you imagine yourself to be the triumphant christian warrior valiantly defending the gospel of christ. No one's attacking it. In fact, people are highlighting it's well developed literary style, the education of the author - and it's value as a vehicle for delivering a message that would be so readily available to it's readers. You can talk about the differences of beliefs espoused therein all day long - and you will -not- be discussing the narrative style, the narrative devices, or the common literary "culture" of the audience and their receptiveness to a narrative based on those factors. I get that this is not enough for you, your personal faith demands that this be a dry fucking historical document. Tough titties, because it isn't. Can anyone establish the intent of a long dead author with certainty? Absolutely not. We can, however, compare their styles and draw parallels and dissimilarities. We - of course- being those of us who are actually interested in these stories and their manufacture to begin with.

If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

Nice cop out. So you use faith in combo with other things? So, still amounts to dodging that "faith" means nothing and is not a virtue. It is a mental excuse you have inflicted yourself with to ignore reality.

"Faith" is merely pulling shit out of your ass because and clinging to it because it sounds nice. It has never been or ever will be any form of credible quality control. Otherwise if "faith" was valid the sun is a god because the Egyptians had "faith" it was.

"Faith" is nothing more than human ignorance and a childish narcissistic placebo. It challenges nothing and bullies or emotionally blackmails questioners. I am glad humans throughout our evolution dared to reject "faith" we are much better off because of it.

If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

(June 5, 2013 at 8:04 am)Drich Wrote: If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

What did you think we were talking about in our feeding of the multitudes posts? We were talking about the use of doublets, foreshadowing,and allusion -specifically in the service of pericope - ....it was lost on you there, it will be lost on you here.


In that narrative, the doublet is probably the strongest example - as we read the second telling of the same tale (the second telling more likely being the authors own upsized version of whatever source he drew from) - we the reader know full well how jesus intends to feed the multitudes - by magic, and so we get to watch his disciples fall on their own swords - and learn from their mistakes as party to a third person omniscient narrators thought stream (which includes a dissolution of temporal frame - we are treated to the future in the first narrative - bare bones..it is then rewound and fleshed out for our viewing pleasure).

To conceive of this as a "just-so" story is to ignore the very real and very apparent skill of the author - and his familiarity with the sorts of literary devices that are part of the larger picture and shared ancestry of "western literature". As a "just-so" story it could have been left at the first - naked narrative. This would not have been a suitable vehicle for the authors message - and so he reaches into his bag of tricks and pulls out the doublet...thus investing the narrative with theology. The characters therein do not say the things that they do for any reason other than that it served the purpose of the author. They -have- to wring their hands and play the chorus (you know..the chorus..that other narrative device so commonly employed by greek writers to highlight some aspect of the narrative - keep the audience involved- make it clear...in no uncertain terms, what they should be thinking about...what question they should be asking themselves - to provide a call/response for the narrator to establish the necessity of their next verse........in short..what the disciples are mostly engaged in the business of as foil to jesus throughout the entirety of your narrative?) otherwise the author cannot keep the story moving forward towards the conclusion he wishes to pen.

In short, the narrative is fictitious, the characters exist and act in accordance with the will of the author - because they have to - so that the author can invest his own narrative with his own message. That the author utilizes the doublet (the retelling of a tale with details emphasized differentially between the two..establishing irony and insider knowledge) - that the author alludes to older tales to establish the cultural continuity of the narrative (makes it available and familiar to the audience), that this narrative is both foreshadowed - and serves to foreshadow the next bit of narrative, shows us that the author was - at the very least, familiar with all of these tools which are common to the literary tradition of the time (and remain common, btw).

As pericope, as a story, this narrative is masterful. As a -just so- we could remove one of the two retellings of the tale..and we'd most likely want to remove the more elbaorate version......but this would remove the source of one of the theological underpinnings which is integral to christianity. IOW, to remove the fiction is to remove a critical part of your belief system. Get it?

(June 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What Drippy can never understand, apparently, is the concept of literature. The Homeric tales are apparently the oldest example of Western literature and were told/retold and read for centuries. We have no idea of how common Homeric themes were in ancient literature because most of it has been lost by the action of time or deliberate destruction by idiot xtians. Fortunately for the West the islamic revolt against learning came late enough for much to have been transferred before they became fundie assholes, too.

One of the concepts in question here is katabasis and here is a list of just the Greco-Roman heroes who went to Hades.

Quote: Adonis/Tammuz is mourned and then recovered by his consort/mother Aphrodite/Inanna/Ishtar
The god Dionysus, to rescue Semele from Hades[3]
Heracles, for his twelfth labor, on which occasion he also rescued Theseus
The god Hermes, to rescue Persephone from Hades
Orpheus, to rescue Eurydice from Hades
Persephone and Demeter
Psyche
Odysseus
Aeneas, to speak to his father in the Aeneid
Theseus and Pirithous try to abduct Persephone; they fail, and only Theseus is rescued by Heracles

The idea is shown in Sumerian and Egyptian literature as well so it far pre-dates Homer.

But Drippy looks at all this and says "but my god is different." No, Drippy, it isn't. It is the same old shit.

... Am I missing something or are you asserting that Christ went to hades/hell as well?? Do you have book chapter and verse for this assertion, or are you going off of what your video says?

IF you do not Have B/C/V that clearly states Christ went to Hades/Hell then there is no parallel between Christ and those who went to 'hades/hell.'

For a person who claims to be representing "biblical christianity" you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of what is contained therein Drich......why ask atheists for chapters and verses - aren't you supposed to be the bible monkey here? I'll be honest with you, I kind of operate on the assumption that you're not a complete douche - that you actually have read your holy book...and that when we discuss your holy book I won't have to tell you what's in it....

I don't know about Min, but I'm not really in the habit of quoting the bible. I like to keep our forum floor clear of rubble.

(June 5, 2013 at 10:14 am)Rhythm Wrote: For a person who claims to be representing "biblical christianity" you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of what is contained therein Drich......why ask atheists for chapters and verses - aren't you supposed to be the bible monkey here? I'll be honest with you, I kind of operate on the assumption that you're not a complete douche - that you actually have read your holy book...and that when we discuss your holy book I won't have to tell you what's in it....

I don't know about Min, but I'm not really in the habit of quoting the bible. I like to keep our forum floor clear of rubble.

This is why, although picking apart that comic book is fun, at the same time it is a HUGE distraction away from even before you get to the first letter in that comic book, the entire house is built on the stupid claim that imaginary friends are real. So I hate any argument that starts on a Yellow Brick Road. Once you are in it, it is hard to pull the delusional out of it.

Good logic works like this.

Prior tested and proven data=established formula=projected outcome

Theist logic works backwards.

"Sounds nice"<=made up formula(pulling shit out of your ass)<=desired outcome.

So I prefer to skip the crap and start with their starting point. It is all the same no matter what religion or superstition or conspiracy crap people claim.

Theism depends on appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, and require suspension of disbelief, and those will NEVER be good quality control.

---

(June 5, 2013 at 10:02 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What Drippy can never understand, apparently, is the concept of literature. The Homeric tales are apparently the oldest example of Western literature and were told/retold and read for centuries. We have no idea of how common Homeric themes were in ancient literature because most of it has been lost by the action of time or deliberate destruction by idiot xtians. Fortunately for the West the islamic revolt against learning came late enough for much to have been transferred before they became fundie assholes, too.

One of the concepts in question here is katabasis and here is a list of just the Greco-Roman heroes who went to Hades.


The idea is shown in Sumerian and Egyptian literature as well so it far pre-dates Homer.

But Drippy looks at all this and says "but my god is different." No, Drippy, it isn't. It is the same old shit.

... Am I missing something or are you asserting that Christ went to hades/hell as well?? Do you have book chapter and verse for this assertion, or are you going off of what your video says?

IF you do not Have B/C/V that clearly states Christ went to Hades/Hell then there is no parallel between Christ and those who went to 'hades/hell.'

Hades originally meant "trash heap". But still does not change that if we are talking about a real place, which amounts to a trash can, those who do not kiss your fictional characters ass will be treated like trash.

You keep moving the goal posts when the real issue is hell is not real and it is still immoral to treat others like trash merely because they don't want to kiss your ass.

You are going to feel a lot better once you realize you don't have to defend that vile book.

So what you are justifying without realizing is a dictator. PERIOD. I am not trash, and hell even if a real place and not simply a "trash heap", is not a form of corrective punishment, it is tyrannical revenge.

So literal or metaphorical it is still a vile claim and totally morally bankrupt. It is mental slavery and the same attitude is used by dictators, mafia bosses and abusive spouses.

I am not property that someone can drag into a mansion(heaven) or be bribed into that mansion. Nor am I trash to be thrown into a fire or into a trash can.

If you want to mentally abuse yourself with that garbage, we cant stop you, but we are not fooled and we are not objects or pawns in your game of myth.

---

Oh and lets not forget that the Romans were expert census takers I think they'd take notice if someone running a cult went around making all those fantastic claims. But the gospels were written AFTER the fact and any real Romans written into it were done so AFTER THE FACT.

That would be like me saying Donald Trump exists so therefore I am a billionaire. Even if there was evidence of a man named Jesus the only thing it would prove is that a man managed to start a cult and market that cult. But the Gospels were written after the fact and it is much more likely that the founders of Christianity simply were writing their myth to compete and split from the Jewish traditions. There certainly were founders of Christianity, but regardless, it still does not make the fantastic claims credible, nor does it make that religion the inventor of human morality.

But, this is what all religions do and even in polytheism, humans made bad guesses about the nature of reality, and also claimed divine morality.