RE: Excavating The Empty Tomb
June 5, 2013 at 9:11 am
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2013 at 9:20 am by Brian37.)
(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.
