Read 'em and Weep
-
I'm thinking about getting a job as a life coach when I retire. My motto will be "Don't be a knobhead", which I feel distills many (although of course not all) of Jesus' teaching down to an easy to remember little phrase. Rather similar to that book I was forced to read, "Who Moved My Cheese" which sells for $10.85 on Amazon, and could really be distilled down to "Things change, deal with it".
I'm gonna be rich! Maybe I'll be a double-decker life coach!
@Doctor-Phibes
Did you see the old Bob Newhart bit where he plays a therapist, and a client comes in and sits down and does ten minutes of, boo-hoo, cry-cry, self esteem, sob, and at the end of all that Newhart says, "Well, stop it! Just stop doing that!" -
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
In short, don't eat your seed corn.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
In short, don't eat your seed corn.
Basically, yeah.
-
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
-
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
The gospel of John was originally filled with so many spoilers that they had some guy eat a load mushrooms and re-write it.
-
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
Can't remember the study, but they looked at some oral vs. written Jewish verses awhile back. The two were very, very similar.
And if you look at the oral tradition within the Muslim religion, you will find the same thing. People can and have, passed down oral passages without change, for centuries.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
Can't remember the study, but they looked at some oral vs. written Jewish verses awhile back. The two were very, very similar.
And if you look at the oral tradition within the Muslim religion, you will find the same thing. People can and have, passed down oral passages without change, for centuries.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
Can't remember the study, but they looked at some oral vs. written Jewish verses awhile back. The two were very, very similar.
And if you look at the oral tradition within the Muslim religion, you will find the same thing. People can and have, passed down oral passages without change, for centuries.
The problem with that is that when you compare a written version to an oral version, you are only comparing to the last one spoken. A person really doesn't have any idea what the oral version was 20-30 generations ago.
It is like the kids "telegraph game". You go around the class repeating what the person next to you said, and then when you get back to the beginning, you compare the original to what it ended up as.
-
Uh, no.
10,000 years in Australia.
3,000 years for the Old Testament.
I'd be shocked if the Koran differed greatly from the decade it was written.
-
Uh, no.
10,000 years in Australia.
3,000 years for the Old Testament.
I'd be shocked if the Koran differed greatly from the decade it was written.
@Jolly Interesting. I did not realize that.
But, still not convinced that the Bible is an accurate description of actual things that happened.
(and I am not saying this apply to only the Bible. I think that alot of religious books are a "product" of the time they were written. )
Why is the Bibles stories any more accurate or believable than the Koran or the Book of Buddha or the Hindu Vedas, etc
However, I realize that religion is a very personal thing, and by the definition, faith is "The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence"
(Trying to say that I am not anti-religion. I know that it does give alot of comfort to people and helps provide them with structure and organization on how to live)
-
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
Oh, my ignorant friend, it never said it was an apple.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Biblical archeology is very interesting stuff. When the Bible talks about a well, a stone wall that fell, etc., sooner or later archeologists have been finding all of this stuff. It now amounts to a mountain of places and events without an error.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
Oh, my ignorant friend, it never said it was an apple.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Biblical archeology is very interesting stuff. When the Bible talks about a well, a stone wall that fell, etc., sooner or later archeologists have been finding all of this stuff. It now amounts to a mountain of places and events without an error.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
Oh, my ignorant friend, it never said it was an apple.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Biblical archeology is very interesting stuff. When the Bible talks about a well, a stone wall that fell, etc., sooner or later archeologists have been finding all of this stuff. It now amounts to a mountain of places and events without an error.
In my opinion, none of that stuff matters too incredibly much. The truth of the bible doesn't depend on the validity of its facts. Maybe the wall fell down, maybe it didn't, and it's fine to take a deep dive into biblical archaeology. I like that stuff, too.
But I believe there's a danger in reading the bible in only a literal way. Some ideas are too complex and speak to traits of the human condition that are far too old to be accurately described as cold data. There's a ton of truth in Hamlet we'd be fools to ignore. The bible's like that but on steroids. Among many other things that it is, it's a spiritual and symbolic record of who and what we are. I tend to focus more on that, rather than the data. Trying to understand what Jesus meant versus where he stood when he said it. But that's just me the heathen. I did get a humanities degree so I can't help it.
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
Oh, my ignorant friend, it never said it was an apple.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Biblical archeology is very interesting stuff. When the Bible talks about a well, a stone wall that fell, etc., sooner or later archeologists have been finding all of this stuff. It now amounts to a mountain of places and events without an error.
In my opinion, none of that stuff matters too incredibly much. The truth of the bible doesn't depend on the validity of its facts. Maybe the wall fell down, maybe it didn't, and it's fine to take a deep dive into biblical archaeology. I like that stuff, too.
But I believe there's a danger in reading the bible in only a literal way. Some ideas are too complex and speak to traits of the human condition that are far too old to be accurately described as cold data. There's a ton of truth in Hamlet we'd be fools to ignore. The bible's like that but on steroids. Among many other things that it is, it's a spiritual and symbolic record of who and what we are. I tend to focus more on that, rather than the data. Trying to understand what Jesus meant versus where he stood when he said it. But that's just me the heathen. I did get a humanities degree so I can't help it.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
Oh, my ignorant friend, it never said it was an apple.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Biblical archeology is very interesting stuff. When the Bible talks about a well, a stone wall that fell, etc., sooner or later archeologists have been finding all of this stuff. It now amounts to a mountain of places and events without an error.
In my opinion, none of that stuff matters too incredibly much. The truth of the bible doesn't depend on the validity of its facts. Maybe the wall fell down, maybe it didn't, and it's fine to take a deep dive into biblical archaeology. I like that stuff, too.
But I believe there's a danger in reading the bible in only a literal way. Some ideas are too complex and speak to traits of the human condition that are far too old to be accurately described as cold data. There's a ton of truth in Hamlet we'd be fools to ignore. The bible's like that but on steroids. Among many other things that it is, it's a spiritual and symbolic record of who and what we are. I tend to focus more on that, rather than the data. Trying to understand what Jesus meant versus where he stood when he said it. But that's just me the heathen. I did get a humanities degree so I can't help it.
Well, you are Catholic, so we'll try and over look that. Probably Jesuit trained.
Nah, we tend to be Biblical literalists. There are multiple levels within the Bible. One can often pull four different ideas out of a dozen words. But if it is literally the inspired Word, it has to be true on more than one level. It has to be true in the physical as well as the spiritual. But there certainly will be things the average mortal may not understand. That's why we get a question and answer session in the afterlife.
At least that's how I tend to approach it.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
Oh, my ignorant friend, it never said it was an apple.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Biblical archeology is very interesting stuff. When the Bible talks about a well, a stone wall that fell, etc., sooner or later archeologists have been finding all of this stuff. It now amounts to a mountain of places and events without an error.
In my opinion, none of that stuff matters too incredibly much. The truth of the bible doesn't depend on the validity of its facts. Maybe the wall fell down, maybe it didn't, and it's fine to take a deep dive into biblical archaeology. I like that stuff, too.
But I believe there's a danger in reading the bible in only a literal way. Some ideas are too complex and speak to traits of the human condition that are far too old to be accurately described as cold data. There's a ton of truth in Hamlet we'd be fools to ignore. The bible's like that but on steroids. Among many other things that it is, it's a spiritual and symbolic record of who and what we are. I tend to focus more on that, rather than the data. Trying to understand what Jesus meant versus where he stood when he said it. But that's just me the heathen. I did get a humanities degree so I can't help it.
Well, you are Catholic, so we'll try and over look that. Probably Jesuit trained.
Nah, we tend to be Biblical literalists. There are multiple levels within the Bible. One can often pull four different ideas out of a dozen words. But if it is literally the inspired Word, it has to be true on more than one level. It has to be true in the physical as well as the spiritual. But there certainly will be things the average mortal may not understand. That's why we get a question and answer session in the afterlife.
At least that's how I tend to approach it.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ok...Show me a geographic location or a historic event in the Bible disproved by archeology.
You're going to have a hard time proving that whole Garden of Eden stuff.
Of course, disproving it's existence is tricky. Can you disprove the existence of Mordor?
Obviously, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. There wasn't actually an apple, right?
Oh, my ignorant friend, it never said it was an apple.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Biblical archeology is very interesting stuff. When the Bible talks about a well, a stone wall that fell, etc., sooner or later archeologists have been finding all of this stuff. It now amounts to a mountain of places and events without an error.
In my opinion, none of that stuff matters too incredibly much. The truth of the bible doesn't depend on the validity of its facts. Maybe the wall fell down, maybe it didn't, and it's fine to take a deep dive into biblical archaeology. I like that stuff, too.
But I believe there's a danger in reading the bible in only a literal way. Some ideas are too complex and speak to traits of the human condition that are far too old to be accurately described as cold data. There's a ton of truth in Hamlet we'd be fools to ignore. The bible's like that but on steroids. Among many other things that it is, it's a spiritual and symbolic record of who and what we are. I tend to focus more on that, rather than the data. Trying to understand what Jesus meant versus where he stood when he said it. But that's just me the heathen. I did get a humanities degree so I can't help it.
Well, you are Catholic, so we'll try and over look that. Probably Jesuit trained.
Nah, we tend to be Biblical literalists. There are multiple levels within the Bible. One can often pull four different ideas out of a dozen words. But if it is literally the inspired Word, it has to be true on more than one level. It has to be true in the physical as well as the spiritual. But there certainly will be things the average mortal may not understand. That's why we get a question and answer session in the afterlife.
At least that's how I tend to approach it.
Yeah, I'm down with that.
-
I’ve heard Jewish folk comment that Christian Protestants taking a literalist approach to the OT are really missing the point, and that it was never intended to be interpreted in that way
-
I’ve heard Jewish folk comment that Christian Protestants taking a literalist approach to the OT are really missing the point, and that it was never intended to be interpreted in that way
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
I’ve heard Jewish folk comment that Christian Protestants taking a literalist approach to the OT are really missing the point, and that it was never intended to be interpreted in that way
Son, there are some professing Jews that don't believe in half of it, and I ain't talking about the NT.
