Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: floo on September 10, 2015, 12:15:48 PM
-
Your ship is sinking you have to nominate one of the following to be Jonah and chucked overboard. Who would you choose, with reasons for doing so?
David Cameron
The new leader of the Labour Party, whoever that is
Nigel Farage
Jesus
Although sorely tempted to chuck that ghastly man Farage into the sea, I would throw Jesus overboard as the least cruel option as he can supposedly walk on water! ;D
-
Sorry, can't answer - that's an impossible choice.
It does though remind me of that old but regularly updated gag: You're in a locked room with David Cameron, the Labour leader (whoever it may be), Nigel Farage and a revolver with only two bullets - who do you shoot?
Nigel Farage, twice - just to make sure.
-
I think I'd grab the lifeboat for myself and leave these guys to sort it out between themselves. Jesus won't have a problem though: allegedly he can walk on water, as you say.
-
It would depend on what the ship was. For instance, if it was the Labour Party 'ship', I probably wouldn't throw any of this lot over board because what would they have had to do with the ship sinking in the first place.
Similarly with the good ship 'Economy' - what have any of these had to do with the position of the economy? As noted by a number of people before, even the ruling Labour administration of the day was only partially responsible for the economic collapse.
-
:) Floo, I think I would chuck you overboard and then crack open a good vintage. :)
~TW~
-
Sorry, can't answer - that's an impossible choice.
It does though remind me of that old but regularly updated gag: You're in a locked room with David Cameron, the Labour leader (whoever it may be), Nigel Farage and a revolver with only two bullets - who do you shoot?
Nigel Farage, twice - just to make sure.
Here's a dilemma. You're on a boat and you spot David Cameron and Nigel Farage drowning. There isn't time to rescue them both.
What filling do you put in your sandwich?
-
Your ship is sinking you have to nominate one of the following to be Jonah and chucked overboard. Who would you choose, with reasons for doing so?
David Cameron
The new leader of the Labour Party, whoever that is
Nigel Farage
Jesus
Although sorely tempted to chuck that ghastly man Farage into the sea, I would throw Jesus overboard as the least cruel option as he can supposedly walk on water! ;D
Obviously, we are going to end up eating the ones that we don't throw overboard, so Farage has to go because I don't think I could keep him down.
-
Your ship is sinking you have to nominate one of the following to be Jonah and chucked overboard. Who would you choose, with reasons for doing so?
David Cameron
The new leader of the Labour Party, whoever that is
Nigel Farage
Jesus
Although sorely tempted to chuck that ghastly man Farage into the sea, I would throw Jesus overboard as the least cruel option as he can supposedly walk on water! ;D
It's a trick question, right? The ethical thing to do is to hole the boat and take them all down with you...
O.
-
It's a trick question, right? The ethical thing to do is to hole the boat and take them all down with you...
The other thing, O, is that the last option wouldn't be there anyway, as his collected birth, death and resurrection was a once for all event. ;)
-
I know: throw them all overboard. If anybody floats, burn them as a witch.
-
:) Floo, I think I would chuck you overboard and then crack open a good vintage. :)
~TW~
How kind! ;D ;D ;D
-
:) Floo, I think I would chuck you overboard and then crack open a good vintage. :)
~TW~
How kind! ;D ;D ;D
If TW was on the boat, I'd jump.
-
Your ship wouldn't be sinking if you had Jesus on board.
"My soul in sad exile was out on life's sea
so burdened with sin and distressed
till I heard a sweet voice, saying "make me your choice"
and I entered the Haven of Rest
I've anchored my soul in the Haven of rest
I'll sail the wide seas no more
the tempest may sweep over wild, stormy deep
in Jesus I'm safe ever more"
George D. Moore
-
Your ship wouldn't be sinking if you had Jesus on board.
It would if he was trying to bail out the water with his hands.
-
Shakes,
It would if he was trying to bail out the water with his hands.
That gave me that rare thing - a genuine LOL!
Kudos
-
Jesus never bails out.
-
::)
-
Your ship wouldn't be sinking if you had Jesus on board.
It would if he was trying to bail out the water with his hands.
Why? After all, we all know that the nails had to go through the wrists!
-
Indeed - if nails were used at all if there was a Jesus to crucify in the first place.
Look at any painting of the crucifixion, however ...
-
If the ship was sinking it would have to be the ugliest person overboard.
-
Your ship wouldn't be sinking if you had Jesus on board.
It would if he was trying to bail out the water with his hands.
Please stop mocking the holey Jesus.
-
So floo, you do know Jonah was sent overboard because that is what he instructed the crew to do to him? I'm afraid you would get no such instructions from anybody on your silly list. In fact your, what if, isn't at all like the Jonah story.
-
So floo, you do know Jonah was sent overboard because that is what he instructed the crew to do to him? I'm afraid you would get no such instructions from anybody on your silly list. In fact your, what if, isn't at all like the Jonah story.
As the story of Jonah was only a myth, one can puts one's own spin on it! ;D
-
As the story of Jonah was only a myth, one can puts one's own spin on it! ;D
Not really, Floo, as the story is illustrating a point about obedience of instructions. Furthermore, there is nothing within the story that points to it having been a historical event.
-
As the story of Jonah was only a myth, one can puts one's own spin on it! ;D
Not really, Floo, as the story is illustrating a point about obedience of instructions.
What point someone takes from a story is up to them. The author might expect a certain view to be taken, but once written and out in the public domain stories take on a life of their own no longer under the control of the author. And this is of course especially true for stories handed down over thousands of years, where authorship is unclear and definitely long dead. More so again when the stories are subject to the whims of translation and the deliberate use within a political context (which is very much the case for the bible).
So people have been putting their own 'spin' on bible stories for centuries and will continue to do so to suit a variety of purposes.
-
As the story of Jonah was only a myth, one can puts one's own spin on it! ;D
Not really, Floo, as the story is illustrating a point about obedience of instructions. Furthermore, there is nothing within the story that points to it having been a historical event.
Yeah, Floo, what were you thinking considering the possibility that this supernaturally influenced fairy-tale devoid of any historical corroboration was alleging historicity just because other indistinguishably supernaturally influenced fairy-tales devoid of historical corroboration are allegedly historical events.
O.
-
Yeah, Floo, what were you thinking considering the possibility that this supernaturally influenced fairy-tale devoid of any historical corroboration was alleging historicity just because other indistinguishably supernaturally influenced fairy-tales devoid of historical corroboration are allegedly historical events.
O.
Well, O, there are linguistic markers within the original Hebrew that strongly suggest that it is an allegorical story, as opposed to a historical one. Those markers or their equivalents are missing in some of the other Biblical stories.
-
Yeah, Floo, what were you thinking considering the possibility that this supernaturally influenced fairy-tale devoid of any historical corroboration was alleging historicity just because other indistinguishably supernaturally influenced fairy-tales devoid of historical corroboration are allegedly historical events.
O.
Well, O, there are linguistic markers within the original Hebrew that strongly suggest that it is an allegorical story, as opposed to a historical one. Those markers or their equivalents are missing in some of the other Biblical stories.
What are these markers? What are the equivalent markers in Koine Greek?
-
Yeah, Floo, what were you thinking considering the possibility that this supernaturally influenced fairy-tale devoid of any historical corroboration was alleging historicity just because other indistinguishably supernaturally influenced fairy-tales devoid of historical corroboration are allegedly historical events.
O.
Well, O, there are linguistic markers within the original Hebrew that strongly suggest that it is an allegorical story, as opposed to a historical one. Those markers or their equivalents are missing in some of the other Biblical stories.
Lets face it most bible stories aren't historical as we would understand it but allegorical.
And as soon as a story exists its original allegorical meaning is likely to evolve over time, largely to align with the current time and to suit the needs of the person using the story to make an allegorical point.
-
What point someone takes from a story is up to them.
I would disagree, PD. If a story is written with certain linguistic and genre-specific markers within it, that indicate that it is, say - poetic, even if only blank verse - is it legitimate for someone 50/100/1000/5000 years later to interpret it as a historic record of an event?
So people have been putting their own 'spin' on bible stories for centuries and will continue to do so to suit a variety of purposes.
Which is part of the value of Biblical criticism. We can see where and what spin has been put on any given story, and dig down into the true story.
-
Lets face it most bible stories aren't historical as we would understand it but allegorical.
and thankfully the scientific field of linguistics can show which are the former and which the latter.
And as soon as a story exists its original allegorical meaning is likely to evolve over time, largely to align with the current time and to suit the needs of the person using the story to make an allegorical point.
That may happen in your field of expertise, but not necessarily elsewhere. ;)
Interestingly, John's Gospel seems to have been written to combat just this kind of treatment that occurred within the first 50-60 years of the church
-
What point someone takes from a story is up to them.
I would disagree, PD. If a story is written with certain linguistic and genre-specific markers within it, that indicate that it is, say - poetic, even if only blank verse - is it legitimate for someone 50/100/1000/5000 years later to interpret it as a historic record of an event?
I don't think the issue is whether we see bible stories as historical events (again in the way we would understand 'historical') - we happily accept that bible stories aren't historical in that manner. And I think I'd be much more consistent than you are on that one, also not seeing the stories in the new testament as historical records either, but as stories to embrue faith in a religious position.
So why is it that you seem happy that the myth of Jonah, is just that a story, a myth, albeit perhaps with some historical reference (from thousands of years ago), yet fall to see the resurrection myth as being the same. Seems a touch of double standards don't you think.
So people have been putting their own 'spin' on bible stories for centuries and will continue to do so to suit a variety of purposes.
Which is part of the value of Biblical criticism. We can see where and what spin has been put on any given story, and dig down into the true story.
Whose it to say that bible criticism (or any other kind of similar 'spin') gets to the true story or takes the meaning away from the original meaning to somewhere else. The only person who can really answer this is the story author themselves, but they aren't available for comment!
-
So why is it that you seem happy that the myth of Jonah, is just that a story, a myth, albeit perhaps with some historical reference (from thousands of years ago), yet fall to see the resurrection myth as being the same. Seems a touch of double standards don't you think.
If it's double standards, PD, it's scientifically-based double standards.
Whose it to say that bible criticism (or any other kind of similar 'spin') gets to the true story or takes the meaning away from the original meaning to somewhere else. The only person who can really answer this is the story author themselves, but they aren't available for comment!
Sorry, PD, but as with many other disciplines there are applied linguists and ordinary ones. Applied linguistics will be used in studying and researching cultural contexts, historical contexts, literary issues, etc. to discover this kind of thing.
-
So why is it that you seem happy that the myth of Jonah, is just that a story, a myth, albeit perhaps with some historical reference (from thousands of years ago), yet fall to see the resurrection myth as being the same. Seems a touch of double standards don't you think.
Colossal double standards, but it can't be any other way. Junk the resurrection and they've got nothing left of their religion, just a rather unbalanced ten-a-penny preacher from some obscure backwater of the Roman empire two thousand years ago.
-
Colossal double standards, ...
So, you're quite happy to ditch scientific methodology when it doesn't support your ideas and beliefs? That really is double standards.
-
So, you're quite happy to ditch scientific methodology when it doesn't support your ideas and beliefs? That really is double standards.
It would be, if that were the case, but it isn't.
-
So why is it that you seem happy that the myth of Jonah, is just that a story, a myth, albeit perhaps with some historical reference (from thousands of years ago), yet fall to see the resurrection myth as being the same. Seems a touch of double standards don't you think.
If it's double standards, PD, it's scientifically-based double standards.
Whose it to say that bible criticism (or any other kind of similar 'spin') gets to the true story or takes the meaning away from the original meaning to somewhere else. The only person who can really answer this is the story author themselves, but they aren't available for comment!
Sorry, PD, but as with many other disciplines there are applied linguists and ordinary ones. Applied linguistics will be used in studying and researching cultural contexts, historical contexts, literary issues, etc. to discover this kind of thing.
Sorry Hope - ancient documents aren't stamped 'Fiction' and 'Non fiction' or 'Allegorical' or 'Historical' and actually there is massive blurring between the two in each case.
And the notion that an allegory must be embedded in a purely fictional story is also not the case. So there are plenty of allegorical tales, which include some or many fictional elements that also include factual and historical elements too.
So the point is that you cannot assume that if something is not deliberately allegorical that it is necessarily true or historical, nor that the current allegorical 'orthodoxy' from a story is the same as its original meaning.
-
Sometimes it's like the author never died at all.
-
Oh crumbs this thread was meant to be a bit of fun, nothing more! ::)
-
Oh crumbs this thread was meant to be a bit of fun, nothing more! ::)
I thought it had remained a bit of fun, Floo. ;)
-
Sorry Hope - ancient documents aren't stamped 'Fiction' and 'Non fiction' or 'Allegorical' or 'Historical' and actually there is massive blurring between the two in each case.
Yet there are plenty of linguistic means that we use to show these differences; are you saying that ancient writers didn't know about them, or have their own?
And the notion that an allegory must be embedded in a purely fictional story is also not the case. So there are plenty of allegorical tales, which include some or many fictional elements that also include factual and historical elements too.
And nothing I have said indicates anything other than just that. For instance, the book of Jonah refers to Nineveh - a historical place.
So the point is that you cannot assume that if something is not deliberately allegorical that it is necessarily true or historical, nor that the current allegorical 'orthodoxy' from a story is the same as its original meaning.
But if one can trace the meaning of an allegory from close to its origin, then it may well be that you can. After all, Jonah is within that section of the Tanakh that the Jews regard as prophetic - so not necessarily historical or factual.
-
Sorry Hope - ancient documents aren't stamped 'Fiction' and 'Non fiction' or 'Allegorical' or 'Historical' and actually there is massive blurring between the two in each case.
Yet there are plenty of linguistic means that we use to show these differences; are you saying that ancient writers didn't know about them, or have their own?
But as you have pointed out below these stories weren't necessarily rigidly one or the other.
And the notion that an allegory must be embedded in a purely fictional story is also not the case. So there are plenty of allegorical tales, which include some or many fictional elements that also include factual and historical elements too.
And nothing I have said indicates anything other than just that. For instance, the book of Jonah refers to Nineveh - a historical place.
Indeed, just as the resurrection story refers to a historical place and perhaps also a historical person, just as Jonah may have been a real person. But that doesn't mean that that in either case the story is historical in full nor partly allegorical which I think is the case in both instances.
So the point is that you cannot assume that if something is not deliberately allegorical that it is necessarily true or historical, nor that the current allegorical 'orthodoxy' from a story is the same as its original meaning.
But if one can trace the meaning of an allegory from close to its origin, then it may well be that you can. After all, Jonah is within that section of the Tanakh that the Jews regard as prophetic - so not necessarily historical or factual.
But whether a story is thought to be allegorical rather than historical (or vice versa) doesn't mean it is, nor that it was intended to be so by the author. Even if the suggestion of allegory appeared very early (and in the case of the bible we really have no idea what the contemporary readers, and the author actually thought or intended.
As an example it is pretty well an 'accepted' fact that the Narnia stories represent biblical allegory. And this has been a broadly accepted view for decades, so arose within a few years after they were written. Yet C S Lewis always denied this. Now we actually have the recorded view of the author in this case, unlike for the bible yet within no time an accepted view of allegory has arisen that the author denies he intended.
-
Sorry that your fun time mocking Christ thread went right down the toilet floo.
-
Sorry that your fun time mocking Christ thread went right down the toilet floo.
It didn't.
I was particularly pleased with my off-the-cuff bailing-out gag.
-
Sorry that your fun time mocking Christ thread went right down the toilet floo.
Jesus was an ordinary bloke, imo, and maybe he enjoyed a joke as much as he obviously enjoyed his booze! ;D
-
Jesus never bails out.
He doesn't need to, if he were to drown he'd be back, can't quite remember something to do with three?
ippy
-
Yeah, Floo, what were you thinking considering the possibility that this supernaturally influenced fairy-tale devoid of any historical corroboration was alleging historicity just because other indistinguishably supernaturally influenced fairy-tales devoid of historical corroboration are allegedly historical events.
O.
Well, O, there are linguistic markers within the original Hebrew that strongly suggest that it is an allegorical story, as opposed to a historical one. Those markers or their equivalents are missing in some of the other Biblical stories.
Yea, yea they would be.
ippy
-
Personally I'd keep Jesus in the boat on the basis he'd be the only one I'd want to talk to.
-
Personally I'd keep Jesus in the boat on the basis he'd be the only one I'd want to talk to.
Ah but remember, more or less foregone conclusion as it may be, the new Labour leader hasn't been elected yet ;)
-
Yea, yea they would be.
ippy
I'm glad you acknowledge that reality, ippy. :P
-
Personally I'd keep Jesus in the boat on the basis he'd be the only one I'd want to talk to.
Yes Rhi I would go with that too.
Do you think he'd be interested in the Rugby World Cup, Swing Low.
ippy
-
Yea, yea they would be.
ippy
I'm glad you acknowledge that reality, ippy. :P
It was sarcasm, Hoppity ::)
-
I wish floo had Karl Marx on that list. That drunk would have just stumbled over the side all on his own. And his family would have been better off if he had.
-
I wish floo had Karl Marx on that list. That drunk would have just stumbled over the side all on his own. And his family would have been better off if he had.
I should have also on the list some of those crazy US TV evangelists who take in the extremely gullible with their nasty garbage!
-
I should have also on the list some of those crazy US TV evangelists who take in the extremely gullible with their nasty garbage!
Wouldn't quibble with that Floo, but then I wouldn't quibble with Donald Trump or Bush Junior being an option for ejection.
-
I wish floo had Karl Marx on that list. That drunk would have just stumbled over the side all on his own. And his family would have been better off if he had.
Thank goodness for the spread of knowledge throughout the world via the internet, I suppose there will always be the internet version of stony ground here and there.
ippy
-
Yea, yea they would be.
ippy
I'm glad you acknowledge that reality, ippy. :P
It was sarcasm, Hoppity ::)
If I were to tell you how many nights of sleep I've missed over delusional posts Shakes.
ippy
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
Yes, especially just after they try to throw the ,militant atheists overboard even though they are outnumbered.
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
'Turds float', well you should know Vlad being chief 'turd' around here! ;D
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
A bit bitchy there Vlad, not having a very good day?
ippy
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
A bit bitchy there Vlad, not having a very good day?
ippy
If Vlad's posts are an indication of his demeanour, he seldom has good days! Maybe his 'faith', such as it is, isn't doing the business for him, but he is scared to admit it! Actually that seems to be true of a number of the more uptight Christian posters, including one who has been quiet for a while.
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
A bit bitchy there Vlad, not having a very good day?
ippy
If Vlad's posts are an indication of his demeanour, he seldom has good days! Maybe his 'faith', such as it is, isn't doing the business for him, but he is scared to admit it! Actually that seems to be true of a number of the more uptight Christian posters, including one who has been quiet for a while.
Even if that were the case Floo, I've seen what atheism has done for you.......No thanks.
-
You, Floo. Because you would taste so awful the 'fish' would spit you out again.
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
A bit bitchy there Vlad, not having a very good day?
ippy
If Vlad's posts are an indication of his demeanour, he seldom has good days! Maybe his 'faith', such as it is, isn't doing the business for him, but he is scared to admit it! Actually that seems to be true of a number of the more uptight Christian posters, including one who has been quiet for a while.
Even if that were the case Floo, I've seen what atheism has done for you.......No thanks.
Actually I am an agnostic!
I have seen what your faith does for you, and if I didn't know that some Christians are very decent people I would think that the faith turns people into unpleasant pieces of the proverbial just like you!
-
You, Floo. Because you would taste so awful the 'fish' would spit you out again.
Most likely! ;D
-
I would throw militant atheists overboard but don't fear though............Turds float.
A bit bitchy there Vlad, not having a very good day?
ippy
If Vlad's posts are an indication of his demeanour, he seldom has good days! Maybe his 'faith', such as it is, isn't doing the business for him, but he is scared to admit it! Actually that seems to be true of a number of the more uptight Christian posters, including one who has been quiet for a while.
Even if that were the case Floo, I've seen what atheism has done for you.......No thanks.
Actually I am an agnostic!
I have seen what your faith does for you, and if I didn't know that some Christians are very decent people I would think that the faith turns people into unpleasant pieces of the proverbial just like you!
Like evolution, you don't understand agnosticism. It is not part of a continuum between theism and atheism. It is perfectly possible to be an agnostic theist or atheist. One is a statement about knowledge, the other about belief.