I said the term. And that’s what i was referring to. I specifically pointed to the wikipedia link about the man that coined the phrase and i clearly meant his term. I do apologise for not being a bit more careful in my wordings and not doing that little bit of extra research. My bad.
If you feel upset about something i said and your feelings got hurt i’m sorry. I forgot how sensitive you are of everything i say. But i humbly thank you for the relentless tracking and screening of my every post to the letter. I feel appreciated.
I’ve said it before; i can always count on you my old friend. I look forward to your comments on my next topic. Your tireless work keeps me sharp and brings out my best work.
Following up on your warning in the other thread: if you don’t stop talking to other posters like this, it’s going to cause problems for you. Tone it down unless you’re in the Pit.
Following up on your warning in the other thread: if you don’t stop talking to other posters like this, it’s going to cause problems for you. Tone it down unless you’re in the Pit.
Did i break any SDMB rules with these words? Did i curse or insult or use hate speech?
Which SDMB rules did i break here? I honestly don’t understand how this is out of tone when someone called me a MF liar a few days ago and nothing happened.
Was that acceptable?
On the off chance you’re serious: it sounds like a snide remark about simster being easily offended. I advise you to steer clear of anything that sounds like that.
FWIW, I once attended a conference at a Catholic theology school on precisely this topic. These two posts are much clearer than anything presented at the conference, but otherwise seem right in line with what was said there.
Be fair. Many parts of the Bible are horrendously written, but Genesis 2-3 isn’t poorly written at all. Taken as a folktale on its own terms, it’s beautifully told and powerfully captures the essence of the human condition. It fails as an etiology of sin, but I’m not convinced that was at all its original purpose. And even if it was, that’s a philosophical failure, not an aesthetic one.
Keep in mind, one doesn’t usually expect literary qualities from a folktale (folktale and literature being something like opposite points on a spectrum). Nevertheless, I would defy you to find any narrative story from the pre-Classical world that holds up as well according to modern literary tastes. It’s certainly a hell of a lot better than any of the business with Lot!
I’m sorry, but the story of Adam and Eve is a logical mess from beginning to end. He creates two innocents that have no knowledge of good and evil, sets a couple of unguarded dangerous objects right before them(remember-they don’t know right from wrong), tells them not to touch the trees(they don’t know right from wrong) let’s loose an intelligent serpent ,and leaves them with the loaded weapon on the table with no babysitter in sight(so to speak). The serpent(who knows right from wrong) tells Adam and Eve(who, once again, don’t) that it’s okey dokey to eat the fruit. They have neither the experience, nor the ability to tell right from wrong, to know that he is a lying scumbucket, so they eat the fruit. The dude that left the gun on the table and the serpent in the playpen comes home, already knowing what the outcome was going to be because he’s a know-it-all of the first degree, [del]apologizes for putting them in such danger[/del], blames them for his own colossal fuck-up, and kicks them out of the house.
Did I miss anything?
No, you got it. I didn’t say it made sense, I said it was a well-written folktale. The human condition, with our ability to harm ourselves and those around us in ways no animal could ever conceive of, is indeed much like being a child left alone with a gun on the table. Again, it fails miserably as an explanation, but it works great as a folktale.
ETA: You forgot that it’s not the snake who’s a lying scumbucket, but God. Everything the snake says is perfectly true. Part of what makes it a great story.
That’s funny, I’ve always thought of the snake as an “older brother” figure in that story. He knows exactly what to say to get the other kids in trouble without actually doing anything wrong himself.
Mf*ker! God Himself successfully tempted by Satan to shit on a “perfect and an upright man”, certainly as bad as Adam and Eve’s “mortal sin” of a victimless crime. Has anyone considered that all the shit coming down globally today is the work of the God-Satan Conspiracy? It worked on Adam and Eve.
God himself described that serpent as an animal, not an angel, devil or any other supernatural entity. He then goes on to say that the serpent will crawl on its belly until it dies. Satan as described in Job doesn’t seem to be either cursed or a belly crawler, therefore they are two different characters.
Perhaps God in His Wisdom kind of liked the Serpent’s idea of screwing with folk’s heads and rehabilitated him as Satan. Frankly, I don’t care. “There is no sin. The Son of God is free!”
