Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Funny!
John
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 23 (29567)
01-19-2003 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by thousands_not_billions
01-19-2003 9:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
So you believe these attacks to be true?
The first is a bit of a stretch but I understand the point and it is a good one.
The second is dead on as far as I can tell. Get to know your heroes.
The third is hilarious and, sadly, accurate as well.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-19-2003 9:36 AM thousands_not_billions has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 23 (29568)
01-19-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by zipzip
01-19-2003 1:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
My point is that the stylized Christian fish, which indisputably represented Christ and was used by early Christians because of its symbolic acronym, is the symbol that is mocked.
ok.
quote:
No Christian, early or otherwise, saw the fish symbol as a representation of the genitals of the Earth mother (or whatever [sheesh, rolling my eyes]). That is just *crap* (this needs to resound, so imagine Mike Myers in Scottish brogue through a PA system).
The Jews and the Christians did not live in a vacuum. The cultures around them had an influence. That is the point. I don't think the early christians thought of fish and genitals but the connection through various traditions is there. For example, the RCC accepts St. Brigid but no catholic really believes that she is a co-opted goddess named Breed. This, despite the fact that she is a co-opted goddess.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by zipzip, posted 01-19-2003 1:38 AM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by zipzip, posted 01-22-2003 9:20 PM John has replied

  
zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 23 (29958)
01-22-2003 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
01-19-2003 10:54 AM


Sorry, not a Catholic, so I can't comment on the specific saint...
However, their coopted saint probably exhibits Christ-like characteristics and acts as an encouragement to Catholics to exhibit those characteristics themselves -- love God first and foremost, love neighbor and treat as oneself, persevere in the face of adversity, strive for the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control...), etc. The coopted Goddess has changed her name and changed her ideals. I think she is a convert.
This is sort of like taking a Geo Metro, ripping out and replacing everything except the plastic/sheet metal shell, painting that another color, and then changing the person to whom the car is licensed. Is it still the same Geo Metro? If so, then we need to tell those Catholics to STOP COOPTING PAGAN GODDESSES, #$%@!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 01-19-2003 10:54 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John, posted 01-23-2003 12:00 AM zipzip has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 23 (29971)
01-23-2003 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by zipzip
01-22-2003 9:20 PM


quote:
This is sort of like taking a Geo Metro, ripping out and replacing everything except the plastic/sheet metal shell, painting that another color, and then changing the person to whom the car is licensed. Is it still the same Geo Metro? If so, then we need to tell those Catholics to STOP COOPTING PAGAN GODDESSES, #$%@!
More like ripping the name tag off and pasting on another. The changes are fairly slight. If you know what you are looking for you can still see the pagan symbolism and even some of the ritual. Many saints are like this. Not all are, obviously. St. John of the Cross was a monk, so was St. Ignatious, St. Augustine was a real person as well, for example.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by zipzip, posted 01-22-2003 9:20 PM zipzip has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 23 (30395)
01-28-2003 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by shilohproject
01-18-2003 1:06 PM


Sorry Shilo maybe I did miss your point. I just jumped to conclusions that you were mocking the idea of being born again. I agree Christians have no right telling others what to think.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by shilohproject, posted 01-18-2003 1:06 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 23 (30400)
01-28-2003 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by shilohproject
01-18-2003 12:16 PM


quote:
A mocking response to a debunked and silly application of scripture is not really suprising. If we present ourselves in a ridiculous way, we ought not be suprised if we are held up to ridicule.
All in all, grafting legs onto a fish works. Grafting legs onto a cross wouldn't work.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by shilohproject, posted 01-18-2003 12:16 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
Arachnid
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 23 (30996)
02-01-2003 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
01-18-2003 9:13 PM


Once again, John is playing word games...okay, we concede the point...fish actually existed before the fish symbol. I am certain that Rainbow trout feel justified in a class action suit against the Christians. Thank you, councellor. Please bring your next witness...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 01-18-2003 9:13 PM John has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 23 (31417)
02-05-2003 11:27 AM


http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/mooncheese.htm
excerpt:
Let's first look at the so-called "scientific" theory that is taught in our schools today. Scientists tell us that the Moon is a huge ball of rock, circling - in astronomical terms - right next to the Earth, another huge ball of rock. Now I ask you, does this make sense? Does it seem likely that two balls of rock would be found right next to each other in space? Let's look at the math. According to scientists, the ratio of empty space to rock in the universe is enormous. Jump anywhere in space and you are likely to find yourself in a totally rock-free zone. Considering this, what are the chances that two balls of rock would appear right next to each other in the vast enormity of space? I've performed the calculations, and the answer is: nil. Of all the places for a ball of rock to appear, right next to the Earth is so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. So we're left with the question - if a ball of rock could not appear next to the Earth, what might the Moon in fact be? And of course, the only other possibility is a ball of cheese

PE

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024