next »

[ProgramGamer]

Edit: oops paged go back a page for context lol

[Dacke]

but, see, it doesn't make any sense to say that the OT is allegorical and the NT literal, because without things literally being true from the OT (like original sin) the actions in NT (like the sacrifice of Jesus) were meaningless

[rj]

the basic idea is that original sin as a concept is a stand-in for human evil in general, or the dark side of free will and choice.

the naiivité of adam and eve as depicted in the garden of eden narrative can just as easily be read as the innocence of an infant. most people would likely argue babies are incapable of evil. the apple, then, is a loss of innocence.

obviously feel free to take this with whatever grain of salt but i think at the very least this part of that is pretty easy to say "yeah, sure" about

[Dacke]

That only ~works if you play the create-your-own-adventure version of Christianity. But any church of some age will be stuck with what Christianity actually has stood for for thousands of years.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

    By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

    Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

    As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

[rj]

keep in mind that that read of adam and eve (which is pretty much the catholic read) in no way nullifies the inherent sexism there. yeah, it was eve's fault. yeah, the dude came first, and eve was molded out of him, secondarily. she's literally a lesser being. it's a symptom of being a part of a book written almost exclusively by old men

but anyway, i mean, it's a pretty obvious metaphor. the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is literally the name of the apple she bites. kids can start doing bad when they know what bad is to begin with. duh.

now that also ties into a huge other thing about the church and its tendency towards guilt. there's a whole deal with catholic dogma where basically if you weren't raised in a catholic home the same rules literally don't apply the same way to you re: mortal sin; you actually have more freedom outside of the church, from their own perspective.

basically, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a standin for the church itself as well.

edit: i should clarify that it's still considered mortal sin by the church and is thus a "grave evil" or whatever but is, at least in the prevading circles of thought, considered more forgivable when the person "doesn't know better." which. yeah. i mean. loads of obvious problems there.

[Dacke]

it's a pretty obvious metaphor

To you as a modern person, who knows for a fact that it's wrong, sure. But to someone who actually believed in it before it was proven wrong, it was clearly not as obvious.

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

This seems to me like a silly and smug diversion. There are a lot of ways of looking at christian theology for a believer, just the same as there are lots of ways of reading or understanding any other story. Gonna use two as an example, since they're what you're discussing.


1- The garden of eden is true, because it literally happened and was transcriped as a stenographer would. Then, jesus died for the sins of man.

2- The garden of eden is true, because deploying metaphor it describes a godly unkowable reality in simple human terms. Then, jesus died for the sins of man.

Whether or not the believer is empowered to or can think on their feet enough to describe their particular understanding of the text enough to appease you when questioned hardly creates some huge gaping fallacy in their faith.

[Dacke]

I was specifically talking about Roman Catholic dogma (which isn't based on individual understanding but rather on easily available church declarations.) I even quoted the part where they talk about Adam and Eve as people (who obv. never existed and don't make any sense as a metaphor afaik). I was specifically not talking about protestant retcons, because in that realm people continuously invent vaguer and vaguer interpretations of the texts whenever proven wrong.

And sure I'm "smug" about it, just like I am towards any bad idea that has ben proven wrong. Whether it's homeopatgy or religion or flat earthism or US libertarianism. I don't really see the problem with that, though

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

I guess I just don't see how you can 'prove' one version of a fictional text right or wrong, or why catholicism (an organization that's had constant ideological battles over how to interpret their own texts, the declarations of antipopes, etc) would be shaken by the revelation that they've changed how they read this text here and there.

If you want to call out flawed parts of the institution there are much more damning things in catholicism's history than one they acknowledge, and is shared with all other religions (and all other subjects which involve analyzing history, or a text.)

It may be unfair to call you smug, I just feel like you're rejecting this out of hand with a closed-mindedness (to the history, of course, not to believing the bs) that I haven't perceived from you in other subjects.






ps: you may know this already, but their preferred term for change in their belief is 'development', and you can read modern catholics stances on it all over: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

also, it's ridiculous to say adam and eve in the garden doesn't make sense in a metaphor. its pretty on the nose, and it's almost identical to a bunch of other creation myths with the same general idea.

[JWK5]

"And on the second page the Lord said 'thou shalt turn everything into a bible discussion'."  - Sarkeesian 30:16

[FK in the Coffee]

Popes vs Women in Video Games

[JWK5]

Is that the one how she explains how nuns are sexualized in video games?











Shit. I just realized nuns are sexualized in video games.

[Manuel Magalhães]

I liked Hitman: Absolution, but the sexualized nuns were definitely one of the lamest parts of that game.

[s0]

the sexy nun trope probably comes from the same place that the common male fantasy of "turning a lesbian around" also comes from.

[rj]

dik so big the lady want it mm mm kiss

[s0]

Edit: oops paged go back a page for context lol

R A P G O D


(actually as far as novelty rap songs by clueless old ppl go, this is one of the better ones)

[PetterBergmar]

Good stuff, relevant and manages to be interesting although stating what I think should be obvious to any thinking person.

[halk3n]

"And on the second page the Lord said 'thou shalt turn everything into a bible discussion'."  - Sarkeesian 30:16

Yea, I think you're right. Who cares about the real version of the story, what matters is that Catholicism has had a major hand in these misogynistic attitudes in video game characterizations. I retract everything I've said in this thread.

Sorry for the muck-about peoples.

[Dacke]

Who cares about the real version of the story

I care a lot about what you think the real version is! I've spent years talking to different people about what they think it "really" says, but I usually don't get any clear answers. Please, please do share!