Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Absurdities in Genesis: Well, shit... that was quick.

So... yeah. Just post that I'm on a brief hiatus and BAM, I land on AiG and see this:







I mean... really? Come on, this is just beyond pointless. Do these whackjobs completely lack any understanding for what a metaphor is?


Derka derka. I mean, lets be honest here, nobody outside of various animistic pagan groups are you usually going to find someone who literally considers the earth their "mother." For the rest of us it is an obvious metaphor with clear implications regarding what the Earth is to us as a species, and to us as a biosphere. The earth takes care of us by providing us with what we need to survive, and we should be good children and not defile her. Whether you believe it is god causing those crops to grow or placing those animals there is of no consequence, nor does it detract from the metaphorical implications.


The only conclusion i can come to is completely unsavory and that is that these people literally believe that doing -ANYTHING- without the mention of god is implicitly bad or explicitly trying to deliberately sideline their god which is completely ridiculous with things like this that have, in common parlance, no religious connotation any more than me saying "goddamnit" means I believe in god.


And this is the kind of semantic bullshit that frustrates me about the religious debates. They nitpick the stupidest things, but then so do some of ours. How many times has an atheist tried to throw the "bats aren't birds" thing into an argument? The only classification systems that humans still use weren't even codified till thousands of years after the bible was written. Its silly semantic crap. I mean, pi=3 is a valid complaint, and so is the "pillars of the earth" and such. But lets keep it on the level here. If you want to argue semantics, they're going to keep throwing them back.

11 comments:

  1. The only conclusion i can come to is completely unsavory and that is that these people literally believe that doing -ANYTHING- without the mention of god is implicitly bad or explicitly trying to deliberately sideline their godthat is exactly what they think. exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. why, oh why, did blogger change the comments so that you can't have spaces in between things?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wait, they did? That's ridiculous.

    Its sad that that's what they think. Despite my "cult" upbringing, I really can't get into the head of a fundamentalist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And yet at the same time they call God 'father'.

    We should do a response image with a picture of a generic 'dad' next to bearded-God-on-a-cloud with a caption reading; "Hint: God is not your father"

    Do Americans not refer to America as the 'Motherland', BTW?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Damn, I was going to guess Nin-ti from Sumerian myths that are older.

    Nin-ti does mean "lady of the rib" and she was given the title of the mother of all living. Because the word ti means rib and means to make live.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Upon relooking at it I'm kinda wondering why its copyright 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  7. They recycle to help mother Earth?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Death by irony...

    But seriously. I even checked the archives. It doesn't appear in 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just looked through the last few ones and they are all copyrighted 2000. I wonder if it is a blanket copyright for the cartoon obtained in 2000/2001.

    ReplyDelete
  10. At least Eve isn't a blonde, blue eyed, white chick.

    ReplyDelete
  11. EPM, I haven't heard an American use that phrase in decades. Literally. It's an anachronism at best (here).

    ReplyDelete