Follow TV Tropes

Discussion History Creator / DavidGonterman

Go To

[009] Evilest_Tim Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \'\'else\'\' he is (in Judaism, a \'\'false\'\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \'\'is\'\' a definition of \
to:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \\\'\\\'else\\\'\\\' he is (in Judaism, a \\\'\\\'false\\\'\\\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\\\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\\\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a definition of \\\"prophet\\\" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it (thunder, volcanos and massive floods being favourites). That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.

The unfortunate implication is not that people would do this, since historically people \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' done so many times, but that this is usually played up to show how stupid they are, even though more or less every \\\"proper\\\" religion has done the same thing at least once. It\\\'s also admittedly often the case that the technology isn\\\'t \\\'\\\'nearly\\\'\\\' impressive enough to warrant the treatment it gets; to use the classic example, I really don\\\'t see any real-world people having to turn to the actions of all-powerful entities to explain an extremely camp robot who can\\\'t bend his arms or knees properly (indeed, you\\\'ve just given me the image of an Ewok Rabbi telling Luke what a crap golem he has). There\\\'s a bit of extra Unfortunate in that 90% of the time the natives \\\'\\\'happen\\\'\\\' to have some oddly specific myth about the thing in question, despite that by all accounts even the source of this idea, the Aztecs, didn\\\'t actually think Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \'\'else\'\' he is (in Judaism, a \'\'false\'\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \'\'is\'\' a definition of \
to:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \\\'\\\'else\\\'\\\' he is (in Judaism, a \\\'\\\'false\\\'\\\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\\\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\\\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a definition of \\\"prophet\\\" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it (thunder, volcanos and massive floods being favourites). That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.

The unfortunate implication is not that people would do this, since historically people \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' done so many times, but that this is usually played up to show how stupid they are, even though more or less every \\\"proper\\\" religion has done the same thing at least once. It\\\'s also admittedly often the case that the technology isn\\\'t \\\'\\\'nearly\\\'\\\' impressive enough to warrant the treatment it gets; to use the classic example, I really don\\\'t see any real-world people having to turn to the actions of all-powerful entities to explain an extremely camp robot who can\\\'t bend his arms or knees properly (indeed, you\\\'ve just given me the image of an Ewok Rabbi telling Luke what a crap Golem he has). There\\\'s a bit of extra Unfortunate in that 90% of the time the natives \\\'\\\'happen\\\'\\\' to have some oddly specific myth about the thing in question, despite that by all accounts even the source of this idea, the Aztecs, didn\\\'t actually think Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \'\'else\'\' he is (in Judaism, a \'\'false\'\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \'\'is\'\' a definition of \
to:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \\\'\\\'else\\\'\\\' he is (in Judaism, a \\\'\\\'false\\\'\\\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\\\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\\\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a definition of \\\"prophet\\\" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it (thunder, volcanos and massive floods being favourites). That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.

The unfortunate implication is not that people would do this, since historically people \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' done so many times, but that this is usually played up to show how stupid they are, even though more or less every \\\"proper\\\" religion has done the same thing at least once. It\\\'s also admittedly often the case that the technology isn\\\'t \\\'\\\'nearly\\\'\\\' impressive enough to warrant the treatment it gets; to use the classic example, I really don\\\'t see any real-world people having to turn to the actions of all-powerful entities to explain an extremely camp robot who can\\\'t bend his arms or knees properly. There\\\'s a bit of extra Unfortunate in that 90% of the time the natives \\\'\\\'happen\\\'\\\' to have some oddly specific myth about the thing in question, despite that by all accounts even the source of this idea, the Aztecs, didn\\\'t actually think Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \'\'else\'\' he is (in Judaism, a \'\'false\'\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \'\'is\'\' a definition of \
to:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \\\'\\\'else\\\'\\\' he is (in Judaism, a \\\'\\\'false\\\'\\\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\\\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\\\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a definition of \\\"prophet\\\" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it (thunder, volcanos and massive floods being favourites). That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.

The unfortunate implication is not that people would do this, since historically people \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' done so many times, but that this is usually played up to show how stupid they are, even though more or less every \\\"proper\\\" religion has done the same thing at least once. There\\\'s a bit of extra Unfortunate in that 90% of the time the natives \\\'\\\'happen\\\'\\\' to have some oddly specific myth about the thing in question, despite that by all accounts even the source of this idea, the Aztecs, didn\\\'t actually think Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \'\'else\'\' he is (in Judaism, a \'\'false\'\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \'\'is\'\' a definition of \
to:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \\\'\\\'else\\\'\\\' he is (in Judaism, a \\\'\\\'false\\\'\\\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\\\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\\\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a definition of \\\"prophet\\\" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it (thunder, volcanos and massive floods being favourites). That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology. The unfortunate implication is not that people would do this, since historically people \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' done so many times, but that this is usually played up to show how stupid they are, even though more or less every \\\"proper\\\" religion has done the same thing at least once.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \'\'else\'\' he is (in Judaism, a \'\'false\'\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \'\'is\'\' a definition of \
to:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \\\'\\\'else\\\'\\\' he is (in Judaism, a \\\'\\\'false\\\'\\\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\\\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\\\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a definition of \\\"prophet\\\" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it. That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by everyone. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \'\'else\'\' he is (in Judaism, a \'\'false\'\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\'t one.
to:
Jesus is believed to be a [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet prophet]] by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what \\\'\\\'else\\\'\\\' he is (in Judaism, a \\\'\\\'false\\\'\\\' prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You\\\'re just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn\\\'t one; it should be fairly clear that there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a definition of \\\"prophet\\\" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
Salvation by works isn\'t that rare; you\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \
to:
Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it. That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
Salvation by works isn\'t that rare; you\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \
to:
Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it. That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
If you can actually learn to \'\'read\'\' at some point in time, I said the real cargo cults had the \'\'common gross features\'\' of a messianic movement (and listed such, which you cunningly ignored), which they do. You haven\'t refuted that. It seems more like you\'re offended at what you read into my comment than at what I actually wrote.
to:
Basic reading comprehension: I said the real cargo cults had the \\\'\\\'common gross features\\\'\\\' of a messianic movement (and listed such, which you cunningly ignored), which they do. You haven\\\'t refuted that. It seems more like you\\\'re offended at what you read into my comment than at what I actually wrote; maybe if you focus on what I\\\'m saying rather than what you \\\'\\\'want\\\'\\\' me to be saying this conversation will be easier.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Ah, right. It\'s nice that you admit you were just throwing out irrelevant crap you weren\'t prepared to explain to try to make yourself look intelligent. Because, you know, people who can write books can\'t explain their points without throwing half a thesaurus\' worth of intellectual wank at their opponent to make themselves look smart. Well known fact.
to:
Ah, right. It\\\'s nice that you admit you were just throwing out irrelevant crap you weren\\\'t prepared to explain to try to make yourself look intelligent. That\\\'s useful.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
Salvation by works isn\'t that rare; you\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \
to:
Salvation by works isn\\\'t that rare; you\\\'ll find plenty of Christians who prefer the \\\"do unto others\\\" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it\\\'s works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

->Mat 16:27 \\\"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\' every man \\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'according to his works\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action is called a \\\'\\\'reward\\\'\\\'.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, etc. These things \\\'\\\'seemed\\\'\\\' supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You\\\'re into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. \\\'\\\'Most\\\'\\\' religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God\\\'s name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it. That\\\'s what the trope\\\'s about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report