This 911roofer post introduced me to /r/wikipedia, a subreddit where apparently redditors post wikipedia articles . From a brief glance it seems that most of these posts are blatant agenda posts designed to bait politisperging and slapfights
Let's take a look shall we?
I found this thread pretty quickly: the linked article is Sources and Parallels of the Exodus. Immediately redditors jump in crowing how fake the bible is:
Very few people create a myth where they were all slaves at some point in the past.
Another comment springs a multi pronged
He gets dunked on immediately for being such a neckbeard
Ok Ted take it easy. It wasn't meant in the literal sense…see what I did there (-41)
Why is this guy calling the other one Ted? I don't get it. Anyhow, the other side of that chain:
Never fear though Christcels , a champion has arisen to defend your honor!
An actual good faith engagement with this?
A separate subthread:
You think Moses parting the sea is historical rather than mythological?
This really got them mad:
After reading this incredibly intelligent discussion I wanted to go into the article itself to see what was happening
No real drama on the talk page unfortunately but I did notice
some fun stuff in the article itself:
Hmm, very interesting. So just in these few lines we have: the Jews were kicked out (chuds is this country 1/109?) and the Hebrews were originally insular, antisocial, and criminal?
And all written by a guy named Assman
I highly encourage all dramatard to seek out arguments on this wonderful subreddit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was definitely a low Church phenomenon yeah, though I guess you could argue Catholics/Lutherans/Anglicans have our own issues with some of the Saint hagiographies featuring lake monsters and dragons. That actually might be the justification RadTrads find for YEC(?) but I don't waste energy arguing with them on that specific topic.
Dragons are real though 100% so I'll give them that one.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There's an orthodox
I like called Johnathan Pageau who has videos talking about symbology in scripture/iconography/art in general. Personally I think
he goes way overboard/over my head many times but some of it is a really
interesting
way to look at things.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He was the Orthobro I mentioned but couldn't recall the name of last week when someone brought up Jung yeah. I don't put a lot of weight in it, kinda feels pseudointellectual
to me and ignores the far more interesting mystery about dragons which is how they came to exist in the mythos of multiple cultures prior to their having contact. One popular theory used to be dinosaurs like the RadTrads were promoting but the only one paleontologists would now say that's probable for is China because they do have fossils visible from the surface.
Jung folks also are kinda infamous for bad and purposefully selective readings of mythology, in China they're(dragons) seen as benevolent and bringers of good fortune. Similarly, some Greek traditions held snakes to be healers (hence the Staff of Asklepios) but that obviously contradicts our natural aversion/fear of them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I agree
sometimes but others look like legit symbology to take into account with ancient
artwork. I take it on a case by case basis. Bought on of his iconography carving
classes and that was pretty
legit.
I agree
but I think
understanding what they represent to each culture and knowing where
they differed and were similar is part of understanding that.
You could also say the same about the bronze serpent
in numbers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context