|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 70 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 32 of 70:
| 
Feb 7 18:22 UTC 2006 |
Re #30: The word "some" was not in the response you were quoting; you
added it.
Certainly some people change their religious beliefs and practices when
facing adversity, and some don't. Not much you can get from that.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 70:
|
Feb 7 18:23 UTC 2006 |
Marines use fighting holes and are intent on being the first to fight in Hell.
I guess that negates the idea of atheism but it also negates the idea
controlling the masses with religion. Just like GW, religion is used as a
weapon instead of a restraint.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 70:
|
Feb 7 19:04 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:26: I was making an analogy. Deal with it. :) I know
perfectly well that there are, in fact, atheists in fox holes. I also
know that bats do not, in fact, fly out of hell, but I still use that
expression, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 70:
|
Feb 7 19:38 UTC 2006 |
Why?
|
twenex
|
|
response 36 of 70:
|
Feb 7 21:03 UTC 2006 |
Because he's not a damned tedious literalist?
|
slynne
|
|
response 37 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:04 UTC 2006 |
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
nharmon
|
|
response 38 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:07 UTC 2006 |
Using religion as a restraint instead of a weapon...good advice Todd.
I think a lot of people need to be told that.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:10 UTC 2006 |
Its all about self discipline, not inquisition. Right?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 40 of 70:
|
Feb 7 22:24 UTC 2006 |
Darn tootin
|
happyboy
|
|
response 41 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:04 UTC 2006 |
re20
never heard him say anything racist, nathan?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:05 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:35: Because figures of speech add color to language.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 43 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:21 UTC 2006 |
Re 41: No I have not heard him say anything racist. If I have, I do
not remember it. I'm not saying he hasn't either, just they either
weren't racist enough for me to remember, or I wasn't listening when
he said it.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 44 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:23 UTC 2006 |
not racist enough to remember.
hokey smokes.
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 70:
|
Feb 7 23:54 UTC 2006 |
Tell us about the black guy on your wrestling team Nathan! ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 70:
|
Feb 8 01:40 UTC 2006 |
Re #41: what does "There are no autheists in foxholes" mean as a figure of
speech?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 47 of 70:
|
Feb 8 01:42 UTC 2006 |
Re #46: My interpretation would be that traumatic experiences usually
cure people of their atheism.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 48 of 70:
|
Feb 8 02:38 UTC 2006 |
That sounds like a literal interpretation, not a figure of speech.
As used in #22, it presumably means that people who disparage some particular
entity may change their view when they find themselves needing help from
that same entity. But it's not normally used as a simile.
|
naftee
|
|
response 49 of 70:
|
Feb 8 04:18 UTC 2006 |
re 44
darn tootin'
|
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 70:
|
Feb 8 06:15 UTC 2006 |
Then it is really an adage, not a figure of speech.
|
klg
|
|
response 51 of 70:
|
Feb 8 11:54 UTC 2006 |
According to "teachers of English"
"Figure of speech
"A figure of speech, sometimes termed a rhetorical figure, is a word or
phrase that departs from straight-forward, literal language. Figures of
speech are often used and crafted for the purpose of emphasis,
freshness of expression or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer
from its use.
"Adage
"An adage is a pithy saying that sums up a particular subject or
situation. The term "law" is sometimes applied to these, although they
are usually less rigorous ideas than legal laws or physical laws."
Based on the experts' definitions, I'd say it is both a figure of
speech and an adage.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 52 of 70:
|
Feb 8 13:54 UTC 2006 |
I hate to agree with klg, so I won't. "No atheists etc" could be termed
a figure of speech easily enough, but I suspect FoS is more correctly
reserved for things like, "you're pulling my leg" and "I'm so hungry I
could eat a horse".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 70:
|
Feb 8 15:42 UTC 2006 |
The expression in question hardly "departs from straight-forward, literal
language". In fact, it is meant to convey what the speaker thinks is an
axiom.
|
klg
|
|
response 54 of 70:
|
Feb 8 17:26 UTC 2006 |
The literal language would be that "People under fire and fearing for
their lives will believe in God at the time." I doubt that anyone
would bet his life that it would apply to 100% of people in that
situation. Also, it would depend on where the foxhole happened to be.
I doubt being in a foxhole in one's backyard would have a life-altering
effect on any person.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 55 of 70:
|
Feb 8 17:48 UTC 2006 |
i love it when you tell me war stories, kerry!
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 70:
|
Feb 8 17:52 UTC 2006 |
Ask me and I'll tell you what war did to my mindset. The first thing I did
when I got back to the states was get a tattoo of an upside cross with "No
One" bannered across it. Fundies and deeply religious people were now people
I despised as weak sheep. Yea, I felt a closer bond to the Almighty but it
wasn't a bond nurtured in churches or with preaching. People who think there
will be a rapture and star trek transporter trips to Heaven are idiots and
deserve every dime stolen from them by their clerical cult leaders.
|