Well, in terms of the question's scope, we must accept that all the possible responses are "real". Otherwise, since Yags includes himself in every response, he would be the only valid choice in nearly all the questions.
Since we accept that, within the scope of the question - all the choices are "real" and that they have all the powers ascribed to them; then Jesus is, for the purposes of this question, the Son of God, and through him and only through him can you escape eternal torment. If we accepted the choices as "real" and didn't accept the reality of all the powers ascribed to them, the poll would be a confused mess. By "Harry Potter" do we mean an orphan who goes to a weird school but has no powers? By "Optimus Prime" do we mean a truck that turns into a robot, but isn't self-willed and not the leader of a society of similar beings? By "Jesus" do we mean a Jewish revolutionary with delusions of grandeur?
I give credit to Yags for having the common sense to make his question as easy as possible. When he puts the Easter Bunny as a possible response, implicit in the premise is "Assuming the Easter Bunny really exists".
Wait... you can stretch your imagination around a sentient truck that transforms into a massive war-robot or a kid who can summon magical powers with a stick and some Latin-esque phrases... but can't stretch it around deities or their opposite?
I can understand having a personal dislike of religion, or even being vehemently opposed to the concept of deities. I can see how a modern, rational person of healthy skepticism can adhere to a firm belief in a secular universe. I can even see rationality becoming almost dogmatic in the face of world that contains religious fundamentalists of every ilk.
I can't understand why a rational person, who I know has an healthy and active imagination, being able to put those things aside for the sake of a funny little word game where everyone tries to come up with the best arguments why one fictional/literary/celebrity personality would win in a barfight with another.
I think we ALL assume what folks presuppose. It's part of communications that a common language and meaning be inferred in everything we say. I choose to assume my friend Yags is making a funny statement about the popularity of Oprah and Martha when he puts them in the same league with Jesus and Beelzebub. I presume, because he's been doing this for a looooong time, that every one of the WWWIAF questions is designed with entertainment in mind, despite any mention of deities. If an when Yags decides to change that and take a soapbox for any of the personalities mentioned I'll revisit my assumption.
Pope Yagathai, First Scion of the Church of Oprah... I like this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Since we accept that, within the scope of the question - all the choices are "real" and that they have all the powers ascribed to them; then Jesus is, for the purposes of this question, the Son of God, and through him and only through him can you escape eternal torment. If we accepted the choices as "real" and didn't accept the reality of all the powers ascribed to them, the poll would be a confused mess. By "Harry Potter" do we mean an orphan who goes to a weird school but has no powers? By "Optimus Prime" do we mean a truck that turns into a robot, but isn't self-willed and not the leader of a society of similar beings? By "Jesus" do we mean a Jewish revolutionary with delusions of grandeur?
I give credit to Yags for having the common sense to make his question as easy as possible. When he puts the Easter Bunny as a possible response, implicit in the premise is "Assuming the Easter Bunny really exists".
no subject
I'll say it again, it's too far fetched for rational humans, hence it was dismissed out of hand.
By all the rational humans.
no subject
no subject
I can understand having a personal dislike of religion, or even being vehemently opposed to the concept of deities. I can see how a modern, rational person of healthy skepticism can adhere to a firm belief in a secular universe. I can even see rationality becoming almost dogmatic in the face of world that contains religious fundamentalists of every ilk.
I can't understand why a rational person, who I know has an healthy and active imagination, being able to put those things aside for the sake of a funny little word game where everyone tries to come up with the best arguments why one fictional/literary/celebrity personality would win in a barfight with another.
I think we ALL assume what folks presuppose. It's part of communications that a common language and meaning be inferred in everything we say. I choose to assume my friend Yags is making a funny statement about the popularity of Oprah and Martha when he puts them in the same league with Jesus and Beelzebub. I presume, because he's been doing this for a looooong time, that every one of the WWWIAF questions is designed with entertainment in mind, despite any mention of deities. If an when Yags decides to change that and take a soapbox for any of the personalities mentioned I'll revisit my assumption.
Pope Yagathai, First Scion of the Church of Oprah... I like this.