3 ms·

I don't know if this article is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but Amodei is clearly the patronymic form of Amedeo or Amadeus (Lover of God). If the rest of h

by mariuolo 11mo ago

I don't know if this article is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but Amodei is clearly the patronymic form of Amedeo or Amadeus (Lover of God). If the rest of his etymological analyses are on par, they can't be taken seriously. Unless the author wanted to demostrate that by playing with words one can prove anything.

joenot443 11mo ago
> Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything. I think that roughly is what Scott is going for here. It's not one of his more interesting pieces, I ended up skipping the latter half, but my understanding is he's angling to show that given some fuzzy descriptor, with enough imagination and wordplay you can take an idea pretty far. He's written before about esoteric numerology and gematria, I think it's just something he finds fascinating, from a secular POV. This is Scott's sense of humor, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
- skeezyjefferson 11mo ago
  > Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything. not to be facetious but what hes doing is what most of the popular religions do - come up with your own "interpretation" or "reading" of the text. how popular would any major religion be if it was stuck with its original BCE values, ethics and beliefs? They would be dead. They must change with the times. Why is any "reading" of the bible more valid than the next? This guy is a pastor
  - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
    They must change with the times but also claim a long theologic/hidtorical tradition. Everything from the prehistoric bible to Xenu 75 million years ago are examples.
  - joenot443 11mo ago
    > Why is any "reading" of the bible more valid than the next? This guy is a pastor If you're asking earnestly, I'd imagine the "validity" of a reading of the bible to be judged the same way we judge interpretations of other books or documents with levels of ambiguity. There have been innumerable pastors over millennia who've preached their own perspective on the book; your intuition's correct that the more popular readings survive and the less popular ones do not. If Scott wanted to say his unique interpretation makes him a pastor, that seems reasonable to me. He wouldn't be the first, nor the last.

joenot443 11mo ago

> Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything. I think that roughly is what Scott is going for here. It's not one of his more interesting pieces, I ended up skipping the latter half, but my understanding is he's angling to show that given some fuzzy descriptor, with enough imagination and wordplay you can take an idea pretty far. He's written before about esoteric numerology and gematria, I think it's just something he finds fascinating, from a secular POV. This is Scott's sense of humor, it's not meant to be taken seriously.

skeezyjefferson 11mo ago
> Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything. not to be facetious but what hes doing is what most of the popular religions do - come up with your own "interpretation" or "reading" of the text. how popular would any major religion be if it was stuck with its original BCE values, ethics and beliefs? They would be dead. They must change with the times. Why is any "reading" of the bible more valid than the next? This guy is a pastor
- kelseyfrog 11mo ago
  They must change with the times but also claim a long theologic/hidtorical tradition. Everything from the prehistoric bible to Xenu 75 million years ago are examples.
- joenot443 11mo ago
  > Why is any "reading" of the bible more valid than the next? This guy is a pastor If you're asking earnestly, I'd imagine the "validity" of a reading of the bible to be judged the same way we judge interpretations of other books or documents with levels of ambiguity. There have been innumerable pastors over millennia who've preached their own perspective on the book; your intuition's correct that the more popular readings survive and the less popular ones do not. If Scott wanted to say his unique interpretation makes him a pastor, that seems reasonable to me. He wouldn't be the first, nor the last.