From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This article needs more Kjeldsen.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Nah, anything more than ridiculing the concept (as relates to religion) treats it with a respect it surely does not deserve. unless he plans on liberally adding phrases such as "fuckwitted", "brain wrongs" and "clutching at straws"...XP prettydilettantelies 19:57, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Thing is, exegesis isn't the same as doesn't require belief. It is mostly reading and interpreting text, and does not have to assume the supernatural.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 20:49, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
How anything relating to the bible (the book most commonly associated with exegesis) cannot assume the supernatural is beyond me unless it is treated purely as a history book. And a lot of biblical exegisis seems to be reconciling the parts that are "out of character" with the rest of it. Given the sheer number of misspent hours that have probably been wasted on this fiction throughout history, I'd argue that any more time spent on it is time that could have been better spent doing something else anyway. Like finishing the contents of this decanter and then going to bed in my case...XD prettydilettantelies 21:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
Exegesis should always be done with alcohol. But given the influence the book has had, it can be terribly interesting and fruitful, just as analysis of the Iliad can be.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 21:08, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
<on crack>Iliad analysis: Obviously, the Iliad is an allegory on communism. Paris is Lenin, using Helen (Ethel Rosenberg) to spy on America (Menelaus). The Ajax's are Stalin and Trotzsky, with Stalin being Ajax the Greater, though don't ask me why they're on America's side. Patroclonus is a classic Freudian example of a boy who's father didn't love him, explaining his attraction to Achilles. And because Freud isn't American, he's a communist. Or something. Anyway, Agamemnon represents Pol Pot, Idomeneus is Mao, and Nestor is Hugo Chavez. Really, it's about how all later communists hated the originals, Lenin, and Marx (Hector). </on crack> ThunderkatzHo! 21:46, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Ironically, not only is the bible not the word of God, but it is so poorly written that it doesn't pass muster as a great work of literature, either. Which means we can't teach it in school even as literature, because it's so bad. The only thing the bible is good for is as an example of why wikis can never work: the bible evolved over time, with many writers adding to it, even with two differing versions of the Tanach being forced together, which goes to show that anything written by too many people for too long turns out as complete crap. Not that any of you needed to be told that. --My cat is smarter than Andrew Schafly RA harass stalk 01:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

God, I cringe whenever I read something by pre-2010 me. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to fix it up and add more goat - David Gerard (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I am in the middle of attempting to explain the numerous ways in which this article is subpar. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
So fix it - it's eminently repairable, and IMO the present content is an improvement on nothing - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality improvement needed[edit]

  1. Exegesis is not restricted to the Bible; it can be performed on any text.
  2. Exegesis is not a keister-covering operation, but a way to figure out more clearly what the author of a text meant. For example, I understand that one misses half the meaning in Ulysses if one is not up on a lot of background material so as to be able to pick out the numerous allusions in the text.
  3. There is a large difference between reality-based exegesis and the ravings of postmodernists.
  4. People who read the Bible without using any exegesis generally wind up making complete fools out of themselves. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The ravings of evangelists and the ravings of postmodernists were both described as this in the Wikipedia article I quickly cribbed from, so go complain there. First point is covered by that. Second and third, add 'em to the article instead of being a whiny little bitch - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not the only editor on the Wiki. As I at that point did not have time to do it myself, I figured that if I laid out a game plan someone else might be able to do it quicker than I could. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


Has anyone else thought of a deliberate mispronunciation with a hard "g" to sound like "exe-guesses"? (If so, cite it.) --Damian Yerrick (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)