-Believes in God.
-Tries to show that he's better than God.
What did he think was going to happen?
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
842 points (98.5% liked)
Funny
8072 readers
1223 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"I am at the center of god's universe!"
From your narcissistic, myopic perspective with no depth, sure, that's what you see. But from where we're standing, you're just another idiot, and you're dead.
Angus Barbieri fasted for 382 days in 1965-66, so both the pastor and Jesus are amateurs compared to a portly Scotsman
Also worth noting that numbers in the Bible are largely symbolic. Most people couldn’t actually count beyond 5 or 10. Small numbers tend to be specific; God took 7 days to create the world, for instance. But for larger numbers, they tended to abstract them because people couldn’t count. Shepherds would add pebbles to a basket for every sheep that went out to pasture in the morning. And when they returned in the evening, the shepherd would remove pebbles. If they had any stones left in the basket afterwards, they knew they were missing sheep. But that’s not the same as being able to count their sheep. They didn’t know exactly how many sheep were in their flock; They just knew when one got lost.
So numbers in the Bible aren’t meant to be taken literally. The number 40 pops up a lot in the Bible. Moses wandered the desert for 40 years. It rained for 40 days during Noah’s flood. Jesus fasted for 40 days after his baptism. Et cetera… 40 was just representing a very large number. Too large for the average person to count, but still small enough that you could fit 40 of something into a basket. It was a conceivable number. You may not be able to count to 40 on your fingers, but you can imagine what a flock of roughly 40 sheep looks like on a hillside.
The number 1000 was also used a few times, to represent an inconceivably large number. A number that couldn’t even be imagined by the average person. You couldn’t fit 1000 pebbles into a basket. You couldn’t imagine 1000 sheep in a pasture. You couldn’t fit 1000 people in a market. But Jesus fed 1000 people with just a load of bread and a fish. Psalm says 1000 years is like a day to God. Jesus is going to return to reign as king for 1000 years. Et cetera… Because 1000 wasn’t meant to be taken as a literal number; It was just an extremely large number; too large to count or even comprehend.
All of this is to say… Jesus didn’t fast for 40 days. It was likely anywhere from three to six weeks. But that’s if you actually believe the story in the first place.
They did try to count the sheep but they kept passing out
three to six weeks
I'm guessing it's also a different definition of fasting than most expect. When you fast before a surgery, you eat literally nothing. When you fast in Lent, you abstain from certain foods, but not all foods. When you fast in Ramadan, you completely fast during the day, but eat after sundown.
We don't know the specifics, nor the specific amount of time, and I doubt that actually matters anyway. The point of the story is that Jesus was tempted while at his lowest point and still remained faithful. That's it.
According to George Gamow, counting is just pairing quantities one-to-one. So pairing one sheep to one pebble would be considered counting to Georgie.
According to Red OSP, there aren't actually 9 norse realms. The Vikings just liked the number 9.
And that's what i meant when i said that people back then just hadn't had the mental tools to work with, we have today. Alone the tropes (like, schemes to screw someone over) the average Joe learns now thanks to mass media.
Btw, that's why base education is important.
Lol!
That's a really cool piece of trivia, but this guy kept taking supplements during the fast as well as calorie free beverages. An impressive feat but a different set of rules
I doubt the pastor really abstained from food and water, and made it to 25 days before his body started to shutdown. He definitely had secret liquids during his silly stunt, if it even happened, which is doubtful.
The only source is one BBC report and the BBC have fallen for false stories from Africa numerous times in the past. There are no images or video of the fast, and there's no info of the pastor or the church before his supposed death. Fishy.
didnt jesus stop drinking water? else I dont see how the pastor died just after 30 days
I mean, I don't think Jesus existed never mind fasted. And if he was the son of god, or god himself, going without food and water is hardly impressive when you have created and maintained everything.
Fwiw scholarly consensus is that Jesus almost certainly did exist, and he did get baptised by John the Baptist, and was executed by crucifixion.
Obviously he never produced any miracles, and indeed nearly every other aspect of his life described in the bible or accepted as religious practice is wrong or subject to debate. Even his birthday. But he did exist.
Well it's "just" a name. Obviously people going by that name are bonds to have existed. But arguing that "He" existed while at the same time saying most things about "Him" are false doesn't really have any meaning. It's not the same person as described in writing, when most descriptions don't apply.
How do you figure?
Did Rasputin not exist because a lot of stories about him are embellished? What about the various Catholic saints, whose stories are almost certainly largely fabricated?
The point is, the hard and fast rules of Jesus' life have consensus by scholars. He lived, taught, was baptized, and crucified, and a lot of people listened to him. How much of the rest was embellished is certainly up for debate, but those stories existing don't change whether he existed.
The most important claims about him are obviously the supernatural ones. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all. Everything about the religion hinges on them being true.
We're not talking about the religion though, we're talking about the man, Jesus. He existed, and the historically verifiable facts stand.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "the religion." Christianity is a broad category, and we have everything from "Jesus was literally God" (Catholics go as far as revering his mom as divine) to "Jesus was mortal" (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). And his impact isn't limited to Christianity, he's referred as a prophet in Islam, and even some Jews consider him a teacher worth listening to.
What you accept from his teachings and whatnot (as recorded by others) is up to you. But his historicity is well established.
We're not talking about the religion though, we're talking about the man, Jesus. He existed, and the historically verifiable facts stand.
The man wouldn't even be historically notable if not for the religion. For all intents and purposes, he is the religion, the main cornerstone that set Christianity apart from Judaism.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "the religion."
The subset of Christian denominations for which the statements make sense.
The 3 hours without shelter stat is suspect. People experiencing homelessness exist, and they go years at times without shelter.
The rest of the stats seem to be a comfortable average.
The 'withoit shelter' usually refers to extreme conditions, such as extreme heat or cold, within realistic earth conditions. Think desert, ice water.
As someone who has spent too much of their life being homeless (living in a homeless shelter ATM), shelter comes in many forms, including a sleeping bag or tent.
Without ANY protection from the elements, depending on locale, 3 hours is totally doable or problematic.
Reading your comment made me really upset man. I don't know who you are or what life has thrown at you and I hope every day you are making it by at the very least.
From one internet stranger to another I am sorry life can be shit man. I hope things look up for you.
I've spent a bit of my life "on the street" as it were. That being said, I've only slept rough for a total of two to three months so far. I hear what you're saying about being totally exposed, especially in harsh weather, but I still think that 3 hours is on the outside of the bell curve.
I guess it's dependant on clothing. 3 hours in the arctic in a hoodie? Dead. 3 hours in the desert naked? Heat stroke maybe, though enough water would keep you going while you turn into a lobster.
Yeah nevernind it's a fucking stupid rule of thumb.
This is the most unnecessary nerd comment I'll ever make on this platform.. but
I believe the bell curve wouldn't represent the expected distribution in this case. I m not entirely sure what would be the correct distribution but I suspect Chi^2 or poisson.
I was under the impression that unnecessary nerd comments were specifically what this site was for. Did I accidentally stumble back to mIRC?
Isn't that if it is below a certain temperature and you had no shelter at all such as a bench, tarp, clothing, blanket, newspapers etc?
No clue, but probably. The others are true in basically all situations, that's specifically why I'm saying that the 3 hours stat seems to be an element of the set that isn't similar to the other elements of the set.
Yeah that one is very conditional. 3 hours where? 1 second isn't survivable in some places while others you could live exposed in the open for a lifetime.
It does make sense to prioritize shelter though if you are outside particularly in the winter or summer. Something to protect from wind or sun at least. Not difficult to find and avoiding frostbite, heatstroke is a priority.
Yeah I’d guess extreme cold, or maybe even extreme hot like Death Valley heat?
Let's say we drop you in Antarctica on a windy night in the winter in jeans and a long sleeve shirt. Three hours might be about right.
Let's say we drop you in outer space. You'd survive less than 3 hours without shelter, air supplied.
Can't take an extreme for a general rule.
Depends, if you're in the shadow you'll freeze to death in some minutes and if you're in the light you'll be scorched in seconds
Do I get any of the normal equipment I carry on me? My entrenchment tool should allow me to create a makeshift igloo in that time, at least a windbreak, but if I don't have any fuel for a fire, then sure, I die. If I have any fuel for a fire, and an ignition source, then all I need is a tiny fire to warm me, and not melt my igloo. I also literally carry flint and steel on me at all times.
This scenario actually is literally against my person, who has been moving closer and closer to the equator, because it's still too cold in San Diego, CA.
On the equator I would need some sort of shade and relief from the midday sun, but at least it would always be warm enough.
I feel bad that this made me laugh.
Don't feel bad, he did it of his own volition and could have stopped at any time.
That is why it's funny.
If it were forced on him, then it would tragic.
After 25 days without food or water, he had lost weight to the point where he could not stand up. He was aged 39.
People do water&electrolyte fasts for 30 days all the time. It's not a big deal if you have fat to burn....
But 40 days without water? That will kill anyone.