Well, I have no problem with liking a person, but not what they do. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but since I am capable of doing it, I believe it is possible.
I sort of have pets...they're not really the same as cats and dogs (I like them better), but I have over three hundred fish, aquatic snails, and shrimp varying in size from tiny guppy fry to 9 inches long. They live in three aquariums (5, 6, and 10 feet long). Oh, and I have a ring-necked dove as well.
Same here. I hardly know a thing about it. I know a decent amount about Mormonism and Islam, and a fair bit about Atheism and Agnosticism, and quite a bit about Christianity, but not much about Buddhism or Taoism or Sikhism or Hinduism, etc. so it would be interesting to learn more about them.
bkev said:
TV's Frink said:
bkev said:
I won't say I don't find it strange, but - to coin a phrase from the Man of the Year - who am I to judge? Especially when I'm already gay.
Did you just come out? Or are you saying the Pope is gay?
Coming out.
Good for you!
FunkyDays said:
Well, I'm Buddhist, so I truly no longer have a horse in this race.
So, when are you starting your question and answer thread about religion? ;)
The world was still thought to be flat though.
FunkyDays said:
RicOlie_2 said:
FunkyDays said:
But he's completely on the money about Lucifer being a reference to the planet Venus (yes, even in Isaiah) and not some supernatural boogyman.
Sure, maybe he is, but he doesn't seem to understand that just because the devil was not thought of as an individual until later doesn't mean that he can be discarded as a fantasy on that basis. Just because the earth was thought of as being flat for so long doesn't mean that we can still say it's flat because it was only commonly accepted as being round a few hundred years ago. Our understandings of things change over time, but that doesn't mean the former ideas were correct.
The Earth was known to be a sphere since at least ancient Greece. This few hundred year idea (and that Columbus disproved it) is a myth, as is Lucifer as a being. "Lucifer" was never kicked out of heaven. The verse in Isaiah is speaking of the fall of a Babylonian king and comparing him to the planet Venus. All New Testament talk of Lucifer/Satan/War In Heaven is based solely on a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12
All Old Testament references to 'Satan' (Job) depict him as a being with free access to heaven, and having absolutely zero power/influence that doesn't come from g*d.
The earth was known to be a sphere from the time of Ancient Greece, but not commonly known to be such. Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, as I said above, that our understandings change over time, and people may have thought the earth was flat in ancient times, but this doesn't mean they were correct. We now have a better idea of what the earth is and I think the same goes for Satan/whatever you want to call him.
Don't worry, I think Frink just has trouble wrapping his head around the idea that a person can disagree with homosexual acts and still like homosexual people (even if they engage in such acts).
DominicCobb said:
Neglify said:
- I still don't know how to properly hyphenate ages. "Forty-two year-old" or "Forty-two-year-old"? Shirley it comes across wrong when I say "I like having sex with forty two year old women."
I think the one with all the hyphens. Unless, of course, you are an infant rapist.
One thing that really annoys me is when people say you can't end sentences with prepositions. Yeah, you can.
Also, people who think that it's incorrect to respond to "How are you?" with "I'm good" are just plain wrong.
You can end a sentence with a preposition (though I prefer not to). It is WRONG to reply to "How are you?" with "I'm good." You feel well; you are a good person. The words are not interchangeable.
I know someone who's nicknamed Fred (his real name is Frederick).
409 to go...
DuracellEnergizer said:
TV's Frink said:
I...ok, whatever. You don't agree with it but you don't have a problem with it.
Some of you people are even weirder than me.
Is it weird for a conservative/liberal person to support another person's right to be conservative/liberal even though they don't support conservative/liberal politics?
Frink tends to have trouble with analogies, so you may want to explain that to him. ;)
^I very much agree with that.
bkev said:
I won't say I don't find it strange, but - to coin a phrase from the Man of the Year - who am I to judge? Especially when I'm already gay.
Nice try, but you can't coin a phrase that's already been coined. ;)
I'm back now. Hopefully you didn't miss me too much!
Alright, I'm back. I have to go again for a couple hours though, so see you.
P.S.: I'll miss you all.
EDIT: Well, most of you anyway.
I'm going away for lunch, but then I'll come back. See you in half an hour.
FunkyDays said:
Warbler said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Bingowings said:
Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.
Things like this make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. Christians have never worshiped Mary. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us as is embedded in the Hail Mary ("pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). It's very similar to asking someone on earth to pray for you. It isn't worship.
See Bingo here is why I question your research. If your research was really complete and non-biased you'd understand how the Catholics view Mary without RicOlie_2 having to explain to you.
Also Bingo, not all Christians view Mary the way Catholics do.
But he's completely on the money about Lucifer being a reference to the planet Venus (yes, even in Isaiah) and not some supernatural boogyman.
Sure, maybe he is, but he doesn't seem to understand that just because the devil was not thought of as an individual until later doesn't mean that he can be discarded as a fantasy on that basis. Just because the earth was thought of as being flat for so long doesn't mean that we can still say it's flat because it was only commonly accepted as being round a few hundred years ago. Our understandings of things change over time, but that doesn't mean the former ideas were correct.
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
If God did not provide in the above the specific details for the means by which the Midians were to be dealt with, where might be found His countermand? Specifically, where might the displeasure of God over the corruption of His commands be in evidence?
This is one I can't answer. If I find an answer I will post it, but now that I've had a bit more time to look at this chapter, I can see where the seeming inconsistencies come in. Well, you stumped me...I could give a speculative answer, but it likely wouldn't be satisfactory.
That isn't to say that there is no answer, but if there is, I don't know it.
I appreciate all your questions, they were very thoughtful and respectful. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm any match for you in a debate, so you're coming close to backing me into all sorts of corners and I don't think I will be able to satisfy your answers myself.
Also, there is nothing said about forced sex, and the virgins may have been taken as wives (or not, I didn't see any mention of what happened to them), in which case they would have become part of the Israelite's religion and perhaps spared the fate of any Canaanites who went to hell. If that is the case, then I see it as an act of mercy.
Essentially, what alternate purpose might have served the command to save for themselves every female virgin from the campaign? How different may have been the forcing of marriage upon a young nubile--who may have recently witnessed the butchering of her mother by the very soldier now set to claim her as bride--from that of outright rape? Was her permission sought in the matter?
You have a point. :)
Finally, is it your view that a forced conversion (perhaps under pain of death) might be preferable to allowing a dissenting individual the possibility of stumbling into Hell?
Because I believe in free will, I don't think anyone should be forced to do or believe something. I also believe it is impossible to actually force someone into a true conversion, but some of them may have made such a conversion and their descendants would have belonged to that religion.
Your humility and candor do you great credit. I have gained in insight through this discussion...surely if all Catholics might be as honest and forthright many a misunderstanding might be avoided!
Thank you, I appreciate that! I used to avoid questions or refer to higher authority when I didn't know the answer, but I found that it only gained me more criticism. I know how frustrating it is when someone won't admit that they're wrong or that they don't know the answer but just give a "because" or a "why does it matter" answer and expect you to be satisfied.
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
The most brutal? Well, what would you have done instead?
Remember that this was not the only lesson God gave with his command to sacrifice Isaac and in the end his prevention of the sacrifice.
How might I, a mere mortal, instruct an omnipotent deity?
You catch on pretty quick! ;)
Perhaps one consideration might I be of sufficient boldness to suggest:
Were God to have rewarded only those who refused to sacrifice children would not sufficient evidence have slowly accrued to compel others to behave in as like a manner? To clarify, if a given farmer were to see his crops grow visibly stronger the closer he mirrored the commandments of God would not a suspicion grow that he was certainly on the correct path?
For is it not reasonable to assume that the Canaanites did not willfully sacrifice children for the pure pleasure of so doing, but more due to an errant belief that it was the will of God? If so, could not God have caused a storm with sufficient rain to dampen out each sacrificial occurrence while bestowing more benevolent weather during times when the practice was avoided? Would not such a harmless pattern have proven sufficient?
Arguably, this is what happened most of the time. I give you the examples of:
the ten plagues (Exodus 7:14-11:10),
Were these not too obscure for the understanding of the general populace, but aimed primarily at proving the might of God relative to the power of Pharaoh's wizards? Indeed, were not these wizards capable of emulating most of these in turn? Ultimately was not the final plague one of death claiming the lives of countless innocents who had taken no previous role in the conflict?
If those who died were truly innocent, then they went to heaven, so that probably worked out well for them in the end. The wizards were not able to replicate only the first two plagues.
the destruction of the Egyptian army and resulting deliverance of the Israelites from slavery (Exodus 14:23-31),
the Battle of Amalek (Exodus 17:8-13),
the Israelites being forced to wander in the desert because they didn't have enough faith that God would be able to gain them possession of the promised land (Numbers 14:26-35) and their defeat at the hands of the Amalekites and Canaanites because they attacked in direct disobedience of God (Numbers 14:44-45),
the sin of Moses and Aaron resulting in them being banned from entering the promised land (Numbers 20:6b-12),
the punishment of the snakes in the desert (Numbers 21:5-6) and the deliverance from the snakes upon the Israelites' repentance (Numbers 21:6-9),
the defeat of Sihon (Deuteronomy 2:31-34) and Og (Deuteronomy 3:1-7),
Deuteronomy 4 in which the advantages of fidelity to God are discussed,
Deuteronomy 7:12-26 in which God promises to bless the Israelites if they obey him,
several other chapters and verses in Deuteronomy in which promises are made by God and the past examples of the fulfillment of those promises are given,
the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:15-21),
the defeat of the Israelites at Ai due to disobedience (Joshua 7:1-5),
the capture of Ai (Joshua 8:1-23),
another of Joshua's victories (Joshua 10:7-11),
other victories and conquests described in the book of Joshua,
the results of the infidelities of the Israelites in the land of Canaan (Judges 2),
the story of Samson (Judges 14-16),
the Philistine's troubles (Bubonic plague, one of their gods falling on the floor and breaking two days in a row) during the time they possessed the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 5),
the defeat of the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:10-14 and again at 1 Samuel 14:20-23 as well as 2 Samuel 5:19-25),
Saul's loss of kingship (1 Samuel 15:10-23),
the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17:41-51),
David's conquests (listed in 2 Samuel 8:1-14),
the defeat of the Ammonites and Arameans (2 Samuel 10:13-19),
the drought of Elijah attributed to Ahab's actions (it is announced in 1 Kings 17:1),
the cure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:1-15),I only gave significant examples from the first quarter of the Bible. Take from it what you will, but you can see that it can easily be argued that God used that plan of action and it did result in some conversions and repentances.
Do not death, destruction, and misery seemingly comprise the majority of these very numerous examples? Wherein might one discover primarily positive reinforcement?
RicOlie_2 said:
Deuteronomy 4 in which the advantages of fidelity to God are discussed,
Deuteronomy 7:12-26 in which God promises to bless the Israelites if they obey him,
God promised good things, and they likely happened, but the Biblical authors didn't mention many of these since more positive and subtle things would, for the most part, not come in the form of events.
G6b-5b
darth_ender said:
RicOlie_2 said:
I've got a new question for you. In Matthew 15:18 (or verse 17, can't remember for sure off the top of my head) Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
So my question is, how do you reconcile that with the corruption you believe occurred, causing the Church to fall away from the truth?
Well, there's more than one way you might interpret that. First, in spite of temporary apostasy, one might argue that ultimately the gates of hell shall not prevail against God's church.
But the way we see it is a little different from you. The name Peter means rock, which is the Catholic interpretation on which Christ will build his church. But Christ is also called the Rock of Israel, and many Protestant will say that he is referring to his building the church upon himself, and even if the church might go into apostasy, true believers in Christ will still be built upon the Rock. But if you go back, starting at v. 15 (of chapter 16, not 15, BTW), you see that Christ refers to revelation between God and Peter. God the rock, Peter the rock, and the revelation that God gives to his prophets, taken as a whole, are the rock that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. As long as God speaks to man via his prophets, his church shall stand.
Alright, that mostly makes sense. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, even though the context seems to imply that Christ continues to speak about Peter and not himself. This could be argued to be a translational error, so I'll let it be.
I've got a new question for you. In Matthew 15:18 (or verse 17, can't remember for sure off the top of my head) Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
So my question is, how do you reconcile that with the corruption you believe occurred, causing the Church to fall away from the truth?
K-6a
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
The reason God instructed the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan was because the Israelites had proven they weren't capable of living alongside other nations without falling into idolatry. God allowed it for Israel's benefit, not because those nations were evil (that was not the main reason, anyway).
Is it possible that life might hold so little value to a loving god? If one's fate might fall to the disposition of one's neighbors is this likely to be a sign that justice is held in particularly high regard?
Further, if the Canaanite people might have proven to be the more faithful (as in, their religion appears to have been more persuasive to the Israelites than vice-versa), why might a loving god have chosen to reward them with destruction? In essence, why offer a promised land to a people of lesser devotion at the expense of a people of greater devotion?
I can't claim to know what God's logic was, but if those people ended up in heaven, then their lifespan on earth doesn't matter. If they ended up in hell, it's a different story, but they doubtlessly were headed that way anyway if that was the case.
Canaanite worship involved ritual prostitution and child sacrifice in many cases. God didn't want his people going down that path. The Canaanite religions were religions of pleasure for the most part (especially the sex worship part) and therefore it seemed very attractive compared to the strict Mosaic law.
How likely might one expect the arrival of any among the Canaanites into Heaven given the seemingly strong judgment upon them while still alive? Alternately, how pleased may have been expected the reactions among any of said Canaanites were they to have discovered themselves confronted by the possibility of a forced eternal existence with the same god who slew their families in such dramatic fashion?
Further, is it not somewhat difficult to comprehend the rationale that might cause a god of love to first command Abraham to sacrifice a child, while later exterminating an entire nation for allegedly following through with the same act?
To clarify, if the purpose of God's initial command to Abraham seemingly was to test him by determining his willingness to sacrificing that which he might hold most dear, would it not equally be considered that the sacrifices endured by the Canaanites might be of equal value in their apparent difficulty to carry out (hence the concept of sacrifice)? If so, could not a god of love have more simply resolved the error of their understandings by encouraging them to abandon the practice through a great act of love rather than one of unimaginable terror?
Given the view of ancient peoples at the time, I think the Caananites would have just been sorry for what they did and be fine with spending their time in heaven. I don't really know if they did or didn't get to heaven, so I probably won't answer further questions about that. I just believe that God did whatever was the just thing to do.
I see the prevention of the sacrifice of Isaac as a sign that God does not allow child sacrifice. God stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice, and therefore showed that he did not want such sacrifices (which other nations at the time performed regularly).
Having multiple options for halting said sacrifices, why might one consider God seemingly chose the most brutal?
The most brutal? Well, what would you have done instead?
Remember that this was not the only lesson God gave with his command to sacrifice Isaac and in the end his prevention of the sacrifice.
How might I, a mere mortal, instruct an omnipotent deity?
You catch on pretty quick! ;)
Perhaps one consideration might I be of sufficient boldness to suggest:
Were God to have rewarded only those who refused to sacrifice children would not sufficient evidence have slowly accrued to compel others to behave in as like a manner? To clarify, if a given farmer were to see his crops grow visibly stronger the closer he mirrored the commandments of God would not a suspicion grow that he was certainly on the correct path?
For is it not reasonable to assume that the Canaanites did not willfully sacrifice children for the pure pleasure of so doing, but more due to an errant belief that it was the will of God? If so, could not God have caused a storm with sufficient rain to dampen out each sacrificial occurrence while bestowing more benevolent weather during times when the practice was avoided? Would not such a harmless pattern have proven sufficient?
Arguably, this is what happened most of the time. I give you the examples of:
the ten plagues (Exodus 7:14-11:10),
the destruction of the Egyptian army and resulting deliverance of the Israelites from slavery (Exodus 14:23-31),
the Battle of Amalek (Exodus 17:8-13),
the Israelites being forced to wander in the desert because they didn't have enough faith that God would be able to gain them possession of the promised land (Numbers 14:26-35) and their defeat at the hands of the Amalekites and Canaanites because they attacked in direct disobedience of God (Numbers 14:44-45),
the sin of Moses and Aaron resulting in them being banned from entering the promised land (Numbers 20:6b-12),
the punishment of the snakes in the desert (Numbers 21:5-6) and the deliverance from the snakes upon the Israelites' repentance (Numbers 21:6-9),
the defeat of Sihon (Deuteronomy 2:31-34) and Og (Deuteronomy 3:1-7),
Deuteronomy 4 in which the advantages of fidelity to God are discussed,
Deuteronomy 7:12-26 in which God promises to bless the Israelites if they obey him,
several other chapters and verses in Deuteronomy in which promises are made by God and the past examples of the fulfillment of those promises are given,
the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:15-21),
the defeat of the Israelites at Ai due to disobedience (Joshua 7:1-5),
the capture of Ai (Joshua 8:1-23),
another of Joshua's victories (Joshua 10:7-11),
other victories and conquests described in the book of Joshua,
the results of the infidelities of the Israelites in the land of Canaan (Judges 2),
the story of Samson (Judges 14-16),
the Philistine's troubles (Bubonic plague, one of their gods falling on the floor and breaking two days in a row) during the time they possessed the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 5),
the defeat of the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:10-14 and again at 1 Samuel 14:20-23 as well as 2 Samuel 5:19-25),
Saul's loss of kingship (1 Samuel 15:10-23),
the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17:41-51),
David's conquests (listed in 2 Samuel 8:1-14),
the defeat of the Ammonites and Arameans (2 Samuel 10:13-19),
the drought of Elijah attributed to Ahab's actions (it is announced in 1 Kings 17:1),
the cure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:1-15),
I only gave significant examples from the first quarter of the Bible. Take from it what you will, but you can see that it can easily be argued that God used that plan of action and it did result in some conversions and repentances.