|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
It doesn't say it was disallowed either. God and Abraham were on quite close terms on account of Abraham's righteousness, and I don't think Abraham would do something that was improper in the eyes of God.
This view is too realist. You really don't know what God would say or do. God was very close with the first generation, but he didn't pre-empt Cain's attack on Abel now did he? Nor did Cain consider God's wishes.
Quote:
As for whether Hagar really did marry Abraham, I suppose that's just a matter of interpretation.
No, it's a matter of perception. It was noted that Abram had sex with Hagar, but that doesn't mean he married--And not once did it ever say he did either. Throughout the entire Old Testament where she is mentioned, she is never once said to be his wife. Sarah was his only spouse.
Quote:
Methos said:
Well, look at it this way. If multiple wives was considered improper in the eyes of God, he would have said so. The men with the multipe wives that I cited were incredibly righteous people. In the Bible, whenever a righteous person does something improper or even commits a sin, God lets them know that they've screwed up, either directly or through a prophet.
Saul, before God spoke to him, wasn't a "righteous person". That junks the standard.
Quote:
Since there's no record of God ever doing this to anyone just for multiple marriages, I can only assume that it wasn't anything he had an issue with.
Specious reasoning. I site Cain slaying Abel again--Which would be in conjunction to God sending an angel to stop Abram from killing his son. Plus, those three sins are more heinous than multiple marriage, they're not very good mediators.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
OP
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Specious reasoning. I site Cain slaying Abel again--Which would be in conjunction to God sending an angel to stop Abram from killing his son. Plus, those three sins are more heinous than multiple marriage, they're not very good mediators.
Apples and oranges here. Cain slaying Abel was an act of jealousy from one man to another. Sending an angel to prevent Abraham from sacrificing Isaac was God telling Abraham he did not have to follow through on his command (to kill his son). God didn't approve of either Cain's slaying of Abel or Abraham's slaying of Isaac. God did not interfere with the acts of men, but He ordered the slaying of Isaac to test Abraham's (and Isaac's) faith in Him. God expressly forbids human sacrifice.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Fine. However, it still doesn't hold true to Methos' standards. He's trying to reason that "righteous people" are educated on these things face to face by God. Cain, while having his flaws (just as Abram and David did) wasn't an unrighteous individual. Logic would suggest God tell Cain is Jealousy is getting the better of him.
You gotta wonder though: If Abram didn't have complete faith in God before he stood poised over Issac with the blade, would God have stopped him then?
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-08-16 10:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
OP
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Yes. There is no point in arguing the "if" here. Both Abraham and Isaac were fully committed to fulfill God's command. Had the commitment not been there, Abraham would not have been about to slay his son.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
However, Cain was not verbally committed to not killing his brother even though he had total faith in God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
OP
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
However, Cain was not verbally committed to not killing his brother even though he had total faith in God.
I have no idea what that means.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Well, look at it this way. If multiple wives was considered improper in the eyes of God, he would have said so. The men with the multipe wives that I cited were incredibly righteous people. In the Bible, whenever a righteous person does something improper or even commits a sin, God lets them know that they've screwed up, either directly or through a prophet.
Saul, before God spoke to him, wasn't a "righteous person". That junks the standard.
I don't see how that is relevant. He didn't say God only talked to the righteous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
In the Bible, whenever a righteous person does something improper or even commits a sin, God lets them know that they've screwed up, either directly or through a prophet.
That's not true, For example while performing many great deeds it's prety clear that Solomon and king David had many troubles and commited many sins that weren't directly dealt w/ by God. Also the Scriptures say that "No one is righteous."
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
In the Bible, whenever a righteous person does something improper or even commits a sin, God lets them know that they've screwed up, either directly or through a prophet.
That's not true, For example while performing many great deeds it's prety clear that Solomon and king David had many troubles and commited many sins that weren't directly dealt w/ by God.
When Solomon is rebuked by God for turning to idol worship and marrying too many wives, God doesn't come to him every time he does wrong, but instead gives him an all-encompassing rebuke.
As for David, God sends Nathan to him to inform him that he is to be punished on more than one occasion. Didn't I specify those instances? (And I did say "or through a prophet.")
Quote:
Also the Scriptures say that "No one is righteous."
Is that in the New Testament? As i said, I'm not familiar with the New Testament.
Nobody is completely righteous, this is certainly true, but just because you screw up a few times doesn't bar you from being righteous. It just means you're not perfectly so.
Last edited by Methos; 2005-08-17 3:24 PM.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
It doesn't say it was disallowed either. God and Abraham were on quite close terms on account of Abraham's righteousness, and I don't think Abraham would do something that was improper in the eyes of God.
This view is too realist. You really don't know what God would say or do.
Nor did I claim to. Just as I didn not claim to know what God would say or do. First of all, I used the word "think." Second, I just stated "this is what I think Abraham would do." I don't understand the nature of God or claim to know how his mind works, but when it comes to the actions of people, I'm more willing to go out on a limb and say with some degree of certainty what I THINK they will do.
Quote:
God was very close with the first generation, but he didn't pre-empt Cain's attack on Abel now did he? Nor did Cain consider God's wishes.
Pre-emption doesn't seem to be God's style in the Bible. He sees what people do, and if they do wrong, as Cain did, he lets them know (either directly or through a messenger) and punishes them. He gave Cain the opportunity to make a choice, Cain chose to do evil, and God condemned him for it.
Quote:
As for whether Hagar really did marry Abraham, I suppose that's just a matter of interpretation.
No, it's a matter of perception. It was noted that Abram had sex with Hagar, but that doesn't mean he married--And not once did it ever say he did either. Throughout the entire Old Testament where she is mentioned, she is never once said to be his wife. Sarah was his only spouse.
Well, let's look at the quote again in context.
"16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram: 'Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing; go in, I pray thee, unto my handmaid; it may be that I shall be builded up through her.' And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife."
When Sarah herself is speaking, she says nothing about Abraham marrying Hagar. She just says "Have kids with her so you can build a lineage." When the Bible uses third-person narrative relating events as they happened, that's when we get the word "wife" being used. So based on that, it seems like Abraham really did marry Hagar. After all, the Bible says "to be his wife," instead of using something along the lines of "to be the mother of his kids." If Abraham hadn't really married her, the Bible wouldn't have used the term "to be his wife."
Quote:
Methos said:
Well, look at it this way. If multiple wives was considered improper in the eyes of God, he would have said so. The men with the multipe wives that I cited were incredibly righteous people. In the Bible, whenever a righteous person does something improper or even commits a sin, God lets them know that they've screwed up, either directly or through a prophet.
Saul, before God spoke to him, wasn't a "righteous person". That junks the standard.
If I recall correctly, God never spoke to Saul. He spoke to the propher Samuel, who would pass the message onto Saul. That was the role of prophets in those days.
Quote:
Since there's no record of God ever doing this to anyone just for multiple marriages, I can only assume that it wasn't anything he had an issue with.
Specious reasoning. I site Cain slaying Abel again--Which would be in conjunction to God sending an angel to stop Abram from killing his son. Plus, those three sins are more heinous than multiple marriage, they're not very good mediators.
I'll get back to you on this one.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
First of all, I used the word "think." Second, I just stated "this is what I think Abraham would do."
That still doesn't adhere to your argument though. You've already brought up David. He was a righteous individual, and he steered off course many times. And then in the end, the logical extension of your argument would still be to interpret God because you would expect him to tell Abram if he did wrong. Going on righteousness alone isn't an accurate indicator.
Quote:
He gave Cain the opportunity to make a choice, Cain chose to do evil, and God condemned him for it.
This is actually why I included that last part, "Nor did he consider God's wishes". Cain was being filled with jealousy. There were numerous times in the Bible where He gave people a warning not to let such emotions overcome them.
Quote:
When Sarah herself is speaking, she says nothing about Abraham marrying Hagar. She just says "Have kids with her so you can build a lineage." When the Bible uses third-person narrative relating events as they happened, that's when we get the word "wife" being used. So based on that, it seems like Abraham really did marry Hagar. After all, the Bible says "to be his wife," instead of using something along the lines of "to be the mother of his kids." If Abraham hadn't really married her, the Bible wouldn't have used the term "to be his wife."
The narrative is interpreting the actions of Sarah, "and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife". It says she gave her to him so she could be his wife, it didn't say he took her as his wife.
Quote:
Methos said:
If I recall correctly, God never spoke to Saul. He spoke to the propher Samuel, who would pass the message onto Saul. That was the role of prophets in those days.
No. On his way to.....I think it was Jersulam, God knocked him off his horse and spoke to him, himself. After that he converted to Christianity and re-named himself "Paul".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
All right, I'll accept some of your comments. However, there are a couple points still worthy of discussing further. Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
When Sarah herself is speaking, she says nothing about Abraham marrying Hagar. She just says "Have kids with her so you can build a lineage." When the Bible uses third-person narrative relating events as they happened, that's when we get the word "wife" being used. So based on that, it seems like Abraham really did marry Hagar. After all, the Bible says "to be his wife," instead of using something along the lines of "to be the mother of his kids." If Abraham hadn't really married her, the Bible wouldn't have used the term "to be his wife."
The narrative is interpreting the actions of Sarah, "and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife". It says she gave her to him so she could be his wife, it didn't say he took her as his wife.
I'd expect the Bible to tell it exactly how it was, and not interpret someone's actions.
Even if you're right about Abraham not marrying Hagar, that still doesn't address Jacob and Elkanah, both of whom had more than one wife. God never seemed to have an issue with them for having more than one wife. Jacob may be a special case because he never intended to marry Leah, but then again, he chose to marry Rachel anyway.
Quote:
Methos said:
If I recall correctly, God never spoke to Saul. He spoke to the propher Samuel, who would pass the message onto Saul. That was the role of prophets in those days.
No. On his way to.....I think it was Jersulam, God knocked him off his horse and spoke to him, himself. After that he converted to Christianity and re-named himself "Paul".
Oh, THAT Saul.
Heh...the guy probably changed his name so that nobody else would make that same mistake.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
I'd expect the Bible to tell it exactly how it was, and not interpret someone's actions.
You're taking that way too literally. What I meant by "interpret" is simply that the Bible is telling what she was proposing. It doesn't tell us that Abram adhered to that proposal.
Quote:
God never seemed to have an issue with them for having more than one wife.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
God never seemed to have an issue with them for having more than one wife.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
In a legal sense it is in this case. If there is a holy book that is supposed to set down the do's and don'ts for the religion, and they have a repeating action (multiple wives) but not a single word to condemn that action than it is condoned.
And if that action is carried out,and condoned with no advice against it, by righteous men it is endorsed by god.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
OP
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
God never seemed to have an issue with them for having more than one wife.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
In a legal sense it is in this case. If there is a holy book that is supposed to set down the do's and don'ts for the religion, and they have a repeating action (multiple wives) but not a single word to condemn that action than it is condoned.
And if that action is carried out,and condoned with no advice against it, by righteous men it is endorsed by god.
Indeed. 
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
In a legal sense it is in this case. If there is a holy book that is supposed to set down the do's and don'ts for the religion, and they have a repeating action (multiple wives) but not a single word to condemn that action than it is condoned.
And if that action is carried out,and condoned with no advice against it, by righteous men it is endorsed by god.
If you read more closely into the conversation, you'd know that there are specific verses that speak against this particular addendum. Just not near the beginning of the Old Testament, which is why my argument applies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
In a legal sense it is in this case. If there is a holy book that is supposed to set down the do's and don'ts for the religion, and they have a repeating action (multiple wives) but not a single word to condemn that action than it is condoned.
And if that action is carried out,and condoned with no advice against it, by righteous men it is endorsed by god.
If you read more closely into the conversation, you'd know that there are specific verses that speak against this particular addendum. Just not near the beginning of the Old Testament, which is why my argument applies.
please quote the verses.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Wait a tic....
Are you telling me you came into this conversation whilst not fully aware of what we were talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
In chat today we discussed the indefensibility of religion backed acts of violence, agreeing that there is no excuse for the Islamic Jihad just as there was no excuse for the Inquisitions or the attrocities commited in the Crusades (by crusaders towards Jews and Muslims both in Christian Europe and in Islamic territory) or the treatment of Christians by Muslims (in Islamic held lands at any time in history).
Needless to say, that was a short chat. But it did lead to another discussion, albeit a very raunchy one. The reason I am mentioning the conversation is because it was stated somewhere in the discussion, but not in the quoted part, that religion can be about anything. This "religion" is just one example.
The questions I would like to discuss are about religion in general. Are religions a good thing, or a bad thing? Are there pros to believing in one religion? Are there cons? Are religions good for society, or do they hurt it? Would it be benificial for everyone to believe the same thing, or are there advantages in having many people with a variety of beliefs? Should someone come along and make up a new religion for others to follow and believe in, if it would benifit society as a whole, or does something like this hurt everyone?
There are those on this board who, like myself, believe very strongly in a religion, and there are those dead set against religion. There are also those in-between. I want to hear from everyone.
Edit: Thank you, Jim, for correcting my mistake.
I thought this was about religion as an institution, not Bible study class. Surprise, surprise I have a negative take on the institution, though I am a very spiritual person.
Religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.
Religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society. In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs.
Religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.
I have three reasons for disliking religion:
- First, it is irrational — religion is a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality .
- Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo. In the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.”
- Third, religion is hypocritical. Although it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preached about heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible.
Martin Luther preached the ability of each individual to interpret the Bible, but sided with aristocratic rulers and against peasants who fought against economic and social oppression. This new form of Christianity, Protestantism, was a production of new economic forces as early capitalism developed. New economic realities required a new religious superstructure by which it could be justified and defended.
Quote:
Hegel’s Philosophy of Law:
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
This is often misunderstood, perhaps because the full passage is rarely used: the boldface in the above is my own, showing what is usually quoted. The italics are in the original. In some ways, the quote is presented dishonestly because saying “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...” leaves out that it is also the “heart of a heartless world.” This is more a critique of society that has become heartless and is even a partial validation of religion that it tries to become its heart.
Religion is meant to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. I am not entirely without sympathy: people are in distress and religion does provide solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs.
The problem is that opiates fail to fix a physical injury — you only forget your pain and suffering. This can be fine, but only if you are also trying to solve the underlying causes of the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and causes them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease instead of working to change circumstances now. Even worse, this “drug” is being administered by the oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
OP
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
You can laugh, Pariah. I want to pursue this.
Jay, I can't speak for other religions, but I would like to know how Judaism fits into your above argument.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
I thought Jay's remarks were personally insightful and Pariah's laugh typically juvenile.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
You can laugh, Pariah. I want to pursue this.
PenWing, what's the use? I mean, really. Jay's opinion on religion is too full of venom and anger to even resemble objectivity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
OP
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
You can laugh, Pariah. I want to pursue this.
PenWing, what's the use? I mean, really. Jay's opinion on religion is too full of venom and anger to even resemble objectivity.
I started this topic to discuss religion in society and whether or not it was a good thing. Jay made some comments. I want to know more of his point of view. I'm not looking for a flame war, just some positive discussion.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
You can laugh, Pariah. I want to pursue this.
Jay, I can't speak for other religions, but I would like to know how Judaism fits into your above argument.
I really don't know Judaism very well. I've read the old testament and been to a Sadir and Marriage (breaking the glass is very cool).
But I do have an interesting question for you: What would the world be like if the ancient Jews had been goat herders instead of sheep herders?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I really don't know Judaism very well. I've read the old testament and been to a Sadir and Marriage (breaking the glass is very cool).
Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
Anybody know of any other good sites on Judaism?
Quote:
But I do have an interesting question for you: What would the world be like if the ancient Jews had been goat herders instead of sheep herders?
The ancient Jews raised both sheep and goats.
I knew this one lady back during the reign of King Solomon who made the best goat steaks you could possibly imagine. To this day, even after thousands of years, I can still remember the taste as if it were yesterday.
Last edited by Methos; 2005-08-18 9:49 PM.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I really don't know Judaism very well. I've read the old testament and been to a Sadir and Marriage (breaking the glass is very cool).
Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
Anybody know of any other good sites on Judaism?
Quote:
But I do have an interesting question for you: What would the world be like if the ancient Jews had been goat herders instead of sheep herders?
The Patriarchs and ancient Jews raised both sheep and goats.
Thanks for the tip. Now should I take an Orthodox, Conservative, Hasidic or Reform approach?
The question was really about the use of the 'flock of sheep' metaphor frequently used in both old and new testaments. Goats are very different animals than sheep. Much more aggressive, independent, intelligent and sexual than the docile sheep who are presented as a semile for mankind.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
The question was really about the use of the 'flock of sheep' metaphor frequently used in both old and new testaments. Goats are very different animals than sheep. Much more aggressive, independent, intelligent and sexual than the docile sheep who are presented as a semile for mankind.
Meaning, as I had already figured, you had no intention of taking anything PenWing said seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I really don't know Judaism very well. I've read the old testament and been to a Sadir and Marriage (breaking the glass is very cool).
Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
Anybody know of any other good sites on Judaism?
Quote:
But I do have an interesting question for you: What would the world be like if the ancient Jews had been goat herders instead of sheep herders?
The Patriarchs and ancient Jews raised both sheep and goats.
Thanks for the tip. Now should I take an Orthodox, Conservative, Hasidic or Reform approach?
Wikipedia seems to cover them all in depth. So I guess it's just a question of how much about Judaism and its different denominations that you want to know.
Quote:
The question was really about the use of the 'flock of sheep' metaphor frequently used in both old and new testaments. Goats are very different animals than sheep. Much more aggressive, independent, intelligent and sexual than the docile sheep who are presented as a semile for mankind.
I'm confused now. Why would what animals they raised affect the metaphor?
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Jay is saying that the Jews were sheep that were hypnotized by the Jewish philosophy. He saying that if they were goats, they wouldn't have followed its teachings. i.e. He's a condescending prick.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Jay is saying that the Jews were sheep that were hypnotized by the Jewish philosophy. He saying that if they were goats, they wouldn't have followed its teachings. i.e. He's a condescending prick.
I said no such thing and I'm not a condescending prick. Why don't you drop the theatrics and address my original statement, a functionalist perspective of religion. Since you've done nothing but insult me personally, may I assume you have no logical argument to rebut me?
PenWing, my argument was directed toward the institution of religion, not at any specific religion. Isn't that the topic? I don't want to argue about the specifics of any religion. I can, if you'd like, say something provocative and put on my flame retardent jammies. But wouldn't it be more fun to watch Pariah do gymnastics?
The sheep v goats thing was a joke.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
You can laugh, Pariah. I want to pursue this.
PenWing, what's the use? I mean, really. Jay's opinion on religion is too full of venom and anger to even resemble objectivity.
Every.
Post.
You've.
Ever.
Made.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I said no such thing and I'm not a condescending prick.
Yes you did and yes you are.
Quote:
Since you've done nothing but insult me personally, may I assume you have no logical argument to rebut me?
Precisely. I have not bothered to form one because there's no use trying to convince you. All of your views are based around the uniformitarian view of, "God most certainly does not exist", but you see fit to overlook all logical conclusions that suggest otherwise. So there's no point in trying to breach your stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Methos said:
The ancient Jews raised both sheep and goats.
I knew this one lady back during the reign of King Solomon who made the best goat steaks you could possibly imagine. To this day, even after thousands of years, I can still remember the taste as if it were yesterday.
I'm partial to curry myself. But I assume this ladies involved olive oil and lemon juice? Maybe some rosemary and salt?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I said no such thing and I'm not a condescending prick.
Yes you did and yes you are.
I know you are, but what am I??? 
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Magicjay38 said:
Since you've done nothing but insult me personally, may I assume you have no logical argument to rebut me?
Precisely. I have not bothered to form one because there's no use trying to convince you. All of your views are based around the uniformitarian view of, "God most certainly does not exist", but you see fit to overlook all logical conclusions that suggest otherwise. So there's no point in trying to breach your stupidity.
I do believe the All, Pariah, the unified Goddess and God! I'm not an atheist, I'm a Pagan! I believe in lots of gods or demigods if you prefer (I think Catholics call them Saints). I'm talking about the institution of religion in society. The post wasn't about the rightness or wrongness of any particular religion. It was about it's effects on society. I'm glad you agree with me on this, P!
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
OP
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Jay, when I read your post about religion, I just couldn't find how Judaism fit into your argument about economics. By Judaism, I can only speak of Orthodox Judaism. There is no payout to anyone. I mean, rabbis are paid to teach and lead synogogues, but not to be rich. There never was any racket behind the religious leaders. The Levites and Priests (Cohanim) were not permitted to own land. They had cities to live in, but those cities also served as places of refuge (jails, for a modern day term) for people who killed by accident. They were paid a portion of food and livestock for sustenance. Their job, as part of being spiritual leaders, was to further in the study of the Torah, and to teach it to all. It was a pious existance. And I'm sure many Levites had a real job of some sort. I'm sure some were tailors and wood workers, and so on. But I don't see how the sole purpose for the lifestyle of Judaism was to economically support a priestly tribe. They got a tenth of what people grew/raised, there were a lot of them, and there was only so much food or cattle out there. If it was about economics, wouldn't the priestly tribe have demanded more than just enough to live on in the original document?
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I do believe the All, Pariah, the unified Goddess and God! I'm not an atheist, I'm a Pagan! I believe in lots of gods or demigods if you prefer (I think Catholics call them Saints). I'm talking about the institution of religion in society. The post wasn't about the rightness or wrongness of any particular religion. It was about it's effects on society. I'm glad you agree with me on this, P!
You make it known how illogical you feel religion is and the idea that there is a god(s) and yet you, yourself, are apart of one...Exactly what about your religion makes it any different from mine in terms of theism and the all around belief of a higher power(s)? Because it's "nature based"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I do believe the All, Pariah, the unified Goddess and God! I'm not an atheist, I'm a Pagan! I believe in lots of gods or demigods if you prefer (I think Catholics call them Saints). I'm talking about the institution of religion in society. The post wasn't about the rightness or wrongness of any particular religion. It was about it's effects on society. I'm glad you agree with me on this, P!
You make it known how illogical you feel religion is and the idea that there is a god(s) and yet you, yourself, are apart of one...Exactly what about your religion makes it any different from mine in terms of theism and the all around belief of a higher power(s)? Because it's "nature based"?
I think he's saying he believes in the concept but not the organizations that form around the concept.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
In a legal sense it is in this case. If there is a holy book that is supposed to set down the do's and don'ts for the religion, and they have a repeating action (multiple wives) but not a single word to condemn that action than it is condoned.
And if that action is carried out,and condoned with no advice against it, by righteous men it is endorsed by god.
That's flawed logic. Not all Scripture is didactic much is historic. When marraige is first mentioned it is clearly described as a man leaving his parrents and a woman leaving her parrents and the TWO becomeing one flesh. Just because you didn't read that part doesn't mean it isn't in there.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Jay, when I read your post about religion, I just couldn't find how Judaism fit into your argument about economics. By Judaism, I can only speak of Orthodox Judaism. There is no payout to anyone. I mean, rabbis are paid to teach and lead synogogues, but not to be rich. There never was any racket behind the religious leaders. The Levites and Priests (Cohanim) were not permitted to own land. They had cities to live in, but those cities also served as places of refuge (jails, for a modern day term) for people who killed by accident. They were paid a portion of food and livestock for sustenance. Their job, as part of being spiritual leaders, was to further in the study of the Torah, and to teach it to all. It was a pious existance. And I'm sure many Levites had a real job of some sort. I'm sure some were tailors and wood workers, and so on. But I don't see how the sole purpose for the lifestyle of Judaism was to economically support a priestly tribe. They got a tenth of what people grew/raised, there were a lot of them, and there was only so much food or cattle out there. If it was about economics, wouldn't the priestly tribe have demanded more than just enough to live on in the original document?
Fast forward to circa 1850. Zionism becomes popular with many Jews. Skip forwaard to turn of the century. We enter the age of oil when Churchill switches from coal to oil fired navy. Zionist and imperial economic interests intersect. The European Jews return to Israel and become proxy/vassel state of USA, using it's military force as the Big Stick of American foreign policy. The Return to Promised Land motivates the new Israeli warriors. They say to Palestinians 'We've been on holiday the last couple millinea but were back now. So get out.'
I'd go like to stick around, but, I gotta go!
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
