|
HopperUK posted:I would have thought the purpose of a holy document is to tell the truth about God in the best way possible. I mean, in that it makes sense to talk about documents having a purpose at all, in this simplistic way. Okay I want to highlight "best possible way". I mean the whole "Messiah yells at tree" thing could be argued as a fun anecdote to prove His presence and fallibility as a human being who is also divine. And we are talking about a document compiled over centuries through various debates about truth and the overall implication of things and so on. I am surprised that people would see and read Job and not only go "This is someone we want to worship" but also "This is a specific episode marking out something that the person we worship did and we need to keep it for other people to read". I mean as a Truth about God I cannot possibly comment. But as the best way to present the Truth about God?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
The Book of Job is beautifully written, and whoever decided to keep it in the official canon has done the world a great service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:And what is that? Go and make disciples of all nations
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:On your second point, I'm not sure that this was unique to Christianity and can really be pointed to as the primary source of its great expansion. There were other, non-Judaic mystery religions at the time which also took on followers of various ethnicities. e: If we're faving books of the bible, I love Ecclesiastes like I love pie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Mithraism coulda been a contender, but bulls are way more expensive than bread and wine. Part of me is still sad that Christianity "won". I wish we could see other worlds where things had developed differently, just for things like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
i have an excerpt from the book of job tattooed on my body
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i have an excerpt from the book of job tattooed on my body What is the quote, if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:And we are talking about a document compiled over centuries through various debates about truth and the overall implication of things and so on. I am surprised that people would see and read Job and not only go "This is someone we want to worship" but also "This is a specific episode marking out something that the person we worship did and we need to keep it for other people to read". I mean as a Truth about God I cannot possibly comment. But as the best way to present the Truth about God? So the question "Why would you keep this in the canon if it will put off outsiders?" is beside the point. Job is its own thing. It's the OT's direct confrontation of "If there is a God, why do bad things happen to good people?" Job doesn't offer an answer. Sure, it's framed as a bet between Satan and God, but we aren't all the victims of that bet, or at least I hope not. Job can be comforting because Job's speeches acknowledge the hopelessness of pain. His comforters say things like "Bad things don't happen to good people, because God doesn't do things like that!" (Eliphaz) and "You probably sinned, or this wouldn't have happened!" (Bildad). Anybody who has suffered knows that people still say things like that to the suffering. Job replies "This is awful, and I hate it", and "I didn't deserve this", and according to the conclusion, God agrees with him. The book of Job may not speak to those who have not known suffering, or who have gotten through the suffering by believing that God always helps people who deserve it, or who just don't feel the way Job feels. But for a lot of us, Job's rage says things we'd like to say, and the ambiguous ending affirms that while alive, we never get an answer to the Problem of Evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What is the quote, if you don't mind me asking? "i know that my vindicator lives and that one day he will stand up upon the earth. even though my skin will be stripped away, in my raw flesh i will see god" job knows that everything is hosed up, god agrees with him (and his response is "deal") and he still doesn't give up. everything that arsenic lupin said is true, but job still does not give up. also if god is/emanates the universe, the whole thing starts making a lot more sense. likewise isaiah 45:7 HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The purpose of most (small-s) scriptures is not to sell the religion to outsiders. The purpose of a scripture is to inform, and sometimes entertain, the people who follow the religion. Hardly anybody out there is reading Deuteronomy for fun; you're reading it for scholarship, or you're reading it as part of the Torah. Deuteronomy isn't "Whoa, Judaism is awesome!" it's "This is what Jews have [had] to do to keep holy." To ask a quick question about the first paragraph even if it is something which will "put off outsiders" it still doesn't seem a ringing endorsement of your own side either. I do get your point though. Arsenic Lupin posted:Job's rage says things we'd like to say, and the ambiguous ending affirms that while alive, we never get an answer to the Problem of Evil. To say "your rage is justified, but I will change nothing" is a monstrosity. I understand what you are saying, I hope, but I cannot truly fathom it. The idea that we never get an answer on this side of the grave may well be accurate, but the implications of this tale is that the answer beyond it isn't much to hope for either. HEY GAL posted:job knows that everything is hosed up, god agrees with him (and his response is "deal") and he still doesn't give up. everything that arsenic lupin said is true, but job still does not give up. I'm surprised Job doesn't spit on Him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm surprised Job doesn't spit on Him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Job is also an important book because of its demonstration of innocent suffering. Some people naturally correlate all suffering with wrongdoing (ie. whatever happens to you is because you deserve it) while Job demonstrates how Job was blameless before God yet God permitted suffering in his life. In fact Job's comforters spend a lot of effort trying to get Job to concede that he is not perfect and probably slipped up somewhere along the way. This is important in the New Testament because there would be people who would point to Jesus' ignominious death and say that he couldn't possibly have lived a sinless life yet suffered in such a gruesome and horrible way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:and god would have been ok with it, that's the point. Then why does this poo poo keep happening? If God is the universe and he cannot alter Himself, then what on earth good is He? Apocron posted:Job is also an important book because of its demonstration of innocent suffering. Some people naturally correlate all suffering with wrongdoing (ie. whatever happens to you is because you deserve it) while Job demonstrates how Job was blameless before God yet God permitted suffering in his life. In fact Job's comforters spend a lot of effort trying to get Job to concede that he is not perfect and probably slipped up somewhere along the way. This is important in the New Testament because there would be people who would point to Jesus' ignominious death and say that he couldn't possibly have lived a sinless life yet suffered in such a gruesome and horrible way. This may point to it's inclusion. Though it is interesting to see that the old "just world" fallacy is really old.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Anybody who has suffered knows that people still say things like that to the suffering. Job replies "This is awful, and I hate it", and "I didn't deserve this", and according to the conclusion, God agrees with him. The book of Job may not speak to those who have not known suffering, or who have gotten through the suffering by believing that God always helps people who deserve it, or who just don't feel the way Job feels. But for a lot of us, Job's rage says things we'd like to say, and the ambiguous ending affirms that while alive, we never get an answer to the Problem of Evil. I'm not super versed on Job but I will say that other scriptures have had very good effects on me kind of in this way. Like, um, Ecclesiastes. The entirety of that book is basically a goonlord saying "lmao nothing matters amirite" and somehow it is enlightening and instructive to me. I really enjoy the Hebrew scriptures a lot because many times they are much more varied than what we get in the NT, both in terms of structure (dialogues, histories, poetry) and in content. I still remember when I was a kid and I first discovered that Song of Songs had, um, "sexy" ideas within it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Then why does this poo poo keep happening? If God is the universe and he cannot alter Himself, then what on earth good is He? If you're unwilling to concede that God is God and humans are not, there's not much to talk about here. You keep insisting that God should be constrained to humans' sense of justice, and the whole point of Job is that he isn't. Humans are incapable of understanding God's perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Then why does this poo poo keep happening? If God is the universe and he cannot alter Himself, then what on earth good is He? existence owns
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Then why does this poo poo keep happening? If God is the universe and he cannot alter Himself, then what on earth good is He? There isn't a solution. There isn't an answer. There are many Christian answers, and which you find satisfying depends on who you are, how you were raised, and how you think about it. One standard response is that you aren't God; that God is beyond our understanding. Another answer is that we'll understand it in the afterlife. Another nother answer is that things won't be right until the Second Coming. Ignore the images, but check out this gorgeous performance of "Farther Along", a Christian hymn about it. Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris, Linda Ronstadt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Can you explain how Christianity has evangelizing built in? Others explained it already but in case you don't wish to google the terms, both Matthew and Mark end their gospels with Jesus, as a last thing he says before ascending to Heaven, ordering the disciples to the ends of the earth and baptize and teach until all creation knows of the salvation he's earned. He also promises to accompany them until the end of the world. That is just the biggest and most important part, though. Much of the New Testament sets an example for evangelizing and encourages it. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Personally I like Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense as a possible explanation of the problem of Evil. However in a sense it does boil down to "just because you can't understand why there is evil doesn't mean there isn't a good reason for it" (and I think Plantinga's proposition that it is necessary for free will is as good a reason as human's are liable to reach) so if you don't think it's reasonable to accept that God is able to have reasons beyond our capacity to understand then I don't think any human will have a reason good enough to fit within our capacity to understand.(Isaiah 55:6-9 ESV) posted:“Seek the LORD while he may be found; Having said that what we can understand from scripture is that God is not remote from suffering but that in Jesus entered into creation and suffered. I think this is far more comforting to those who actually suffer than any logical attempt to break down their pain. (Isaiah 53 ESV) posted:Who has believed what he has heard from us?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Okay I want to highlight "best possible way". I mean the whole "Messiah yells at tree" thing could be argued as a fun anecdote to prove His presence and fallibility as a human being who is also divine. It is not 'a fun anecdote'. It's a very obvious parallel of seeking fruits of faith and charity among those who Jesus preached to, and finding none. Cf. also Matthew 25:34-46. You can call it a performance art piece, I suppose, but it's not just Jesus literally getting mad a tree. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:"i know that my vindicator lives and that one day he will stand up upon the earth. even though my skin will be stripped away, in my raw flesh i will see god" It was fascinating to me to learn that, while obviously this isn't how the verse is normally read, Job 42:6 can be read as saying either "Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes," or something more like, "Therefore I recant, and turn away from dust and ashes," right after Job has just told God, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you." He's satisfied by God's explanation, but does he see his previous anger as reprehensible and himself as needing repentance, or does he see his previous anger as simply incorrect, and so he is going to stop sitting in ashes? I mean, I don't know how comforting it is to say, "It's okay to be pissed at God when stuff goes wrong, but when you see God face to face, you won't even be angry anymore," but it's a perspective shift. (Searching for Job 42:6 + recant, because I can't remember where I read that, comes up with someone who translates it as "Therefore, I recant and relent, being but dust and ashes," as an explicit parallel to Abram saying, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes." It's not implausible that either the author of Job was inspired to make that parallel or the author of Job had simply read the book of Genesis and remembered the phrase.) So it isn't simply a question of "How do you not hate this passage?", it's also, "How do you read this passage?" Whether you see God as like humanity, but more so, or as fundamentally unlike the created universe, or as the created universe changes what you expect of God: if God is "basically my grandfather except entirely good and without any restrictions", it's not unrealistic to wonder "then why is my grandfather less cruel?" (even if that still might not be a question that has a satisfying answer), but if God is existence, the source of all existence, Justice Itself, Job's sudden shift from "this sucks and you suck" to "and now I repent" is a little less incomprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:On your second point, I'm not sure that this was unique to Christianity and can really be pointed to as the primary source of its great expansion. There were other, non-Judaic mystery religions at the time which also took on followers of various ethnicities. A good example of this is the cult of Isis, and The Golden rear end is an important work in understanding this mystery religion as a potential alternative to Christianity. People think that the novel takes a turn in the last act toward the religious, but really the entire work is devotional (in my opinion). That Christianity eventually achieved dominance over this faith is a fact whose causes are hazy, multivalent, numerous (and perhaps numinous). The cult of Isis was, however, polytheistic. And it's not devotional so much as it's a Platonic allegory; that much is clear from the rest of his work. Point is, mystery cults in antiquity weren't exclusive: it's a lot easier to convince a polytheist to adopt a new deity because that's something polytheistic cultures do all the time. And to top it off, they weren't evangelistic: people sought the mysteries rather than having them proclaimed. The two aren't easily comparable to the point where you can definitely say that the one would be a direct competitor with the other. It's more accurate to say that Christianity was competing with Greco-Roman polytheism in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
In what word are you using the word devotional? Because I'm pretty sure the cult of Isis required sacrifices and our pal Lucius clearly became some sort of proto-monk in the service of Isis at the end of his journey. And it seems a bit of a cheat to dismiss it as just a platonic allegory when allegorical readings of scripture have been a part of Christian interpretation from time immemorial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
man this is way way better than the Jasitger Wars On Victorian theologian chat you kind of have to Death of the Author it a little and take what you agree with from it. poo poo, Brideshead is basically my favorite novel and Evelyn Waugh was an incredible rear end in a top hat JcDent posted:"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:In what word are you using the word devotional? Because I'm pretty sure the cult of Isis required sacrifices and our pal Lucius clearly became some sort of proto-monk in the service of Isis at the end of his journey. And it seems a bit of a cheat to dismiss it as just a platonic allegory when allegorical readings of scripture have been a part of Christian interpretation from time immemorial. Normally for something to be a work of devotional literature with respect to a particular religion, it has to be written by someone who believes in the religion in question, and Apuleius's Platonism absolutely precludes belief in the kind of personal god that would be worshipped in an actual cult of Isis. Even if he'd been initiated (and we don't know if he was an initiate of Isis, although his Apologia mentions his initiation into several mystery cults), the satirical dimension of the work (particularly the continuing initiation fees despite Lucius's being flat broke) raises serious questions about its reliability. I'm sure there's some truth in there, but since it's our sole account of the cult of Isis, and knowing its literary features and the biography of its author, we need to be extremely careful in using it as a source for what the mysteries of Isis were actually like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Go and make disciples of all nations Also, here's the gift of tongues, specifically for that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:If you're unwilling to concede that God is God and humans are not, there's not much to talk about here. You keep insisting that God should be constrained to humans' sense of justice, and the whole point of Job is that he isn't. Humans are incapable of understanding God's perspective. This is a thing I just don't get, this is a being of infinite ability and infinite power. Why on earth wouldn't he be just from our perspective? If He is not expected to hold to laws that He sets for humanity then he is, at best, a hypocrite. At worst He is malevolent. To say simply "Have Faith that He is just" does not work when He allows injustice. HEY GAL posted:uh Why does existence require suffering? Why does a being of infinite power and benevolence allow these problems to occur and still be called "good"? This is the problem, existence does not require it, and yet God allows it. Arsenic Lupin posted:You're talking about theodicy, the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil seems like the only problem worth working on. And that seems wholly unsatisfactory to have no answer to that. I mean from an outsider perspective it is easily "solved" by going "nogodlol" but even that is unsatisfactory. Paladinus posted:It is not 'a fun anecdote'. It's a very obvious parallel of seeking fruits of faith and charity among those who Jesus preached to, and finding none. Cf. also Matthew 25:34-46. I was meaning something along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment Apocron posted:Personally I like Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense as a possible explanation of the problem of Evil. However in a sense it does boil down to "just because you can't understand why there is evil doesn't mean there isn't a good reason for it" (and I think Plantinga's proposition that it is necessary for free will is as good a reason as human's are liable to reach) so if you don't think it's reasonable to accept that God is able to have reasons beyond our capacity to understand then I don't think any human will have a reason good enough to fit within our capacity to understand. Pretty much. I am sorry to get so cross about this, but I kind of like a lot of people in this thread, but I simply cannot understand this. Part of me wishes I could. zonohedron posted:So it isn't simply a question of "How do you not hate this passage?", it's also, "How do you read this passage?" Whether you see God as like humanity, but more so, or as fundamentally unlike the created universe, or as the created universe changes what you expect of God: if God is "basically my grandfather except entirely good and without any restrictions", it's not unrealistic to wonder "then why is my grandfather less cruel?" (even if that still might not be a question that has a satisfying answer), but if God is existence, the source of all existence, Justice Itself, Job's sudden shift from "this sucks and you suck" to "and now I repent" is a little less incomprehensible. To me it really doesn't. If He is the source of Justice then why is He allowed to act like an arsehole? I will try and have a re-read when I get the chance but I still can't wrap my head around it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
This is a poor metaphor, not meant for deep analysis or anything, but it's a simple one that loiters sort of in the same neighbourhood as proper replies: Say I have a dog. I do all kinds of stuff with my dog and I do all kinds of stuff for my dog. The dog sees some of what I do and since it's not dumb it probably understands lot of my intentions and attitudes right. Because it's dog, however, it cannot possibly comprehend stuff like vaccines, me leaving him home while I work for 8 hours or my reasoning for discipline training. Now, relationship between me and my imaginary dog is fairly certainly nothing like the relationship between God and mankind but in both relationships one is able to comprehend and see and experience things the other cannot even begin to imagine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Can God write an RPG system he couldn't explain to the players?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Thirdly, "Job" and the big problem within that, the problem of evil and the problem of a divinity that is partially malevolent? Peace be with you, brother bugman! I take your questions about the problem of evil seriously, because every believer and non-believer will suffer, and they must make choices whether that suffering diminishes or reinforces the meaning of their life. Is there some particular suffering that you witness or endure which vexes you? I ask not because I want to pry into your personal life, but because I want to pray for you as I want you to pray for me. Compassion for the suffering of others seems to remain important for both of us, whether there is a god who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and whether that god is worth worshiping. For my part I don't have a universal answer to the problem of evil to give to you, but I want to recommend Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" which is available for free in its entirety on the Internet Archive. I recommend this because Frankl is a modern Job, a Jew who is imprisoned by the Nazis in a concentration camp. His family and loved ones are killed, and he is thrown in a place meant to rob his life of its value and ultimately kill him. Here a man must deal with the problem of evil in a very real way, not as a philosophical argument but as a constant, torturous experience which tempts him and his comrade-prisoners to abandon their own value of their lives, resigning to hopelessness and suicide or worse, betraying one another for special privileges or reprieve from suffering. I personally recommend Frankl's work especially because he talks in a secular language, but he also acknowledges the limits of a secular, psycho-therapeutic response to questions about the meaning of life in the face of the knowledge and experience of suffering. Though his position is deeply spiritual, he does not demand a particular worship or a particular understanding of divinity and the individual's relationship to it. Despite the gloomy subject matter, "Man's Search for Meaning" is very approachable, and Frankl does not waste time or obfuscate his point. If you do not read his book, I hold nothing against you either. It was ten years between the time I was first given a copy of "Man's Search For Meaning" before I actually sat down to read it. When I did I saw that Frankl and I (though we will worship differently until our dying day) both accept and share with our fellow prisoners a common message: the salvation of man is in love and through love. There is no way for either of us to solve within ourselves the problem of evil without this recognition of love. Peace be with you, brother bugman. I praise your skepticism because it will deliver you from many thin forms of idolatry. if we should be so lucky as to speak again when our lives are over, you will have to tell me what you learned about suffering and ultimate meaning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:To me it really doesn't. If He is the source of Justice then why is He allowed to act like an arsehole? I will try and have a re-read when I get the chance but I still can't wrap my head around it. again, the reason you have this problem in the first place is because you yourself have decided that it is axiomatic the text describes God acting "like an arsehole". in reality this is not axiomatic, but is in fact simply your interpretation of, and/or projection onto the text. multiple people have been telling you this for pages now, so im not sure what else there is to be said really Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Can God write an RPG system he couldn't explain to the players? A table for everything. A sheet for every character. Mandatory verisimilitude. Remember Gygax's courtesan table? Well now you will have a thousand sided die for every single npc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:again, the reason you have this problem in the first place is because you yourself have decided that it is axiomatic the text describes God acting "like an arsehole". in reality this is not axiomatic, but is in fact simply your interpretation of, and/or projection onto the text. multiple people have been telling you this for pages now, so im not sure what else there is to be said really I don't know, I think it's okay if we're talking about what he gets out of the Book of Job. If he feels strongly that Job describes God as malicious to some degree, it's a starting point for a discussion. Not sure if that discussion goes anywhere but as long as people are listening to each other there's potential for understanding even if you can't feel or understand how the others see the issue right away. I can't get over the idea that according to Mark the disciples were huge idiots because it's an interpretation that speaks to me and makes me feel better about myself. I'm sure someone wiser than me has a better or more nuanced explanation for their bumbling about but I'm not sure if I'd really get that explanation over mine unless given time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:A table for everything. A sheet for every character. Mandatory verisimilitude. Remember Gygax's courtesan table? Well now you will have a thousand sided die for every single npc. HYBRID RPG version 0.21 posted:RULE # 0: 1st version # naming rule: Rules or/and equations grow @ rate of 1 per month; but, Version # = [((year) – 2000) / 10], Version V, for the web-page version. So, in 2002, the Version # is @ V 0.2 by [(2002 – 2000) / 10] = 2/10 = Version V 0.2. So, % complete = (100*V), where % @ V 0.2 = 20% complete, < currently > for the web-page version. Then, in 1999, V = -.1. Then, 2nd version # naming rule: based on the value of the sun, where V 0.3025 would place the sun @ 55 C1 DP or Default Psyche. And, the 3rd version # naming rule: combination of the 1st & 2nd version # naming rule, where by the 1st digit “3” in 0.3 such as in 0.3025 after the decimal point would signify the sun @ 55 C1 DP, the 2nd digit “3” in 0.33 for the year 2033, and the last digit or 4th digit such as in such as “in 0.339, the month of the year, such as in start of autumn of 2033. But, V.34 should be done in 2034. My 1st version # naming rule @ V 0.08 is proportional to the appearance of the 1st mutant(s) in Aberrant rpg in 2008, since my version # partially coincides with the value & magnitude of the sun, which signify the appearance of the 1st mutant, sort of like in DC Universe for the future earth timeline where future DC earth is called planet Krypton, which is DC earth in a future DC timeline, AT LEAST THAT IS HOW I INTERPRET THE DC UNIVERSE SUPERMAN BEING FROM THE FUTURE, < notice the red sun > , where Kal EL travels back in time in a time machine is how I interpret it. So, by giving a larger value for the sun or the earth in the present timeline, you increase the probability of mutants on earth being born. You might ask how ? The Answer is: Conservation of Mass & Energy which would be (increase in) Negative Energy (which is also used for time travel) resulting IF you artificially increase the value of the sun or the earth or that of any large heavy object near earth, where this Negative Energy would be transferred to some organic body in manner similar to that of creating the MU Cosmic Cube, & in similar manner that used by the DC Jor El to created the Eradicator, later reborn as Kal El. In the 1st cartoon series of Superman in the 21st century, Superman uses this Negative Energy to create Brainiac, in Superman’s attempt to take over DC earth, but in different way from the Martian-Man of DC Mars, IF he’s from Mars, though he could just be a mutant from DC earth pretending to be from Mars. All members of the Justice League are super villains, including Aquaman, except that they have better PR than the Legion of Doom: they are all super villains trying to take over DC earth, including the current Clark Kent of the tv series “Smallville”, where he pretends to be a good guy, but he’s constantly scheming evil plots. Even, Wonder Woman is evil as well as a lier, by that I don’t mean her sexy outfit. I’ve been preaching, if you want to call it that, this that these so-called super heroes are super villains in disguise for the past several(7) years, ever since I discovered the subliminal PLOT(s) in DC & MU comics & cartons of DC & MU in 1996, after years of research consisting of running various alternate scenarios, all of them leading up to the same conclusion that they are all super villains. HUMANS ARE SO GULLIBLE THAT THEY BELIEVE ANY AUTHORITY FIGURE, JUST LOOK @ GULF War I & ii, both times USA lied to its public, 1st (it was) Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil, which was never told to the USA public even now it’s hidden unless you do research but not difficult to find if you go to deja news, then there was Gulf War II about weapons of mass destruction for which none were found (Bush only wanted Iraqi oil, but such actions are considered war crimes, but did any USA citizen care if USA committed war crimes; answer: no; what the hell, USA (INCLUDIGN ITS SOLDIERS) has been committing war crimes for the past 2 hundred years: EITHER EVERY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT OR ALL EXCEPT GEORGE WASHINGTON, BUT EXCLUDING Bill Clinton, AS THOUGH HE WASN’T GREAT RATHER OK {he committed less war crimes than the current President Bush} KIND OF PRESIDENT OR/& SUFFICIENTLY GOOD ENOUGH {FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING} KIND OF GOOD ENOUGH TO PASS MUSTARD PRESIDENT; but, the Democrats in House & Senate acted cowardly during both Persian Gulf War I & II ): Bush even lied about the uranium purchase [his father lied about Iraqi killing babies] to justify preemptive attack on Iraq, and even if Iraq had purchased uranium, it as a nation has right to protect itself from outside invaders, just like USA has right to protect itself, but when you start acting like an imperialist THEN YOU ARE NO LONGER ACTING DEFINSIVELY BUT OFFENSIVELY preemptive WHICH IS IMPERIALISIC & violation of international laws, not that USA cares about international laws unless it the USA is making those international laws with its puppet UN: THIS SAME TRICK, deception with a good PR, IS PERFORMED BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE DC Justice LEAGUE, but the readers are blind to it for some unknown reason(s), maybe they like to root for the winner so not to suffer any trauma or maybe everyone is evil in the sense that they are selfish deep down inside, sort of like a rape victim rationalizing that she likes being raped, or maybe all single women like being raped but hide that fact so as not to lower their market value, for we all know that most women love $ more than sex, and why it’s easier for women to focus on work than men because men are always thinking about sex, while women always thinking about $. USA GOVERNMENT < THOUGH NOT YET USA > EVEN LIED ABOUT NOT LIKING TAXES WHEN IT FOUGHT THE BRITISH, then it taxed its citizens. USA lied about how it got the Louisiana Purchase from the French, it, was stolen by the USA government, which has always lied to its people, and wasting tax $ by feeding wrong history education to our children. But, the USA government don’t care about your tax $, because its FREE $ to them, the corrupt politicians, who can’t believe that its citizens could be so gullible to believe outright lies as truth, but unfortunately most USA citizens are gullible, and now Americans are brainwashed to into thinking & believing that a man raping his wife or/& girlfriend is raping her which not true, as there is NO difference between a girlfriend & a wife, except for a piece of paper saying otherwise, so there is no rape if a man rapes his girlfriend, since before feminism, men were allowed to rape his wife, since most women are frigid or have mood swings, as long as she is his girlfriend during the time that he rape his woman, the same if she his wife, since the only difference between a girlfriend & a wife, is a piece of paper, a marriage license, which is consent by woman to allow her husband to rape her, which feminism don’t’ recognize anymore, so then there is no marriage, if there is no consent to rape one’s wife, then there is no difference between a girlfriend & a wife, so then marriage does not exist any longer, and if marriage does not exist, then what is the point of getting married, oh, the woman say to prove that you love me, but it is now excuse to collect alimony & child support, latter is also alimony or payment for sex which is prostitution which illegal in USA, and most men are NOT looking to marry a prostitute when HE/THEY get married. So, you see, American will believe any lies told by its government, so this, that the American public is gullible & will believe anything that any authority figure will tell them, is what the DC & MU have been trying to tell its readers for the past half a century, but this hidden message does not get across to its readers for some unknown reason, maybe lack of concern, or lack of a moral IQ, or desire NOT to appear not part of the group, or pass the buck onto some other person for the blame for anything that goes on, and not take any responsibility, which would make men feminists, since feminists don’t take responsibility for their actions which is an oxymoron since most men are not feminists or are they feminists, or how else can you explain this odd behavior on part of men, which would imply that men & women are very much similar to each other, both capable of love & destruction, each in their own way. But, the corrupt USA government has grown too big for anyone to criticize or fight. The worst (in the sense of "most undecipherable") RPG rules I know of. Though that implies that God is an unmedicated schizophrenic, so maybe not the best example? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:I can't get over the idea that according to Mark the disciples were huge idiots because it's an interpretation that speaks to me and makes me feel better about myself. I'm sure someone wiser than me has a better or more nuanced explanation for their bumbling about but I'm not sure if I'd really get that explanation over mine unless given time. It's kind of comforting, and also instructive, to read about these bumbling morons who end up becoming important figures in world history (also, becoming saints and all that). these are guys who can't even remember that time Jesus magically copy-pasted 2 fish into 5,000. so imagine what YOU, forums poster Valiantman, can achieve!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:The worst (in the sense of "most undecipherable") RPG rules I know of. Though that implies that God is an unmedicated schizophrenic, so maybe not the best example? My good man, have you heard the good word of FATAL?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Normally for something to be a work of devotional literature with respect to a particular religion, it has to be written by someone who believes in the religion in question, and Apuleius's Platonism absolutely precludes belief in the kind of personal god that would be worshipped in an actual cult of Isis. Even if he'd been initiated (and we don't know if he was an initiate of Isis, although his Apologia mentions his initiation into several mystery cults), the satirical dimension of the work (particularly the continuing initiation fees despite Lucius's being flat broke) raises serious questions about its reliability. I'm sure there's some truth in there, but since it's our sole account of the cult of Isis, and knowing its literary features and the biography of its author, we need to be extremely careful in using it as a source for what the mysteries of Isis were actually like. http://www.jnanam.net/golden-rear end/ga-11.html quote:“Behold, Lucius,” she said, “moved by your prayer I come to you—I, the natural mother of all life, the mistress of the elements, the first child of time, the supreme divinity, the queen of those in hell, the first among those in heaven, the uniform manifestation of all the gods and goddesses—I, who govern by my nod the crests of light in the sky, the purifying wafts of the ocean, and the lamentable silences of hell—I, whose single godhead is venerated all over the earth under manifold forms, varying rites, and changing names." If we can't describe this as a "personal" god I don't know what we can. We don't need to know the specific nature of the mysteries for us to understand that the cult of Isis really was focused on Isis and thus distanced from polytheism than other pagan faiths of the time, despite perhaps not diving whole-hog into strict monotheism. And to say that Apuleius' Platonism presents a concrete barrier to belief in a personal god, well, this just seems to assume too much. One can be a platonist and absolutely believe in a personal deity. Much as one can believe in a Jesus wholly human, and wholly divine. Seeming contradictions are the building blocks of mysticism as opposed to legalistic scholasticism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:The worst (in the sense of "most undecipherable") RPG rules I know of. Though that implies that God is an unmedicated schizophrenic, so maybe not the best example? I ugh what? At first, I thought it was Time Cube dude reading comics, then it just went /pol/ (D&D?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This is a thing I just don't get, this is a being of infinite ability and infinite power. Why on earth wouldn't he be just from our perspective? If He is not expected to hold to laws that He sets for humanity then he is, at best, a hypocrite. At worst He is malevolent. To say simply "Have Faith that He is just" does not work when He allows injustice. And my point is, that is what Job is all about. You may not like it, but that's the book of Job's perspective. The solution to The Problem of Evil is that there is no solution. It's not something we are capable of understanding, so deal with it. Our only option is to trust God that it will all work out in the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:And my point is, that is what Job is all about. You may not like it, but that's the book of Job's perspective. I like a lot (a lot!) how one preacher I heard as a teenager first framed the problem of evil and then, paraphrasing, told the listeners that it's fine and good to be interested in theory and dogma but the real question you should be asking is "what am I going to do about it?". That's the best solution I've heard. Go on and do something about that evil that obviously is a huge problem! Don't stay in the sidelines, be a part of the solution!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:28
|
|