Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[LordBucket]

wow you're totally right, the Lilith that was adam's first wife was written way later. Fascinating.

It's one of several extremely common errors that are made. Like the line about how it's 'easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.' That's actually supposed to be the rope (at the time typically made from camel hair) not a whole camel. Or the idea that alcohol is sinful. Even though Jesus turns water into wine in the Book of John. It's just one of those popular misconceptions that doesn't want to die.

[smeeprocket]

wow you're totally right, the Lilith that was adam's first wife was written way later. Fascinating.

It's one of several extremely common errors that are made. Like the line about how it's 'easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.' That's actually supposed to be the hair of a camel, not a whole camel. Or the idea that alcohol is sinful. Even though Jesus turns water into wine in the Book of John. It's just one of those popular misconceptions that doesn't want to die.

it's not hair of a camel, because that would be fairly easy. It's meant to be rope, btw.

[LordBucket]

it's not hair of a camel, because that would be fairly easy. It's meant to be rope, btw.

Hmm, ok, I might be wrong on this one. Let's check. Anyone read ancient greek? I don't.

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php
πάλιν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

Checking around, the issue seems to be that the word for camel, "kamelos," happens to be pronounced identically to the word "kamilos" which means 'cable.'  And the claim that the choice of 'camel' is a misprint goes to Cyril of Alexandria, circa 300-400AD.

I suppose 'cable' is closer to 'rope' than 'hair.'

Personally I'd interpreted it as a statement of difficulty, not a statement of impossibility. But looking at it in context, either interpretation makes sense:

Matthew 19:23-26

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

He starts out saying that it's difficult, not impossible. But then imediately afterwards he seems to be saying that it's impossible for anyone...except with god's help.

So, ok. I'll edit to rope.

[smeeprocket]

it's not hair of a camel, because that would be fairly easy. It's meant to be rope, btw.

Hmm, ok, I might be wrong on this one. Let's check. Anyone read ancient greek? I don't.

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php
πάλιν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

Checking around, the issue seems to be that the word for camel, "kamelos," happens to be pronounced identically to the word "kamilos" which means 'cable.'  And the claim that the choice of 'camel' is a misprint goes to Cyril of Alexandria, circa 300-400AD.

I suppose 'cable' is closer to 'rope' than 'hair.'

Personally I'd interpreted it as a statement of difficulty, not a statement of impossibility. But looking at it in context, either interpretation makes sense:

Matthew 19:23-26

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

He starts out saying that it's difficult, not impossible. But then imediately afterwards he seems to be saying that it's impossible for anyone...except with god's help.

So, ok. I'll edit to rope.

I actually think the point is it is impossible. But camel is still a misinterpretation, yes.

There's all kinds of stories of wealthy and greedy people being considered sinners by virtue of their wealth. You have the story of the beggar and the rich man, the story of the rich and poor tithing at the temple, I can't think of any others off the top of my head, but Jesus wasn't really very fond of the wealthy, he beat the shit out of the money changers in the temple. Christianity's original ideals were centered around generosity and a lack of materialism.

[Ghills]

Not really sure. What I can extrapolate from the Bible, is that Lucifer[I'll call him "Lucy" for short] wanted mankind to be able to perceive good and evil. God wanted them to be ignorant, because They knew that, given knowledge of good and evil, they could choose evil, which was bad. After the whole Garden debacle, Lucy was stripped of his wings[Dragon turned to serpent] and cast down. Not really sure what canonically hapens afterwards. The Bible describes Lucy a fair bit less then the actual Church does[See "Shitty fanfics, above"]. In any case, according to Revelation[Questionable canon, please take with 1/12th of a saltshaker], Lucy would be cast into Hell[Described as a pit of burning brimstone] for eternity at the same time as everyone else at the Last Judgement. Not ruling it. IN it.

That seems logical, though I think we're better off going purely with what's in the Bible. Everything else is... Questionable, at best, one would think, being written by humans, who are flawed. I think the original bible was written by God on golden tablets or something though I may be getting confused.

Let me backpedal a bit though... I thought free will was something God gave to humans (that is, the ability to choose)? Was it Lucy instead, and God merely chose not to immediately take free will away thus 'giving' it to humans?
Also, can you please fill me in on a bit of the context I must be missing? Because that short version is seriously, seriously making me think Lucy was the 'good guy' in this scenario. Actually, I think I remember hearing something else and actually thinking that I sympathized a lot more with Lucy than with God, which will probably condemn me to hell or something. Anyway, what am I missing?
Also, how could Lucy possibly have done something against God's wishes? It's omniscient and omnipotent (apparently), so I can't understand how Lucy was able to get around that and actually do something that God truly, seriously didn't want Lucy to do (as opposed to just something God said It didn't want Lucy to do but it was Just As Planned all along. Actually, given my understanding of God it seems to be totally impossible for something to *not* be Just As Planned). Is there some sort of clause exempting the angels from God's direct influence or something? Seriously, what am I missing? >_>

Humans already HAD free will, sort of. This is demonstrated by them going against God's command and eating the fruit. Couldn't have happened if they didn't have free will. What they lacked was knowledge of good and evil, which meant they were ignorant. God didn't want them to have that knowledge, deeming it too harmful. But They also gave humankind the capacity to gain it if they wanted to, with the tree of good and evil. Its entirely possible They would have shared it with humankind at a later date, as a step towards enlightenment or somesuch. As for Lucy being in the right? Its quite possible Lucy started out as having philosophical differences with God and had benign, if misguided intentions. But, according to Revelation[And it might also have been mentioned in other places too, can't remember],Lucy then tried to stage a coup with a cadre[A third of them, according to Revelation] of like-minded angels instead of trying to justify his action. Things devolved from there.

This seems to paint Lucy as a benign hero with well-intentioned actions, who later falls into despair and attempts to claw its way out of its terrible situation, only to fail and be cast to ruins. Did Lucy ever actually do anything insanely bad? I dunno, even with the extra filling-in I can't help but think of Lucy as 'the good guy', and God as the 'it's for their own good' asshat. Of course, it probably was for their own good, but when you have a being with (supposedly) unlimited knowledge and power it's hard to paint anything they do that isn't 'make everything awesome and perfect forever' as a 'good' thing due to the contrast so it's not really God's fault. (the knowledge is especially bad. For instance, It essentially created Lucy to do that stuff with humans and then be exiled, since It knew every action Lucy would take since Lucy was created, at least, that's how it seems to me. Once again, is there a clause that exempts angels from God's direct influence?). It just seems like Lucy made a stupid mistake and both it and God over reacted. >_>

God is the one who made humans, including giving them free will.

LDS theology says that the reason for Satan's rebellion was that he wanted to ensure everyone was 'saved'...by controlling us all in every detail.  All humans would be reduced to his puppets, and therefore wouldn't do anything bad, because they didn't have the capability. Oh, and he wanted everyone to worship him instead of God for his awesome idea.

So his sins were 1) Trying to usurp God's place and 2) Trying to alter things so everyone was his puppet, basically enslaving everyone.

The icing on this cake of evil is, LDS theology says that all humans are God's spirit children - literally, brothers and sisters - so Satan was trying to do this to his siblings. Also, this wouldn't even work.  The point of this life is to grow to be more Godlike, but if all the choices are made for us we don't have the chance to examine alternatives and grow.   So Satan's plan would actually thwart the whole point of physical life.

Re: Animals

Eating meat: Doctrine & Covenants 89:10-12

10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

So basically, we're supposed to not eat a lot of meat. More specific instructions are in the rest of Section 89, but it boils down to 'NOT SO MUCH MEAT YO'. Also, 'wheat for man' but 'corn for the ox', which I thought was interesting.

General use of resources:
Doctrine & Covenants 72: 3 And verily in this thing ye have done wisely, for it is required of the Lord, at the hand of every steward, to render an account of his stewardship, both in time and in eternity.
Doctrine & Covenants 104: 13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.
 14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
 15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
 16 But it must needs be done in mine own away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
 17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

Basically, the earth was made for us and we're given responsibility for it in much the same way kids get given pets. We're supposed to take care of it, but it's not actually ours and we're going to be called to account for our choices.

[Arcvasti]

-snip-

-snip-

Humans already HAD free will, sort of. This is demonstrated by them going against God's command and eating the fruit. Couldn't have happened if they didn't have free will. What they lacked was knowledge of good and evil, which meant they were ignorant. God didn't want them to have that knowledge, deeming it too harmful. But They also gave humankind the capacity to gain it if they wanted to, with the tree of good and evil. Its entirely possible They would have shared it with humankind at a later date, as a step towards enlightenment or somesuch. As for Lucy being in the right? Its quite possible Lucy started out as having philosophical differences with God and had benign, if misguided intentions. But, according to Revelation[And it might also have been mentioned in other places too, can't remember],Lucy then tried to stage a coup with a cadre[A third of them, according to Revelation] of like-minded angels instead of trying to justify his action. Things devolved from there.

This seems to paint Lucy as a benign hero with well-intentioned actions, who later falls into despair and attempts to claw its way out of its terrible situation, only to fail and be cast to ruins. Did Lucy ever actually do anything insanely bad? I dunno, even with the extra filling-in I can't help but think of Lucy as 'the good guy', and God as the 'it's for their own good' asshat. Of course, it probably was for their own good, but when you have a being with (supposedly) unlimited knowledge and power it's hard to paint anything they do that isn't 'make everything awesome and perfect forever' as a 'good' thing due to the contrast so it's not really God's fault. (the knowledge is especially bad. For instance, It essentially created Lucy to do that stuff with humans and then be exiled, since It knew every action Lucy would take since Lucy was created, at least, that's how it seems to me. Once again, is there a clause that exempts angels from God's direct influence?). It just seems like Lucy made a stupid mistake and both it and God over reacted. >_>

LDS theology says that the reason for Satan's rebellion was that he wanted to ensure everyone was 'saved'...by controlling us all in every detail.  All humans would be reduced to his puppets, and therefore wouldn't do anything bad, because they didn't have the capability. Oh, and he wanted everyone to worship him instead of God for his awesome idea.

So his sins were 1) Trying to usurp God's place and 2) Trying to alter things so everyone was his puppet.

The icing on this cake of evil is, LDS theology says that all humans are God's spirit children - literally, brothers and sisters - so Satan was trying to do this to his siblings. Also, this wouldn't even work.  The point of this life is to grow to be more Godlike, but if all the choices are made for us we don't have the chance to examine alternatives and grow.

Other theory I've seen for Lucy's actions is that he disapproved of the creation of sapient mortals and incited/incites them to disobey God so He'd smite them. Sort of the same thing, having philosophical differences with God. After the rebellion, Lucy and God presumably had a sort of bet to see which one of them was right about humanity. Which is probably not the smartest thing to have with an omniscient being, but whatever. This fits in with Lucy tormenting Job in the eponymous book to try to make him renounce his faith and most of his canonical actions since[Testing Jesus in the desert and such]. Lucy is trying to prove to God that humankind is, by and large, a mistake. I've also heard other variants, such as Lucy chafing under the rule of an omnipotent being, but the Bible leaves quite a lot of ambiguity about Lucy and his motives. Ghills version would also fit Lucy's actions. Its an interesting subject, actually.

RE: Camels:

aWWW, I really liked the mental image of trying to fit a whole fucking camel through the eye of a needle.

:\
:/

[Frumple]

Bible leaves quite a lot of ambiguity about Lucy and his motives

Chiming in a little to offer some extra words, and it's been a little bit since I last walked over the versus regarding th'old adversary, but... from what I recall, not really. There's no point in the basic biblical texts (old+new testament) in which the critter in question acts against god... and at least one (The noted Job) where it acts specifically with god's blessing. The whole rebellion, working counter to god's will, envying mankind, etc., so forth, so on... is more or less extra biblical, or coming from stuff outside the primary texts. Ol' Scratch doesn't actually get much screen time, and what's there... isn't really that much.

There's certainly a lot left unsaid -- there's literally nothing said as to the devil's motives in the core bible, insofar as I'm aware -- and it's ambiguous in that nature, but...

Really, the important thing to remember is that almost everything about popular conceptions of Satan -- sometimes even ones invoked in outright theological discussion! -- is to some extent or another extra-biblical, right down to the name Lucifer. Any motive, just about any emotion or character, etc., so forth, so on, is pretty much invented. The bible speaks of a deceiver (often, at least in comparison to the amount of times it actually does anything, working specifically at god's command or with its blessing), but that's about all it says. Certainly from the perspective of dealing with an omnipotent creator, something working outside its allowance is a rather silly concept...

One of the interesting alternative conceptualizations I've seen of satan isn't as a thing, but instead as a state of mind. Not a personified devil, but rather as the state of being in opposition to god, to the extent that's not an impossibility. It certainly sidesteps a lot of problems with the built-up extra-biblical chaff that's surrounding the thing these days.

[Grek]

Everyone
What do you think 'All-Loving' means?

To love is to prefer happiness, good things and the presence of that which you love. All-Loving is a contradiction of terms. The completeness and acyclicity axioms of preference ordering demand that any being with preferences have both a most preferred - or most loved, if you will - and a least preferred - or most hated. The very nature of preference is to sacrifice the less liked for the more liked. To put it crassly, if you love Jews, you have to hate Hitler. If you love Africans, you have to hate the ebola virus. And if you want to love the sinner, you have to hate the sin*. You can have a person who loves all humans, but that implies that they hate a lot of things that aren't human and are bad for humans: like disease, wild bear attacks, hurricanes and nuclear weapons. Love and hate aren't opposites of each other, they're two sides of the same ladder, both opposite from indifference.

All
How many of you believe in Creationism (or similar concept) that is to say, All That Is was made by the hand of an intelligent creator and things such as evolution did not occur? (There are of course other interpretations that you may specify in your response if you so wish).

I do not. Evolution very clearly happened.

[Biowraith]

Questions for anyone whose religion involves a divine objective moral authority:

1) Does your religion hold that its god(s) is/are the source of what is good and evil or does it hold that good and evil exist independently of its god(s) (e.g. god(s) simply have a complete understanding of which is which)?
(if your religion doesn't specify, feel free to just give your personal belief instead)

2) Is there anything which your religion has indicated is wrong or evil that you personally believe is right or good (or at least, ok/acceptable)?  Or vice versa?

3) In the case that you answered yes to question 2), do you submit to and adopt that aspect of your religion despite it contradicting your own morality or do you work around it in some way?

[Arx]

1) As far as I'm aware, good and evil exist independantly of the Judeo-Christian God.

2) I'm still torn on homosexuality, as to whether it's acceptable or not.

3) I'm not homosexual, so it doesn't have any direct relevance to me. However, at present I do believe that homosexuals should be celibate. I also believe that homophobia (violence, insults, threats of violence, bullying, anything) is absolutely inexcusable. I don't really see how having homosexual sex is any/much worse than hounding a person for being homosexual.

[smeeprocket]

wow you're totally right, the Lilith that was adam's first wife was written way later. Fascinating.

It's one of several extremely common errors that are made. Like the line about how it's 'easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.' That's actually supposed to be the rope (at the time typically made from camel hair) not a whole camel. Or the idea that alcohol is sinful. Even though Jesus turns water into wine in the Book of John. It's just one of those popular misconceptions that doesn't want to die.

Actually, IIRC, that IS supposed to be literal. He meant it in the sense of 'If you're rich, you're not going to heaven. It's like trying to shove a camel through the eye of a needle'

it's not that it's not literal, the text is mistranslated. As in, they mean cable and not camel, i. e. rope. It is supposed to be impossible without Jesus, but camel is incorrect.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

1) it's seperate from god but he knows the difference and sides on good IIRC
2)well sin is wrong and evil but (at least my sect) teaches you forgive it no matter what, that is the purpose Christianity anyways. To teach forgiveness of anything. So the sins listed in the bible (stealing, homosexuality, adultery, holding false gods, putting things above god, murder, envy, etc) are all equally bad and equaly forgiven. So yes they are bad but you don't great anyone different for it because you have committed similar acts yourself. (Similar acts being other sins)
3)I suppose I kinda answered this in 2 didn't i?

[smeeprocket]

1) it's seperate from god but he knows the difference and sides on good IIRC
2)well sin is wrong and evil but (at least my sect) teaches you forgive it no matter what, that is the purpose Christianity anyways. To teach forgiveness of anything. So the sins listed in the bible (stealing, homosexuality, adultery, holding false gods, putting things above god, murder, envy, etc) are all equally bad and equaly forgiven. So yes they are bad but you don't great anyone different for it because you have committed similar acts yourself. (Similar acts being other sins)
3)I suppose I kinda answered this in 2 didn't i?

so you believe murder and homosexuality are on par with one another?

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Oh this again
Yes I do think they are on par
But so are any sin I have committed, they too are on par with homosexuality.

[smeeprocket]

Oh this again
Yes I do think they are on par
But so are any sin I have committed, they too are on par with homosexuality.

What do you mean, oh this again?

That's a pretty serious statement. It's something I needed clarified because I thought you might have misspoke.

Every time you get a question that makes you uncomfortable you get upset.

Just don't answer if it bothers you, don't act like I'm being a jerk for asking a fairly straight forward question about a rather serious statement you made.