Print

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

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[TD1]

Assuming you are right, though I don't recall any such belief being expressed, it still means he finds it acceptable in at least some contexts.

And that is horrible.

[Loud Whispers]

Because Satan is a misunderstood soul who looked to the stars and was, as a consequence, sealed in the lowest vaults of matter and time away from the stars. He was the insidious, yet loveable whisperer who told us of the advantages of knowledge.
Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."

Sure sounds like Satanism in here

[Bohandas]

Like the gods of the CTHULHU Mythos

Why the hell did you spell Cthulhu like that?

As a parody of the word "LORD" being written with small-caps like that in some editions of the bible.  The same reason why I've taken to writing the word "bomb" as "BOMB" when referring to Atomic Weapons.

[ggamer]

Satan is an algamation of several different figures at different points in the bible, most likely created in the heyday of the little c catholic church to better fit the human dichtomy between good and evil

Or perhaps Satan is the final boss and he's totally like a dragon but he used to be a dude and he was a snake before that and now he's totes gonna be a sick boss fight like even sicker than monsoon and maybe almost as sick as virgil but definitely below the sick level of Ganon

Or maybe

Satan is a misunderstood soul who looked to the stars and was, as a consequence, sealed in the lowest vaults of matter and time away from the stars. He was the insidious, yet loveable whisperer who told us of the advantages of knowledge.
Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."

Or maybe Satan is like a perpetual mismaia that invades everybody and stands aside as a great scapegoat for your everyday problems because it is very hard to come to terms with the fact that everything - even the bad stuff - is a part of God's plan

or maybe or maybe or maybe

[scrdest]

Like the gods of the CTHULHU Mythos

Why the hell did you spell Cthulhu like that?

As a parody of the word "LORD" being written with small-caps like that in some editions of the bible.  The same reason why I've taken to writing the word "bomb" as "BOMB" when referring to Atomic Weapons.

Oh. That makes sense.

[TD1]

Satan is an algamation of several different figures at different points in the bible, most likely created in the heyday of the little c catholic church to better fit the human dichtomy between good and evil

Or perhaps Satan is the final boss and he's totally like a dragon but he used to be a dude and he was a snake before that and now he's totes gonna be a sick boss fight like even sicker than monsoon and maybe almost as sick as virgil but definitely below the sick level of Ganon

Or maybe

Satan is a misunderstood soul who looked to the stars and was, as a consequence, sealed in the lowest vaults of matter and time away from the stars. He was the insidious, yet loveable whisperer who told us of the advantages of knowledge.
Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."

Or maybe Satan is like a perpetual mismaia that invades everybody and stands aside as a great scapegoat for your everyday problems because it is very hard to come to terms with the fact that everything - even the bad stuff - is a part of God's plan

or maybe or maybe or maybe

Or, more than maybe, bordering on certainty, he does not exist.

[Frumple]

Assuming you are right, though I don't recall any such belief being expressed, it still means he finds it acceptable in at least some contexts.

And that is horrible.

The bible does have condemnations against rape, such as in Deuteronomy 22:25 (though just before that, the same passage* says that if a woman (well, only a virgin promised to be married, and only if they're in town) is raped, but does not scream out, she is to be stoned to death along with the rapist, so...), among others. Though the cursory searching had some trouble finding any blanket condemnations... just stuff like in Deuteronomy. Old Testament's really not the most assuring of sources on the subject, and from what I understand the NT is pretty mum on it -- probably bundled the act under sexual immorality and/or adultery in general, but without much in the way of explicit statement in the face of the OT's bits, it's somewhat hard to tell.

*To say nothing of Deuteronomy 21, which...

---

But yeah, probably the biggest problem regarding the issue and the bible is that the bible's treatment of the subject is significantly more nuanced than it bloody should be (especially to anything approaching modern sensibilities regarding the act), and then there's passages like the ones I mentioned above that are just kinda' beyond the pale. The bible only sorta' says that rape is wrong, mostly excuses it under some circumstances, and has god explicitly use the act as part of its plans. It runs pretty hard into the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" thing, except even then it's not so much "As I say" as "As your best interpretation of what I say can be, while ignoring the uncomfortable bits".

Even then, that's only one category of act among many. The many acts of mass murder of children always bothered me a bit more, personally...

[Helgoland]

I heard a while back that the 'rape without screaming' thing was a safeguard against premarital sex. Makes sense if you think about it, especially since it explains the in town/out of town split.

[Frumple]

*shrugs* Maybe? There's plenty of different attempts to explain passages like that as something less than abhorrent (though that's pretty much impossible by modern sensibilities in this case, since you're still talking capital punishment). The out-of-town thing seems just because they didn't expect someone outside the walls or whatev' to be able to be heard, so screaming or not wouldn't matter in that case.

[Helgoland]

Precisely! So the non-screaming is not considered bad in and of itself, but the intent - avoiding being noticed because you're doing it like they'll do on the discovery channel in 4000 years - is.

[Frumple]

... right. Except the intent on the part of the victim is often, you know, not that. And the passage makes no particular distinction, and is also fairly explicit it is the screaming they're hinging whether or not they stone the rape victim to death on.

I mean, there's other bits in that passage that are probably worse. Married women have no recourse at all, they just get stoned to death with whoever they're found in bed with, rape or not *shrugs*

E: There's also the bit where the counterpart verse explicitly involved rape, not just extramarital shenanigans. Would seem to point against that interpretation, wouldn't it?

[Calidovi]

The phrase "Under God" wasn't in the original pledge. It was added later by a few people, motivated by their own denominations or something. I suppose it just caught on and government didn't want to intervene, being that a majority Christian population may have an issue with it.

Well, according to Wikipedia the person who came up with argued that it was part of American cultural heritage and pointed to Lincoln using it in the Gettysburg Address. It eventually made it in in the 1950s, most likely as a way to distinguish from the Communists. I'm hoping you knew all this though.

Sorry for spreading such misinformation, I suppose I was overconfident in that sense.

[Rolan7]

I don't see any misinformation in that...  They did put their faith into the pledge of allegiance.  Their justification was to emphasize that Americans are faithful unlike those atheist commies.  Rather awkward for those of us who aren't believers, being lumped in with the reds like that.

And I think you're exactly right about why the government doesn't intervene.  I've deleted a bit of a rant - I just ate so many m&m's that I'm actually shaking - so I'll just remind everyone that the 114th Congress is 97% Judeo-Christian, versus 75% of their constituents.  And churches aren't exactly afraid of getting involved in politics...  Even though that's the original purpose of their tax-exempt status.

Gonna go walk this sugar off, wow

[Calidovi]

I don't see any misinformation in that...  They did put their faith into the pledge of allegiance.  Their justification was to emphasize that Americans are faithful unlike those atheist commies.  Rather awkward for those of us who aren't believers, being lumped in with the reds like that.

And I think you're exactly right about why the government doesn't intervene.  I've deleted a bit of a rant - I just ate so many m&m's that I'm actually shaking - so I'll just remind everyone that the 114th Congress is 97% Judeo-Christian, versus 75% of their constituents.  And churches aren't exactly afraid of getting involved in politics...  Even though that's the original purpose of their tax-exempt status.

Gonna go walk this sugar off, wow

th-thanks

[TD1]

Was just watching QI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo

Wow.

Edit: Although the comments below suggest this is misinformation. Any one know?