I am interested in your understanding of some of the events in the Bible and their reasoning.
First, if Satan has been promised by God to go to the Lake of Fire for what he performed BEFORE the creation of mankind, why is he tolerated to do what he does now on Earth?
Why was Job allowed to be tested beyond all humans besides Christ for no other obvious reason than a discussion between Satan and God?
Why does Satan continue to roam the Earth even after Christ has performed his actions on the Cross?
Why in Genesis 6 are there angels that interbreed with humans and what is the connection withthe flood?
What actions and methodology does Satan use to complete the "I wills" that he states in Isiah? Ie. what is his plan and how has he carried it out to this point. Here are the statements that he has made: I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High
Also, knowing that God is omnipotent, how can Satan, an immensely powerfum and similarly intelligent being make these claims with any shred of hope to accomplish them? This really refers back to the frist question about the "I wills" but is an amplification.
Why does Jesus Christ state that "there will be wars and "rumors of wars" until I return" and what does that mean?
BTW, this is all part of the doctrine of the Angelic Conflict, however it is considerd from the point of view of the plans and purpose of Satan. If you are unfamiliar with the angelic conflict there is a brief discussion of it on Bible.org.
Please form responses from your own theological background, not just in response to the limited information you have read about what I think.
I am definitely interested in what you think and have been taught about these subjects.
As for the things I stated not being part of any major denomination, I readily accept that. However, name one major denomination that consistently teaches systematic theology, that teaches from the original languages, or that uses isagogics and exegesis in their daily teaching.
I think what you are saying is that because God made mankind with the ability to cause suffering that suffering that mankind creates is directly attributable to God.
What I am saying is the buck stops with the one with free will who commits the act. Saying that God gave me the ability to do what I want, and everything I do is his fault because of this is a complete denial of what free will is. In other words, when I, a being with free will, make a decision, have a thought, or commit an action, the I am responsible. I cannot attribute my actions to another person.
Just because God does not come down from heaven to straighten out your mess dosent make him cruel or evil. Consider that there could be noting more destructive to the psyche of a human than a God that constantly fixed the problems that they created. Ever seen a spoiled child? Imagine an entire race of beings that populated the whole Earth that had that same mentality. For a neat exploration of this theme please read http://jedinite.com/mopi/ about Prime Intillect.
Anyways, regardless of that argument, you are appealing to the wrong deity, in the Biblical sense. According to the Bible, Satan rules this world currently, and the things that occur do so on his watch. In fact, the whole point of the creation of humankind is an object lesson to the angelic beings who oppose God.
Satan postulated that angels and mankind do not need God to exist peacefully. God handed over the world to Satan to prove His point. Satan is now, according to the Bible, trying to institute utopia on the planet and bring in the 1000 years of peace that Christ promised that only He would do. Therefore, if the point of contention is the character of God described in the Bible, and if you agree with the parent, you should be complaining to Satan about his improper rule, not God.
I find it very interesting that the arguments against God and his character are VERY similar (some are identical) to the ones that the Bible describes Satan having.
Why yes, there is a place where all the mistranslations are put into one place, it's called the King James Version.
Kinda menat to be a joke, however, it is not far from the truth. If you study where the King James Version came from and what manuscript evidence was used in its creation vs. what has been discovered since then you would be stunned. Textural criticism combined with tons of older manuscript evidence means that today we have orders of magnitude more detail about the original scriptures.
If you want a good place to learn about the Bible from an acclaimed Hebrew and Greek scholar that taught (he is retired now) at a non-denominational church I recommend http://www.rbthieme.org/. They will mail you mp3 CDs made from your choice of thousands of hours of collegiate lecture type material at no charge, free, gratis. Throughout the lessons there is constant revision of the English versions of the Bible through a sentence-diagram-like approach to the original languages. In the process of hearing the lessons you can even develop a good feel for the syntax of ancient Greek and Hebrew, if you are dilligent.
The lesson catalog is here http://www.rbthieme.org/LessonListingForWeb.PDF/. Each lesson is about 1 hour long and there is no silly singing or speaking in tongues, or AMENS from the congregation. It is like an academic classroom in a military school.
"7. this inaction to prevent said starvation is the same as a direct action to cause it.
The action that caused the suffering was perpetrated by mankind and is therefore wholly different in structure, content, and validity than if God himself had caused it. The reason? Mankind has free will and God has made provisions for the eternal lives of the children that are starving.
"8. deliberately causing children to starve to death is cruel.
MANKIND causes children to starve by his actions, not God. Therefore mankind is cruel, not God.
In essence you have said that since God can clean up our messes easily he should do it even though he did not make them in the first place. You are also saying that God is responsible for the actions of mankind, and that mankind is not responsible for the contemporaneous repercussions of his actions. Please forgive me, but I do not want a God that hovers over the Earth waiting to wipe my ass for me when I soil myself, regardless of how many baby wipes he can conjure out of thin air or how softly he can rub my buttocks. Actions carry repercussions and people have to take responsibility for them, good or bad.
Blaming God for the things that mankind does is an age old ploy. In fact, Satan does this many times in the Bible and with more subtltey and intillect than you have mustered in this attempt(no offence to your mental skills).
Free will is a gift that implies that the reciever can commit actions against the giver. In the case of humans as described in the Bible it also means that the being with free will can make decisions that affect themselves negatively, regardless of the repercussions and their knowledge of them. That is the problem of free will, nothing prevents people from making colossally stupid decisions.
(The following is going to be from the perspective of taking the Bible at its own word about the things it describes.)
Consider that the series of events in Genesis is not the ultimate beginning of history, but only a signpost on the continum extending out to eternity on both sides. Now try to realize that the creation of humans has very little to do with humans themselves and alot to do with a conflict with angelic beings that have existed for countless billions of years before mankind was introduced and God himself who is eternal.
The reason for the conflict? A group of angels postulated that God who is loving could not assign a portion of them to eternal torment regardless of their actions. Humankind was created as a rebuttal to this argument, an object lesson if you will, to teach the errant and faithful angels alike about who and what God is.
God is faithful to mankind in that he made provision for them in all things, regardless of the circumstances that man put himself in. This is an example of how god treats people. He gives them the power to make all sorts of decisions, is a gentleman and dosent stop them from doing what they want, and then provides for them even when they screw up royally.
Another way to think of this is this question...What makes you think that humans deserve perfection? Your contradiction exists because you believe that there is inherently something unfair about the situation you (incompletely) described. However, if we applied the same situation to the microcosm it would be like a homegrown tomato complaining about being eaten. In other words, if something acts in a manner consisten with the purpose for which it was created, how is that a contradiction?
As for the bit about Satan and his undermining, it was not him who excercised bad judgement and worse action by dispbeying God, it was the man and woman. Free will carrys with it the burden of responsibility. If you do something it is yours, you own it, regardless of the cajoling, misguidance, or intervention of another. That people can think otherwise is fascinating to me. IT is almost unimaginable that people can lead themselves to the conclusion that opther people are responsible for their decisions and actions, but...well there it is.
It has a place in academia, however, and that place is PHILOSOPHY class where things like this are discussed and deconstructed as rational ideas that need evaluation in a rational manner, as they are not testable in a laboratory.
"One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct"
The problem with people who want to literally interpret the Bible is that most people do not know that Genesis is not the earliest set of events on Earth in the Bible. This and the fact that to literally interpret the Bible you have to literally interpret the original languages, not the English translation of the Bible.
The Bible describes that Satan was in residence on Earth before the garden of eden and the events in Genesis 1. However, since this is not discribed in Genesis, but later in the Bible, most people (especially those who do not study the Bible intensely) do not put it in its proper chronological context. This usually stems from the fact that most people do not realize that the timeline of the Bible runs from a time eons before the Garden of Eden and is not written like a chronological history book.
Secondly, the events in Genesis 1 do not tell us how long Adam and Eve were in residence in the garden before the "Fall". Since man was immortal in the pre-sin state the time of residence could have been immense.
As for people being tested in their faith this concept is silly when they do not have the knowledge of the Bible that that faith is supposed to be based on. This "problem" is epidemic though. The "problem" as I see it is that people are representing themselves as Christians and yet they do nok know enough about their own theology to properly discribe it to someone else, much less line up what they believe with the scriptures that they supposedly hold in such high regard.
My evidence of this is in the religious right trying to legislate morality and introduce things like ID to the school system. These behaviors (activism) are the actions of people trying to help God. This is tantamount to, in a Biblical-thought centric mind, getting out of a flying jet to push; God being the jet.
Some of the principles of the Bible that are in direct conflict with these actions are these: God is omnipotent and does not need our help, the world is currently controlled by Satan by decree of God, government is for providing safety and freedom for ALL the people who live in it, even God does not try to interfere with the free will of mankind, the burden of communicating the Word of God is specifically entrusted to believers (not schools!), faith is the basis of Christianity (not rationalism or philisophical argument). In the face of all these principles that are directly described in the Bible I cannot see how anyone calling themselves a Christian could be party to trying to manipulate the government in this way.
Unfartunately, you are speaking from the perspective of someone who cannot speak with authority as to whether something is a mistake or not.
By this I mean that evolution may have tried another way that seems to you to make more sense and it may have had problems that you are not forseeing, resulting in the present status of the creature in question.
Remember that every faulty design that comes apart at 30,000 feet killing everyone on board was designed by an engineer.
It is all a question of perspective. Unfortunately, ours is limited in the extreme. Humans are still trying to fathom out the biological mastery that our bodies perform instant by instant to keep us observing. Who knows, where we see an error or mistake evolution may have pulled out one of its greatest triumphs. Hard to tell when you're only human.
Actually, what I did was take numerous examples from contemporary society and world events and also myriad examples of nations throughout recorded history and apply them to the example at hand. In other words I used the established pattern of human behavior that has been unerringly followed throughout history and made a prediction about how things might turn out in the furure. Not too hard to do when you study history. "What you are saying is that if others fuck up...
Actually you take that out of context. I think the idea of conservation and limiting pollution is great, and I do my part. HOWEVER...what one person can do on the positive side is infinitessimally small compared to the forces on the negative side. The only people concerned with cutting down on consumption are those with the luxury of doing it, and a vast number of those do not even care. That works out to be a really small part of the world.
Regardless, I do participate, but you seem to think that if I ride my bike to work I will save the world for my children. All I am pointing out is that that kind of thinking is moronic. Fundamental changes need to be made in the way that people think and react to reality for environmental concers to become top priority.
Maybe a giant climate shift would wake people up. Unfortunately, if it goes ice age on us I can see people strip mining the USA for all the coal we have (largest coal reserves in the world, BTW) just to keep warm. Imagine what that would do to the environment! In fact, I can see a vast increase in the consumption of resources if we did have a fdrastic climate shift, regardless of the temperature direction. People would throw all caution and restrictions to the wind in an attempt to maintain status quo, or just to stay alive for that matter.
Maybe I am a bit pessimistic, but how can you look at history, the trends of mankind, their treatment of eachother and their world, and think any other way?
"deal with the pressing situation by limiting and managing our populations, our impact on the world, our drain and demand on the limited resources "
Those who limit their populations will be out bred and overrun by those who do not.
Those who limit their impact on the world will be constrained in their development. Those who wantonly pollute will gain an economic and developmental advantage that cona nd will be commuted into a military one.
Those who underutilize their resources or hoard them will be seen as targets for those who need the resources to fuel their comsumption.
In short, if a country places these restraints on itself they will be operating at a disadvantage to those who do not. Eventually, those environmental policies could be the rope that hangs your country.
I agree that it is a noble cause, however we all know what this world and its occupants do to all noble things. They are either perverted to satisfy the ego and the guilt complex and in the process lose their meaning, or they are changed into something detestable by missaplication.
If large multinational treaties are enacted over environmental concers I can see them being used as a reason for military action against polluting nations, or even worse those nations that are deemed to be "misusing" their resources.
This would, however, fulfill your first point: population control. Furthermore, if enough dammage was done to the industrial infrastructure of the invaded country it would fulfil point two and point three as well.
In short, while I agree that the idea of protecting and preserving the environment is fantastic I do not see an efficient way to reach that goal. Sure, we can all take baby steps in our own lives to try to help. However, in the face of clearcutting/slash-and-burn farming in a third of the world, CO2/SO2/NOX emissions in billions of tons, PCB's, pesticides, and heavy metal dumping me riding my bike to work or recycling my plastic dosen't mean jack shit.
I was on the "I hate Paris" bandwagon until last Saturday. Paris was on SNL doing a skit that was absolutely hilarious about geeks that call late-night sex phone operators and talk about all sorts of sci-fi and fantasy/RPG stuff and get off to it.
The operators were perfect. There was the level 8 lawful chaotic druid half elf(soooo ala bloodninja it was even funnier than they expected to me I bet)for the DnD fans, Princess Lea look alike for the star wars freaks, elf chick for Tolkien guys, and Uhura for the Trekkies.
The thing that totally blew my mind though was when Paris doffed a floppy leather hat and a rainbow scarf and said, "Are you a Dalek? Do you wanna exterminate me, baby?" I am sorry to say that I stopped laughing at all the other geeks that got made fun of and went all gooey and warm inside.
Once was when my girlfriend's mother caught us having sex in high school. The phone call that initiated the phone-bashing incident was about 2 hours after that when I got to hear her mother telling her what to say:
Mom: You can never see him again....
Ex-Girl: I can never see you again...
It was like a soap opera with the Jedi mind trick worked into it. Funny and distressing at the same time. The phone met with an unfortunate rapid deceleration incident after contacting a brick wall at a high rate of relative velocity.
The second phone attack was much more fun. I was sleeping in a twin bed, next to the wall, with my girlfriend on the outside of the bed next to me.
In the pitch black of night there is a terrible shriek. My mind is clouded, dim, and limbic from sleep; enraged and disoriented by this hideous sound that keeps repeating itself. It screams once, twice, then on the third keening screech I launch myself over my sleeping girlfriend and land on top of the offending THING. I have absolutely no idea what it is that is making the noise, but I am driven insane with anger that it won't stop. The room is pitch black so I have to feel the screaming thing to find a way to make it stop. I grab it wholly in my hands and start to roughly search for a weak point, squeezing it hard all the while in vain hopes that it will choke and stop. Suddenly I feel a small tail-like thing in my hands and realize with grim and ecstatic joy that I have discovered its weak spot. I grab it, and as it yells again I begin to yank furiously on the tail, over and over.
Unfortunately I have begun to wake up now and by the time I realize just exactly what is going on I am sitting there in the dark, naked, with a phone in one hand and a frayed phone cord in the other, grinning like a madman but with the dawning realization that I have just killed with primal rage...my telephone. My girlfrind turns on the light about this time and looks at me, starteled. Then she fixes me with that LOOK. You might know the one. It is like she is never, ever gonna consider me fully human again, but dosen't want to let me know that she is thinking this in, just in case I decide to fulfil her basest opinions of me.
It still cracks me up to think of how I slaughtered a telephone in my sleep.
"Point is that the Bible is full of authorization to do violence to others
DISCLOSURE: I am not the grandparent poster.
It does in fact. In addition it contains even more prohibitions against violence and violent behavior. Case in point, every point of authorization of violence in the Bible has to do with a firmly defined authority structure of some kind in one of 3 areas: military, law, morality. They are all consequences of transgression of one kind or another that require a response from the individual, the society as a whole, or the lawful individuals that represent society (Judge, "police", soldiers.)
Now, make no mistake, the Bible shows examples of both legitimate and illegitemate expressions of violence. However, if someone is actually concerned with CONTEXT and not just CONTENT they will understand quite easily which is being discribed. Just like a juror who attends a murder trial that may see and hear depictions of extreme violence, they understand that they are not gratuitous depictions for the purpose of glorification of violence. They are there to asist in the determining of guilt or innocnece and ultimately so that they jurors can determine the proper punnishment if the person is shown to be guilty. Similarly, the Bible shows the consequences of transgression in the lives of the people discribed.
I think that this answers your last rethorical question, but if it dosen't let me just say that a story with a moral(for the Bible this is an utterly simplistic discription and woefully inadequade, but we can use it for the purpose of argument) is fundamnetally differnt than a homicidal fantasy in which the participants engage in all manner of socially (forget morally and spiritually for the sake of argument) objectionable acts.
One of the great misunderstandings about the OT is that alot of the described laws were part of the civil structure of the society. They were not just a "divine" mandate to believers, but a structure of societal law like our constitution and code of laws in the USA. They were given by their God, but the unique structure of their society placed God in the position that a monarch would usually hold. So, as God there were laws given that governed morality and spiritual matters, and as the head of the state there were also civil laws concerning society and the function of the judicial system, taxation (tithes), and the regulation of the society. Being as such there were crimes that had a proscribed punnishment, kind of like 3 strikes and you're out, mandatory sentences for DUI, etc. The fact that some specific horrific crimes were punnishable by death is no different than our legal code.
So to your first rethorical question "OT doesn't apply to modern people (care to back that up?" the answer is in many ways, yes it does not apply.
The governmental structure where God occupies the position of monarch is no longer valid for any state. In addition, mandates are given throuought the Bible about subjecting yourself (if you are a believer) to the governmental/authority structure that you live under. This would invalidate the civic portion of the law on two accounts.
As for the spiritual side of the law, some of this has been "fulfilled" by the advent of Christ on Earth, eliminating some required rituals and replacing them with the reality of who and what Christ is and the work He accomplished on the cross. However, if you examine the doctrinal ideas behind the spiritual laws that were expressed in the OT they still apply in this day and age. Respect and reliance on the promises of God above all things, respect for life, liberty, privacy, property, etc. So in this case the answer is yes and no, and you have to study and learn to figure out which is which. The good thing is, once you understand a bit about who and what the God decribed in the Bible is, you can discern the differnce easily.
You give people waaaay to much credit. Most of the people I know who allow their kids to play GTA (or other such games) also watch South Park with them and allow them to watch all manner of television and movies. Frankly, I think that too many parents have deficiencies in their ability to judge how their actions will affect their children and society in the future.
[worst case scenario]
I remember parents of my friends in middle and high school who would regularly buy (or SELL!) alcohol and drugs for the kids who came over to hang out at their house. Others would turn a blind eye to the kids who wanted to do these things in their house. Oh, they knew, but I guess they wanted plausible deniability, or they were not completely bankrupt of morals and tried to fool themselves in some weak-ass sickened way.
Anyways, I noticed two things about the people who did this and their children (who now have children!). They actively encourage their kids to engage in age innapropriate behavior of all kinds. Most of the behavior they encourage is personally and socially destructive.
And you wonder which kid told the others about how to run the hooker over after boinking them in the back of the car.
Ignorance is not the problem. I think that too many people just don't give a fuck about their kids.
On a lighter note I was telling my daughters (9 and 7) about responsibility and accountability last night. One thing I realized and then revealed to them was that sometimes, when I did things that they did not like but that were good for them, that I was acting out of responsibility to THEM. Not only them as they are today, but their future selves, the people who will hold me me accountable for my actions and scrutinize my methods with mature intillect and sound, adult judgement.
Then we played Going Postal 2 till 3 AM and I sent them to school drunk.
What if, by a combination of sensory organs and thought processes, a race of alien creatures posessed intrinsic knowledge of a grand unified theory(TOE), etc. Because of this they have fantastic technological advancement from an early time in their history. In addition, they understand that there may well be millions of other races of sentient creatures in the universe. Being curious and gregarious by nature they put up humongous billboards in space to direct other races to their homeworld.
These billboards take a shape that they are convinced couldn't be missed by any inelligent species anywhere in the universe. Using their comprehensive knowledge of physics they create a series of objects that stand out in their surroundings. These stellar objects run the gamut from gas clouds and asteroids, stars and black holes, to pulsars, galaxies and quasars.
Of course the best way to make them stand out is to have them appear normal in almost every way, but make sure that in a few ways that they do not line up exactly with the proper expression of the Theory of Everything. Maybe some of them have gravitation/mass anomolies. Some luminous bodies have strange spectra for their type of composition. Maybe others are out of place in their space-time frame due to artifical placement, like a relatively recent structure galaxy transmitting light from billions of light years away. Or maybe they place a field around a few small solar systems that blue shifts them with respect to every other point in the universe. The deviancies, when plotted and considered as a whole, lead directly to the homeworld of this earliest and greatest of races; one great, big welcome mat spread out for all the creatures of the universe.
Of course the really funny part is that instead of guiding people to them they are just confusing the hell out of everyone else in the universe. Messing up their experiments and evaluation data. Unfortunately, they do not consider that other races do not understand things as they do since their knowledge is so basic and obvious to them.
And that is just one, hopefully entertaining, hypothetical anecdote as to why even if we could find aliens it might be well nigh impossible to communicate with them.
"In addition, the caliber of people that will actually work for the IRS is not exactly the highest in the world
The first person that I saw win on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" was an auditor for the IRS. This guy was a smooth operator. I actually found myself liking him in spite of the 35% of my income that is stolen every two weeks by those bastards.
The best part of his whole run to milliondom was the last question. He hadn't used any of his lifelines and on the last question he used his "phone a friend." He called his dad and the conversation went basically like this:
Dad: "What question do you need help with son?"
IRS dude: "Don't need any help dad. I know the answer to the question, I just wanted to call you and mom so that you would be the first to know that I won."
Dad: "Good job son, see you later."
The guy was a badass in the geekiest sense of the word. I find it pretty scary that he works for the IRS. Just imagine a bunch his clones coming to audit your ass!
So, in essence, I see no truth in the comment you just made, sorry. The evidence speaks to the contrary.
I have this fantasy of a day when everyone in America is forced to carry a loaded firearm with them everywhere they go, every day.
I think that, after an initial period of unrest and social restructuring, the remaning people would be polite, courteous, great drivers, mild mannered, relatively sane, and most likely paraplegic.
Why not just get a law degree, and if you don't get completely corrupted by the whole lawyer indoctrination thing, join the EFF and make a difference.
Want more money?
Work for a law firm helping them understand the implications of the new and interesting laws that are being developed and implimented daily with regard to technology, IT, and net-rights, and then use them to exploit the people for profit of the companies that paid through the nose for said legislation.
OR, if you have a convincing smile and a good speaking voice you could become a politician and help dismantle some of the totally fucked up laws we have that are constraining business and technological progress in our wonderful country.
OR, if you want even more money:
And you have a soul as black as the void between stars I am sure that the business interests that are helped, nay DEPENDENT, on fucked up legislation would be happy to offer you seven or eight figures to help pass their next big monopoly inducing law. (insert step 3 here)
I didn't miss the point of the humor, it just kind of fell flat for me. This is most likely due to hypersensitivity on my part to the drastic and gross misinterpretation of the Bible that is prevalent in churches and secular places alike.
When you study the whole Bible from the original languages and also study systematic theology it is very difficult to ignore things that directly contradict the scriptures. Much of what is espoused as doctrine from the mouth of God is actually just people inserting their own opinions into the cracks between the English translation and the original Greek, Hebrew, etc. Getting down to the very basics of things tends to eliminate alot of the ambiguity, however, I find it intersting that many of the most vocal people never get to this step.
On a doctrinal note, Grace is not a New Testament ideal. It is the policy of God toward mankind and is part of God's immutable character. It existed in the Old Testament and is a part of every story, law, psalm, and parable therein.
Also, I do not ignore any part of the scripture. However I also do not read the English words, extract their meaning, and then stop there.
As for the "rib" thing. The answer is quite simple. God had already created life once. He did not have to perform that miracle again. As for any metaphors of how a man should treat a woman because of this relationship, I would think that they are superceded by the various DIRECT decrees that are illustrated and spoken throughout the Bible about how to treat people in general, not just women.
"allow men to have as many wives as they can afford, concubines, especially if they can't get an acceptable heir out of one of the wives, and the women are treated as property with no rights of their own"
Actually this was all forbidden, though, strangely, people did what they wanted to do alot of the time. Strange that they still do this today as well. It's almost as if the Bible was written about real people when you look at it.
If saw the meaning of the Bible you would see that one of the overarching themes of the book is that humans create their own suffering by violating the wishes of God. Polygamy and adultery were not "allowed", and if you fully read the stories where they are described you see that they have consequences. Just like in daytime TV.
As for treating women as property, again you seem to confuse what was proscribed by God and the actions of men. They are two different things. Maybe you make the mistake of thinking that the people described in the Bible are all avatars of God rather than humans with flaws and problems, like all the rest of us.
Funny you mention "Equal Partner." The Bible is filles with statements on equality and inequality. Whether it be intrinsics, aptitude, training, knowledge, prowess, posessions, or training of some kind, we all have things that make us unequal to those around us. To create artificial equality is to disregard that which makes us individual and to cast aside what can make us worthwhile. There are overtones and undercurrents of this theme throughout the whole book. Check out this quote "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female." This is directly referring to the perpetual status of inequality on the planet and pointing to a situation where mankind is finally freed from these restraints. Don't try to read too much into it however, this one gets a little tricky without some systematic theology.
Suffice it to say, if you had read a little deeper into the Bible's stance on how a married man and woman should interact you would have seen that the structure defined in the Bible is symbiotic, with each partner basing their mode of operation toward, and classification of thought of, their partner on a set of principles that makes the individual consider their partner and the principles of virtue first in their interaction. A bit wordy and maybe hard to grasp, but we are talking about something that is an outgrowth of an underlying thought system that takes the whole Bible to describe it. The result is that each partner in the union has a sphere of influence, complete with authority and responsibilities that is unique to that partner. The symbiosis of action and thought meld the two in to one unit. Thus the phrase, "one flesh" heard in the ceremonies. Equality starts to break down when you consider your partner part of your own body; when you see them as an extension of yourself and vice versa, and when you see yourself as belonging wholly to them and them to you. And not only belonging in the posession sense, but in the responsibility sense, in that you are responsible for their growth, health, and wellbeing in every decision and thought that you have.
I find it quite interesting that you know some of the content of the Bible but lack all of the context and meaning.
Thank god for obscurity. By this I mean that as long as there is a "mainstream" OS that most people use, the other OS systems will enjoy being out of the malware spotlight, avoiding the brunt of the attacks.
Elevate your favorite OS to the same market share and desktop percentage as windows and I guarantee that the number of viruses, trojans, spyware, malware, etc. for it will multiply insanely. In short order you will have the same nature of problems, just not with the same exact security holes.
I am not saying that different OS models do not have advantages over Windows when it comes to security, BTW. That would be moronic.
The reason I say this is because people have always done this sort of thing. If there is a way to sabotage, adulterate, hijack, or manipulate something for personal gain or mischief, someone will find out how to do it. Given that the people that have the ability to write code are pretty smart to begin with this just makes the problem that much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I am interested in your understanding of some of the events in the Bible and their reasoning.
First, if Satan has been promised by God to go to the Lake of Fire for what he performed BEFORE the creation of mankind, why is he tolerated to do what he does now on Earth?
Why was Job allowed to be tested beyond all humans besides Christ for no other obvious reason than a discussion between Satan and God?
Why does Satan continue to roam the Earth even after Christ has performed his actions on the Cross?
Why in Genesis 6 are there angels that interbreed with humans and what is the connection withthe flood?
What actions and methodology does Satan use to complete the "I wills" that he states in Isiah? Ie. what is his plan and how has he carried it out to this point. Here are the statements that he has made:
I will ascend into heaven.
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north.
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds.
I will be like the Most High
Also, knowing that God is omnipotent, how can Satan, an immensely powerfum and similarly intelligent being make these claims with any shred of hope to accomplish them? This really refers back to the frist question about the "I wills" but is an amplification.
Why does Jesus Christ state that "there will be wars and "rumors of wars" until I return" and what does that mean?
BTW, this is all part of the doctrine of the Angelic Conflict, however it is considerd from the point of view of the plans and purpose of Satan. If you are unfamiliar with the angelic conflict there is a brief discussion of it on Bible.org.
Please form responses from your own theological background, not just in response to the limited information you have read about what I think.
I am definitely interested in what you think and have been taught about these subjects.
As for the things I stated not being part of any major denomination, I readily accept that. However, name one major denomination that consistently teaches systematic theology, that teaches from the original languages, or that uses isagogics and exegesis in their daily teaching.
I might like to show up with a high power rifle and a 10X scope but that might not be sporting with teh GPS and all.
Maybe a bow and arrows?
I think what you are saying is that because God made mankind with the ability to cause suffering that suffering that mankind creates is directly attributable to God.
What I am saying is the buck stops with the one with free will who commits the act. Saying that God gave me the ability to do what I want, and everything I do is his fault because of this is a complete denial of what free will is. In other words, when I, a being with free will, make a decision, have a thought, or commit an action, the I am responsible. I cannot attribute my actions to another person.
Just because God does not come down from heaven to straighten out your mess dosent make him cruel or evil. Consider that there could be noting more destructive to the psyche of a human than a God that constantly fixed the problems that they created. Ever seen a spoiled child? Imagine an entire race of beings that populated the whole Earth that had that same mentality. For a neat exploration of this theme please read http://jedinite.com/mopi/ about Prime Intillect.
Anyways, regardless of that argument, you are appealing to the wrong deity, in the Biblical sense. According to the Bible, Satan rules this world currently, and the things that occur do so on his watch. In fact, the whole point of the creation of humankind is an object lesson to the angelic beings who oppose God.
Satan postulated that angels and mankind do not need God to exist peacefully. God handed over the world to Satan to prove His point. Satan is now, according to the Bible, trying to institute utopia on the planet and bring in the 1000 years of peace that Christ promised that only He would do. Therefore, if the point of contention is the character of God described in the Bible, and if you agree with the parent, you should be complaining to Satan about his improper rule, not God.
I find it very interesting that the arguments against God and his character are VERY similar (some are identical) to the ones that the Bible describes Satan having.
Why yes, there is a place where all the mistranslations are put into one place, it's called the King James Version.
Kinda menat to be a joke, however, it is not far from the truth. If you study where the King James Version came from and what manuscript evidence was used in its creation vs. what has been discovered since then you would be stunned. Textural criticism combined with tons of older manuscript evidence means that today we have orders of magnitude more detail about the original scriptures.
If you want a good place to learn about the Bible from an acclaimed Hebrew and Greek scholar that taught (he is retired now) at a non-denominational church I recommend http://www.rbthieme.org/. They will mail you mp3 CDs made from your choice of thousands of hours of collegiate lecture type material at no charge, free, gratis. Throughout the lessons there is constant revision of the English versions of the Bible through a sentence-diagram-like approach to the original languages. In the process of hearing the lessons you can even develop a good feel for the syntax of ancient Greek and Hebrew, if you are dilligent.
The lesson catalog is here http://www.rbthieme.org/LessonListingForWeb.PDF/. Each lesson is about 1 hour long and there is no silly singing or speaking in tongues, or AMENS from the congregation. It is like an academic classroom in a military school.
"You can't test its predictions, since it dosen't predict anything"
It does predict things,however to learn the answer as to whether or not it is right...I have to KILL YOU!
Definitely repeatable, however, up to now the results are a bit hard to gauge. Gotta keep trying!
"7. this inaction to prevent said starvation is the same as a direct action to cause it.
The action that caused the suffering was perpetrated by mankind and is therefore wholly different in structure, content, and validity than if God himself had caused it. The reason? Mankind has free will and God has made provisions for the eternal lives of the children that are starving.
"8. deliberately causing children to starve to death is cruel.
MANKIND causes children to starve by his actions, not God. Therefore mankind is cruel, not God.
In essence you have said that since God can clean up our messes easily he should do it even though he did not make them in the first place. You are also saying that God is responsible for the actions of mankind, and that mankind is not responsible for the contemporaneous repercussions of his actions. Please forgive me, but I do not want a God that hovers over the Earth waiting to wipe my ass for me when I soil myself, regardless of how many baby wipes he can conjure out of thin air or how softly he can rub my buttocks. Actions carry repercussions and people have to take responsibility for them, good or bad.
Blaming God for the things that mankind does is an age old ploy. In fact, Satan does this many times in the Bible and with more subtltey and intillect than you have mustered in this attempt(no offence to your mental skills).
Free will is a gift that implies that the reciever can commit actions against the giver. In the case of humans as described in the Bible it also means that the being with free will can make decisions that affect themselves negatively, regardless of the repercussions and their knowledge of them. That is the problem of free will, nothing prevents people from making colossally stupid decisions.
(The following is going to be from the perspective of taking the Bible at its own word about the things it describes.)
Consider that the series of events in Genesis is not the ultimate beginning of history, but only a signpost on the continum extending out to eternity on both sides. Now try to realize that the creation of humans has very little to do with humans themselves and alot to do with a conflict with angelic beings that have existed for countless billions of years before mankind was introduced and God himself who is eternal.
The reason for the conflict? A group of angels postulated that God who is loving could not assign a portion of them to eternal torment regardless of their actions. Humankind was created as a rebuttal to this argument, an object lesson if you will, to teach the errant and faithful angels alike about who and what God is.
God is faithful to mankind in that he made provision for them in all things, regardless of the circumstances that man put himself in. This is an example of how god treats people. He gives them the power to make all sorts of decisions, is a gentleman and dosent stop them from doing what they want, and then provides for them even when they screw up royally.
Another way to think of this is this question...What makes you think that humans deserve perfection? Your contradiction exists because you believe that there is inherently something unfair about the situation you (incompletely) described. However, if we applied the same situation to the microcosm it would be like a homegrown tomato complaining about being eaten. In other words, if something acts in a manner consisten with the purpose for which it was created, how is that a contradiction?
As for the bit about Satan and his undermining, it was not him who excercised bad judgement and worse action by dispbeying God, it was the man and woman. Free will carrys with it the burden of responsibility. If you do something it is yours, you own it, regardless of the cajoling, misguidance, or intervention of another. That people can think otherwise is fascinating to me. IT is almost unimaginable that people can lead themselves to the conclusion that opther people are responsible for their decisions and actions, but...well there it is.
"It doesn't belong in a science class."
Christian here and I couldn't agree more.
It has a place in academia, however, and that place is PHILOSOPHY class where things like this are discussed and deconstructed as rational ideas that need evaluation in a rational manner, as they are not testable in a laboratory.
"One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct"
The problem with people who want to literally interpret the Bible is that most people do not know that Genesis is not the earliest set of events on Earth in the Bible. This and the fact that to literally interpret the Bible you have to literally interpret the original languages, not the English translation of the Bible.
The Bible describes that Satan was in residence on Earth before the garden of eden and the events in Genesis 1. However, since this is not discribed in Genesis, but later in the Bible, most people (especially those who do not study the Bible intensely) do not put it in its proper chronological context. This usually stems from the fact that most people do not realize that the timeline of the Bible runs from a time eons before the Garden of Eden and is not written like a chronological history book.
Secondly, the events in Genesis 1 do not tell us how long Adam and Eve were in residence in the garden before the "Fall". Since man was immortal in the pre-sin state the time of residence could have been immense.
As for people being tested in their faith this concept is silly when they do not have the knowledge of the Bible that that faith is supposed to be based on. This "problem" is epidemic though. The "problem" as I see it is that people are representing themselves as Christians and yet they do nok know enough about their own theology to properly discribe it to someone else, much less line up what they believe with the scriptures that they supposedly hold in such high regard.
My evidence of this is in the religious right trying to legislate morality and introduce things like ID to the school system. These behaviors (activism) are the actions of people trying to help God. This is tantamount to, in a Biblical-thought centric mind, getting out of a flying jet to push; God being the jet.
Some of the principles of the Bible that are in direct conflict with these actions are these: God is omnipotent and does not need our help, the world is currently controlled by Satan by decree of God, government is for providing safety and freedom for ALL the people who live in it, even God does not try to interfere with the free will of mankind, the burden of communicating the Word of God is specifically entrusted to believers (not schools!), faith is the basis of Christianity (not rationalism or philisophical argument). In the face of all these principles that are directly described in the Bible I cannot see how anyone calling themselves a Christian could be party to trying to manipulate the government in this way.
Unfartunately, you are speaking from the perspective of someone who cannot speak with authority as to whether something is a mistake or not.
By this I mean that evolution may have tried another way that seems to you to make more sense and it may have had problems that you are not forseeing, resulting in the present status of the creature in question.
Remember that every faulty design that comes apart at 30,000 feet killing everyone on board was designed by an engineer.
It is all a question of perspective. Unfortunately, ours is limited in the extreme. Humans are still trying to fathom out the biological mastery that our bodies perform instant by instant to keep us observing. Who knows, where we see an error or mistake evolution may have pulled out one of its greatest triumphs. Hard to tell when you're only human.
"What you paint is a vague picture of human doom
Actually, what I did was take numerous examples from contemporary society and world events and also myriad examples of nations throughout recorded history and apply them to the example at hand. In other words I used the established pattern of human behavior that has been unerringly followed throughout history and made a prediction about how things might turn out in the furure. Not too hard to do when you study history.
"What you are saying is that if others fuck up...
Actually you take that out of context. I think the idea of conservation and limiting pollution is great, and I do my part. HOWEVER...what one person can do on the positive side is infinitessimally small compared to the forces on the negative side. The only people concerned with cutting down on consumption are those with the luxury of doing it, and a vast number of those do not even care. That works out to be a really small part of the world.
Regardless, I do participate, but you seem to think that if I ride my bike to work I will save the world for my children. All I am pointing out is that that kind of thinking is moronic. Fundamental changes need to be made in the way that people think and react to reality for environmental concers to become top priority.
Maybe a giant climate shift would wake people up. Unfortunately, if it goes ice age on us I can see people strip mining the USA for all the coal we have (largest coal reserves in the world, BTW) just to keep warm. Imagine what that would do to the environment! In fact, I can see a vast increase in the consumption of resources if we did have a fdrastic climate shift, regardless of the temperature direction. People would throw all caution and restrictions to the wind in an attempt to maintain status quo, or just to stay alive for that matter.
Maybe I am a bit pessimistic, but how can you look at history, the trends of mankind, their treatment of eachother and their world, and think any other way?
"deal with the pressing situation by limiting and managing our populations, our impact on the world, our drain and demand on the limited resources "
Those who limit their populations will be out bred and overrun by those who do not.
Those who limit their impact on the world will be constrained in their development. Those who wantonly pollute will gain an economic and developmental advantage that cona nd will be commuted into a military one.
Those who underutilize their resources or hoard them will be seen as targets for those who need the resources to fuel their comsumption.
In short, if a country places these restraints on itself they will be operating at a disadvantage to those who do not. Eventually, those environmental policies could be the rope that hangs your country.
I agree that it is a noble cause, however we all know what this world and its occupants do to all noble things. They are either perverted to satisfy the ego and the guilt complex and in the process lose their meaning, or they are changed into something detestable by missaplication.
If large multinational treaties are enacted over environmental concers I can see them being used as a reason for military action against polluting nations, or even worse those nations that are deemed to be "misusing" their resources.
This would, however, fulfill your first point: population control. Furthermore, if enough dammage was done to the industrial infrastructure of the invaded country it would fulfil point two and point three as well.
In short, while I agree that the idea of protecting and preserving the environment is fantastic I do not see an efficient way to reach that goal. Sure, we can all take baby steps in our own lives to try to help. However, in the face of clearcutting/slash-and-burn farming in a third of the world, CO2/SO2/NOX emissions in billions of tons, PCB's, pesticides, and heavy metal dumping me riding my bike to work or recycling my plastic dosen't mean jack shit.
I was on the "I hate Paris" bandwagon until last Saturday. Paris was on SNL doing a skit that was absolutely hilarious about geeks that call late-night sex phone operators and talk about all sorts of sci-fi and fantasy/RPG stuff and get off to it.
The operators were perfect. There was the level 8 lawful chaotic druid half elf(soooo ala bloodninja it was even funnier than they expected to me I bet)for the DnD fans, Princess Lea look alike for the star wars freaks, elf chick for Tolkien guys, and Uhura for the Trekkies.
The thing that totally blew my mind though was when Paris doffed a floppy leather hat and a rainbow scarf and said, "Are you a Dalek? Do you wanna exterminate me, baby?" I am sorry to say that I stopped laughing at all the other geeks that got made fun of and went all gooey and warm inside.
I have twice attacked a phone in my lifetime.
Once was when my girlfriend's mother caught us having sex in high school. The phone call that initiated the phone-bashing incident was about 2 hours after that when I got to hear her mother telling her what to say:
Mom: You can never see him again....
Ex-Girl: I can never see you again...
It was like a soap opera with the Jedi mind trick worked into it. Funny and distressing at the same time. The phone met with an unfortunate rapid deceleration incident after contacting a brick wall at a high rate of relative velocity.
The second phone attack was much more fun. I was sleeping in a twin bed, next to the wall, with my girlfriend on the outside of the bed next to me.
In the pitch black of night there is a terrible shriek. My mind is clouded, dim, and limbic from sleep; enraged and disoriented by this hideous sound that keeps repeating itself. It screams once, twice, then on the third keening screech I launch myself over my sleeping girlfriend and land on top of the offending THING. I have absolutely no idea what it is that is making the noise, but I am driven insane with anger that it won't stop. The room is pitch black so I have to feel the screaming thing to find a way to make it stop. I grab it wholly in my hands and start to roughly search for a weak point, squeezing it hard all the while in vain hopes that it will choke and stop. Suddenly I feel a small tail-like thing in my hands and realize with grim and ecstatic joy that I have discovered its weak spot. I grab it, and as it yells again I begin to yank furiously on the tail, over and over.
Unfortunately I have begun to wake up now and by the time I realize just exactly what is going on I am sitting there in the dark, naked, with a phone in one hand and a frayed phone cord in the other, grinning like a madman but with the dawning realization that I have just killed with primal rage...my telephone. My girlfrind turns on the light about this time and looks at me, starteled. Then she fixes me with that LOOK. You might know the one. It is like she is never, ever gonna consider me fully human again, but dosen't want to let me know that she is thinking this in, just in case I decide to fulfil her basest opinions of me.
It still cracks me up to think of how I slaughtered a telephone in my sleep.
"Point is that the Bible is full of authorization to do violence to others
DISCLOSURE: I am not the grandparent poster.
It does in fact. In addition it contains even more prohibitions against violence and violent behavior. Case in point, every point of authorization of violence in the Bible has to do with a firmly defined authority structure of some kind in one of 3 areas: military, law, morality. They are all consequences of transgression of one kind or another that require a response from the individual, the society as a whole, or the lawful individuals that represent society (Judge, "police", soldiers.)
Now, make no mistake, the Bible shows examples of both legitimate and illegitemate expressions of violence. However, if someone is actually concerned with CONTEXT and not just CONTENT they will understand quite easily which is being discribed. Just like a juror who attends a murder trial that may see and hear depictions of extreme violence, they understand that they are not gratuitous depictions for the purpose of glorification of violence. They are there to asist in the determining of guilt or innocnece and ultimately so that they jurors can determine the proper punnishment if the person is shown to be guilty. Similarly, the Bible shows the consequences of transgression in the lives of the people discribed.
I think that this answers your last rethorical question, but if it dosen't let me just say that a story with a moral(for the Bible this is an utterly simplistic discription and woefully inadequade, but we can use it for the purpose of argument) is fundamnetally differnt than a homicidal fantasy in which the participants engage in all manner of socially (forget morally and spiritually for the sake of argument) objectionable acts.
One of the great misunderstandings about the OT is that alot of the described laws were part of the civil structure of the society. They were not just a "divine" mandate to believers, but a structure of societal law like our constitution and code of laws in the USA. They were given by their God, but the unique structure of their society placed God in the position that a monarch would usually hold. So, as God there were laws given that governed morality and spiritual matters, and as the head of the state there were also civil laws concerning society and the function of the judicial system, taxation (tithes), and the regulation of the society. Being as such there were crimes that had a proscribed punnishment, kind of like 3 strikes and you're out, mandatory sentences for DUI, etc. The fact that some specific horrific crimes were punnishable by death is no different than our legal code.
So to your first rethorical question "OT doesn't apply to modern people (care to back that up?" the answer is in many ways, yes it does not apply.
The governmental structure where God occupies the position of monarch is no longer valid for any state. In addition, mandates are given throuought the Bible about subjecting yourself (if you are a believer) to the governmental/authority structure that you live under. This would invalidate the civic portion of the law on two accounts.
As for the spiritual side of the law, some of this has been "fulfilled" by the advent of Christ on Earth, eliminating some required rituals and replacing them with the reality of who and what Christ is and the work He accomplished on the cross. However, if you examine the doctrinal ideas behind the spiritual laws that were expressed in the OT they still apply in this day and age. Respect and reliance on the promises of God above all things, respect for life, liberty, privacy, property, etc. So in this case the answer is yes and no, and you have to study and learn to figure out which is which. The good thing is, once you understand a bit about who and what the God decribed in the Bible is, you can discern the differnce easily.
"Frankly, too many parents are totally IGNORANT
You give people waaaay to much credit. Most of the people I know who allow their kids to play GTA (or other such games) also watch South Park with them and allow them to watch all manner of television and movies. Frankly, I think that too many parents have deficiencies in their ability to judge how their actions will affect their children and society in the future.
[worst case scenario]
I remember parents of my friends in middle and high school who would regularly buy (or SELL!) alcohol and drugs for the kids who came over to hang out at their house. Others would turn a blind eye to the kids who wanted to do these things in their house. Oh, they knew, but I guess they wanted plausible deniability, or they were not completely bankrupt of morals and tried to fool themselves in some weak-ass sickened way.
Anyways, I noticed two things about the people who did this and their children (who now have children!). They actively encourage their kids to engage in age innapropriate behavior of all kinds. Most of the behavior they encourage is personally and socially destructive.
And you wonder which kid told the others about how to run the hooker over after boinking them in the back of the car.
Ignorance is not the problem. I think that too many people just don't give a fuck about their kids.
On a lighter note I was telling my daughters (9 and 7) about responsibility and accountability last night. One thing I realized and then revealed to them was that sometimes, when I did things that they did not like but that were good for them, that I was acting out of responsibility to THEM. Not only them as they are today, but their future selves, the people who will hold me me accountable for my actions and scrutinize my methods with mature intillect and sound, adult judgement.
Then we played Going Postal 2 till 3 AM and I sent them to school drunk.
What if, by a combination of sensory organs and thought processes, a race of alien creatures posessed intrinsic knowledge of a grand unified theory(TOE), etc. Because of this they have fantastic technological advancement from an early time in their history. In addition, they understand that there may well be millions of other races of sentient creatures in the universe. Being curious and gregarious by nature they put up humongous billboards in space to direct other races to their homeworld.
These billboards take a shape that they are convinced couldn't be missed by any inelligent species anywhere in the universe. Using their comprehensive knowledge of physics they create a series of objects that stand out in their surroundings. These stellar objects run the gamut from gas clouds and asteroids, stars and black holes, to pulsars, galaxies and quasars.
Of course the best way to make them stand out is to have them appear normal in almost every way, but make sure that in a few ways that they do not line up exactly with the proper expression of the Theory of Everything. Maybe some of them have gravitation/mass anomolies. Some luminous bodies have strange spectra for their type of composition. Maybe others are out of place in their space-time frame due to artifical placement, like a relatively recent structure galaxy transmitting light from billions of light years away. Or maybe they place a field around a few small solar systems that blue shifts them with respect to every other point in the universe. The deviancies, when plotted and considered as a whole, lead directly to the homeworld of this earliest and greatest of races; one great, big welcome mat spread out for all the creatures of the universe.
Of course the really funny part is that instead of guiding people to them they are just confusing the hell out of everyone else in the universe. Messing up their experiments and evaluation data. Unfortunately, they do not consider that other races do not understand things as they do since their knowledge is so basic and obvious to them.
And that is just one, hopefully entertaining, hypothetical anecdote as to why even if we could find aliens it might be well nigh impossible to communicate with them.
"I see someone attractive walking on the side of the road and the car turns towards her and runs her over!
Or it turns toward her, and transforms in to Optimus Sexbot the robotic love machine!
Any sex crazed 13 year old geek can tell you what happens next.
"In addition, the caliber of people that will actually work for the IRS is not exactly the highest in the world
The first person that I saw win on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" was an auditor for the IRS. This guy was a smooth operator. I actually found myself liking him in spite of the 35% of my income that is stolen every two weeks by those bastards.
The best part of his whole run to milliondom was the last question. He hadn't used any of his lifelines and on the last question he used his "phone a friend." He called his dad and the conversation went basically like this:
Dad: "What question do you need help with son?"
IRS dude: "Don't need any help dad. I know the answer to the question, I just wanted to call you and mom so that you would be the first to know that I won."
Dad: "Good job son, see you later."
The guy was a badass in the geekiest sense of the word. I find it pretty scary that he works for the IRS. Just imagine a bunch his clones coming to audit your ass!
So, in essence, I see no truth in the comment you just made, sorry. The evidence speaks to the contrary.
And now a message from the national apple society:
FUCK PEARS!
I have this fantasy of a day when everyone in America is forced to carry a loaded firearm with them everywhere they go, every day.
I think that, after an initial period of unrest and social restructuring, the remaning people would be polite, courteous, great drivers, mild mannered, relatively sane, and most likely paraplegic.
Why not just get a law degree, and if you don't get completely corrupted by the whole lawyer indoctrination thing, join the EFF and make a difference.
Want more money?
Work for a law firm helping them understand the implications of the new and interesting laws that are being developed and implimented daily with regard to technology, IT, and net-rights, and then use them to exploit the people for profit of the companies that paid through the nose for said legislation.
OR, if you have a convincing smile and a good speaking voice you could become a politician and help dismantle some of the totally fucked up laws we have that are constraining business and technological progress in our wonderful country.
OR, if you want even more money:
And you have a soul as black as the void between stars I am sure that the business interests that are helped, nay DEPENDENT, on fucked up legislation would be happy to offer you seven or eight figures to help pass their next big monopoly inducing law. (insert step 3 here)
I didn't miss the point of the humor, it just kind of fell flat for me. This is most likely due to hypersensitivity on my part to the drastic and gross misinterpretation of the Bible that is prevalent in churches and secular places alike.
When you study the whole Bible from the original languages and also study systematic theology it is very difficult to ignore things that directly contradict the scriptures. Much of what is espoused as doctrine from the mouth of God is actually just people inserting their own opinions into the cracks between the English translation and the original Greek, Hebrew, etc. Getting down to the very basics of things tends to eliminate alot of the ambiguity, however, I find it intersting that many of the most vocal people never get to this step.
On a doctrinal note, Grace is not a New Testament ideal. It is the policy of God toward mankind and is part of God's immutable character. It existed in the Old Testament and is a part of every story, law, psalm, and parable therein.
Also, I do not ignore any part of the scripture. However I also do not read the English words, extract their meaning, and then stop there.
As for the "rib" thing. The answer is quite simple. God had already created life once. He did not have to perform that miracle again. As for any metaphors of how a man should treat a woman because of this relationship, I would think that they are superceded by the various DIRECT decrees that are illustrated and spoken throughout the Bible about how to treat people in general, not just women.
"allow men to have as many wives as they can afford, concubines, especially if they can't get an acceptable heir out of one of the wives, and the women are treated as property with no rights of their own"
Actually this was all forbidden, though, strangely, people did what they wanted to do alot of the time. Strange that they still do this today as well. It's almost as if the Bible was written about real people when you look at it.
If saw the meaning of the Bible you would see that one of the overarching themes of the book is that humans create their own suffering by violating the wishes of God. Polygamy and adultery were not "allowed", and if you fully read the stories where they are described you see that they have consequences. Just like in daytime TV.
As for treating women as property, again you seem to confuse what was proscribed by God and the actions of men. They are two different things. Maybe you make the mistake of thinking that the people described in the Bible are all avatars of God rather than humans with flaws and problems, like all the rest of us.
Funny you mention "Equal Partner." The Bible is filles with statements on equality and inequality. Whether it be intrinsics, aptitude, training, knowledge, prowess, posessions, or training of some kind, we all have things that make us unequal to those around us. To create artificial equality is to disregard that which makes us individual and to cast aside what can make us worthwhile. There are overtones and undercurrents of this theme throughout the whole book. Check out this quote "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female." This is directly referring to the perpetual status of inequality on the planet and pointing to a situation where mankind is finally freed from these restraints. Don't try to read too much into it however, this one gets a little tricky without some systematic theology.
Suffice it to say, if you had read a little deeper into the Bible's stance on how a married man and woman should interact you would have seen that the structure defined in the Bible is symbiotic, with each partner basing their mode of operation toward, and classification of thought of, their partner on a set of principles that makes the individual consider their partner and the principles of virtue first in their interaction. A bit wordy and maybe hard to grasp, but we are talking about something that is an outgrowth of an underlying thought system that takes the whole Bible to describe it. The result is that each partner in the union has a sphere of influence, complete with authority and responsibilities that is unique to that partner. The symbiosis of action and thought meld the two in to one unit. Thus the phrase, "one flesh" heard in the ceremonies. Equality starts to break down when you consider your partner part of your own body; when you see them as an extension of yourself and vice versa, and when you see yourself as belonging wholly to them and them to you. And not only belonging in the posession sense, but in the responsibility sense, in that you are responsible for their growth, health, and wellbeing in every decision and thought that you have.
I find it quite interesting that you know some of the content of the Bible but lack all of the context and meaning.
Thank god for obscurity. By this I mean that as long as there is a "mainstream" OS that most people use, the other OS systems will enjoy being out of the malware spotlight, avoiding the brunt of the attacks.
Elevate your favorite OS to the same market share and desktop percentage as windows and I guarantee that the number of viruses, trojans, spyware, malware, etc. for it will multiply insanely. In short order you will have the same nature of problems, just not with the same exact security holes.
I am not saying that different OS models do not have advantages over Windows when it comes to security, BTW. That would be moronic.
The reason I say this is because people have always done this sort of thing. If there is a way to sabotage, adulterate, hijack, or manipulate something for personal gain or mischief, someone will find out how to do it. Given that the people that have the ability to write code are pretty smart to begin with this just makes the problem that much worse.