kblackthorne

Stout Theist. And, BTW, I really like your categories.

I feel old when FerriS Beuler is "Classic". Here I thought we were talking things like "The Aweful Truth", "His Girl Friday", and "Some Like it Hot"! But if we're considering 70's-'80's as "classic", then... Better Off Dead Real Genius GhostBusters! Python... any Python, but we're quoting Holy Grail a lot lately... Raising Arizona

Um, wrong. It says right there in Gen. II: 4-7, it states a chronology. And again in Gen. II, 18. Saying otherwise (when the chronology is right there in front of you -- go read it!) is just plain ridiculous. It is sad that some people feel the need to deny what is written in this book. In my experience, that most often happens when one is trying to defend the literal truth of something that was never meant to be taken literally.

For those who asked what my point was, it is this: According to the Bible, which was created first, Man or animals? According to Gen. 1, it was clearly animals. (Man was the pinacle of creation.) According to Gen. 2, it was clearly man. (Man was among the first of creation, and all else was created for his benefit.) Now, how is that not a contradiction? (Sneezer, it probably won't show up in your book, since it is not specific to the King James Version. It is simply -- as is found throughtout Genesis -- two versions of the same story.) As for saying that evolution & God are incompatible... are you really going to place limits on the methods God is allowed to use? Science is how. Religion is why. Are you really going to tell God that He can't use a particular tool (evolution, Maxwell's equations {or whatever the correction of them is}, etc) simply because it offends you? ~laughter~ I didn't think so.

This is a perfect example of why the Biblical stories must be considered in their context. It wasn't just a test: It was a lesson. In that time and place, in neighboring tribes, it was customary to offer one's first-born as a sacrifice to the gods. (There was a specific deity involved, but the details escape me at the moment. I can try looking it up later.) This was simply accepted as what was demanded by deity. So here is Abraham, whom God has furnished -- against all expectation -- with a son. And then... the time comes, as he dreaded it would, to make the sacrifice. So a dutiful Abraham prepares to do so. It's really what he expected all along, and all God's previous promises couldn't erase that certainty from his mind, because this is just what the gods demanded. He knew this. But that wasn't what God was demanding. In fact, God was showing him a completely different way to serve. But there wasn't much short of divine intervention at the moment of sacrifice that would have convinced Abraham that this wasn't his duty. And that is the true miracle of the story. It is not about some cruel being demanding ultimate sacrifice, then going, "Just kidding". It is about teaching a culturally-conditioned follower that the things he thinks are demanded of him... are not the things God demands.

Here's what I read in Chapter 2: Gen II,5-7: God made man. (It specifies that God made man before there was field, shrub, grass or rain.) Gen II, 8-9: After God made man, He made the garden (Eden). Then He made trees. Gen II, 10-14: God makes some rivers that are highly important in the Ancient world, along with precious metals & stones. Gen II, 18-20: Well after Man was made, God made the animals as companions to man. Gen II, 21-25: None of the animals were a fit mate for Man, so God made woman from man's rib. Will you please confirm that your Bible matches mine in this?

Yes, that was Chapter 1. Now read what order it says in Chapter 2.

Both, actually. Anyone who can find this will have my profound gratitude. I also think the story itself (or as much as I've been able to paraphrase) is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Sneezer, I'd like you to do an exercise for me. Get out your Bible, and turn to Gen. 1. Read it, and write down what order things were created in. Now turn to Gen 2. Read it, and write down what order things were created in.

Some years ago, when we were all in college, my roomate's fianc

Sneezer, A Sadist is one who enjoys causing pain to others. It is otherwise defined as "delight in cruelty" or "excessive cruelty". Muad Dib, Your logic is flawed. First, you try to say that because no human is perfect then God (who us usually defined as, among other things, a perfect being) cannot be perfect. Then, when it is pointed out to you that God is not human, you claim that still doesn't make God perfect. Nor does that argument make God imperfect, or in any way even imply God's imperfection. You must present an actual argument to be taken seriously. Why do you feel it would be hard for God to be perfect -- and (as your post indicated) harder for God than for someone else?

Um, how, exactly, would you go about forbidding private prayer (in schools or anywhere else)? I can see prohibitions on public prayer, but that's an entirely different matter. Private prayer is not -- and by its nature cannot be -- prohibited or restricted anywhere. Trust me -- you can't stop me from praying where & when I choose! And I don't believe anyone has the magic camera to look into my head & see if I'm in conversation with the Divine, yet! As for Bush's good intentions, I judge the man by his actions, not a few pretty words in a speech. As Governor of Texas, he opposed Head Start. He promoted the use of the death penalty on a mentally retarded individual. He chose to "get tough" on welfare by ending the allowance for each individual child (which, in Texas, was $38.00/month). He is not concerned with the poor or downtrodden... except when it makes him look good. Talk is cheap. Whiskey costs money.

Can I play? ;D 1. Are you single? (as in do you have a girlfriend/fiance/wife please don't tell me about any "boyfriends", lol! ) By that definition, yes. 2. If you had a girlfriend who felt you were spending too much time on your computer, would you still hang around here? Yes. She said spending too much time, right? She didn't say "I'll leave you if you visit there". (I hope!) So it's not a choice between forum or her. 3. Heck, would you even choose to hang around if you had a girlfriend? Probably. My online life has little to do with my social life. 4. is the reason why you post in here because you don't have a girlfriend? Um, no. 5. Lastly, if you answered YES to #1, do you think your chances of getting a girlfriend are negatively impacted by spending a lot of time here? No -- I think they're negatively impacted by my having a husband to whom I am faithful. ~general raspberries~ (And no, I haven't been offended -- just entertained!)

Hm... I think there's a difference between "Revisionist History" (which implies knowingly & deliberately changing facts) and the sorts of things you are describing with King & Kennedy, which involve, rather, "compartmentalizing" them. (Public, heroic stuff in this slot. Private, dishonorable stuff in this slot.) The flaws of these men are known. But they also accomplished impressive things, and in those things serve as role-models. Then again, I am capable of admiring, respecting, & looking up to someone who isn't perfect. Good thing, too, since none of us are perfect. Hmmm... The more I think about it, the more I think your implied complaints of "revisionist history" tearing down heros is the back-end of the same process. Reminding people of the flaws of these role-models that have been -- in many ways -- turned into Saints in the popular imagination. When historical figures begin acquiring folklore ("Who cut down the cherry tree?"), certainly the record should be set straight. As for judging the past by our current standards... which ones? Yours? Mine? Jewish? Christian? Those of some native on a Pacific Island who beleives head-hunting is good for his tribe? The only standards that can realistically be used to pass judgement on an action are those of the individual performing that action. And while we can never know the mind or conscience of another individual, we CAN do everything we can to understand the cultural context they came out of... which can shed a great deal of light on their actions. For example, if a person comes from a culture where there is a single dominant religion, and that religion teaches, "Thou shalt not kill", we can be fairly safe in assuming that it was an ideal for them. Then again, a study of the time/place they were from may show us many times when killing (since this is my example) were permitted or even required. (The stoning of the adulterous wife in ancient Judea, the execution of the traitor, etc.) But, again, we must use the standards of the time & place. Otherwise I might be condemned for wearing my hair uncovered as a married woman. And you might be condemned for failing to offer a proper sacrifice to the health of some tribal god-king or god-emporer. (Such acts were considered the duty of all loyal -- refusal was an act of disloyalty against the state as well as a religious offense. See: Rome) Yes, we can look back on History, and say, "These were the delimas they faced", "This act was terrible", or "This act would be considered wrong today for these reasons". But to try to apply a morality that would be foreign to those it is being applied to is... pointless.

Edric, It isn't. I've posted in at least one other thread, and wanted to post in another, but didn't have time to finish reading that thread. (And jumping into something that long when you haven't bothered to read it is both stupid & rude.) Ever join a forum & suddenly discover you have NO time to hang out online? I've hardly even been keeping up with my email. But I felt it would be rude/unfair of me to abandon this particular discussion, since I've been rather vocal. So I've checked back frequently, so that if someone (such as yourself) had something to say to me, I could actually respond. Fortunatly, things at work are improving & the servers, so we can actually get work done during work hours... and the chaos that has been my after-work life for the past few weeks should settle down in a couple more weeks. (Work stabalizing will help that. I spent all day Saturday on call, and put of plans until Sunday, only to be called on Sunday! ::) )

Caid Ivik, ~looks frustrated~ I think we're running into a language-barrier issue here. You seem -- from your last post -- to be talking about Satanists, while everyone else is talking about Wiccans, which are a separate group. ~looking more frustrated~ And since I speak no Slavik, I have no way to go to you in your native tongue (as you have come to me in mine) to see if this is the case, and to try to explain the difference. (I have a profound respect for those who are even semi-fluent in more than one language -- they've accomplished more than I have. I am floored by some of the people I have known & worked with -- from places like Thailand & Poland -- who speak 3 or 4 languages. At my best, I was only ever semi-fluent in Quebecquois French, and lost that a long time ago.) But in general, those who practice the ritual called the Black Mass (which is a deliberate mockery of Christian ritual, and requires the presence of a defrocked priest) call themselves Satanists -- not Wiccans. In fact, they will deny being Wiccans. Somewhere around here, I have a reference on the history of the "Black Mass" that effectivly questions whether it has ever been performed except "for show" -- that is, "Hey, if you pay $50.00, I can take you to watch some people performing a Black Mass!" But it'll take some researching to find... I think I can narrow it down to one of 3 books, but one of those is thick, one is a library book. Guess it's my day to be frustrated. Anyway, I WILL look for it & post the info for anyone who's interested in the history of such things. {And it is purely history, not "how-to".} It may take me a while to find my source, however, as I remember this was only tangentally related to the main topic of what I was researching. So tangentally that I didn't bother researching this issue further...

;D Last time I saw this, it was regarding the Enron fiasco, so a number of these weren't on it.

Edric O, I am glad you have corrected your oversight. :) My household places great stock in the value of sincere public apologies for public wrongs, so I know it can be difficult sometimes to do -- having been there. I congratulate your honesty of spirit in doing so.

Caid Ivik, Why do you assume I have knowledge of Wiccan rituals? I have claimed no knowledge of such -- I have simply asked you where you came by yours. I do realize the difficulties of dealing with a language-barrier here. Additionally, newspapers are rather ephemeral things, created to be read and destroyed. If I read something in the paper last week, and wanted to look it up again, it would be quite difficult. (As I discovered recently with a great-aunt's obituary!) My questions about the article itself were more to make you think. About the article itself, and its value as a source of information. You yourself admitted you thought it might be propaganda.... Now, that may have just been a caveat, or it may have been an actual doubt. I have no way to judge from over here -- no tone of voice, no body language... things that would be much more ovbious if we were in the same room. But I have seen respcetable newspapers publish articles that were pure sensationalism on occasion... and here in the US, "independent" papers are usually hugely slanted towards a particular agenda. (Not that they often don't have excellent articles & good reporting. But they also have a larger slant than most.) So it seemed resonable to question how such a sensational topic was addressed. My questions were aimed at helping you evaluate the worth of the information. This reporter witnessed a ritual. Your phrasing makes me ask, was he invited, or did he intrude? Was it explained to him? He spoke to one Wiccan -- why not more? And what did the Wiccan say about the ritual, the purpose of it, and the name by which the reporter called it? What, may I ask, was the context of the article? Did the reporter know what (s)he was talking about? Did (s)he interview Wiccans, witness a ritual? Or was it just hearsay? It was an article for full page, I won't translate it for you all. Also, I don't store every old newspaper. Reporter used word "orgy" (in slovak "orgia") when he was talking about ritual what he has seen. He used it as name for it, I can't remember everything from it. You can explain it more deeply, if it's a best word for your ritual. He witnessed it, also he talks with one cult member. I don't think SME writes fictions. But correct, if you can.

Let us clarify: Are you trying to be sarcastic to me, because I asked others to cite their sources of information? I have done so. Rather specifically. I'm sorry you do not like my source material. Are you claiming that Catholics & Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian? What is your basis? Are you claiming to know my religion? Again, on what basis?

My sincere appologies. I missed this line: What, may I ask, was the context of the article? Did the reporter know what (s)he was talking about? Did (s)he interview Wiccans, witness a ritual? Or was it just hearsay?

I just think that if you're going to accuse a group -- particularly another religious group -- of a particular activity (especially a negative one) you should have some basis for it. And you should be able to point to that source of information. If I were to claim that Earthnuker (just to pick the last person to post) had sexual relations with bunny rabbits, you would want to know the basis of that claim. (And no, Earthnuker, I'm not claiming any knowledge of your species, let alone your sexual habits!) Likewise, I have asked for the basis of the claims that have been made here about Wiccans. And been told that I need to prove otherwise... I am not the one making claims. (The only claims I have made are about the behavior of individuals in this particular thread.) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." If these claims are valid, it should be quite easy to point to an information source. If they are baseless (false witness), then, of course, that evidence will be harder to produce. None of my comments were intended for Christians, for I have yet to see much evidence of Christian behavior here. On the contrary, I have seen a number of people acting directly counter to Christ's instructions. I have also noticed that it seems quite acceptable on this board to make defamatory claims about a group & individuals, and -- when these claims are proven false -- not to appologize. Again, a lack of Christian behavior -- from folks screaming about how Christian they are. It shows a certain... lack of repentance. A certain determination to continue in lies & hypocracy, once it is no longer being pointed out. When it is discoverd that a claim cannot be supported, words are re-defined. (The new definition is never stated, nor what it refered to clarified. We are simply told it does not mean what it means.) Yes, my friends, the Prince of Lies walks proud on this thread. Surely, he must be proud of his handiwork -- to have men who spout the name of God spreading lies, and claiming it is in God's name. Perhaps some of you need to go take a long, hard look in the mirror before you indulge in that hedonistic pastime of indulging in false moral superiority. (It feels good, doesn't it, to rant about those nasty Wiccans? Why bother with checking that what you say is actually true...)

Thank you. (My problem is that, for me, this kind of forum bears far more resemblence to the spoken than written word. My own mental weirdness. ~shrug~) So, then, it sounds like we have nothing here but groundless, hyporcritical accusations. Since I have yet to see a single accusation backed up by fact.

I'm just asking where this knowledge comes from. Are you telling me you cannot back up what you claim? What is the basis for the reference to Wiccan orgies? Or is it merely slander?

This is the basis for your reference to orgies, and that the goal of said orgies is pleasure? My... I didn't see any of that in what you posted!