Eve is to blame, not Adam

Do not insult the great and mighty Myuu. She will smite you for your wicked laughing.
 
This Is Myuu.

Hey, Let's Not - Whoa, Easy There. Let's Not Get All "my God Is Better Than Your God" Stuff. All Right? No Reason To Get All Uppity. These Glasses Are Real. Myuu's A Lover, Baby, Not A Fighter.

And Sometimes When, You Know, All The Gods Are Out On The Porch With The Gin And Juice - "hey, Zeus, What Up, Playa?" And "lookin' Fii-ine, Sif Baby" And "that A New Chariot, A-po? Bitchin Merc Lead Sled, That's What I'm Sayin" - Sometimes They Get All Raucous-like, You Know, Because Thor Just Got To Be The Top Dog And He's All Like "i'm Going To Get Proto-medieval On Your Ass" And I'm All Like "hey, Easy Man, We're Chillin' An Stuff" And You Just know Crom's Got To Jump In And Be All Grunting And Scowling And Friggin morose. Man. But I Mean, Crom's A Brotha Of A Different Unspecified Celestial Cognitive Phenomenon, And That's Cool With Myuu. Know What I'm Saying?

But There's Times, Man, There's Times, When Crom's Hammered And He's Got To Be So Damn Grim And Unhappy All The Time And He's All On About This Great "riddle" He's Got And How Nooooobody Knows What It Is - ooooh Yeah, Yeah We Got No Idea, Homes, Nobody Figured It Out In Like Twenty Millenia, And Even Loki's Laughing At You. Yeah? Yeah? You Got A Riddle? Yeah? steel, Fuckin steel, Yeah I Said It! Steel! We all Know! My Friggin Grill Is made Out Of The Shit; You Missed that Patent Train, Man? Yeah. Steel. You Want A Riddle? You Want A Riddle? I Got A Riddle For Ya Right Here: "what Did The Five Fingers Say To The Face? slap!" And Slap That Grimy-ass Punk Right In His Mouth. Yeah, You Like Riddles Now, Huh? You Like Riddles? For Shizzat.

...but Just Like, Be Cool That I Said That. Don't Be Telling Him Or Anything. And Don't Tell Hera; That Bitch Can't Keep A Secret To Save Her - What? No, Don't Tell Zeus I Said She Was A Bitch. No, Man, That Ain't Cool. He Said What? He what? Listen, Myuu Has To Hit The Road For Just A Little Bit. Yeah, You Know: Business. Gonna Get Out Of Olympus And Hit The Wild Frontier Of The Open American Road. Wide Spaces, Crazy Hitchikers And Loose Moral Lessons. Look For Myuu's New free Thoughts Thread, "on The Road With A Head Full Of Myuu", Coming Soon.

Peace! (especially To Crom; You Rock, Man!)

Myuu
 
All hail Myuu and her greatness. Myuu I forgive you. Margarita?:D

THIS IS MYUU.

YOUR OFFERING IS ACCEPTED IN THE DRUNKENESS AND INDOLENCE OF MYUU. VERILY YOU SHALL HAVE A PROMOTION TO "EXECUTIVE PRIESTESS". THERE WILL BE NO EXTRA MONEY AND SOME ADDITIONAL DUTIES, BUT INTERNAL AUDITS INDICATE A 37% EMPLOYEE OUTPUT WITH THE RECEIPT OF MEANINGLESS TITLES, AND WHO'S GONNA THROW DOWN WITH THOSE NUMBERS? NOT MYUU. HECK, MYUU WAS JUST PROMOTED BY THE BOARD TO "CHIEF SINGULAR CRANIAL DEITY". MYUU ROCKS!

GO IN THE BUREAUCRACY AND AIMLESS CAPITALISM OF MYUU.

SINCERELY

MYUU
 
Crom is pleased only by valour, but I imagine he is not -dreadfully pissed- that you claimed "he rocked".

I'm going to go out on a limb and say he won't send you dooms.
 
you can quote whatever you wish, but it can not be evidence, unless it is verifiable, scriptures are just hearsay.
 
But it is OK for you people to quote passages from books as a form of evidencce? Who are you trying to kid?

You people? WTF? Have you seen me quote anything lately? No! Then shutthefuckup!! BTW If I quote anything I post the net link! ;)
 
Listen. It's as snakelord said. It's really simple. According to the bible, adam and eve were sans a knowledge of right and wrong. Therefore, just telling them "don't touch that fucking tree" is just stupid. They would have no idea that disobeying gods edict was wrong, so why not just go for it?

Once again, the bible self-reports its own stupidity.
 
I thought God did tell them it was wrong and all that. They didn't know right from wrong per se, but I think the idea is that they could follow orders.

Anyway, allegory at best.
 
I thought God did tell them it was wrong and all that. They didn't know right from wrong per se, but I think the idea is that they could follow orders.

gods orders or the serpents orders? How would they distinguish that god was good, (and thus worth listening to), and that the serpent was evil, (and thus not worth listening to)?
 
I think it was meant as an allegory about the implication of failure of obedience.

Geoff
 
I think it was meant as an allegory about the implication of failure of obedience.

Geoff

Creatures of free will would be a poor choice to create for a God that wants to emphasize obedience.

You are free, but if you don't do what I tell you, I will burn you in Hell forever is the message of a severely ill God.

He wants us to act like robots, but have the capacity not to.

And if you look at many Christians you can see how they try (and fail) to do this.

What an odd thing to try.
 
Creatures of free will would be a poor choice to create for a God that wants to emphasize obedience.

You are free, but if you don't do what I tell you, I will burn you in Hell forever is the message of a severely ill God.

He wants us to act like robots, but have the capacity not to.

And if you look at many Christians you can see how they try (and fail) to do this.

What an odd thing to try.


The hell thing will always baffle me. We are told to "take on the nature of God" by religion. The nature of God??? So we should be extremely hot tempered and instll our wrath at the first person to dissapoint us? We should torture people for eternity if they wrong us?

I'm not sure I want that nature.
 
Creatures of free will would be a poor choice to create for a God that wants to emphasize obedience.

You are free, but if you don't do what I tell you, I will burn you in Hell forever is the message of a severely ill God.

He wants us to act like robots, but have the capacity not to.

And if you look at many Christians you can see how they try (and fail) to do this.

What an odd thing to try.

I suppose. But at the same time one could make an argument for listening to "thee who knows better than me". I don't do my own dental work, since I like my teeth. I listen to my dad, since at 3 he knows better than I do about wandering onto the road.

Now this doesn't get away from the whole omniscience/omnipotence thingy. Especially since But Christians say that's a process of Revelation, and I'm not sure if that stands or not. Anyway, the whole thing is allegory. It's a story. If you're saying literal interpretation of some of these texts is silly, you're preaching to the choir, as it were.

Geoff
 
The hell thing will always baffle me. We are told to "take on the nature of God" by religion. The nature of God??? So we should be extremely hot tempered and instll our wrath at the first person to dissapoint us? We should torture people for eternity if they wrong us?

I'm not sure I want that nature.

I guess. I mean, it's "evil" people who go to Hell, no? Why would you reward people for being evil?
 
I think it was meant as an allegory about the implication of failure of obedience.

Sure, "it's just a story", but that doesn't answer the question, it just obliterates the bible into worthlessness.

I guess. I mean, it's "evil" people who go to Hell, no? Why would you reward people for being evil?

Not specifically, no. People are threatened with hell for even doing unavoidable things like "looking at a woman in lust". jesus tells those people to chop their own eyes out to save themselves from that burning. Gay people are going to burn for being gay. Are they "evil"?

The problem is we would need a 'sin list' that literally encompasses everything that you shouldn't be doing.

Many christians will say using heroin is a sin, (because you're not treating your body like a temple). If we use that example then clearly not brushing your teeth is also a sin for the same reason. Would you be comfortable burning in hell for eternity, (or worse - watching someone you love burning in hell for eternity), because you or they happen to have a poor sense of personal hygiene? Of course I would question what people did before the invention of toothpaste.. The response would probably come in the form of them not eating bad food like we do, so now perhaps we should amend the statement to say that "eating cake is a sin". Would you like to burn in hell for consuming too much sugar? Is that "evil"?

Unless god provides us with a complete list of what is a sin, (relevant to today), then we can never be sure and will never know when we're under threat of fire. Your future relies entirely upon the whim of a being that annihilated all of man and animal kind during one of his bad moods, plagued and killed thousands of people for daring to ask for food, etc etc.
 
Sure, "it's just a story", but that doesn't answer the question, it just obliterates the bible into worthlessness.

How's that?

Not specifically, no. People are threatened with hell for even doing unavoidable things like "looking at a woman in lust". jesus tells those people to chop their own eyes out to save themselves from that burning. Gay people are going to burn for being gay. Are they "evil"?

No. So I'd invoke reasonability there. And again I don't think that message was meant to be literal, unless there were a lot of one-eyed disciples. (Actually, does it say gay people are going to the eternal cook-off?)

Many christians will say using heroin is a sin, (because you're not treating your body like a temple). If we use that example then clearly not brushing your teeth is also a sin for the same reason. Would you be comfortable burning in hell for eternity, (or worse - watching someone you love burning in hell for eternity), because you or they happen to have a poor sense of personal hygiene? Of course I would question what people did before the invention of toothpaste.. The response would probably come in the form of them not eating bad food like we do, so now perhaps we should amend the statement to say that "eating cake is a sin". Would you like to burn in hell for consuming too much sugar? Is that "evil"?

I dunno. In my temple, they eat sugar.

I think you could have some kind a rational rule starting with "don't kill people" and go from there, which is my impression of reasonable Christianity.

Unless god provides us with a complete list of what is a sin, (relevant to today), then we can never be sure and will never know when we're under threat of fire. Your future relies entirely upon the whim of a being that annihilated all of man and animal kind during one of his bad moods, plagued and killed thousands of people for daring to ask for food, etc etc.

Meh, I think you could cook the NT down to the Golden Rule and treat the OT more as a collection of stories about how God gives people who don't like Israel atherosclerosis.

You know. "Hardening their hearts"?

I kill me!

Geoff
 
How's that?

That depends on who you're talking to. Dismissing something as "just a story" wont suffice from or for someone that believes the bible is the inspired word of god - and that is where the debate would lie. If they were to dismiss a part of that word of god as "just a story" on the basis that they cannot adequately challenge the idiocy presented therein, then the whole bible can be seen in the same light and treated as such. I'm good with that, they're generally not. In that respect "it's just a story" isn't an answer, it's an excuse.

So I'd invoke reasonability there. And again I don't think that message was meant to be literal

See my point? The "inspired word of god" turns into a farce, (not for those that do not believe the bible to be the inspired word of a god which I'm good with). However, if these people were right in their assumption that the bible is the word of god then dismissing everything that is clearly problematic leaves us with very little word of god left. It is generally the case that even the hardcore "word of god" folk will pick and mix. Anything they cannot refute or debate becomes "not literal" and that diminishes god's word to worthlessness.

(Actually, does it say gay people are going to the eternal cook-off?)

The OT god clearly expresses his opinion on homosexuality. The NT god, (which some people would argue is the exact same god), states that all the old laws must be obeyed, (not one dot or stroke and those that don't obey them yada yada), and gives specifics concerning those that don't obey. Technically, yes.. in one straight sentence, no.

I think you could have some kind a rational rule starting with "don't kill people" and go from there, which is my impression of reasonable Christianity.

Insufficient. Million Dollar Baby.. Clint kills the boxing woman.. Was it an "evil" or hell-worthy act? "'Do not kill' is too broad, too sweeping. It includes the butterfly that can't and the tiger that can't help it" (Twain). Put basically, it's saying such a command does not take into account every person and scenario.

This woman that wants to die now in England because she has some rare disease thing that causes her abject pain and misery would be a good example. If someone had the right to end her life, (which is killing), would it be an evil act or a compassionate act? So now invariably we should perhaps amend the law to state that "no killing unless the other person wants you to". I suppose then we could example the German guy that wanted to eat someone and managed to find a guy that wanted to be eaten. Because the man wanted to be eaten was it ok to kill and eat him or was there simply something wrong with the man that should have been dealt with in a more appropriate manner?

Meh, I think you could cook the NT down to the Golden Rule

The golden rule being?
 
That depends on who you're talking to. Dismissing something as "just a story" wont suffice from or for someone that believes the bible is the inspired word of god - and that is where the debate would lie. If they were to dismiss a part of that word of god as "just a story" on the basis that they cannot adequately challenge the idiocy presented therein, then the whole bible can be seen in the same light and treated as such.

Actually, this isn't correct. A single factual error - or even a few - doesn't invalidate a text completely. In similar vein, I have many issues with islam - and there are many issues I do not have with islam. What exactly would be wrong with dismissing parts of the Bible and not others? At the least, the NT and OT were written ages apart.

See my point? The "inspired word of god" turns into a farce, (not for those that do not believe the bible to be the inspired word of a god which I'm good with). However, if these people were right in their assumption that the bible is the word of god then dismissing everything that is clearly problematic leaves us with very little word of god left. It is generally the case that even the hardcore "word of god" folk will pick and mix. Anything they cannot refute or debate becomes "not literal" and that diminishes god's word to worthlessness.

How? Why? I would think it possible to believe that not the entire Bible is the word of God. How do you know that "dismissing everything that is clearly problematic leaves us with very little word of god left"? I'm not an expert on the OT (Deuterotomy puts me to sleep, and I'm sorry about that) but I don't think one could beat up too heavily on the NT at the very least.

The OT god clearly expresses his opinion on homosexuality. The NT god, (which some people would argue is the exact same god), states that all the old laws must be obeyed, (not one dot or stroke and those that don't obey them yada yada), and gives specifics concerning those that don't obey. Technically, yes.. in one straight sentence, no.

Does he say homosexuals are going to hell? I don't recall that part.

Insufficient. Million Dollar Baby.. Clint kills the boxing woman.. Was it an "evil" or hell-worthy act? "'Do not kill' is too broad, too sweeping. It includes the butterfly that can't and the tiger that can't help it" (Twain). Put basically, it's saying such a command does not take into account every person and scenario.

Well, the other interpretation is "thou shalt not murder", if it's nit season. But ultimately I understand that the NT message is "Do unto your neighbour as you would have done unto yourself." In that light, actually the "Million Dollar Baby" scenario would work out - the boxer wanted to die. Ergo...anyway, that's what we have consciences for, I would presume. I imagine their religion probably argues to conscience also. No idea.

Anyway I would think that's what we have heads for. And consciences. I don't think constructing rules for each scenario would be realistic for any text

This woman that wants to die now in England because she has some rare disease thing that causes her abject pain and misery would be a good example. If someone had the right to end her life, (which is killing), would it be an evil act or a compassionate act? So now invariably we should perhaps amend the law to state that "no killing unless the other person wants you to". I suppose then we could example the German guy that wanted to eat someone and managed to find a guy that wanted to be eaten. Because the man wanted to be eaten was it ok to kill and eat him or was there simply something wrong with the man that should have been dealt with in a more appropriate manner?

This is getting interesting. Usually I'm on the attack. Hmm, let me think...how about that bit about seeing a poor man and not giving him your cloak? Obviously the guy who wants to be eaten isn't what I'd call well. He needs help. I think it would fall under that category: healing the sick is a bit theme with JC. As for ending the woman's life, yeah I tend to think it would be compassionate. No cure, lots of pain: no hope.

The golden rule being?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Reciprocity. Kindness. Reciprocal altruism.

"Reciprocal altruism"?? Good lord! Was Jesus the first evolutionist then? ;)

Geoff
 
Back
Top