|
Post by umbra on Jan 9, 2006 17:12:34 GMT -5
all pepole like him,. and those whom abuse children should be put in a light white cell, that never goes dark, and starved to death.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 10, 2006 2:54:10 GMT -5
That'll learn 'em. Should we not take into account that this guy probably was abused himself as a child and spent his early life in the same scenario as the children he later came to molest. I'd reserve judgement on anyone until I understood there entire situation, which is why I opose legalised murder: that I'm afraid is exactly what death sentences are. It's against morality and against the new testaments message. Why it still happens is a mystery to me as it has no effect on crime rates? These people are sick and should spend the rest of there lives in mental institutions or prison. That for me is the best way of punishing them, that or hanging them up by the nadgers till they drop off I'm easy.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 10, 2006 12:09:42 GMT -5
You can tell alot about a society bu the way they deal with their children and their prisoners. This one unfortunatly pits the two groups together. As a father I'd say hang him by the nuts, pour honey over him and dump 500 pounds of fire ants on him. As a human the lines are nto so clearly drawn. Society needs to be protected of the likes of these people. I do not beleive these people can change. Is alot of it traceable to events they themselves have endured as children? Probably but...some go through such issues and become empowered strong members of the society. Others turn into predators themselves. There is no doubt these types of events scar the children often in an irreperable manner however a victim cannot be allowed to grow up to become a treath themselves. So back to the point, what does society do? Very complex debate. One thing I do beleive in though is capital punishment should be banned. It is wrong and shows very little desire to understand deviant behaviors. Hell test them for years and try to find out what makes them tick. Make them break rocks, or make license plates so that their "housing" costs are minimal to the society which imprisoned them. Any thing but killing. An eye for an eye and the whole world becomes blind. We all heard this saying before. Even though the original saying had the opposite purpose. I think when they coined this phrase it was meant to eleviate the heavy punishments handed down to persons convicted of crimes. Back when a guy would steal a loaf of bread and then get his hand chopped off They therefore came up with an eye for an eye to ensure that prsisoners not be overpunished and thaty the punishment should reflect the crime. An eye= an eye. Maybe Phan could enlighten us on this part of the code.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 10, 2006 12:20:40 GMT -5
I believe that's pretty much correct. It would have been better written as ONLY an eye for an eye. It doesn't demand that society must administer punishment; it means the punishment should fit the crime.
The early Hebrews had great respect for the concept of justice and rule of law. This was quite revolutionary at the time as the "law" was whatever the king, emperor, despot, wanted to impose.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 10, 2006 14:51:04 GMT -5
Some people are still using their laws now, even if they are 5000 years out of date and at odds with even Israel Oh and every other democratic western country on the planet. Though shalt not covet thy neighbours ox is one example, should be Ferari I supose.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 15, 2006 8:17:52 GMT -5
hmm Phan is very quiet on this topic. I think what we need is a fascist diatribe of self righteous nonsense at this point, telling us all how evil and corrupt we are cause we don't have the same ethical moral or religious codes drummed into our heads that he does. I miss that, call me Masochistic but I really do j/k I often listen to what Phan has to say his world is that very dangerous one of them and us, your either on his side or your the devil. An interesting point of view, but the world has never been fundamentalists vs everyone else. The bible teaches a message of tolerance and understanding, why is it these values are ignored by fundamentalists, and we wonder why these people are so dangerous? They have lost all sight of what there own religion is about, so blindly adherent that nothing else will dissuade them in fact, persecute those who don't agree was often the churches way. Burn the heretics that seems fair. If your religion is so cast in stone that nothing or no one else's point of view matters then your wandering around in the dark as far as I'm concerned, not something that is mentioned in the bible. But ignorance is so often bliss ;D ;D Maybe you should take the parable of Job to heart, maybe that was what it was for?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 15, 2006 9:33:24 GMT -5
Job is not a parable; it is the oldest Book in the Old Testament. I fail to see the relevance of Job to the rest of your message.
As far as fundamentalists go, it depends on your definition. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist. If you are not a fundamentalist than you are a revisionist. Fundamentalists recognize the truths of the Bible and live accordingly. Revisionists can simply revise whatever parts of the Bible they don't like and use that as an excuse for their behavior. They simply convince themselves that "oh, that does not fit with contemporary society".
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 15, 2006 12:00:36 GMT -5
Disagree whole heartedly people can live by the bibles message without resorting to fairy tale and saying the world is 6000 years old and is the center of the universe. A good Christian tries as hard as he can to follow the ways outlined in the new testament and takes comfort from the lessons of the old, if you just take the lessons of the old testament as your bible then you have a myriad of contradictions that make all Jesus tried to do meaningless. If that is the way you want to follow your faith then by all means do so, I think that makes you very delusional but that's your look out.
The idea that contemporary society should not make a difference on your moral code is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard BTW. You can espouse old testament virtues all you like but your really basically living in the past, obeying rules that make no sense, there's no reason why you can't live by the new testaments rules, they were intended to make more sense to a 2000 year old Earth. They superseded the old testament whilst most of the central message remained the same times had changed and the new testament reognized this. Do you see a pattern here? You can't write a bible for the 21st century churches wouldn't tolerate it so your stuck with 2000 or 6000 year old rules that aren't 100% relevant any more. organized religion has the power to do immense good but by being unable to change it can only do harm IMHO.
Job: must of read a different book: Didn't he rail against god, question his methods in order to strengthen his faith? All I meant is maybe sometimes you should question just how ethical taking the bible that literaly is 100% of the time?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 15, 2006 12:37:54 GMT -5
Sidhe, you talk like a dope. Delusional indeed!
One does not have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old to be a fundamentalist, that would be someone who is a literalist.
You really post too much and show ignorance. Show me the Chapter and Verse where Job rails against God. It's not there. The meanings of Job is quite simple and lives forever: Bad things happen to good people and God permits evil to exist in the world. One needs to look for the meaning, not focus on literal details.
I take it you think the Old Testament is irrelevant. You should learn that the Bible is really written as three parts:
Old Testament - Prophecy New Testament - Fulfillment The Revelation - Prophecy again.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 15, 2006 17:28:34 GMT -5
I was referring to Phan rather than you.
1.Job taking liberty of complaint,exspostulateth with God about his afflictions 18 He complaineth of life, and craveth a little ease before death
My soul is weary of my life; I will leave my complaint upon myself; I will speak in the bitterness of my soul.
2. I will say unto God, do not condemn me;shew me wherefore though contendest with me,
3. it is food unto the and though shouldest despise the work of thine hands, and shine upon the wicked?
4. Has though eyes of flesh or seest thou as man seeth?
5 Are thy days the days of man? are thy years man's as man's days?
6. that though enquirest after mine iniquity, and searchest after my sin.
Job chapter 10 vs 1-22
basically.
He eventually comes to see God's greater wisdom but it does no harm to see his plight and understand that sometimes we must question God. I'm using it as an analogy of the dangers of gnosticism(blind faith regardless of evidence, faith at it's most pure, not necessarily a bad thing unless you forget that to improve your understanding of God you need to question your ideas). The bible teaches this message too.
Revelation was written by a lunatic. Today he would have been locked up as a schizophrenic. according to him the world should of ended in 1000 AD but he forgot that Christ gave his life to absolve us of our sins. Some believed we would die in 2000ad, some will no doubt extend this to 3000. Revelations is the rantings of a pious but mad man.
And my point still stands we look for the meaning by accepting that the New Testament is the word of God through his son, that is if we are Christians and that is if we are Jews and believe Christ to be a prophet, eventually they understood his message and relented, a fundamentalist is someone who cannot accept the ideas of Jesus in many ways, it creates great conflict with the old testament, but it shouldn't: understand simply that the book is there as a progression through history and that your attitudes must change to suit history not harken back to the past to prove a tired and irrelevant point.
Of course 99.9% of the tenants of the Old Testament should be followed, but it worries me when people pick the 0.1% ideas and blindly advocate them.
And I have time ATM to post, in 3 weeks I'll have none so I provoke to try and learn some ideas form the good players. I should not be condemned for that except if I annoy or anger someone. Not Phan, like shooting fish in a barrel, but that is my way, to gain better understanding you try to provoke, that way you learn.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 15, 2006 19:18:14 GMT -5
You call that railing against God? He is asking for relief but also expressing his acceptance of his fate.
John of Patmos writing for the New Testament is as much of a lunatic as Daniel writing for the Old Testament. Do not call prophesy lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 15, 2006 19:23:20 GMT -5
kinda but if he accepted his fate why is he stating this? why not just accept god's Divine justice and move on; inherent in his words are a certain irony. Good stuff this BTW whiplash ;D
This is an example of how questioning of your ideas can lead to better understanding of God; and it's an extremely clever one.
Well someone who claims that the world will end in 1000AD, and is then proved wrong is hardly a prophet? The guy was mental, look at the ideas he proposes look how many came to pass in the time frame he claimed, he lost sight of the Christian message of forgiveness and compassion. He went insane and ranted, but because he was closer to God by being insane, he was believed, there is a lesson there. The old and the insane are closer to God according to the bible, it doesn't mean there more credible it just means they are closer to finding God, whether through death or through their suffering.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 15, 2006 22:23:01 GMT -5
My last post on the subject:
There is nothing in The Revelation that says these things will happen in 1000AD.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 15, 2006 23:15:29 GMT -5
Tell that to my Jehova Witness neighbors ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 16, 2006 14:31:50 GMT -5
He's right there it's not explicit but it is hinted at. Which is why the church thought that 1000AD may well be the year of the Apocalypse. Luckily they were mistaken. But it does explain this obsession with the world ending in 1000 yr cycles.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 16, 2006 15:01:59 GMT -5
Which is totally silly. The number 1000 has no more significance than the number 839.
Every number is unique and none have any special significance. If we were created to have 4 fingers on each hand the number 1000 would be equal to what we now call 512.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 16, 2006 15:06:17 GMT -5
I think it had more to do with the signs being interpreted by the church and the chronology in revelation rather than any deep significance in 1000. Although Millenia have always held mystical significance.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 16, 2006 16:24:27 GMT -5
Which is totally silly.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 16, 2006 18:13:20 GMT -5
It was a superstitous age, barely out of the dark ages, can kind of understand it, who knows this may of been politicaly motivated, I seriously doubt it but it would of brought in alot followers. Besides the papalcy declared alot of antichrists in the dark-middle ages, from Atilla the Hun to Saladin to Genghis Kahn.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 16, 2006 23:50:53 GMT -5
Any day at any time we can find "weird" things, coincidences, happenings often we simply dismiss these findings. We. however. we approach certain number or milestones people start seeing these same regular happenings as being meaningful of something else. I mean over at c3c boards someone posted about all the 11's involved in the world today, from 9-11 to bush's birthday, to number of centuries, to number of countries, to length of my #$#$ let's hope inches and not centimeters lol Joking as my wife would chop me in two in order to keep a spare handy. Anyway ya get the point. If we wish to find meaning in something we will. and because of certain dates, we may look a little harder then at other times. Don't make it true but therefore makes it a hotter topic.
|
|