On 7 Jan 2009 16:03:11 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:22:09 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
>
>As you should probably remember from an earlier discussion along these 
>lines, I'd be happy to do an incantation for you to increase your 
>understanding as reciprocity for yours. :-)
>

No one asked me and I refuse nothing except blows. I think that I will sulk :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:11:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 7 Jan 2009 16:03:11 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:22:09 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
>>
>>As you should probably remember from an earlier discussion along these
>>lines, I'd be happy to do an incantation for you to increase your
>>understanding as reciprocity for yours. :-)
>>
>>
> No one asked me and I refuse nothing except blows. I think that I will
> sulk :P

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have to do it
> > yourself. ;)
>
> I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that before.

Tongue in cheek?

This discussion already became incredibly convoluted (again), but I'll answer
your question.

> >> If you were talking to a strange man, like at a bus stop or a restaurant or
> >> something, and you realized he's gay and hitting on you. How would you feel?
> >> What do you think would be your visceral reaction? (If it has already
> >> happened, what *was* your reaction?)
> >
> > I'm a pretty humorous guy, but also quite shy.  I'd probably just ignore him.
>
> I'm asking what you'd feel inside. What would be your gut emotional
> reaction?  Just curious... if you don't mind answering.
>
> > If you want to know if I would punch the guy, then no, most likely not.  I like
> > balance, not conflict.  Or counterbalance. ;)
>
> No, I'm asking whether you'd be pleased, disgusted, afraid...

Neither of these options.  More like awkward.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have to do it
>>> yourself. ;)
>> I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that before.
> 
> Tongue in cheek?

No. God tempted Job, hardened Pharoh's heart (hence putting obstacles before 
Moses) and tried to get Abraham to refuse his orders by making them odious.

I haven't any idea what employee you're talking about, but Satan wasn't 
doing any of those things.

>> No, I'm asking whether you'd be pleased, disgusted, afraid...
> Neither of these options.  More like awkward.

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed,  7 Jan 2009 13:51:56 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, people choose.  Many jews in the middle ages burned because they did not
>> convert to Christianism.  How many early christians became lion food for
>> choosing to remain faithful?
> 
> Do people choose to be man or woman, black or white? OK some people may choose
> to have a gay lifestyle but others chose to repress it. I wonder which is
> healthier. 

Well, one thing is certain, being "forced" to by family, or even 
abandoned/thrown out, according to studies, causes a "drastic" increase 
in drug abuse, high risk sex, and other negatives. Basically, if you 
treat someone like shit for who they are, they feel like shit, and the 
worse you treat them, the more they seek "other" things to distract them 
from your hate. Those that "are" accepted by their families, however, 
show no more risk in any of these factors than a "straight" person in a 
loving family. Odd that, if what they where doing what so "twisted and 
wrong", as some people would suggest, that every other kind of sin would 
logically follow...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Actually, isn't the entire Jewish faith based on Abraham overcoming a 
>>> giant
>>> obstacle put in front of him by God? Namely being asked to sacrifice 
>>> his son?
>>>
>>> And who was it that hardened Pharoh's heart again?
>>
>> Sometimes you can't ask your employees to do the job for you, you have 
>> to do it
>> yourself. ;)
> 
> I'm confused. Satan is God's employee?  I'm not sure I've heard that 
> before.
> 
In point of fact yes. In the original OT, Satan was simply the angel 
employed to do sick and evil things to people, as a test of their faith. 
There is however a few "other" middle eastern religions, like 
Zoroastrianism (no it has nothing to do with Zoro), and others, in which 
there was an "anti-god" of sorts, who was in constant battle against the 
powers of good. In one of those, Yahweh, which is considered a synonym 
to the Christian god, for some reason, is actually one of three sons of 
the one real god. All three messed up, and had their kingdoms taken 
away, apparently Yahweh for the reason that he was a war monger. In 
another, one named Ahura-Mazda is said to be fighting an eternal 
conflict with  Ahriman, who is out to devastate the universe by filling 
it with evil. These all co-existed in the same region, at the same time, 
and borrowed from each other, which is why the Jewish based faith has 
tales taken from earlier faiths, like those of the Sumerian people, 
rewritten to "fit" their mythology. Its also how, when Rome suddenly 
needed an excuse to convince "everyone" to follow their new Christian 
religion, they arranged for Satan to invade heaven, got thrown out, and 
take Hades over from the Greek Gods, renaming it Hell, then slapped a 
bit of Mazda vs. Ahriman on top, to make it look like this was all going 
on from the moment the serpent supposedly sold Eve on some apple.

It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
the one that claims it. And even then, it contradicts itself, by having 
God, in cases like Job, sending Satan around to piss in people's cereal, 
to see if they will continue believing in him, despite his being a total 
bastard.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
> adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
> the one that claims it. And even then, it contradicts itself, by having 
> God, in cases like Job, sending Satan around to piss in people's cereal, 
> to see if they will continue believing in him, despite his being a total 
> bastard.
> 
Oh, and to be clear, this is the interpretation of events Christians had 
on who Satan was, before they started figuring out that it didn't make a 
whole lot of sense, so had to do what they always do, and either change 
a few "minor" words (Good one is how Latin replaced the word for "soul", 
as in the "person", and the word for "that which animates, but does not 
live", with some version of "spirit". Not a big deal, unless you are 
trying to argue about when the soul "exists" in a body, and the ancient 
Hebrew implies it can't unless the body has blood in it, since the 
"soul" lies in the blood...), or adjust the footnotes, so everyone would 
know the "correct" interpretation. lol

Unfortunately, for some really odd reason, a lot of people that "do" 
read the original texts, compare them with other faiths, and study the 
complex histories behind them, kind of end up... a lot less religious. 
Its almost as if "reading" any other books makes the whole thing look 
absurd and silly, or something...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In point of fact yes. In the original OT, Satan was simply the angel 
> employed to do sick and evil things to people, as a test of their faith. 

That's what I figured, yes, but I didn't think anyone who thinks God is 
loving and kind would admit it.

> It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
> adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
> the one that claims it.

Not even then, actually. God's a right bastard in the very first story in 
the Bible, and pretty much keeps it up thru the old testament at least.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's 
>> adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is 
>> the one that claims it.
> 
> Not even then, actually. God's a right bastard in the very first story 
> in the Bible, and pretty much keeps it up thru the old testament at least.
> 

Not exactly rational and sane in the NT either, though maybe he was off 
his meds the day he had a fit and cursed a fig tree for not giving him 
fruit when out of season? lol And the whole mess of the "visions" that 
some wacko added almost 100 years later to produce "revelations"...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > In point of fact yes. In the original OT, Satan was simply the angel
> > employed to do sick and evil things to people, as a test of their faith.
>
> That's what I figured, yes, but I didn't think anyone who thinks God is
> loving and kind would admit it.

Actually, in the original take, Satan was God's eyewitness of people's sins and
prosecutor.  Lucifer has some strange origin referring to the "Evening Star".
Many myths, legends and tales as told in the Bible are figurative, I don't take
them literally.

God is loving and kind.  To those who live by his Laws, anyway.

Yes, Job lived by His Laws and was a righteous man and yet Satan is accounted
for putting him into trial and prosecution before God under the accusation that
he was only loyal because God would not let nothing bad happen to those of
faith.  Thus, God *allowed* for Satan to tempt Job.  Despite all the tragic
events Satan would put in his way, he remained loyal to God.  He was later
blessed a very long and wealthy life after the events.

That's it, you can see it as a moral fable if you will...

> > It only looks like a consistent fable, in which Satan was always God's
> > adversary, if literally the "only" religious history you ever read is
> > the one that claims it.
>
> Not even then, actually. God's a right bastard in the very first story in
> the Bible, and pretty much keeps it up thru the old testament at least.

The one in which He creates light?  Yeah, cheap bastard...

Post a reply to this message