Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Karoka But according to the Bible, aren't lots of the behaviors in the U.S.(Gay Rights, abortion, etc.) against the laws of God? (Sabbath, Dietary Laws, etc.) i'm not at all sure i want to know what abortion has to do with dietary laws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Deuteronomy 28:53 Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. —Alorael, who notes that this is, of course, forbidden on the Sabbath. Too much work involved. (Labor pun here?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sarachim Originally Posted By: Karoka As for continents, I would just define it as one of the seven accepted continents of earth. Then again, someone here will have to argue semantics there. Explain why Asia and Europe should be different continents. Explain why Europe and Asia and Africa should be different continents before 1869. While you're at it, explain why there are four different oceans when there really should only be one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity Then again, any mass of land deemed by enough people as a pickled onion is a pickled onion. No, No, It's: Pickled onion- any onion deemed by enough people as a pickled onion is a pickled onion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Karoka Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: How I fish in mine? Originally Posted By: Karoka According to the Bible, aren't the kingdoms of the Earth controlled by Satan? So wouldn't that mean that they are praising Satan, making them devil worshipers? I am not a Bible scholar. Where does this interpretation come from? Originally Posted By: The Lord's Prayer Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.Thy Kingdom come,thy will be done,in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen. If the kingdom of God is coming, then it wasn't here before, nor is it here now, but it is to come according to the Bible. In Ezekiel chapter 23, it speaks of the prince of Tyrus, and about his wisdom. However, this doesn't seem to be the case in verse 13 and on. This has to mean that it's not describing the literal prince of Tyrus, but the spirit he had, since everything that happens in the Bible is either on the physical or spiritual plane. If you continue reading, this spirit was in the Garden of Eden, is the anointed cherub, and was perfect. It also talks about how this spirit will be utterly destroyed in the future. Only Satan fits this description, as he is the dragon in Revelations who is thrown into the bottomless pit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Wait, what passage is this? It doesn't seem to be Ezekiel 23. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Jerakeen Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sarachim Originally Posted By: Karoka As for continents, I would just define it as one of the seven accepted continents of earth. Then again, someone here will have to argue semantics there. Explain why Asia and Europe should be different continents. While that is a problem, it's not the problem with Karoka's defininition. The problem with Karoka's definintion is that it doesn't allow for the existence of continents on other planets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: The Turtle Moves Originally Posted By: Sarachim Originally Posted By: not Karoka, me As for continents, I would just define it as one of the seven accepted continents of earth. Then again, someone here will have to argue semantics there. Explain why Asia and Europe should be different continents. While that is a problem, it's not the problem with Karoka's defininition. The problem with Karoka's definintion is that it doesn't allow for the existence of continents on other planets. Not sure how that quote got messed up, but I used that definition. And I was waiting for someone else to mention other planets. Well, they just don't get continents. Eurasia is often considered to be a single continent. Those that divide it, however, use the Ural mountains, since they have historically separated to vastly different regions. The cultures and even gene pools of Europe and Asia are different enough, and there is a large physical boundary between the two. I guess that's good enough for most people. Originally Posted By: Dantius While you're at it, explain why there are four different oceans when there really should only be one. Actually, there are 5. Some organization named the waters around Antarctica the Southern Ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 What I want to know is, where are the world's four corners? And which are the seven seas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Seas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_of_the_world long story short: modern seas: The Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. 16th cent. corners:the Americas (the "west"), Europe (the "north"), Asia/Oceania (the "east"), and Africa (the "south"). The addition of the southern arctic ocean kinda bums me because it makes Erich Kästner book's name (The 35th of May) obsolete as a funny non-existent thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Kästner's novel was written in 1931, but May 35th isn't a funny thing these days. It's the standard Chinese way of referring to the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square, which is actually known as the "event of June 4". That phrase is auto-censored in the Chinese internet, though, so May 35th is often used instead. Which may sound a bit hard to believe, but I read it in the New York Times, and you can google it. It seems to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Karoka Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity Wait, what passage is this? It doesn't seem to be Ezekiel 23. I apologize, I meant 28. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Huh; okay. Verses 13-19 do sort of fit the traditional myth of Satan, but the text in Ezekiel explicitly says that they are about the prince of Tyre. The previous two chapters are about Tyre, the end of Chapter 28 goes on to discuss neighboring Sidon, and then the book tackles Egypt. So 28:13-19 do abruptly bring in stuff about Eden and cherubs and such, which seem a bit out of place to a modern reader; but the options are (a) Ezekiel suddenly and without warning threw stuff about a fallen archangel into the middle of a long series of diatribes against ancient middle eastern states, or ( the language about the prince of Tyre suddenly gets allegorical and hyperbolic. Option (a) is really out of character for Ezekiel, and for most of the rest of Bible as well, whereas option ( is quite typical. Anyway, even if there is an allusion to Satan in Ezekiel 28, it would only imply that Satan had something to do with ancient Tyre, not that a republic founded in the 18th century CE was courting Satan by declaring itself to be a nation. As an aside about Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre, I note that this particular text is controversial, as to whether or not it counts as having been fulfilled. Ezekiel's contemporary Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for several years, but gave up and left it intact. Centuries later Alexander did conquer Tyre, and demolish a lot of its walls and buildings — but only in order to build a causeway linking the island to the mainland. Thereafter a peninsula, Tyre has survived many epochs, and remains a major city in modern Lebanon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Karoka Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.Thy Kingdom come,thy will be done,in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen. If the kingdom of God is coming, then it wasn't here before, nor is it here now, but it is to come according to the Bible. The usual understanding is that the kingdom of God or kingdom of Heaven will come, usually as a place of peace and justice, and often heralding the literal rule of God over all the world. Other kingdoms are not the kingdom of God; they're temporal and ruled by earthly kings. Still, a kingdom can be something other than the kingdom of God without being the domain of Satan. —Alorael, who assumes that the seven seas include whichever ones you aren't on right now. You can actually never sail any of the seas, much less all seven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Karoka Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. From this passage, you can say nothing is neutral. There's no middle ground. Therefore if a kingdom is not of God, then it is against God. If it's against God, then it is of the opposite: Satan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 The problem with this kind of proof-texting is that, in the name of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it actually reads human preconceptions into the Bible. The Bible never says that Jesus's words to the Pharisees in the context of exorcism are a universal principle that applies to everything. To take those words out of context, and apply them politically, is to elevate one's own interpretation to the level of divine inspiration. In fact the New Testament directly addresses the legitimacy of secular states in several places, and endorses it explicitly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Even that passage doesn't make that point. There is no kingdom of God on Earth. It hasn't happened yet (according to most interpretations), so not being part of that kingdom isn't failing to be with God. A good kingdom is better than an evil one given the lack of divine alternatives. —Alorael, who thinks the problem is the semantics of "kingdom of God." That's a very specific thing in most interpretations. There will be only one, it does not exist, and it cannot be created by anyone but God. A kingdom can be godly, god-fearing, or good without being a kingdom of god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Wait! Wasn't the garden of Eden on earth? And if so wasn't it a kingdom of god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Dikiyoba doesn't think you can have a kingdom with just two people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Karoka Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 But wouldn't it be possible for there to be other people without having to actually state it? Think about it: There was no reference to the other planets anywhere in the Bible, but they were there. The Bible never talks about how different books were written in different languages, but it would make sense if they were, and later translated into a single language. EDIT: Taking the Bible so literally won't allow you to understand it. Much of the Bible is written to have more than one meaning, like this passage: Originally Posted By: Isaiah 13:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. Obviously, this isn't physically possible. And neither can this literally happen: Originally Posted By: Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 This again is effectively adding to Scripture. Saying, "There must have been X, even though the Bible doesn't actually say so" amounts to saying, "I want you to take my own ideas as divinely inspired." The text says what it says. If God had wanted to make it more specific, presumably God could have. Of course, no Scriptural text has any weight of evidence whatever for people who just don't consider it inspired or whatever. But even people who do consider it inspired have to be very careful in drawing inferences from it. Even if we consider the text to be true, its meaning has not been established in the ordinary human ways, of evidence and argument. So we don't really know what kinds of arguments can be based on it. It's not nearly as simple as deciding whether the text is meant literally or figuratively. It is entirely possible that the text is literal in some respects and figurative in others, or that different parts of it are figurative in many different ways. If a passage is clear within its own immediate context, then this is not such a problem. Beyond that, however, trying to squeeze extra meaning out of the Bible, by indirect argument and far-fetched analogy, seems to me to be the very opposite of faithfulness to Scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Dikiyoba doesn't think you can have a kingdom with just two people. Danny Wallace made his own kingdom. Last time I checked he was only one person. (Edit: Danny Wallace also spent an entire year saying "yes" to every question he was asked. He wrote a book about it called Yes Man, which you may know through the apallingly bad film adaptation. If you can, read the book. It's much better. He also founded his own cult. Because he's that awesome.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nikki Last time I checked he was only one person. Wikipedia says Kingdom of Lovely has 58,165 citizens now. Thus, your argument fails. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Originally Posted By: Nikki Last time I checked he was only one person. Wikipedia says Kingdom of Lovely has 58,165 citizens now. Thus, your argument fails. Dikiyoba. Emphasis added. Also, the wiki page says that 'Wallace declared his flat to be a sovereign nation on 1 January 2005 and he set about populating the micronation', which would imply he founded the kingdom himself before populating it (and, this is true: at the end of each episode of the show, which naturally was aired after he founded the country, there was information on how to become a citizen (which I became, briefly)). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nikki Also, the wiki page says that 'Wallace declared his flat to be a sovereign nation on 1 January 2005 and he set about populating the micronation', which would imply he founded the kingdom himself before populating it Yes, but he intended to expand it and did so. Adam and Eve just hung out and talked to evil snakes. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast VCH Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Originally Posted By: Nikki Also, the wiki page says that 'Wallace declared his flat to be a sovereign nation on 1 January 2005 and he set about populating the micronation', which would imply he founded the kingdom himself before populating it Yes, but he intended to expand it and did so. Adam and Eve just hung out and talked to evil snakes. Dikiyoba. That's not how I interpreted it. If you read it again I'm sure you'll agree that there was a talking lion and then subsequently a whole host of animals that could talk. So Adam and Eve were very much not alone. Originally Posted By: Erasmus Wait! Wasn't the garden of Eden on earth? And if so wasn't it a kingdom of god? As for this, well, I had a nice man and his son come to my door on Sunday. After I invited them in, the man proceeded to tell me that god's Kingdom will replace all Earthly government very soon. So I guess we'll know it when we see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 You may be mistaking The Chronicles of Narnia for the Bible. —Alorael, who finds such confusion unlikely. It is commonly known that Paradise Lost is the Bible, not Narnia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Aoslare Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 On an unrelated note, it's too bad that "come out of the wardrobe" never gained in popularity the way "come out of the closet" did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES On an unrelated note, it's too bad that "come out of the wardrobe" never gained in popularity the way "come out of the closet" did. Probably because it was a British thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Randomizer Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES On an unrelated note, it's too bad that "come out of the wardrobe" never gained in popularity the way "come out of the closet" did. Probably because it was a British thing. Yeah, and it's not like any other language-type thing that originated in Britain became widespread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast VCH Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Has anyone read the screw-tape letters by C.S. Lewis? I found the book to be full of good advise on how to manipulate people. And, If the gay-rights movement had started in Britain, maybe we would say out of the wardrobe instead of out of the closet. On the other hand, I suspect most people in Britain don't own wardrobes, or use the word all that much any way, so maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: VCH On the other hand, I suspect most people in Britain don't own wardrobes... I know nobody from the United Kingdom with a closet. Everybody I have ever known well enough to discover their preferred method of storing clothes has had a wardrobe. Houses in the UK (or at least England - I have no idea what those crazy Scots do) don't have rooms coming off other rooms where clothes can be stored unless the homeowner has too much money on their hands. Just do a quick Google search to see how widely used wardrobes are: if even supermarkets are selling them, chances are they're used by a lot of people. Quote: ...or use the word all that much any way, so maybe not. Yeah, it's pretty much the most common word for referring to wardrobes. See above on how popular they are. Edit: You guys are missing a trick though. Hiding in wardrobes is immense fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Rowen Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nikki You guys are missing a trick though. Hiding in wardrobes is immense fun. Because inside every wardrobe is a Lion giving out swords and shields with a task to kill a witch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nikki Houses in the UK (or at least England - I have no idea what those crazy Scots do) don't have rooms coming off other rooms where clothes can be stored unless the homeowner has too much money on their hands. Not all (American) closets are large enough to qualify as rooms. Plenty of houses have small closets that are more like recessed wardrobes. They aren't great hiding spots, but Dikiyoba suspects they save millions of toes from being stubbed every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Aoslare Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_out_of_the_closet#Sociolinguistic_origin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Rowen Because inside every wardrobe is a Lion giving out swords and shields with a task to kill a witch. well, of course otherwise they'd just be drobes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 These are not the drobes you are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Skwish-E Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I have a peacedrobe in my room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody RCCCL Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 You and your pacifist Furniture! As for Closet, and coming out of, Closet can also mean being secretive or a condition of secrecy, and has had that meaning long before "Coming out of the Closet" became a well known term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 You mean before "coming out of the closet" came out of the closet. —Alorael, who thinks some people are getting confused about etymology. The lion should be handing out armor. A sword's very nice, but it won't stop your robes from getting all cut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Skwish-E Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I had a pacifist van back in the day, too. Big peace sign on the side, carpeted inside, a blacklight tapestry of pegasus in space on the ceiling, little bubble windows on the side, and a "secret compartment" that would not have been very effective at hiding things from the cops if they ever looked. But that was long, long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Articulate Vlish Denizen of Terrestia Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 When I saw this thread, I immediately thought of aliens and Will Smith for some reason.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Skwish-E Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 "Welcome to Earth!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Karoka Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I still don't get why our planet is named after dirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Sudanna Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Cuz it is dirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 It's 98% Earth, 1.7% Water, 0.3% Air, and trace amounts of Fire. So Earth wins. (All values wildly approximate.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity It's 98% Earth, 1.7% Water, 0.3% Air, and trace amounts of Fire. So Earth wins. (All values wildly approximate.) But what about aether? SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN AETHER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Ether, aether; nether, naether. Let's call the whole thing off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Science can explain anything. Some of you aren't ready to hear the explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Skwish-E Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 The planet is made out of stuff. Everything is made out of stuff. Some things have stuff stuffed closer together and tighter into them, so they are heavier. Some things have less stuff in them, and as such are lighter. A complete vacuum is the absence of stuff. A black hole is where stuff is stuffed so close together that it attracts all the other stuff it can reach, and won't let any stuff escape, even the stuff that light is made out of. This is the theory of everything. It's all stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.