You mean daddy longlegs, and they are venomous.Mr.Philip said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_spider
Contrary to Popular Belief
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_spider
Oh not at all, in fact I'm at university studying philosophy, one of my main areas being religion, so as long as we can keep it friendly and intellectual I'm fineSpanishax said:
I didn't really have time to go over your links (I'm actually supposed to be working on an essay due tomorrow) one point from your post that did strike me is that you said he didn't come to void ALL the Old Testament, and mentioning that some of the Old doesn't apply to modern society. I take from that that he's, if you'll forgive the use of a potentially emotive phrase, cherry-picking in that he's taking the bits that are more geared towards his own message and using that message to overwrite the bits that go against that.
The issue I have there is that in the quotes that I mentioned, he seemed pretty dead-set on keeping it as-is; "not an iota, not a dot", "not the smallest letter will change", "not to abolish, but to fulfill", "not the smallest part, or the smallest of a letter will pass" all seem to be saying not that we should keep the general principle but some of it needs to change because it doesn't apply or conform with the message of love, but that every single part of the Old Testament and everything contained therein was to stay exactly as strong as it had been, exactly as relevant, and that "not to abolish, but to fulfill" quote seems to say that, if anything, he wanted to strengthen the law that came before.
I apologise if this is covered in your links (I'll look at them once this essay is handed in and give a more informed reply then) and also it occurred to me that I ought at least say something about the websites I linked; specifically the "evilbible" one, sorry about that I just googled "jesus on the Old Testament" and took the first few links that came up with. Not exactly what I would've called it, in the interests of keeping an open dialogue
Indeed that is where many scholars seem to be circling. Many would say that he just means that nothing should be changed in the Bible just because he said that the law has been rewritten, whereas others would say that the laws are still technically in effect, but we have been "delivered" from them (so, in essence, they still don't apply to US directly). Some are saying the translation may also be a little misleading (by which I mean in other translations he's saying that the entire Bible itself will not be removed from this world until the end (which has still held up, because every person that's tried to get rid of the Bible has met an unfortunate end)).undeadexistentialist said:Oh not at all, in fact I'm at university studying philosophy, one of my main areas being religion, so as long as we can keep it friendly and intellectual I'm fineSpanishax said:
I didn't really have time to go over your links (I'm actually supposed to be working on an essay due tomorrow) one point from your post that did strike me is that you said he didn't come to void ALL the Old Testament, and mentioning that some of the Old doesn't apply to modern society. I take from that that he's, if you'll forgive the use of a potentially emotive phrase, cherry-picking in that he's taking the bits that are more geared towards his own message and using that message to overwrite the bits that go against that.
The issue I have there is that in the quotes that I mentioned, he seemed pretty dead-set on keeping it as-is; "not an iota, not a dot", "not the smallest letter will change", "not to abolish, but to fulfill", "not the smallest part, or the smallest of a letter will pass" all seem to be saying not that we should keep the general principle but some of it needs to change because it doesn't apply or conform with the message of love, but that every single part of the Old Testament and everything contained therein was to stay exactly as strong as it had been, exactly as relevant, and that "not to abolish, but to fulfill" quote seems to say that, if anything, he wanted to strengthen the law that came before.
I apologise if this is covered in your links (I'll look at them once this essay is handed in and give a more informed reply then) and also it occurred to me that I ought at least say something about the websites I linked; specifically the "evilbible" one, sorry about that I just googled "jesus on the Old Testament" and took the first few links that came up with. Not exactly what I would've called it, in the interests of keeping an open dialogue
Me, I prefer to go by all the OTHER passages that state that our sins are in fact forgiven and thus we have been "removed" from under Mosaic law. The reality remains that even IF we were still supposed to uphold Mosaic law, we couldn't punish anyone for their wrongs anyway ("do not judge, lest ye be judged"); we would be expected to forgive and turn the other cheek. Basically Jesus rendered the law void because HE wanted to deal with the sins of man, and to point out that man was NOT God. He is sinless, and therefore that situation would be much less of a pot-calling-a-kettle-black scenario - everyone has their own transgressions.
If God still considers homosexuality to be a sin, then that is HIS domain, and he will deal with it on his own accord. I myself am asexual, and have been called an "abomination" by other Christians, simply because I wish to die alone; that I'm not following God's path. To them I say, "Foul scallywag, what wouldst thou know of righteousness?" ... Or, you know, something less dramatic and Elizabethan.
I fully embrace people of ALL sexualities, creeds, religions, races, traits, and etcetera, as that's EXACTLY the message Jesus taught. Love and tolerate!
The eye for an eye thing annoys me as well. The idea is it's an eye for an eye AND NO MORE. It's to limit things.TAGM said:
Actually the New Testament does speak of homosexuality fairly clearly, in Paul's epistles. Moreover the law which Jesus said was done with is largely considered to be the Jewish -purity- laws; laws made specifically to designate the Jews as God's chosen people, like standards of eating and dress. Jesus' message was for everyone, therefore these laws aren't relevant any more. The morality law still applies, as far as I can see, but it's a subtle distinction.Spanishax said:
Also, the "Do not judge lest ye be judged" is a similar statement to the "You tell your neighbour he has a speck of dust in his eye, but neglect the log in your own" thing. It's not stating that you can't disagree morally with a person's behaviour, it's stating that you are in no position to stand and judge them for it, as you're just as bad if not worse than they are (But often in a different way).
I do agree though, that Christians ARE meant to love and tolerate the shit out of everyone. One of the most core tenets of Christianity is that anyone can be saved if they accept Jesus as saviour, and it pisses me off how people make that into "Anyone apart from X group which I don't like". You don't have to agree with people over their morality, but you damn well have to give them a chance.
So yes, another common misconception - you can hold more conservative views of morality without being a hateful, spiteful little homophobe/redneck/Westboro/whatever.
Myself and undeadexistentialist just had a fairly lengthy conversation about this exact topic throughout this thread. It is actually stated several times in the Bible that we have been "delivered" from Mosaic law, and that it no longer applies (Jesus brought new laws). But we are not to forsake the Old Testament, as it is still very important for Christians to be familiar with. I'm curious as to where you found the bits on homosexuality in the New Testament, however. As far as I am aware, save for a few loose Greek translations that require more study, the New Testament does not say anything about homosexuality.Nokshor said:
Yeah, I didn't see that there were any other responses to your post until I'd replied. Woopsie!Spanishax said:
As for my source:
Romans 1:26?27, 1 Corinthians 6:9?10, and 1 Timothy 1:9?10 are the passages which speak about homosexuality, putting it alongside other mentions acts such as adultery and the generic 'sexual immorality'. These passages are not in the gospels, but the Pauline Epistles are still firmly part of the New Testament canon.
It's something of a thorny issue to get around, andSpanishax said:
This seems to strike me as an issue not so much that it can be turned into "anyone expect X group" (though that is, naturally, a huge problem) as the ease with which it can be turned into "so long as I believe in God I can do whatever the hell I want because 'he forgives'", which seems to me to be a way more ominous threat.Nokshor said:
Ha, mega props for the scallywag bit though, I'm a huge fan of being unnecessarily dramatic in everyday life
Captcha: think hard
Why thank you sir captcha, I am!
OH, also for that, it seems like they should be applauding you for being that way, because doesn't that make you the epitome of not being tempted to sin? Personally, I honestly can't understand not being sexually attracted to people, but by the same token, I also don't understand quadratic equations so who am I to tell you about the validity of your positon?Spanishax said:
Captcha: eat out
This is actually the first time I've personally encountered mysteriously-on-topic captchas, and it's really quite creepy isn't it?
The worst thing is that Paul writes things specifically against that sort of mentality. The one I can pull off the top of my head is "Shall we sin all the more that grace may abound? By no means!"undeadexistentialist said:
Really? Wow, that sucks. It's also plainly illogical, and counter-Biblical. Paul says at one point that if sex is a concern of yours then you should get married and enjoy it, but if you don't care then living alone is a better option for you because it'll leave you free to work for God without having familial responsibilities.Spanishax said:
Cheese is actually bad for mice.
And the only people who get surprised (to my knowledge) are naturally players who don't read his backstory.
That's opinion more than anything.Elect G-Max said:
What? People actually think otherwise. What about the examples at the Golden Gate bridge....Then again some Russians jumped out of a plane without parachutes during WWII cause "snow is soft"Lear said:
He did as a child, otherwise his family would have faced discrimination.Lear said:
And the only people who get surprised (to my knowledge) are naturally players who don't read his backstory.
I swear that entire myth (or at least its recent popularity) comes from this Ricky Gervais stand-up routine:Mr.Philip said:
<youtube=ewOS4AsJMS8>
Here's the lesson kids: Don't get your knowledge of zoology from comedians. Sometimes they are joking.
Well, Romans is quite vague, just saying something about "unnatural lusts", and Corinthians is more mentioning the previous offenses from Mosaic law (saying that we have been forgiven since those days for such acts). However, I HAD forgotten about that one in Timothy, so thank you for reminding me. Nevertheless, it says nothing about punishing or judging anyone, and therefore my main point still stands.Nokshor said:Yeah, I didn't see that there were any other responses to your post until I'd replied. Woopsie!Spanishax said:
As for my source:
Romans 1:26?27, 1 Corinthians 6:9?10, and 1 Timothy 1:9?10 are the passages which speak about homosexuality, putting it alongside other mentions acts such as adultery and the generic 'sexual immorality'. These passages are not in the gospels, but the Pauline Epistles are still firmly part of the New Testament canon.
If Jesus was a real person, his name was almost certainly Joshua (or Yeshua or Yahushua, depending on your preference in spelling).
Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Joshua, and may have gained its popularity when early Christianity mixed with Greek culture. The works of Greek philosophers in particular had a huge influence on early Christian thinking, and at the time Christianity was in the process of trying to separate itself as much as possible from mainstream Judaism.
Source: A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch
Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Joshua, and may have gained its popularity when early Christianity mixed with Greek culture. The works of Greek philosophers in particular had a huge influence on early Christian thinking, and at the time Christianity was in the process of trying to separate itself as much as possible from mainstream Judaism.
Source: A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch
This really shows what time we're in. If anyone remembers, I made a thread exactly like this 2 years ago and got locked because of arguments.
Now I need to get to work so I can get that cheddar, cause THAT'S what the women really want...
but I need to address this right quick.
Who is the protagonist in the Phantom Menace?
exactly
but I need to address this right quick.
This is so very wrong. Hopefully I'll be able to break it down later, but I'll start with this.Elect G-Max said:
Who is the protagonist in the Phantom Menace?
exactly
...
As an extension to this, they are indeed venomous, but their fangs are not strong enough to pierce human skin.Supertegwyn said:
You're right. I don't believe anybody would date someone they find unattractive without monetary compensation. But personality is what makes someone attractive.JeffBergGold said:
So nice try but you stuck the landing. A+ for effort.
