nesdev.org

I agree that Wisdom Tree's games aren't quite as well put together as the later licensed (or Tengen/Codemasters) NES library. But I sort of liked Exodus, and others have said good things about Spiritual Warfare.

DRW wrote:Either a commandment is by God or it is by men. How can there be a middle way?

Well, in the first place, I wasn't specifically addressing the 'commandment' part (though even there you're missing at least one option - note that there are lots of commandments. And in any case there are ways of looking at a commandment that neither set up every detail of it as God's instructions to everyone for all time nor completely disregard it as some random dude's potentially bad idea). I was responding to what I quoted.

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm

A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history.

In other words, the Bible is considered to be the story of God's interaction with humans from the perspective of said humans, not direct dictation like the Koran. It is an extremely miscellaneous collection of works of different genres (particularly the Old Testament, much of which seems to have been compiled by multiple authors and editors over hundreds of years) and is not trivial to interpret.

One thing to keep in mind is that from the Catholic perspective, the Bible is not the foundation of Christianity. The Apostles' witness to the Resurrection is the foundation of Christianity. They are supposed to have been given a particular authority to teach by the Holy Spirit, and their successors are considered to have inherited this authority. The Protestant Reformation discarded this concept, more or less, and as a result had to put more weight on the Bible than it would bear.

Besides, why am I a dick? Just because I confront him with a logical dilemma?

As far as I can tell, you seem to be deliberately needling him. It comes across as a passive-aggressive attempt to cause another person mental anguish.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

(Also note that I retracted my wording in that post before you responded; I knew it was probably too late but I didn't want to just leave it as it stood...)

darryl.revok wrote:Then, eventually, over time, a company named Color Dreams

Now that is a noble attempt to move the conversation back towards the theme of this website. Probably doomed, but I salute you for trying...

Espozo wrote:I was implying I was loosing my temper.

Oh, o.k., then I misunderstood you here.

Espozo wrote:How would you know if you're not a Christian yourself, regardless of knowing the Bible?

I have been a Christian for many years.
But even if not: You don't need to be a Christian yourself to know which Christian knows his Bible and which doesn't. Do you need to be a brain surgeon to be able to tell that your dentist doesn't know anything about brain surgery?

Espozo wrote:What's the difference? Is stupid a measure of brain function, or knowledge?

Depends on the situation.

Espozo wrote:If you do it to someone who believes in these things in the same manner you've done here, then yes.

In which other situation, apart from the Bible, would you apply this rule?

If somebody told you, in a totally serious voice, that Tupac is still alive and that he saw him on 42nd street selling Biggie t-shirts, you wouldn't be allowed to snicker and to mock him because of that totally outrageous claim? You would be required to nod in an understanding and respectful manner, lest you want to be seen as arrogant?

Sorry, I don't believe you for a second. If somebody came to you with a totally stupid claim that is not connected to religion, you wouldn't take this guy seriously. You wouldn't consider yourself arrogant if you tell him that you think he talks bullshit. This whole arrogance argument is only ever used when it comes to religion. You never address this when, for example, "South Park" makes fun of Canadians.

Espozo wrote:

DRW wrote:At least I don't call people shithead

No, you just tell them they don't know shit.

So what? This is not an insult. Yes, it's a strong word, but it just means "you don't know anything about it". The "shit" in the sentence is not supposed to be a property of your person. If you want to turn the metaphor into a literal description, it would mean: "You don't even know anything that is as unimportant as shit, so you don't know anything about stuff that is more important than shit."
But calling somebody shithead is an insult because, if you transform the metaphor in this case, it means: "Instead of a brain, your head is filled with a pile of shit."

You see the difference? I don't give a shit if somebody uses strong words. Somebody can say "shit" and "fuck" as often as he likes and still not insult anybody. But you apply these words to actual people.

93143 wrote:In other words, the Bible is considered to be the story of God's interaction with humans from the perspective of said humans, not direct dictation like the Koran.

Sure, many stories are just stories and not God speaking. But there are passages that are attributed directly to God: Whenever it is written "And the Lord spoke to Moses", this is followed by a text that is supposed to be God's words. Likewise, the whole prophetic texts include God's word in a similar way as the Koran.

But even if this is just from the perspective of humans as well: So, what? In the end there are still only two possibilities: Did the story really happen as it is written there or didn't it happen as written?

It doesn't matter who writes John F. Kennedy's story: The historical fact of his death only allows for one explanation: Either he was shot by one person or by two. There might be many theories, but there is only one reality: Kennedy wasn't simultaneously shot by two persons and by only one. Likewise, a commandment is either the will of God or it isn't.

But I don't really care either since I don't believe that God exists.

Yes, I know the whole "inspiration" theory and "God's words through human minds" etc. I find this to be a very weak explanation.

Remember how Jesus quotes God from the Old Testament as if the Thora was dictated like the Koran? Obviously, Jesus didn't share the Catholic theology. When the Pharisees or Satan tried to use a commandment against him, he didn't say: "Yeah, but that's just the words of humans. God didn't necessarily say that and it needs to be seen in its cultural context." His answers are always based on the idea that the words themselves were actually spoken by God.

When they argue about the Sabbath, they merely discuss what is and what isn't allowed during the Sabbath. But they never question the idea that the Sabbath commandments in the Thora were actually verbally spoken by God to Moses.

93143 wrote:(Note that while the prohibition of homosexual behaviour is sustained in Catholic doctrine, the death penalty associated with it in Leviticus is not.)

So, how does this work? "Hey, guys, I think that the first half-sentence is what God actually thinks and what he communicated to the people. But the second half, that's an interposition by humans. God didn't say this second part of the sentence."

The Catholic Church invented a bunch of rules, so that they can pick and choose what they want to follow and what not. But the fact that they invented these rules doesn't mean that these rules make any sense. Therefore, when I tell somebody to be consistent in his faith, I do so by basing it on things that are logical to me, not on Catholic doctrines that I find inconsistent as well.

93143 wrote:As far as I can tell, you seem to be deliberately needling him. It comes across as a passive-aggressive attempt to cause another person mental anguish.

I started with a mere correction:
"Yes, the Bible does explicitly condemn homosexuality, not just some unnamed sexual behavior, as you imply. Besides, if you say it might be a translation error, what do you believe might be written in the actual text?"
That was a legitimate question.

Then he totally lost his shit and threw a tantrum with his huge, colored, all-caps text. From then on, I merely answered his posts. He could have stopped the discussion at any time, but he felt the need to belittle and insult me, calling me his enemy or shithead or saying that I talk bullshit.
So, why should I go easy on him? Because he's the holy believer and I'm the filthy infidel and I have to respect his noble faith? Nope. If somebody acts like a brat, I treat him like a brat.

DRW wrote:

93143 wrote:(Note that while the prohibition of homosexual behaviour is sustained in Catholic doctrine, the death penalty associated with it in Leviticus is not.)

So, how does this work? "Hey, guys, I think that the first half-sentence is what God actually thinks and what he communicated to the people. But the second half, that's an interposition by humans. God didn't say this second part of the sentence."

The sentence in Leviticus is one of the 613 commandments that God made for the Jews. Not all Christians need to become Jews, but God still has standards for people in general. And the Spirit inspired Paul to write some of these standards down in the New Testament.

Compare them to the tradition in the Talmud* of enumerating seven laws given to the sons of Noah that are binding on all people, not just Jews. They read like a first draft of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not deny God; thou shalt not blaspheme God; thou shalt not murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not eat of a live animal; thou shalt establish a court system."


* The Talmud is a compendium of interpretations of the Torah, which were orally transmitted until they were written down after the Second Temple was destroyed.

tepples wrote:The sentence in Leviticus is one of the 613 commandments that God made for the Jews. Not all Christians need to become Jews, but God still has standards for people in general. And the Spirit inspired Paul to write some of these standards down in the New Testament.

O.k., fine. If that's what you believe, then so be it.

But this still means that the Torah is God's own word, right? It might not be applicable to Christians anymore, but it was still a law that God gave to a certain group of people.
So, it might not have a legal meaning to Christians, but a historical one.

It's not like in the Koran where it is said: "The stuff from the old scriptures? Much of it was never said by God in the first place. Only observe the current book because the old stuff contains frauds."

Instead, it is: "Yes, the old text was actually the will of our God. These laws are still the definite word of God, it's just that he limited the scope of these words to the Jews. But he did say these laws. They are not man-made. It is definitely what God himself intended for a certain group of people."

So, a Christian should still read it. Not because of keeping the laws himself. But because of finding out what kind of character his God is and what that God demanded from his chosen people. The Christian should be interested in that book because of biographical reasons.

DRW wrote:Sorry, I don't believe you for a second.

That's your problem then.

DRW wrote:Then he totally lost his shit and threw a tantrum with his huge, colored, all-caps text

Wait, you're telling me this whole pointless argument stemmed off from that? I wasn't even angry, I just saw your direct question as a kind of unnecessary interrogation, so I responded with, what I believed, was an unnecessary answer. If I were angry, I would have responded with normal caps. If I were being a jackass, I would have completely blown it out of proportion, which I did. I wasn't actually angry until much latter. I definitely shouldn't have done that, but I can't change that.

DRW wrote:He could have stopped the discussion at any time, but he felt the need to belittle and insult me

Either one of us could have. I felt the need because I felt insulted, same with you.

DRW wrote:If somebody acts like a brat, I treat him like a brat.

I was going by the same philosophy.

DRW wrote:Because he's the holy believer and I'm the filthy infidel and I have to respect his noble faith?

I mean, maybe the respecting part, but not for that reason.

DRW wrote:So, a Christian should still read [the Old Testament]. Not because of keeping the laws himself. But because of finding out what kind of character his God is and what that God demanded from his chosen people. The Christian should be interested in that book because of biographical reasons.

Spot on.

I like the name of the split.

Espozo wrote:That's your problem then.

So, you want to tell me that you wouldn't ridicule someone who claims Tupac is still alive, but you would treat this belief with utter respect? Seriously?

Espozo wrote:Wait, you're telling me this whole pointless argument stemmed off from that?

The argument stemmed from you answering my posts. As long as you do this and as long as I feel like it, I'll write a reply. If you don't answer anymore, I won't either.

Espozo wrote:Either one of us could have. I felt the need because I felt insulted, same with you.

I didn't feel insulted. I just mentioned your insults against me to point out the hypocrisy of somebody insulting someone, but complaining that he is insulted. But I didn't actually mind the insults.

Espozo wrote:I mean, maybe the respecting part, but not for that reason.

A belief system will be respected by me if it deserves respect. The fact alone that it is a belief system doesn't automatically mean that I have to respect it. It's not arrogant to call bullshit bullshit. Not even if the person who believes the bullshit thinks it is wisdom. Otherwise, I would be forced to respect jihadists because their actions are based on their religious belief.
Do you respect Saudi Arabians for cutting of hands of thieves? After all, they are devout followers of Islam and just do what the Koran and the Hadiths command. Does this earn respect from you?

I would suggest you to search for "Atheist Experience" on YouTube and listen to some of their video segments where users call in. There you can learn a lot.

So, you want to tell me that you wouldn't ridicule someone who claims Tupac is still alive, but you would treat this belief with utter respect? Seriously?

I feel so there's a place between ridiculing, and not treating with respect. I'd probably fall there. I wouldn't outright call them wrong because I don't care what they believe, unless it's someone who I care about.

I would suggest you to search for "Atheist Experience" on YouTube and listen to some of their video segments where users call in. There you can learn a lot.

I'll check it out. If you can't tell already, I'm kind of confused in regards to things that are impossible to figure out, which is a stupid thing to wonder about, but I can't help it. I just want a sort of explanation I can be satisfied with, and I haven't really found it yet. Because Christianity seemed to make the most sense to me, that's why I called myself a Christian, but it's only by default.

Espozo wrote:If you can't tell already, I'm kind of confused in regards to things that are impossible to figure out, which is a stupid thing to wonder about, but I can't help it. I just want a sort of explanation I can be satisfied with, and I haven't really found it yet. Because Christianity seemed to make the most sense to me, that's why I called myself a Christian, but it's only by default.

Well, I'm not here to discuss about belief per se. I consciously tried to refrain from the general discussion whether God exists. I only discussed about sub questions, like: "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" or "Is the stuff in the Bible unfalsifiable or is there a way to prove it wrong?"

I could give you my detailed view on the existence of God and on the reasons you stated why you believe in God. But I won't do unless you ask me to. Because you already seemed to have a problem with me correcting you on totally objective things, i.e. "Does a verse against homsexuality exist in the Bible and is it properly translated?" So, I won't give you my opinion on highly subjective topics like "Is this or that reason a good reason to believe in God?" except if you want me to.

DRW wrote:you already seemed to have a problem with me correcting you on totally objective things

The problem I had was how I perceived your tone in the answer, not the answer itself. Looking back, I did kind of get upset for no good reason. I'm fine with you sharing your opinion on why you believe what you do.

I guess that's the end of this silly argument though. In all honesty, I think it could have gone worse.

I think the question "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" is too general. Bible is a collection of many old texts, some of which may have come from multiple sources; there is also the issue of historical context to determine what might be meant. There are some passages in the Old Testament which condemn homosexual behaviour but this does not necessarily mean you cannot be homosexual in general (it isn't entirely clear).

About the death penalty in Leviticus, well, death penalty simply is not used for modern times; that was an old text with old laws. We can learn from history; it does not imply that we must do everything by history. My own opinion about Bible is just that it is the book collected of many old texts, where many people have written down things, and different people have "see God" in different ways (my wording is off but it is difficult to explain properly), so they just wrote down what they knew at the time; so all commandments are from men (although everything would ultimately come from God anyways). You cannot simply accept it without thinking about it too; that is the same as anything. Think about it by yourself and see if you should be Christian or atheist or whatever. As time passes, you will learn more and think of it more, possibly reaffirming and/or changing.

I am not against Christianity in general, although I am against when people do bad things with it (although this is certainly not limited to Christianity). I am not complaining if you are Christian, atheist, or whatever else; all that is fine with me. I myself however consider myself as a panendeist and have much agreement with Unitarian Universalist (but also have many of my own ideas), although I was born Roman Catholic. I believe it is a good thing we have so many different kind of religions and philosophy and so on; this way we can all learn.

Note that I am strongly in favour of freedom of speech and do not support banning any books.

For many different conversations about religions/faith, you can see Patheos; I find a lot of stuff by people of many different kind of religion (whether atheist, Catholic, Protestant, Wiccan, etc) (although in my opinion some of the stoff on the Spirituality Channel are of a bit lower quality than the others, as some of it is New Age woo nonsense kind of stuff; this isn't true of all of it though; only a few messages)

You are free to argue against me if you wish to do so; that is how we can learn better. Especially if I make an objective error, you can correct me and I can admit if I am wrong (however, there is also the possibility of some kind of misunderstanding too).

The more important question isn't whether the Bible condemns it or not, but rather whether you should condemn it or not. Can you be Christian and be ok with the gay couple down the street?

_{* "you" being general and not referring to anyone specific, of course.}

zzo38 wrote:many people have written down things, and different people have "see God" in different ways (my wording is off but it is difficult to explain properly)

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01388.htm ?