Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About vainebekonnes

  • Birthday 01/01/1
  1. Most Christians point to Acts 10 and the vision of Peter as the reason why it's okay to eat unclean food. The tireless repetition of Paul that he is no longer bound by the law is also used towards this argument. However, you are completely correct that Jesus (yes I'm going with the Greek to English translation on this, it's more readily recognizable) never once said that it was okay to eat unclean animals. Even considering the vision of Peter, Jesus did not appear before him and claim that it was now okay to consume that which is unclean. In fact, there are many things that Christians hold as major sins that were not mentioned by Jesus at all. In the time of the Roman empire, it was known that certain herbal teas or the like could lead to a miscarriage and were used specifically for that purpose. However, Jesus did not find it important enough to mention even once. While Israel itself did not necessarily have a sizable homosexual population, it was common in Rome and Greece. However, Jesus did not see fit to say anything about this either. However, in many conservative churches, abortion and homosexuality are major sins that are often times cast as the most important moral issues in the world today. Jesus did think it was necessary to talk about divorce though. However, despite what Jesus himself thought was important enough to teach on, many of these churches have simply come to accept divorce as part of the modern culture. My point is the general operating philosophy of the modern church is more heavily influenced by tradition and the outside culture in many ways than the teachings of Jesus or even what they hold as scripture. Should Christians abide by the whole law? That is a matter that has been debated for centuries with various texts commonly held as scripture supporting both sides but clearly stating neither. I personally think there are far more pressing issues with the church and the culture that envelops it than what should be a relatively artificial line between the Messianic Jews and their Gentile counterparts. I am in no way, shape, or form trying to say that any of these things are right or wrong, I'm simply trying to point out priorities, and where they deviate from scripture.
  2. That's fine by me. I read his faults, and I judge him accordingly.
  3. See, I said that Kivam could speak better on it than I could. ;D I fully agree, in so much, that the point of prayer for me has always been to change myself. I always take it to be a bit like this. God is God, and we are not. With the knowledge we have not the knowledge, wisdom, or capability to understand God or what He thinks, why should we question His will? I do, however, have a question for Kivam. In your studying the Torah, do you see any examples to point to the possibility of God changing His mind do to the intercession of His people? Abraham and Sodom? Anything? You're knowledge and experience, along with the advantages of culture, would give your words much greater weight than mine.
  4. Prayer is a very interesting subject, and one I am quite pleasantly surprised that we have moved to. Since to this point the majority of opinions have centered around YWH and the Judeo-Christian beliefs, I will discuss those initially. Warning, up to this point this discussion has been very friendly with no judgment, but I cannot venture into this subject without stepping on the toes of Calvinists. I apologize, but there is no other way to really broach this subject. One of my favorite examples of the potential power to change the position of God comes from the story of Moses and the children of Israel found in Exodus. After leading them from Egypt, Moses went up unto a mountain to, well, converse with the Lord so to speak. While up there, Aaron, man he gets away with murder, makes a golden calf at the behest of impatient Hebrews so that they can worship it. God tells Moses at this point that He plans to strike them all down and fulfill the covenant with Moses alone. Moses pleads to the Lord to spare the people. It then says that the Lord nacham. In English translations this has been translated to "repent", "relent", or "changed His mind" for examples. Nacham points to an internal change of heart, I believe. Kivam could probably speak on this a lot better than I could. However, this would suggest that it is possible for God to change His will on account of intercession from humans. If this is the case, then the will of God is in itself not immutable. Could prayer itself change the will of God? There is also the other purpose of prayer in these beliefs. Maybe it's not God's will that needs to be changed but your own. Prayer should not simply be you trying to get God to do what you want, but should also be an attempt to know God's will and change your will to match his own. Personally, prayers that look like a wish list bother me. That's not the point. How else would the prophets know God's will if they did not ask? How else would you? Intercession and supplication are all well and good, but to me the primary purpose of prayer is change your mind, not God's. This is considering prayer in the Judeo-Christian belief system however. The greater discussion of prayer outside of theological divisions is also an interesting discussion, and one we should probably transition into relatively soon.
  5. Well one uses the term "fairy godmother" and the other uses the term "witch." We all know that when you have a witch, you BURN THEM!!!! No really, that's about as far as their thinking goes in that regard.
  6. I read the beginning to Elantris and the first Mistborn book. I might have the rest of it, just didn't get farther. I found I was enjoying Elantris a bit more. How would you rate the two against each other if you've read both?
  7. My complaint about the books has nothing to do with it "ripping off" Wheel of Time. I don't think it did, though there are some similarities. However, those similarities tend to be common in the fantasy genre, and should not be held against Goodkind anymore than you would hold it against Jordan. Instead, my complaint is the guy seemed to only kind of want to write fantasy. He seemed to have a half formed idea in his head for the first book, and sat down to write it. More important to him, as he got going, was his political philosophy. That was the real overarching story of the books, not actually the plot. As I look at it, the books go something like this. There is a barrier that might or might not be known about that begins to fail. This introduces a new immediate problem for Richard. In order to solve said problem, Richard needs to learn how to use some form of magic that has either been lost for centuries or has never been done before. Using this form of magic winds up breaking down yet another barrier that might or might not have been known. Repeat. This formula continues until Faith of the Fallen, where Goodkind reaches the epic climax of the story he really wanted to tell, which was that of his political philosophy. The book was great, did what he wanted it to do, and seemed to pretty much wrap up his story. At that point, he should have come out with one more book, finished the rest of the story, and be done with it. Instead, he draws it out for no apparent reason. Since he's already finished making his point, he can only have his characters repeat the same points he's already made, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, etc. The story is going no where because it seems he doesn't actually know what he wants to do with it, the reason he started writing the series is finished, and he just won't let it die. If it ended the next book after Faith of the Fallen I would have called it a good series. Not a great series, but a good enjoyable series, is somewhat formulaic. Since he dragged it out, the series sucks. What is the point of a series that you can't see the end to? If the first few books are good, but then there is no, and I repeat no, redeemable value in book after book after book before it finally ends, does that make a good series? Anyway, those are my complaints about the books.
  8. I don't like Mat because scarves are a fashion accessory no-no.
  9. Okay, similarities between Nazi beliefs and Robert Jordan.... Nazi's believed in taking a bunch of stuff from other sources to make their political party seem cool and to help him take over the world. Robert Jordan believed in taking a bunch of stuff from other sources, making them his own in an effort to better make a world for his books. Okay, I'm tapped after that. Anyone else got anything other than the Ashaman?
  10. The Christian church, like all organized religions, is made up of people. These people tend to fight amongst themselves and form groups to argue and fight with the other groups. Hence, the denominations. Oh yeah, and there is some difference in theology, form, and function, so if you don't quite like the service, organization, or teaching of one denomination, you can simply find one that fits you better. I think that just about sums up the reasons we have different denominations. I mean, originally denominations were separated by geography, and then further by the corruption of the church leadership, but then it just spread like wildfire. Once Luther split on moral grounds, Henry split on personal, and then everything went downhill. You have people like John Calvin who no one would follow his teachings today if there was better education on the horrible things he did in the name of theological purity. If someone seems to completely discount everything that Christ did or taught in their lives, why on earth would you follow their teaching as a Christian? Sorry, got off on a tangent and rambling a bit here. Basically, sects are going to happen, because people are people.
  11. Well the primary problem you will find with some of those issues, such as gay marriage, while partially based in religion is more deeply rooted in tradition. Marriage, for instance, has long since moved away from it's original purpose, which was the most rudimentary structure for society and propagation of the species. The idea of marriage as a loving committed relationship between two people is a relatively novel one still, and to be brutally honest, one that hasn't been that well thought out, as current divorce rates show. Even in ancient Greece and Rome, where homosexuality was common and accepted, marriage was between a man and a woman, because of what marriage was. When you change the parameters of marriage, as we have done in our society, it becomes very difficult to rebind it into a coherent structure. Meanwhile, you still have other cultures and segments of our own population that hold to either the whole or parts of the old concept of marriage, as an issue of duty rather than one of love, and one that holds an entirely different purpose than is commonly held. If I had my way, because of the level of tradition tied to the institution of marriage, the current changes in marriage, and the ability to maintain religious freedom, I would get rid of legal marriage all together. Instead, we could have legal civil unions as the only legally recognized relationship of that sort, and allow marriages to be the sole purview of society without governmental involvement. In other words, if you want to get married in your church, more power to you, but it has nothing to do with the government. If you want your best friend to officiate a marriage ceremony in the park between you and whoever you wish, that's fine as well. Since it's a societal construct rather than a legal one, you have no issues with forcing anyone to recognize any marriage that they consider wrong. If three people want to all get married to each other, they can, but no one has to recognize it because the government no more recognizes it than any other marriage. That's how I would do it at least. Granted, it would upset both the right and the left, but the normal evidence of a good compromise is that no one leaves happy, since there isn't going to be one where everyone leaves happy.
  12. I always believed from his comments and the like that whether or not you could channel was dependent upon the body, but to what degree you could channel was mostly based upon the soul. Certainly a really complex system of chromosomes could handle all of this genetically, but we are looking at three different stages of being able to channel or not, and 21 different levels of power. I'm sure that's it's possible to determine mathematically what the minimum number of required chromosomes would be to get this effect, I'm just not knowledgeable enough in genetics to do it myself. However, since RJ said that channeling is "partially" determined by genes, that means any number of unknowable variables we have to take into account.
  13. When a 3 year old throws a temper tantrum, you can try to explain it to them like Majsju did, but that rarely has any effect. Rather, the way that I have found that is best to deal with temper tantrums is to simply ignore them. When someone throws a temper tantrum because they aren't getting their way, normally they are seeking attention for all the "horrible wrongs" that have been thrust upon them. If you ignore the petulant child when they are being unreasonable, I have found after a while the tantrums stop. Obviously this does not work all the time, but it is the way that I usually deal with it. It's worked out pretty well for me so far.
  14. There's always, umm, well, okay do we know of any other women that Min might have been referring to? Some of you say it could be someone other than Moiraine. Okay, give us an example
  15. I know that you have no reason to take advice from someone on the internet, but unless there is something more serious than them being too strict and irrational, you might want to try to see if you can salvage your relationship with your parents. Then again, if there is something more serious that you obviously wouldn't want us to know about, then it makes perfect sense to maintain distance. It's just that as upset as you might be with your parents mistakes, remember that they too are human and flawed. Of course, I'm speaking as someone that knows pretty much nothing of your situation, so feel free to ignore me which you most likely would do with or without my blessing on the matter. :-\
  • Create New...