 sj |
||
|
||
Bible question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:56 PM What I would like to know is, when God created Adam in his own likeness, did he equip him with a belly-button? Heheh. That vaguely reminds me of that well-made point about Alexander Graham Bell being a genius because he invented the first telephone. On the contrary, the true genius was the man who invented the second telephone. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Apr 13 - 05:24 PM What apple????? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:37 PM "Were they religious? " Well... upon careful analysis of the narrative the evidence available suggests the following.... They certainly believed in God. But it didn't require any particular faith. They had conversations with God. On the other hand... I guess if they were deeply religious they wouldn't have eaten the apple. Question answered? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: frogprince Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:28 PM "I imagine they were Theists. :)" The obvious meaning being, they believed in "The". Which leads to the question, what do you believe the meaning of "The" is? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:12 PM Gee, Mr. Happy, are you one of those literalists who won't do anything not specified in the Bible? I always wonder how those people rationalize automobiles. If them's the rules, only the Amish follow them. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Ebbie Date: 13 Apr 13 - 12:28 PM I imagine they were Theists. :) |
|
Subject: RE: Another Bible question From: Mr Happy Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:18 AM In the creation story, there's no mention of religion. The created man & woman are not designated as having any particular faith. Were they religious? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:24 PM Folks, this is how this thread began, typos and all, and IMHO it is still a viable topic-- I think much more interesting (IMNSHO) than the nasty (IMHO) stuff. Let's either discuss this or let the thread fall off the page.
~S~ According to the narrative, God created Adam and then created Eve as his wife. I know that they had sons, Cain and Abel. My question is, did Cain and Abel have wives? If so, where dod they find them? Who were their parents? If not, how does the bible explain the continuity of the human species? Thank you. Emily emilyharrison@hotmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: bydand Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:06 PM FORUM: An "open" meeting for the presentation, exchange and discussion of: Facts & information Ideas Opinions - personal & global Preferences Most of this seems to happen regularly here among mudcatters This is just a plea to not get drawn into personal insults. -charles |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:24 PM Tinker---lacking a spellchecker built right in, the next best thing is one you can access easily...if you go to this freeware site and scroll down, you'll find two free spellcheckers...the 2nd is really great, though it is 16 bit..(still runs fine on WIN9x)...just before you hit 'submit message', you tell it to check what you have written...now if you have a MAC, I'm not sure.... |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:13 AM "I don't want to see religion discussed on this forum." I'm one of the least religious people I know but I was just wondering how you can discuss 'Blues and Folk Music' without religion. What kind of folk music are you talking about? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: katlaughing Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:01 AM Hey, Harpgirl, I commented right along with you. The only thing I am saying is that we won't get very far by attacking with personal insults. Personally, when I have gotten cranky on here, it wasn't the men I had to worry about and there was never any mention of it being moontime or any other time, it was a woman or two who came after me. "Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!" On another subject, sort of, I said this in a PM to someone and I'd like to share it here: I think the important thing is that there is plenty of room for differences in belief and opinions, if we can all just respect that and not come off as a know-all-to-end-all on any subject.:-)
|
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: harpgirl Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:43 AM ...kat...this thread was not filtered out with a BS label. Why is it that people insist on the unspoken rule that we can't comment on the direction the forum goes? Think about that? Mousebrain started this argument by insulting me! And why do people think it isn't okay for people (read women) to be cranky and argumentative? Except once a month when it isn't their fault? Why do men get to be this way and women are chastized for it? No one commented on Pat's link!!! No one got the irony that someone came to Mudcat to get religious advice? What's worse people took this seriously! Just tell me the rules for women, kat and then let me decide if I agree! With evangelical christianity a very tiny minority in the wider religious world, why can't I protest that this international forum shouldn't look like a bible study group? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,John D Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:53 AM Faarrrrrrrrrrrrrr OUT! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: pict Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:13 PM etiology:The philosophical study of causation |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Tinker Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:10 PM Amongst my greatest desires is a spell check in the land of Mudcat. No matter how hard i work at it,there is some sort of genetic foul up in my coding process. It would take me a week to post that with out impossible typos and glaring errors even if I understood it. And I confess that I don't really, but it tickles the edges of my understanding just enough that it seems facinating. I'm also very tired, and my thoughts sometimes babble. Re-reading, perhaps part of me were wishing that people problems could occaisionally be pluggged into an equations so that solutions could be derived in an orderly manner. But since I don't normally think in an orderly way... Oh Well Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:57 PM What do you mean Tinker? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Tinker Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:47 PM I'm impressed that Lonesome even got it posted. Though I sometimes wish we could just decypher the equation and come up with the answer. I'm not that good at thinking inside the box. Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Matt_R Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:40 PM Actually, things on campus are 10 times worse than how this thread ended up! I think Lonesome's math problem would be easier to solve than doing what I'm doing at school! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Tinker Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:34 PM Okay Matt,your song post was wonderful,appropriate and potentially calming. A reality check and then comentary, on target with just a slight touch of defusing humor.... Wow, I'm impressed,are things on campus moving this wonderfully too? Thanks Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:34 PM Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to send that to my mother... |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:30 PM So then that'd be like a meta-comment there Lonesome or what? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lonesome Gillette Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:27 PM Although the five-fold world is aperiodic, its constituent polyhedra are still amenable to modularization. Various schemes exist, among which one of the most ingenious is Koski's. Koski's mods derive from the golden cuboid, a brick with edges phi, 1 and 1/phi. These 3 edges plus distinct face and body diagonals give a set of 7 lengths, any six of which may be used in a tetrahedron. Given these base measuring cups, Koski allows each to grow or shrink by powers of phi, and finds the five-fold shapes have both algebraic and geometric equivalence to sums of such modules. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:07 PM "I hate people arguing on Mudcat! I don't want to read arguments on this forum! Joe, isn't there some HTML mistake I can make so the thread locks up, so we can quit this insanity???" durn!...thought I'd never find myself in SERIOUS sympathy with Matt!..*grin*.... which reminds me of a paraphrase of a quote: "No matter what your politics, culture, religion, or hobby, there will always be someone in your group whom you wish were on the OTHER side."
|
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: katlaughing Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:14 PM Harpgirl, use the damn filter and get all the threads you want without religion. Max made it that way for BS, so I'd assume it'd work for that, too. You use an imperious tone in saying that you don't want to see or read threads on religion. This is not your exclusive forum. You've gone overboard and become vitriolic and that will serve no purpose and you know this from past experience here. I understand your frustration and that is partly why I posted before, but attacks like yours above will serve no purpose, except perhaps to raise the blood pressure of those you attack and maybe your own. There needs to be some balance, but we won't get it by going to extremes. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Matt_R Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:56 PM Yep, and on the 8th day, God made sweet tea! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,First Time Visitor Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:53 PM All of you have it wrong. It actually took me 12 1/2 days |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Matt_R Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:39 PM I hate people arguing on Mudcat! I don't want to read arguments on this forum! Joe, isn't there some HTML mistake I can make so the thread locks up, so we can quit this insanity??? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: pict Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:28 PM What a load of mince. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: little john cameron Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:09 PM How dae ye comment aboot not commenting? Jist wonderin ljc |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: harpgirl Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:09 PM methinks the gentleman doth protest too much! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,mousethief Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:07 PM Grow up, harpgirl. I have no time for such childishness.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: harpgirl Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:02 PM ...wrong mousebrain!!! I rendered my opinion. I don't want to see or read threads on religion! If you were a smarter man you would understand that I am meta-commenting! Any family that doesn't allow comments on content and process is bound to be dysfunctional! Why can we comment on christian religion but not on the need to not commdent on christian religion???? You aren't too bright! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:53 PM Harpgirl: Oooh, insults now. How mature. There's a difference between expressing an opinion and telling other people what to do. I did the former. You did the latter. Thus, you can accurately be dubbed "thread police" and I cannot.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: harpgirl Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:07 PM mousebrain:You are the opinion police! Very dangerous to endorse an atmosphere in which only some opinions have merit. We had a thread about this recently, I recall! Wang Chung: clever choice of name for a yellow coward!! I am not Susan's mental health professional. I am here as a musician! What is this stereotype that health care professionals must always be saintly and nice to everyone! How many Dr.s like that do you know? kat's mental health advice to Susan does nail it! Stop trying to play mother Teresa! No wonder you are burned out!!!! Besides, it makes me want to barf! Call Dr. Cohen!!!Oh no..he's out singing shanties!!!I'm going to die from ostracism!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Nov 00 - 04:16 PM Kat, I apologize for not being clearer which of my comments were addressed to you personally, which to Harpgirl personally, and which to you both. I see that you took most if not all of them all as directed at you. I am sorry my frustration made that so easy to do. I was sloppy. I am harboring some resentment, and I appreciate you pointing it out. I raised an issue with you in a PM that you ducked, declining further communication about it rather than apologizing or acknowledging that you may have done a wrong. It has precluded additional discssion about the feelings you say people have here. It leaves me in the dark when I am trying to understand. It affects the Mudcat you love. I think it's regrettable. So I will work on that resentment. But I'm not paranoid when I assume that you feel as you have told me you feel, and take that into account when I write to you. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: katlaughing Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:51 PM I did not hijack this thread, as you say. In fact I posted support of this thread, when I said I didn't have a problem with a thread like this, because it was specific in its title. I am also not pissed off as you claim, esp. that you asked people for restraint. I actually was surprised and pleased that you did. It gave me some hope that you understood how several of us have been feeling lately. Sounds to me like you've been harbouring some resentment and paranoia towards me because I won't get into it with you in PM's or email. What you see and read on the Forum is what you get with me, Susan. No hidden agendas, no innuendos, pretty much an open book. Mousethief, was my trust in you was misplaced? I wondered why you didn't answer my reply to your first PM in which I told you how to research the healing circle flaming. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Matt_R Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:49 PM The other night on HearMe, Max himself asked me if I knew what Mudcat was about. I said "Yeah, music." And Max said "No, Mudcat is about LOVE." So, I post my favorite song by the Oak Ridge Boys.
A smile never goes out of style --Matt
|
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:07 PM People who know me know what I stand for, and are quite helpfully accurate in offering help and guidance. People who have avoided knowing me because of self-admitted prejudices invariably miss the mark. There is still no subsititute for really getting to know another human being. In a way I am sorry that discussions about important matters end up being about "Praise at the Mudcat." (My ego is pretty big and I know I do it to myself as often as not. This time though I did not start this.) But in another way, it seems clear to me that it is handy to have a member of the group you have problems with handy for bouncing yourself off of, someone who will not go away mad when your prejudices eclipse your otherwise fine way of being with people. I don't mind this too much, because when you miss the mark so completely in estimating me you make it so simple to see that your feelings have little if anything to do with me. One of these days I am going to find a way to help people see that you ALL wear your beliefs on your sleeve all the time, whether you name a deity, a belief structure, or any kind of ethos-- or don't. To say that Christians are so different in this that we deserve to be muzzled-- and that's what you ask us to do to ourselves-- is to lack this awareness at all. I've written about it before and you did not hear me. I chose the wrong way or the wrong day to say it-- either you could not or would not hear me-- but I believe that we will reach greater understanding if we persist in the attempt. I've offered to leave this forum before. The day Max takes me up on it, I'm out of here. Till then I am a member of this community as much as your next door neighbor is a member of your 3D landscape. It's up to each person here how we deal with that reality about each other. I want you to remember the next time you accuse me of proselytizing and evangelization that I have not engaged anyone here who did not agree to be engaged. Kat, you know that when you indicated you did not care to be friends, that was fine. And it has been the same with Harpgirl, and anyone else to whom I have extended the hand of human friendship. That's fine. It is fine with me to be friends with people who want to be friends, and there's no shortage there. How surprised you would be to learn that my agenda there is not people's salvation, but just they themselves as people. Maybe there are such good friends because their agenda is the same-- they look at me, not the banner they insist I must be waving overhead. But you have undertaken to address me on this in an open thread. Don't expect me to indulge it in PMs with you from now on. If it is going to be open, thus it will be. You chose to open the door. Don't expect to wave your censoriuous placards in my face and me just stand there like an idiot. I am not an idiot, and I will keep expecting you to think at your best if it is to be openly discussed. Yes, I actually expect people to make sense, and pulling off an attack or a rant, no matter how politely stated, is not discussion. It's opining. This is a place to discuss one's opinions, not just hang them up on the wall. (It's the cafe, not the toilet.) So if you want to hail Mudcat as a DISCUSSION forum, then discuss. If you don't like a topic, don't discuss it. If you want to espouse a viewpoint and have that discussed, open up a thread. Just like you tell people to do, Kat, when they complain about BS threads and want all-music topics. You can't turn around then and say only SOME kinds of non-music are OK, and expect to be taken seriously. It isn't just thread-creep to hijack a thread where people are expressing and exploring a number of very diverse viewpoints, to complain that the thread or the discussion in it is not what YOU find appropriate. It's bitching, plain and simple, and how that serves this community you have not made me see. I suspect what you are really pissed off about is that twice in this thread I urged Christian friends to excercise restraint to keep this a productive discussion. You don't mind if others do this, when flaming is at hand. But you set us apart. Just because we are Christians and you see your own fears instead if the neighbors we are. Well I do not live bound by your fear. That is yours to deal with yourself. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: mousethief Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:48 PM Various replies: Hard to see how someone who says "do not discuss this topic here" is anything BUT a topic policeman. If you don't like the label, don't act like it. Religion is just as reasonable a topic for Mudcat as sex and politics and soap. Okay, Harpgirl, so you've made your opinion known. But the final call is Max's and he allows it. If you want to stop religion being discussed here, I suggest you take it up with Max. Any more about it in the threads and we'll have to consider it whining. Or worse. By the way, I am NOT an evangelical Christian, thank you very much. Kat, your point is well taken. Nevertheless, I fail to see what is so offensive about talking about one's beliefs, even in a thread that is not belief-o-centric. If your beliefs inform your opinions about a certain topic, then they are germane to a discussion of opinions about that topic. I was not here when the flame war erupted about healing circles (I'm not even sure what that means -- can somebody PM me and fill me in?) but if I were, I would be firmly on the side of free speech, even for people I disagree with or whose beliefs I don't share. Praise, you keep being you, hon. I see no reason for you to edit who you are in order to make others happy. The preceding is the personal opinion of the author and is not necessarily the position of Mudcat, Max, the Orthodox Church, or Mrs. Sergius Smedmeyer of Kamloops, British Columbia, if such a person exists. I'm sorry this thread has disintegrated so badly. It was for the most part so pleasant. Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men aft gang agley.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Whistle Stop Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:28 PM I'm not a Christian myself, but I certainly don't have a problem with Christianity, or any other belief system, being discussed on this forum. Christianity has also informed a great deal of folk and blues music, so it seems to me that there's enough of a tie-in there to "legitimize" this discussion, if such is needed at all. Praise, I have always found you to be positive and encouraging to everyone you connect with on this forum, whatever the topic. Hang in there. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: katlaughing Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:25 PM I don't have a problem with specific threads like this one, which are plainly named, but I do have to agree with harpgirl that lately it has seemed pretty evangelical christian around here, with some people bringing their religion into almost every post, no matter the type of thread. Praise, I would ask you to please remember that we do not ALL have to "make nice and be friends." This is what it seems you've been trying to do whenever there is any kind of slightly rancorous discussion. It just feels as though you've gotten off balance and gone a little overboard. Relax a little and don't try to be the One and Only who serves everyone, literally. You're going to get burnt out doing that and we don't want that to happen, plus we don't all need that service, esp. in the threads. To everyone else, I would say, just as those of us who tried to start the Healing Circle and went through a holy war over it, please remember there are many who are not religious, who do not need to hear all about your religious experiences, in non-specific threads. If there is a specific request, such as this thread or the help for a friend type threads, fine, but otherwise, I personally would like to see less religious *testifying*. Thank you, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: little john cameron Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:12 PM awfy strange that there wis aboot 90 post tae this subject afore the doodoo hit the fan.Dis that no tell ye somethin. Ah also notice that the c/swallowin thread never went very far.That also tells ye somethin. ljc |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: harpgirl Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:00 PM Susan, Here is my response. Go elsewhere to discuss your religious beliefs. This is a music forum. And no matter what you or anyone else says about my opinion, I am sticking to it. I don't want to read this stuff here. Period. I'm not mad. I just don't want to see it here. Why can't you accept this and stop trying to berate, intimidate,love-bomb, evangelize or otherwise manipulate me into thinking like you do? I am simply expressing my opinion. Refusing to discuss or to accept discussions of religion is not unGodly. That is all I have to say about this matter. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Wang Chung Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:51 PM I though this harpgirl person worked in the health care profession? I would have though that someone who is used to helping people wouldn't be so mean to others. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:44 PM Emily is not being truthful. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM Just so you know, harp, I have to go offline for a bit. (I remember you got real mad once when we had a musunderstanding about my being on or offline when you thought you knew which it would be.) But I hope to see your response here so I can talk with you some more later. This is not a time-sensitive offer. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Emily Harrison Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:38 PM Susan, You are not being truthful when you say that no one has been trying to "save" me. You certainly have. I've also received some very hateful e-mails since posting here. I now think it was a big mistake to post here. Thanks to all who replied with openness and honesty. Goodbye. Emily emilyharrison@hotmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Tinker Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:35 PM Well, it did take three days for the thread to begin unraveling....Big Sigh..... Thanks guys this thread was alot of fun... as long as there are related songs in the DT no need for apologies. At Getaway one of the large informal song circles did Ol' Time Religion versifying every god/godess and sect past and present that anyone could think of. It was folk, it was fun, and with no apparent hurt feelings. Some of just are what we are. Life still goes on... Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:30 PM Harp, remember when I wrote to you long ago pointing out that you don't know me, either? When I invited you to get to know me? When I said that I'd be glad to keep talking as long as it took to address your thoughts about religion, as long as it would be a two-way discussion and you would listen to me as well? Have you not seen me address many forms of negativity at this forum, not just about Christianity? You say I don't know you. I want to. Do you want to be known? And can you please tell me how I have pushed anything on anyone? Have I ever started a thread, for instance, titled "How 'bout that Jesus?" "Let's all go to church" "What an idiot you are for not knowing my God"??? Cuz my sense is that I respond, not push. About this topic. Oh I can be real pushy about people believing in themselves, and taking risks, and being more open and close, but that's not from religion, that's from a host of other expereinces in my life, things you don't know about me. I don't think I'm more right than you, but I do think I discuss more honorably. Because I am willing to go as far as it needs to go for people to get to the bottom of the stuff that looks like nonsense on the top. Underneath there is REAL SENSE. I count on that when I address you. I want to get to the REAL SENSE. I just want to know if you will put in the time and effort to communicate in a two-way fashion, that's all. Because to come into a discussion that is not causing any harm, and complain at it, and run off leaving the people in an uproar-- that IS negativity, whether you're upset that we're talking about God, sheepskins, or anything else on the mind of a fellow member of this community. Positivity would be to find something you DO like or would like to support, and go say something nice or encouraging about it with the same clarity and energy you bring to comlaining and blaming. That's not Christian behavior, that's being part of a community in such a way that you contribute rather than tear down. It's easy to come knock over someone's blocks. I want to see you BUILD. This is not a time-sensitive offer. You know how to find me. Or we can discuss it here. You brought it up. It's great to finally talk with you about it, in fact. Made my day. You. You did. You made my day. ~Susan |
| Share Thread: |
