@fighter_mage_thief the hypocrisy I was referring to was in that I said earlier that I disliked making direct anti-religious remarks (if that wasn't clear).
I honestly had no clue what you were referring to. ^^ Hypocrisy just isn't on my list of things that I look for.
One thing I find strange too is that a lot of people who criticize others for hypocrisy often fall into two camps.
Either they live strictly by their own high standards, and so feel self-righteous enough to criticize others who fall short of their own high standards (i.e. x criticizes y because y didn't live up to y's own standards), or the critic (I think I almost made up a new word, criticizor lol) criticizes the person for having standards at all (i.e. x criticizes y because y has standards y can't live up to).
Personally, I think it's good to have standards and to try to live up to them, but I hesitate to criticize because it's obvious that anyone who is ambitious or sets high goals [and imo people are smart to be or do so, although of course there is such a thing as being over-ambitious or setting unrealistic goals or even bad goals (like murder)--mind you, hard to prove, since the person usually has to find this out on his/her own] is very likely to miss the mark or fail sometimes, and this to me is a very valuable learning experience usually, and I think calling someone a hypocrite is sort of like rubbing salt into the wound, instead of recognizing that we all have shortcomings, and that it's only human.
But on other occasions, it seems appropriate, especially if the person is doing something selfish or sneaky, although the emphasis there is on what they're doing.
Like a priest condemning homosexuals when he's having closet homosexual affairs. That's clearly wrong, and should be condemned, but mostly its his condemnation of homosexuality that irks me, since he's so defiantly high and mighty. IMO, giving into temptation is not the real issue, nor the guy's sex life, but what he's saying, since even if he were straight, saying these things seems wrong.
On the other hand, someone calling his girlfriend a hypocrite for giving in and having sex on the second or third date after she told him that she wanted to wait for marriage (true story), that's just rubbing salt in the wound, and in my opinion, confirming the importance of her original plan, since he obviously has no respect for her.
It's been 14 pages in a gay romance thread... and no one is even arguing over who's the most attractive new NPC! For shame!
... And it's Rasaad, obviously. Unless you like bears with tusks and tinges of green skin. And honestly I think Dorn would unintentionally break my back in a romantic encounter - he's huge! That issue should be addressed realistically by Overhaul. I demand realistic orc intimacy! ^-^ Hmm I wonder if they romance each other like klingons. *-) If that's true, female half-orcs would be scarier than the males. Yup. n.n
Ajantis has 17 Charisma, so he wins :P That being said, I don't think he's too keen on a gay romance ^^
@Shandyr Well, i agree mostly, and would just like to add my personal differences. For my wife, i am jealous and so is she. But i gave myself to her, 2nd to God (We both put God first, before each other and ourselves, and it's the foundation of our relationship, and it's proven very stable), and she gave herself to me. We do belong to each other, but if she chooses to leave, it will be hard, but i do love her enough that her happiness is more important then mine. But i'm going to protect her, fight for her, and, as i've told her, i won't let anyone speak badly about her, not even her. She didn't take me seriously, but she learned that i was serious. If someone is saying it in a way that she's lacking and can/should grow, that one thing, but i don't consider that speaking bad of her. Open rebuke is better then hidden love.
With my sons, the jealousy isn't as obvious but it's still there. I love my sons and i've very protective of them as well, and i want them to grow up to be strong and capable to handle the things life throws at them. I don't teach them to always win, but to always do their best, and it's worked well as they all do very well. But the jealousy is still there, me and my wife discuss constantly how we want to raise our sons (and hopefully daughter soon ), what we will teach them and when. When someone comes into their life, we always meet them and talk with them. Find out what type of person they are, and figure out what influnce they will be on them. This seems on the surface to be protection but i consider it jealousy as well.
Quick note, we don't shelter our sons, that is futile, but we keep away drugs and those with alternate motives. Our sons are all under age 10 though. The jealousy comes into play in family members who have tried to act as a mom or dad to our sons (once a neighbor). And why i say act, openly trying to put us out of our roles as parents, and on 3 seperate occasions, people have tried to get our sons to call them mom/dad. Heh, i was mad and didn't allow them back in my house for a loooooong time.
I want you to understand, these are MY sons. I don't own them, they will grow up and belong to God (if they serve Him or not, i believe we all belong to God), but they are my sons, my wife's sons. There is alot of jealousy there that doesn't seem obvious, and i can't fully explain it, nor would i have believed it until i was a Father. I think it's a part of being protective.
As far as loving someone who doesn't love you back, yes. We're commanded as christians to love others as brothers and sisters. It's not easy, and my wife is a million times better at it then me, but i understand the jealousy of God as we are all His children. I respect my wife and my sons, even if it doesn't sound like it, but jealousy will always be a part of my love for them, as will my protection of them. They as a person don't belong to me (in the case of my wife, i only own a part of her, her heart ), but i do own the right to call my wife 'my wife', and my sons 'my sons'.
This probably made noooooo sense, and your post was much better, but if you can discern anything from this jumbled mess, this is what i somehow feel and what is true for me. It may contridict itself 100000 times over, but somehow, it works.
Edit: @Bjjorick Yes, Ive learnt alot from our chat, so that feeling is mutual
@shandyr Lol, i prayed for a long time for a good wife. I'm quite blessed, and she's more then i could ever desire.
She's also one of the many reminders of how good God is, as everything i prayed for, even some very odd, specific things that wouldn't appear otherwise. I'm not talking sexual stuff, just the way we lay in bed at night was a very specific prayer, and that's how we lay everynight, and that's how she likes to laydown, it's odd, and exactly what i prayed for as a sign that she was the wife God prepared for me.
I'm a little surprised that you can romance a half orc. i can't think of another game where that's possible.
Instead of praying, which means just speaking to God, for something and he grants a wish. I rather imagine that praying changes your mind.
I take the more scientific approach here. Praying would be something like "Power of Suggestion". Like when you have a very positive attitude towards something or you want something very badly then it is more likely to happen.
Because you unconsciously change yourself so that the thing you want will be more likely to come real.
Of course it could be God who set up this whole concept.
But I dont imagine praying like a jinn's wish. (BTW I dont think you see praying this way (jinn) either)
Well, you were 100% right as far as praying is talking to God, but it's deffinately not like a wish. See, i'm not social at all. Typically even on forums. I'm not antisocial by any means, just asocial. But i always wanted someone who would be there and love me through thick and thin and love me for who I am. God does that, but God is still far for obvious reasons. Sin is to go against God, who is the creator and Lord of all things, and there's not alot He asks us to not do, but we always do it for some reason. Not the point of my message, moving on.
In Genesis, talking about adam, God says, It's not good for man to be alone, and creates Eve from adam's "rib" (there are translations on that i can share if interested). But I told God in my talks with Him many times (and yes, He speaks to those who listen to Him) to pray for my wife, to tell Him what i desire. So i did, for a long time, and the things i wanted in a wife were very specific. I wanted her to be asian, an aquarius (i study astrology, as it helps me understand people) and i wanted t meet her at a very very bad time of my life. If she could love me when i was nothing and had nothing, then maybe she could love me in my failings. I also asked God to make her all the things i wanted/needed in a wife but didn't knwo i wanted/needed. That was a good thing.
I met a few girls after, and most of them fit, but never quite right. It never worked out. Then God told me i would have a motorcycle accident in prayer, at a time i didn't have a motorcycle. Through no actions of my own, 3 hours after that prayer, i lost my car (long story) and it was replaced with a motorcycle. I never wanted one and wasn't happy, especially knowing an accident was coming. short version, had a motorcycle accident, messed up my knee, and met my wife in a time when i couldn't walk, was on pain meds, hurt all the time, and didn't know if i'd ever be able to walk/work again. She's a native filipino (asian/spanish mix, very beautiful) and is an aquarius. Everything I prayed for is in my wife, and i prayed for hundreds of things. This isn't random chance, or my own actions (lol, i was doped up on pain meds, was taking loretab 10s, and flexirils, very very potent muscle relaxers).
But, and i'm not judging you or saying anything bad, until you experience how God works, how He moves, how His blessings occur, it's hard to understand. Once you see them, it's still hard to understand, but you see them coming, you feel them coming, you know that it's from God because of how awesome they are. It's kinda like.......getting a letter in the mail without a name on it. You know who the letter is from because you know the style, the handwriting in the letter, even without a name attached. You know it can't be from anyone else, and since nothing you did caused it, you know that someone is sending it to you.
I wish i could show you could see. I'm not sure how beyond this meger attempt to explain something beyond words. But hey, knowing that i'll fail never stopped me before. :P
Btw, i don't mean to correct you all the time, it's not my intention, i just wanted to try to explain it a little better.
@tilly, the title theme is "gay romance", not "gay romance ingame", we were all ontopic until the religion debate took place (not that i have any problem with the religion debate), so if you want to talk abount romanceable NPCs there is a proper topic opened already for it, i believe it's called "new romances BGEE" or something like that.
Pff dude, you not only didn't understand that i just clarified that romance debates aren't off topic here, as you resort to flame, think before post and avoid needless flame, it isn't too dificult.
I'm sure you're refering to a few possibilities. When He told the nation of Isreal to go to war? God is in control of everything, including nations. Sometimes He uses war to humble people, sometimes disasters, sometimes love. It's all on what will change the hardened hearts of the people. But again, He told the NATION of Isreal to fight, not the Churches.
And if you're talking about when Moses came down from the mountains and slew many of his own people? Let me ask you this, you've been a slave for many years, then God delivers you. And not just delivers you (and please try to imagine this) but God parts the Red Sea (huge huge sea) for you to cross, then closes it on your captives/enemies. Then He appears to moses as a pillar of fire often. Not only that, but as you travel the desert, mana (food) rains down from the heavens every day and you go out and gather enough for your family. At the end of each day, any extra turns to maggots, EXCEPT on the sabbath. The day before the sabbath, you're told to get a double portion, and on the sabbath, they rest.
So, everyday is a miracle (how often has food fallen from the heavens for you?), and yet, despite all that God is doing and showing you, you take the gold that the egyptian gave you and create idols and worship them and have orgies and do all the things God told you not to do? Lol, the darwin awards talk about thinning out the shallow gene pool by incredible acts of stupidity that lead to death. If the darwinists weren't so against relegion, i think that would one that would be in there. What do we know about God, He's loving, but He's also jealous (and i say that's a part of love, if not, why don't we share the one we love with others?). After many miracles and blessings and warnings to follow their covent with God, you go out and do something INCREDIBLY STUPID to spite the one that's taking care of you.
If you have another passage in mind, please share.
The original post was about Christians going to war but not churches.
I wasn't thinking of the Egypt example specifically but that is a hard one to reconcile with Christ considering God hardens Pharoah's heart twice to ensure he pursues the Israelites and then divinely intervenes to ensure they are all slaughtered in the battle that He ensured would happen.
My take is that the Old Testament God approved of His religious leaders being involved in war:
* God instructs his #1 religious leader (Moses) to not only war with the Amalekites but to war with their children. I struggle to see Jesus saying to his disciples to ensure that the children of his enemies are subjected to war based on the sins of their parents.
* God instructs Moses again to wipe out the Midianites. For those who are captured, Moses instructs to kill all men and all women except the virgins who are saved for the conquering forces.
* God instructs Moses to kill the people of Heshbon -- after hardening the king's spirit and making him obstinate to ensure that there was a confrontation. Men, women and children are all killed.
* God instructs Moses to kill the people of Bashan -- after hardening the king's spirit and making him obstinate to ensure that there was a confrontation. Men, women and children are all killed.
* God instructs Joshua (religious leader) to destroy every living thing in the city of Jerico.
* God instructs Joshua (religious leader) to destroy every living thing in the city of Ai.
* Joshua kills "all who breathed", including men, women and children, in the cities of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir.
* God instructs Joshua to wipe out all life in Hazor and then "hardens the hearts" of the people in Hazor to ensure that the conflict comes to fruition.
* The decision to "not leave alive anything that breathes" for the the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites is more vague whether that was through the Isrealites rather or a religious leader so I don't know that those count.
There are many, many more examples of battles following direction by God to his prophets in the Old Testament. Given that they were the religious leaders of the time, the fact that they didn't bifurcate the armies of Israel to form a separate institution of a church (as in the New Testament) doesn't seem particularly convincing to me. There wasn't that kind of separation of church and state during that period. It wouldn't have made sense because God made these leaders also His religious leaders (or vice versa - He made the religious leaders the leaders of the nation).
Fundamentally, I just have trouble reconciling Jesus who advises his followers to turn their cheeks to cruelty and the Old Testament God who directs the slaughter of women and children (or just kills them directly like ripping up the children with the she-bears for laughing at baldness).
I see nothing in there that precludes the existance of a divine power. Understanding of the mechanics of the universe certainly doesn't preclude a divine power -- even if one believes that divine power isn't taking an active, interventionist role (isn't the world this guy is describing basically the same out the Deists believed in?)
The reality is that the scientific method is fundamentally limited to testable observations. Since any divine power is inherently "supernatural" or outside of this box, science can never disprove the existence of divinity. To asset that it will ever do so misunderstands the meaning and significant of science and divinity.
The spoof on the spaghetti monster is also equally unable to be disproved, but that doesn't mean that science can explain everything or rule out of the existence of god. This guy just wanted to stir the pot and get some attention, IMO.
The irony is that he is essentially saying that science will one day explain all of the natural world without resorting to God as a reason for any of it and then is taking the next step to explain his personal faith that there is no God outside of what can be explained by science. That is every bit as much a matter of faith as someone who believes there is a God that cannot be explained by science.
Continuing the whole "What the Bible says" here, I'll just add that, no, slavery among the Israelites was not similar to American Indentured Servitude- or rather, only in one way, and only for Israelites enslaved by their own people- they could be freed once every 6 years. But if it was a male slave, he was set free. If he'd had a wife before he was enslaved, they were both set free. But if he took his wife while he was a slave, she remained enslaved. If they had children, the children were also enslaved. If the man didn't want to give up his wife, he could tell everyone he loved his master and didn't want to leave him, and they'd pierce his ear with an awl, and he'd be a slave forever. (Leviticus 25:44-46) Female slaves were not subjected to the same treatment. A woman sold into slavery could only be freed if her master married her himself or to his son. If he declared he was not satisfied with her- she'd be sold right back to him again. (Exodus 21:7-11) And you could also buy your brother as a slave- and he had to stay your slave for up to 50 years (freed at a special festival held only once every 50 years called the Jubilee) (Leviticus 35:48-53). But the Bible makes clear that if you beat a slave to within an inch of his life, and he recovers, that's okay- he's his owner's money/property. Only if the slave died from the beating (I think within 24 or 48 hours) was the owner liable (Exodus 21:20-21). Another way to be freed is if your master knocked out one of your teeth or destroyed an eye. (Exodus 21:26-27) The Isrealites took slaves not only from within their own people, but also from the peoples around them. What they found truly objectionable was kidnapping otherwise free people to turn them into slaves. But if you had debts and were sold into slavery to pay off those debts, that was okay. (Exodus 21:16)
Furthermore, Jesus never says homosexual sexual relations are wrong. That's for the Old Testament and Paul. Jesus also never speaks out against slavery- something we today know is wrong. Paul even tells slaves to obey their masters and serve their masters as if their master was Jesus (Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Timothy 6:1-2) And sends Onesimus back to his master, even when the Old Testament says not to. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
Furthermore, many modern-day translations of the Bible seek to keep the Bible from supporting slavery by translating slave as servant, bondslave, maidservant, manservant and so on. Originally, they were translated as "slave". Just like how the word "Witch" in the King James Version of the Bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." was originally "someone who killed by use of poison" aka "Poisoner".
This is why I don't consider the Bible to be an accurate arbiter of morality.
It's been 14 pages in a gay romance thread... and no one is even arguing over who's the most attractive new NPC! For shame!
... And it's Rasaad, obviously. Unless you like bears with tusks and tinges of green skin. And honestly I think Dorn would unintentionally break my back in a romantic encounter - he's huge! That issue should be addressed realistically by Overhaul. I demand realistic orc intimacy! ^-^ Hmm I wonder if they romance each other like klingons. *-) If that's true, female half-orcs would be scarier than the males. Yup. n.n
Ajantis has 17 Charisma, so he wins :P That being said, I don't think he's too keen on a gay romance ^^
Ajantis shares 17 Charisma with Safana.
Also, Dorn as a Blackguard is going to have to have at least 17. Also, I think his portrait is pretty attractive. So he's gonna be a 17 probably. I would laugh if he were 18; the most attractive person in the game? THE HALF-ORC!!
This is why I don't consider the Bible to be an accurate arbiter of morality.
Because of one thing? Wow. So from your perspective, everything in it is gold except one thing, so it's not an accurate arbiter of morality? That's like taking a truckload of tomatos, finding out one is sour, and throwing it all out.
By the way, we can't know what "slave" meant unless, of course, you know Hebrew (OT) and/or Greek (NT). Let's take the commandment to "thou shalt not murder," for instance. We still, to this day, do not know if it was "murder" or "kill" because in Hebrew, murder and kill were synonymous.
If I had a family like what you showed there, I would be very happy (I think so at least), and I think that I can both understand and relate to what you're saying more than you may believe (I think most people could relate to much of what you said), especially about being very protective of your wife and children. On the other hand, I don't have a wife or children, so obviously it is a very different situation for you, and a lived experienced, which is so much more than contemplation or a daydream about it.
I would have willingly became religious for a woman, but it's because I'm willing, to some extent, to suspend my rational faculties for romance (not saying you're irrational for believing, but for me personally, to start suddenly going to church and praying would be irrational, since I just don't feel the reasons I've heard that people give for believing in God are enough for me). At the time, you fall in love, and think that being with that person is more important than most other things (and at the time, I genuinely think it is), you might even give your life to protect that person or make sacrifices that make no sense rationally, like giving a part of your physical heart (true story) to a person just so that person might be able to live for a few more months, despite the fact that it will drastically lower your life expectancy (in this case, it was two brothers who did this for a dying brother, but it can apply to a loved one in a romantic relationship too, and of course allude to numerous acts of selflessness/self-sacrifice for a lover). It's a type of madness, but it's not a bad sort, since it's manifested through selflessness and other virtues [I don't mean to sound pretentious here, but this is expanded on in Plato's Phaedrus, and despite the fact that it was a description of the highest romantic affection between a man and a boy (and he doesn't think this highest love involves sexual acts either btw), I felt it was perfectly relatable to a man and a woman, and it's one of the few things I've ever read that actually brought a tear to my eye].
Also, if my wife is adamantly religious, I wouldn't want to rock the boat, because if it's extremely important to her, or central to her life, I wouldn't want to clash with that. That's how I would go about it personally. 'While in Rome do as Romans do,' unless of course we're talking about something that is clearly immoral. There is a sort of dishonesty in what I'm suggesting though, so I don't know to be honest, but if you care about someone enough, it's a small sacrifice. I would also think of it more as a 'white lie' as opposed to a vicious one meant to actually hurt that person in some way.
What I'm saying I think is more internal as opposed to something people comfortably talk about in general. For example, I honestly don't believe that anyone needs religion to be a good person, but that being said, I think that adopting religion can create the 'placebo effect,' such as to say that it's the power of the individual's mind that convinces that person that it was religion that helped or even saved that person, when ultimately it was that person all along, since a person can really only turn him or herself around if it's truly desired, and a serious turn to religion often represents this. (Placebo effect, of course, referring to the actual placebo effect, where people may be taking a harmless/ineffective pill that isn't really designed to help them, but because of they believe that it will work, and ultimately perhaps due to the relief of stress and so on, the recipient may actually do better, and all that really changed was that person's state of mind) Of course, it's equally attributable to God, since both are ultimately unprovable assertions, as I see it. If something goes really well (i.e. a person's cancer goes into remission), there's no real way of knowing whether it was random chance or in fact planned (or perhaps even a mistake by the doctors, a systemic medical error, for example--these things actually happen--for example, I hesitate to take medication as well, but not like some due to religious convictions, but because I know that there are cases of people dying from violent reactions while taking medication. To give one example, the mother of a friend of mine went to the hospital years ago for some sort of test for cancer I believe, and it involved taking some sort of iodine solution. She wasn't screened, she had a violent reaction due to an allergy to iodine, had a massive heart attack and died. And things like this happen often, but it doesn't make the news, for whatever reasons--sometimes personal too, (right?), considering the family is mourning that person's death). There are also toxic medications that are being pushed by the pharmaceutical industry, and every so often, there's either a recall of some drug because of its toxic side-effects or due to a bunch of people dying from it, and so on. But that's a side issue, and doesn't really belong here, I was just trying to clarify what I meant by a 'systemic medical error.')
@Quartz, charisma isn't = beautiful in D&D terms, it's most like the ability of convince others, or an presence that influence people around (be them pleased or frightened from the charismatic person).
Sarevok for example has 18 charisma if i'm not wrong and people surely try to avoid him.
Looks like you did mention that first. I had placebo on the mind because I was watching Dr. Oz recently, he had an episode of a natural weight loss supplement that may have no side effects--an extract from the green coffee bean--it looks promising, but I think it would be best to wait for a while. There are also people who are out there trying to scam people by selling impure versions of the product that could be laced with other things, instead of purely the extract. Apparently, he did a test with his audience, and on average, even the members of the audience that took the placebo lost weight during the trial, which is pretty interesting.
As for what you said about God, I agree completely. If God exists in the way described by some of the classical Christian thinkers like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (the triple A!), then I think it follows logically that what happens is God's will, that if something goes bad or good it was by God's design and necessarily aims at the highest good. It also would entail that everything we are able to do is because God wills that it be so.
Another even more extreme argument I heard is referred to as Divine Command Theory, which Dr. Craig talks about (btw, he holds two phD's, one in Theology, another in Philosophy, so I don't think of him as some random lune). Basically, if God is good to the highest order, omniscient, unerring in judgement, and so on, it logically follows that God would never give anyone a savage command (i.e. an order to do something that is evil). As you could imagine, this may sound very strange to some, considering it could be used to justify absolutely atrocious acts, but it is ultimately predicated on the idea that God has an all-encompassing perspective on things, whereas humans do not. For example, the repercussions of what was written on a stone tablet thousands of years ago (i.e. the fragments of the Gilgamesh epic) are still technically unfolding to this very day, and so how can humans, from a limited perspective, truly be sure that what they will do can lead to the greatest good in any ultimate sense? (btw, also a critique of utilitarianism) Technically, only some absolute all-knower could possibly know this. Now, of course, there are very practical concerns. For example, if someone says to us that he murdered his wife because God told him to, it is a very normal and proper reaction to assume that this person is insane and needs to be locked up (even despite having not defined normal and proper, I think this extreme points to some proxy definition, and we all sort of know we wouldn't really trust someone saying such a thing, or let them go free), unless there is some divine sign, which may ultimately be impossible, since nothing may really be enough to know for sure (Bertrand Russell's position I believe). This sounds crazy in the abstract, but consider the story of the Omen (the movie). The main character doesn't believe any of the things the priest is saying at first, thinks he's mad, but through a number of signs, and an unreal sequence of events, he begins to believe, and in the end, what happens? A cop busts in, sees him trying to, what looks like, kill a harmless boy, and the hero is shot down like the raving lunatic that any sane person would think he is without being convinced that it's true. Further, the story is actually that the man's son is truly the anti-Christ, it's not a story of a guy who is delusional. It's a pretty interesting theory, and it's purely theoretical I think, since any person with a sense of moral conviction will look upon certain actions as unjustifiable, even if in an ultimate sense, they actually are justified or somehow necessary to achieve the highest good.
You could assign the @-tag at your final modification :P I guess the problem is you dont know what your final modification will be... >_>
Very true. For example, my last edit was adding that little bracketted reference to Bertrand Russell. It's super important imo, but probably not interesting to anybody else lol ^^
It's been 14 pages in a gay romance thread... and no one is even arguing over who's the most attractive new NPC! For shame!
... And it's Rasaad, obviously. Unless you like bears with tusks and tinges of green skin. And honestly I think Dorn would unintentionally break my back in a romantic encounter - he's huge! That issue should be addressed realistically by Overhaul. I demand realistic orc intimacy! ^-^ Hmm I wonder if they romance each other like klingons. *-) If that's true, female half-orcs would be scarier than the males. Yup. n.n
Ajantis has 17 Charisma, so he wins :P That being said, I don't think he's too keen on a gay romance ^^
Ajantis shares 17 Charisma with Safana.
Also, Dorn as a Blackguard is going to have to have at least 17. Also, I think his portrait is pretty attractive. So he's gonna be a 17 probably. I would laugh if he were 18; the most attractive person in the game? THE HALF-ORC!!
This is why I don't consider the Bible to be an accurate arbiter of morality.
Because of one thing? Wow. So from your perspective, everything in it is gold except one thing, so it's not an accurate arbiter of morality? That's like taking a truckload of tomatos, finding out one is sour, and throwing it all out.
By the way, we can't know what "slave" meant unless, of course, you know Hebrew (OT) and/or Greek (NT). Let's take the commandment to "thou shalt not murder," for instance. We still, to this day, do not know if it was "murder" or "kill" because in Hebrew, murder and kill were synonymous.
You know there are people who still speak Hebrew, right? I know a bunch of them. And no, it's just one of many reasons. If it's a book of people who were writing down what they thought was right and wrong, that's one thing- they can be wrong and hey, it's their opinion, right? But the Bible is held up as some kind of better than that communication from an actual All-knowing, all-seeing, always there God. Would you agree with me that slavery is wrong? Sexual slavery is wrong? Yet, it's in the Bible as something that's regulated and okay to do. God never says it's wrong to enslave people- he instructs his chosen people to take slaves from the nations they conquer. Jesus never speaks out against it. That's in the Bible itself. Even Paul can't tell Onesimus' owner outright, "You know, slavery is wrong. You should set him free." Instead, he has to kind of creep around the issue in a very roundabout way and ask without really asking.
So yeah, I don't consider it an accurate arbiter of morality. But when it condones slavery and sexual slavery and the taking of slaves in wartime, the bad parts render the good parts of it rather tarnished, on the whole.
@Quartz Charisma has nothing to do with physical attractiveness. I've said elsewhere that 1e AD&D said Hitler had an 18 Charisma. Not for being handsome, but for force of personality, which is what Charisma is. Call it leadership, the ability to inspire people and/or get them to do what you want... that's Charisma.
Comments
One thing I find strange too is that a lot of people who criticize others for hypocrisy often fall into two camps.
Either they live strictly by their own high standards, and so feel self-righteous enough to criticize others who fall short of their own high standards (i.e. x criticizes y because y didn't live up to y's own standards), or the critic (I think I almost made up a new word, criticizor lol) criticizes the person for having standards at all (i.e. x criticizes y because y has standards y can't live up to).
Personally, I think it's good to have standards and to try to live up to them, but I hesitate to criticize because it's obvious that anyone who is ambitious or sets high goals [and imo people are smart to be or do so, although of course there is such a thing as being over-ambitious or setting unrealistic goals or even bad goals (like murder)--mind you, hard to prove, since the person usually has to find this out on his/her own] is very likely to miss the mark or fail sometimes, and this to me is a very valuable learning experience usually, and I think calling someone a hypocrite is sort of like rubbing salt into the wound, instead of recognizing that we all have shortcomings, and that it's only human.
But on other occasions, it seems appropriate, especially if the person is doing something selfish or sneaky, although the emphasis there is on what they're doing.
Like a priest condemning homosexuals when he's having closet homosexual affairs. That's clearly wrong, and should be condemned, but mostly its his condemnation of homosexuality that irks me, since he's so defiantly high and mighty. IMO, giving into temptation is not the real issue, nor the guy's sex life, but what he's saying, since even if he were straight, saying these things seems wrong.
On the other hand, someone calling his girlfriend a hypocrite for giving in and having sex on the second or third date after she told him that she wanted to wait for marriage (true story), that's just rubbing salt in the wound, and in my opinion, confirming the importance of her original plan, since he obviously has no respect for her.
Well, i agree mostly, and would just like to add my personal differences. For my wife, i am jealous and so is she. But i gave myself to her, 2nd to God (We both put God first, before each other and ourselves, and it's the foundation of our relationship, and it's proven very stable), and she gave herself to me. We do belong to each other, but if she chooses to leave, it will be hard, but i do love her enough that her happiness is more important then mine. But i'm going to protect her, fight for her, and, as i've told her, i won't let anyone speak badly about her, not even her. She didn't take me seriously, but she learned that i was serious. If someone is saying it in a way that she's lacking and can/should grow, that one thing, but i don't consider that speaking bad of her. Open rebuke is better then hidden love.
With my sons, the jealousy isn't as obvious but it's still there. I love my sons and i've very protective of them as well, and i want them to grow up to be strong and capable to handle the things life throws at them. I don't teach them to always win, but to always do their best, and it's worked well as they all do very well. But the jealousy is still there, me and my wife discuss constantly how we want to raise our sons (and hopefully daughter soon
Quick note, we don't shelter our sons, that is futile, but we keep away drugs and those with alternate motives. Our sons are all under age 10 though. The jealousy comes into play in family members who have tried to act as a mom or dad to our sons (once a neighbor). And why i say act, openly trying to put us out of our roles as parents, and on 3 seperate occasions, people have tried to get our sons to call them mom/dad. Heh, i was mad and didn't allow them back in my house for a loooooong time.
I want you to understand, these are MY sons. I don't own them, they will grow up and belong to God (if they serve Him or not, i believe we all belong to God), but they are my sons, my wife's sons. There is alot of jealousy there that doesn't seem obvious, and i can't fully explain it, nor would i have believed it until i was a Father. I think it's a part of being protective.
As far as loving someone who doesn't love you back, yes. We're commanded as christians to love others as brothers and sisters. It's not easy, and my wife is a million times better at it then me, but i understand the jealousy of God as we are all His children. I respect my wife and my sons, even if it doesn't sound like it, but jealousy will always be a part of my love for them, as will my protection of them. They as a person don't belong to me (in the case of my wife, i only own a part of her, her heart
This probably made noooooo sense, and your post was much better, but if you can discern anything from this jumbled mess, this is what i somehow feel and what is true for me. It may contridict itself 100000 times over, but somehow, it works.
Edit:
@Bjjorick
Yes, Ive learnt alot from our chat, so that feeling is mutual
I'm happy for this, thank you.
Lol, i prayed for a long time for a good wife. I'm quite blessed, and she's more then i could ever desire.
She's also one of the many reminders of how good God is, as everything i prayed for, even some very odd, specific things that wouldn't appear otherwise. I'm not talking sexual stuff, just the way we lay in bed at night was a very specific prayer, and that's how we lay everynight, and that's how she likes to laydown, it's odd, and exactly what i prayed for as a sign that she was the wife God prepared for me.
I'm a little surprised that you can romance a half orc. i can't think of another game where that's possible.
In Genesis, talking about adam, God says, It's not good for man to be alone, and creates Eve from adam's "rib" (there are translations on that i can share if interested). But I told God in my talks with Him many times (and yes, He speaks to those who listen to Him) to pray for my wife, to tell Him what i desire. So i did, for a long time, and the things i wanted in a wife were very specific. I wanted her to be asian, an aquarius (i study astrology, as it helps me understand people) and i wanted t meet her at a very very bad time of my life. If she could love me when i was nothing and had nothing, then maybe she could love me in my failings. I also asked God to make her all the things i wanted/needed in a wife but didn't knwo i wanted/needed. That was a good thing.
I met a few girls after, and most of them fit, but never quite right. It never worked out. Then God told me i would have a motorcycle accident in prayer, at a time i didn't have a motorcycle. Through no actions of my own, 3 hours after that prayer, i lost my car (long story) and it was replaced with a motorcycle. I never wanted one and wasn't happy, especially knowing an accident was coming. short version, had a motorcycle accident, messed up my knee, and met my wife in a time when i couldn't walk, was on pain meds, hurt all the time, and didn't know if i'd ever be able to walk/work again. She's a native filipino (asian/spanish mix, very beautiful) and is an aquarius. Everything I prayed for is in my wife, and i prayed for hundreds of things. This isn't random chance, or my own actions (lol, i was doped up on pain meds, was taking loretab 10s, and flexirils, very very potent muscle relaxers).
But, and i'm not judging you or saying anything bad, until you experience how God works, how He moves, how His blessings occur, it's hard to understand. Once you see them, it's still hard to understand, but you see them coming, you feel them coming, you know that it's from God because of how awesome they are. It's kinda like.......getting a letter in the mail without a name on it. You know who the letter is from because you know the style, the handwriting in the letter, even without a name attached. You know it can't be from anyone else, and since nothing you did caused it, you know that someone is sending it to you.
I wish i could show you could see. I'm not sure how beyond this meger attempt to explain something beyond words. But hey, knowing that i'll fail never stopped me before. :P
Btw, i don't mean to correct you all the time, it's not my intention, i just wanted to try to explain it a little better.
I wasn't thinking of the Egypt example specifically but that is a hard one to reconcile with Christ considering God hardens Pharoah's heart twice to ensure he pursues the Israelites and then divinely intervenes to ensure they are all slaughtered in the battle that He ensured would happen.
My take is that the Old Testament God approved of His religious leaders being involved in war:
* God instructs his #1 religious leader (Moses) to not only war with the Amalekites but to war with their children. I struggle to see Jesus saying to his disciples to ensure that the children of his enemies are subjected to war based on the sins of their parents.
* God instructs Moses again to wipe out the Midianites. For those who are captured, Moses instructs to kill all men and all women except the virgins who are saved for the conquering forces.
* God instructs Moses to kill the people of Heshbon -- after hardening the king's spirit and making him obstinate to ensure that there was a confrontation. Men, women and children are all killed.
* God instructs Moses to kill the people of Bashan -- after hardening the king's spirit and making him obstinate to ensure that there was a confrontation. Men, women and children are all killed.
* God instructs Joshua (religious leader) to destroy every living thing in the city of Jerico.
* God instructs Joshua (religious leader) to destroy every living thing in the city of Ai.
* Joshua kills "all who breathed", including men, women and children, in the cities of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir.
* God instructs Joshua to wipe out all life in Hazor and then "hardens the hearts" of the people in Hazor to ensure that the conflict comes to fruition.
* The decision to "not leave alive anything that breathes" for the the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites is more vague whether that was through the Isrealites rather or a religious leader so I don't know that those count.
There are many, many more examples of battles following direction by God to his prophets in the Old Testament. Given that they were the religious leaders of the time, the fact that they didn't bifurcate the armies of Israel to form a separate institution of a church (as in the New Testament) doesn't seem particularly convincing to me. There wasn't that kind of separation of church and state during that period. It wouldn't have made sense because God made these leaders also His religious leaders (or vice versa - He made the religious leaders the leaders of the nation).
Fundamentally, I just have trouble reconciling Jesus who advises his followers to turn their cheeks to cruelty and the Old Testament God who directs the slaughter of women and children (or just kills them directly like ripping up the children with the she-bears for laughing at baldness).
http://news.yahoo.com/science-someday-rule-possibility-god-115945479.html
I see nothing in there that precludes the existance of a divine power. Understanding of the mechanics of the universe certainly doesn't preclude a divine power -- even if one believes that divine power isn't taking an active, interventionist role (isn't the world this guy is describing basically the same out the Deists believed in?)
The reality is that the scientific method is fundamentally limited to testable observations. Since any divine power is inherently "supernatural" or outside of this box, science can never disprove the existence of divinity. To asset that it will ever do so misunderstands the meaning and significant of science and divinity.
The spoof on the spaghetti monster is also equally unable to be disproved, but that doesn't mean that science can explain everything or rule out of the existence of god. This guy just wanted to stir the pot and get some attention, IMO.
The irony is that he is essentially saying that science will one day explain all of the natural world without resorting to God as a reason for any of it and then is taking the next step to explain his personal faith that there is no God outside of what can be explained by science. That is every bit as much a matter of faith as someone who believes there is a God that cannot be explained by science.
Furthermore, Jesus never says homosexual sexual relations are wrong. That's for the Old Testament and Paul. Jesus also never speaks out against slavery- something we today know is wrong. Paul even tells slaves to obey their masters and serve their masters as if their master was Jesus (Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Timothy 6:1-2) And sends Onesimus back to his master, even when the Old Testament says not to. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
Furthermore, many modern-day translations of the Bible seek to keep the Bible from supporting slavery by translating slave as servant, bondslave, maidservant, manservant and so on. Originally, they were translated as "slave". Just like how the word "Witch" in the King James Version of the Bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." was originally "someone who killed by use of poison" aka "Poisoner".
This is why I don't consider the Bible to be an accurate arbiter of morality.
Also, Dorn as a Blackguard is going to have to have at least 17. Also, I think his portrait is pretty attractive. So he's gonna be a 17 probably. I would laugh if he were 18; the most attractive person in the game? THE HALF-ORC!! Because of one thing? Wow. So from your perspective, everything in it is gold except one thing, so it's not an accurate arbiter of morality? That's like taking a truckload of tomatos, finding out one is sour, and throwing it all out.
By the way, we can't know what "slave" meant unless, of course, you know Hebrew (OT) and/or Greek (NT). Let's take the commandment to "thou shalt not murder," for instance. We still, to this day, do not know if it was "murder" or "kill" because in Hebrew, murder and kill were synonymous.
If I had a family like what you showed there, I would be very happy (I think so at least), and I think that I can both understand and relate to what you're saying more than you may believe (I think most people could relate to much of what you said), especially about being very protective of your wife and children. On the other hand, I don't have a wife or children, so obviously it is a very different situation for you, and a lived experienced, which is so much more than contemplation or a daydream about it.
I would have willingly became religious for a woman, but it's because I'm willing, to some extent, to suspend my rational faculties for romance (not saying you're irrational for believing, but for me personally, to start suddenly going to church and praying would be irrational, since I just don't feel the reasons I've heard that people give for believing in God are enough for me). At the time, you fall in love, and think that being with that person is more important than most other things (and at the time, I genuinely think it is), you might even give your life to protect that person or make sacrifices that make no sense rationally, like giving a part of your physical heart (true story) to a person just so that person might be able to live for a few more months, despite the fact that it will drastically lower your life expectancy (in this case, it was two brothers who did this for a dying brother, but it can apply to a loved one in a romantic relationship too, and of course allude to numerous acts of selflessness/self-sacrifice for a lover). It's a type of madness, but it's not a bad sort, since it's manifested through selflessness and other virtues [I don't mean to sound pretentious here, but this is expanded on in Plato's Phaedrus, and despite the fact that it was a description of the highest romantic affection between a man and a boy (and he doesn't think this highest love involves sexual acts either btw), I felt it was perfectly relatable to a man and a woman, and it's one of the few things I've ever read that actually brought a tear to my eye].
Also, if my wife is adamantly religious, I wouldn't want to rock the boat, because if it's extremely important to her, or central to her life, I wouldn't want to clash with that. That's how I would go about it personally. 'While in Rome do as Romans do,' unless of course we're talking about something that is clearly immoral. There is a sort of dishonesty in what I'm suggesting though, so I don't know to be honest, but if you care about someone enough, it's a small sacrifice. I would also think of it more as a 'white lie' as opposed to a vicious one meant to actually hurt that person in some way.
What I'm saying I think is more internal as opposed to something people comfortably talk about in general. For example, I honestly don't believe that anyone needs religion to be a good person, but that being said, I think that adopting religion can create the 'placebo effect,' such as to say that it's the power of the individual's mind that convinces that person that it was religion that helped or even saved that person, when ultimately it was that person all along, since a person can really only turn him or herself around if it's truly desired, and a serious turn to religion often represents this. (Placebo effect, of course, referring to the actual placebo effect, where people may be taking a harmless/ineffective pill that isn't really designed to help them, but because of they believe that it will work, and ultimately perhaps due to the relief of stress and so on, the recipient may actually do better, and all that really changed was that person's state of mind) Of course, it's equally attributable to God, since both are ultimately unprovable assertions, as I see it. If something goes really well (i.e. a person's cancer goes into remission), there's no real way of knowing whether it was random chance or in fact planned (or perhaps even a mistake by the doctors, a systemic medical error, for example--these things actually happen--for example, I hesitate to take medication as well, but not like some due to religious convictions, but because I know that there are cases of people dying from violent reactions while taking medication. To give one example, the mother of a friend of mine went to the hospital years ago for some sort of test for cancer I believe, and it involved taking some sort of iodine solution. She wasn't screened, she had a violent reaction due to an allergy to iodine, had a massive heart attack and died. And things like this happen often, but it doesn't make the news, for whatever reasons--sometimes personal too, (right?), considering the family is mourning that person's death). There are also toxic medications that are being pushed by the pharmaceutical industry, and every so often, there's either a recall of some drug because of its toxic side-effects or due to a bunch of people dying from it, and so on. But that's a side issue, and doesn't really belong here, I was just trying to clarify what I meant by a 'systemic medical error.')
Sarevok for example has 18 charisma if i'm not wrong and people surely try to avoid him.
Looks like you did mention that first. I had placebo on the mind because I was watching Dr. Oz recently, he had an episode of a natural weight loss supplement that may have no side effects--an extract from the green coffee bean--it looks promising, but I think it would be best to wait for a while. There are also people who are out there trying to scam people by selling impure versions of the product that could be laced with other things, instead of purely the extract. Apparently, he did a test with his audience, and on average, even the members of the audience that took the placebo lost weight during the trial, which is pretty interesting.
As for what you said about God, I agree completely. If God exists in the way described by some of the classical Christian thinkers like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (the triple A!), then I think it follows logically that what happens is God's will, that if something goes bad or good it was by God's design and necessarily aims at the highest good. It also would entail that everything we are able to do is because God wills that it be so.
Another even more extreme argument I heard is referred to as Divine Command Theory, which Dr. Craig talks about (btw, he holds two phD's, one in Theology, another in Philosophy, so I don't think of him as some random lune). Basically, if God is good to the highest order, omniscient, unerring in judgement, and so on, it logically follows that God would never give anyone a savage command (i.e. an order to do something that is evil). As you could imagine, this may sound very strange to some, considering it could be used to justify absolutely atrocious acts, but it is ultimately predicated on the idea that God has an all-encompassing perspective on things, whereas humans do not. For example, the repercussions of what was written on a stone tablet thousands of years ago (i.e. the fragments of the Gilgamesh epic) are still technically unfolding to this very day, and so how can humans, from a limited perspective, truly be sure that what they will do can lead to the greatest good in any ultimate sense? (btw, also a critique of utilitarianism) Technically, only some absolute all-knower could possibly know this. Now, of course, there are very practical concerns. For example, if someone says to us that he murdered his wife because God told him to, it is a very normal and proper reaction to assume that this person is insane and needs to be locked up (even despite having not defined normal and proper, I think this extreme points to some proxy definition, and we all sort of know we wouldn't really trust someone saying such a thing, or let them go free), unless there is some divine sign, which may ultimately be impossible, since nothing may really be enough to know for sure (Bertrand Russell's position I believe). This sounds crazy in the abstract, but consider the story of the Omen (the movie). The main character doesn't believe any of the things the priest is saying at first, thinks he's mad, but through a number of signs, and an unreal sequence of events, he begins to believe, and in the end, what happens? A cop busts in, sees him trying to, what looks like, kill a harmless boy, and the hero is shot down like the raving lunatic that any sane person would think he is without being convinced that it's true. Further, the story is actually that the man's son is truly the anti-Christ, it's not a story of a guy who is delusional. It's a pretty interesting theory, and it's purely theoretical I think, since any person with a sense of moral conviction will look upon certain actions as unjustifiable, even if in an ultimate sense, they actually are justified or somehow necessary to achieve the highest good.
Also, Dorn as a Blackguard is going to have to have at least 17. Also, I think his portrait is pretty attractive. So he's gonna be a 17 probably. I would laugh if he were 18; the most attractive person in the game? THE HALF-ORC!! Because of one thing? Wow. So from your perspective, everything in it is gold except one thing, so it's not an accurate arbiter of morality? That's like taking a truckload of tomatos, finding out one is sour, and throwing it all out.
By the way, we can't know what "slave" meant unless, of course, you know Hebrew (OT) and/or Greek (NT). Let's take the commandment to "thou shalt not murder," for instance. We still, to this day, do not know if it was "murder" or "kill" because in Hebrew, murder and kill were synonymous.
You know there are people who still speak Hebrew, right? I know a bunch of them. And no, it's just one of many reasons. If it's a book of people who were writing down what they thought was right and wrong, that's one thing- they can be wrong and hey, it's their opinion, right? But the Bible is held up as some kind of better than that communication from an actual All-knowing, all-seeing, always there God. Would you agree with me that slavery is wrong? Sexual slavery is wrong? Yet, it's in the Bible as something that's regulated and okay to do. God never says it's wrong to enslave people- he instructs his chosen people to take slaves from the nations they conquer. Jesus never speaks out against it. That's in the Bible itself. Even Paul can't tell Onesimus' owner outright, "You know, slavery is wrong. You should set him free." Instead, he has to kind of creep around the issue in a very roundabout way and ask without really asking.
So yeah, I don't consider it an accurate arbiter of morality. But when it condones slavery and sexual slavery and the taking of slaves in wartime, the bad parts render the good parts of it rather tarnished, on the whole.