The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nope, theres no way to seperate your view from your place in history and society. The Pomos are right on this one.
And that's not what I meant. But there's certainly a difference between simply trying to comprehend something and trying to read meaning into something. It shouldn't be construde as reading meaning into something to come to the conclusion that in the story of the original sin the topic being discussed is sexual seduction because that's how humans behave. We are sexual to our very core. Saying that we seduce each other with knowledge doesn't make any real sense at all. That's a boring story and wouldn't be retold.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Wezil
I'm well aware of the age of Judaism. It goes well back to the days of superstitution and ignorance (like most organised religions - not a personal attack). With that many centuries of belief in fables I'm sure lots of controversies in the faith have arisen.
Then why is that religious believers in the Western Christian tradition, especially the Protestant tradition, did NOT develop the idea of multiple levels of belief, but in fact took an approach to the bible, and to religion, that was largely based on the notion that ONE interpretation was right, and others heretical, an approach that is alive and well to this day? Clearly the fact that controversies arise doesnt automatically lead to the Jewish approach to texts.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Saying that we seduce each other with knowledge doesn't make any real sense at all. That's a boring story and wouldn't be retold.
Ah, I must disagree then. I think knowledge can be quite seductive. I can imagine someone committing great sins for the sake of knowledge, and whats more I think it would make a great story - isnt that part of the Faust legend, as told be Goethe? Or to be more pedestrian, the Saruman sub plot of LOTR?
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
BTW This thread should be moved to the Philosophy & religion sub-forum
Hint to site admins
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Ah, I must disagree then. I think knowledge can be quite seductive. I can imagine someone committing great sins for the sake of knowledge, and whats more I think it would make a great story - isnt that part of the Faust legend, as told be Goethe? Or to be more pedestrian, the Saruman sub plot of LOTR?
Ah, how many people read romance novels, watch porno or hell just watch prime time television compared to those who read Goethe?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
No, controversies arise as humans interpret what other humans wrote/"said" thousands of years ago claiming what they were writing was somehow divine inspired. What various faiths fight about internally is largely irrelevent I think. So what if protestants fight about the "one true interpretation" or not? The jews obviously think the christians and muslims have interpreted something wrong along the way (else they'd be jews no?). It seems they think there is a more "true" interpretation as well.
I hope you don't think I'm placing a value judgment on various religions as I'm not. I think they are all based on unsupportable beliefs. God, leprechauns, ghosts and fairies. They are all imaginary.
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
Ah, how many people read romance novels, watch porno or hell just watch prime time television compared to those who read Goethe?
You seem to be under the impression that I give a s**t about numbers. I would think you might have gathered from the fact that I am discussing, an, er, Jewish, POV, that I do NOT.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by lord of the mark
You seem to be under the impression that I give a s**t about numbers. I would think you might have gathered from the fact that I am discussing, an, er, Jewish, POV, that I do NOT.
The point is that if you had to interpret a story told by human beings your interpretation would be much more accurate to come to the conclusion that they were discusing sex instead of knowledge. Although there is an outside chance that the topic would be the seduction of people with knowledge that's a shot in the dark. The only reason to come to that conclusion is if you already had that conclusion in the first place.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
No, controversies arise as humans interpret what other humans wrote/"said" thousands of years ago claiming what they were writing was somehow divine inspired. What various faiths fight about internally is largely irrelevent I think. So what if protestants fight about the "one true interpretation" or not? The jews obviously think the christians and muslims have interpreted something wrong along the way (else they'd be jews no?). It seems they think there is a more "true" interpretation as well.
I hope you don't think I'm placing a value judgment on various religions as I'm not. I think they are all based on unsupportable beliefs. God, leprechauns, ghosts and fairies. They are all imaginary.
There are definite issues with how you establish boundaries for acceptable interpretation. If you actually read my earlier long quotes, youd see it mentioned that being part of a tradition, a mesorah, is important. You can innovate within the tradition to SOME degree, but you cant make stuff up out of whole cloth. Its the tradition, the history, that defines the bounds of interpretation, but that still leaves plenty of room for apparently opposite interpretations to still be acceptable. You really have to get into the disputes to see what this means in practice- and, BTW, it doesnt mean quite the same thing to many Orthodox Jews, as it does to most Conservative Jews.
As for a value judgement, Im aware you consider yourself an atheist. However I suspect that your unwillingness to take seriously the interpretation of texts as practiced by Jews, non-fundamentalist Muslims, and, AFAICT, Catholics, is deeply rooted in a Protestant viewpoint, whether you are aware of it or not. Thats not a personal statement about you - for all I know your parents were Roman Catholics - its a statement about secular western culture, at least in (but not limited to) English speaking ones. This is something Ive found a great deal of, not so much in defending Judaism, but in discussing Islam, and its an issue that comes up in talking to secularists, and with Protestants, esp fundies. Ive also had this discussion with a certain Russian O here (from what I can gather from Billington, the Russia O church was historically not uninfluenced by Protestantism) They simply cant quite grasp how serious the act of interpreting the texts is, - your remark about Islam as a "religion of peace" for ex. The fact is that muslims have been wrestling with, and reintpretating, all the "nasty" sounding lines in the Koran for hundreds of years, well before they had to make excuses on the "World News Tonight", yet some folks seem to think its all a gimmick, and that OBLs interpretation is right, since if you read a Koran without benefit of layers of commentary, interpretation, and even cultural knowledge, that "sounds" right.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
The point is that if you had to interpret a story told by human beings your interpretation would be much more accurate to come to the conclusion that they were discusing sex instead of knowledge. Although there is an outside chance that the topic would be the seduction of people with knowledge that's a shot in the dark. The only reason to come to that conclusion is if you already had that conclusion in the first place.
Or, if it fits better with whats written elsewhere in the book? Why should i read a few lines in isolation? Thats itself an interpretation. Midrash often ties different parts together. It also reads VERY closely, sometimes raising an objection based on the smallest oddness in spelling or grammar = which makes sense if you think the book is divine, since that can mean that EVERY piece of it is from G-d.
Really the only way to address Midrash, is to read it.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
As for a value judgement, Im aware you consider yourself an atheist. However I suspect that your unwillingness to take seriously the interpretation of texts as practiced by Jews, non-fundamentalist Muslims, and, AFAICT, Catholics, is deeply rooted in a Protestant viewpoint, whether you are aware of it or not. Thats not a personal statement about you - for all I know your parents were Roman Catholics - its a statement about secular western culture, at least in (but not limited to) English speaking ones. This is something Ive found a great deal of, not so much in defending Judaism, but in discussing Islam, and its an issue that comes up in talking to secularists, and with Protestants, esp fundies.
No, I've stated before I was born anglican but was never very religious. My parents took me to sunday school maybe a dozen times in my first 12 years. I watched the Charleton Heston movies and had a nifty kids bible that I read as a child (I read most anything).
I stopped "believing" in a god at around 10-12 but didn't truly consider myself an atheist until my twenties. I don't think I have a "protestant" viewpoint per se as I never really cared enough when I was a "believer" to be able to tell you the difference between faiths anyway. Rather than having any sort of "fundy" indoctrination, like most protestant faiths religion was rather benign. I went where I was taken. If I were you I'd look closer at my good old protestant/conservative Ontario roots first for what shapes my viewpoint on many issues.
Ive also had this discussion with a certain Russian O here (from what I can gather from Billington, the Russia O church was historically not uninfluenced by Protestantism) They simply cant quite grasp how serious the act of interpreting the texts is, - your remark about Islam as a "religion of peace" for ex. The fact is that muslims have been wrestling with, and reintpretating, all the "nasty" sounding lines in the Koran for hundreds of years, well before they had to make excuses on the "World News Tonight", yet some folks seem to think its all a gimmick, and that OBLs interpretation is right, since if you read a Koran without benefit of layers of commentary, interpretation, and even cultural knowledge, that "sounds" right.
Of course there is debate amongst muslims about this but again, it is the "interpretation" argument and I have to go back to my original premise: An all-powerful supreme being has been pretty damn unclear with the faithful about what is the proper way to act. I mean whether you can justifiably kill all non-believers is a pretty serious issue don't you think? Surely any kind of caring diety would be clear about such things. A jokester god would make it fuzzy.
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
Or, if it fits better with whats written elsewhere in the book? Why should i read a few lines in isolation? Thats itself an interpretation. Midrash often ties different parts together. It also reads VERY closely, sometimes raising an objection based on the smallest oddness in spelling or grammar = which makes sense if you think the book is divine, since that can mean that EVERY piece of it is from G-d.
Really the only way to address Midrash, is to read it.
Monty Python has some wisdom to share with us on this subject.
Crowd: She's a witch! May we burn her?
Women: I'm not a witch!
Religious authority: But you are dressed as one.
Women: They dressed me up like this.
You do realize that the texts were not written as a comprehensive piece? That the authority pieced parts together to try to make meaning out of it don't you?
Last edited by Kidlicious; December 20, 2007, 19:39.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Have you heard Eddie Izzard's bits? I just heard it lately. I don't know if I'm old or not, but it's funny as hell.
I actually get that from Bill Hicks.
Eddie Izzard
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF
Tweet
Comment