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
Not everyone who reads the Bible differently than you is a fundamentalist or is legalistic or any other boogyman word that you use. Most people simply do a better job than you in interpreting it.
No, some are more selective than others. You are too stupid to comprehend 2 words following each other, let alone 1000 pages of ancient stories.
Most people simply do a better job than you in interpreting it.
Not bad!
Especially coming from someone whose command of written English (let alone Old Testament Hebrew, New Testament Greek, Vulgate Latin or Aramaic) appears to be on the same level as that of an educationally challenged jar of peanuts' .
Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.
...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915
No, you just can't read for **** Boris. X was "the story". X was identified as something that probably never happened, and certainly not the way it was described. I identified the translation in the same paragraph as part of that story that probably never happened, and certainly not the way it was described.
You're an idiot.
No, "X" was "As for the youths," you dumbass. In standard English, when you preface a sentence with "As for X," it's understood that the sentence is referring to X. That you're unable to grasp that very basic concept in grammar would be astounding if you're overall behavior here wasn't otherwise indicative of your being a dumbass. All of this could have been avoided if you'd just acknowledged what you originally wrote was unclear and simply clarified. Instead, you went from 0 to dick and brought this expose of your idiocy on yourself.
Imran:
I don't see the God I worship doing monstrous things rather than people ascribing monstrous things that benefit them to Him. As the progression of the understanding of God happens in the Old Testament all the up until the perfect revelation of God in Jesus Christ, it seems apparent that the idea that God does horrible things simply because he likes one group and hates another gets more and more seen as not consistent with the God of Israel. Look at the view of God in Genesis (and the ideas that he kills x group or y group for some small thing) and then God in the Book of Job telling Job's friends off for daring to suggest that the bad things Job does are because he's sinned (before you start, it is obvious that the Book of Job is a fictional story to demonstrate a truth about God - I mean, heck, its mostly written in poetic form). Or for that matter, Jesus Christ himself, who refuses to even fight back against the Roman troops that are there to arrest him. After all, since the perfect revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the writings before did not have the complete knowledge of who God really was and attempted to understand Him, but likely feel short.
I'll preface this by saying that naturally I certainly prefer your method of interpretation over that of a fundamentalist who wouldn't blink an eye at accepting the idea that the god he worships does horrible things and they are rendered just simply be the nature of the agent. However, what you've said raises the question: isn't the more logical interpretation of what you've posted to say that god is a creation of man, in the image that man wants? The fact is, were you alive 1,000 years ago, you would be like the above-mentioned fundamentalist: not batting an eye over these alleged atrocities described in the Bible, but merely accepting that draconian image of god as true. Virtually nobody was arguing back then that all of the atrocities attributed to the Biblical god were fictional, because back then the image of a vengeful, authoritarian deity was pretty congruous with how life was (brutal, dirty and short). But thanks to a whole host of movements (the Enlightenment chief among them), there has been a sea change in Western civilization over the past few centuries as to how human beings view one another, our rights and the nature of authoritarianism. I think it's patently obvious to any student of history that the image of the Biblical god has evolved with society's views. Before your conversion, you were no less humane an individual than you are now, and here you acknowledge that you are adapting your religious views to fit that humaneness, rather than vice-versa.
There's a whole host of things in the Old Testament that are, by today's moral sensibilities, absolutely morally abhorrent. If the argument is that the writers of the OT didn't know any better and what they wrote is a product of its times, then I can scarcely see the point of relying on it as some sort of moral source at all. Clearly you and many others make moral judgments independent of what the Bible says, enough to conclude that you don't accept what's treated as moral in it as actually good morality. So why not take the final step and just acknowledge that you're interpreting scripture within your pre-existing moral framework, and that your faith is not the actual basis for your moral reasoning?
No Boris. X is the story. You are simply misidentifying the subject that is being referred to as "the story". You want to pretend that "the story" only applies to the youth's statements so you can pretend that my qualifiers to the story's veracity only apply to the youths. However in the same paragraph I identify the translation of Elijah as the major event in that story. You are just so stupid you can't see that "that" is referring to the earlier mention of "the story" which is what is identified as "probably never happened" and "certainly not as described". Instead you are reading it as "another" or something similar, which shows just how pathetic your reading comprehension skills are.
I'll preface this by saying that naturally I certainly prefer your method of interpretation over that of a fundamentalist who wouldn't blink an eye at accepting the idea that the god he worships does horrible things and they are rendered just simply be the nature of the agent. However, what you've said raises the question: isn't the more logical interpretation of what you've posted to say that god is a creation of man, in the image that man wants? The fact is, were you alive 1,000 years ago, you would be like the above-mentioned fundamentalist: not batting an eye over these alleged atrocities described in the Bible, but merely accepting that draconian image of god as true. Virtually nobody was arguing back then that all of the atrocities attributed to the Biblical god were fictional, because back then the image of a vengeful, authoritarian deity was pretty congruous with how life was (brutal, dirty and short). But thanks to a whole host of movements (the Enlightenment chief among them), there has been a sea change in Western civilization over the past few centuries as to how human beings view one another, our rights and the nature of authoritarianism. I think it's patently obvious to any student of history that the image of the Biblical god has evolved with society's views. Before your conversion, you were no less humane an individual than you are now, and here you acknowledge that you are adapting your religious views to fit that humaneness, rather than vice-versa.
There's a whole host of things in the Old Testament that are, by today's moral sensibilities, absolutely morally abhorrent. If the argument is that the writers of the OT didn't know any better and what they wrote is a product of its times, then I can scarcely see the point of relying on it as some sort of moral source at all. Clearly you and many others make moral judgments independent of what the Bible says, enough to conclude that you don't accept what's treated as moral in it as actually good morality. So why not take the final step and just acknowledge that you're interpreting scripture within your pre-existing moral framework, and that your faith is not the actual basis for your moral reasoning?
Starting from the bottom up, because my moral reasoning has quite drastically changed. Not sure if you've looked at the political compass thread (the latest one), but I've gone from someone slightly on the right, slightly libertarian to more left and libertarian than Provost Harrison (no exaggeration). My faith has completely changed my point of view from someone who thought it was nice to help people in the abstract but didn't see much need to stick my neck out personally (I never gave to charity prior to my conversion nor willy-nilly gave money to people in my life who needed it). It kind of makes sense as a recent study showed that people who actually read the Bible are more liberal in terms of assistance of the poor and destitute. Basically, I went from HC to Elok (I actually do, scarily enough, see a lot of my younger self in HC) .
I would indicate that while I used to believe that you did, that God is simply a creation of man to make them feel better about life or for some moral rules, it isn't something I ascribe to anymore (obviously), and I don't think logic really enters into it. I mean plenty of people died for who they believed God to be, which isn't all that reasonable or logical but they felt the presence of God in their lives and feel called to proclaim the Good News, to the extent they'd die for it. Biblical interpretation has always been an interesting quest, but the Christian God that I've mostly heard about is one that calls for our denying of ourselves and our individual desires in order to serve others. That isn't really an image that most people want - they want their own desires to matter. But I've heard too much that God calls from us that which we don't necessarily want and people denying their own desires to benefit others based on those teachings to see that it isn't simply man making a God that validates what they want already.
My interpretation is one that follows the grand scope of narrative of the Scriptures, climaxing in the coming and preaching of Jesus Christ. It is a grand narrative arc and everything has to be seen in that guise. To take something out of its context is making errors in interpretation used to validate all sorts of things. Did people not bat an eye a thousand years ago at some of the atrocities said to have been done by God? Sure, but my view is that is continuing to redeem this world and restore to himself and thus we exist in a world of progress. We get to get closer and closer to God - that's why He sent His Holy Spirit, so that His revelations would continue.
As cheesy as it may sound, you may have logic & reason, but to that I add faith and also know the changes that God can do to a life and how He can lift up His people.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Tweet
You're an idiot.
.
Comment