Can I post a dictionary definition of "literally" here, or that going to be the post that finally gets me killed?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My blood is literally boiling as a result of your misuse of the word "literally".Literally? I knew it was warm in San Diego, but wow.
Not at all, but I was trying to save my joke since I thought you might have missed it. Someone popped in a month or so ago with a thread titled "A voice (literally) in the wilderness", so I responded with "are you literally in the forest, typing this using a satellite uplink, because if not, you are figuratively a voice in the wilderness, not literally a voice in the wilderness."
It's a major linguistic pet peeve of mine that literally has come to mean figuratively. My b~%&%y post came during a time of much consternation and was deleted, but I like to bring it up jokingly from time to time.
Anyway, joke failed, please go back to your serious and well-reasoned conversation, and I will go back to skimming long posts and looking for just cause to jump in and be trollish on-topic.
Not at all, but I was trying to save my joke since I thought you might have missed it. Someone popped in a month or so ago with a thread titled "A voice (literally) in the wilderness", so I responded with "are you literally in the forest, typing this using a satellite uplink, because if not, you are figuratively a voice in the wilderness, not literally a voice in the wilderness."
Was your post literally deleted? Or was that Figuratively?
Can I post a dictionary definition of "literally" here, or that going to be the post that finally gets me killed?Literally "get killed" or figuratively?
Doesn't matter. I literally do not want to die, even figuratively.
|
Was your post literally deleted? Or was that Figuratively?
Not at all, but I was trying to save my joke since I thought you might have missed it. Someone popped in a month or so ago with a thread titled "A voice (literally) in the wilderness", so I responded with "are you literally in the forest, typing this using a satellite uplink, because if not, you are figuratively a voice in the wilderness, not literally a voice in the wilderness."
Or maybe "virtually"?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Was your post literally deleted? Or was that Figuratively?
Not at all, but I was trying to save my joke since I thought you might have missed it. Someone popped in a month or so ago with a thread titled "A voice (literally) in the wilderness", so I responded with "are you literally in the forest, typing this using a satellite uplink, because if not, you are figuratively a voice in the wilderness, not literally a voice in the wilderness."
Josh Frost literally showed up at my desk with a bottle of white out, sprayed it all over my screen, and, chuckling madly, departed.
I hear he removes dead hookers, too.
Josh Frost literally showed up at my desk with a bottle of white out, sprayed it all over my screen, and, chuckling madly, departed.Was your post literally deleted? Or was that Figuratively?
Not at all, but I was trying to save my joke since I thought you might have missed it. Someone popped in a month or so ago with a thread titled "A voice (literally) in the wilderness", so I responded with "are you literally in the forest, typing this using a satellite uplink, because if not, you are figuratively a voice in the wilderness, not literally a voice in the wilderness."
It actually was pretty funny, as was the post after it where the guy called you a smartass, FWIW. Just landed on the wrong day, I think.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It actually was pretty funny, as was the post after it where the guy called you a smartass, FWIW. Just landed on the wrong day, I think.
As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious. It's too bad that people rediscovered the OP in the thread.
As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious. It's too bad that people rediscovered the OP in the thread.
It actually was pretty funny, as was the post after it where the guy called you a smartass, FWIW. Just landed on the wrong day, I think.
I think you're both funny. Check and mate. Who wants drinks?
|
|
I think you're both funny. Check and mate. Who wants drinks?As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious. It's too bad that people rediscovered the OP in the thread.
It actually was pretty funny, as was the post after it where the guy called you a smartass, FWIW. Just landed on the wrong day, I think.
It's been a long day -- I'm in.
As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious. It's too bad that people rediscovered the OP in the thread.
It actually was pretty funny, as was the post after it where the guy called you a smartass, FWIW. Just landed on the wrong day, I think.
Thanks! I was feeling all festive until I realized what I had just done.
Nooooooooo.......*BOOM*
I'm just glad people tolerate me here, even though I really don't know much about any of the real issues at hand. I logged many years at boards that always left me feeling down, so finding Paizo and all you guys, well, I'm grateful.
It's been a long day -- I'm in.I think you're both funny. Check and mate. Who wants drinks?As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious. It's too bad that people rediscovered the OP in the thread.
It actually was pretty funny, as was the post after it where the guy called you a smartass, FWIW. Just landed on the wrong day, I think.
Good God, I wish. Last day of the semester here, and getting ready to boot the little darlings into the real world.
As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious.
The "you're"/"your" is literally as figuratively as bad as "its"/"it's" -- which 98.7% of people, statistically speaking, mix up virtually 108.7% of the time ("the time" is not to be confused with Time, which consistently gets them right, nor with the [New York] Times, which by the way does not always keep them straight).
Good God, I wish. Last day of the semester here, and getting ready to boot the little darlings into the real world.
Hmmm, I've taught high school -- in which case I booted them into college (or, more frequently, back into my class for another try)... and I taught labs, briefly, at a college level -- in which case the darlings were booted back into mom & dad's house, for the most part. I don't believe I've ever booted anyone into the real world (unless seeing the one "darling" finally go to prison when he turned 18 counts as "real").
In either case, you must be a far more effective educator than I ever was!
I think you're both funny. Check and mate. Who wants drinks?
It's been a long day -- I'm in.
Oh, me, me!
Long day? Pah, long week! I've literally been so busy (up for a snappy new job/promotion at work) I could barely keep up with this thread, much less come up with any good posts. It did seem to get a bit tense a page or so back, so I'm glad to see civility oozing back in place.
Are there any lingering religious questions I could jump onto with any thoughts?
As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious.The "you're"/"your" is literally as figuratively as bad as "its"/"it's" -- which 98.7% of people, statistically speaking, mix up virtually 108.7% of the time ("the time" is not to be confused with Time, which consistently gets them right, nor with the [New York] Times, which by the way does not always keep them straight).
Smooth...
|
|
Are there any lingering religious questions I could jump onto with any thoughts?
Corian doesn't always respond well, but I'm not sure if I answered the "old law vs. new law" issue he seemed to have. He really seemed to be hung up on what "morals" to follow in the Bible. And I'm not sure if I answered it well.
Are there any lingering religious questions I could jump onto with any thoughts?Corian doesn't always respond well, but I'm not sure if I answered the "old law vs. new law" issue he seemed to have. He really seemed to be hung up on what "morals" to follow in the Bible. And I'm not sure if I answered it well.
Ah yes, I did see that one. I'll answer with a paraphrase from Paul in Galatians--following the Law or not following the Law, neither hold any value. What holds value is being transformed to the image of Christ.
Christianity is not "I must do all these things, then I will be a Christian." It is also not, "I am a Christian, so I must do all these things." Bubbagump has hit on this several times, but Christianity truly is "I have been spiritually reborn as a brother/sister to Christ and my life daily becomes more like the life of Christ." The Spirit of God continually changes our very nature to do what is right and abhor what separates us from God. This is a hard thing to understand for one that is not a Christian in this sense--this also speaks to the previous question of what a "true Christian" is, how we as Christians hold one another accountable, and also why we cannot fairly judge anyone that does not claim to be a Christian. You cannot, through any act of your own will or personal works, become a Christian; you become a Christian solely through faith and the grace of God. This is the New Law.
Corian is correct that some organizations have failed to see this distinction. A church body that tells the homosexual, atheist, or D&D gamer to go away until they can "act Christian" is standing in the wrong and has totally missed the boat on how this cycle works. In like manner, no church has the right, authority, or mandate to force non-Christians to conform to a code of conduct (which we ourselves cannot hold, as taught by Jesus). However I do take exception when it is stated that all organized religions make this mistake. This simply is not true. I also have noted in the past that this does not mean a Christian should not act on their own moral code for fear of offending others.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As long as we're wondering off topic, you're feeding the trolls post the other day was hilarious.The "you're"/"your" is literally as figuratively as bad as "its"/"it's" -- which 98.7% of people, statistically speaking, mix up virtually 108.7% of the time ("the time" is not to be confused with Time, which consistently gets them right, nor with the [New York] Times, which by the way does not always keep them straight).
Doh - screwing up my grammar in a post b!~@%ing about word usage.
some good stuff
Well said. Thanks.
Doh - screwing up my grammar in a post b%@@%ing about word usage.
I had assumed it was intentional; after all, you're a literate man, and given the substitution of "wondering" for "wandering" in the same sentence... but this new one is worse than Russian: I mean, what sound does the "%" make? And is that a long "@" or a short "@" ?
...okay, so he's been at it for 12 years. But it's the first time I read his... ahem... inspired work.
|
...okay, so he's been at it for 12 years. But it's the first time I read his... ahem... inspired work.
Bill Schnoebelen's a certifiable whacko. Keep in mind that in an interview, he described himself as a "former vampire". He also apparently used to sleep in a trapezoidal coffin "to focus his dark energies."
Popes are interred in trapezoidal coffins.
Moron.
As a note, according to the Chick standards I am an apostate heretic...
As a note, according to the Chick standards I am an apostate heretic...
Is that the best kind? How do I sign up? :)
As a note, according to the Chick standards I am an apostate heretic...Is that the best kind? How do I sign up? :)
Sign up? Ha! Man you are a Buddhist and a scientist. You're about as heretical as you can get! ;^)
As a note, according to the Chick standards I am an apostate heretic...
Now we're playin' on the same side... funny how that works.
Sign up? Ha! Man you are a Buddhist and a scientist. You're about as heretical as you can get!
Cool! I'm a heretic! Now I'll just name my apartment "Dune," and be a Heretic of Dune to boot.
Just checking in again. Hadn't been on in a while and figured it would be interesting to hop on and see where things had gone in my absence--apparently mostly to fun-loving grammatical nitpicking yay!
I've always thought the biggest problem with the whole Christianity as a transformative relationship with Christ--that it is a non-judgemental society of reedeeming love and loving labor--has been the underlying meanness that if you don't opt into this loving society that you'll be hucked into the big burney place to suffer forever. Something there just doesn't really jive for me.
The most interesting solution to this that I got was from my time in the LDS church. Interesting idea. The premise is that judgment is shared between us and God in lot of ways. You disappoint your divine family enough and the feelings of deep regret and shame are enough that you find youself unable to live with God in his presence. He can't let you in, but not because he doesn't love you--it's because you can't live with him anymore--so he allows you to a place where you no longer have to bear his unbearable presence. It's the feeling of desparate, lonely separation from God in a place where you can't feel his presence is what's described as the pains of hell.
I've always liked that one. It seems much more humane and good than chucking folks into the flames to be stabbed by demons. That they deserve it, and in fact it's the right thing to do for some arcane and hard to understand reasons that you'd better dare not question. Never had much stomach for that one.
|
|
Hey Grimcleaver. Good to see you.
I've always liked that one. It seems much more humane and good than chucking folks into the flames to be stabbed by demons. That they deserve it, and in fact it's the right thing to do for some arcane and hard to understand reasons that you'd better dare not question. Never had much stomach for that one.
Quick question -- is your problem with the definition of Hell or the "process" to get there? (or both?) There are different ways to address what you are saying depending on your point of view.
I see where he's coming from. An omnibenevolent deity wouldn't create an actual torture pit of infinite agony out of sheer sadistic glee at punishing those who displease Him. That's just grotesque. Hell is either a metaphor, or else God is someone that no one in their right mind would want anything to do with.
On a basic level, Grimcleaver is right about Hell--it is separation from God and it is self-inflicted. God would choose to be with all of us, but not all of us would choose to be with God. Whether Hell is a burning pit of torture is largely irrelevant in my mind--if I've already been separated from God then no amount of physical torture would rank as worthy of attention. In this imagery, we're still thinking of Hell in a humanocentric perspective that focuses mostly on physical pain, only vaguely understands most mental pain, and in general has no comprehension at all of spiritual pain.
I also believe that Omnibenevolence is an often misunderstood concept. We tend to consider benevolence from a selfish perspective--what is "benevolent" for me is what I want/desire. But any parent knows the truth of this situation--sometimes benevolence involves restrictions and corrective guidance that may not be initially pleasant. God is not benevolent as the concept of "nice" or some such. God is Good, which is to say the source of all things Perfect. God is also Holy, separated by very nature from all things that are imperfect. Yet God is Just, providing a means for all to become reconciled back to Perfection.
If someone objects to my faith simply because I believe it is Truth, and that obviously means I do not believe his or her faith is Truth...well, I can't do much to help that. But know that I do not presume to know anyone's eternal disposition other than my own and those that have confessed the same faith. Outside of Christianity, it is God's role to judge rather than mine.
I also believe that Omnibenevolence is an often misunderstood concept. We tend to consider benevolence from a selfish perspective--what is "benevolent" for me is what I want/desire. But any parent knows the truth of this situation--sometimes benevolence involves restrictions and corrective guidance that may not be initially pleasant. God is not benevolent as the concept of "nice" or some such.
As a former high school teacher, I do understand that. Tough love was a stock-in-trade. But I'll still stick with the "agony of separation" interpretation, not the literal pit of suffering (physical, mental, spiritual, or otherwise). Because, say what you like about His ways being inscrutible, if He literally designed a place of total torment into which he could throw people and laugh at them while they suffered the worst agonies an omniscient being could devise, for all eternity -- for the crime of not joining the correct church, or so I'm told -- that's not inscrutible at all, it's just plain sadistic.
As a former high school teacher, I do understand that. Tough love was a stock-in-trade.
Ah, teachers...definitely another good example.
But I'll still stick with the "agony of separation" interpretation, not the literal pit of suffering (physical, mental, spiritual, or otherwise).
I'm in agreement there.
Because, say what you like about His ways being inscrutible, if He literally designed a place of total torment into which he could throw people and laugh at them while they suffered the worst agonies an omniscient being could devise, for all eternity -- for the crime of not joining the correct church, or so I'm told -- that's not inscrutible at all, it's just plain sadistic.
Now there you go propogating the myth (I know you don't necessarily subscribe to this, just poking a little fun)! Joining the church doesn't make one a Christian. Unfortunately that's a myth that too many people "on the books" at churchs also believe, and I hold it as one of the primary reasons for the general failure of so many churches these days.
Unfortunately that's a myth that too many people "on the books" at churchs also believe, and I hold it as one of the primary reasons for the general failure of so many churches these days.
Yeah. The Catholics tell me the Muslims are all going to hell. The Methodists tell me the Catholics are all going to hell. The Muslims tell me the Christians and most especially the Hindus and Buddhists are going to hell. The Baptists tell me that everyone who isn't a Baptist, and most particularly all the gays and all atheists, are going to hell. Everyone seems to be in a very big hurry to consign everyone else there. I'm sure there are people who will try to convince you that they alone, one out of 6.5 billion people, are NOT going to hell.
|
I don't see Hell as a place designed by God for pain and suffering of souls. My perspective is that it is a place claimed or 'redecorated' by Satan to suit his desires, and souls that aren't lifted to Heaven are probably taken there. I haven't read up on the subject as much as I probably should, which would help sharpen my viewpoint.
My perspective is that it is a place claimed or 'redecorated' by Satan to suit his desires, and souls that aren't lifted to Heaven are probably taken there.
That would imply that hell could conceivably be re-taken and re-decorated, that it's not inherently a place of torment, but just a place co-opted to that end. "Attica! Attica!"
Hey Grimcleaver. Good to see you. Quick question -- is your problem with the definition of Hell or the "process" to get there? (or both?) There are different ways to address what you are saying depending on your point of view.
Thanks! Figured I'd drop back by--a nice change of pace to the 4e section I've been haunting of late. But yeah, I'm not really sure that it's either the definition or the "process" of getting to hell that bothers me so much. More it just seems a bit chilling to me that it's considered right and good for ordinary people to go to a place of mental and or physical pain and torture for eternity. It doesn't seem right or sane, really. No disrespect meant there, it's just hard for me to follow the logic of it. There seems to be a massive disparity between the punishment and the crime.
Maybe if there were a punative or rehabiliatory aspect to it--like a purgatory you go to in order to teach you the error of your ways--but it isn't. It's forever. Why torture someone forever? What does that do? What good comes from it? That's the question that really haunts me...is why hell wouldn't just be a necessary evil, or a sad tragedy, but a well-deserved and just good. That's just hard for me to grasp.
But any parent knows the truth of this situation--sometimes benevolence involves restrictions and corrective guidance that may not be initially pleasant. God is not benevolent as the concept of "nice" or some such. God is Good, which is to say the source of all things Perfect. God is also Holy, separated by very nature from all things that are imperfect. Yet God is Just, providing a means for all to become reconciled back to Perfection.
This would seem to presume an opportunity for reconciliation that, to the best of my understanding, doesn't really exist in the traditional portrayal of Hell. I mean as a parent, I use corrective guidance that's initially unpleasant only when I hope that some greater good can come from it--that there can be an opportunity for growth. Even then I try very hard to make the unpleasantness the very least, the very lowest level that I think will do the job. I don't see that in Hell. That's the worst possible punishment, for the longest possible duration, with no possible growth or good coming from it.
|
|
...The Catholics tell me the Muslims are all going to hell...
Actually, Vatican II came out and said that God decides who ultimately goes to hell, specifically making mention of personalities from other religions and extant before the birth of Christ. Effectively, a 'pagan' from ancient times (read: pre-Christian) and a Muslim from modern times (despite having been made aware of the Gospel) could both still go to heaven if God determines they have led a 'Christian' life.
On another related note, regards to Heaven and Hell, strictly speaking, according to the Bible, there is no-one in Heaven or Hell right now--we're all still waiting for Judgement Day. Further, when JD happens and JC returns, no-one will go to heaven straightaway, despite those who believe in the Rapture (which is not technically Biblical, that is, described in the Bible quite the way it is in the Left Behind novels and movies--in fact, it's not described at all, and Rapturists get almost all their evidence from five disparate biblical references). Instead, according to the New Testament, all the dead--everyone who has ever died, ever, will be returned to an actual, physical state of being to participate, on one side or the other, in the final War, which heaven is predetermined to win (so why, oh, why, would anyone root for the Satanists!?). As a part of this new world, God promises to remake creation, which does not necessarily mean destroying the planet. It's all right there in black and white (and NT red), so take a gander if you think I'm pulling this out of the air.
I say it myself, but I'm always amazed when I hear a priest (I'm RC), or a protestant minister talking about how a dead loved-one is dancing with the angles in heaven today--according to the Bible, that love one is just gone, dead, and awaiting Resurrection. Also, there's this one, about meeting your loved ones when you die and go to Heaven (because, when we talk about ourselves, we're always on an express line to the Pearly Gates). I suppose you might meet them, but the elaborate picnics and strolls through peaceful meadows is more the Greek Elysium than the true Christian Heaven--according to JC Himself, you wouldn't recognize earthbound relationships in Heaven, not even your mortal marriage or your own children, because once in heaven you are solely concerned with the worship of God.
Now me, personally? I like to think Heaven is a giant library with Gentlemen's Club oak paneled walls, overstuffed leather wing chairs, enormous fireplaces, brandy snifters and occasional tables, and stacks after stacks of musty old books, all filled with the secrets of the universe... My priest tells me that's very, very Pagan; but I guess that makes me a really, really bad Catholic...
|
|
...if there were a punative or rehabiliatory aspect to it--like a purgatory you go to in order to teach you the error of your ways--but it isn't. It's forever. Why torture someone forever? What does that do? What good comes from it? That's the question that really haunts me...is why hell wouldn't just be a necessary evil, or a sad tragedy, but a well-deserved and just good. That's just hard for me to grasp.
I'm in the same boat here. I don't have any problem associating God as the one, true God; not a, but the Supreme Being. To this end, I can't grasp why such a being would be so hung up on worship. In fact, worship would be so much insignificance to such a being, whose very insurmountable supremacy would inherently be beyond such egoism. So, following this logic, a purposefully created state of being/physical location such as Hell, where, like you say, one might wind up and undergo incomprehensible and eternal torture for the crimes of an evil temporal existence is bad enough, but to also have such a place as the repository for people who are in all other respects 'good' people, but who deny or improperly worship? I can't fathom this; and I can't reconcile it either.
I'm of the opinion that heaven and hell are immanent: they are created here on earth through the actions we choose to take.
|
|
... but to also have such a place as the repository for people who are in all other respects 'good' people, but who deny or improperly worship?
Not sure where this is coming from. "Deny" what, exactly? What do you mean by "improperly worship"? If you are denying God, then you probably don't have any real desire to get into heaven in the first place. As far as "worship", "worship" has changed its face greatly since the New Testament. With that in mind, I'm not sure what "improper worship" would look like.
|
|
More it just seems a bit chilling to me that it's considered right and good for ordinary people to go to a place of mental and or physical pain and torture for eternity.
...
That's the question that really haunts me...is why hell wouldn't just be a necessary evil, or a sad tragedy, but a well-deserved and just good.
I don't think that it is "right and good". I also think that hell is more of a "necessary evil or a sad tragedy" rather than a "just good". I don't think that there is anything "good" about hell.
There is actually very little written in the Bible that really describes hell. (For that matter, there isn't really that much that describes heaven either.) So, really, from that point of view, most of this is pretty theoretical. If it does exist, you won't find people coming back from hell describing it in all its (anti-)glory. One common theme, Biblically, regarding hell is that of separation. And assuming that God does exist -- total separation from God is pretty bad.