Raf

Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee. And yes, by comparing this life to the next in the precise way that you have to make the precise point you are making does indeed rob this life of value, and it does indeed justify any atrocity in this life as long as the victim has eternal life. This is how YOU are applying it! Why didn't God warn Abel? Eternal life! That's a HORRIBLE answer! But you can't even see that.

If I were in a bad mood, I would say that if there were one preposition out of place, the whole thing would fall to pieces. I do not believe the question of what makes it an error is a sincere question. If I say the check is in the mail, and the check is not in the mail, then I am wrong. I am in error. Am I lying? There's no way to know that for sure. Maybe I think it's in the mail, and it's not. But the statement itself is in error. Whether Genesis is an error or its writer is in error are not mutually exclusive propositions. They could both be in error. Or perhaps only the book is in error. If the reader is in error, then that's not an actual error in Genesis. An assertion of fact that is untrue, or the presentation of two mutually exclusive facts would qualify as actual errors. Matthew says Jesus's family moved to Nazareth when he was several years old. Luke says his family lived in Nazareth when he was born. They cannot both be correct. That is an actual error. But honestly, am I the only one who recognizes the insincerity of the question "what makes that error"? It's an assertion of fact that is untrue. This isn't difficult.

I don't believe I have read the skeptic's annotated Bible. I have heard of it. But I don't recall delving into it deeply because I was not a fan of the style. I am not familiar with the second website at all Third website is difficult to explain. I don't recall ever seeing that website. However, I do recall reading a book with the same title. Whether there's a connection between the book and the website, I do not know. I can't imagine it was a coincidence. Trusting to see whether my explanations or observations are worded similarly or identically to the third site. It would certainly not have been intentional, but it is also certain that two people covering the same topic with the same point of view might word things in similar ways. Especially if one of them read the other first.

Thanks.

The circles along the path tell you only where the storm's eye is going to be and when it's going to be there. It is of little importance to anyone deciding whether or not to be prepared. Hurricane force winds are extending 70 miles out from the center, and tropical storm force winds are out nearly 200 miles. So that's about 350-400 miles of really nasty weather taking aim for the Carolinas. From that perspective, the circles along the path aren't telling you anything of practical value. A circle with an M means it's a major hurricane (category 3 or higher). A circle with an H means it's category 1 or 2. A circle with a T means tropical storm, and a circle with a D means tropical depression. By the time you see a T or D, there's no longer an "eye."

This is looking ugly. Please be advised that I am writing this at 5 p.m. eastern on Sept. 12. The map attached will change over time, so what I write now may not be reflected in what you see depending on when you read this. I've lived through a few of these storms, including Irma last year, but here in South Florida we're a bit better prepared for this. We expect these storms now and then. We have very few hills, which means very few valleys, which means flooding is not the monster issue here that it can be in places like the Carolinas. I wouldn't trade places with the Carolinas right now for anything. This forecast has a major hurricane parked just offshore starting Thursday, weakening to "just" a hurricane as it makes landfall 8 a.m. Saturday. It appears from the forecast that those north of the storm will be harder hit than those south, but the coast of both Carolinas are about to take a beating the likes of which they have not seen in quite some time. By contrast, every storm I've lived and worked through has come and gone in a matter of hours (as few as five, as many as 18). I'm not going to repeat all the advice you've probably been hearing for days already. When this is over, we'll be posting the best places to send aid for those who need it most. Stay safe.

Surely you knew that I was aware you were citing scripture when you spoke of the foolishness of God being wiser than men. Nonetheless, you don't get to leap from that assertion to the "claim" that my accusation of arrogance is unfounded. My accusation of arrogance is WELL-founded, and I outlined exactly why. Declaring your own position to be wise and alternative positions to be foolish is arrogant. It is arrogant whether you are doing it of your own spontaneous thought or if you are citing the scribblings of a 2,000-year-old itinerant preacher. The source of your claim is not what made it arrogant. The substance is. I am not going to sit here and wait for you do spell out exactly why you came to the conclusion that it makes sense there would be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. It's YOUR claim. When you can articulate it, I'll be here. Simply stating that I will not be satisfied with your answer is a dodge. Articulate your answer. Then you can fault me for rejecting it. I am going to refer back to our earlier discussion on this, however, because I think it is significant: You just wrote: "it is not so difficult to think of eternal life's quality being far more significant and important than the trials and tribulations in the proving time of the temporal life currently bestowed upon us." In doing so, you are presuming eternal life, which is your prerogative, but there is no evidence that there is any such thing for any species. So to draw conclusions from it is wonderful as a matter of faith, but it does little or nothing to contribute to a discussion with someone who is not convinced there is any such thing. Further, and I've said this before, looking at this temporal life from an eternal perspective opens the door to defending all manner of atrocity, as this temporal life of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternity. So Abel gets murdered. So what? He has eternal life now. Job's kids? Eternal life! That dude who got killed for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week? Don't worry, buddy. I know those great big rocks hurt, but look on the bright side: you're going to paradise! Ananias and Sapphira get insta-death penalty for holding back money from the church, but they're born again! So, bygones! Any atrocity can be dismissed in significance if you look at things from an eternal perspective. That's not really an answer to the questions we've been raising here. It's a dismissal of them. Why didn't God warn Abel? Because it makes no difference from the eternal perspective. WOW! If that's going to be the answer to everything, then this "eternal life" thing had better be rock-solid guarandamteed. It's not. It's a wishful-thinking claim made by people who struggled to come to terms with the finality of death. Every culture struggles with the question. Every culture concocts a different answer. All claim evidence to support their mutually exclusive answers.

I am, once again, declining to answer questions that have already been answered. You are truly making the case for me that you're position of posing question after question after question is insincere. You are not seeking answers. You are seeking an argument. I will not entertain you any further.

I am not going to play the same "sealion" game you constantly play on these threads. Thank you for participating in the conversation. Good day.

1. The question I asked about God's omnipotence and authority is not nearly as cheap or intellectually dishonest as "can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" Frankly, you should be insulted by putting forth such a comparison. "If God is all powerful, why did he not warn Abel that he was about to be murdered by Cain?" If you don't think that's a fair question in the context of the story being told here, that's on you, not me. If God is all powerful, why could he not devise a path to redemption that did not require bloodshed? If it's because such a path would not have been "just," then we have to concede that God is subject to justice and not the author of it. If the answer is that he could have, then we have to concede that "justice" is arbitrary to His will and not intrinsic -- it's not "just" because it's just; it's just because God says it is. This is the kind of philosophical question that has driven discussions of ethics for CENTURIES. If you don't think that's an interesting topic, that's on you, not me. Once again, you are not addressing my questions. You're dismissing them. And you're doing so in a manner that is not all that clever. I have no problem with you not addressing the questions I raise. But I think it's obnoxious, frankly, that you feel the need to piss on the conversation rather than contribute to it. And yeah, that's what you're doing. And, I think I can add, "again." Because this is consistently how you engage me in every discussion we have. It's getting old. 2. "Two people gave sacrifices. One was preferred over the other. Jealousy arose. That's a story we see every day, a story old as time. Is that easy to deal with?" Uh, YEAH. Have you been to a library? It's filled with these things called "books." Some tackle really interesting subjects, including jealousy. Two people gave sacrifices. One was preferred over the other. We're not told why. The person whose sacrifice was not accepted is not told why. Jealousy arose. There's a character who could have fixed it by explaining why one sacrifice was accepted and the other was not. He doesn't. Instead, he lets the jealous person stew to the point of becoming the human race's literal first murderer. The guy who could have explained the difference between the two sacrifices also has the ability to warn the murder victim about what's coming. He doesn't. What good is offering an acceptable sacrifice to God if God isn't going to pay you a visit to warn you about what's coming... the same God who had no trouble whatsoever chatting it up with the murderer a few moments earlier? I don't see what the Cain and Abel story is so complicated or difficult to explain that you can declare it more true than truth. Honestly, it's a story that raises infinitely more questions than it answers. it gives us no insight into the nature of jealousy, the value of a burnt offering, or the benefit of pleasing God.

Interesting points, Bolshevik. Here's what I don't get: You want to say stories can often be more "true" than reality and that these stories are trying to explain something that's difficult to explain. Fine. What? I'll wait. Is the story trying to explain an event in history? In all likelihood, no. Fine. It's a story with a moral lesson. What is that lesson? Clearly, it's not that if you do things God's way, God will have your back. Abel did things God's way and God was so busy lecturing Cain that he ran out of time to warn Abel his brother was about to become Earth's first murderer at Abel's expense. So what is the difficult thing this story is trying to explain that's difficult to explain? And let's look at a few issues here before you unilaterally declare an entire line of questioning "not interesting." The overarching purpose of this story is to get us to believe in, have confidence in, trust in, love and serve an Almighty God. To argue that questions about his omnipotence are off limits because they bore you is an indictment of you, not the line of questioning. Honestly, how can you say a line of questioning about God's power and authority is not interesting? That does not address what I wrote; it dismisses what I wrote without even pretending to have answered it.

Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demonstrate wisdom when you can have it conferred upon you by decree? Don't you see? Declaring that the foolishness of God is wiser than men innocculates you from the need to answer for the foolishness of your position? It goes like this: In order for us to have redemption, blood needs to be shed. Because that was the standard God set up. Because he did. No, he could not have set up any other standard, because that would not have been just. Why? Buh...buh...buh...buhcause! Why could God, who is Almighty, not set up a system of redemption that does not require bloodshed? I mean, I've got one at home with my kids. Not once have I had to execute a pet in order to atone for my sons being brats. And I certainly have never even considered killing one of my sons to atone for another's infractions! It makes no sense that an Almighty God should be unable to craft a less bloodthirsty method for redemption unless that God were SUBJECT to the principles of justice rather than being their AUTHOR. He who said that if a man sheds blood, by man his blood will be shed could just as easily have said if a man sheds blood he will serve an appropriate prison sentence, providing a service to the state that will be paid not to him but to the family of the person whose blood he shed. And it WOULD be just by virtue of His being the author of it, for He is the author, not the subject, of justice. RIGHT? Jesus never would have had to die. No one would. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men" absolves you of any need to even consider the validity of what I've just laid out. It is not a comeback, it is a dismissal, a self-affirming declaration of humility, intelligence, meekness and thoughtful reflection that is, in reality, none of those things.

I think I'm going to avoid the discussion of who are the sons of God of Genesis 6. Some say angels. Others (TWI) say the good descendants of Adam. Not really important to this thread. And if I recall correctly we've already beaten the "did the flood happen" horse to death. So... let's emerge from the flood on Ararat. In the category of things that the readers might have known that we might not, we have Genesis 9:20-27. What exactly did Ham see? "Noah's nakedness." Um. Ok. And the other brothers covered him up, and Ham's son, Canaan, got cursed to be slaves to his uncles. What... the... actual... f???? I'm sorry, can someone make sense of why Canaan has to be a slave because of something Ham did? I mean, assume Ham had sex with Noah's wife, or that Ham molested Noah. Why in the name of Hannah and Her Sisters does that mean Canaan should have to be a slave? I could see HAM having to be a slave. But his kid? I'm not saying this is an actual error. Just that it makes zero sense.

Why presume something couldn't be known prior to Moses writing it down? Why conclude that is my presumption? It's not what I said. The issue isn't just that the answer is unknown to the characters. The issue is that it's unknown to us, the readers, from the text. This is the Bible, after all, and the questions are not minor or incidental. There is NOTHING in the text of Genesis 1-4 that leads to the conclusion that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. More to the point, there is nothing in Genesis 4:6 that relates to that point. This would have been the ideal place for the lesson to be introduced. It's not. You cannot assume that Cain knew that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sins. He obviously didn't know: he offered plants! The fact that God killed animals to make skins for Adam and Eve to have clothes does not lead logically to the conclusion that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. That idea doesn't come until MUCH later in the Bible story. Now, we can ret-con the Adam and Eve story to show that fig leaves are an inadequate covering because there's no blood shed, so God showed them the principle of sacrifice through bloodshed. That would be perfectly understandable if not for the fact that animal skins really are a better clothing solution than fig leaves.

(Please click on Bolshevik's post to get the context of this comment). The real problem isn't that I raise an interesting question and then go on to other questions. The real problem is that I had the interesting question in the first place. This should not be a question. Why did God accept Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's? There is nothing in the verse or context to explain it. Let's suppose that the answer is: Abel's sacrifice was of blood, and Cain's was not. Fine. Why didn't God tell that to Cain? He obviously had ZERO problem communicating with Cain directly. In Genesis 4:6, he even TELLS Cain, "if you do what is right, it will be accepted." But He doesn't tell Cain what "right" is. By the way, why is God talking to Cain at all? I mean, even assuming LIMITED power of foresight on God's part, wouldn't it have been, I don't know, GODLY for Him to talk to Abel at that point? "Abel, your sacrifice to me has met with my approval. Verily I say unto thee this day... RUN!" And let's recall that there was literally a single family on earth at the time, so it's not like the Almighty was busy (take that comment with an element of humor: God can't be "busy" to the point of distraction, or He wouldn't be "Almighty." It was a tongue-in-cheek comment). Given the power of God, this whole story makes very, very little sense. Why didn't Abel get God's protection?

Dusting this topic off... Longhunter: Without further research, I agree that you appear to have found an error. But I would not say it with 100 percent certainty before I could answer a host of questions, the first of which would be: How do we know there weren't two places named Dan? I live about 100 miles from Naples, but nowhere near Italy. I live a couple of miles from St. Petersburg, but nowhere near Russia... The fact that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible should be readily apparent. The stronger likelihood is that Moses never existed at all: He's a fictional character invented as a unifying figure for a band of related tribes seeking political cohesion hundreds of years after he would have lived if there were a shred of truth to his history. To be continued...

Actually it wasn't. Jennings gave up his seat for the Big Bopper. Tommy Allsup (one of the Crickets) lost the coin toss). Dion (of Dion and the Belmonts, a headliner on the tour) claimed that there was no coin toss at that point, and he gave Ritchie his seat. Dion said he won his seat with the coin toss earlier. Blah blah blah, free post.

The show's theme song peaked at number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1987. It spent a week at number one on the Adult Contemporary chart.

By the way, Mamma Mia is a 4/5 decent musical and a 2/5 decent movie.

Ritchie Valens' sister was at the filming of the coin toss and broke down, urging him not to get on the plane and asking him why he did. Lou Diamond Phillips is 6 months older than Esai Morales, who played Valens' brother, Bob Morales. Phillips would indeed have made a LOUSY Frankie Valli.

Remember that bit about breaking the fourth wall? In one scene, the actors run off the set and around the studio chasing the bad guy.

The main character's brother was played by an actor who shared the brother's actual last name in real life. In a pivotal scene, one actor tosses a coin. It's based on a true event. The sister of the person who wins the coin toss in real life was present during filming. She cried uncontrollably. The actor playing her brother tried to console her. Seeming to forget that he was just an actor, she begged him to forego the victory.

No.

About 3,000 actors, no lie, tried out for the lead male role. The guy who got the part was the last to audition. He's kind of famous now. Like, really, really famous. A trademark of the series was to break the fourth wall, with the lead actors well aware that they were characters in a tv dra... com... show.

The lead actor's agent called him to audition for the part, mistakenly thinking he would be playing Frankie Valli. The actor thought he was all wrong for the part, but auditioned anyway. He got the part, which was decidedly NOT Frankie Valli (who is not even a character in the movie). He was also eight months older than the actor who played his older brother.