Jump to content

Recommended Posts

excuse me, sir. but i'm pretty sure harry was the chosen one. the one who could defeat he who must not be named. even dumbledore couldnt do that. so, yeah.
but they said over and over again that dumbledore was the only wizard that he who must not be named was ever afraid. and chosen one or not, he was a sub par magician.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

lol.to what end?im gonna agree with lois here. this is kinda dumb.
Oh, I totally agree with the 'to what end' part. It's just interesting discussing it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
but they said over and over again that dumbledore was the only wizard that he who must not be named was ever afraid. and chosen one or not, he was a sub par magician.
i'm pretty sure that without harry, he who must not be named would still be running amuck, killing muggles and wizards alike. END OF DISCUSSION.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm pretty sure that without harry, he who must not be named would still be running amuck, killing muggles and wizards alike. END OF DISCUSSION.
Apparently one thing Suited takes very seriously is Harry Potter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm pretty sure that without harry, he who must not be named would still be running amuck, killing muggles and wizards alike. END OF DISCUSSION.
but wasn't harry the last horocrux? so if he just like died from smallpox when he was three or something then dumbledore could have just sent somebody else running around to get the other six and it would have been even easier to win.
Link to post
Share on other sites
but wasn't harry the last horocrux? so if he just like died from smallpox when he was three or something then dumbledore could have just sent somebody else running around to get the other six and it would have been even easier to win.
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS?i wont even respond to such claims, becuase i dont have to prove anything to you. you havent disproven the fact that harry saved the day. its in the book, man. ITS IN THE BOOK AND YOU CANT PROVE IT ISNT.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't ever insult me. I kind of know where you're coming from. I agree Geology is cool. I simply don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that an all-powerful God would make a planet that was already 'mature'.
I think there is some slight of hand going on in your last series of posts regarding your usage of the words "prove" and "disprove". More on that later. For now, I wonder if you could tell me, did Joseph have two fathers? Because according to MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.Jacob was his father. But... LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.So, Choose Your Own Adventure! 1. do you claim translation error or some other human mistake in copying the book after god wrote it? If so, turn to page 45 where we will then have to begin questioning everything else in the bible2. do you bite the bullet and fall back on "its possible he had TWO fathers!" you can't disprove that he didn't! in which case, turn to page 34 where we will continue the discussion about the futility of radical skepticism and how it doesn't solve your dilemma
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah.. I had no idea what you were talking about because I've never heard of such a term. What version did you get that from?
King James
Link to post
Share on other sites
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS?i wont even respond to such claims, becuase i dont have to prove anything to you. you havent disproven the fact that harry saved the day. its in the book, man. ITS IN THE BOOK AND YOU CANT PROVE IT ISNT.
at least if it was in verse form and easier to look up using a concordance of some sort i could try. you christians have it so easy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was raised as a strict Catholic and I never heard of such a thing. In fact, when it comes to interpreting the bible, Catholics tend to see much of the language as figurative, not literal. I was a pain in the ass in CCD classes and as a kid I thought I was so clever asking the trick questions... you know... like Eve had 2 sons, where did the other people come from, etc. But the nuns and deacons would tell me that the stories in the bible were life lessons, not everything was recorded. Don't get wrapped up in the hows and whens and the dates and all of that... comprehend the story and don't be surprised if you learn something different each time you read it.Even though I am not a practicing Catholic it so pisses me off when Catholics are perceived incorrectly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was raised as a strict Catholic and I never heard of such a thing. In fact, when it comes to interpreting the bible, Catholics tend to see much of the language as figurative, not literal. I was a pain in the ass in CCD classes and as a kid I thought I was so clever asking the trick questions... you know... like Eve had 2 sons, where did the other people come from, etc. But the nuns and deacons would tell me that the stories in the bible were life lessons, not everything was recorded. Don't get wrapped up in the hows and whens and the dates and all of that... comprehend the story and don't be surprised if you learn something different each time you read it.Even though I am not a practicing Catholic it so pisses me off when Catholics are perceived incorrectly.
in school, one of my professors was a jesuit priest, and even he admitted that the meaning of the stories are more important than if they are one hundred percent true. thats one of the reasons i find what brvheart says to be so ridiculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was raised as a strict Catholic and I never heard of such a thing. In fact, when it comes to interpreting the bible, Catholics tend to see much of the language as figurative, not literal. I was a pain in the ass in CCD classes and as a kid I thought I was so clever asking the trick questions... you know... like Eve had 2 sons, where did the other people come from, etc. But the nuns and deacons would tell me that the stories in the bible were life lessons, not everything was recorded. Don't get wrapped up in the hows and whens and the dates and all of that... comprehend the story and don't be surprised if you learn something different each time you read it.
So if the events of Genesis were set on a flat Earth, that would not make any difference at all to you, right?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was raised as a strict Catholic and I never heard of such a thing. In fact, when it comes to interpreting the bible, Catholics tend to see much of the language as figurative, not literal. I was a pain in the ass in CCD classes and as a kid I thought I was so clever asking the trick questions... you know... like Eve had 2 sons, where did the other people come from, etc. But the nuns and deacons would tell me that the stories in the bible were life lessons, not everything was recorded. Don't get wrapped up in the hows and whens and the dates and all of that... comprehend the story and don't be surprised if you learn something different each time you read it.Even though I am not a practicing Catholic it so pisses me off when Catholics are perceived incorrectly.
some chick named mary cheated on her husband, made up a crazy story about angels to not get stoned to death by the village, used some sort of trickery to make him think he saw an angel, gave birth to this guy, and started this whole mess and they pray to little statues of her.whats not to like i think shes pretty clever actually.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't ever insult me. I kind of know where you're coming from. I agree Geology is cool. I simply don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that an all-powerful God would make a planet that was already 'mature'.
centrally-planned economies: what are you, crazy?!centrally-planned worlds: ohhhhh yes. ohhhh yes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow... you sure know how to miss the point.
I think I get your point. The bible is figurative. OK. Full stop.It's important to Brvhrt to demonstrate that the Koran is false by showing that it's not literally true. He's needs a reason to believe one and not the other. That's the context of my post.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I stopped looking at the religious forum as well...it just goes around and around and the posters only convince themselves.I don't want to depress Lois further, and I sure don't want this forum to become another religious forum (although I'm afraid I've done my part by asking if one new idea for Republicans might be basing their agenda on something biblical like Matthew 25:36-41). However, I could use a bit of advice too.Obviously, I'm not a Christian. My former co-workers, with whom I've remained close and for whom I have the utmost respect and affection, certainly knew that, seeing as I've written a book about Buddhism. One of them, a co-founder of the company, is an evangelical Christian, from the "stomping and clapping" kind of church, as he says. When someone like that is suffering, I want to comfort them. I don't want to press Buddhism on them. Even if I've found it helpful, they shouldn't feel pressed when they are in pain. But at the same time, I don't want to quote the bible to them, either. It may comfort them, but they know I don't believe it, and I don't want them to feel I'm being condescending or disrespectful. So I'm never quite sure what to say, and right now I need to say something.Jim and his wife have a seven-year-old and a 3 1/2-year-old named Isabel. Isabel was two months premature and has had a lot of health problems, including something like eight or ten surgeries. For the past year, she had been doing really well, and it seemed that maybe she was beginning to grow out of her problems. She was curious about everything, happy, and outgoing. Over the weekend, she had a cough and had already had an asthma attack. Her parents gave her breathing treatments, but they weren't helping. On Monday, they went to the doctor, and because of her extensive health issues, he wanted her to go to the nearest major children's hospital by helicopter. To help with her breathing, they intubated her for the ride. The intubation caused her heart to fail, and Isabel died despite all their efforts to save her.It's every parent's worst nightmare, and they are in agony. She was only three and a half, and so much of her life was taken up by suffering and struggle. I suppose there really isn't anything I can say that will truly comfort them. At best what I want to say is something like this:

In the most traumatic moments, our equanimity is unavoidably shaken, even temporarily destroyed. To have it be otherwise would mean that we were cold and unfeeling. Buddhists would never expect someone who has suffered the death of a loved one to shrug it off. But their way of dealing with grief or other devastating setbacks is healthier than Western ways of mourning. Buddhists say, take time out and really feel this fully. Sit with the feeling. Don't run away from it. Grieve 100%. Hurt 100%. Cry 100%. But when you've done that, realize that you're finished. You've done 100% and cannot do more. Don't cling to the hurt and make it your companion. Don't fetishize it and make it your nemesis. Give it 100% and then realize that it cannot be changed and move forward. It isn't easy to practice that way of grieving, but I know from experience that it works, and there is a stunning example of it in racing. Most of America has seen replays of the moment of Dale Earnhardt's death, the awful silence of the wrecked car settling into the infield. The car right ahead of him, watching the wreck unfold in his rear-view mirror, was driven by his son. Witnessed by millions, Dale, Jr. watched his father die right before his eyes. My own father died when I was nineteen, and even then, I cannot imagine what Junior went through in that moment. On top of that, he had to return to Daytona, twice a year every year, and race there himself. He could not fetishize the track and say, I can't bear to be in that place. I refuse to go there. And he absolutely could not make that pain his companion, or he would never be able to drive a race car again for thinking about it. So when the time came to go back, Dale, Jr. went to Daytona one day when the track was empty, with a few people close to him. He walked to the spot of his father's impact, sat down, and just thought. He said he sat there for a good half hour or hour, thinking about his dad and going through all the feelings he needed to go through. When he stood up, he said, he knew he would be able to race there again. Equanimity may be easiest to explain when it comes to letting go of a minor event, but this is equanimity in the face of personal, life-changing catastrophe. It hurts to do it, but it is disastrous not to do it. Western culture sometimes tells us to "cowboy up," to be strong and push the pain down. But if it is not dealt with completely, it is not gone, and it will haunt us for years, warping our personalities as we try to avoid it, repress it, ignore it, distract ourselves, and do anything not to feel it. More and more, the swallowed pain starts to feel like a bottomless pit, one that we don't dare to look at closely or get too near. But when we approach it as Dale, Jr. did, sitting down next to that deadly wall and facing what hurts the most, we are surprised to find that the pain does have a stopping point. When we have felt all the hurt we have, we know intuitively that we are done, we have finished grieving. Then, we can get up and move on and instead of "cowboying up," we really are strong again. The Buddhist teaching for experiencing grief corresponds to its teaching about experiencing joy. Live it fully. Don't dilute joy with worries or clinging, and don't dilute grief by distracting yourself from it. Live each moment, as it comes, to its fullest, good and bad.
That's from the book. I would also say something about not regretting the past. Here's another snippet:
Being aware of impermanence, I do think to the future about a time when my husband and I might no longer be together. What would be hardest for me would be regret. If I had to look back on times when I could have been more open or more honest, or more loving, it would be tremendously painful and hard to let go of the past. But when I embody my understanding of impermanence in my moment-to-moment behavior, then I make an effort to make each moment one I won't ever need to regret. So far, I regret practically nothing of our twenty years together. I have loved him deeply and truthfully, with as much of my heart as I had to give in each moment. If things were to end tomorrow, I wouldn't feel that I had wasted time, and without an understanding of impermanence, I don't know that I could say that. Buddhists are not the only ones who realize impermanence deeply, but for most Westerners, they realize it too late. Consider this quote from film critic Joel Siegel:Cancer changes your life, often for the better. You learn what's important, you learn to prioritize, and you learn not to waste your time. You tell people you love them. My friend Gilda Radner [who died of ovarian cancer in 1989 at age 42] used to say, "If it wasn't for the downside, having cancer would be the best thing and everyone would want it." That's true. If it wasn't for the downside.Most cancer survivors can tell you that they never lose this sense of time being short and precious. They never lose the wisdom of prioritizing and not wasting time, and they never lose the wisdom of telling people they love them. But it can be late in life before that lesson is learned, and for those who do not survive, it comes at the very end.
[sorry to quote so much (another long post from SB), but the quotes get across the ideas and if I tried to rephrase the same ideas I'd probably end up with something just as long.]I know that Isabel's parents never took her life for granted. They have nothing to regret in the past three and a half years, because they devoted their lives to her and to their other little girl. But they have so much regret for the future, for all the things she should have done and experienced but won't. And I know they may not be able to grieve 100% right now, because it might shatter them both to try to endure that much pain.Knowing that Jim is an evangelical Christian, what would you say to comfort him? Would it be appropriate for me to tell him that she's with God now, since he knows I don't believe that? I just want to find something, anything, that can give him even a tiny shred of comfort right now, and I don't want to do or say anything that might inadvertently make it worse. My dad died when I was nineteen, and I know I still remember with crystal clarity the things that people said that were (accidentally) more hurtful than helpful. [The things that helped the most were just people sharing stories about my dad with me.]There's probably pretty much nothing I can say to help him, but if anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my contention that Genesis is the dumbed down version of Creation because we don't have a mind that can comprehend the "college" version. The people He was talking to at that time would have had no comprehension of the actual Creation. Kind of like us telling a 2 year old where babies come from. We don't use a college textbook because the 2 year old wouldn't get it. All I need to know is that God did create it all. But that's what faith is about. And you who don't believe have a certain amount of faith too. You have taken the amount of evidence you presently have and hypothesized that evolution is the way the earth and life was created. But you weren't there so you have to take what pieces you have and fit them into a hypothesis. What would happen to your faith if suddenly you came across proof in your studies that God DID create it all? What would you do with evidence that evolution wasn't the basis for creation? It is also my contention that this is a pretty unproductive discussion with the resident agnostics and atheists on fcp which is why I quit posting in the religion forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...
Very little except I am sorry for your lost. No one who is grieving really wants to hear anything. Short, simple and sincere... anything more seems like you are doing it for yourself, not for them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's my contention that Genesis is the dumbed down version of Creation because we don't have a mind that can comprehend the "college" version. The people He was talking to at that time would have had no comprehension of the actual Creation. Kind of like us telling a 2 year old where babies come from. We don't use a college textbook because the 2 year old wouldn't get it. All I need to know is that God did create it all. But that's what faith is about. And you who don't believe have a certain amount of faith too. You have taken the amount of evidence you presently have and hypothesized that evolution is the way the earth and life was created. But you weren't there so you have to take what pieces you have and fit them into a hypothesis. What would happen to your faith if suddenly you came across proof in your studies that God DID create it all? What would you do with evidence that evolution wasn't the basis for creation?
science is not based on faith. if we came across proof, as in actual evidence, then we would change out theories. ldo.
It is also my contention that this is a pretty unproductive discussion with the resident agnostics and atheists on fcp which is why I quit posting in the religion forum.
thats why i tried to turn it into a discusion about the underlying thematic elements of the harry potter series. i find that waayyyy more interesting.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Southern Buddhist -Sorry to hear about your friends' daughter, that's terrible. I don't exactly think your role in that circumstance should be to "comfort" them, and you've kind of said this yourself a bit. There's not going to be anything you can do to relieve their grief. I think what you can offer them is sympathy.. let them know that they aren't alone and that you are there and available to them if they need you. I don't think you were suggesting sending them that exact text, but if you do, I'm sure all of that stuff could be said without the "buddhists do it this way" wording, since that makes it sound a bit like you are pushing the buddhism thing which doesn't seem to be your intention. But in the end, having compassion for your friends pain needn't be couched in terms of buddhism nor christianity; it's a human thing that transcends all of that so you could use language that doesn't involve either of your religions. Either way since your intentions are good I'm sure they will appreciate whatever you say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody mentioned that they didn't want to depress me any more than I already am.... that's not what this was/is about. As I have been pondering things the past couple of days I don't think it's so much a lack of faith as much as it is seeking a deeper faith, more understanding. The reason I posted what I posted today is because, as antistuff says, this goes around, and around, and around, and to what end, for what? Many are called but few are chosen- those words ring true on this forum as plain as day. My OP was really just an apology, and as I delve deeper in me I find that it's really a combination of everything- I don't like where the country is headed and the only thing I perceive God as doing is stepping aside to teach his peeps a lesson, and I don't want that, not by a long shot. My eyes are open and I see injustice, the fruits of mans ways and it's disconcerting to me to say the least- not a time to seek to question God as you may think, a time to draw closer. Some of you sent me some really nice thoughts, BG, Weishan, Zealous Donkey, a few more I am missing, but thank you all, all very uplifting and much appreciated. It really is dissapointing to me that it always has to go down the "There is no God, you're lying to yourself" road. I can argue all day long with you but the fact is you will do what you do, and we could all easily do shots together and still have a good time. I used to be so hardcore, go at it with anyone, and then I realized that frankly I was much to giving with my time when it comes to that. We should live and let live, and those who actually desire God can come and drink of the waters of life as he says. The rest of you, to each his own, man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...