Saul: true believer or spouter of lies?

[2dimes]

I don't think they are allowed to come over to talk with me anymore.

I just don't think that this agrees with Jesus.

I quite agree, and believe there should not be human priests at this time.

[john9blue]

Sadly if Christianity did die out there is a very good chance Islam would take it's place and that would be catastrophic for civilisation.

well, there you have it. you seem so upset that christianity had become the dominant western religion that i decided i ought to remind you guys about the alternatives.

[mrswdk]

I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate

You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?

[chang50]

I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate

You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?

There is an interesting theory about different climates producing different mindsets.Historically if people in temperate/colder climates hadn't put food away in the autumn they wouldn't have survived the winter.Whereas in warmer tropical climes you can grow crops all year round.Put simply the conclusion is that the first group had to think more long term,more strategically,and this has profoundly affected the psychology/culture of the two groups.There is at least some truth in it IMHO..

[BigBallinStalin]

I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate

You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?

There is an interesting theory about different climates producing different mindsets.Historically if people in temperate/colder climates hadn't put food away in the autumn they wouldn't have survived the winter.Whereas in warmer tropical climes you can grow crops all year round.Put simply the conclusion is that the first group had to think more long term,more strategically,and this has profoundly affected the psychology/culture of the two groups.There is at least some truth in it IMHO..

So Eskimos and such types are more long-term, strategic thinkers than people closer toward the equator?

And, Algerians--or rather the Arabs of ye Olden times--were more short-term strategic thinkers than their European counter parts?

Were the Scandinavians the longest-term thinkers of them all?

(It doesn't make much sense).

[chang50]

I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate

You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?

There is an interesting theory about different climates producing different mindsets.Historically if people in temperate/colder climates hadn't put food away in the autumn they wouldn't have survived the winter.Whereas in warmer tropical climes you can grow crops all year round.Put simply the conclusion is that the first group had to think more long term,more strategically,and this has profoundly affected the psychology/culture of the two groups.There is at least some truth in it IMHO..

So Eskimos and such types are more long-term, strategic thinkers than people closer toward the equator?

And, Algerians--or rather the Arabs of ye Olden times--were more short-term strategic thinkers than their European counter parts?

Were the Scandinavians the longest-term thinkers of them all?

There are obviously some anomalies with the theory..

(It doesn't make much sense).

[BigBallinStalin]

Anomalies stretching from Scandinavia to North Africa and the Middle East over 2000 or so years?

So, where's the empirical evidence for this theory?

I'm surprised you find any truth to it--considering your skepticism against theistic claims.

[PLAYER57832]

I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate

You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?

There is an interesting theory about different climates producing different mindsets.Historically if people in temperate/colder climates hadn't put food away in the autumn they wouldn't have survived the winter.Whereas in warmer tropical climes you can grow crops all year round.Put simply the conclusion is that the first group had to think more long term,more strategically,and this has profoundly affected the psychology/culture of the two groups.There is at least some truth in it IMHO..

Except, most Arabs and thus most Muslims did not live in tropical regions. The desert is every bit as harsh as the Arctic.

So Eskimos and such types are more long-term, strategic thinkers than people closer toward the equator?

And, Algerians--or rather the Arabs of ye Olden times--were more short-term strategic thinkers than their European counter parts?

Were the Scandinavians the longest-term thinkers of them all?

(It doesn't make much sense).

Well, chang is voicing a different theory than the one to which I referred. Also, I am not saying I absolutely believe this, just that it is an interesting set of ideas.

Basically, the theory is that Arabic societies were very successful, more than European ones for a certain period. The idea is that Europeans had to change to adapt, whereas the Arabic societies were already successful enough that they did not have as much pressure to change their way of living. They could concentrate more on arts, religion, etc instead of physical improvements. Also, there were certain physical factors in Europe versus the Arabic areas that mattered. Europe had more open running water, had access to coal, etc. That lead them more to the specific technical direction Europe took.
And.. I have heard more than one European explain that they threw most of their rejects over to America . One point in both is whether success in a society is really a good thing, that it might make people complacent rather than moving them forward.

Per the Eskimo bit.. there is a narrow window where challenge forces one forward. Too much deprivation has the opposite impact. Eskimos spend so much of their time merely surviving they don't have a lot of time to innovate. Also, they tend away from innovation because any mistake in the Arctic is deadly. They have survived because they follow specific traditions well. That does not mean they fail to think, it means that they think a lot about basic survival. It takes a LOT of skill to survive up there!

Actually adding credence to the above is records of climate and land use around the Sahara, etc. When Europe was just emerging, Arabic areas were beginning to see a lot of their lands change and become desert. We tend to look down on folks who don't stay in one place, who don't "own" land like we do, but the nomadic way of life, the tribal way of life is a very good way to survive in a desert. But, with that change came more emphasis on tradition, because, like with the Eskimos, there just is not a lot of forgiveness in a desert.

Saying that the industrial revolution would not have happened in Islamic areas is less true than saying that Islam would not be what it is if it were not for the desert and the environs around. Islam in Europe is very different from that down south.

Also, remember that the Roman Catholic Church, particularly at that time, was harshly limiting, as much as much of Islam (not all of Islam -- there are variations just like in Christianity). It was the Protestant revolution that forced changes. The Roman Catholic church today is different from the pre-revolution church, and is different from the pre-Vatican II church also.

[PLAYER57832]

2dimes,

There was a direct New Testament link to the Aaronic and levitical priesthood lines and and the person telling the Churches how to organize and behave. I just don't think that this agrees with Jesus.

Traditional Jews, particularly groups like the Hasidim, do trace lineages. Certain names indicate someone is of the priestly line and thus must follow different rules (such as not being around a dead body, etc.).

And then the orthodox will attack you. Not because of anything to do with your interpretation, but because they are threatened by it.

Well, its called "being human". There is a fine line between pushing people forward, setting standards and forcing limits that are restrictive. How you perceive it often has to do with whether you agree or disagree with a particular set of thoughts, what you are used to. Your background very much shades how you understand what you read.

[_sabotage_]

2dimes,

There was a direct New Testament link to the Aaronic and levitical priesthood lines and and the person telling the Churches how to organize and behave. I just don't think that this agrees with Jesus.

Traditional Jews, particularly groups like the Hasidim, do trace lineages. Certain names indicate someone is of the priestly line and thus must follow different rules (such as not being around a dead body, etc.).

And then the orthodox will attack you. Not because of anything to do with your interpretation, but because they are threatened by it.

Well, its called "being human". There is a fine line between pushing people forward, setting standards and forcing limits that are restrictive. How you perceive it often has to do with whether you agree or disagree with a particular set of thoughts, what you are used to. Your background very much shades how you understand what you read.

Unfortunately, if those set of thoughts diverge from the proponents of those thoughts, you are no longer adhering to the proponent, you are adhering to his detractors. Particularly if the detractor is providing the original proponent as his source for their authority. When it is proven that the detractor is indeed detracting, he ceases to be a proponent and may be dismissed. If he is not detracting, but merely agreeing to everything, then he is not a necessary.

[2dimes]

Traditional Jews, particularly groups like the Hasidim, do trace lineages. Certain names indicate someone is of the priestly line and thus must follow different rules (such as not being around a dead body, etc.).

While I respect that a little more than the Christian examples. What is the point of keeping yourself pure to enter a temple and perform duties of a priesthood, if no temples exist?

[chang50]

Sadly if Christianity did die out there is a very good chance Islam would take it's place and that would be catastrophic for civilisation.

well, there you have it. you seem so upset that christianity had become the dominant western religion that i decided i ought to remind you guys about the alternatives.

'Upset'???..Not believing=upset???
Get some fresh air,John..

[demonfork]

Saul built my hot rod.

[2dimes]

That's not what al jourgensen wrote even if Gibby sang it.

[PLAYER57832]

Traditional Jews, particularly groups like the Hasidim, do trace lineages. Certain names indicate someone is of the priestly line and thus must follow different rules (such as not being around a dead body, etc.).

While I respect that a little more than the Christian examples. What is the point of keeping yourself pure to enter a temple and perform duties of a priesthood, if no temples exist?

Well, they do talk of the day the Temple will be rebuilt. Also, the priesthood has a valid purpose today, in their view. Its not all about "the" Temple.

Of course, as a Christian, I don't see things that way, but I was not talking about my personal views.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, Kind of my point. And Jesus makes clear these brothers and sisters are of the spiritual sense as well.

As such, why couldn't Peter's spiritual descendents be both? The only argument I have found to favor this in the New Testament was not in an act of saying of Jesus. It would appear to be opposing his teachings. Why then incorporate it with his teachings?

Again, I am not talking about my personal beliefs. Roman Catholics will say that all of the apostles were men and that the priests are to follow that model.

Nuns are the female form, but helpers, in the way many see the women in the New Testament.

Now, another question is whether that vision was, itself a distortion, perhaps brought on by the influence of the heavily chauvinistic Greek society or other very chauvinistic societies of the time. Remember that most societies then were chauvinistic. The only "alternative" were legends of female societies that essentially attacked (even ate) men. Jewish society was, by all accounts, very friendly to women in comparison.

All of that gets into issues I am not prepared to discuss right now (too much research involved). I have heard bits and pieces of these debates, but just enough to know they exist, not enough to argue any particular point. If you really wish answers, you will have to do the research yourself. Sorry, I might broach it later, but don't have the time right now.

PS Lutherans, Evangelical Lutherans and many other denominations admit women for a couple of reasons. First, Christ came and did away with many of the old prohibitions. If we believe in Christ's forgiveness, then that goes back to Even and the original "fall", not just other events. Given that, there is no reason to not have women up with men. Beyond that, Its driven by practicality, there just are not enough men. Also, women have been "feeling the call", so are "picked by God".

[2dimes]

Also, the priesthood has a valid purpose today, in their view. Its not all about "the" Temple.

Because they are not actually performing duties of the priesthood they claim to hold. No temple no sacrifice no priesthood. Say, "but" all you want.

[_sabotage_]

Player,

I think we are talking at cross points.

You are looking to justify a position that can only be justified by Jesus to be considered Christian, yet aren't using Jesus to justify it.