Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://conquerclub.com/forum/
I quite agree, and believe there should not be human priests at this time._sabotage_ wrote: I just don't think that this agrees with Jesus.
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.chang50 wrote: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.
You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?PLAYER57832 wrote:I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate
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..mrswdk wrote:You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?PLAYER57832 wrote:I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate
So Eskimos and such types are more long-term, strategic thinkers than people closer toward the equator?chang50 wrote: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..mrswdk wrote:You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?PLAYER57832 wrote:I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate
BigBallinStalin wrote:So Eskimos and such types are more long-term, strategic thinkers than people closer toward the equator?chang50 wrote: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..mrswdk wrote:You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?PLAYER57832 wrote:I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate
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).
Except, most Arabs and thus most Muslims did not live in tropical regions. The desert is every bit as harsh as the Arctic.BigBallinStalin wrote:chang50 wrote: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..mrswdk wrote:You mean Europeans were forced into industrialisation in order to stop themselves dying out?PLAYER57832 wrote:I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate
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.BigBallinStalin wrote: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).
. 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.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.)._sabotage_ wrote: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.
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_ wrote:
And then the orthodox will attack you. Not because of anything to do with your interpretation, but because they are threatened by it.
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.PLAYER57832 wrote: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.)._sabotage_ wrote: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.
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_ wrote:
And then the orthodox will attack you. Not because of anything to do with your interpretation, but because they are threatened by it.
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?PLAYER57832 wrote: 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.).
'Upset'???..Not believing=upset???john9blue wrote: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.chang50 wrote: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, 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.2dimes wrote: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?PLAYER57832 wrote: 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.).
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._sabotage_ wrote: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?
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.PLAYER57832 wrote: Also, the priesthood has a valid purpose today, in their view. Its not all about "the" Temple.