|
Post by goz on Oct 3, 2018 3:29:43 GMT
I hate to break it to you, butt you don't put chicken salt on a 'Burger with the Lot' aka Worksburger. It has a toasted white bun (sesame seeds optional) a scrape of butter seasoned beef burger, fried onion rings, shredded lettuce, sliced tomato, sliced tinned beetroot cold, fried sliced tinned pineapple hot, a fried egg, and fried bacon. To this wonderful edifice you add BBQ sauce (though some peasants put tomato sauce aka tomato ketchup) You're welcome! Cool. Thanks. I just love eating 'Burger with the Lot'. It's far better than other burgers I have had. I wrote last post just in jest. Me too. Though they are hardly 'gourmet'...and more of an acquired taste. I was eating them when you were possibly only a glint in your mother's spice rack.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 3, 2018 10:44:21 GMT
The correct answer to what question? Besides, are you saying Lot's wife was a 50 foot rock formation? Dude, I'm saying the story that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt was inspired by the rock formation. For thousands of years people must have remarked that the formation looked like a woman long before Genesis was written. They may have believe god turned a woman into stone. So hey, yeah, there's Lot's wife! These ideas feed into each other. I'm not sure why that would be a "Must" situation. Basically you just invented a history for the origin of the story which has nothing to actually do with the question and with no actual knowledge of when, where, or why the story was written. That's totally your right, of course, but not sure what it has to do with the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 3, 2018 10:50:00 GMT
but it is usually too deep for theophobiacs who tend to keep things simple. Maybe it's time you learned that there is a real word for what you mean with "theophobiac". The word is misotheist. Here is part of the description from a Christian oriented site: ...a misotheist despises God or religion in general...The more common expression today would be antitheist, though misotheism technically implies a more emotional, personal level of disgust. Part of what makes the term misotheism interesting is that it denotes an attitude more than any particular belief. It’s possible to be an atheist or agnostic and not be considered a misotheist. One can deny God’s existence without harboring an active loathing of God. Once someone gets to the point of feeling that theism is harmful and needs to be actively countered, he could be considered an antitheist. And those who are characterized by a particular hatred, condescension, or animosity toward religion would more properly be considered misotheists.
www.gotquestions.org/misotheism-misotheist.html
I like theophobiac better. Even if we pretend I made it up, it fts my view better than that one. After all, I don't even think most religion haters are terribly invested in religion enough to be disgusted by it, it's just something for them to do with the limited knowledge they've got about the subject. You are more than welcome to describe yourself as a misotheist.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 3, 2018 15:13:01 GMT
gonna mock gonna mock around the clock tonight
of course when operating a theater of mass delusion fueled into conclusions that you can prance around the world playing patty cake patty cake bakers man scorch me a planet as fast as you can it stands to reason that eventually there would be a man doing way more damage than any planes ever could.
sjw 10/03/18 inspired at this very moment in time by what used to almost pass as an excuse for the reckless things you abuse.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Oct 3, 2018 22:44:46 GMT
After God turned her to salt? Did she go to Heaven? Hell? Purgatory? Poughkeepsie? Where is she today?
And what about all the other people God killed, like the 42 boys that Jehovah mauled with bears, or the millions of people killed by Yahweh's flood?
And speaking of the flood, didn't anyone besides Noah have a boat?
They're all in hell, because God loves them...or something.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 4, 2018 12:28:38 GMT
I'm not sure why that would be a "Must" situation. Basically you just invented a history for the origin of the story which has nothing to actually do with the question and with no actual knowledge of when, where, or why the story was written. That's totally your right, of course, but not sure what it has to do with the discussion. If you want me to spell it out, I'm saying Lot's wife didn't turn to stone so she didn't go to heaven or hell or anywhere. It's allegorical, symbolic. And I know why the story was written, to admonish the Hebrews to separate themselves from the pagan Canaanites --- OR ELSE! That's irrelevant to the story. As I always say, I talk to the godless as if the story is fiction. So let's keep it there. Your reasoning presumes that all works of fiction are based in part on land formations or some other weird underlying reason. Assuming this is a work of fiction, why would you think a dude couldn't just write that Lot's wife turned to salt for disobeying God? You fan fiction version of the origin and nothing to the story and doesn't even address the questions.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 4, 2018 21:52:11 GMT
If you want me to spell it out, I'm saying Lot's wife didn't turn to stone so she didn't go to heaven or hell or anywhere. It's allegorical, symbolic. And I know why the story was written, to admonish the Hebrews to separate themselves from the pagan Canaanites --- OR ELSE! That's irrelevant to the story. As I always say, I talk to the godless as if the story is fiction. So let's keep it there. Your reasoning presumes that all works of fiction are based in part on land formations or some other weird underlying reason. Assuming this is a work of fiction, why would you think a dude couldn't just write that Lot's wife turned to salt for disobeying God? You fan fiction version of the origin and nothing to the story and doesn't even address the questions. I like the term 'godless' as it better describes my atheism than any other you have used. Aside from that this is a really stupid post with you (the pot) calling Gameboy (the kettle black). YOU say that your version of the fiction is better/truer/whatever than HIS....because you read the Bible better or something...therefore understanding the Bible fiction better than the 'godless'? YOUR version of symbolism in the Bible doesn't accord with his...….so what? This is some of your best 'logic' right here. lol
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 5, 2018 11:01:50 GMT
That's irrelevant to the story. As I always say, I talk to the godless as if the story is fiction. So let's keep it there. Your reasoning presumes that all works of fiction are based in part on land formations or some other weird underlying reason. Assuming this is a work of fiction, why would you think a dude couldn't just write that Lot's wife turned to salt for disobeying God? You fan fiction version of the origin and nothing to the story and doesn't even address the questions. Look buddy, even if I post on religion message boards for the next 50 years I'm probably never gonna see another thread about Lot's wife. So I intend to explore the subject. I don't know how familiar you are with these IMDb-style board threads, but topics often diverge, and that's half the fun of it. I rarely post anything as a form of mental masturbation. This goes to topic and to the whole point of how such stories begin. And that's more important than an answer to such a silly question. Do you actually believe some dude sat down 3000 years ago one day and just wrote Leviticus from scratch? No, it's obvious the story evolved through decades or centuries based on tribal lore. Such stone pillars litter the Levant. And that one shaped like a woman existed before and during the whole time the Hebrews wandered through that wilderness. The story of Lot's wife so obviously was written after familiarity with the woman-shaped pillar. Yes, it explained the religious beliefs of the people. But it did not conjure itself out of thin air. The story evolved through folklore like the entire book of Leviticus and was written down centuries later. The story started as an old wives tale about why a stone pillar looked like a woman. If you want me to answer the silly and meaningless question, I will. Based on the beliefs espoused in Leviticus, Lot's wife did not burn in hell for looking back at the destruction of her home. There is nowhere in the Hebrew Bible where such an act is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. She may have gone to heaven. She may have gone to hell. But that fate was based on how she lived her life, not one act of curiosity and chagrin like looking back on her destroyed home. She was turned to stone to send a message. It did not affect her fate after death. You didn;t say you explored the subject. And yes, I think dudes write stories from scratch all the time. After all, you came with this story in no time. I certainly don't believe they look at a 50 foot rock formation and come to the conclusion it's the wife of someone (Or even if they knew it was salt in the first place). It's fine that you think so, but let's not pretend your hypothesis was based on exploring the subject or else you would have posted something.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 6, 2018 20:20:35 GMT
Look buddy, even if I post on religion message boards for the next 50 years I'm probably never gonna see another thread about Lot's wife. So I intend to explore the subject. I don't know how familiar you are with these IMDb-style board threads, but topics often diverge, and that's half the fun of it. I rarely post anything as a form of mental masturbation. This goes to topic and to the whole point of how such stories begin. And that's more important than an answer to such a silly question. Do you actually believe some dude sat down 3000 years ago one day and just wrote Leviticus from scratch? No, it's obvious the story evolved through decades or centuries based on tribal lore. Such stone pillars litter the Levant. And that one shaped like a woman existed before and during the whole time the Hebrews wandered through that wilderness. The story of Lot's wife so obviously was written after familiarity with the woman-shaped pillar. Yes, it explained the religious beliefs of the people. But it did not conjure itself out of thin air. The story evolved through folklore like the entire book of Leviticus and was written down centuries later. The story started as an old wives tale about why a stone pillar looked like a woman. If you want me to answer the silly and meaningless question, I will. Based on the beliefs espoused in Leviticus, Lot's wife did not burn in hell for looking back at the destruction of her home. There is nowhere in the Hebrew Bible where such an act is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. She may have gone to heaven. She may have gone to hell. But that fate was based on how she lived her life, not one act of curiosity and chagrin like looking back on her destroyed home. She was turned to stone to send a message. It did not affect her fate after death. You didn;t say you explored the subject. And yes, I think dudes write stories from scratch all the time. After all, you came with this story in no time. I certainly don't believe they look at a 50 foot rock formation and come to the conclusion it's the wife of someone (Or even if they knew it was salt in the first place). It's fine that you think so, but let's not pretend your hypothesis was based on exploring the subject or else you would have posted something. What a stupid thing to argue over (like most things in the Bible actually) It's like saying my fable/myth/allegory is truer than yours! Or my joke is funnier than yours! The bigger stupidity is to claim this on the grounds of having a greater study of this subject which is just a fable/myth/allegory.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 7, 2018 8:52:45 GMT
After God turned her to salt? Did she go to Heaven? Hell? Purgatory? Poughkeepsie? Where is she today?
And what about all the other people God killed, like the 42 boys that Jehovah mauled with bears, or the millions of people killed by Yahweh's flood?
And speaking of the flood, didn't anyone besides Noah have a boat?
Who says that it was God Who Turned her into salt? All it says is that she "looked back & became a pillar of salt." If you read Genesis chapter 19 carefully, you will notice that it was probably a volcano that destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. No doubt, you are probably thinking "So what?" Well, let us take into account another ancient city (albeit far, far, more recent than Sodom, Gomorrah, & other vicinities in the area) that had been destroyed by a volcano: Pompeii. In the years since the ruins of Pompeii had been discovered, archeologists have uncovered the bodies of people that had been killed by the volcano. They were all encased in salt-encrusting shells, preserving their remains. Therefore, that explains Mrs. Lot's fate: she hesitated to escape watching the horror of her home & former neighbours being destroyed, & before she knew it, she was overcome by toxic vapours & salt encrusting crystals all over her body. Well, if you're claiming it's a totally natural disaster then of course you can say what happened to here was natural consequence. But I assume the poster was taking Genesis at its word. Genesis includes "LORD will destroy the city" so IF that was the case then I can't see how one would draw any other conclusion other than that the Lord also turned her into a pillar of salt. Even if you try to say that well, yes, the Lord sent the fire and brimestone but her looking back and becoming entombed in salt/ash was a natural consequence of hesitating, then that would mean that really the Lord didn't "destroy" the city, he just created the rain of fire and brimestone and let nature take its course...ie the fire and brimestone fell upon the city and destroyed it.
|
|