Printer's Devil on 7/6/2006 at 01:04
Paging Fett: Why is old Lucifer considered so awful, anyway? Sure, he leads an unsuccessful rebellion in Heaven and does a lazy job of tempting Jesus in the wilderness, but he doesn't seem to be too involved in the grand landscape of Biblical suffering.
metal dawn on 7/6/2006 at 01:23
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
Paging Fett: Why
is old Lucifer considered so awful, anyway? Sure, he leads an unsuccessful rebellion in Heaven and does a lazy job of tempting Jesus in the wilderness, but he doesn't seem to be too involved in the grand landscape of Biblical suffering.
Manipulation from behind the scenes...
much like Cheney and Rove (lol, kneejerk).
Schattentänzer on 7/6/2006 at 07:21
I'm reading Paradise Lost again (this time in german though, my english version got nicked) and can't help but to sympathize with ol' Lucifer. The way Milton sketches God and Jeez with this tooth-ache inducing glory and actual bigotry really makes you think Satan is the good guy.
RyushiBlade on 7/6/2006 at 07:25
Not sure if someone's said this. Too lazy to check. But our entire date system (Gregorian Calendar, is it?) is based on a date which no one's even sure about. All the 'experts' say Jesus was born on something like 3BC.
Buggered if I know how they figured that out.
Jesus also wasn't born on Midnight, January 1st, rendering any dates related to his birth even more unlikely. If you want mythic, then you're looking at something like "Six centuries, six decades, and six years after Jesus' birth." Which would land sometime in spring, if the experts were to be believed again.
Basically, anything related to the actual date (6/6/06) and anything relating to the birth of Christ is bollocks.
On a side note, why the hell did we get punished when a snake told us to do something? I mean, God left the fruit within reach and said, "No." He practically had a sign on it saying, "EAT ME!" And then a snake comes up and says, "Oi, that fruit'll give you wonderous powers. C'mon, you can take a bite. Mum's the word, eh?" Can anyone really blame us for taking a bite?
I'd have put the apple somewhere less conspicuous. You know, like atop the tallest tree on the highest peak of the tallest mountain, sort of thing. And then make a moat of hot lava around it. And then maybe write, "This Fruit is Hazardous to your Health" on it.
Ko0K on 7/6/2006 at 07:39
It seems pretty clear to me that the whole tree and snake thing was a test.
Schattentänzer on 7/6/2006 at 07:42
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
Not sure if someone's said this. Too lazy to check. But our entire date system (Gregorian Calendar, is it?) is based on a date which no one's even sure about. All the 'experts' say Jesus was born on something like 3BC (...)
Jesus also wasn't born on Midnight, January 1st, rendering any dates related to his birth even more unlikely.
January 1st? Gee, wonder what that christmasthingading is for... oh yeah, winter solstice.
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
I'd have put the apple somewhere less conspicuous. You know, like atop the tallest tree on the highest peak of the tallest mountain, sort of thing. And then make a moat of hot lava around it. And then maybe write, "This Fruit is Hazardous to your Health" on it.
It even goes beyond that. God, being omniscient and all, did know we would fall for Satan's scheme before we even thought about it. Oh, and while Lucifer got cast out because he was rebellious from his own will, we only got corrupted by him - meaning if god had stopped him from entering paradise we wouldn't have thought twice about eating that fruit. That's divine planning for you.
RyushiBlade on 7/6/2006 at 07:42
Not very fair though, is it? Almost like cheating.
Quote Posted by Schattentänzer
January 1st? Gee, wonder what that christmasthingading is for... oh yeah, winter solstice.
Not sure if I was clear, but I meant that if 6/6/06 is supposed to be an auspicious day, it would be because it's '6/6/06' after Jesus' birth (0BC). And since years start over on January First, Jesus would have to have been born on January First for 6/6/06 to make sense. Which it wouldn't anyway, because it's 2006. We just take off the 20 to make it shorter.
It's all just completely wrong.
Fingernail on 7/6/2006 at 08:51
Quote Posted by Ko0K
It seems pretty clear to me that the whole tree and snake thing was a test.
Yeah, as Schatten says, a test to which God, being omniscient, already knew the outcome.
Tonamel on 7/6/2006 at 09:02
Yeah, but, y'know... Ineffable.
OnionBob on 7/6/2006 at 09:36
Quote Posted by Schattentänzer
I'm reading Paradise Lost again (this time in german though, my english version got nicked) and can't help but to sympathize with ol' Lucifer. The way Milton sketches God and Jeez with this tooth-ache inducing glory and actual bigotry really makes you think Satan
is the good guy.
one of the best things about reading milton, and especially paradise lost, is that despite all his puritanical posturings it was very clear which parts of the book he enjoyed writing most - ie the parts about hell, satan, and so on. Quite apart from the fact that there's so much more about Hell than Heaven, the kind of language used to describe the former is far more involved, energetic, and effective than that used for the latter. Everyone likes the bad guys best.
