secondeve

Nonbeliever
  • Content count

    1,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About secondeve

  • Rank
    Diamond Member
  • Birthday 02/21/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://wordwench dot org

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Writing, reading, politics, fantasy, poetry.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,121 profile views
  1. Lol, thanks! It's a year old now - actually, almost to the day, as it's from my last birthday and the next is just around the corner. Love your pic too! :)

  2. Hi, S.E.; great photo!

  3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine...amp;_r=1&em Just wondering what people thought of the new Calvinists and their message.
  4. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1862189,00.html
  5. Hi guys, I was just wondering what people think of this article in Time: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...1847053,00.html It's basically about prosperity churches encouraging congregations to get mortgages just prior to the sub-prime crisis, or, rather, the idea that individuals were praising God for getting a mortgage despite their poor credit rating when we see now that it was the result of shonky banking policies designed to fleece consumers. Any thoughts?
  6. http://www.theage.com.au/national/study-fi...80715-3fef.html I just read this article on rape inside marriage, and apart from being horrified, there was one quote which really got me. One victim, when going to her priest to confide about the rape and abuse, was told only to pray about it; and when the woman asked, quite reasonably, what if her husband were to kill her first, the priest's reply was: 'at least you'll go to heaven.' Now that, to me, is a special breed of insanity. Clearly, the priest isn't representative of the entire churchgoing populace, but it was an awful enough response that it made me wonder what the Biblical position on rape inside marriage is - i.e., can it actually take place? Obviously it can and does, but for centuries, the law stated that there was no such thing as rape inside marriage, because being married 'entitled' the husband to his wife's body, regardless of whether or not she was interested. It's only relatively recently that laws have changed, and in other countries, the old attitude still prevails. So what's the actual position on this?
  7. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1816202,00.html Just wondering what people made of this story, either socially or religiously.
  8. Lol, not much! Just the usual, 'cept I have a bit of a stomach bug. Otherwise shiny. You? :)

  9. Lol, that's awesome! I'm probably a mix of Big Cat and Diplomat, though I'll 'fess up to having had moments of Artiste and Jekyl & Hyde in the past.
  10. Here's where the logic of Christianity both works and falls down for me. On the one hand, humanity - all humanity - is flawed. It's part of the definition. But there are still degrees of flawedness: if offered the choice between two soiled shirts, we can still declare one to be 'cleaner' than the other. Similarly with people: once you take our base limits into account, you've got room for discussion. Christianity says that even though all men are flawed, God still loves them, and that obediance to God's will - and belief in God - is the path to heaven. Equally important is that even though God loves all men, some will still go to hell; and this is my point. By abstracting the OP's question to 'God loves everyone', you're not actually giving an answer. You're copping out of the harder question, viz: if all men sin, and all men are equal in sinning, then what good behaviours will lead to heaven? Which man, here, seems closer to God in his actions? Some have said that it's not their place to judge. I submit that having an opinion is not judgement, because your reaction either way condemns nobody. Ultimately, if the OP's uncles were folk you knew, you'd have an opinion. You might seek forgiveness for it, or acknowledge that God's will was higher, or that your reasoning could be faulty because - after all - you're only human; but you'd nonetheless have an opinion. Here, it seems, you are taking the highground only because the question is an abstract, or because (perhaps) you suspect a trick. You don't know these people, true. But it seems dishonest to pretend that, even if you did, you'd still shrug and feel nothing.
  11. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/father...9234689448.html This disturbs me on about every possible level.
  12. Hey guys, I'm doing a university subject called 'the New Testament and its Times' this semester, and thought I'd share a paper I wrote for it last night on the Gospel of Mark. There were two questions asking us to look at how Mark portrays Jesus' human side, and what details in the narrative were suggestive of eyewitness testimony. Anyway, here 'tis: In examining the narrative structure of the Gospel of Mark, it is interesting to consider those elements which contribute to our image of Jesus as a man (as opposed to a divinity), and, further, to try and determine which details of the account are suggestive of eye-witness testimony. In both cases, we are essentially seeking to identify information which, on balance, seems more likely to be true, not because the author has gone out of his way to emphasise it, but for precisely the opposite reason. This involves the combination of several criterion used in establishing the authenticity of the Gospels, namely: dissimilarity, lack of a higher theological imperative for a given anecdote or occurrence, embarrassment, relationship to an actual rural context, and multiple independent attestation. By these methods, a Biblical scholar may construct a plausible interpretation of the depiction of Jesus
  13. Hello to you too :)

  14. Sudafed, and lots of it!

  15. Ahh, well, that explains it. Insanity all round!