Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Rickety

You say you want change but.....

66 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MARAB0D

Sourdough is an american travesty (or delicacy) of true breadmaking imho( Fortunately it has not made much of an impact in the boondocks of australia as yet except at the odd craft fair or farmers market) We manke not just breads but buns scones pancakes etc. I repeat, while i dont mind some good unleavened bread such as pitta bread, personally i dont think you can beat a well risen white and crusty loaf. To achieve this, either self raising flour, or an agent like bicarb of soda(or as you use, a yeast agent or a piece of sourdough) is needed.

Its probably a matter of taste. I dont particularly like the more yeasty tasting breads (maybe because i dont drink alcohol, including beer, and thus dont have a taste for yeasty products) although many do. On the other hand i like multi grained, very high fibre breads esp when toasted over a fire.

The flour source, including grain type and quality has a much greater impact on taste within standard type breads, than a raising agent, as do other additives such as salt. I buy my flours from local granaries which specialise in unique types and blends for bread making.

Unfortunately the australian govt has mandated the addition of precise quantities of folate in all flour made in australia.

This has greatly reduced the number and range of boutique flours available, due to the difficulty of adding and verifying precise amounts of folate to small quantities of diverse flour types.

As usually you spread your opinion to the risky areas on Unknown... My culture was eating rye sourdough as a staple food approximately 2000 years before Columbus discovered some bits of America...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr Walker

As usually you spread your opinion to the risky areas on Unknown... My culture was eating rye sourdough as a staple food approximately 2000 years before Columbus discovered some bits of America...

True, but it has become part of modern american imperial hegemony, like americanised spelling and sesame street, not to mention coca cola. (woops sorry, i mentioned coca cola) Today, as with many cultural references, most would only have heard of it in an american context, via american literature or media.

It was probably first discovered by the ancient egyptians, but that is hardly relevant to this debate either. ( unless ......are you of Egyptian descent?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

True, but it has become part of modern american imperial hegemony, like americanised spelling and sesame street, not to mention coca cola. (woops sorry, i mentioned coca cola) Today, as with many cultural references, most would only have heard of it in an american context, via american literature or media.

It was probably first discovered by the ancient egyptians, but that is hardly relevant to this debate either. ( unless ......are you of Egyptian descent?)

I do not know who first discovered it, perhaps some housewife noticed changes in abandoned dough... But I NEVER ate anything like that of an American origin. Of European - yes, but not of American. Cannot even imagine. What sort of sourdough do they eat? They do not even have rye, US is too hot for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dune

Is it just me, or does it seem like all the Pastors in all the churches keep preaching over and over again about how the world needs to "change" but they never leave the security of their church building. Why don't they go out into the streets and protest, obviously they don't want it bad enough. The only way for your voice to be heard is by using it and they don't. They trust in some unnatural power to intervene and make the world change but that's just not gonna happen! You gotta get out there and speak! You gotta protest and hold public gatherings! You have to get your voice out in order for any change to even begin but they don't. They stay in their churches and never branch out. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Surely not!

They're smart to stay inside their churches. If the people aren't in the church on Sunday listening to what the pastor has to say, they don't want to hear. I've had mormons and such approach me at the park, and let me tell you, it's not a comfortable situation to be in if you don't believe in their religion. People, in general, don't want to be converted. The first step in having others respect your beliefs is to first respect theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Pa Quotes:

"A Bible passage taken out of context is still out of context"

how do you determine a bible passage is taken out of context?

Depends on the passage. There are many techniques at ones disposal that help though. The most basic of these is simply read the verses around the quoted section. In this example we're talking about in this thread, this most basic look was all that was required. In this specific verse it was used to tell me that I was being dishonest by not simply letting my yes be yes and no be no. Ignoring for a moment that I have always been honest, that passage was referring to taking oaths:

Mat 5:34But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,

Mat 5:35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.

Mat 5:37 Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

Hence it was clearly taken out of context to make it appear as if I was being dishonest and insincere. With that said though, not all questions of context are so simple to respond to. There is literally a plethora of tools that we use. I look at not just what the individual verse says, but how it fits into the chapter, then how it fits into the book, then how it fits into the whole Bible. What style was it written in (historical, narrative, poetry, prophecy). Who was it written for (if known)? Who wrote it (if known)? Why was it written (was it a warning, a judgement, a call to celebrate, a call to persevere....). When was it written (Old Testament or New Testament). What part of the Old/New Testament is it (the Law, the writings, the wisdom books, or the prophets/ gospels or teachings or revelation). If we wrote a time-line of biblical events, where on that timeline does this event occur? What was the historical and cultural situation in regard to the particular view of the text, and how did the passage confirm or subvert the contemporary views expressed. What Greek/Hebrew words are used in the verse (I generally need a concordance for this part since I'm not a Hebrew/Greek scholar). What words are repeated in the passage (repeated words or phrases usually denote special significance). What context is the word used in in this verse? What context was the same word (again, often I need a concordance for this one) used in different parts of the specific book (assuming it was used again), and what context did the same author use the word in within other texts they wrote - if they wrote more than one book, that is). What did the author originally intend their reader to gain from the text? Is it the same today (that is, has anything changed fundamentally today that might affect the passage? How does this passage relate to Jesus Christ? After all this (or perhaps during it - really depends on how my research leads me), I usually reference other authors who have looked at these passages to see the differing conclusions they have arrived at, and their theological reasoning behind that process.

I'm sure I've missed some, but at the very least if one goes through these steps, the chances of arriving at a conclusion that is based in context is much improved (even if there are still disagreements afterwards).

oops on the Jesus Reference wrong thread...

No worries :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I believe a lot of people made this thread into something it never was....Let's try again?

You're absolutely right, Sakari. In terms of "we were discussing" I was referring to the continued feud between myself and marabod. Our discussion has a tendency to leak into other debates. My apologies for derailing your thread - though if it helps shift blame, I'm more than willing to point the blame at marabod and say "he started it" (sorry marabod - it's either my bacon on the frypan or yours, and I don't think mine's ready for frying yet) :ph34r: Lol, just messing with ya ;)

"Is it just me, or does it seem like all the Pastors in all the churches keep preaching over and over again about how the world needs to "change" but they never leave the security of their church building. Why don't they go out into the streets and protest, obviously they don't want it bad enough. The only way for your voice to be heard is by using it and they don't. They trust in some unnatural power to intervene and make the world change but that's just not gonna happen! You gotta get out there and speak! You gotta protest and hold public gatherings! You have to get your voice out in order for any change to even begin but they don't. They stay in their churches and never branch out. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Surely not! "

I can only go by my own experiences, but I have observed that the several pastors at my church have spent very little time at church. They're really only there on Sunday's between the church services (and maybe a few hours either side of the meeting). The pastor's themselves are always busy going off and visiting those in the church who are sick, or helping those in need, providing food and/or lodging if a new person comes to the church who obviously hasn't got a place to stay (I live in a very low socio-economic region of Sydney). Outside of that, the job of helping others does not begin and end solely with the pastor of a church. A church is simply defined as a gathering of believers. It's up to us to make a difference. Church meetings are for spiritual edification - learning, encouraging each other, helping, training, teaching, worshipping God (can't forget that one, lol). Most of us spend only a couple of hours there a week. What are we doing for the other 160+ hours we have in our lives each week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

They're smart to stay inside their churches. If the people aren't in the church on Sunday listening to what the pastor has to say, they don't want to hear. I've had mormons and such approach me at the park, and let me tell you, it's not a comfortable situation to be in if you don't believe in their religion. People, in general, don't want to be converted. The first step in having others respect your beliefs is to first respect theirs.

Personally, I enjoy being confronted by Mormons. Or anyone who has a differing belief to myself. I enjoy such discussions. My favourite one happened a couple of years back when a JW stopped me a couple of years back and asked me if I wanted to hear the good news about Jesus Christ. I told them, "Sure I want to hear about the good news of Jesus Christ. Do you?" :w00t:

I guess I must simply be a strange person. I don't get upset when someone asks me if they can share their Faith with me. Unless I'm in a rush, and us Aussies are usually laid back so I'm not very often in a rush, I love stopping to have a bit of a chat with them :D

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Depends on the passage. There are many techniques at ones disposal that help though. The most basic of these is simply read the verses around the quoted section. In this example we're talking about in this thread, this most basic look was all that was required. In this specific verse it was used to tell me that I was being dishonest by not simply letting my yes be yes and no be no. Ignoring for a moment that I have always been honest, that passage was referring to taking oaths:

Mat 5:34But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,

Mat 5:35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.

Mat 5:37 Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

Hence it was clearly taken out of context to make it appear as if I was being dishonest and insincere. With that said though, not all questions of context are so simple to respond to. There is literally a plethora of tools that we use. I look at not just what the individual verse says, but how it fits into the chapter, then how it fits into the book, then how it fits into the whole Bible. What style was it written in (historical, narrative, poetry, prophecy). Who was it written for (if known)? Who wrote it (if known)? Why was it written (was it a warning, a judgement, a call to celebrate, a call to persevere....). When was it written (Old Testament or New Testament). What part of the Old/New Testament is it (the Law, the writings, the wisdom books, or the prophets/ gospels or teachings or revelation). If we wrote a time-line of biblical events, where on that timeline does this event occur? What was the historical and cultural situation in regard to the particular view of the text, and how did the passage confirm or subvert the contemporary views expressed. What Greek/Hebrew words are used in the verse (I generally need a concordance for this part since I'm not a Hebrew/Greek scholar). What words are repeated in the passage (repeated words or phrases usually denote special significance). What context is the word used in in this verse? What context was the same word (again, often I need a concordance for this one) used in different parts of the specific book (assuming it was used again), and what context did the same author use the word in within other texts they wrote - if they wrote more than one book, that is). What did the author originally intend their reader to gain from the text? Is it the same today (that is, has anything changed fundamentally today that might affect the passage? How does this passage relate to Jesus Christ? After all this (or perhaps during it - really depends on how my research leads me), I usually reference other authors who have looked at these passages to see the differing conclusions they have arrived at, and their theological reasoning behind that process.

I'm sure I've missed some, but at the very least if one goes through these steps, the chances of arriving at a conclusion that is based in context is much improved (even if there are still disagreements afterwards).

No worries :wub:

So this is how you go about interpreting the NT correct? that you basically vouch for your fairness in choosing the best possible meaning that you project onto the text which can at times be based on other christian literal interpretations? ...? is this a fair assessment, Robbie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Personally, I enjoy being confronted by Mormons. Or anyone who has a differing belief to myself. I enjoy such discussions. My favourite one happened a couple of years back when a JW stopped me a couple of years back and asked me if I wanted to hear the good news about Jesus Christ. I told them, "Sure I want to hear about the good news of Jesus Christ. Do you?" :w00t:

I guess I must simply be a strange person. I don't get upset when someone asks me if they can share their Faith with me. Unless I'm in a rush, and us Aussies are usually laid back so I'm not very often in a rush, I love stopping to have a bit of a chat with them :D

~ PA

no stranger then me, I have occasional moods that I delight in a conversation with a Mormon myself...

I have been told a few times its enjoyable having someone to talk, by a Mormon, even though we disagree. Let me tell you I don't shy away for a debate on my doorstep, bring it I say..lol .. ( poor guys they are really most familiar with a door in the face, more then any kind of verbal exchange......).

I'm sure they appreciate you Robbie...lol...:w00t:

Edited by S♥ ♥ ♥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Is it just me, or does it seem like all the Pastors in all the churches keep preaching over and over again about how the world needs to "change"

What like the hippies did back in the 60's? LOL...change man we need change... no wait that the line scroungers use on the streets!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

So this is how you go about interpreting the NT correct? that you basically vouch for your fairness in choosing the best possible meaning that you project onto the text which can at times be based on other christian literal interpretations? ...? is this a fair assessment, Robbie?

This is how I go about contextually examining the whole Bible, not just the New Testament. And while I have never claimed to have everything down absolutely perfectly right, these methods I suggested do help in ensuring that most of the time I am at least heading down the right track. I know there are still mistakes in my reasoning, somewhere. That's why I continuously re-evaluate my positions, incorporating new data whenever it comes available to me, and even changing certain parts of my beliefs if they are in contradiction with what I have studied.

True, there are still some grey passages that can be interpreted in several different ways, even using the contextual approaches I suggested, but most of the time I find these issues to fall in the "non-essential" basket of doctrines and so am happy to debate various points of view on it, and even have my own opinion on the right one, but I don't close myself off to the possibility of being wrong on them.

Best wishes, Sheri :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

no stranger then me, I have occasional moods that I delight in a conversation with a Mormon myself...

I have been told a few times its enjoyable having someone to talk, by a Mormon, even though we disagree. Let me tell you I don't shy away for a debate on my doorstep, bring it I say..lol .. ( poor guys they are really most familiar with a door in the face, more then any kind of verbal exchange......).

I'm sure they appreciate you Robbie...lol...:w00t:

Seems fair and above board, lol. Some people just have this weird hate-thing going with the evangelists, slamming doors into their face or abusing them or such.

Though if you're up for a laugh, check this out. Around the 2:00 minute time-code, and again around the 5-minute there's some pretty interesting stuff happening when door-to-door evangelists come knocking (though the whole video is funny:

I love Black Books :w00t:

~PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sherapy

Seems fair and above board, lol. Some people just have this weird hate-thing going with the evangelists, slamming doors into their face or abusing them or such.

Though if you're up for a laugh, check this out. Around the 2:00 minute time-code, and again around the 5-minute there's some pretty interesting stuff happening when door-to-door evangelists come knocking (though the whole video is funny:

I love Black Books :w00t:

~PA

ha ha ha that was very funny...

I'm not always in the mood, yet I wouldn't be rude, but politely dismissive, not because I am incapable of being rude (but raising kids one has to use care in how they treat others..) ... from the NB side IMO its an odd practice to go door to door pimping an invisible product.

I wouldn't call it a hate thing, for me its curiosity as to the motivation behind the behavior........no different then my friend a child psychologist ,who tells parents their babies have died, or a friend of mine who is a nurse for terminally ill kids....what would compel them to choose that as a life's work and love it...so I ask and in asking I have seen the side of human nature that is inspiring.....

so for me its not about hate, but understanding.......:blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovehotdogs

My actual question is, how many people are going to church and believing in God out of fear of hell and punishment, rather than actual love and adoration? Cause let me tell you, some of the people I know that go to church, are as mean as can be. Good Lord (no pun intended), I'll converse with an atheist talking about the weather any day than I would a church-goer trying to condescend to me that they're better than everyone else because they're "saved". (I'm not saying all church-goers are like this, mind you. But I have met a fine few with this mind-set.) To me, if you love God and believe in him with all your heart, you would be humble and not act like God's greatest gift (again, no pun intended). Likewise, I've met atheists that are the nicest people you'll ever want to meet. So if some people are going to church and devoted to God mostly out of fear, then it kind of makes sense when they try to push their belief on you. They might say, "Well, all you have to do is love God and you won't go to hell. What do you have to lose?" It sounds like, in essence, that they are more being forced to love him out of fear. And hey, if God doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. Better safe than sorry. ..So it sounds like they have doubts to his existence, but hey, they're going to believe in him anyway to avoid a fiery hell for all of eternity, just in case.

On the other hand, I have met some people who genuinely seem to love God with all their heart, no fear behind it, and they're really nice, and seem to really be in tune to his existence, and they still really want to convert you, but I think in this case it's sincere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

My actual question is, how many people are going to church and believing in God out of fear of hell and punishment, rather than actual love and adoration? Cause let me tell you, some of the people I know that go to church, are as mean as can be. Good Lord (no pun intended), I'll converse with an atheist talking about the weather any day than I would a church-goer trying to condescend to me that they're better than everyone else because they're "saved". (I'm not saying all church-goers are like this, mind you. But I have met a fine few with this mind-set.) To me, if you love God and believe in him with all your heart, you would be humble and not act like God's greatest gift (again, no pun intended). Likewise, I've met atheists that are the nicest people you'll ever want to meet. So if some people are going to church and devoted to God mostly out of fear, then it kind of makes sense when they try to push their belief on you. They might say, "Well, all you have to do is love God and you won't go to hell. What do you have to lose?" It sounds like, in essence, that they are more being forced to love him out of fear. And hey, if God doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. Better safe than sorry. ..So it sounds like they have doubts to his existence, but hey, they're going to believe in him anyway to avoid a fiery hell for all of eternity, just in case.

On the other hand, I have met some people who genuinely seem to love God with all their heart, no fear behind it, and they're really nice, and seem to really be in tune to his existence, and they still really want to convert you, but I think in this case it's sincere.

In order to establish this is a solid format, we need to know what is the default destination for all of us - Hell or Heavens? If heavens, then we have to maintain our natural way with no deviation and live like Adam was living; if Hell then we need to try pleasing God for us to escape it. Jesus insists the efforts must be made to get to Heavens, means he considers Hell as a default. However in this case a loving God appears to create living souls with the purpose of torturing them in Hell, and such god hardly deserves any love or following. Thus those going to the church with the purpose to avoid getting into Hell, appear quite insincere and maybe even dishonest, as they express the will to serve the evil God for the sake of personal salvation from this God's evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovehotdogs

In order to establish this is a solid format, we need to know what is the default destination for all of us - Hell or Heavens? If heavens, then we have to maintain our natural way with no deviation and live like Adam was living; if Hell then we need to try pleasing God for us to escape it. Jesus insists the efforts must be made to get to Heavens, means he considers Hell as a default. However in this case a loving God appears to create living souls with the purpose of torturing them in Hell, and such god hardly deserves any love or following. Thus those going to the church with the purpose to avoid getting into Hell, appear quite insincere and maybe even dishonest, as they express the will to serve the evil God for the sake of personal salvation from this God's evil.

Exactly. Which is why it's beyond my understanding of why people even choose to believe in the bible 100%, or choose to believe in a God that is capable of such a thing. And, on the same page, even if this God is the real God, then the people who are only going to church to escape hell, not from any real devotion to him, will probably be judged on their dishonesty and disloyalty, and be sentenced to go to hell anyway.. So it's not like they're really saved. Of course, none of us know God's "masterplan", and so people's assumption to know so is just speculation/hope/theorizing, etc. ..Based off the bible (written by humans, no matter which way you swing it), which is a whole other story in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.