Raf

1. The question I asked about God's omnipotence and authority is not nearly as cheap or intellectually dishonest as "can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" Frankly, you should be insulted by putting forth such a comparison. "If God is all powerful, why did he not warn Abel that he was about to be murdered by Cain?" If you don't think that's a fair question in the context of the story being told here, that's on you, not me. If God is all powerful, why could he not devise a path to redemption that did not require bloodshed? If it's because such a path would not have been "just," then we have to concede that God is subject to justice and not the author of it. If the answer is that he could have, then we have to concede that "justice" is arbitrary to His will and not intrinsic -- it's not "just" because it's just; it's just because God says it is. This is the kind of philosophical question that has driven discussions of ethics for CENTURIES. If you don't think that's an interesting topic, that's on you, not me. Once again, you are not addressing my questions. You're dismissing them. And you're doing so in a manner that is not all that clever. I have no problem with you not addressing the questions I raise. But I think it's obnoxious, frankly, that you feel the need to piss on the conversation rather than contribute to it. And yeah, that's what you're doing. And, I think I can add, "again." Because this is consistently how you engage me in every discussion we have. It's getting old. 2. "Two people gave sacrifices. One was preferred over the other. Jealousy arose. That's a story we see every day, a story old as time. Is that easy to deal with?" Uh, YEAH. Have you been to a library? It's filled with these things called "books." Some tackle really interesting subjects, including jealousy. Two people gave sacrifices. One was preferred over the other. We're not told why. The person whose sacrifice was not accepted is not told why. Jealousy arose. There's a character who could have fixed it by explaining why one sacrifice was accepted and the other was not. He doesn't. Instead, he lets the jealous person stew to the point of becoming the human race's literal first murderer. The guy who could have explained the difference between the two sacrifices also has the ability to warn the murder victim about what's coming. He doesn't. What good is offering an acceptable sacrifice to God if God isn't going to pay you a visit to warn you about what's coming... the same God who had no trouble whatsoever chatting it up with the murderer a few moments earlier? I don't see what the Cain and Abel story is so complicated or difficult to explain that you can declare it more true than truth. Honestly, it's a story that raises infinitely more questions than it answers. it gives us no insight into the nature of jealousy, the value of a burnt offering, or the benefit of pleasing God.

Interesting points, Bolshevik. Here's what I don't get: You want to say stories can often be more "true" than reality and that these stories are trying to explain something that's difficult to explain. Fine. What? I'll wait. Is the story trying to explain an event in history? In all likelihood, no. Fine. It's a story with a moral lesson. What is that lesson? Clearly, it's not that if you do things God's way, God will have your back. Abel did things God's way and God was so busy lecturing Cain that he ran out of time to warn Abel his brother was about to become Earth's first murderer at Abel's expense. So what is the difficult thing this story is trying to explain that's difficult to explain? And let's look at a few issues here before you unilaterally declare an entire line of questioning "not interesting." The overarching purpose of this story is to get us to believe in, have confidence in, trust in, love and serve an Almighty God. To argue that questions about his omnipotence are off limits because they bore you is an indictment of you, not the line of questioning. Honestly, how can you say a line of questioning about God's power and authority is not interesting? That does not address what I wrote; it dismisses what I wrote without even pretending to have answered it.

Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demonstrate wisdom when you can have it conferred upon you by decree? Don't you see? Declaring that the foolishness of God is wiser than men innocculates you from the need to answer for the foolishness of your position? It goes like this: In order for us to have redemption, blood needs to be shed. Because that was the standard God set up. Because he did. No, he could not have set up any other standard, because that would not have been just. Why? Buh...buh...buh...buhcause! Why could God, who is Almighty, not set up a system of redemption that does not require bloodshed? I mean, I've got one at home with my kids. Not once have I had to execute a pet in order to atone for my sons being brats. And I certainly have never even considered killing one of my sons to atone for another's infractions! It makes no sense that an Almighty God should be unable to craft a less bloodthirsty method for redemption unless that God were SUBJECT to the principles of justice rather than being their AUTHOR. He who said that if a man sheds blood, by man his blood will be shed could just as easily have said if a man sheds blood he will serve an appropriate prison sentence, providing a service to the state that will be paid not to him but to the family of the person whose blood he shed. And it WOULD be just by virtue of His being the author of it, for He is the author, not the subject, of justice. RIGHT? Jesus never would have had to die. No one would. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men" absolves you of any need to even consider the validity of what I've just laid out. It is not a comeback, it is a dismissal, a self-affirming declaration of humility, intelligence, meekness and thoughtful reflection that is, in reality, none of those things.

I think I'm going to avoid the discussion of who are the sons of God of Genesis 6. Some say angels. Others (TWI) say the good descendants of Adam. Not really important to this thread. And if I recall correctly we've already beaten the "did the flood happen" horse to death. So... let's emerge from the flood on Ararat. In the category of things that the readers might have known that we might not, we have Genesis 9:20-27. What exactly did Ham see? "Noah's nakedness." Um. Ok. And the other brothers covered him up, and Ham's son, Canaan, got cursed to be slaves to his uncles. What... the... actual... f???? I'm sorry, can someone make sense of why Canaan has to be a slave because of something Ham did? I mean, assume Ham had sex with Noah's wife, or that Ham molested Noah. Why in the name of Hannah and Her Sisters does that mean Canaan should have to be a slave? I could see HAM having to be a slave. But his kid? I'm not saying this is an actual error. Just that it makes zero sense.

Why presume something couldn't be known prior to Moses writing it down? Why conclude that is my presumption? It's not what I said. The issue isn't just that the answer is unknown to the characters. The issue is that it's unknown to us, the readers, from the text. This is the Bible, after all, and the questions are not minor or incidental. There is NOTHING in the text of Genesis 1-4 that leads to the conclusion that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. More to the point, there is nothing in Genesis 4:6 that relates to that point. This would have been the ideal place for the lesson to be introduced. It's not. You cannot assume that Cain knew that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sins. He obviously didn't know: he offered plants! The fact that God killed animals to make skins for Adam and Eve to have clothes does not lead logically to the conclusion that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. That idea doesn't come until MUCH later in the Bible story. Now, we can ret-con the Adam and Eve story to show that fig leaves are an inadequate covering because there's no blood shed, so God showed them the principle of sacrifice through bloodshed. That would be perfectly understandable if not for the fact that animal skins really are a better clothing solution than fig leaves.

(Please click on Bolshevik's post to get the context of this comment). The real problem isn't that I raise an interesting question and then go on to other questions. The real problem is that I had the interesting question in the first place. This should not be a question. Why did God accept Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's? There is nothing in the verse or context to explain it. Let's suppose that the answer is: Abel's sacrifice was of blood, and Cain's was not. Fine. Why didn't God tell that to Cain? He obviously had ZERO problem communicating with Cain directly. In Genesis 4:6, he even TELLS Cain, "if you do what is right, it will be accepted." But He doesn't tell Cain what "right" is. By the way, why is God talking to Cain at all? I mean, even assuming LIMITED power of foresight on God's part, wouldn't it have been, I don't know, GODLY for Him to talk to Abel at that point? "Abel, your sacrifice to me has met with my approval. Verily I say unto thee this day... RUN!" And let's recall that there was literally a single family on earth at the time, so it's not like the Almighty was busy (take that comment with an element of humor: God can't be "busy" to the point of distraction, or He wouldn't be "Almighty." It was a tongue-in-cheek comment). Given the power of God, this whole story makes very, very little sense. Why didn't Abel get God's protection?

Dusting this topic off... Longhunter: Without further research, I agree that you appear to have found an error. But I would not say it with 100 percent certainty before I could answer a host of questions, the first of which would be: How do we know there weren't two places named Dan? I live about 100 miles from Naples, but nowhere near Italy. I live a couple of miles from St. Petersburg, but nowhere near Russia... The fact that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible should be readily apparent. The stronger likelihood is that Moses never existed at all: He's a fictional character invented as a unifying figure for a band of related tribes seeking political cohesion hundreds of years after he would have lived if there were a shred of truth to his history. To be continued...

Actually it wasn't. Jennings gave up his seat for the Big Bopper. Tommy Allsup (one of the Crickets) lost the coin toss). Dion (of Dion and the Belmonts, a headliner on the tour) claimed that there was no coin toss at that point, and he gave Ritchie his seat. Dion said he won his seat with the coin toss earlier. Blah blah blah, free post.

The show's theme song peaked at number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1987. It spent a week at number one on the Adult Contemporary chart.

By the way, Mamma Mia is a 4/5 decent musical and a 2/5 decent movie.

Ritchie Valens' sister was at the filming of the coin toss and broke down, urging him not to get on the plane and asking him why he did. Lou Diamond Phillips is 6 months older than Esai Morales, who played Valens' brother, Bob Morales. Phillips would indeed have made a LOUSY Frankie Valli.

Remember that bit about breaking the fourth wall? In one scene, the actors run off the set and around the studio chasing the bad guy.

The main character's brother was played by an actor who shared the brother's actual last name in real life. In a pivotal scene, one actor tosses a coin. It's based on a true event. The sister of the person who wins the coin toss in real life was present during filming. She cried uncontrollably. The actor playing her brother tried to console her. Seeming to forget that he was just an actor, she begged him to forego the victory.

No.

About 3,000 actors, no lie, tried out for the lead male role. The guy who got the part was the last to audition. He's kind of famous now. Like, really, really famous. A trademark of the series was to break the fourth wall, with the lead actors well aware that they were characters in a tv dra... com... show.

The lead actor's agent called him to audition for the part, mistakenly thinking he would be playing Frankie Valli. The actor thought he was all wrong for the part, but auditioned anyway. He got the part, which was decidedly NOT Frankie Valli (who is not even a character in the movie). He was also eight months older than the actor who played his older brother.

THUNDERCATS

Daredevil: The Ben Affleck Edition Michael Clarke Duncan was an awesome Kingpin. Movie was much better than people give it credit for.

The Jackson 5! Just kidding.

I thought saying the spinoff was "not a serial" was as dead a giveaway as I could come up with.

Jessica Tate is shot by South American guerillas in the series finale of Soap. She later appeared on an episode of Benson as either a ghost (my memory) or some other kind of apparition (imdb's memory) who needed Benson's help to do a good deed to get to heaven (or something). Robert Guillaume won an emmy for playing Benson on Soap. Billy Crystal's big break was on Soap as one of the first openly gay characters on a network tv series.

Good lord that took a long time.

The show (not the spinoff) featured (did not STAR... featured, in most episodes) a ventriloquist who was so good that it caused a technical screw-up during production. Seems the sound guy would point the mike at the dummy, not the ventriloquist, whenever the dummy had a line. The show featured the first black actor to win an Emmy as best supporting actor in a comedy series. He went on to star in the spinoff, which was named for his character. According to imdb trivia, my memory may have failed me on my original clue. So I MAY be right, but I may be wrong. If I'm wrong, here's what REALLY happened: One of the main characters in this series appears to be shot to death in the cliffhanger finale. We find out in a spinoff series that the character actually is in a coma, but shows up as an apparition who needs to do a good deed to get into heaven. So, if I'm wrong, she was only mostly dead, which is not the same as all dead. The actor known for that last joke had his big break in the original series.

The series I'm looking for parodied the genre for which it was named. The spinoff was more of a straightforward sitcom with stories that were largely non-serial.

Manhunter Brian Cox X2: X-Men United