Heartland

abridged wrote: I read somewhere it's actually a mistranslation and it's not virgins you get but raisins...As my Ancient Arabic isn't as good as it could be I can't vouch for this of course...

I like raisins as much as the next man who cares about having healthy bowels, but it doesn't seem much of a reward for all that trouble. Besides, I like to think a suicide bomber goes to Heaven and gets a lot of Anne Widdecombes. Or Cannibal Corpse fans. Allah isn't specific about the type of virgin you get..

DeWinter wrote:

abridged wrote: I read somewhere it's actually a mistranslation and it's not virgins you get but raisins...As my Ancient Arabic isn't as good as it could be I can't vouch for this of course...

I like raisins as much as the next man who cares about having healthy bowels, but it doesn't seem much of a reward for all that trouble. Besides, I like to think a suicide bomber goes to Heaven and gets a lot of Anne Widdecombes. Or Cannibal Corpse fans. Allah isn't specific about the type of virgin you get..

Raisins too would be quite the luxury in a medieval desert, come to think of it.

Healthy bowels for the rest of eternity ain't to be sniffed at.

Obviously everybody has different opinions about Heaven - which I suppose is partly the trouble

But in my version of it I never really thought that one when went for a dump.

I suppose if that was one of the things you considered really pleasurable on Earth maybe you could put it down as an option

million voices wrote:Obviously everybody has different opinions about Heaven - which I suppose is partly the trouble

But in my version of it I never really thought that one when went for a dump.

I suppose if that was one of the things you considered really pleasurable on Earth maybe you could put it down as an option

Well, man created in God's image, etc, etc. I suppose in Heaven you get quilted paper and a pre-warmed seat. And no-one's ever, ever stank the place out just before you go in.

A question for the theologians amongst us. "Do you poo in heaven?"

Me and the Scandinavian had a similar discussion on wether God would have testicles. We came to the conclusion being as he has a son, and man is made in his image, yes he must. Probably golden and incredibly glorious to behold.
We have far too much spare time these days!

See also: Did Adam have a navel?

My fourpence worth - no Adam didnt have a navel. Yes God (if he is a bloke) would have have wonderful testicles. You can't be "God the Father" without the appropriate kit.
Also, I agree getting a packet a Sun-Maid as reward for the whole of eternity doesn't seem to be much for cutting short your life here. Especially as your going to have to share Paradise with a lot of folk who are going to be really pissed off with you

Isn't there a bit in the Bible where Moses sees God's bum?

...

Found it:

Exodus 33: 20-23 wrote: 20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

I guess that clinches it. If God has "back parts" it would follow that Paradise would need plumbing.

I am a wee bit disappointed, I didn't imagine Heaven with sewage. I thought all the yucky stuff would just be in Hell.

million voices wrote:I guess that clinches it. If God has "back parts" it would follow that Paradise would need plumbing.

I am a wee bit disappointed, I didn't imagine Heaven with sewage. I thought all the yucky stuff would just be in Hell.

This also opens a whole can of worms.
It would also follow that there is toilet duck in heaven & domestos & bog brushes & those stupid wooly bog roll warmer things.

Pista wrote: This also opens a whole can of worms.
It would also follow that there is toilet duck in heaven & domestos & bog brushes & those stupid wooly bog roll warmer things.

I remember an elderly relative had a toilet roll cover in the shape of a flamenco dancer. With long black lacy skirts that covered the roll from view. Even as a child I wondered...why??

DeWinter wrote:...a toilet roll cover in the shape of a flamenco dancer...

My gran had one of those too. Bizarre.

& on a slightly different note

Rubber pavement for rubbered people

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /111019815

I'm confused about this Dale Farm malarkey. If the travellers actually own the land, something which isn't made that clear by nearly all the papers , surely they've a right to live on it? And if the local council don't want anyone living on it and want pristine Green Belt land, why did they sell it in the first place?

i'm sorry but i'm going back to the heaven question.
where is heaven exactly? when i was young and was forced to go to church they said heaven was out there & then flapped their hands into the air. then i got older and started to look at what was out there >>>> which planet is it near? and those who believe and go to heaven aren't they in their spirit form taking away all the natural human functions?

except the drinking of wine & other drugs taken cause what they say happened in the bible, they were more fuckedup most the time, separating oceans & that, or just explaining evolution. and then the story about God giving his only Son to walk the earth & die for our sins for us. what kind of father does that? and also does that mean that people can go on killing & violence can go forth cause anyone can just accept the Son into their lives & they will be forgiven in the name of...?

James Blast wrote:

Ugh Starbucks...

IZ.

MadameButterfly wrote:i'm sorry but i'm going back to the heaven question.
where is heaven exactly?

It's in another dimension.

except the drinking of wine & other drugs taken cause what they say happened in the bible, they were more fuckedup most the time, separating oceans & that, or just explaining evolution. and then the story about God giving his only Son to walk the earth & die for our sins for us. what kind of father does that? and also does that mean that people can go on killing & violence can go forth cause anyone can just accept the Son into their lives & they will be forgiven in the name of...?

Maybe you shouldn't take every word in the Bible literally. I believe there's some truth in it, yes, like I believe there was a man called Jesus (just a mortal man, a wise man, a preacher if you like), but as for how much truth is in the things attributed to him, we can't know which parts are the truth, which parts have been embellished, and which parts have been made up. I think if Jesus could come back and see everything that's been done in his name he'd be f**king furious.

James Blast wrote:

Wow, cute.

MadameButterfly wrote:i'm sorry but i'm going back to the heaven question.
where is heaven exactly? when i was young and was forced to go to church they said heaven was out there & then flapped their hands into the air. then i got older and started to look at what was out there >>>> which planet is it near? and those who believe and go to heaven aren't they in their spirit form taking away all the natural human functions?

except the drinking of wine & other drugs taken cause what they say happened in the bible, they were more fuckedup most the time, separating oceans & that, or just explaining evolution. and then the story about God giving his only Son to walk the earth & die for our sins for us. what kind of father does that? and also does that mean that people can go on killing & violence can go forth cause anyone can just accept the Son into their lives & they will be forgiven in the name of...?

It's another dimension that you have to die to enter. Strangely dying wasn't a pre-requisite of many of the other religions, you could go to Tarturus to rescue a loved one, or go on a sea voyage to Hy Brasail, Annwn, Avalon etc.

As for Jesus..there's Roman references to Nero having the leader of the Christians put to death to distract from his problems in Rome, and someone similar mentioned as a former follower of John the Baptist who followed a far less "blood and thunder" mode of preaching. Reading the Sermons on the Mount/Plains, I have to wonder why if he hated homosexuality, people eating shrimp, pork, etc he didn't mention it in public rather than basically telling everyone to be a bit nicer to each other..

The Nero reference is to a "Christus" or "Chrestus" mentioned by Tacitus, (c116) but he was probably just reporting the Christians' own "origin myth" if you like. As well as reporting ~80 years after the supposed date of Jesus' death. And this is the best evidence we have from near-contemporary Roman records for Jesus.

I think you've got some kind of garbled memory of Flavius Josephus going on in there too:

Josephus wrote:About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Given that Josephus was Jewish, the likelihood of him calling anyone "The Christ" (i.e. the Messiah) is slim. The "Testimonium Flavianum" (as this passage is called) is widely agreed to have been altered by Christian scribes and copyists, and is therefore not independent evidence either.

The earliest Christian source is the letters of Paul; he reveals surprisingly little biographical detail. There's the bread/body blood/wine sacramental meal, the crucifixion, and the resurrection "according to the flesh" (whatever that means!)

I used to be convinced by the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis, but now I'm not sure that I don't have a bias towards the idea, so I've backed away. I tentatively accept that the sacramental meal and the crucifixion may have really happened, even though I remain sure that a historical Jesus is lost to us.

Although is seems unlikely that the author of Mark's gospel was genuinely Peter's companion as tradition claims, it seems likely that he knew the Pauline epistles. And as it appears that the other three gospels all rely on Mark, you're left with Paul as the root source of Christianity. It's him you need to blame for the anti-homosexuality, not Jesus.

markfiend wrote:The Nero reference is to a "Christus" or "Chrestus" mentioned by Tacitus, (c116) but he was probably just reporting the Christians' own "origin myth" if you like. As well as reporting ~80 years after the supposed date of Jesus' death. And this is the best evidence we have from near-contemporary Roman records for Jesus.

I think you've got some kind of garbled memory of Flavius Josephus going on in there too:

Josephus wrote:About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Given that Josephus was Jewish, the likelihood of him calling anyone "The Christ" (i.e. the Messiah) is slim. The "Testimonium Flavianum" (as this passage is called) is widely agreed to have been altered by Christian scribes and copyists, and is therefore not independent evidence either.

The earliest Christian source is the letters of Paul; he reveals surprisingly little biographical detail. There's the bread/body blood/wine sacramental meal, the crucifixion, and the resurrection "according to the flesh" (whatever that means!)

I used to be convinced by the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis, but now I'm not sure that I don't have a bias towards the idea, so I've backed away. I tentatively accept that the sacramental meal and the crucifixion may have really happened, even though I remain sure that a historical Jesus is lost to us.

Although is seems unlikely that the author of Mark's gospel was genuinely Peter's companion as tradition claims, it seems likely that he knew the Pauline epistles. And as it appears that the other three gospels all rely on Mark, you're left with Paul as the root source of Christianity. It's him you need to blame for the anti-homosexuality, not Jesus.

Oh, I dare say your right, I couldn't be jiggered to look it up on Wiki and look my normal smart-alec self!=P I thought it was Suetonius I read it in though.