King David [Archive] - KryptonSite Message Forums

Eh,Man?You-El?

11-04-2005, 12:12 AM

Actually, Lex's point about David being a hero who is "less than perfect" was very appropriate and even a gentle reminder to Clark of the need for Clark to forgive Jack Jennings' faults.

The Biblical David is commonly thought to be a "great" king because most people want the Bible to provide examples of "good behavior" and people like the idea of "Kings" and "Heros" and great rewards for this hypothetical good behavior.

In the story of David, one only has to look a fraction of an inch past the court propaganda to see a man who was despised by his family, a bragart consumed by ambition, a schemer, traitor, trifler, libertine, and a murderer many times over. In the case of King Saul's daughter Michel, David bought her bride price with 200 Philistine foreskins. He married her, abandoned her fleeing from her father, and let her be married off again as he was marrying other wives. Once he regained power (after arranging the deaths of her Father and his best friend Jonathan, Michel's brother, David demanded her return to him from her brief happy marriage to someone else. On her return, David ignored her, cursed her and basically held her in house arrest for the rest of her life. David arranged for Michel's sister, brother-in-law and nephews all to be killed and left to be eaten by carrion birds. He kept Michel's one remaining relative alive, a cripple named Ishbosheth (his name means "Man of Shame") as a token of David's mercy - a clown at his table. There was, of course David's dalliance with Bathsheba and murder of her husband. There was David's hideous parenting skills, resulting in coups, rapes, and the deaths of many of his sons.

Yes, God was forgiving of David's little "foibles" but a fat lot of good it did his soul. David's death bed words to his son Solomon were instructions on the necessity that Solomon arrange for the immediate death of David's general and right hand man, Joab. Joab was then killed while clinging to the sanctuary of the Altar of Y'Havah.

So, why do I bring all this up?
Lex thinks of himself as David.
He probably thinks of Lana as Bathsheba.
Lana has (literally) a HELL of a ride ahead of her.

Lex has literary pretentions. Perhaps he's written a few Psalms of his own.

tonytr87

11-04-2005, 12:22 AM

Can someone translate that last conversation b/w Clark and Lex for me? I missed that part, as well as the first scene b/w Chloe and Lois. Thanks.

MidgardDragon

11-04-2005, 12:44 AM

I'm gonna repeat what I said in another thread that mentioned this supposed plothole:

"When Clark said "they don't tell you about that part" he wasn't talking about the Bible. He was talking about all the children's stories, church sermons, Sunday school lessons, etc. Very often what happened later in David's life is left off in order to focus on the "good" he did.

Of course it's in the Bible, but that's not the point."

If you've never encountered a David/Goliath story that completely leaves out what he did later in his life to focus on him doing good, then you're quite the exception to the rule.

Hydra

11-04-2005, 03:58 AM

Yes, David was reportedly 'a man after God's own heart', but the point was that he was still just a man, therefore he screwed up, and because he was so powerful he screwed up big. However the story he is so well known for is that of his victory over Goliath. So many people assume that David's story is done there, and he ends off with a wonderful kingdom and lives happily ever after. In fact he did go on to become a very powerful king who tried hard to be a good boy, but all the same he was a human with a lot of power. And despite being a good king (as reported in the bible) he was certainly not a good father. Depending on which childeren we're referencing (many wives=many kids) he was a terrible father. Not to say he didn't love them (as seen by his reaction to Absolom's death, who tried to overthrow David, and even succeeded for a time), but I think it's clear he neglected to be a very good family man. And obviously even as a king he had some rather rusty moments. As someone mentioned already about Bathsheba, he went to great lengths to kill her husband, which is (regardless of how bad he felt) always very very very wrong.

However, generally people leave those parts out because they simply aren't as uplifting.

xrayvision

11-04-2005, 04:08 AM

I wonder if Clark knows how he fits into the comparison/foreshadowing that Lex is making with the King David story. I think he may to know Lex has a thing for Lana.

But I thought that sending his best friend to die while taking his wife was already attempted by him in Mortal when Clark almost died on Level 3 because of Lex.

drwood

11-04-2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Eh,Man?You-El?
Actually, Lex's point about David being a hero who is "less than perfect" was very appropriate and even a gentle reminder to Clark of the need for Clark to forgive Jack Jennings' faults.

The Biblical David is commonly thought to be a "great" king because most people want the Bible to provide examples of "good behavior" and people like the idea of "Kings" and "Heros" and great rewards for this hypothetical good behavior.

In the story of David, one only has to look a fraction of an inch past the court propaganda to see a man who was despised by his family, a bragart consumed by ambition, a schemer, traitor, trifler, libertine, and a murderer many times over. In the case of King Saul's daughter Michel, David bought her bride price with 200 Philistine foreskins. He married her, abandoned her fleeing from her father, and let her be married off again as he was marrying other wives. Once he regained power (after arranging the deaths of her Father and his best friend Jonathan, Michel's brother, David demanded her return to him from her brief happy marriage to someone else. On her return, David ignored her, cursed her and basically held her in house arrest for the rest of her life. David arranged for Michel's sister, brother-in-law and nephews all to be killed and left to be eaten by carrion birds. He kept Michel's one remaining relative alive, a cripple named Ishbosheth (his name means "Man of Shame") as a token of David's mercy - a clown at his table. There was, of course David's dalliance with Bathsheba and murder of her husband. There was David's hideous parenting skills, resulting in coups, rapes, and the deaths of many of his sons.

Yes, God was forgiving of David's little "foibles" but a fat lot of good it did his soul. David's death bed words to his son Solomon were instructions on the necessity that Solomon arrange for the immediate death of David's general and right hand man, Joab. Joab was then killed while clinging to the sanctuary of the Altar of Y'Havah.

So, why do I bring all this up?
Lex thinks of himself as David.
He probably thinks of Lana as Bathsheba.
Lana has (literally) a HELL of a ride ahead of her.

Lex has literary pretentions. Perhaps he's written a few Psalms of his own.

First of all, David did NOT arrange the deaths of Jonathan and Saul. Because he was a man after God's own heart (God himself describes him in this fashion in 1 Samuel chapter 13, verse 14, and Acts chapter 13, verse 22), he refused to harm either of them (even though Saul was jealous of him and sent men to kill him for more than 2 years), even though David had 2 opportunities to kill Saul in his sleep and take over as king.

Secondly, if you're going to slander one of the main figures of the Bible, make sure that you present the WHOLE story first. The majority of the facts you present are accurate, but you have described many of them out of context.

David is not a perfect man, but in his lifestyle, he followed God more than any other king. This is why God describes him as a "man after my own heart". There is no such thing as a perfect person. We have ALL sinned (Psalm 14, verse 3 -- "There is no one who does good, not even one")...otherwise Jesus Christ wouldn't have had to pay the penalty for our forgiveness from sin and the penalty we all deserve (eternal separation from God) because we all have sinned.

The reason David is prominent is that he serves as an example to us that no matter what we have done, if we will turn our heart over to God and choose to seek Him FIRST, he can do great things through us and thereby bring glory to Himself.

If people are interested in learning the entire true story for themselves, I suggest they look at the book of 1 Samuel in the Bible, Chapter 15-31 and 2 Samuel, Chapters 1-24 and 1 Kings, Chapters 1-2, and 1 Chronicles, Chapters 10-29. If you don't happen to own a Bible, you can go to biblegateway.com and look up the chapters for yourself.

Silent Kal

11-04-2005, 09:00 AM

That'll preach. Good summary, drwood.

Interesting (thought probably not intentional) that Lex didn't quite get the David story right. It seems that he has a way of twisting mythologies to meet his needs. I remember the time he described the Naman/Segeeth legend, portraying Segeeth as a hero and Naman as the villain to be stopped.

Probably not an intentional mistake this time, but a bit telling, nonetheless.

Brainiac_13

11-04-2005, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by drwood

However, b/c Uriah was so devoted to doing what was right as a soldier (which, at the time was to not have sex until the battle was over), he refused.

To be precise, it is implied by the language used that Uriah actually knew the deal. He knew what David was up to and used loyalty as an excuse not to help cover up David's ill deed.

Man, I love that story. ;)

drwood

11-04-2005, 10:26 AM

Braniac_13,

Thanks for starting this thread...hopefully it has provided clarity regarding the true context of the Biblical account.

In response to your previous post, there is no indication in the Bible (2 Samuel, chapter 11) that Uriah had any idea what David did...his statment of loyalty to his comrades and to God is written in verse 11.

Its sad that for all the great things David did, this is the story that people tend to focus on most (often even more than his victory over Goliath).

Eh,Man?You-El?

11-04-2005, 10:45 AM

Actually when Samuel said these words to Saul, Samuel had not yet met the (very young) David. In the story, Samuel's animosity to Saul's rule and anger about how Samuel's own authority was given over to this "King" is pretty well established.

It is entirely possible that Samuel was NOT talking about David but about HIMSELF as "a man after his own heart", especially since the scripture goes on to say that God had ALREADY "commanded" whoever this "Him" was. At that point in the story the David kid knew nothing of this great plan.

1Sa 13:14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.

But, since Samuel did NOT resume his rule as Judge and David did become king, devout readers assume that "David" was the "man after His own heart". That's the way prophesy works - make it all fit, even if it doesn't.

After going over this story with a fine tooth comb for nearly ten years, I'm not convinced that David was anything but a tool used by God to demonstrate that the concept of "Kings" is inevitably a bad one.

People like the idea of "Kings" because deep down, they want to BE Kings or feel like the power of a king is working for them.
People also want to see figures like King David as "good" because they want to see their idealized selves as "good" despite every wicked thing they do.
And if the power of a King is supposedly working for you, it becomes VERY dangerous to start thinking that your "King" is anything BUT good!
What happens when that Kingly power (no longer "good") turns AGAINST you?

Smelly

11-04-2005, 10:52 AM

In one thread look how many different ways the bible is interpreted. funny

stedfast

11-04-2005, 11:38 AM

It is entirely possible that Samuel was NOT talking about David but about HIMSELF as "a man after his own heart", especially since the scripture goes on to say that God had ALREADY "commanded" whoever this "Him" was. At that point in the story the David kid knew nothing of this great plan.

I think before you continue to expound on your theory you should read Acts 13:22:

And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

That's the problem with adding your own ideas to the bible instead of just reading it and taking God at his Word.

Eh,Man?You-El?

11-04-2005, 12:20 PM

Dear stedfast,

Since Paul sees fit to mis-quote Samuel in Acts 13:22, why exactly should I give him more credence than I give the written text of 1Sa 13:14?

Acts 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
...
Acts 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

That's the problem with not reading the entire Bible and taking all of the words "as written".

Before you trot it out, let me point out that the passage: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Timothy 3:16), was talking about the Torah and Tanach, not Paul's own writings.
Paul himself made distinctions that some of his words came from him and NOT from any special revelation:
1Co 7:6, 1Co 7:25, 2Co 8:8 etc.

Beyond that, I've said my piece and will stand by what I've written. I've been embroiled in doctrinal/scriptural arguments WAY too much on these forums. PAX

superman_115

11-04-2005, 01:18 PM

yea, Uriah was a great soldier who lead David's Army and since David wanted his wife, he put Uriah in the front lines where it was most dangerous and therfore, leading to Uriah's death.

But Lex even said they leave out the part where David wasn't perfect himself.

I just think the message there was Nobody is Perfect.

Watcher

11-04-2005, 01:39 PM

So is Clark Uriah in this scenario or is he Goliath? Is the the loyal soldier who gets stabbed in the back, or the giant who can be brought low by a simple rock?

Eh,Man?You-El?

11-04-2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Watcher
So is Clark Uriah in this scenario or is he Goliath? Is the the loyal soldier who gets stabbed in the back, or the giant who can be brought low by a simple rock? The answer is "Yes".
:D

skline

11-04-2005, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by stedfast
I think before you continue to expound on your theory you should read Acts 13:22:

And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

That's the problem with adding your own ideas to the bible instead of just reading it and taking God at his Word.

*sigh*

You can't do that. You are taking Acts and using it to justify your interpretation of an OT work. That was the interpretation of the writer of Acts (I'm not even going to go into whether Paul wrote the entirety of what we now call Acts)

Don't make me break out my Biblical Criticism gloves, I don't think this forum can handle the length of the resulting posts :)

I don't want to get into a religious debate, but would like to point out that whether or not you beleive the Bible is divinely inspired, it was written by men, and men are imperfect. Things will be included in it that are neither true, nor the actual will of God. Simply the amount of political wrangling in the early church which lead to the current canon should indicate that the current structure of the Bible (well there are several versions even now anyways) is a result of mans work, not Gods. The point is, using a NT work to analyze an OT work is just bad.

SVSpector

11-04-2005, 03:36 PM

I don't believe the writers intended for this deep interpretation.

It seemed more to me they were simply saying, the greater the man(for whatever reason).....the bigger the mistakes appear to be.

I took this more as forshadowing the mistake Clark has just made in "Hidden" and the consequesces he has yet to recognize from that mistake.....is it possible?

stedfast

11-04-2005, 05:40 PM

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I for one believe that the bible (all of it) is inspired by God.

SVSpector

11-04-2005, 10:56 PM

Clarification: I was speaking about the writers of Smallville, not the God inspired writers of the Bible.

Clarification: I was speaking about the writers of Smallville, not the God inspired writers of the Bible.

GatorTex

11-04-2005, 11:01 PM

These types of debates only turn into arguments....this story, TOLD IN THIS EPISODE OF SMALLVILLE, should be taken for its face value and that is what Lex meant for it to be. There are times and places for a theological debate and this forum isn't meant for it.

stedfast

11-05-2005, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by SVSpector
Clarification: I was speaking about the writers of Smallville, not the God inspired writers of the Bible.

Sorry for the confusion Spector, I was referring to "Eh,Man?You-El?" and Skline's comments. I guess I should have used quotes :)

LolaDane

11-05-2005, 12:32 AM

I got some major Lexana foreshadowing vibes from Lex's Biblical reference. When Lex mentioned David falling for Bathsheba while watching her bathe, I couldn't help but think TPTB are going to do the same with Lexana. I'm almost willing to bet another Lana shower scene a la season 4 will pop up this season. :lol:

Switchback

11-05-2005, 07:42 AM

That little exchange between Clark and Lex is what caught my attention about the whole episode.

I am one of them Bible thumping preachers :D So I too was a little puzzled about the "guess they leave that part out" comment. LOL I've never heard anybody tell that story or teach it where they left that part out. Sorta left me scratching my head.

I didn't think of it in a way of foreshadowing future events on Smallville though.

I just thought it was ironic that the "bad guy" knew more biblical truth than the "good guy". But then again that seems to be the case in churches today too. Your "brother" will stab you in the back quicker than anybody else.

SuperDub2

11-05-2005, 07:45 AM

i think it was a bit of alexana moment myself

Daphne

11-05-2005, 10:14 AM

I believe that Clark was talking about how they don't tell kids in Sunday school about the Bathsheba story only about the slaying of the giant story.
I still hold to my beliefs on this one though, never, never, never believe a movie or television's view of history. It's all entertainment and they will warp it to fit any story they want and make it as relavant as they can. Unfortunately most people buy into it being the right information.
Even the news today is becoming fictional.

Smelly

11-05-2005, 11:35 AM

never, never, never believe a movie or television's view of history. I

and don't take the bible literally. They are just stories. :D

smallville_fetish

11-05-2005, 01:36 PM

Yeah I got that too but did anyone notice what Lex was doing right before Clark walked in?

Lex was just sitting on his desk admiring a huge poster of his face while 3 heavily big body gaurds were quietly holding it up for him to admire. How concieted is this guy? I don't know I thought that was hella funny.. and weirrdd.

Then when Clark came in Lex said, "We'll finish this later.."

MidgardDragon

11-06-2005, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Switchback
That little exchange between Clark and Lex is what caught my attention about the whole episode.

I am one of them Bible thumping preachers :D So I too was a little puzzled about the "guess they leave that part out" comment. LOL I've never heard anybody tell that story or teach it where they left that part out. Sorta left me scratching my head.

I didn't think of it in a way of foreshadowing future events on Smallville though.

I just thought it was ironic that the "bad guy" knew more biblical truth than the "good guy". But then again that seems to be the case in churches today too. Your "brother" will stab you in the back quicker than anybody else.

*sighs* That isn't ironic. It's a book, the bad guy can know more about it than the good guy because this particular bad guy is well-taught and has likely read it and several other religious texts from cover to cover.

One person knowing more or less about a book says nothing about their character.

And to repeat what I said about the "guess they leave that part out" comment: Clark was referring to the *many* children's stories, sunday school lessons, etc. where the story of David and Goliath is told in full but often the rest of David's saga is either simply touched on, or ignored in favor of more uplifting stories.

tonytr87

11-06-2005, 02:19 AM

Not only is Lex more well-read, but they've actually established to an extent that Lex believes in God whereas they've never said anything about Clark's religious beliefs. Plus him and Lionel always talked about stories from the Bible and whatnot. I just remember that scene b/w Lex and Lionel at the end of Sacred where they're talking about "finding all the answers."

Kryptomaniac

11-07-2005, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Sledge
Unlikely, but that story did make me wonder! I think that was one of my favorite scenes this season. It was great the way they appeared to be becoming friends again, but underneath Lex may be plotting clark's death.

One of my favorite SMALLVILLE scenes ever, too. Sent shivers up my spine. :eek:

Switchback

11-07-2005, 07:37 AM

It may be just a book to you. I can certainly understand why you think that because I did at one point in my life too.

But it's a totally different picture now. When you are walking blind...it's hard to see what is right in front of you the whole time. To you it's just a book. To me...it's the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

shadow_2099

11-07-2005, 11:21 AM

How about stop taking this book as a literal truth and perhaps see it as the worlds best option at the time to teach what (was at the time) a new and perhaps better way for society to run.

Religion taken as a method to draw society forward in terms of how it intereacts with itself and other communities has some value. Religion taken as a moral absolute or "literal" truth is just plain silly as it cant be proved and actually holds back independant thought.

Take for example the wonderful idea of invading the Middle East to control a city (ie the Crusades), or how about the house arrest of Gallalo (sp I know), or the current view that suicide bombings are justified on the innocent.

No, sorry. Jesus was likely a real person who had some very radical ideas at the time. In order to get those ideas adopted, and because he was likely a bit insane, probably did think himself the son of his god. (Of course, rulers over the course of history use and still use the idea that they have divine mandates...just ask Bush.)

The bible, the original bible, was meant to help show people another way to exist, and portrayed it in a means that others would be able to relate to. The world wasnt ready for the truth that there isnt a god, and that there doesnt have to be a beginning and ending to time and the universe. It is only our limited (esp then) understanding that made up make gods and monsters of that which we cant (and couldnt) understand. But we learn more and we grow. The usefulness of religion is lessened, because it is a crutch used to enforce "good behavior" with the threat of a beating on your so-called soul.

But why do we need this? Because people by and large are not yet willing and capable to take responsibility for their own actions, to in essence deify themselves rather than any externals. In other words, they are afraid. And that fear carries over to the concept of death. The idea that they wont exist anymore in any form scares people. There MUST be something greater than just this life, or so they say. But I say that is greed, fearful, and self-delusional for one not capable of coming to grips with their own mortality.

Why write all this. Because people bandy about the bible as a literal truth and the existance of some god or other as a fact. Neither is true. The world wasnt made in 7 days nor is only 10000 years old (Carbon dating people, its real). Evolution is real, no amount of psuedo-science religious thought is going to contract emprirical (again sp) proof.

So if people are going to tout that their views as accepted truths, I must contest against it as its just not being truthful.

Shadow

Crazy4Smallville

11-07-2005, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by SuperDub2
i think it was a bit of alexana moment myself

I totally agree - Alexander is already scheming to get what he wants.

I took it as a threat and warning that Alexander was giving to Clark, knowing that Clark would apply it to the Jack Jennings situation.

That's the way a evil genius mastermind would work. They do everything in layers, upon hidden layers.

hotkk

11-07-2005, 11:59 AM

I have 3 things to say...

1) I totally agree with shadow, the bible isn't an ultimate book where you can find all the answers and be right, though you could base your life on the morals that are taught in it and be a good person

2) As some people mention, I think that clark saying "they kind of leave this part out" was accurate since we do hear more about David as the guy who slew the bad guy (goliath) rather that the guy who sent someone close to him in a dying battle to take his wife

3) For the forshadowing. I think these scene definately forshadow lex wanting to take lana from clark. Have anyone notice that when lex start talking about David, we can clearly see the electoral poster with "look to the future" in big letters... I think it was really a great scene with to level of meaning, which I have always liked in smallville (2 thumbs uo for the writter, at least for this scene!)

drwood

11-07-2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by hotkk
I totally agree with shadow, the bible isn't an ultimate book where you can find all the answers and be right, though you could base your life on the morals that are taught in it and be a good person

The problem with that line of thinking is that it depends on who is defining what is good. For example, Lex is clearly becoming evil, but he likely still thinks that what he is doing is good.

Human definition of good and God's definition of good is NOT the same. This is why the Bible is important...it is an instruction book for life, NOT just a collection of stories, and NOT just a book where you choose the parts you like and bash the parts you don't like.

The reason Lex's character is so intriguing is that he mirrors the society we live in today, where many people have been misled into thinking there is no such thing as right and wrong, that "truth is how you view it to be"...this is why there is so much corruption today without conscience -- which of course, is Lex's destiny.

The bottom line is that there is right and there is wrong; there is good and there is evil. As human beings we are capable of both at any time, which is one of the many reasons why the red k stories involving Clark are so fascinating.

Brainiac_13

11-07-2005, 12:34 PM

SKLine said:
You can't do that. You are taking Acts and using it to justify your interpretation of an OT work. That was the interpretation of the writer of Acts (I'm not even going to go into whether Paul wrote the entirety of what we now call Acts)

Well said for the most part. The authorship of acts, though, is fairly certain: The author of Luke (presumed named "Luke") also wrote Acts (notice as one clue that both texts are addressed to the same person). Contemporary NT scholarship tends to view Acts as "Luke, Part II" and the two are usually refered to as "Luke-Acts" and are generally studied together, even though it is still useful to maintain the separation of "Luke" as a gospel. The arrangement in the canon is kind of cumbersome, but could be easily solved by placing John BEFORE the synoptics, but that's neither here nor there.

Don't make me break out my Biblical Criticism gloves, I don't think this forum can handle the length of the resulting posts

To me, it's more an issue of throwing TNT on a bonfire. Best to keep the explosions to a minimum. (Yet here I am, starting such a thread and making yet another post in it. Derf.)

Originally posted by shadow_2099
How about stop taking this book as a literal truth and perhaps see it as the worlds best option at the time to teach what (was at the time) a new and perhaps better way for society to run.

There's a better option now? Can you identify any method not grounded in specifically scriptural sources? Note that any moral system of which you are likely to be aware has its root in an absolute source. Any moral system that is NOT rooted in such a source is likely to fail. [Giant list of sources available upon request.]

In short: You're not going to win this particular argument. ;)

Religion taken as a method to draw society forward in terms of how it intereacts with itself and other communities has some value. Religion taken as a moral absolute or "literal" truth is just plain silly as it cant be proved and actually holds back independant thought.

That's nonsense. If God is, morality must be absolute, and of course, God is. The existence of God is necessary, metaphysically speaking.

Take for example the wonderful idea of invading the Middle East to control a city (ie the Crusades), or how about the house arrest of Gallalo (sp I know), or the current view that suicide bombings are justified on the innocent.

Thank you kindly for lumping in ancient "Christian" misdeeds (which were actually misdeeds of greedy secular kings using Christianity as a cover story) in with present Islamic misdeeds and expecting people to consider these phenomena equal. Thank you, thank you.

No, sorry. Jesus was likely a real person who had some very radical ideas at the time. In order to get those ideas adopted, and because he was likely a bit insane, probably did think himself the son of his god.

Troll city?

(Of course, rulers over the course of history use and still use the idea that they have divine mandates...just ask Bush.)

I got the chills when, in the state of the union address, Bush claimed he was Christ come again to judge the living and the dead. That was an inspiring speech.

The bible, the original bible, was meant to help show people another way to exist, and portrayed it in a means that others would be able to relate to.

1. No it wasn't. That's what hippies and other idiots think it is NOW.

2. Read a book. Any book. Clifford the Big Red Dog is a good start.

The world wasnt ready for the truth that there isnt a god, and that there doesnt have to be a beginning and ending to time and the universe. It is only our limited (esp then) understanding that made up make gods and monsters of that which we cant (and couldnt) understand. But we learn more and we grow.

Good grief, where does a person start on this one? I guess I just jump right in:

The universe is temporal: Material things die, decay, erode. It is clear just from looking around at reality that material things last only for limited periods of time. Material things end. The universe is, in a manner of speaking, the ultimate collection of all material things. All things end, so the universe ends. If the universe ends, it must have also begun. How did it begin?

Isn't it true that the truly 'limited' imagination fails to see God?

The usefulness of religion is lessened, because it is a crutch used to enforce "good behavior" with the threat of a beating on your so-called soul.

Didn't you just a few sentences previous to now claim that Christians perpetrated a series of bad acts? Something about Crusades? So, if the purpose of religion is the enforcement of good behavior, what's the deal? How come so many people do so many bad things? Is it because religion fails? People don't fear eternal damnation? OR, are you wrong? If we look at the pattern to date, what can we conclude?

Of course, you are wrong. You are simply regurgitating the mountains of antireligious crapola many other self-labeled 'enlightened' types also spew. "Religion is a crutch" is in fact what I myself used to say to people when I was, shall we say, much less educated than I am now. It is really weird to me that I am presently so religious, yet my crutch never seems to work. I fall flat on my face constantly, and the faith I hold doesn't stop me from doing so. HOW ODD, if indeed it's a crutch.

Surely, it is no crutch. If anything, it is a whip, if it must be an object. A goad, a prod, when it comes to morality. When I fall down, I know why. When I laze about, I can't get comfortable.

To know what it means to sin is to know what it means to be righteous. A believer can see clearly what is pleasing to God and what is not. You can pretend that moralism can adequately replace faith, but you will ultimately fail.

Religion doesn't force compliance by any means, religion only transmits truth. The believer >chooses< how to respond to truth. I can choose to ignore everything I learn and do as I please and curse the name of God, or I can take responsibility for my deeds, do my best to repent and to live according to the path set forth by my 'lunatic' Savior.

But why do we need this? Because people by and large are not yet willing and capable to take responsibility for their own actions, to in essence deify themselves rather than any externals.

Placing oneself under the authority of God (and I say 'placing' to illustrate individual attitude, not metaphysical reality) *IS* taking responsibility for one's own actions.

You (we) are not adequate unto ourselves to determine morality. No human is righteous, so no human can define, even for him or herself, what is holy, or even what is right or wrong according to a social system. Morality is greater than individuals or societies. God is the only real 'option', meaning that morality is not optional at all.

In other words, they are afraid. And that fear carries over to the concept of death. The idea that they wont exist anymore in any form scares people. There MUST be something greater than just this life, or so they say. But I say that is greed, fearful, and self-delusional for one not capable of coming to grips with their own mortality.

Do you not know that we do not believe nor act solely to get from one life to the next? If this were our motivation, we would fail, for all would be deception, we'd not be servants, and we'd be rejected.

We act on love, not greed. Besides, what is there to gain? Eternal life is what we already have, for God is eternal, and God is all there is. Eternal life is not a material reward, so how could one be greedy for it? I fear no physical death not only because life is eternal, but because my message is not mine alone, my purpose is not mine alone. Nothing dies with me just as nothing ends with physical death. If you deny this, it is according to your own fear that there may be consequences (spiritual, not earthly) for your actions - actions which you yourself are greedy for, your lusts and appetites, your grasping after possessions, and all the things humanity suffers over, fails to repent for. Better that it be someone else's self-delusion than something actual, impending and inescapable.

Fear not, though, for there is hope. Grace is free to all who accept the gift. God is here, waiting for you. Nothing is required of you but humility and faith.

Stop speaking out of ignorance and fear. Instead learn the truth, let it free you from your chains, let loose your rabid grip on the self and see what truly is greater than you: The person next to you, the society around you, and God who made and keeps it all.

Why write all this. Because people bandy about the bible as a literal truth and the existance of some god or other as a fact. Neither is true.

[Insert Anselm Here]

The world wasnt made in 7 days nor is only 10000 years old (Carbon dating people, its real). Evolution is real, no amount of psuedo-science religious thought is going to contract emprirical (again sp) proof.

6 Days. Rest on the 7th. Anyway: None of these things disprove God, or even taint the scripture. Scripture isn't SUPPOSED to be a science book. It is SAD that some Christians treat it as such, but the smart ones don't.

God does. Science explains. Simple.

The Bible doesn't need to be FACTUAL to contain Truth.

So if people are going to tout that their views as accepted truths, I must contest against it as its just not being truthful.

A good effort with predictably inadequate results.

MidgardDragon

11-07-2005, 05:25 PM

I can't believe what I'm seeing here. Some of us (me included) believe the Bible is simply an inspirational work meant to teach lessons and isn't literal nor the Word of God. That does not make us hippies or idiots.

Some people believe that it is the literal Word of God. That is their opinion and part of their faith.

Neither of these people are wrong because it's a matter of opinion and faith. But the most important thing in this conversation is to stop calling each other names and saying "I'm right." "No, I'm right!." "You're wrong!." "NO YOU'RE WRONG!" It gets us nowhere, and is the same silly use of religion to start wars (in this case a flamewar) throughout the centuries.

In my original argument against Switchback I merely stated one thing: it's a book. This doesn't change whatever else you might believe about it, but we can all agree that it's a book. Thus my argument that you can't say it's ironic because the bad guy knows more about it. That's not irony, Lex is simply better educated than Clark. This is just a side-track to address the issue of my post where it may have seemed I am contradicting what I am saying here - I am not.

Finally, as adults, we should be learning to tolerate each others beliefs and be able to discuss openly contradicting beliefs without stooping to calling people "hippies and idiots" or insulting the other person's faith. I am sorry if that makes me a "hippy", but if tolerance makes me a hippy then give me the beads and a hippy van, 'cause I'd rather be that than an intolerant person who uses their religion as an excuse to be so any day.

KalLover07

11-07-2005, 06:58 PM

How is it that a person can say that Jesus was insane? We don't always see eye to eye about things that happen on Smallville, and that's okay. We come here to the forum and discuss it. But to bring religion and faith is out of line. Because if you say you don't like Chloe, Lana or whoever,that's okay, I'll get over it. But, do not talk about such blasphamy..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, sorry. Jesus was likely a real person who had some very radical ideas at the time. In order to get those ideas adopted, and because he was likely a bit insane, probably did think himself the son of his god.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not everyone has the same beliefs. Some have none at all. But if you're bitter or ignorant, don't come here and post your poison. Since when do we need scientific proof for something to be real? Do you see wind? Can you touch it, grab it, or contain it? Wind isn't physical, but you can feel it. I don't need to see something to know it's real, or exists. The thread was about King David and how it was preceived on the show. It shouldn't of gone any further. People can get very offended if it goes any further.

MidgardDragon

11-07-2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by KalLover07
How is it that a person can say that Jesus was insane? We don't always see eye to eye about things that happen on Smallville, and that's okay. We come here to the forum and discuss it. But to bring religion and faith is out of line. Because if you say you don't like Chloe, Lana or whoever,that's okay, I'll get over it. But, do not talk about such blasphamy..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, sorry. Jesus was likely a real person who had some very radical ideas at the time. In order to get those ideas adopted, and because he was likely a bit insane, probably did think himself the son of his god.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not everyone has the same beliefs. Some have none at all. But if you're bitter or ignorant, don't come here and post your poison. Since when do we need scientific proof for something to be real? Do you see wind? Can you touch it, grab it, or contain it? Wind isn't physical, but you can feel it. I don't need to see something to know it's real, or exists. The thread was about King David and how it was preceived on the show. It shouldn't of gone any further. People can get very offended if it goes any further.

1) I agree with your sentiment, but I think the delivery fell pretty flat after that "blasphemy" comment. Some people do not believe that that is blasphemy, and that's their right. They can say whatever they want about Jesus, it's calling his followers names that is wrong.

2) You can feel wind physically, with one of the five senses, thus we know it's real. I agree that one does not need scientific proof for faith, but some people do not believe that having faith is necessary, thus they wold want scientific proof. Scientific proof, actually, can be very beneficial to religion, so don't dismiss it so quickly.

Either way "don't discuss religion because people might get offended" is BS, IMO. What it should be is "Try to play nice and not call each other names just because you happen to disagree with a religious concept."

In the words of Bill and Ted (from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey fame) - "Be excellent to each other."

hotkk

11-07-2005, 08:12 PM

Do you see wind? Can you touch it, grab it, or contain it? Wind isn't physical

Actually wind is physical... it's air that is moving. So a mix of nitrogen and oxigen... The air itself can be contain. As it's possible to make in move in a box... so I guess that yes, you can contain wind! And you can also see it... just add colorant in the air, and you will see it. :p :p

And I agree with one of the other poster... faith as nothing to do with someone's character. A person can be a great person and be convince that god doesn't exist, or be a bad person. The exact same is true for someone who does believe in god... I have a dream of a world where someone is judge by the content of his character rather than what in believes in...

So let's not call others stupid and ignorant because they believe or don't in something based on faith...:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :lol: :lol:

Jlvsclrk

11-07-2005, 10:47 PM

It would be just like Lex to deliberately twist the story to suit his purposes. And yes, you have to think there's some sort of subconscious Lexana going on with his choice of words.

Getting off the topic a bit, I've always wondered about how Clark feels about God once he found out he was an alien, and especially once he found out his entire planet was destroyed. If he believes in the existence of Christ, does he believe Christ died for _his_ sins? He must find the topic of religion an even greater landmine than even we humans do.

From all Jor-El's talk of destiny, I think the concept of free will is entirely alien to a well brought up Kryptonian. And its pretty darn central to a well brought up Kansas farm boy. Which side is right? I know which side I agree with, which is why I've always understood his resistance to his father's will.

mallory

11-08-2005, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by shadow_2099
How about stop taking this book as a literal truth and perhaps see it as the worlds best option at the time to teach what (was at the time) a new and perhaps better way for society to run.

Religion taken as a method to draw society forward in terms of how it intereacts with itself and other communities has some value. Religion taken as a moral absolute or "literal" truth is just plain silly as it cant be proved and actually holds back independant thought.

Take for example the wonderful idea of invading the Middle East to control a city (ie the Crusades), or how about the house arrest of Gallalo (sp I know), or the current view that suicide bombings are justified on the innocent.

No, sorry. Jesus was likely a real person who had some very radical ideas at the time. In order to get those ideas adopted, and because he was likely a bit insane, probably did think himself the son of his god. (Of course, rulers over the course of history use and still use the idea that they have divine mandates...just ask Bush.)

The bible, the original bible, was meant to help show people another way to exist, and portrayed it in a means that others would be able to relate to. The world wasnt ready for the truth that there isnt a god, and that there doesnt have to be a beginning and ending to time and the universe. It is only our limited (esp then) understanding that made up make gods and monsters of that which we cant (and couldnt) understand. But we learn more and we grow. The usefulness of religion is lessened, because it is a crutch used to enforce "good behavior" with the threat of a beating on your so-called soul.

But why do we need this? Because people by and large are not yet willing and capable to take responsibility for their own actions, to in essence deify themselves rather than any externals. In other words, they are afraid. And that fear carries over to the concept of death. The idea that they wont exist anymore in any form scares people. There MUST be something greater than just this life, or so they say. But I say that is greed, fearful, and self-delusional for one not capable of coming to grips with their own mortality.

Why write all this. Because people bandy about the bible as a literal truth and the existance of some god or other as a fact. Neither is true. The world wasnt made in 7 days nor is only 10000 years old (Carbon dating people, its real). Evolution is real, no amount of psuedo-science religious thought is going to contract emprirical (again sp) proof.

So if people are going to tout that their views as accepted truths, I must contest against it as its just not being truthful.

Shadow

The bible may be literal truth, it may not be. No one knows, and scientists certainly do not. Carbon dating does not prove it one way or another.

As far as evolution being real, I disagree. That has never been proved, and a large body of facts contradicts it. Evolution is a pseudo-science -- the scientists' "religion" -- that fails to show how species change.

BTW, if you are interested in some of the limitations of human logic, check out Kurt Godel's theorems. They have devastating implications for mathematics, logic and science as a whole.

smallvillerox05

11-08-2005, 04:41 AM

I had heard that Charles Darwin renoucned Evolution on his deathbed. Don't know for sure (it's too late for me to read this whole article too, I took a quick overview though).

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm

I'd have to say that I agree with Brainiac_13 and the other people that say that the bible is literally God's holy word (though I wouldn't call people that disagree hippies).

Simply said, everything shadow_2099 said I completely disagree with. Rather than argue against his entire post, I think I'll basically just stick to Evolution (it's what wasn't really covered much, Brainiac_13 (among others) pretty much covered the rest (and better than I could too)).

For all of you "Evolutionists": http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist14.htm

To that I would like to add a few things:

1. There are less than 7 billion people on Earth right now. If humans have been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years, how come there aren't more people on Earth? There are certainly more people being born than dying now, the world's population isn't getting any smaller.

2. Let's assume that all of the creationists have been wrong all this time and that Evolution is true. It wasn't brought up yet, but we can say that the Big Bang theory is true as well if you would prefer. We can assume:

a. There was a tiny mass in the center of the known universe that blew up, starting who knows how many different collisions of rock and other stuff before the Milky Way (among other) galaxies were formed. Through some strange coincidence, a combination of Newton's First Law of Motion (which means that objects in motion stay in motion at the same velocity barring an exterior force, such as wind resistence, which you don't see much of in a huge vacuum) and gravity resulted in centripetal force (If you don't understand, think of a person facing exactly north holding a coat hanger. Two people pull at the other end of the coat hanger, one to the north and the other to the east. The person at the other end, being pulled by both people, ends up traveling northeast), which has allowed the Earth and other planets to orbit the sun for many years without being "derailed".

b. The Earth was formed at the perfect distance from the sun (ie we are far enough not to be scorched by the heat of the sun, but still close enough to not freeze either. Also we were lucky enough to have a sun of just the right size), at a perfect angle for the Earth to be tilted relative to the sun (causes us to have different seasons so the same areas have alternating temperatues throughout the year to avoid them becoming too cold or hot), and that we have the perfect size moon in relation to the size of Earth (because without the moon we wouldn't have tides and the temperatures of Earth would get messed up (or something like that, can't remember exactly why the moon keeps us alive, but it does)), that the Earth's atmosphere has adequate levels of oxygen and the Earth's crust has just the right ingredients to sustain life. The water cycle works the way it does so we don't have to worry about huge buildups of water on the ground (widespread floods, water evaporates or soaks into the water table, flowing into a body of water where it evaporates, before it builds up too much) or lack of rain (widespread drought over the whole world, the evaporated water falls back down on us). Also, let's not forget about the ozone layer and the Van Allen radiation belts, both of which protect us from radiation from the sun that would otherwise kill us. Also the length of day/night and year is also important with temperatures (at least it would make sense for them to be anyway).

c. Humans came from a series of mutations from single celled organisms, evolving necessary body parts and functions slowly over millions of years. The single celled organisms originated on Earth instead of an uninhabitable planet. We have developed such amazing organs as the brain, eyes, ears, mouth, heart, lungs, digestive organs, skin....... Every part of our bodies work together in harmony so we can live.

Assuming all of that is true, would you like to explain where the tiny mass of material that started it all came from? If there is no God, why was it in existence in the first place? And why did it suddenly explode? How did the Earth form under just the right circumstances to support life? How did we evolve to have all of the prerequisites for existence? Without God, if we go strictly Evolution (and Big Bang if you believe in that/those):

HOW ARE WE ALIVE?!

The truth is, a., b., and c. are all completely ludicrous by nature. It doesn't seem possible (at the risk of seeming closed-minded, that's because it isn't) for any one of them to happen just right without God, let alone all three.

If you happen to agree with Evolution, but disagree with the Big Bang theory, just disregard a. But how could b. and c. happen?

It is much easier for me to get my head around the idea of there being a supreme being that created the universe perfectly. That would explain how everything is perfect to support human life on Earth and has been for thousands of years and will continue to be an inhabitable environment.

The bottom line is: I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE BELIEVABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION/BIG BANG THEORY. And while I'm sure Evolutionists will tell me the same thing about Creationism. And to that I wouldn't ask "Which has the most evidence proving it?". I would ask "Which has the most evidence disproving it?"

And even if I couldn't get my head around the idea of God creating the universe in 6 days, I wouldn't have to. That's the meaning of faith: to believe in something without having evidence, let alone proof, even when you don't fully understand it.

Or, as www.dictionary.com puts it:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

If you have questions, p.m. me or contact me with a messenger. My AIM and Yahoo are both smallvillerox05 and my email for MSN is nathanward05@hotmail.com :)

Crazy4Smallville

11-08-2005, 06:37 AM

One day all these scientist went to God and said, "God we don't need you anymore. We can duplicate a seed, make it grow, and we can even clone a human being. We know everything we need to know to sustain and create life.

God slowly shook his head and replied, "Fine, but just one thing... Get your own dirt."

People have a misconception of what creation really means. It is defined as to "make something from nothing". Even with the 'Big Bang", it had to have physcial properties and elements that already existed to happen. Combustion can't combust, without something to ignite it.

When we 'create' a piece of art - we use elements that already exist, manipulate them, and form them into something else. Yet we arrogant humans boast of our masterpiece.

When we writers boast of our 'creation' of a masterful novel - what we've truly done is learn to take words that have already existed, and situations that we can compute and understand with our minds, manipulate and rearrage them into something else.

I don't disprove evolution or even say that the big bang didn't happen. But, I can honestly say that I've NEVER seen anyone CREATE anything - not even scientists. As humans, we can't even re-create life without having part of the original.

So, I'll start listening to the one who can show me something that hasn't already been done. Until then - anyone else's opinion is equal to my own. My opinion is that I look beyond what I can't see, what I can't touch, what I can't feel - to something greater. I'm just foolish enough to believe that I don't know it all.

Besides, sometimes what I don't see is much more real to me than what I do. This world spends most of its time trying to manipulate itself and everyone in it. But, the God in which I've established a personal relationship with (not blindly following a religious doctrine) has shown me the love, respect and mercy that the world has never shown me. And it's those intangible things I desire out of this life.

MidgardDragon

11-08-2005, 07:30 AM

I'm not even going to bother responding to this anymore. The one thing we all need to remember is - this is the episode forum, if it is not related to the episode then this topic is likely to get shut down. If it continues in the current hijack, it probably will get shut down.

I say we go back to discussing the King David story as it relates to Lex and Clark and the Smallville story instead of continuing trying to convince each other that our religious beliefs are the "one true right way". The likeliehood of that being true for *any* of us slim to none.

Originally posted by Jlvsclrk
It would be just like Lex to deliberately twist the story to suit his purposes. And yes, you have to think there's some sort of subconscious Lexana going on with his choice of words.

Getting off the topic a bit, I've always wondered about how Clark feels about God once he found out he was an alien, and especially once he found out his entire planet was destroyed. If he believes in the existence of Christ, does he believe Christ died for _his_ sins? He must find the topic of religion an even greater landmine than even we humans do.

From all Jor-El's talk of destiny, I think the concept of free will is entirely alien to a well brought up Kryptonian. And its pretty darn central to a well brought up Kansas farm boy. Which side is right? I know which side I agree with, which is why I've always understood his resistance to his father's will.

It is my opinion that if Clark is anything, it is agnostic. Which means, he doesn't discount the possibility of God, but he also doesn't claim to know for sure one way or the other if he/she/it exists.

A more clear definition:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

But, the writer's leave that open to interpretation so that even those who insist everyone believes what they believe can feel like Superman agrees with them.

Originally posted by smallvillerox05
I had heard that Charles Darwin renoucned Evolution on his deathbed. Don't know for sure (it's too late for me to read this whole article too, I took a quick overview though).

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm

etc.

I know I said I was done, but who in their right mind can let this go unresponded to? If you have never seen any evidence to support the idea of evolution - you need to take a much better science course. Evolution has been tested and retested by science. There *are some* aspects of Evolution that are highly unlikely, however, the basic concept of Evolution is scientific theory - which means it has been tested and retested and is basically accepted as fact. Anyone who may have told you "it's just a theory" doesn't understand the concept behind Scientific Theory.

It is highly unlikely that Darwin "renounced Evolution". He saw the science, he knew the theories and the tests, he likely wouldn't have agreed with it in the first place if he had not saw some kind of scientific proof. Evolution is not a religion or religious belief to be "believed in" or "not believed in". One of the biggest mistakes I see Creationists making is saying, "I don't believe in Evolution." They might not agree with the science behind evolution, but there's nothing to believe in or not believe in, it's experiments and evidence that proves a hypothesis. The second biggest one is not studying evolution and immediately assuming it means "the Big Bang happened then we evolved from monkeys." Which is nowhere near the reality of Evolution, especially since Big Bang is an entirely different theory, one that science is moving on from and forming other opinions about the creation of the Universe.

I find it hilarious when someone uses a Christian website or book to denounce evolution, show me an unbiased source and then we'll talk about wether Darwin denounced anything. ;)

mallory

11-08-2005, 07:31 AM

Maybe a more interesting question is, does Christianity (or any other religion) allow for the possibility of a superman from another planet?

Lana_Lang #1

11-08-2005, 07:39 AM

Lex says: "Problem was...she turned out to be his best friend's wife. So you know what our hero did? He sent his best friend off to die in battle so he could have her for himself."

I know that this is referring to Lana, the best friend is Clark and that the hero is Lex. After all, Lex was the one that flipped it around in his mind that Seegeth was the "hero", why not David?

Although, and I'm not sure that I'm the only one thinking this, but does this remind you of Whitney:

"Sent off his best friend to war so he could have her for himself"

Lex in Heat "Maybe I should take a page out of your book"

Clark "How do you mean?"

Lex "The way that you deal with Lana. I've always told you to go for it but you don't, not even now that quarterbacks out of the picture"

Clark "Lana has to sort out her feeling for Whitney first. I can wait.

Lex "Don't wait too long"

- Which all of a sudden makes me wonder something...Did Lex push to get the army to send for Whitney to go to war?!

I mean I heard that some soldiers sign up to volunteer to fight but some of them don't get called for a while, I was wondering if Lex pushed a little to get Whitney out of Smallville and in return he would start creating a weapon...like Leviathan.

He'd have enough pull and money to make it happen!

And if that's the case did he sent Whitney off to die so Clark could have Lana, or so that he could?

Brainiac_13

11-08-2005, 08:08 AM

1.

Actually, Superman will ultimately be a theist of some description. The name for God in the Kryptonian culture is Rao.

I have never seen a theological discussion as to whether the implication is polytheistic or monotheistic. That would certainly be interesting.

---

2. I did, in fact, begin this thread in the hope that it would have more than one level of conversation. The episodic content related to the characters' a) religion, b) understanding of scripture and the writers use of scripture to convey a point. Secondly, I hoped we could generate a meta-textual discussion of the story of David and of the use of religion in media, etc.

What can I say. A chance to combine theology and comics. It's like free candy wrapped in hundred dollar bills.

---

mallory

11-08-2005, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Lana_Lang #1

- Which all of a sudden makes me wonder did Lex get Whitney conscripted to go to war?!

He'd have enough pull and money to make it happen!

And if that's the case did he sent Whitney off to die so Clark could have Lana, or so that he could?

There was no conscription. Whitney signed up of his own free will.

Smelly

11-08-2005, 09:09 AM

Hard to believe it is 2005 and people still believe in Creation. :rotfl:

Evolution is "pseudo science"? You're right. Your magic trumps science any day. I mean there is mounds and mounds of evidence that "intelligent design" exists. Scientists keep making up stuff because they hate God.

Petition to move this thread to the religious fundamentalist forum, www.falwell.com or lock it. It's starting to creep me out.

MidgardDragon

11-08-2005, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Brainiac_13
1.

Actually, Superman will ultimately be a theist of some description. The name for God in the Kryptonian culture is Rao.

I have never seen a theological discussion as to whether the implication is polytheistic or monotheistic. That would certainly be interesting.

---

2. I did, in fact, begin this thread in the hope that it would have more than one level of conversation. The episodic content related to the characters' a) religion, b) understanding of scripture and the writers use of scripture to convey a point. Secondly, I hoped we could generate a meta-textual discussion of the story of David and of the use of religion in media, etc.

What can I say. A chance to combine theology and comics. It's like free candy wrapped in hundred dollar bills.

---

What makes a "hippie" or an "idiot":

(Among other things)

1. Reducing the entirety of any theology to "let's all get along" or any other washed out singular principle.

2. Using the word "tolerance" in reference to theism. (Oops)

3. Generalizing people who believe in God to be people who insist that the world was created in 6 days/the world is flat/the Bible is literally true/Crusades/Car bombs, etc.

4. Labeling 5000+ year-old religious principles as "opinions". (Oops again!)

5. (Just to be fair) Being a fundamentalist.

* Here are your signs/beads. *

First off - direct insults and name calling. Post has been reported.

Secondly - Religious principles are opinions, there is not question about that, so sorry to dissappoint you there.

Thirdly - I was using the word tolerance in reference to calling people that disagree with you hippies and idiots, not any overall concept of theism.

Fourthly - I didn't "reduce" anything to anything. You can have your beliefs, but it is not acceptable to call those that disagree with you hippies and idiots. Nor is it acceptable to expect everyone to agree with you.

Lastly - I didn't equate you or anyone else directly with anything listed in three. I have questioned some of those concepts and discussed rationally (with those who did not call anyone names at least) what I believe about them.

I will take those signs and beads, because I prefer to be a hippy than someone who *calls people hippies (in a negative connotation)* because they disagree with their beliefs.

ETA: To respond to the top point about Superman's religion.

Clark in Smallville, who knows little about his religion, is likely agnostic. When he learns more about his heritage and the religions of Krypton - he may or may not agree with them. Having been brought up on Earth he has a greater concept of free will than Kryptonians, resulting in him questioning the Kryptonian Gods. Just because a religion exists in a culture does not mean all members of that culture will follow it.

mallory

11-08-2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Smelly

Petition to move this thread to the religious fundamentalist forum, www.falwell.com or lock it. It's starting to creep me out.

If you don't like a thread, if it creeps you out, there's a simple answer. Stop reading it. The fact that so many others post shows they are interested. Why is it right to stop them from expressing their thoughts?

Science has helped revolutionize our lives. Will keep on doing so, I'm sure. It has limitations though. Creation is one of them: science has no answer or even theory for that. In fact, science recognizes that pre-Big Bang singularity is beyond its scope.

Inconsistency is another. The two great cornerstones of modern physics theory -- relativity and quantum theory -- contradict each other. As it stands, both cannot be right. Decades of attempts to reconcile them have failed. How do scientists handle this? They "pray" for a future solution. This is more than just a little ironic.

The arrogance and intolerance of many so-called scientists to new or different ideas is probably the biggest contradiction of all to the scientific method.

BTW, intelligent design is not the only alternative to evolution.

Smelly

11-08-2005, 10:11 AM

They "pray" for a future solution. This is more than just a little ironic.

They do?

It has limitations though. Creation is one of them: science has no answer or even theory for that. In fact, science recognizes that pre-Big Bang singularity is beyond its scope.

There are mountains of evidence for Evolution and zip for Craetion. If you choose to turn a blind eye because of faith than nobody or any amount of evidence will convince you.

The arrogance and intolerance of many so-called scientists to new or different ideas is probably the biggest contradiction of all to the scientific method.

Funny, it seems I could see say the same thing, but vice versa. The intolerance of fundamentalists towards science is stunning.

KalLover07

11-08-2005, 10:13 AM

What would be best, is for all of us to not talk about the bible, God, faith, beliefs and all that kind of stuff HERE. I don't belive in what some of you are saying and some of you don't believe in what I believe. This is an episode forum, and this thread stopped being about the episode a long time ago.

shadow_2099

11-08-2005, 11:14 AM

Again, if you dont want to discuss it, then please disregard the thread.

Now, I did not say that our level of science contains all of the answers. But what it does do, is ask the question and then pursues the answer in a verifiable way. So yes, the axiom is true: the answers are out there.

Religion, however, is based not on facts but on faith. This makes it sub-par in explaining anything as well as being open to abuse. The World was flat and the Earth the center of the universe were bible born turths. Both ended up being incorrect. The world existing for only 10, 000 years has been proved false with fossils and carbon dating. Yet, that too is a bible born contridiction.

How can you place a book as the literal truth of existence to that pedastil when it continues to be proven inaccurate or wrong when new facts are learned. You can not, at least not without simply appearing ignorant.

So you MIGHT want to argue that the bible is a metaphysical truth. In that, no one can prove or disprove your theory, which makes it bumpkis as well. A theory not open to disproof is dogma.

Religion was borne from two compelling factors. Humans are sheep, and humans need some external force to make them act well together.

Human are sheep as they spend most of their time afraid. Afraid of life, afraid of death. I dont understand it, but I acknowledge that people feel "content" thinking that their existence wont end. That there is some pearly gates, or that they have been saved. But really, how would YOU react if a person came along and said he was your savior jesus? You'd laugh, most of you anyway. People want to say, "please god take my pain" and they feel better because they believe that will make them feel better......tho all their really doing is playing a mind game on themselves. Now that is sad.

Humans also have a nasty habit to compete, and are filled with all sorts of wierd emotions. As was stated in MB, a person is smart, people are stupid ignorant children. While any given person is good, people in general cant seem to be good without some stick hanging over them. That is where Religion and now Laws come in. They provide the stick necessary to keep the people in line. The problem people have is that the havent moved beyond them. For all our knowledge and understanding, we still require these things (some of us) to make the choices for us. Rather than waking up and being "good" because that is the right thing to do, we argue with whether or not its worth the negative consequence of act.

Religion did have a role in society's formation. No doubt, it was an easy to understand method to help shape community behavior based on superstitious notions of good and evil. The primitive people of the world didnt not view a lightening storm as a mixture of electrons but as their god's wrath. I cant balme them for that. But we have learned what a storm is, and yet people continue to insist its a god's wrath. That is silly.

The bible, koran, kabbala, or the philosphical texts of the greeks and romans should be used as guidelines in the formation of an ethical structure, but not as a literal truth with some god or god's wrath and eternal damnation as the punishment. The lesson of not to kill unless threatened is valid. The idea that if you kill you will go to hell is ludicrious.

Finally, people need to move away from the notion that they are so important in their own little minds that the universe can not exist without them. Death comes for all, and that end is permanent. And that is ok. We have developed self-awareness, but that does not mean we are immortals (metaphysically or not). By breaking through one's own amped up notion of self-worth you actually free yourself to enjoy life and to make the decisions most condusive to living a full a life. we hav a short time on the planet, why worry about what comes next? Who says that is even desirable, even if true?

Shadow

Lana_Lang #1

11-08-2005, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by mallory
There was no conscription. Whitney signed up of his own free will.

I mean I heard that some soldiers sign up to volunteer to fight but some of them don't get called for a while, I was wondering if Lex pushed a little to get Whitney out of Smallville and in return he would start creating a weapon...like Leviathan.

Also are you allowed to join the army before you're 18?

DGreen

11-08-2005, 12:24 PM

no, but whitney probably was 18. season 1 was his senior year.

Eh,Man?You-El?

11-08-2005, 12:27 PM

Regardless of where the impulse comes from, may i suggest we all "play nice"?
The topic started out as a place to comment on the reference to "king David" in "Exposed". certainly that does have religious overtones.
People talked about the story of David and interpretations of the story and then interpretations on the interpretations, then aspersions on the interpretations, then contempt on the aspersions, then dispair about the contempt. Now it's an open house for anyone to say anything about pretty much any personal belief.

Who here knows the term "Metacommunication"? In a nutshell, it is the process to communicating about the processes of communication.
When well-versed people in either religion and science try to come to common agreements, to a sense of what "reality" or "the truth" or "the good" might be about any point of interest, they will spend extraordinary amounts of time establishing basic agreements about how such things will be discussed. sometimes these basic principles take decades or lifetimes to be settled. ONLY AT THAT POINT can people can talk between each other with some sense of what the other person is talking about.

To be frank, you guys are all kidding yourselves if you think this forum, where people spend mere seconds together, will yield ANY sort of common agreement about even how to start a conversation about God OR man much less any wisdom or shared experience. Everyone here is also kidding themselves with their own importance if they think ANYONE here is listening carefully to some carefully created theological or scientific treatise as anything but a springboard to their own ill-considered opinions.

As someone who is probably older, wiser and better versed in both science and religion (and comics and television) than anyone else here, Let me tell you something kiddies, if you keep it light you are far more likely to learn something, to teach something and to discover truth, reality, joy in your fellows, joy in yourself and ultimately joy in God.

Science and Religion basically agree on one great point. I don't know all the answers AND NEITHER DO YOU. Capice?

DGreen

11-08-2005, 12:37 PM

i always wonder why these discussions go from being within the context of smallville to being purely about beliefs. it's just like after "mortal" aired. the original debate was whether or not the future superman should be having sex and it quickly mutated into a debate about morality and religion. i, for one, would like to bring this post back to the context of the episode.

with all that said, the king david story was really just a plot device used to sum up what clark had already learned in this episode. that even the ppl we consider our heros make mistakes and nobodys perfect, and we shouldn't view our heros as such because if we do then we'll only be disappointed when we realize that they are in fact not perfect just like the rest of us.

mallory

11-08-2005, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Smelly
They do?

There are mountains of evidence for Evolution and zip for Craetion. If you choose to turn a blind eye because of faith than nobody or any amount of evidence will convince you.

Funny, it seems I could see say the same thing, but vice versa. The intolerance of fundamentalists towards science is stunning.

They "pray" for an answer, meaning they can only hope someone eventually finds one. In the meantime, they take the hoped-for reconciliation on faith, because it ain't there yet, and hasn't been there for 80 years. Relativity theory and quantum theory are incompatible. Physicists basically ignore the contradiction. How scientific.

By creation, I meant and mean the creation of the universe. The current accepted theory is the Big Bang. Fine. What happened before then? What existed before then? Science cannot even ask the question. Its tools are limited to that infinitesmal period of time after the supposed singularity took place. It cannot conceive of or even speculate on time or matter/energy that precedes that event.

Science will always face that creation problem. It is a limitation of our logic. Like religion, science reaches a point where it too rests on faith.

More generally, our logic faces inherent, built-in limitations. No logical system is consistent. Not even simple arithmetic systems. If you're not familiar with that, check out Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. Devastating implications for science (though scientists choose to ignore it).

Eh,Man?You-El?

11-08-2005, 01:51 PM

Mallory, Smelly's point was about "evidence". Simply saying "Neener-neener-neener, you don't know nuttin' 'bout birfing no creation neither" does not constitute an answer to his question.

Why is it important to you what happened before "the creation of the universe"? Why would it be inportant to anyone? In fact, why would it even be important to a God (Y-HaVaH - who was and is and will be) what happened BEFORE there was something in existence besides God?
Now, I love the phrase:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
...but it doesn't really matter that much to me on a day-to-day basis. Actually, I find a lot more interesting stuff in the REST of the book.
I have to say my belief in the God of Abraham and Jacob and the father of Jesus does not required me to think about what might have occurred "before creation" AT ALL.

Yep, scientific theories remain consistent with testable, reproducable evidence supporting them covering events occuring as ar back as a few picoseconds after the Big Bang. These theories of "creation" have inspired ongoing productive research into everything from Astronomy to quantum Physics to refinements in the accuracy of simple timekeeping.

What have the Biblical record(s) of creation inspired?
A lot of nice poetry and a lot of empty contraversies.

As to science not even asking the question of what "existed before existence", scientific cosmologists ask this sort of question ALL THE TIME and they come up with really intriging answers that are then tested as much as is possible for logical and practical inconsistencies. I've met a few of these folks and I'd say most of them are familiar with the Biblical creation stories and are even respectful. One cosmologist I met was a firm believer in the Bible but after many years trying, still could not frame any of the (several) Genesis creation stories into a testable hypothesis. So he worked with what aspects of reality and theory were available to him. He was a happy man (as are most theoretical physicists I've met) happy with his life as a Christian and happy in his work as a scientist, with virtually no qualms about how the two approaches to "Creation" figured in his life.

As to Dgreen's question about why these discussions always veer into a knock-down-drag-out fight about people's personal religious beliefs, I'd have to suggest that most people have personal beliefs about both science and religion (and finance and politics and, heck, anything...personal hygeine, f'r example) that are EASILY upset (myself included). In most cases I'd have to say those fragile personal beliefs are not very well founded in a firm grasp of any subject.
When teh easily upset personal beliefs are then, well, upset, the common response is some sort of knee-jerk lashing out. Since these can be deeply held beliefs developed over time, each person has had many opportunities to become "upset" over the same issues several times. So people come up with rationales and explanations for these instinctive protective reactions. And when the reactions are challenged and the person becomes "upset" over the challenge to a flimsy rationale put out to protect a flimsy personal belief, yet another flimsy protective rationale is put out fueled by anger and denial of how flimsy the whole preceeding thought process is.
Finally, so much effort has been invested in these response mechanisms that the original beliefs have been relegated to an almost forgoten area of "pure faith" about which no further thought is spent. All efforts are put into seeking justification for the belief, ways to defend the belief and to distract and discourage any perceived attack on the belief.

The result is that a fairly innocuous forum like KSite becomes a mine-field at any mention of religion.
A large part of the reason for this is that the people involved are:
1. relatively smart (computer literate, able to type, interested in contact with interesting people, and just smart in my experience)
2. relatively opinionated
3. relatively young

That last quality means that the posters are both energetic in promoting themselves and somewhat inexperienced, basing their personal beliefs about religion (and science) in intense but fairly limited backgrounds in science, religion, life in general and the complexities of communication. Since KSite is concerned with ephemeral subjects like "will (fictional) Lex hook up with (fictional) Lana", the general forum audience is probably not going to be expert in much of anything. If this forum was held on a website dedicated to Real science or Deep Biblical study, the most erudite postings would probably be laughed off as childish and beside the point.

Another part of the problem is the anonimity of KSite. people can express deeply held beliefs that simply would be too extreme or contraversial in a face-to-face social situation. Not to mention the fact that most of our friends would interrupt us out of simple boredom if we droned on the way we can on a forum.

hotkk

11-08-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by mallory
As far as evolution being real, I disagree. That has never been proved, and a large body of facts contradicts it. Evolution is a pseudo-science -- the scientists' "religion" -- that fails to show how species change.

This is not true.

But first, we have to make a distinction between the theory of evolution by darwin, who was incomplete and failed to explain everything to the theorie that now exist (and is based on Darwin's theory and other things discovered later). This is the real theorie of evolution (whereas Darwin's theorie could be called a partial theory of evolution).

This theorie is about DNA. The DNA is trasmitted to the next generation which explain why two persons with blue eyes will most likely have a kid with blue eye. Unfortunately, DNA can have mutation, which explains in part the evolution (we could say that often, evolution is a mistake that had good incidence so that the animal/plant/human affected by it can either live or have an advantage over the other of the species)

For the person who asked why isn't there more that 6 billion persons on earth... there has always been about as much person dying that being born, so the population increase slowly. Also, some major incidents have caused the death of million, slowing the increase of population (natural disaster, diseases, etc). Also, some country control the birth rate so the population stop growing (like China)

This said, the evolution, as well as science HAS NEVER CONTRADICTED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. We simply don't know if God exist, from a scientific viewpoint. It does mean that the bible can't be completely interpreted as absolute thruth, even though most of it is true.

And to come back to the subject, does anyone remember other time where Lex refered to himself as an important biblic character. I only remember is father comparing himself to Jesus, and Lex to Judas (In forsaken or Covenant...)

superman79

11-08-2005, 06:45 PM

Back to the original thread, Hollywood pretty much messes up all the time when dealing with religion. But if I can add my own thought it's that Hollywood has it's own version of religion which usually consists of extreme hillbilly types that are mocked or Catholic preists that are just as sinful as everyone else. But there is so much more out there. The trick is to NOT interpret the bible when it comes to Faith and religion but to pray for wisdom and let God give you the answers. Hollywood, amongst others has interpreted religion and the bible in such ways to fit their needs of usually corrupting our youth without anyone noticing. Even the Fundametal Christians would disgust the typical secular person 100 years ago. So Hollywood has really affected religion and faith in a negative way whether it be because of lack of knowledge or an attempt to mislead. So to agree with the first post, Hollywood should just leave religion alone. Sorry to get on my rant this is just my opinion. One last thing, Evolution can't be proven as a creation of the world because we weren't there, so it takes just as much if not more faith to believe we came from a puddle of ooze. Example: The next time you get in your car or on a plane, or even log on to the web, look around, everything had a designer and builder and didn't just happen. How is it then that the most complicated thing on the face of the planet (the human body and mind) didn't require a designer but just happened out of a pile of ooze? Hmmmmm............

Eh,Man?You-El?

11-08-2005, 07:04 PM

Oh for the love of God!
The scientific theory of evolution has always dealt with the ultimate origin of life as a VERY minor hypothetical issue. As much as I luv ya, superman79, reducing 100 years of some of the most successful, predictive, verifiable, applicable and essential scientific work in all of human history to the "Puddle of ooze" argument is just LAME-BRAINED and has NOT A THING to do with Biblical creation and SURE AS HECK doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

The ONLY way the "Intellegent design" crowd even knows enough about the world to put the argument forth is that the benefits of scientific progress (ESPECIALLY evolutionary thinking) has revealed more intricacy and complexity in the simplest things that noone even dreamed of 100 years ago. Science has also discovered chemical compounds of profound simplicity that do have the ablity to recreate and change with enough rapidity to demonstrate that what some people call a puddle of ooze may very well someday be able to contribute more intellegent opinions than what I keep hearing from folks.
AAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
:(

After a commute and some cool-off time, sorry
:\

MidgardDragon

11-08-2005, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by superman79
Back to the original thread, Hollywood pretty much messes up all the time when dealing with religion. But if I can add my own thought it's that Hollywood has it's own version of religion which usually consists of extreme hillbilly types that are mocked or Catholic preists that are just as sinful as everyone else. But there is so much more out there. The trick is to NOT interpret the bible when it comes to Faith and religion but to pray for wisdom and let God give you the answers. Hollywood, amongst others has interpreted religion and the bible in such ways to fit their needs of usually corrupting our youth without anyone noticing. Even the Fundametal Christians would disgust the typical secular person 100 years ago. So Hollywood has really affected religion and faith in a negative way whether it be because of lack of knowledge or an attempt to mislead. So to agree with the first post, Hollywood should just leave religion alone. Sorry to get on my rant this is just my opinion. One last thing, Evolution can't be proven as a creation of the world because we weren't there, so it takes just as much if not more faith to believe we came from a puddle of ooze. Example: The next time you get in your car or on a plane, or even log on to the web, look around, everything had a designer and builder and didn't just happen. How is it then that the most complicated thing on the face of the planet (the human body and mind) didn't require a designer but just happened out of a pile of ooze? Hmmmmm............

*bangs head on desk producing a puddle of blood*

No no no no no! Hollywood's ultimate goal is *NOT* "corrupting 'our' youth". The only things that are corrupted are those that *choose* to be corrupted. You may believe 'Hollywood' has effected religion negatively, and you're entitled to your opinion, but it certainly falls flat in my eyes. I can't stand the need to blame movies and TV for all of societies woes.

As has been stated before in this thread, the "we all came form a puddle of ooze" is only a small part of evolution, which is a scientific theory that explains a variety of things. And most of the concepts of evolution have been tested and scientifically proven time and time again, so yes, it is a verifiable theory, "you can't prove evolution" is a false statement. Now, "Evolution can't be proven as a creation of the world" is true, because, well, that's not what evolution's all about. There are a variety of theories about how the universe was created, but evolution deals much more with how we evolved once we got here.

And, finally, nobody claimed that the human body just happened out of a pile of ooze. More pop science. Go read up on evolution a little more before forming these opinions.

Jlvsclrk

11-09-2005, 05:59 PM

Remember that being a scientist does not preclude having faith. There are items that fall out of the scope of science, such as what happened before the big bang. The ultimate creation if you will. And Einstein himself rather notoriously rejected quantum theory because he felt that "God does not play dice". He spent decades in correspondance with the Copenhagen school coming up with objections, which encouraged people like Bohr et al to keep refining their ideas. Skepticism, challenging theories: that's a fundamental part of science; it's what makes it work.

But science is based on observations and is an attempt to organize those facts using theories, ultimately with the goal of being able to make predictions. The path is a thorny one and many truly powerful theories have gone through their periods of ridicule. I could bore you with several examples but will restrain myself. You can always tell a great theory though by how it broadens way beyond its original scope and starts to explain a whole host of previous unrelated phenomena. Take the theory of continental drift for example, which was laughed at in the 30s and now explains a whole bunch of things like sea floor spreading, earthquakes and mountain formation and why you'll find similar species of fossils in radically different parts of the world, not to mention why the east coast of Africa fits so neatly into the west coast of South America which is what prompted the original theory.

homosuperior

11-24-2005, 05:12 AM

If you've never encountered a David/Goliath story that completely leaves out what he did later in his life to focus on him doing good, then you're quite the exception to the rule.

I’m an exception to the rule, we were never told any of the saucy stuff at junior school or Sunday school. It was all about the David vs Goliath fight in my day.

EDIT:

It would be just like Lex to deliberately twist the story to suit his purposes. And yes, you have to think there's some sort of subconscious Lexana going on with his choice of words.

There was some discussion upthread relating Lex’s use of the David/Goliath story to Naman/Segeeth. When it comes to the latter, I wouldn’t say he was exactly twisting the story – or at least, no more twisting it than anyone who’s done an English degree twists stories by offering alternative interpretations than the most obvious. An essay arguing that, say, Iago is an expression of Othello’s subconscious fears (um…nicked that one from a Buffy episode because I’m lazy) isn’t “twisting” the play, it’s trying to gain an understanding of the text. It’s just one interpretation among many, none of which are right and wrong (ok, some are bollocks, but there are many that are conflicting and yet not bollocks). Myths, just like literary texts, require interpretation. They have been interpreted already, of course, since they’ve been handed down by word of mouth and no doubt changed in the retelling. Most myths and legends have many versions (which the excellent “Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony” by Roberto Calasso explores, recommend it to anyone interested in myth).

Back to Lex – when he’s interpreting the N/S myth, he may come up with a reading that suits his moral worldview, but surely that’s what we all do when we interpret the world around us? Or most of us do. I’ve never squee’ed so hard as when he came up with that segeeth = hero argument. It’s one of the most creative things SV has done imo, one of the most surprising and sinuous and nuanced. Yay to whoever wrote that ep.

Relating that to the David/Goliath story…any Lexana overtones are probably v subconscious, but that’s Lex all over – his subconscious is actually a character in the show in Onyx, his mind and sense of self is deeply destabilized on various occasions. So subconscious and conscious, not as distinct in Lex as in most people. That’s part of what makes him interesting. What he says and what he “really” means aren’t two different things – they’re part of a messy ********* of self-deception on the part of someone whose “self” is a moveable feast.

Clark, by comparison, is a simple reader. He doesn’t often look below the surface. Which, given his own hidden nature, his own secrets, is interesting. I guess having Bo as a teacher when it comes to interpreting the world doesn’t exactly lead to world-exegesis of the most subtle variety.

MozartRequiem

12-26-2005, 11:30 PM

"And to come back to the subject, does anyone remember other time where Lex refered to himself as an important biblic character. I only remember is father comparing himself to Jesus, and Lex to Judas (In forsaken or Covenant...)"

I don't remember another time when Lex refrenced himself as a Biblical person, but I DO recall he referred to David and Goliath much earlier than "Exposed". In season two's episode "Skinwalker", Lex said to Clark, "Clark, you going up against my father? That's a little like David trying to slay Goliath."

"Relating that to the David/Goliath story…any Lexana overtones are probably v subconscious, but that’s Lex all over – his subconscious is actually a character in the show in Onyx, his mind and sense of self is deeply destabilized on various occasions. So subconscious and conscious, not as distinct in Lex as in most people. That’s part of what makes him interesting. What he says and what he “really” means aren’t two different things – they’re part of a messy ********* of self-deception on the part of someone whose “self” is a moveable feast.

Clark, by comparison, is a simple reader. He doesn’t often look below the surface. Which, given his own hidden nature, his own secrets, is interesting. I guess having Bo as a teacher when it comes to interpreting the world doesn’t exactly lead to world-exegesis of the most subtle variety."

Agreed! That's part of what makes him so interesting. I think his future self, however, will have much less of a conscience and or a subconscience, and will just be truly evil and ruthless, like Lionel. But for now, he's very much dealing with his mixed emotions and shades of gray.

By the way, I have a question for everybody here. Seeing as this has turned into one Biblical debate after another, I have a historical/Biblical related question I was hoping someone would help me with answering. In the Bible, what is the meaning of the word "lust"? In, I think the Book of Matthew, Jesus says, "Whosoever looketh upon a woman hath already committed adultery in his mind" or something to that affect. But I'm wrestling with this question, as I'm sure many are, because I feel it's okay and perfectly healthy to look at someone you think is attractive and fantasize a bit about them, as long as it doesn't become "an obsessive desire" which is what dictionary.com defines "Lust" as. By "Obsessive desire" I think it means like fantasizing about someone a lot to the point where it really feels like you're committing adultery with them in your mind. But surely, one or two fantasies here and there aren't harmful, are they? Please, post what you think, because I'm very much devoted to God and His teachings and want to follow them in the best way possible. My friend, who knows A LOT about the Bible, and I always debate on this subject.

Eh,Man?You-El?

12-27-2005, 11:38 AM

Dear MozartRequiem,
Welcome aboard!
Ah, the "Sermon on the Mount" - Matthew 5.

Matthew 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Stepping once more in the ring of fire-that-is-unrelated-to-the-tiopic-at-hand, here's my two cents. I think it's worth risking centure from the Mods because I know from personal experience that the kind of question that M.R. asks doesn't come out of hiding too often. It's a scary, sad and really uncomfortable question and far too often it's left hanging out in midair - making the question scarier and sadder and more uncomfortable.

First, anything I might say or anyone might explain (or even anything you might assume anyone means) all pale before just reading the words themselves and finding your own meaning. Also read at least chapters 4-7 of Matthew so you know you aren't "Cherry-picking" Biblical phrases just to support an opinion you already have.

Second, I want it understood that I am trying to respond to the Biblical question MozartRequiem just asked. I am well aware that the assertion "I feel it's okay and perfectly healthy to look at someone you think is attractive and fantasize a bit about them" also is valid, at least as a feeling.

IMHO, a large part of the message is that the examples of "right and wrong" given by Jesus really SHOULDN'T be subjects of debate. My take is Jesus is not taking a "Hard Line" so much as saying to, well, you (and me):

"Oh, C'mon, MozartRequiem!
Please, be real with me and I'll be real with you!
You and I both know what "lust" is!
(Strongs: 1937 epithumeo
AV-desire 8, covet 3, lust 3, lust after 1,)
Yeah, we could quibble over whether your particular brand of lust stays just inside some arbitrary line this side of Strongs #2372 (thumos - AV-wrath 15, fierceness 2, indignation 1; 18 ) but it's still lust, isn't it?"

Jesus says several things which indicate why he's being so insistant :
Matt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matt 5;48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This kind of insistence on not just 99-and-44-one-hundreths percent but full-bore 100% purity is pretty unusual. It is just that unusual quality that lead Matthew to end his portrayal of the "sermon" with this comment:
Matt 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Now if you are looking for an "out" - something in the words of Jesus that will allow you to not dispair about how imperfect you are (and, as God knows, you are probably a sight more perfect than u[]I[/u] am) - one of the most intriging things Jesus says is in:
Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

In Matt 5:19, Is Jesus saying that if you break these commandments you will not be allowed into "the Kingdom of Heaven"? Nope. Jesus says that some who not only break the least of these commandments but also teach others to break them will be allowed into the kingdom. But even that acceptance comes at a cost. those people have been "saved" into the Kingdom but they "shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven".
What may be the most important phrase in answer to your question though, M.R., is in
Matt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

When Jesus says "For I say unto you," that is HIS Special emphasis. As I interpret the phrase, if you are depending on some "definition" of your righteousness (as defined by scribes, pharisees or some prize-winning "discussion") to provide a justifiable reason to let you into the Kingdom, you are basically fooling yourself.
Just be good, "right and wrong" aren't so hard to figure out. For the most part, follow the rules from other people but do your best to be even better than that.

It is also instructive (and comforting) to look at the ending comment after "the Lord's Prayer:
Matt 6:9 ¶ After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
...
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Matt 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Forgive others and God does forgive you.

Now, specifically, does this mean if you lust after women you "cross the line" so you won't be saved? I can't say that. Anymore than I can say it is not a concern. The way I read what Jesus was saying in the passage was this: If you are willing to admit that Adultery is a problem, you should be able to see how lust is a problem. It is a problem you should deal with. Use as much common sense and kindnees as you can muster and just deal with it. And if you have disappointments be forgiving and if you have regrets, ask for forgivness. And always do the best you can and strive for perfection.

On a personal note, over many years I've found that if whenever I allowed myself to simply enjoy members of the opposite sex in whatever ways were available that were NOT sexual, the tenderness and intimacy and, yes, lust always took care of itself. Whenever I dwelled for any length of time on lusting after one woman or another I ended up anxious, frustrated and generally alone.

I hope this helps.
I will check my PM's for further discussion but I won't take up more forum space on the subject.