scoobdog

I get where R_ACG is coming from to an extent. Crushes aren't usually realistic or attainable, not because they themselves are out of reach but because they represent an ideal. In that respect, idealizing the doctor for her attributes isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it focuses on attributes like intelligence and personality. The problem is that she is completely blurring the line between idealism and possessiveness. No one should have to tell a thirty-five-year-old that her unchecked lust is not more important than the feelings and well-being of her idealized lover. The fact that she can't seem to testify that indicates issues with impulse control.

Easy.... Just remember by going for her you will be quite literally ruining her life, making her hate you with the energy of a thousand suns.

You mean cede absolutely all control of your life for a period of time where you can fast forward through / take no responsibility for bad shit that happens but you can savor all of the rewards for the good things that happen? Like that?

They will eventually. There's no reason to do it straightaway when they can hold off and reissue when the shows are older.

Disney will always release stuff, regardless if it's on Disney Plus or not. They were one of it not the first to have an organized home video market.and that particular market isn't likely to disappear.

Or, they weren't popular enough to warrant a release?

I kind of thought the intent, early on, was for services like Apple Plus, CBSN, and HBO Max to be a direct replacement for ownership of individual titles. But that never materialized.

Just a thought… but cannibalism as survival thing might actually be antithetical to survival.

You mean why you were originally banned?

I mean, you kinda went out of your way to burn bridges. It's not really a surprise the mods aren't terribly interested in revisiting some of your more ... intense episodes.

C'mon, man.

Dude, why you being so obvious? You're like the best ever at secret alts.

Truly a labor of love.

LOL

I was just stirring shit up. Other than your interpretation of my intent behind the "beside the point" comment, I don't disagree with anything you said.

Historical homosexuality is typically linked to the established (but defunct since late antiquity) practice of pederasty, but that's not really the point. Most rational and educated adults don't see homosexuality as a problem and it doesn't typically interfere with one's belief in God provided one adheres to the general spirit of religion. However, that still means that those religions are explicitly adhering to a belief that is not shared by other faiths or even other adherents within those faiths. When you asked "Where did you get this from?" in reference to me saying different faiths have different Gods, this is where I got it from. The point of the exercise isn't necessarily to make the Abrahamic God several distinct entities, it's simply to say that even established religions can see the same God differently, and that, by definition, makes each version of God unique. Furthermore, it's not particularly controversial unless your idea of free will is limited to absolute right and wrong choices. Ultimately, because we are imperfect beings who are not fully capable of seeing the actual God, it's acceptable to worship a different God, or, rather, to worship a different imperfect version of God. Doing so means we're not constrained to a rigid and imperfect set of beliefs nor are we predisposed to hate others who might believe in an Abrahamic God but have vastly different beliefs otherwise. Another way to look at it is this: Even with Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believing in the same Abrahamic God, nobody can deny a fellow adherents claims as rightful or to invalidate a fellow religion's precepts solely on the basis that it does not agree with one's own beliefs.

Ok. It makes sense that we can't see God in His perfection since we ourselves are imperfect. So, does that mean some of the precepts that religions hold as the word could, in fact, not be the word of God? For instance, I believe all three Abrahamic religions seem to agree that homosexuality is either sinful or, at the very least, outside the grace of God (the whole love the sinner not the sin is utter bullshit). Does that mean that I, who believes homosexuality is normal and within the grace of God, have an imperfect belief or that the religions have imperfect beliefs? If it's the former, why would God allow the homosexuality to exist? If it's the latter, why would a religion call something that is within God's grace out of it?

So, that means each religion is not worshipping God, but an imperfect interpretation of God?

Well, that begs the question: if there is one God, how did He allow three different religions to spring up in His name?

I was trying to figure out what Sponges is getting at as well, but I said fuck it and decide just to blow shit up, instead, with... ...all three iterations of the Abrahamic God are not, in fact, the same entity. Whether one is a religious adherent, a deist or an atheist, the same basic rule applies: God is a concept, a framework used to connect a religion's various precepts and traditions into a cohesive ideology. The Jewish God is generally the template for all three, but He doesn't impart His morality on either the Christian or the Islamic God. Instead, He represents a more general divine mandate that is meaningless in the absence of the other religious precepts put forth by the religion's true founders, namely the various prophets that shape and interpret the mandate into a practically applied faith system. He also tends to be the most important of the three different entities because He represents a massive innovation in the religious practice - He's the first to represent the natural world as a unified presence as opposed to a group of competing forces. The Christian God was able to expand on the Jewish God concept, but his primary prophet isn't a primary mouthpiece as much as direct iteration. The Christian God, then, is mandate that directly manifests in the individual of Jesus as opposed to being a separate ethereal being using a human mouthpiece. This is best exemplified in the oft-noted curiosity of a seemingly vengeful OT God versus the loving and forgiving NT God, with the difference being that the Jewish prophets were less perfect mouthpieces for God than, well, God himself. The reality, of course, is that Christians tend to play up the more violent aspects of the OT God to contrast that tradition from their own while the Jewish God isn't so much punishing as much as simply allowing bad behavior to have direct consequences. The Islamic God is, just as Pooh said, far closer to the Jewish God than the Christian God: He express himself through mouthpieces rather than a manifesting in one of those prophets. In perhaps an interesting comparison, the fact HIs chief prophet isn't visually depicted mimics similar Christian movements rejecting the use of idolatry that started around the same time but became prominent through Martin Luther during the Reformation. Each God is distinct in that the traditions that he contains are distinct. None of these Gods are worshipped in the same way, as I presume the God first devised by Abraham himself was not. The idea that one God worshipped by three different and widely varied groups can act as a bridge between the differences of each, but it is fundamentally flawed in that it requires God to be an avatar for humanity and central to all commonality. Even in a world where everyone believes in a singe deity of some sort, it's impossible to completely rectify the differences between each religious tradition into an all encompassing single tradition without rejecting parts of each religions' teachings. Doing so would end up creating a fourth Abrahamic God rather then combing the three religions into one. To answer the topic question, then: there isn't a single name for God. He's a concept, not an entity in His own right. Like Vamped commented, whatever name is used as a pointer to this concept inevitably is a descriptor for what God does, not a unique name to attach an identity to. In that respect, you could conceivably refer to God by whatever term best exemplifies His purpose in context.

No shit.

I've seen 50-y-o's saying similar things, so... definitely spite.

After that gem, I do.

All this talking about Ya weh got this in my head....

Literally late night longing....