Brick and wood early, wheat and ore late. Going all in on sheep with a sheep port is shooting the moon, and less reliable.
Context if you're lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catan
Debate between sheep and grain
11–20 of 20 posts
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#12Here's a link to the full text http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section5/tr532.htm This seems like 3,000BC version of a rap battle, with rhyming put downs and brags. Unlike apparently everyone else, I can't see any likeness with the story of Cain and Able, other than the involvement of plants and animals. https://www.blueletterbible.org/nlt/gen/4/1/s_4001
If you enjoy that, you could look up other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyting & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_debate_poetry to read. There are also fun prose debates like the Islamic "The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn".
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#13Brick and wood early, wheat and ore late. Going all in on sheep with a sheep port is shooting the moon, and less reliable.
Wheat and Ore early isn't actually a bad strategy either, although a tad risky. It allows you to build your first two settlements into cities quickly, which allow you to gather resources quicker, or at least trade them into brick and wood (with the help of ports) to build roads and more settlements, which can easily be turned into cities since you're already on those resources. Coming back to the topic at hand, :) It…
>Pastors and theologians at more conservative and fundamentalist seminaries usually deny, ignore, or try to hide this from lay Christians in fear that they will leave the faith. This fear is actually probably a projection of their own fears, as I don't see this as some sort of evidence bomb that the Bible isn't "true", whatever that word means.
it undermines a fundamentalist or literalist reading of the bible. once you leave the realm of 'all of this happened exactly this way and god said exactly this', and enter the realm of 'well, this is figurative/you have to understand the historical context this draws from', things suddenly become much, much more nebulous and less authoritative. it's not that it entirely undermines any notion of 'truth' in the bible, but it's anathema to a particular worldview.
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cain offered grain (or at least produce) as a sacrifice. Abel offered a lamb (a living sacrifice). Abel's offering is deemed worthy, whereas Cain's is not. I'd say the similarity between the two is that they both present an opposition of grain and sheep. I agree with you, that is not incredibly similar.
I'd wager that during the time that all these things were written, the common themes and archetypes would probably have been more apparently and obvious to the people, even if they seem kind of like a stretch to us.
Yep, I would bet that the reason the Cain and Abel story is referenced is because during that era, there was an inherent tension between the two types of sustenance, that is much deeper (societally and culturally) than today.
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#15Here's a link to the full text http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section5/tr532.htm This seems like 3,000BC version of a rap battle, with rhyming put downs and brags. Unlike apparently everyone else, I can't see any likeness with the story of Cain and Able, other than the involvement of plants and animals. https://www.blueletterbible.org/nlt/gen/4/1/s_4001
If you enjoy that, you could look up other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyting & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_debate_poetry to read. There are also fun prose debates like the Islamic "The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn".
Also the Lis Consonantium, in which the letter sigma sues the letter tau:
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#16Here's a link to the full text http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section5/tr532.htm This seems like 3,000BC version of a rap battle, with rhyming put downs and brags. Unlike apparently everyone else, I can't see any likeness with the story of Cain and Able, other than the involvement of plants and animals. https://www.blueletterbible.org/nlt/gen/4/1/s_4001
If you enjoy that, you could look up other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyting & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_debate_poetry to read. There are also fun prose debates like the Islamic "The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn".
Had a fun read on those links, thanks for sharing.
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#17Brick and wood early, wheat and ore late. Going all in on sheep with a sheep port is shooting the moon, and less reliable.
& , & . 🡒 & = & HN apparently does not support unicode: https://imgur.com/a/Px2z5
There's a (10 year old) post saying it could support utf-8.
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wheat and Ore early isn't actually a bad strategy either, although a tad risky. It allows you to build your first two settlements into cities quickly, which allow you to gather resources quicker, or at least trade them into brick and wood (with the help of ports) to build roads and more settlements, which can easily be turned into cities since you're already on those resources. Coming back to the topic at hand, :) It…
>Pastors and theologians at more conservative and fundamentalist seminaries usually deny, ignore, or try to hide this from lay Christians in fear that they will leave the faith. This fear is actually probably a projection of their own fears, as I don't see this as some sort of evidence bomb that the Bible isn't "true", whatever that word means. it undermines a fundamentalist or literalist reading of the bible. once y…
The literalist reading of an English language Bible always seemed a bit surreal to me.
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Pastors and theologians at more conservative and fundamentalist seminaries usually deny, ignore, or try to hide this from lay Christians in fear that they will leave the faith. This fear is actually probably a projection of their own fears, as I don't see this as some sort of evidence bomb that the Bible isn't "true", whatever that word means. it undermines a fundamentalist or literalist reading of the bible. once y…
The literalist reading of an English language Bible always seemed a bit surreal to me.
Written by Jewish mystics, translated into Latin by Roman scholars, further translated by Scottish Protestants. What could possibly go wrong?
The part that always weirds me out is right at the start, when God/Elohim/whatever says let us create them in our image, male and female he created them, which makes very little sense with a singular God.
Re: Debate between sheep and grain
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The literalist reading of an English language Bible always seemed a bit surreal to me.
Written by Jewish mystics, translated into Latin by Roman scholars, further translated by Scottish Protestants. What could possibly go wrong? The part that always weirds me out is right at the start, when God/Elohim/whatever says let us create them in our image, male and female he created them, which makes very little sense with a singular God.
I'm sure sure there are/were whole sects based on how one interprets that division. A bigger one along the same lines is the holy trinity.