Magic in games

Yeah and smart move on God's part with Elisha. What would the dude do but first go and curse forty-two kids to a mauling (not necessarily death) by two bears? Oh whooptydoo there, Holy Man of God! (On the flipside, don't piss off a man of God. Seriously guys, it's not a cool idea. You mess with the Spirit, you get jacked.)

Well, duhhhhhh, Eon. It's the Catholic church! Of course they're going to sucker as much cash as possible. Tell me, how many Protestant buildings do you see as lavished and well-built and ornately constructed as Catholic churches? 0 to none. We have flat, square buildings, ugly things, beautiful things, but a Vatican? Uh-uh. Why not? Wellll...we don't have the billions they got from the 1500s to the 2000s and still are raking in for the Catholics.

It IS a sin to usurp the money FOR God and use it for your own lavish wants and desires. Seriously, the Catholic church is not something that is pleasant to be in, nor is it something that I believe is honoring to God. What other Christian place do you need to visit to worship idols, err, I mean, pay respects to the saints and pray for their blessings, not worship, of dead people? Only the Catholic church. Where else can you pay your respects to an obviously dead God on a cross than the Catholic church? That's how he's always portrayed, stuck there on the cross, unable to do anything but cry and mourn and bleed...and nothing else save through the holy dedicated ones of the Catholic church and hellfire on anyone else who doesn't belong to their righteous ranks.

Where else can you go to pray out your relatives from a middle zone since God obviously doesn't want any Catholics in hell? The Catholic church! Where else to be honored by an old man who lives in a palace and comes out once ever blue moon to talk with world leaders and encourage them to love Jesus Christ, before he returns to his private mansion surrounded by his personal army, none other than the Jesuits? The Catholic church. And don't forget this codger is the VOICE of Peter the Rock who holds the keys to Hell and Heaven, and it was on PETER that he built the church, therefore, since Peter died, the spirit of Peter had to move on, to, duh, another guy, and we're blessed to have that guy known as John Paul the Who Cares What Number This Dude Is?

I am upset with the Catholic church. Extremely. They are worse than the Protestant con men who pass them off as workers for God, only because they're so large and influential in their watered-down word and their lack of work in the field of the gospel...they do not tell you to evangelize. They tell you how great Jesus is and what he did, but leave out little, important things. Like Jesus is your personal Savior. Like Jesus is more important than Mary, who, obviously, is no more blessed among women than Deborah was, because Deborah was called blessed among women, too...and she didn't bear no Messiah, now did she? And obviously, dogma is FAR more important than the Gospel is. You don't understand! Creeds, doctrine and dogma are the most important factor in a Christian life. Break one, eighty years in purgatory for you, slave! But you can work that off by donating a couple thousand to the church and repeating a prayer about twelve times.

Whoaaaa...did I just go off on a rant against the Catholic church? Sorry parishioners. I did.

Eon, it amazes you that you are not a Christian. Seriously, it does. It's just one step left out of your life it seems and you would be a great fighter for the Christian faith...but I wonder if you'll ever make that step. I doubt it, but hey, I can always dream. You have good thoughts and wonderful perception of religion and writings and people...but no perception of your very own soul it would seem.
They "should" not be committing a sin...they ARE committing a sin when they use this world as nothing more than a way to rake in cash. In fact, Christ talked of this in Matthew. YOU CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS. Be loyal to one or to the other, and hate the other or the one. YOU CANNOT SERVE BOTH GOD AND MONEY. It's impossible. Your master is one or the other. God even says, for the love of money is the root of all evil...what's the problem there? Why, greed and the lust for more just leads us to no end. War, death, robbery and crime, and worse yet, deception within the Church.
Also, Eon, you forgot to mention that knights are incredible liars and horrible men...even their own great medieval writings do not praise their greatness, and those that do greatly exaggerate what they do. They were not good people, and surprise if they did commit usury.

The church is in need of money today because it is a greed pit. It is a stepping stone for Satan. The Church has few members dedicated to Christ. And that is sad. But it's the truth. This world is not God's...it is Satan's, believe it or not.
 
Well, let's just say that I USED to be that Christian you describe, right down to singing in the Church choir. That's a stage of my life that I've outgrown - as it says in The Matrix: Reloaded, you need the WHY or you have no power, you're just doing the bidding of others. I'm looking for the WHY right now. As you say, I may not ever find it, but then again, if I do...

And Knights were just people, like other people. They were bound to a strict code of duty and obedience. Some of them followed it, and some others did not.

Eon
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ June 02 2003,2:12)]Well, let's just say that I USED to be that Christian you describe, right down to singing in the Church choir. That's a stage of my life that I've outgrown - as it says in The Matrix: Reloaded, you need the WHY or you have no power, you're just doing the bidding of others. I'm looking for the WHY right now. As you say, I may not ever find it, but then again, if I do...

And Knights were just people, like other people. They were bound to a strict code of duty and obedience. Some of them followed it, and some others did not.

Eon
Click to expand...
That's cool to know (though singing in the choir is no path to salvation, I assure you. Nice to do I guess, but not the key to eternal life.), and I pray you find that why...what is the why you seek for though? Why are you here? Why did God want you? Why does God care? Why should you care? Why must we die? Why do we sin? What is the why you're looking for?

Yeah but the thing is: knights are looked up to and honored folk among the serfdom and peasantries that abounded, even high among nobility to a certain point. That they should be so easily swayed and gullibly sinful is remarkable. That they were kept around for a while is remarkable still.
 
Hmmmmm.......
I guess I missed the time when God placed you in charge of judging the christians and their denominations Ultima.
I do not think it is a bad thing for them to depict Jesus while he is still on the cross, it reminds us of the suffering he went through for us. There are some catholic practices that I do not agree with,such as, the whole saints thing but it is not up to us or any human to judge them. That is God's job.
Also,I think your comments on Elija and the Holy Spirit get very close to blasphemy. It is certinaly not for us to judge what God does as being right or wrong.

@ Eon I didnt know you used to go to church. I am sorry to hear that
sad.gif
. Iwill pray that God gives you understanding. If it helps to know I am going through something similar.
 
Blasphemy? Ehhh...possibly. Let's not look at it so bad as a logical side. What would the first thing a prophet, a man of God, a good guy, DO first once getting his awesome powers and crossing over the river, BUT have a couple bears maul kids?
I mean, geez, God, have some mercy...or have some forethought to stop Elisha from that before he snaps completely. Not downing on what God does, but geez, God, what happened there?

And the last I checked as well, I most definitely wasn't in a judging position...I am definitely in a constant critical and pointing position, though. I will not hesitate to point out any religion's, church's, man's doctrinal fallacies or problems, subtle or blatant. For the Catholics, there's no need for research: they blare their problems out like neon lights and people embrace the Catholic church as something awesome, which is why they flourish so well and are such a pinnacle in life...also they tend to skip over certain problems they've had in the past (i.e. Crusades, Inquisition, the whole Protestant thing (which stemmed thanks to them), the whole thing of purges from sin if you fork out enough cash...yeah, they seem to have forgotten about that when they tell people how great they are), and don't get me started with Baptists, Word of Faith movements, the Church of Christ, Masons, Buddhists, and Muslims.

Any man can judge a fellow man so long as he is in the all-clear for himself when he gets judged. But the Church had better keep its nose clean at all times, dude. God warns us of that. We're a body guys. And we'd better be united if we expect to work right. And we'd also better be clean if we expect to be a beacon of light and hope for salvation to ANY person. How can we expect to be an actual worker for Christ when we say, "Forsake the lusts of this world" and then have our workers of the Word go out, screw a young girl, get involved in incest, become a thief, get hooked on illegal drugs, and sucker millions of dollars from the innocent sheep that follow us blindly at times...we do nothing but discourage more and more from the Church. And why? So that we can keep our fat selves happy.

Judge away boys. I have no problem.
 
Ultima, that is all true, but at the same time, the highest command of Christ is that we love.  That we show love to all in our communication, actions, feelings, thoughts and teachings.  In the past I have spoken out about the Catholic church, yet when I do so, I try to teach through love rather than condemnation.  

 We are to teach in love and understanding, gently and patiently guiding those around us to a saving and/or better knowledge of Christ, the Gospel, and the Bible.  You say 'Don't get me started on.."  Why the anger?  Why the cynicism?  Instead of condemnation, teach the reasons why you don't believe their doctrine is correct, backed with Biblical references and real-world examples.  And yes, both are necessary, for without the one, the other is just pointless posturing.
 
@ Ultima:
I have never heard of Elija doing that.I would like to know where that is in scripture so I can see the context that it is in.
@ Kidan:
Your responce was much better than mine
biggrin.gif
.
@ ssquared:
That is a totally different topic and I think we have gotten far enough away from the current topic.
 
I'd be surprised if you heard it was Elijah. I mean, I would be shocked if you had. It was Elisha. That Elisha cursed the kids? Easy. 2 Kings 2:23-25. Like I said, don't mess with a man of God...but DANG dude.
What's similar JJosprey? Your doubt? Your search for the "Why?"

Ahhh! This is why I'm not a pastor yet. Fine. Yes I am an angry young man. And I'm an admitted cynic. I take cynide. It's make my cynical. (That's a joke by the way...the substance is called cyanide, not cynide)

Well I suppose I could always teach in love...I try to but sometimes I get what I like to call, hmm, a "hotheaded love" and I bring on my black robe, crook my finger, and tell the truth in a pointed manner...sorry George Whitefield. You've failed me in this modern age.

Wait...are you saying use examples with cynicism and anger or use those two types of examples to support each other? I'm fine both ways.
 
I'm saying use those 2 types of examples to support one another. Just saying something isn't right, is not enough you need to give examples of how it fails in the world as well as how it fails scripturally.


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Ahhh! This is why I'm not a pastor yet.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter whether or not you are a pastor. It doesn't matter whether or not you are a sunday school teacher. As a Christian you should be showing and teaching in love. All you do, should be done in love.

Christ has commanded us to love one another. That should be enough for all Christians, not just pastors.
 
Ultima, those 'kids' Elisha cursed were not sweet, cute little 4 and 5 year olds. They were the rough, tough crowd and were mocking him. Something like "Hahahaha. Look at the guy with the bald head." Hair was very important. In fact, in the Nazirite vow, you refrain from cutting your hair. Samson was a Nazirite. Anyway, these kids knew the point of hair and were possibly trying to say "How can you be a man of God if you are bald?" So not only were they making fun of Elisha, they were also challenging God's appointment of Elisha as His prophet.
 
Well, yeah...I could care less what AGE he wiped out. It said youth and I know little snot-nosed brats wouldn't do that. It would be up to the older punks to do so.

But was he a Nazirite? People bash baldies today, too...so has much changed for a few millennia? No. A shame we can't call down heavenly flames on their heads anymore when they do it.

Yeah. Nazirites is a status of a vow: once the vow's over you can do whatever to your hair, but you're not supposed to cut it UNTIL. I think Christ was a Nazirite at one point, and Paul was, as well. 1 Corinthians somewhere I believe.

I dunno if they were challenging God in that manner...perhaps they were. I wouldn't put it past young punks to do so.
But still...good move on Elisha's part there. "I wanna double portion o' blessing, Elijah!" "Sure...if you stick with me until the end." "Fine." "Fine. Double blessing on you." (Holy music) "I can cross the Jordan! Sweet! ...HEY! MAKE FUN OF ME WILL YOU?! #### YOU TO HELL! BURN IN SHEOL! GOD STRIKE THEM MAULED!"

Yeahhhh.
 
No. I don't believe he was a Nazirite. I just used them as an example of the ultimate importance placed on hair. Elsewhere in the bible it relates something about the hair on a man's head. Someone else may know the exact words.
smile.gif
 
Jesus was a Nazarene, not a Nazarite, a slight but very important difference.

As for those young men.  I think it very telling of God's character and the importance He places on His chosen.

Think of it, here is Elisha, a newly appointed prophet and he just saved the city of Bethel's water supply.  So what do this teens do?  They mock him, mock his ministry, mock his appearance (and calling someone bald is actually a personal attack in the east), mock his predecessor, and mock God.  Not once (which could be construed as a mistake) but twice!  They were not contrite.  They were not upset.  They knew exactly what they were doing, and they reaped the benefits.  Think of them saying it this way "Ascend, you emptied headed fool, to heaven, as  you pretended your master did!"  For this is what they were ultimately saying to Elisha.  No. Elisha was working under God's guidance when he cursed them, for if he was not, then the curse would have failed.

This was not Elisha just saying things to keep a pack of annoying 7 year olds away from him, this was a MAN OF GOD protecting the office of the Prohpet of Isreal, and the Lord of Hosts from ridicule, and standing up for both, as well as doing his job.  

Children should never act that way, especially towards someone older than them.  The Bible tells children to honor their parents, so that they can have a long life.  Do you think that treating others the way they treated Elisha would be honoring their parents?  No.  The actions of these children, not only arrogance, sinful, and prideful were also dishonoring to their parents, just as if I (who is quite a bit older than these probably were) went out and mocked and ridiculed someone would be dishonoring my parents (it would basically be saying that they didn't raise me well enought to treat people with respect).

You said that  you wondered why God didn't stop Elisha.  Ultimately it's because Elisha was working under the influence of the will of God.  He was acting in his position as the Prophet of Isreal, not as Elisha, guy drunk with power.
 
For Nazarites there was a number of little things to deal with their hair, and in fact most had to shave a bit off (called the Hair of Seperation) while Samson, was not to have any of his removed.

Shaving of the head (including beard and eyebrows) usually signified someone becoming clean again (especially men, who might have touched something unclean go through Lev. for this)

Yet the most important thing about hair comes from the NT.  This is the standards for hair even today (and why I now have a short hair cut, even though throughout highschool I had long hair)
Women are to have long hair and men are to have short.  It's there plain as day.  Some people will say that this was due to the society of they day and has no bearing anymore.  I don't believe this.  The reason I don't beleive this is because Paul gives a reason why men have short hair and women long.  While praying within the church, women are to have their head covered or their head shorn, and if you read a few verses down, you find that Paul says that her hair is the ideal covering.  So, when we look at this, that a woman's long hair is the natural and ideal covering for her head during prayer and prophesing, we see that it is shameful for a man to have his head covered while doing the same thing, so a man should have short hair (Paul also goes on to say that nature itself teaches us this, and that if someone upon hearing this disagrees with Paul, then to point out that none of the other churches set up by himself and the other Apostles have a problem with this.).

Yet also it goes beyond even this concept of having your head covered or not (since we are under grace, we can slip by these little matters of doctrine that we don't agree/understand etc) during prayer. It also goes for the angels. Remember, children and women get gaurdian angels, men don't. A prime way for angels to seperate the two of us, is our hair lengths (or coverings during prayer) Therefore from this scriptures, if a woman cuts the natural covering for her head, she runs the risk of losing her angelic protection. (all these scriptures can be found in 1 Cor. 11)
 
Wow!  Lots of great information.  I totally agree with you on Paul's writings.  In my case, though, I just happen to like having short hair.  
biggrin.gif
 My comments were geared towards OT, though.  I thought there was something in there regarding long hair.  There are certainly verses about the oil running down Aaron's beard and stuff about David's hair.

What is new to me is that men don't have a guardian.  If you believe this, then I'm sure you probably have a rebuttal to this, but...then what does it mean in Acts when they talk about Peter's angel?  The people are praying.  Peter's knocking at the door.  The little girl says, "Peter's here!!!" And everyone exclaims in disbelief "It can't be!  It must be his angel."
 
Because Peter was supposed to be in jail.  They basically thought he was dead, and coming to visit them as a ghost.  It's Acts Ch. 12, and here's the short version

Peter is arrested.
Everyone is praying, because being a Christian is a stoning offense.
Peter is rescued by an angel.
Peter goes to where everyone is praying.
Knocks on the door and says "let me in".
A girl, hears Peter, recognizes his voice, does not open the door and runs and tells people Peter is at the door.
Those inside do not believe her, and say "You're mand!" and "It's his ghost"

The key to recognizing it as such, is that the girl recognized Peter's voice.  Angels have their own voice, in the same sense that we do.  While it's possible that their voices could have sounded similiar, the important thing is that they thought it WAS Peter at the door, and this verse also the basis of the belief that humans become angels at death.

You got to remember, the man is the head of the household, the firstborn.  He was not tempted.  He is the one that actually failed at the original sin.  This is why he has so much more responsibility placed upon him now.  He failed once, it's part of his punishment to atone for that failure of Adam, by being the head of the household, by being responsible for the spiritual state of his wife and children.  There are numerous occassions where God singles out men for more responsibility/punishment then women, and the lack of a guardian angel is just one more aspect of this. Now this does not mean that angels won't visit and/or help men, if God sends them to do a job, they do it.  It's just that men, don't have that angelic protection in the same sense as women and children.


As for the hair, there is numerous things in the Bible about hair (usually being ripped out as a sign of disgrace/contempt/mourning) and goat's hair is used quite often in temple decorations as well as the viel that seperates the inner and outer rooms of the tabernacle, but that's something altogether different.
 
Hmmm, interesting.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]the important thing is that they thought it WAS Peter at the door
Click to expand...

Heh. And my stance is they did NOT believe it was Peter. That's why they said, "It's his angel", or "ghost" as you quoted in your post. I take what you are saying is they thought it was Peter in angelic form. I don't think humans become angels.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]and this verse also the basis of the belief that humans become angels at death.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you believe this statement, or just saying this is the verse people use to back up the statement? Angels are very different from humans. Christ died for humans. Not for angels. The bible is clear on the distinctions between the two. Angels are a differently created being than humans and have completely different understanding and makeup from humans.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You got to remember, the man is the head of the household, the firstborn.
Click to expand...

OK....

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]He failed once, it's part of his punishment to atone for that failure of Adam, by being the head of the household, by being responsible for the spiritual state of his wife and children.
Click to expand...

He had those responsibilities before eating the fruit. Adam had always been placed as the head of the househould. Eve as his helpmate. Different roles, but perfect in this relation. Man's punishment was the wearisome and tiresome labor involved in working. Working the land. Seeding. Pruning. Also tending to the animals as well.

Also, in one sense, spiritual responsibility was not really a concept until the time of Moses, when God laid it out for them.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Heh.  And my stance is they did NOT believe it was Peter.  That's why they said, "It's his angel", or "ghost" as you quoted in your post.  I take what you are saying is they thought it was Peter in angelic form.
Click to expand...
They did not believe it was Peter in a PHYSICAL sense. Yet the assumed it was Peter in a spiritual sense.  Hence, they believed he had been killed (as was often the case with Christians in jail) and had come to visit them post-mortem.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Are you saying you believe this statement, or just saying this is the verse people use to back up the statement?
Click to expand...
I'm saying this is the verse people use to back up this statement.  I don't believe this, and in fact use Christians will stand in judgement of the angels.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]He had those responsibilities before eating the fruit.  Adam had always been placed as the head of the househould.  Eve as his helpmate.  Different roles, but perfect in this relation.  Man's punishment was the wearisome and tiresome labor involved in working.  Working the land.  Seeding.  Pruning.  Also tending to the animals as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, and he FAILED at it miserably. Also, man's punishment was not the working of the land, he had to do so prior to the fall, but the land is now cursed and strives against man's wishes. aslo note this scripture
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]..and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Click to expand...
This indicates a change during the punishment ruling. While yes prior to the fall, she was his helpmate and in subject to the man, still it was not to the extent as it is  post-fall. Otherwise, if there is no difference in the man/woman relationship dynamic why would God point it out?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]They did not believe it was Peter in a PHYSICAL sense. Yet they assumed it was Peter in a spiritual sense.
Click to expand...

Right. That's what I figured you were saying. I still don't agree with it, but I'm willing to find out more information. Does it say anywhere in the Bible about men not having a guardian angel? The Jews tended to believe both men and women had angels. I've looked this up in several commentaries and the tendency is to say it was his guardian angel. I found two referencing it as you say, but there wasn't much backing it up.

Also, in Matthew 18:10 it says "do no look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven..." Now, is this saying children have guardian angels? If so, then both boys and girls have them. So, at what point do men suddenly lose their angel. Hmmm, perhaps at age 13 when the Jews consider them moving into manhood?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also, man's punishment was not the working of the land, he had to do so prior to the fall, but the land is now cursed and strives against man's wishes.
Click to expand...

Correct. I did not state work was the punishment of the land. I stated, "Man's punishment was the wearisome and tiresome labor involved in working." It's not the working. It's the newly placed burden of it. My wife and I have spent 3 weekends weeding and still have lots more to do. We don't have a very big yard. It's very tiring work. Weeds ARE evil.
smile.gif



[b said:
Quote[/b] ]This indicates a change during the punishment ruling. Otherwise, if there is no difference in the man/woman relationship dynamic why would God point it out?
Click to expand...

Good point. You got me there.
smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top