Why I don't Beleave in any man made religion.

  • Thread starter Thread starter XOMINOUS ANGELX
  • Start date Start date
Eon, its not that the Law of Isreal has/had no meaning, or that the acts which you listed which occured in the OT do not perhaps seem wrong by today's standards. Some of these acts were condoned by the Lord, and some were not - it doesn't matter how YOU view them, only how God does.

Edit ---> I'd also like to add that just because things are mentioned in the Bible (for example, polygamy), does not mean that they are condoned. They are simply being accurately recorded.
 
Good point, Timor, it only matters to GOD how God views those acts. As a rational human being with the ability to tell right from wrong, however, it is VERY important to me when making a critical distinction.

You cannot proceed on a moral business from an immoral act - it's like building a house on sand, it won't last.

And Kidan, I know I was just pulling your leg... ;)

Eon
 
Ok, Kidan, first off, the article is NOT based on the Hamer study. It merely mentions it. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, although a trend I have noticed is that you frequently manage to somehow misconstrue or twist around what you read. You have done this with my posts and with the article. I think it would be safe to say that this happens at other times, and I would guess that this would interfere with your ability to make sound decisions based on what you read.


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And of course all those other brilliant physicists, astronomers and geologists that encourage a young earth?  Are they idiots as well?  I think back to Galileo, how was ridiculed for his crazy, unpopular, and it was cliamed unscientific belief in a solar centric orginazation of the solar system.
Click to expand...

Could you please refer me to some literature (research papers or articles) written by a reputable scientist (PhD) in one of these fields? I would be interested in reading what they have to say. I would say odds are against you being right on this one, considering that there are very few who subscribe to this belief (for good reason, I would say).

And actually, I would say that you are more like the Church that shunned Galileo than Galileo himself. You are the one who feels threatened and is hanging on to old beliefs even though we have newer knowledge that suggests a different story.


Lastly, I just wanted to talk about your unwaivering belief in the absolute truth and accuracy of the Bible in every respect. You choose to believe that God authored the Bible and that it comes from God. But you have no real confirmation that this is true. What is to stop some lunatic from saying "I was instructed and guided by God to write these words," or to write something purporting to be actually written by God Himself. In my belief, that is what has happened in many instances. God isn't going to strike someone down for saying or writing something just because He doesn't like it.
 
Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
Coe, R.S., Prévot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
ibid, pp. 11-12.
Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.


While not an exhaustive list it is a nice list of those who have published in the past 30 years on the subject, and give scientific evidence for a young earth.  Also I am unsure as to the owning of PHd's by these authors, as holding a PHd is not necessary to be a 'reputable' scientist, it's necessary to teach at a university.

and here are two sites from NON-CHRISTIAN creationists
http://www.mcremo.com/
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/deloria/


As for the site.  They quote Hamer's study.  They describe it in detail.  They say the exact same thing as Hamer's study.  They then go on to say that the results really couldn't be repeated but that doesn't matter.

If I write an article that quotes the Bible, describes Biblical precepts, and says what they Bible says, then say 'well you know some people consider this relative, but they're wrong.'  am I basing my article on the Bible?

What I have done with your posts is point out incongruities with what you are saying.  This is not twisting around.  an example:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I can say I don't condone homosexual behaviour is because homosexual acts are not the same thing as being homosexual. They can't control their feelings and some of their thoughts, but they can control what they do.
Click to expand...
This is a post of contradictions.  Homosexuality is the ACTIONS performed.  The 'gay gene' is saying that their actions are what is controled by this gene, and that they cannot control it.  Feelings/thoughts who is to say you do not have control over them? In fact a good portion of Hinduism and Budhism is based upon the propsect that you can control your thoughts and feelings.  A story: Up until I was nine I loved ice cream. Ate it every chance I got.  Then someone told me it was made of seaweed,  I have ate it only a handful of times since (and yes i do know now that it is not made of seaweed).  I don't even feel the desire to eat ice cream.  The point is, that I changed my thoughts and feelings concerning ice cream until it holds no desire for me.
This is yet another attack  of my character and intellect by saying that I'm an uneducated oaf, who believes anything someone sticks in front of me.

Who is to say I have never questioned the Bible?  who is to say that I have never strayed from Christianity?  Who is to say that I was even a Christian until this year?  Do you know?  You do not.  I would appreciate it if you not make any more arguements against me personally.  We can discuss the veracity of my beliefs.  We can discuss the proof behind my beliefs.  but do not assume that I hold my beliefs blindly.  Do not assume that I have claimed an unwavering belief in the Bible due to ignorance of other possibilities.


oh yeah,  a solar centric earth was an old idea, dismissed by the Catholic Church, who taught a earth-centric solar system, that then punished Galileo for having the gall to teach something other than the new theory.  yet that was not the only thing he was punished for.
 
Then is being a serial killer genetic too? Could i be born to slaughter dozens of innocent ppl?

Oh, and could I see these studies? Do you have links?

Sorry, but when you say that a person is 'born gay', you're saying that a person's actions are determined by his enviroment, that people HAVE NO FREE WILL. You're saying that we are nothing more than mindless robots.

Last time i checked, i have to DECIDE to have sex with someone, i have to DECIDE to kill someone. I am NOT forced against my will to do these things.
 
Touché, Eon, hehehe, but here we hit the crossroads of every moral dicussion between Christians and non-Christians. As a Christian, *basically* all of my moral standards and viewpoints come from whom I, as a Christian, view as THE final authority and THE final word on what is right and wrong. God. This is not a house built on sand, but on a rock. Rather, relativism is built on sand (though I do not believe that you are a relativist - you have previously said that you do beleive there are moral absolutes, am I correct? And if so, I'd be interested in hearing your views on such matters and from where you have built these views. Thanks!)

Grandmaster: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html

Go to town, buddy. Have fun.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Lastly, I just wanted to talk about your unwavering belief in the absolute truth and accuracy of the Bible in every respect. You choose to believe that God authored the Bible and that it comes from God. But you have no real confirmation that this is true. What is to stop some lunatic from saying "I was instructed and guided by God to write these words," or to write something purporting to be actually written by God Himself. In my belief, that is what has happened in many instances. God isn't going to strike someone down for saying or writing something just because He doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is that it takes faith to believe in anything... Bible or any other belief for that matter. I believe in God and His Son because I have a relationship with them and I experience him in my life daily. He has entered my life in a real and tangible way. I feel convicted when I am doing things that I should not be doing and repent (ask forgiveness and stop doing what has been revealed as sinful) etc...

In regards to the lunatic comment you are quite correct in your statement... it has happen in many instances!
However, I see a consistency for most (all that I have looked at, but there are many of them!) of them as they point to man in regards to salvation, that is they talk about what men must do to attain enlightenment or salvation etc...) Men saving themselves vs. Christianity where God saves men... where men cannot save themselves out of their goodness or works but rather God saves us out of his goodness.

However, even in Christianity people leave Christ, you see off shoots, people who have new revelation that contradicts the Gospel that they received (Jehovah's Witnesses for example) who take the God saving us and try to make it men saving ourselves by our works. They even re-wrote their own Bible to suite their belief. A man made religion (not of God) will serve the men that created it and their desires to do what they want or how they can attain justification via their works. Let me tell you this, Christianity does not serve what men desire to do... serve others, forgive those who sin against you, love your enemies and pray for them... these are not natural (not in me anyhow). They go against what humans are... we are self seeking, greedy, selfish, we do what our heart desires, we want to be comfortable in our daily lives etc... (I must note that just because a couple of the sins don't apply to you does not invalidate what humans are... we have a sinful nature as no one out there can say they have never lied or disobeyed their parents or the authorities in their lives)

So does Christianity glorify men or God? (If they are not glorifying God then are they Christians? or are they struggling with something in their lives?)  I would say that without a doubt true Christianity glorifies God as we are sinners and cannot do those things without him, but through Christ we can. Also when I confess my sins to my Christian brothers am I glorifying myself? NOT! I am glorifying God and he is faithful and just to forgive me of them.

So why do Christians fall away from their faith? I would say it is because they are not yet mature in their relationship with Christ and they are not grounded in the Word of God. They don't know his Word so if something comes along that makes logical sense and it does not appear to conflict with the Word of God (which they don't know) they accept it instead of testing it via prayer and comparing it to God's word. Then after a while this idea becomes truth to the person and when the Word of God does not line up with this truth then the Bible must be wrong. Wait a minute, did we not experience Christ and because of that we started to read the Bible... where did we go wrong? Did we go wrong by hearing a new idea... no, we went wrong by not testing the idea and comparing it to what we know and accepted it as truth. This would be blind faith in my opinion! Accepting something as truth (from a personal perspective) without first verifying its validness (testing it). We also may have gone wrong if we neglected the relationship that we had with Christ. How many married people out there will have strong marriages if they never work on their relationship with their spouse? I talk to hear once a year... I see her once in a while...
smile.gif


Relationship (Why I know he lives.)
Now if someone comes to me and says that God and His Son are not real... I ask myself how that can be true he lives within me. He walks and talks with me, he continues to reveal more of himself to me, I have a relationship with him. Could I convince you your parents/friends don't exist because of ..... ? (Which of course is very sound reasoning to the person trying to convince you, except they don’t know your parents and friends)

I don't think so, you have a relationship with those people... it would be foolish of you to accept any information that would contradict the truth you have experienced (being your parents and friends) and you are the evidence of your parents existence.

What Christ has done and is doing in me (and others) is the evidence that my heavenly Father exists.
 
Uh, well, this site might be... perhaps.. of interest? I don't think it is 100 % PERFECT (<-- DISCLAIMER) in itself, but some of the concepts are - (reusage of word for lack of vocabulary/thesaurus skills) quite interesting.
Some reasons to believe that The Bible is true!
I do not believe that this is not the omniscient, end all discussion, totally accurate resource of all knowledge, but it's just a thought. I didn't write this, and I'm not well, very knowledgeable about much, if anything so please don't blast me for the link. It's just something to ponder...

ah also: I concur with Gris about how Christ has works in people's lives. God's still working on me, 24/7. I believe that Christ is with me everywhere, and takes care of me, though sometimes ... well, circumstance isn't all great, and at times it is hard to believe that God loves me. But... BUT.. I can still say with confidence that Christ loves me, and died for my sin.
 
Yyyyyyyyawn. Hey guysh.
Mm? What's this? Sniff, sniff. A...debate?! ON THIS BOARD?!
Ultima Avatar is back.

I'll start with the top one and eventually work my way dowwwwwn. FIVE FREAKING PAGES?! Whoa. Maybe I won't. Or maybe this will be one loooooong post.

Hey dude. Xantimus. Ominous. Xominous. Welcome. It looks as if you fairly well understand rabbinic mythos. That's what the story of Lilith is. The Jews had fables back in the day as well. Ever read Bel and the Dragon? It's in the Apocrypha. A fable. But it says it was extracted from the end of the book of Daniel. Well, uh, for one, it's written in a style not Daniel's, Daniel talks in it as he's never done before, and he acts deceptively and haughtily, something he didn't do in his book. Also it's dated to way after Daniel came about.
SO. Fables, myths, legends, DO exist in the Jewish culture.
Now let us begin.

1. So. You think because Satan asked God to tempt Job, he was his servant? Can I ask why a servant to the Most High God, you know, Great Ball of Light That Emanates Over the Universe, (actually he's just God) would desire the downfall of his God's servant? That's not testing there dude: that's temptation, and temptation is not of God, as you can read in one of the Letters. And actually, I've seen another definition of Satan to translate to "Accuser." I've also seen Satan "originally" depicted as a red man with a farmer's hayfork. Originality? Hmm.
Nextly. Lilith. Come on. You honestly think GOD would BEG a WOMAN to return to her husband, almost pleading? That's totally un-God-like. Oh, and by the way, screw God (from Lilith's point of view). I don't need a man to have kids...hey demons! Let's get it on! Then God kills a thousand of her demonspawn a day as punishment? Boy...that...uh...that sounds really, really, umm, unbiblical.
Nextly. How can you just jump from a period about four thousand years ago (with Job) to about 1800 years ago (with Augustine)? There's a lot of stuff that happened during that middle period...
But onwards and forwards!
2.
Oops. I'll finish this gargantuan behemoth soon. WOrk calls.
 
A'ight. Back. Point 2 to Xominous:
2. Before I go on to say, "Hell, my, friend is very real. Insubstantial at this point, but very real. You can get a taste of it by being in isolation from all external stimuli. All alone...imagine that for two days. Three. Four. A week. A month. An indefinite period of time where you don't age and all you do is feel utter separation. The only difference is that there IS a stimulation: unimaginable pain." I'll have to say this first: how do YOU, a mere man, tell ME what is right or wrong? How do you measure the degree of goodness or evil? Is any man capable of such? How do we know? Where do we get the basis to call people bad or good? How DARE you judge my actions as evil? I STRONGLY believe that every one of my movements is performed with the utmost righteousness and get the results I desire, and if you don't call me bad, well, sucks to you, your auntie, and your asthma.
Following my questions I got sarcastic. But you erred in saying the Bible is a storybook from the third century used to scare children into going to sleep, and then asying that you believe those that murder and are "general" in their evilness should be punished. You cannot judge that unless you have a standard to go back. Are you saying we should be scared by a supposedly loving, caring, big brother government into telling us that if we step on one of their toes by doing a "minor offense" (i.e. murder) into being good lest we be tossed into the bowels of a metal prison?
Why should I? Who are they to tell me that what I do is wrong? They're no different from Augustine my friend, if that's what you believe, and if that be the case, we should flick them, their laws, and morality off and do what we want.
So go on. DO IT...you're hesitant? Why? You shouldn't care about repercussions if you believe that a book, that, if nothing else, contains a decent guide on "living a 'good' life."
I've "been going to church" since I was five as well. And look how different we are. I very much believe that hell is real, and as for tactic, I know not as to why it would be used. If the Catholic Church had invented hell, then I would doubt its existence very much, but, as it stands, Hell has been written on and discussed about long before the Catholic Church shoved its papal nose into the world's bidness.
And, actually, our free will has nothing to do with our pre-damnation. Through sin we entered the world. We are born into sin. And since God and sin cannot coexist together, EVERY stinking hooman bean is damned to hell from the start. There is no escape. The only one that DID separate himself from that fate was Jesus of Joseph and Mary, as Joseph had nothing to do with his conception. It is written in the Bible that sin is passed on through man (basically, your dad's part in making you pop into existence). Joseph never touched Mary until AFTER Christ's birth (as you read at the end of Matthew 1), so she didn't stick around as a virgin very long. The other brothers and probable sisters Christ had were born into sin, as Joseph had part in their conception. Christ was born of God's Holy Spirit's touch on Mary and Mary herself.

Uhh...what was I talking about? Oh yeah, free will and hell. Okay. We don't choose to go to hell. It's the platter handed to us upon reaching the "age of accountability", the time where we can discern between right and wrong, good and evil, and undoubtedly heard of what Christ did for us and have the opportunity to do something about it. Now that's something I personally believe, not necessarily Biblical. If you want a second opinion get it from someone else.

So anyways. Here we are, presented with the story of this dude who did nothing wrong to upset people except basically tell them that everything they've been applying into their lives for the past six hundred years (and prior Babylonian captivity, several more centuries) is bogus in their manner, and that the God they say to have been worshipping is being worshipped WRONG, and then enlightens on obscure references in the SCriptures, as well as confound minds with his riddle words. Those that wanted to understand him followed him, and those that did wrote of what they learned and spread what they learned. And that is what we call the Gospels, and the Twelve Disciples' missions and outcomes (basically, the New Testament).
So. You believe that the Church has a worldwide conspiracy to rule us all with an iron fist, using the largely now-unimaginative word "hell", commonly referenced in verbal swearing chains, like, "(Noun, Verb) (article) hell?!" (What the hell, who the hell, when the hell, et cetera.) The impact of the word "hell" is lost on this world. It is empty. "Hell" is something they hear used profanely now. Hell is not a place, nor is it reality. It is literature. It is everyday speech.

So surprise! surprise! that a lot of people could care less about that place called hell, probably invented by some old guy a few years ago. A Biblethumper, most likely. Grrrr. Dern Christians think they can scare anyone into paying them pastors mo' money. Grrrr.

But you know dude, you are dead right: a LOT of "pastors" and "ministers" use hell as something to control people as puppets.
But they should not. They're only walking themselves down that road with many others, they're not telling others what it really means to be a Christian, as their audience is probably one frightened into believing in the "Jesus dude" and His sacrifice, love and power holds nothing for them. It is a pointless gift.
And onto my final point on number 2: that's what Christ's death and resurrection is: a gift. He has presented you with a gift. What is it? What's in that box he's offering you? Well, why don't you accept him for who he is: a person who says he loves you dearly, that he is with you, not dead, very much alive, and will return one day, when you are alive or when you are not: it doesn't matter as all will enter Heaven when he has returned. This guy has a gift to offer you: he says to you, "Xominous, trust me. Just trust me. Put your faith in me." By the way, this Jesus dude is also standing over a chasm that is black in all directions, so large is it. And he's extending his arm to you: take it. Take it. What's in his arms? A giftbox. But WHAT gift? Should I trust him?
Looking around you see your friends aimlessly wandering and fall into that pit. What's down there? Hell?Xominous, you don't believe in it. So what happens to your friends when they die? They go to heaven? They just die? Or is there really a hell?
And still, that dude Jesus stands there, just looking at you, telling you to trust him. Ever so slowly, you're being pushed by some invisible force to the edge of the pit. Pretty soon you'll fall in it. But this guy's just standing there. Trust him and see what's in that box and reach for him, or fall into that pit that is Death?
What's in that box, Xominous? Do you know what gift Jesus Christ has for you?
Point 2 whomped.
 
Interesting. It IS most definitely true what Ecclesiastes 1:9 says (that's a Bible book, in case you didn't know, and one of the more somber, morose "Where is God?" "Life is pointless" books of the Bible): "Whatever has been will be again, that which has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." Basically, all the ideas people come up with these days that say: "DUDE! New religion! Key in to karma! Reincarnate with me to a better spiritual planar sphere!" are NOT anything new.
What you just said is deist, what Thomas Jefferson believed: "God made us, then stepped back and left us to work." A guy who wrote an article on New Years Day, 1900 for the New York World believed much the same. Basically, during the 20th century, man would excel to the best he had ever been: all war would be put away, good things would flow, et cetera et cetera, God would look down on us, smile at our perfection, and move on, content in our self-perfection.
BUUUUUUUUUT, we have not one, but TWO World Wars, the first being the War to End All Wars, and other both major and minor skirmishes and conflicts throughout the entire century, and now, look, the 21st Century we have two buildings ripped to the ground, and an ensuing war with the Middle Eastern area.
Kudos to the self-perfection of mankind. I give props to whoever advocates THAT possibility for this century and the 22nd, as well.

So...God is said to be almighty, almighty enough, that is, to have created a universe, that, by all odds, should not be, at least, according to evolutionist standpoints of random universal elastic collapsion into what we exist in now (odds of the formation of stars? 1 followed by minimally a thousand billion billion zeroes. That's, a lot of zeroes to count out in the sand. Get started. That's for STARS. You can tip your hats to Mr. Davies for that interesting stat); this same God, however, can't stop a petty fight among his "frickin idiots"? Inconceivable! If you believe God made us, then, do you believe that he basically smote the people of Babel with a smattering of different tongues so that their assault on claiming that they are one with God in heaven could not be? Do you also believe that this same God drowned an entire globe in water? But he couldn't stop fighting among his people? And then where would you get the idea of who God is, and what he did, if the truth of who REALLY follows God is in question? If it really is NOT the Judaic-Christianity sect then we're screwed, because we go by the Bible's accounts that God is most definitely real. But if WE'RE wrong and the Egyptian Sun God is the REAL God then I guess we can all embrace hell, right? Or what kind of loving God would do that? But Ra never claims to be a loving, merciful God. So now what? Is it feasible that Ra would make hell? Yeah. Since he didn't write the Bible. And then how about Odin? What if it's our Norse overfather? Who's dead, by the way. Great almightiness there God! Couldn't even stop a fight in your own heavens. In fact, your own SON had to be killed by a fellow godling, who would do nothing other than bring about the end of the world with the Ragnarok. Good going, Odin.
And Zeus? Ohmygoodness! Perhaps the most immoral, adulterating god I've ever read on. Next to the other Greek gods and goddesses, that is. I really wanna follow a guy who'd strike me dead for sleeping with a girl he loves, but I can't touch if he takes my woman for his own pleasurable godly ways in bed.
Is that cool? Nah. Screw Zeus.
Christians, responsible for the most death? Were we responsible for Europe's death of 20 million when the Black Plague came along? Probably so. When in doubt, blame Christians. Were we responsible for the Boxer Rebellion? Nope. But we were there. How about the slaughter of Christians throughout the early start of Christianity? Virgil himself, famous last words, and biggest atheist in the world, said that with his own thumb and pen and paper he would crush the last resistance of Christianity. Good going there Virgil. And now you're dead and have not dented us. Was it Christians' fault to be murdered by the Chinese for believing in God? Well, aside from our beliefs, nope. And then we'd better attack the Muslims now, because they've killed so many in the name of God. Christians don't go up in arms when a Muslim shoots us down overhead. THEY do. Christians and Jews get along fairly well...until it comes to the whole "Jesus-is-God" thing.
As for the Crusades and the "witch-burnings", those are probably our noted features in our "slaughters on the world." Of course they were terrible and wrong, but those that did it DID not do it for God, despite what they think and say. Do you honestly believe, Xominous, that Muslims will enter their heavenly arenas for dying in the name of Allah, even if that means a self-sacrifice that kills a few thousand others? For the expense of thousands, Muslim Bob gets heaven? How cool is that? Let's all go on mass murder sprees (but let's call those murders"Jihad" {"Didn't iron my clothes for work, wife?! JIHAD ON YOU!"}) and then get shot in the process so we can get to heaven. Schweet diggity dawg! How about it CGA? You up for jihad?! Strap on the Kevlar, boys! It's time to die for Allah!
Nope dude. I'm sorry but you are dead wrong: God is not hidden behind these masks, and he is not a nameless God, either. The name is Immanuel. The name is the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, the Holy Name of G-d (Jews can't write G-d, because they revere him too highly).
Really dude, your numbers are pretty vague.
 
Why? " 'Cause I'm TNT! I'm dynamite!" "She gave me the queen. She gave me the king. She was wheeling and dealing, just doing her thing." "She's got the jack, she's got the jack, she's got the jack!" "And if I'd known what she'd been dealing out I'd have dealt a jack!"
Whooooooo. Back for more.

Point 4? Umm...well, I would post about it but it doesn't exist.
Point 5: Welll......you had a pretty decent argument straight till the end where you skewed your words badly. God DOES know you're going to hell from the moment you're born. You ARE going to hell from the moment you're born unless you take that gift from the God named Christ standing over that pit that is Death. Does knowledge make you a sick person? God knows you're going to hell. Does that make him bad? I know that there is a man-eating bear out in the woods. Bob doesn't. If I don't tell Bob there's a bear out there and he gets mauled to death, THAT makes me evil. Knowing of something's existence doesn't make me evil. If Bob hadn't come by I wouldn't have had to worry of his blood being on my hands if I didn't tell him. But Bob DID come by and I neglected to mention the bear. Knowledge doesn't corrupt: you corrupt.
So. You're going to die. Everyone does. Now what? Prevent it, ye fiend! Why not Xominous? What's up? Why won't you stop your friend's death? Why couldn't you prevent your great-grandmother's? Or your auntie's? You're sick, a sick and depraved young man if you KNEW she would die and you DIDN'T do a single freaking thing about it! You monster! How can you live with yourself? AND LOOK!! The guy down the street died from a heart attack! Why didn't you stop it? You knew of his heart condition! Why didn't you hurry up and make a medicine to prevent his death? AND LO! Prince Bill just fell over dead with a poisoned dagger in his breast! Why didn't you stop it?! That was royalty! Left and right, right and left, front and backwards people are being slain by some unseen monster that is Death. They are walking into that pit, ignoring that Christ figure, and you just stand by and watch them. You're a monster, you know that? To let people pass up a chance on eternal life for themselves and hoarding to yourself the information that you don't believe in. Believe in it or not! Don't let others die for your lack of sharing. I could care less if the bear existed in the woods or not so long as I know he's real. What he does is of no matter to me. But Bob had business in the woods and it would have done him good had I but told him of the bear! YOU do not believe in Christ. Your best friend doesn't, but YOU never told him of it. WHY? You don't have to accept the information you have, but you can give it to another, willingly, for who knows what road he will take in his future?
You are the monster of monsters Xominous. To stand by and not stop others from walking to their death, to stand by and watch your family and friends and total strangers drop off into death, and you KNOW death exists, but why not stop it? WHY?!

As for sexual preference, I enjoy warthogs'...nocturnal company. Beastiality, I hear, is illegal. Beastiality, I also hear, is immoral and sinful. But I dig the backsides of them piggies. I like to hear em squeal.
Oh...uh...I didn't write that.
Did I choose to like animals? You bet. Was it genetic? Hardly. It doesn't stand by with modern evolutionary standards, or else, by now, it would be nonexistent, as supposedly as years go by our flaws disappear one by one. Would God, who absolutely HATES homosexuality (made laws against it with Moses and wiped out two cities and their neighbors because of it) and anything that strays from heterosexuality (i.e. homosexuality, beastiality), allow his people to be born gay? HARDLY. So we have both creationist/evolutionist standards against homosexuality. And I'm sure there is a brain difference between you and me Xominous, needless to say a difference between me and a gay. And you can't KNOW someone's gay unless they finally realize it: Ashley: "I reeeeeeally like Katie more than Charles." Charles: "I reeeeeeally like Richard more than Ashley." Richard: "I like Katie." Katie: "I reeeeeeeally like myself." Lesbian, homosexual male, heterosexual male, and narcissist. Interesting. But hardly ordinary in this day and age to see in any public area.
The reason I love girls is because that's how I was MADE: to be with women. The reason the homosexual next to me (not literally) likes guys is because he WANTS to.
So. #### me for being straight? Yep. I'm damned for being alive, I'm born into sin! #### me for being gay? Yep. #### me twice, for being born into sin and for erring away from how God desires us to be. He won't force me to be straight: I have anywhere from 14-79 years to turn straight, or ignore my sexual desires (which, I believe, comes into play. There is such a thing as self-control and a gay man does not haplessly throw himself into the arms of a gay man. He makes a choice. A straight man does not haplessly throw himself into the arms of a woman: he makes a choice. And as, for, uh, "other" things, the same can be said.
 
After reading point 6 I say this dude: I feel for you and you are in my prayers, as, unless you want to talk on the forums or in the private messages, that is all I can do for you. If I am wrong, you know what? I believe that will add all the more pain into hell: knowing FOREVER that you had the chance to accept and turn away and live with Christ, but you did not.
With that cheery news, with doom to Isengard we go!

Point 6: Umm. Well. Samael and Satan, I hate to tell you this, are not the same. The Angel of Death (Angel of the Lord, arguably) is NOT the Fallen Morning Star. There is a marked difference in action and type.
WHY indeed would God test us, His supposed children and dedicated followers right? Why? What sick purpose would some kind of twisted tyrant have to domineer us and play mental games with us in "testing" us with oftime-pain? Why indeed?
To weed us out. He says as much. In the latter days many will say they believe in God, et cetera. They will say they've done much, but as to their faith in Christ, it is nil. There ARE such things as apostates: those that falla way from the faith. You, my friend, are one of them. In the end, your kind that never returns for redemption shall be paired up accordingly with the demons, and your master, Satan. Together, you, the apostates, the unbelievers (both BC and AD), the demons and the mighty Satan, will be pitched from your holding place "hell" straight into the eternal lake of fire, the "second death" or "final hell." Altogether a happy family.
It's sad. But it's true. You know what will happen, if I, Bible-thumping Ultima Avatar, rejects my faith? WElllll, I'll join hands with your merry ring and be the first to hop into the flames, unwillingly of course, but nonetheless in I go.
Why should you suffer? You sound like a nice fellow. You don't sound like a Ted Bundy, Junior. Matter of fact you sound like a miniature Christ figure. Nahhh. I'm sure God will make room for heaven in you despite that you'll stick out like a sore thumb in that you're not covered in his blood. Well, you and all your friends, as they're all like you. But the bad people can rot in hell.
I want to see God, more than anyone else on this site, and so does everyone else, more than me and more than you. But you want to see him to substantiate him: others may want the same, but I, I want to see him to be with him forever. Not to make sure that God's God, as if he needs a mother to check up on him. You want to see him to give yourself a solid faith: my faith is just as solid right now, only I don't need to see God physically to believe and KNOW he exists.
I must disagree on this: there is one thing you can be 100% right or wrong on: and that's where you stand with God. There is no other percentage: zero or all, my friend. God or Satan, and anyone else BUT God is Satan, ultimately. You cannot be part good and hope to enter heaven. It is impossible. You must be perfect. I am perfect. Why? BEcause I am washed in the cleansing blood of the resurrected God, Jesus Christ. I am made pure in him, and I may enter where God is because of that. Without Christ I am filth. I was filth before Christ. You are filth right now. Pretty picture isn't it? You can become perfect in Christ: you can accept why he died for you, and why he still lives for you. Ask us: what is in that box. Ask God. I'm sure you know right now what is in that box. Take it. ANd believe.
Good night.
 
Ultima, whilst I don't have the time or the inclination to wade through the whole of your rather noisy return to these boards, I did want to specifically rebut your rather cheap dig at the Norse gods.

Firstly - Ragnarok will be a sweeping away of the old to allow the creation of a glorious new. Let's take the cold war as an example - it's over right? Wrong! NATO still exists, and the presence of that huge powerbloc on one side means that the communist and ex-communist countries STILL act in concert to thwart US led initiatives. Until BOTH NATO and the Warsaw Pact have gone, the cold war will never be over.

It's the same with the Twilight of the Gods. If all of the Aesir and Vanir survived, but killed all the giants and monsters, then how could a new order be brought about? It would still be fraught with the politics and dogmas of the old. Odin, in his wisdom, knows that, and he knows that ALL of the old must be swept away in order to gift humanity with the world that they deserve.

And whilst we're on the subject, perhaps you should take a good hard look at Ragnarok and THINK about the true nature of sacrifice. I hear a lot of bleating from Christians who are impressed that "God so loved mankind that he sacrificed his son to save us". Sacrifice? What kind of sacrifice is a little pain and three days in a tomb supposed to be? That's more of a loan than a sacrifice, in my opinion.

Now, how about the Allfather? He has foresight, he knows what is coming, and yet he strives to put all the pieces in place for the final battle ANYWAY. He knows that he will fall, and Thor will fall, and Frey, Sif, Heimdal, Tyr and ALL the Aesir and Vanir will fall. He knows the price is worth paying, so he pays it gladly. He does the right thing BECAUSE it is right, with no thought for the cost - just as he always encouraged us to do. It costs him his throne, his son and his life. Now THAT'S love.

Eon
 
And the Christian God Yahweh didn't know that we will fall, that his Son would fall, that unknown amounts of pain would be placed upon him, and that, in it all HE Himself would have to turn away from the Son at the time of his death?
This same God, knowing that man could care less about His Son would be so inclined as to even give us the slightest hint of a warning through the revelation of one of his followers? Why? What have we done to deserve such love?
The gods you follow is not as different from our God as you'd like to think Eon, but when it is different it is major.
And then to think that it's all gonna be wasted away at the same time: our apocalyptic end will be much the same as the end world war brought about by an evil god: a new world will be its replacement. What kind of deity would end their world without first replacing it beautifully?
It would seem that ours both agree as to that point.
But I am not seeing the relation of a verbal argument and the "end" of the world. Many things are said not to be anymore but still are. The Cold War, itself, is over. The agents of the Cold War, however, are not. That's like saying World War II's not over until Germany, France, Italy, America, Japan and other minor countries and organizations are wiped off the face of the earth.
But who's to deny World War II is over? It IS, despite that the agents of the War still remain.
So it is with the Ragnarok. The agents may still remain after it's all over, but that doesn't negate that the Ragnarok still must occur again and again until the agents are destroyed completely.
However, evil must not be for a new world to start anew. The same it is with the new heaven and earth. All sin and their followers will be cast into a flaming pit for eternity whilst the others, who followed God, get to enjoy an eternal merriment and paradise and joy.
Again, much similarity.
And as for your war movements for the end: is it foolishness or is it sacrifice? What's the difference in this case? He KNOWS he's gonna lose, so why even bother? What? For the hope of a new paradise? Hmm. What? Yahweh KNEW his son would be stuck on a cross by the people he sent his son to preach to and love? And he STILL went through with it? But lo! he knew that the end result would be great: His son returns! Alive!
Now we could justify any action made by our deities as just and true and noble, even if it may be despicable in our eyes, and possible in the eyes of the gods themselves, in the name of a new world and the knowledge of a caring overseer.
But do we? Nope. We attribute bad things to ourselves, or, if you're ignorant, to a tyrannical deity. Why not attribute terrible pains and destruction to the gods, as it is, they know better, and they know that the pain will equal a new paradise world at the end?
So. Now what? Would the gods stoop so low as to smite your child in the hopes of entering a new world, safe to say that your kid won't join with you in your halls?
I doubt it. But still, your justification of sacrifice for the better good opens up all avenues of potential problems. And the same for Yahweh: if God knows better, and I don't, then when I am smote by unspeakable torment, in the hopes for a better life in the future, then it's okay for God to do that, because he knows better.
 
Nope, you're missing the point. World War II is over because one side (the Axis) was destroyed utterly - literally, the individual nations had their faces pressed into the dust for fifty years. At the same time the Allied Powers split their alliance along new lines. There were two sides to World War II - now those two sides are gone. If the Soviet Union, China, Great Britain (and commonwealth) and the United States had remained Allied then that would have been a different story.

Once Russia and Japan and Italy had managed to claw their way out of obscurity, they would have had no choice but to reform their old alliance - because the very existence of the Allied Powers in THEIR old Alliance is clearly intended to divide the world into three thirds. The old neutral powers would, most likely, remain neutral - even as they did in World War II - because with the same nations fighting over the same issues, what would have changed to pull them in off the fence?

Once the Warsaw Pact and NATO squared off - of course, the war was over DIFFERENT issues. World War II could never happen again - and a war over the resurgence of the German nation becomes less and less likely as time progresses.

Nietschze had a saying - "And when you look long into an abyss the abyss also looks into you". In fighting something we often take on many of its characteristics. A great example is the Vietnam war - a lot of the soldiers entering the war were so brutalised by the conditions and by the savagery of their Vietnamese enemies that they themselves comitted atrocities in return. They became brutal in order to fight a brutal enemy. In order to fight an enemy innured to hardship, torture and death, they too became innured to hardship, torture and death.

So it is with fighting evil - fight evil for too long, and you often take on many of its characteristics, regardless of your initial intentions. I believe that this is what Ragnarok is about - in order to cleanse creation of the darkness it is necessary for the Gods to let go of the darkness within themselves. The method is a brutal fight against incredible odds, with no hope of any reward for themselves and at the cost of their lives.

Why, you asked, is this any different from Armageddon? Well - the major way it's different is in the motivation of the Gods. They are not trimming away the chaff in order to create a private reservation for themselves - they are fighting to defeat evil itself, in order to gift the coming race with a world totally free from it. The biggest difference is sacrifice - the Aesir and Vanir are willing to sacrifice virtually all that they have and are in order to do this thing - they will not be overseers in this glorious new world. They may not even be remembered in it. But they do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do and because nobody else can.


Eon
 
Yours is a beautiful kind Eon. The way you support your faith almost makes me want to actually become involved with it...almost. Just like I'm sure we've done to you sometimes. Almost. Not quite.
But our Armageddon is not for a few select gods...it's for God and us, free from evil, and I am sure that in the coming new earth that he promises we shall be able to live, have more kids, and once again populate the world, a new world, a perfect world, purely Eden, cleansed from sin and darkness, just like yours.
They're parallels.
And I see your example now. I believe I can write that phrase from memory: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster; when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
A marvelous quote, and I enjoy repeating it and thinking on its truth.
Your example was good, except I must say: where is the Cold War? The groups are still alive, true enough, but the fight is dead. There is no more war, just like World War II is dead, and all that could happen is a third World War. I have seen nothing nor heard anything of a resurgence of debates in the Eurasian continent with any ties to the old days of the Cold War.
 
Kidan, I will take a look at some of those papers you listed when I get the chance. However, I will only be considering the ones written in publications I know where I can be sure the paper has been peer reviewed and is based on sound scientific protocols. I am not going to read papers that are part of some Creationist publication that is bent on furthering their own cause. As for Michael Cremo, I have no idea why you would even post the link to his website when his views clearly do not coincide with yours nor mine. This guy believes humans have existed for hundreds of millions of years and also that he has lived previous lives. I am not exactly going to take him seriously.

As for you definition of homosexuality: if you believe that homosexuality is the actions performed, then what do you call a person who has exclusively homosexual fantasies but does not or has not yet engaged in any homosexual acts?

Also, Kidan, since you did bring it up, if you have not been a Christian all your life, at what age did you become one?

Larryboy:
I am not saying that a homosexual has no free will. But I AM saying that they do not choose to have a homosexual orientation. If you want to read about some of the evidence that shows people are born gay, take a look on page 3 of this discussion. I posted a link there that talks about some of the research.
 
You think the Cold War is over? Watch what happens the VERY next time the US declares some international initiative - the Russians and Chinese will protest out of sheer force of habit.

Hell, in Kosovo there was very nearly a fight when Soviet forces seized an airport in the British sector and then dug in to defend it - our troops were already on the way, and our lads were itching to kick 'em back out to their sector again. Cooler and wiser heads prevailed luckily.

There is very much still an East / West divide in Europe -France, for example, threatened the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lituania and Estonia when those countries supported the US in their recent invasion of Iraq. France suggested that those countries would keep their mouths shut, if they knew what was good for them when it came to getting into the EEC.


Eon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top