Beast Prophets

[headscratcher4]

http://www.beastprophets.com/

Ok..too, too strange.

[grayman]

Benny Hinn backward talking?
"see the owl signal"
"there's loosh there's hammond on the end of it"
????????

Someone has WAY too much time on their hands. Then again, I've heard it said the Devil finds work for idle hands. :dewink:

[Canadian Malcontent]

the beast is an integral part of our future history, because the Bibles true or because its influential( it doesnt matter why).
Mankind is destined for another attempt at world domination, its our nature, the next one will likely be a full blown assault on your day to day life rather than a point a gun at you thing.
What you need tro know is that when Christ returns He comes in WAR not Peace like last time. When Christ comes again He is the Reaper, He has come to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Be wheat.
He cannot be stopped ( Armageddon).
For the false prophet and the beast to play their full role they must defeat a Christlike figure ( they are copying Christ). Its a doubleplay.
By the way the false prophet is television and the beast is the internet.

[grayman]

By the way the false prophet is television and the beast is the internet.

And how did you post this? Are you utilizing the Beast?

[Cello Man]

Canadian Malcontent, put down your copy of Left Behind. Go outside and get some fresh air, because something really weird is going straight to your head.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Yes I am utilizing the beast as are you grayman.
Cello Man, its not weird at all every well read person knows this stuff.

Whats 'Left Behind', some kinda rapture-based religious self-help book?

[kmortis]

Declares he's God. Also admits to being a tall grey alien. Refers to himself with several names such Christ Michael, Michael the Archangel, and Hatonn.

um...er...ah...just, um, what? WTF are these people?

And is it just me or does the pic of Copeland make him look like a vampire? I mean, from a certain symbolic standpoint, he is, but....

[TheAntiLuddite]

the lagniappe is an integral part of our future history, because the Holy DVD is true or because its influential( it doesnt matter why).
Mankind is destined for another attempt at world domination, its our nature, the next one will likely be a full blown assault on your day to day life rather than a point a gun at you thing.
What you need tro know is that when Booblebeck the Gozerite returns He comes in WAR not Peace like last time. When Booblebeck the Gozerite comes again He is the Star Launderer, He has come to seperate the wash-n-wear from the delicates. Be wash-n-wear.
He cannot be stopped ( Day of the Sad Party).
For the Mealy Apple and the lagniappe to play their full role they must defeat a Booblebeck the Gozerite-like figure ( they are copying Booblebeck the Gozerite). Its a doubleplay.
By the way the Mealy Apple is television and the lagniappe is the internet.

I've replaced the Christian mythological language and common Biblical metaphors with some of my own creation. Once stripped of its religious (i.e. inviolable) terms, this dogmatic regurgitation begins to sound even more like a bad science fiction novel. Can anyone say L. Ron Hubbard?

[Canadian Malcontent]

Anti, surely a creative mind like yours is able to distinguish the differences between dianetics and The Holy Bible?
Would the AntiLuddite have us censor our oldest and most important and bestselling book out of existence? Would you have us categorically reject our cultural cornerstone because it offends your individual sensibilities?
Maybe a bit of 'liberal arts' education enable you to develope the perspective you need to appreciate the expression, artistic and cultural as well as technical, of the broader society around you.

[Canadian Malcontent]

http://www.beastprophets.com/

Ok..too, too strange.

I looked it over again and something comes to mind.

" The beast shall be given power to decieve the world that if it were possible even the very elect should be decieved."

The elect are , to my recollection, 144,000 who are guided in all things by the Spirit. (among other things)

Remember its a doubleplay.

[TheAntiLuddite]

Anti, surely a creative mind like yours is able to distinguish the differences between dianetics and The Holy Bible?


While I risk sounding overly-flippant...yes, about two-thousand years.


Would the AntiLuddite have us censor our oldest and most important and bestselling book out of existence? Would you have us categorically reject our cultural cornerstone because it offends your individual sensibilities?


I'm not a fan of censorship and I'm not suggesting we censor anything. My point is that the reason religion doesn't sound more crackpot than it does (to some) is because most people have been immersed in its language since they were infants. This is also the reason why a Christian can point to a Scientologist and laugh at all the spaceships, atom bombs and alien ghosts while totally ignoring their own theology which consists of a divine impregnation and virgin birth, talking donkeys and humans rising from the grave.


Maybe a bit of 'liberal arts' education enable you to develope the perspective you need to appreciate the expression, artistic and cultural as well as technical, of the broader society around you.


I've attended both religious and secular schools and I can assure you that the majority of fundamentalists of any stripe want far more than simple "artistic" expression of their religious traditions.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Anti I think there is more difference between lron and the Lord than you are recognizing in your post.
Are you 'cherrypicking'?

[slingblade]

That's not cherrypicking. You asked if his mind were able to distinguish the differences between the bible and dianetics. He named one difference, and it may very well be the only difference he perceives.

It's about the only difference I perceive, as well, in two works of fiction.

[TheAntiLuddite]

Anti I think there is more difference between lron and the Lord than you are recognizing in your post.
Are you 'cherrypicking'?

A clarification: both Scientology and Christianity are religions and both are full of nonsensical and unprovable events; however, Christianity has been kicked around much longer than Scientology and therefore has the advantage of roughly two-thousand years worth of apologetic thought and writing under its belt to bolster its image. As one of my personal heroes would say: let me elaborate (using a common Biblical metaphor).

A lump of clay (Christianity) is thrown onto a potter's wheel. The wheel goes round and round for two-thousand years. All the while the clay is being formed and shaped into a useful vessel. The wheel stops. Glazes are applied. The clay (now a bowl) is carefully moved from the wheel to the kiln. While its being fired, another lump of clay (Scientiology) is thrown onto the wheel.

The potter (humanity) takes a break and views her work. What does she have? She has a wet lump of clay and a polished bowl.

But the bowl is still clay.

Hint: as slingblade mentioned, this isn't cherry-picking.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Ok, a lot of the practices of 'christian' churches historically and present are comparable to what we know of scientology practices. indoctrination control abuse etc.

However, the content of the Bible being equated with the content of dianetics is patently ridiculous and undeserving of response.
If you actually believe that and are not attempting to bait me then you are yet another candidate for remedial English classes.

P.S. The analogy was cute.

[kmortis]

However, the content of the Bible being equated with the content of dianetics is patently ridiculous and undeserving of response.
If you actually believe that and are not attempting to bait me then you are yet another candidate for remedial English classes.


Why? They're both works of fiction trying to be passed off as DYI manuals for life.

[slingblade]

Ok, a lot of the practices of 'christian' churches historically and present are comparable to what we know of scientology practices. indoctrination control abuse etc.

And the fact that people created both from the whole fabric of the imagination, and that both incorporate elements of other mythologies, and that both are just so much tripe being represented as something of substance.

However, the content of the Bible being equated with the content of dianetics is patently ridiculous and undeserving of response.

Why did you post a question to which you would find the answers undeserving of response? Because you expected unanimous agreement? HERE?

If you actually believe that and are not attempting to bait me then you are yet another candidate for remedial English classes.

*slingblade looks at her English degree and laughs heartily at CM*

[Cello Man]

Here's what I don't get, Canadian Malcontent:

You know this site is full of skeptics, who don't believe in the Bible any more than the Koran or Dianetics. So why are you surprised and angered by the fact that we don't take it seriously? Just who are you trying to convince here, us or you?

[Canadian Malcontent]

Here's what I don't get, Canadian Malcontent:

You know this site is full of skeptics, who don't believe in the Bible any more than the Koran or Dianetics. So why are you surprised and angered by the fact that we don't take it seriously? Just who are you trying to convince here, us or you?

Excellent question!!!
My thoughts;
I am here exercising my typing skills , my English language skills, I like to flatter myself that my intellect is being stimulated (ooooooohhh!!). I am sharing my thoughts and feelings with respect to Biblical matters partly to be educated by the knowledgable and partly to see what sort of argument can be mounted by the contentious and with respect to the latter, I am not impressed. No, not at all.

I am not angered so much as surprised at the quality of argument I encounter here. I expected much better.

[Canadian Malcontent]

[quote=slingblade;2140



*slingblade looks at her English degree and laughs heartily at CM*[/quote]

Canadian Malcontent begs for the oppurtunity to query the University faculty responsible for Slingblades being afforded the said 'degree' with respect to comparison of the Bible and dianetics. CM looks tiredly.

[Zygar]

Canadian Malcontent begs for the oppurtunity to query the University faculty responsible for Slingblades being afforded the said 'degree' with respect to comparison of the Bible and dianetics. CM looks tiredly.

I don't get it. What about the bible makes it a great work of literature? Yes, it does have some elements of great literature in a fairly small subset of its books, but nothing in it ever made me think that it was in any way a work of literary genius.

[Canadian Malcontent]

I don't get it. What about the bible makes it a great work of literature? Yes, it does have some elements of great literature in a fairly small subset of its books, but nothing in it ever made me think that it was in any way a work of literary genius.

Like I said lets put the question to the English Dept. of Slingblade's Alma Mater.

Your friend

Canadian Malcontent

P.S. I am not a decorated man of letters, let us get an informed opinion.

[TheAntiLuddite]

However, the content of the Bible being equated with the content of dianetics is patently ridiculous and undeserving of response.

And yet you did indeed respond...and have apparently missed my point again. I'm not making a comparison between the spurious moral content of Scientologist and Christian doctrine; I say they are alike because they have a common foundation of divine, untestable revelation, require magical thinking for sustainment, and are therefore equally worthless when used to define empirical reality.


If you actually believe that and are not attempting to bait me then you are yet another candidate for remedial English classes.

Don't flatter yourself. I'm assuming you mean Literature classes, and you are implying that I lack the aesthetic sense to recognize the Bible for the great literature and cultural treasure that you believe it to be. Literature, like art, is often in the eye of the beholder and it will suffice to say that we have vastly different tastes in literature.

Canadian Malcontent begs for the oppurtunity to query the University faculty responsible for Slingblades being afforded the said 'degree' with respect to comparison of the Bible and dianetics. CM looks tiredly.

You appear to be an adherent of Christianity. Be aware that unwarranted ad hominem attacks like this on slingblade, suggesting her scholastic credentials are inferior, only serves to bolster the perception of most atheists that the moral framework of your religion, rather than being absolute as devotees claim, is wide open to subjective interpretation and applied sporadically. You threw the first stone with your "remedial English" comment.

[ChristineR]

I don't get it. What about the bible makes it a great work of literature? Yes, it does have some elements of great literature in a fairly small subset of its books, but nothing in it ever made me think that it was in any way a work of literary genius.

Well....the Bible is a collection of texts that were most relevant to the society of the persons who compiled it. Some parts are (or were) important but didn't have much literary value.

But most people never even read those parts, so the Bible as a whole can be said to have literary value. An edited version could have just as much literary value I suppose.

[Canadian Malcontent]

And yet you did indeed respond...and have apparently missed my point again. I'm not making a comparison between the spurious moral content of Scientologist and Christian doctrine; I say they are alike because they have a common foundation of divine, untestable revelation, require magical thinking for sustainment, and are therefore equally worthless when used to define empirical reality.



Don't flatter yourself. I'm assuming you mean Literature classes, and you are implying that I lack the aesthetic sense to recognize the Bible for the great literature and cultural treasure that you believe it to be. Literature, like art, is often in the eye of the beholder and it will suffice to say that we have vastly different tastes in literature.



You appear to be an adherent of Christianity. Be aware that unwarranted ad hominem attacks like this on slingblade, suggesting her scholastic credentials are inferior, only serves to bolster the perception of most atheists that the moral framework of your religion, rather than being absolute as devotees claim, is wide open to subjective interpretation and applied sporadically. You threw the first stone with your "remedial English" comment.

You are wrong on all points, if it isnt language skills perhaps its lack of objectivity.

I made no such suggestion ( re slingblades credentials), she mocked me, with reference to her certificate of learning and I requested the chance to obtain the opinion of her teachers. Where's the harm? Besides her mockery I mean.

You pontificate at length as to the status of the Bible, in the language, as a book, with comparison to literary tripe. Yet given the oppurtunity to obtain an informed opinion from one of your own kind you recoil, as if in horror. You dont like informed opinions? Is that the problem? Or, as is far more likely, you recoil at the thought of your clearly stated opinion that the Bible is on par with Dianetics going on record outside this forum.
Well do you have the fortitude to bring your ridiculous statement out into the broad light of day? Can we go to learned men, qualified in the field, for an informed opinion? Or are you just talking through your hat?
Are you willing to attach your name, for posterity, to your stated opinion?

P.S. I meant r-e-m-e-d-i-a-l English.

[ChristineR]

I suppose if Scientology lasts another 4000 years someone might collect all the various things that have been written, including the stuff L. Ron wrote after his death by revelation. I suppose the compilation would then in some sense be better than what L. Ron actually started with as the compilers would naturally pick the best examples (that is, stuff not actually written by L. Ron). But as I said in my last post, important and useful to the compilers does not necessarily mean of literary value.

However, I would like Canadian Malcontent to explain what exactly are these obvious differences between Dianetics and the Bible. I can think of lots of differences, i.e. one is a compilation, one a single source work, one is taken seriously by billions, one is taken seriously by only a few thousand.

[Canadian Malcontent]

I refuse to speak to the matter, it is beneath me.
Let us recieve informed opinion with respect to this point.
It is obvious to me that any response I may make will prompt only more drivel.
Christine in the post above yours I have issued a challenge, it is fitting to hear the answer before carrying the matter further.

Yf
CM

P.S. Christine do you press for my thoughts because you seek to judge my preparedness and ability to respond? And by doing so , judge me?

[Canadian Malcontent]

Oh you would like me to explain would you Christine?
The matter is beneath me.
I have issued a challenge in the post preceding yours and it is only fitting to hear the response before carrying the matter further.
Do you Christine seek to test my ability and preparedness to respond?
Do you you seek to judge me?
Do you wish to see more drivel spew from the slack jaws of the challenged?

[ChristineR]

First of all, we cross posted. There is no reason why you should delay answering. If you don't want to answer, so be it. If you want to answer later on, hopefully I'll be able to see the answer. I wouldn't count on it--I'm going to be in places with limited internet access for much of this month.

Secondly, at no time did I refer to the Bible as literary tripe, so your challenge does not apply to me. Nonetheless, I am certain I could find some English professors who think the Bible is overrated. Of course if we took a vote among English professors as to the relative literary merits of the Bible and of Dianetics the Bible (King James at least) would win by a landslide.

A far more interesting question is the relative virtues of the themes, myths and similar literary elements (as opposed to language elements). But as you refuse to clarify what these obvious virtues are, then we will just have to continue in ignorance.

I don't think anything you post here could be considered a judgment of your preparedness and ability to respond, as the very nature of the message board gives you a chance to do research before you answer.

If you think that whatever you are arguing is so durn obvious that explaining it is beneath you, then there isn't much I can say further.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Thats right Christine.

[slingblade]

Like I said lets put the question to the English Dept. of Slingblade's Alma Mater.

You're very young, aren't you? :p

Your friend

Um, no.


P.S. I am not a decorated man of letters, let us get an informed opinion.

Appeal to authority.

[Canadian Malcontent]

You're very young, aren't you? :p

I am very young. Very.

Um, no.

Why dont you want to be friend? I want to be your friend.:)


Appeal to authority.

Not so much as extricate myself from a two party tail chasing session.

[Gravy]

When Christ comes again He is the Reaper, He has come to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Be wheat.Is it okay if I'm Frosted Mini-Wheatstm? Or what about durum semolina? I do want to please Christ, who you say has turned His back on that whole "love thy neighbor" bit and will be returning in full bellicosity. Does He prefer sweets or pasta?

[slingblade]

Frankly, I think someone needs to separate the nut from the shell.

[TheAntiLuddite]

I assumed earlier in the thread that religious indoctrination has rendered you incapable of understanding anything contrary to your theology, but after reading through more of your pseudo-intellectual ramblings, I realize you're being deliberately obtuse in the service of your own ego. Here...I'll drag you back to my original topic, one last time.


It is obvious to me that any response I may make will prompt only more drivel.


Let me highlight the true drivel that prompted my entry into the thread:


What you need tro know is that when Christ returns He comes in WAR not Peace like last time. When Christ comes again He is the Reaper, He has come to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Be wheat.
He cannot be stopped ( Armageddon).


I made a comparison between this religious myth and Scientology's mythology, to wit, they are both chock-full of untestable claims. You've since tried to imply that I've equated the literary merit of their associated holy books, Dianetics and the Bible. I have not. If Scientology rubs your fur the wrong way, then simply assume I compared the Christian religious myths to Islamic mythology, or Norse mythology, or Egyptian mythology, or Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or the X-Men: the point is identical. Take your pick.

So there are no further attempts at thread-derailment, CM, listen closely: I do not consider the Bible to be great Literature, but that is my personal opinion, I did not compare it to "tripe" (you did), and that is not the subject of my original comment. I do not care one jot if you, or others, "learned" or not, think it is, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Here's an "intellectual" challenge for you in the same vein, since you seem to enjoy such ridiculous and pointless mental self-flagellations: if Batman and Superman fought each other, who would win? Be sure to include citations, since this will be a scholarly exercise. I suggest the local Mile-High Comics for possible reference materials, as they have a full run of both comic titles. You might also might also want to include the corresponding films in your research, although I'd skip the Batman "Gospel of George Clooney", as it is considered to be a heretical doctrine by many "learned" fanboys.

Good luck. The forum anxiously awaits your surely exhaustive and definitive analysis.

[Zygar]

However, I would like Canadian Malcontent to explain what exactly are these obvious differences between Dianetics and the Bible.

I seriously doubt he has read Dianetics, so he probably can't.

[slingblade]

CM,

I do not engage in pissing contests. I have no need to prove to you that I have a degree. I merely find it amusing that you would assume the reason I can't "appreciate" the bible is because I lack said degree.

The (dubious) literary merit of the bible has nothing to do with its primary use as a weapon of control and oppression. The same can be said of Dianetics. Whatever limited artistic expression either work may contain is vastly overshadowed by each work's use as an instrument of harm.

In post #3, you said this:

the beast is an integral part of our future history, because the Bibles true or because its influential( it doesnt matter why).

But it does matter. It matters very much. If our future history (a term coined by another SF writer and a friend of L.Ron's, by the way) indeed contains an "armageddon," an "end of the world," it matters very much whether there's some vengeful god floating in the cosmos somewhere, just waiting to destroy his own creation, or whether we humans are going to use a work of fiction to justify destroying ourselves.

If there is a god poised to destroy the world, there's nothing I can do about it.

In the meantime, I can work to keep people who believe in this god from trying to force me to believe in it, too. I can try to speak out when they want to rewrite laws to reflect their own morality and restrict or remove my rights. I can protest or vote against them when they try to insist they have the right to teach creation fantasy in science class.

You have every right to believe what the bible says. I have every right not to believe it. And that's as far as it should go.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Sling I have no doubt about you qualifications, I wish you would apply your learning is all. My reason for approaching your proffessors was to try to shock you into full consiousness.

Your friend
CM

I am not trying to force anthing on anyone just sharing a Bible story.

With respect to dianetics, I have never even picked it up. Using what little I do know of the cult I will make a comparison.

Teeegeack, Sorry I mean Xemoo or whatever Vs. David

Two great warrior kings, principle warrior kings in their respective uhhhh histories.

Can you tell the difference?


or

A minor but mouthy cult born in California 50 yrs ago. And their book, dianetics.

vs.

Judeo/Christian tradition and its offshoot Islam ( to which the Old and New Testaments are Holy),
originating in the 'Sacred Mushroom' ( Amanita Muscaria) cults of Sumeria and predating Sumerian civilization. Thence
growing, adapting to civilization and remaining as the tradition of the earths dominant tribes(peoples)
for some 5,000 yrs and still the tradition of the earths dominant tribes. And its Book The Holy Bible,
a work recognized as our cultural and societal foundation, recognized as a history text beyond compare
for the time and area it covers, bearing a moral code accepted worldwide.

Need I say more?

The first scholarly work I am aware of that connects the mushroom cults and Judeo/Christian tradition is 'The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross' by John M. Allegro, a recognized expert who was a principle on the 'The Dead Sea Scrolls'
translation and ensuing study of ancient texts of the region. Today the connection is accepted fact among historians.

At no point did I represent a 'literary' comparison be made as I know that there is no accounting for taste.

With respect to mythology, the different mythologies going back to Babylon ( Baal, Samira and Nimrod) are all basically the same
with the exception that in Norse mythology the father Odin still rules and his son Thor , the strongest of the gods, is obediant to and serves the father. Also the Norse have a pending cataclysmic battle, Ragnarokkr, in which the Gods fight the giants and assorted nether and worldly forces with the help of the Heroes ( men who died in battle having seen the eyes of their slayer and were selected by the Valkyries) who wait in Valhalla for the battle. The outcome of the battle is unknown or not told.

Put all that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yf,
CM

[slingblade]

Sling I have no doubt about you qualifications, I wish you would apply your learning is all. My reason for approaching your proffessors was to try to shock you into full consiousness.

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, boy. Your manipulative skills are sorely lacking. I'm not some 14-year-old kid who rises to that kind of bait.

Your question was asked, and it was answered. If you find no satisfaction in the answers, look to yourself and your own understanding.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Yet you play right along with those who would bait me. Interesting.

P.S. What about my question above; Can you see the difference between 'Teegeack' Sorry i meant Xemu and King David the Lion of Judah?

[slingblade]

I already answered. What part of that don't you get?

[ChristineR]

Nobody is baiting you. You won't even give us a coherent statement of your position, and all you are doing now is posturing.

Teegeack is a name for the planet earth. King David is a mythological figure who may be based on an actual person, but for whom no archaeological evidence has been found.

Apologies to the rest of you, but I am coming close to putting CM on ignore and dropping out of this thread. I thought it could be an interesting discussion of the role of religious myth in society and how societies develop and use their myths.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Ok so you insist that the Bible and dianetics are in all respects comparable works. Partly due to the fact that dianetics , given time , has a potential to equal the Bible.
Like I said , Its beneath me.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

P.S. Christine, ignore me, it works for the scientologists.

[slingblade]

Like I said , Its beneath me.

Whatever floats your boat.

Your friend,

So where's that $20 you owe me?

[Canadian Malcontent]

Whatever floats your boat.



So where's that $20 you owe me?


"If you lend someone $20 and you never see that person again,
it was probably worth it." Anonymous

OR

"I will owe you for the rest of my life"

[TheAntiLuddite]

Judeo/Christian tradition and its offshoot Islam ( to which the Old and New Testaments are Holy), originating in the 'Sacred Mushroom' ( Amanita Muscaria) cults of Sumeria and predating Sumerian civilization.

Need I say more?


Nope. "Christian theology sprang from a sweet, sweet bowl of magic mushrooms," sums it up quite nicely.

I didn't need any additional support for my position, CM, but I'll accept your generous offering, nonetheless.


Put all that in your pipe and smoke it.


No thanks. I'm an atheist.

[kmortis]

Put all that in your pipe and smoke it.

.........................But it's not 'frop.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/kmortis/Bobdobbs.jpg

[Canadian Malcontent]

Nope. "Christian theology sprang from a sweet, sweet bowl of magic mushrooms," sums it up quite nicely.

I didn't need any additional support for my position, CM, but I'll accept your generous offering, nonetheless.



No thanks. I'm an atheist.

C'mon take a puff, what are you scared? Take a puff man you will love it.
Its sooooooooo cool. I know some hot priestesses that wanna do some smoking with you, they asked about you by name, c'mon dude i'll take you to the place do a few puffs , jus' try it man!

P.S. Kmortis yer cartoon pipe dude is Mr. Appleton from National Lampoon magazine, obviously you have experience.
BTW my friend knows it as 'Bob Dobbs' but I know Mr. Appleton when I see him, Dobbs is his second coming.

[Marc L]

Oh you would like me to explain would you Christine?
The matter is beneath me.
I have issued a challenge in the post preceding yours and it is only fitting to hear the response before carrying the matter further.
Do you Christine seek to test my ability and preparedness to respond?
Do you you seek to judge me?
Do you wish to see more drivel spew from the slack jaws of the challenged?

CM: I will ask you the questions I ask all Christians who post here saying we need to read the bible/accept Jesus/etc. I have yet to receive a real answer.

1) Have you read the entire bible, cover to cover? (If no, ignore the rest).
2) Should the bible be taken 100% literally?
2a) If no, then what criteria do you use to distinguish between literal and non-literal portions?

Marc

[Glen.Nogami]

Canadian Malcontent:

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but could you please be more coherent? Your posts aren't the easiest reading I've ever seen.

Also, headscratcher, where do you get all of these? That's twice today you've bettered my day with utterly insane links.

[Canadian Malcontent]

I get 'em from a lifetime of reading Glen.
The Bible makes NO claims, The Bible relates a story.
The Bible IS 'The Living Word of God'* and in my estimation cannot be appreciated if not taken literally.
oh, and Glen jump on and stay on 'cuz this train it is bound for glory'.

[Marc L]

I get 'em from a lifetime of reading Glen.
The Bible makes NO claims, The Bible relates a story.
The Bible IS 'The Living Word of God'* and in my estimation cannot be appreciated if not taken literally.
oh, and Glen jump on and stay on 'cuz this train it is bound for glory'.

You forgot the footnote. Assuming you're responding to my post, I want to know what it was before I answer.

Marc

[kmortis]

I get 'em from a lifetime of reading Glen.
Um, ok. you do realize that many of us have ALSO spent a lot of time reading the Bible, right?

The Bible makes NO claims, The Bible relates a story.
Ok, so far, so good.

The Bible IS 'The Living Word of God'* and in my estimation cannot be appreciated if not taken literally.
Um, CM, THAT'S A CLAIM! How do you know that it's the "Living Word of God"? What's the evidence to back it up? Did you get a memo from God? A certificate of Authenticity? No? Oh, well then. Maybe you should rethink that position.

oh, and Glen jump on and stay on 'cuz this train it is bound for glory'.
Nope. The train has no coal and will never leave the station.

[Canadian Malcontent]

[quote=kmortis;2149637]Um, ok. you do realize that many of us have ALSO spent a lot of time reading the Bible, right?


A lifetime of reading lots of stuff.


Ok, so far, so good.


Makes sense.


Um, CM, THAT'S A CLAIM! How do you know that it's the "Living Word of God"? What's the evidence to back it up? Did you get a memo from God? A certificate of Authenticity? No? Oh, well then. Maybe you should rethink that position.


It is not a claim it is my belief, my knowledge and yes God told me.

[Canadian Malcontent]

You forgot the footnote. Assuming you're responding to my post, I want to know what it was before I answer.

Marc

* Open a Bible and leave it on your dresser overnight as you sleep in the morning you may well appreciate the Bible as 'Living".

[slingblade]

* Open a Bible and leave it on your dresser overnight as you sleep in the morning you may well appreciate the Bible as 'Living".


Why? Is it going to tap-dance off the dresser and sit on my chest in my sleep?

Will it bring me breakfast in bed?

Or will it just sit there, gathering dust, like any other book?

[Canadian Malcontent]

Why? Is it going to tap-dance off the dresser and sit on my chest in my sleep?

Will it bring me breakfast in bed?

Or will it just sit there, gathering dust, like any other book?


Try it and see.

[slingblade]

Try it and see.

I was a Christian for 30 years. There wasn't any part of it I didn't try, over and over and over and over, until I realized it was all just wishful, magical thinking.

I do not believe in magic. Leaving a book open on my dresser at night will produce no results of any kind, aside from the book gathering a little dust.

[Marc L]

* Open a Bible and leave it on your dresser overnight as you sleep in the morning you may well appreciate the Bible as 'Living".

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, dude.

To take your earlier post, which, again, I'm assuming was meant in response to my question:

The Bible makes NO claims, The Bible relates a story.

And yet it does make claims. It claims that God created the world in six days. It claims that a miracle-worker named Moses parted the sea. It claims that the sun stood still for a day to give victory to the Israelites. It claims that there is a man who was born of a virgin in whom we must believe in order to obtain salvation. All of these are claims.

The Bible IS 'The Living Word of God'* and in my estimation cannot be appreciated if not taken literally.

So it should be taken 100% literally, then? Gotcha. Do you support stoning children for disrespecting their parents? How about women for committing adultery?

Marc

[Canadian Malcontent]

the Bible is a story, you can take it or leave it

There are no 'claims'

its not science

[Glen.Nogami]

It is not a claim it is my belief, my knowledge and yes God told me.

Saying that it is your knowledge, and furthermore, that god told you? That's a claim.

[slingblade]

the Bible is a story, you can take it or leave it

Yeah, we know.

There are no 'claims'

There are many claims. It's the proof that's absent.

its not science

It sure isn't, and that's why it has no place in a science class.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Saying that it is your knowledge, and furthermore, that god told you? That's a claim.

But its not a claim in the scientific sense because it cannot be substantiated.
You are/were aware of that right?

[Glen.Nogami]

But its not a claim in the scientific sense because it cannot be substantiated.
You are/were aware of that right?

What, an account of a creation of the entire earth all at once, a world-wide mass extinction that surely created lots of fossil-causing sediment, and was consistent with symptoms of a huge, world-wide flood? That ought to be substantiable. Besides, if a claim is not substantiable, then there is simply no reason to believe it.

[trvlr2]

[QUOTE=Canadian
snip!

It is not a claim it is my belief, my knowledge and yes God told me.[/QUOTE]

CM God told me to remind you to'' take your meds".
He said you'd know.

[ChristineR]

I gotta agree with CM on this one Glen. The claim is that God engineered the flood with geysers and water explosions all done in such a way that it looks exactly like billions of years of sediment. After all, God can do anything, so he can surely do that.

[Canadian Malcontent]

What, an account of a creation of the entire earth all at once, a world-wide mass extinction that surely created lots of fossil-causing sediment, and was consistent with symptoms of a huge, world-wide flood? That ought to be substantiable. Besides, if a claim is not substantiable, then there is simply no reason to believe it.


If by 'all at once' you mean six periods of time, the first one being all the time before the big Bang and all the time it took for the cosmos to get to their current state then yeah all at once.
Will you guys ever stop clinging to that ridiculous 'six day' argument?
Are you aware of how juvenile you appear with it dribbling from your lips every time you feel insecure?

P.S. Have you ever read the entire chapter Gen.1 and compared it to the geological record? If not please do so as it will help you to appear informed when you speak.

[Marc L]

the Bible is a story, you can take it or leave it

CM, could you please explain how you reconcile this statement with this statement that you made in post 51?

The Bible IS 'The Living Word of God'* and in my estimation cannot be appreciated if not taken literally.


Emphasis mine. You've still not answered my questions, by the way.

Marc

[Marc L]

If by 'all at once' you mean six periods of time, the first one being all the time before the big Bang and all the time it took for the cosmos to get to their current state then yeah all at once.
Will you guys ever stop clinging to that ridiculous 'six day' argument?
Are you aware of how juvenile you appear with it dribbling from your lips every time you feel insecure?

P.S. Have you ever read the entire chapter Gen.1 and compared it to the geological record? If not please do so as it will help you to appear informed when you speak.

CM, you might not be aware of this, but a lot of fundamentalists come around and insist that the entire Bible is to be taken 100% literally-including the creation story. It's not we who keep trotting out that argument, it's them.

If that's not something you believe, then fine. I'd still like an answer to my questions, though. Since obviously you don't feel the Bible is to be taken 100% literally, I'd like to know what criteria you use to determine what's to be taken literally and what's not. Scientific advancement seems to be one, and that's good. Do you have others?

Marc

[volatile]

I can't believe you've spent 2 pages going round in circles drawn in the sand by a boy with a thesaurus he doesn't even know how to use properly...

*sigh*

[slingblade]

I can't believe you've spent 2 pages going round in circles drawn in the sand by a boy with a thesaurus he doesn't even know how to use properly...

*sigh*

Have you been over to the Conspiracy Theories subforum yet? :eye-poppi

Welcome, Matt.

[Tricky]

P.S. Have you ever read the entire chapter Gen.1 and compared it to the geological record? If not please do so as it will help you to appear informed when you speak.
I have. (I'm a geologist with an additional degree in biology). The bible version of creation is utter bollox. The Great Flood is even more so. If you'd like to discuss particulars, we'll see just how informed you are about geology.

[Piscivore]

"If you lend someone $20 and you never see that person again,
it was probably worth it." Anonymous

That's not anonymus, it's a paraphrasing of a scene from "Hitch".

Time for a remedial "Lit and Film" class?

[Canadian Malcontent]

That's not anonymus, it's a paraphrasing of a scene from "Hitch".

Time for a remedial "Lit and Film" class?

Yeah I will take the beating form one and all. But where did 'hitch' get it?

The Bible addresses your heart, your taste, your morality and sense of wonder it was and is not meant to be science text.

Gen. 1 one has the earth shrouded in steam, has life originating in the sea, has grasses coming first of the plants has a lot of good fits.
Gen. 1 has the big bang you have to admit that that is something.
I never had a thesaurus in my life.

I aint yer average fundie, for the purpose of faith take it literally and keep it for that purpose.
For the purpose of science read science texts.
"Render unto ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"

But I hear you, you have become accustomed to what is to you ridiculous and as a result anticipate the same. No harm done. We all have different needs and capacities, I do not fault those who, in their pursuit of faith propose the obtuse. We all have our own unique struggle and that someone reaches out is a good thing.

With respect to CT hey the ( he named the buildings and he named osama) guy had something there and you would be very surprised at what is done to further policework. Very very surprised.

[slingblade]

Yeah I will take the beating form one and all. But where did 'hitch' get it?

From the script writer. Gads.

The Bible addresses your heart, your taste, your morality and sense of wonder it was and is not meant to be science text.

Same can be said for Shakespeare.


With respect to CT hey the ( he named the buildings and he named osama) guy had something there and you would be very surprised at what is done to further policework. Very very surprised.

No idea whatsoever what any of that means. When I brought up the CT subforum, I wasn't talking to you at all.

[Canadian Malcontent]

From the script writer. Gads.


Where did the scriptwriter get it? Yeesh!

Same can be said for Shakespeare.

And?




No idea whatsoever what any of that means. When I brought up the CT
subforum, I wasn't talking to you at all.
ok

[slingblade]

Where did the scriptwriter get it? Yeesh!

Who really cares?

And?

Exactly.

[Cello Man]

I think Marc L has landed the knockout blow (post #69) in this discussion. I've yet to hear a Christian answer this question and make sense while doing it.

[Marc L]

The Bible addresses your heart, your taste, your morality and sense of wonder it was and is not meant to be science text.


Ok, so science is one standard. What about morality, though? Do you consider it moral to stone children for disrespecting their parents? How about killing people for not donating to the church?

Marc

[Canadian Malcontent]

Ok, so science is one standard. What about morality, though? Do you consider it moral to stone children for disrespecting their parents? How about killing people for not donating to the church?

Marc

Marc we dont stone people anymore, not us Christians anyway.
The technical reason is Grace. Christ transcends the law and we with Him, in that the wages of our sin has been paid.
You can eat pork and shellfish now "Kill and eat".
The reality is that an individual has to take some responsibility to follow Christ. 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'
Technically, " Except that ye love one another ferverently, ye may not enter the Kingdom of Heavan."
Or how do you like this one, "He that is a friend of the world cannot be a friend of God."
Marc to do imagine that anyone with living descendants ever actually stoned their children for disrespect?
Can you imagine living on the run for forty years in the desert 3000 yrs ago? I do not think you are able to really appreciate the implications of the power dynamics neccessary to survive as a group the most trying of circumstance.
I'll give you agrain of an example;
I was on a canoe trip, May 24 1999, with two brothers and a dad (72 yrs old) in Quetico, North of Superior ( thats a lake) both canoes capsized, we lost one and everything was wet and it was early afternoon. The older of the two brothers began to build a shelter for himself only (we had a tent) and the younger began to help him. I saw the father and he looked worried , I assessed the situation and redirected the brothers to building a fire and holding the sleeping bags and clothes over it to dry them, the three of us did this together, we set up the tent it dried and by nightfall we had a warm dry environment.
The older brother doesnt usually take direction from me. Maybe the uh ...leadership existed beneath my calm friendly demeanor. In my heart of hearts I knew our course was not optional, Pops needed the warm dry environment that it took us the rest of the day to create. I was gonna see it happen by any means neccessary. That never showed but I knew it just the same. We found the other canoe the next day and had a great ten day trip.
Thats a little dip in the drink not forty years in the desert.

I do not think it impossible that the extremes of discipline reflected in the Old Testament may have been critical to the survival of the tribe due to extenuating circumstances. ( you see Cello Man the knowledgeable can always find answers)

[Cello Man]

Well, I'm sure it does "take responsibility to try to follow Christ". That doesn't mean that atheists can't take responsibility for their own actions as well. We love our wives and our children just as much as Christians do. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a fantastic idea, but it's not so complex of an idea that it requires divine revelation. We're all glad you have a strong moral sense. Just realize that you don't have a monopoly on morality itself because of your religion.

That being said, you didn't answer the original question that Marc L put forth in post #69.

Since obviously you don't feel the Bible is to be taken 100% literally, I'd like to know what criteria you use to determine what's to be taken literally and what's not. (emphasis mine)

The knowledgable can always find answers, but the dishonest prefer to dodge questions instead.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Cello man , who is doging?

My last post ended with a statement that remains unchallenged.
It answers your 'knockout punch' allegory ( i love that word).
Why do you not challenge it?

Are you and your kind dependant on innuendo ( such a poetic word)?
Do you absolutely NEED support from the crowd or can you stand and argue all by yourself like a man?

To answer your question, Cello Man, all of the Book should be taken 'literally'!

I believe my last two posts express my posityion quite well can you answer them or are you a 'bot.?

You are good at accusing , do you know what 'devil' means?

Why do I pour vitriol on you? Because the others dont answer, they merely spout their party line like puppets, I am hoping to find backbone and the spark of native intelligence in you.

[Cello Man]

Taken from an earlier post in this thread to make a point:

If by 'all at once' you mean six periods of time, the first one being all the time before the big Bang and all the time it took for the cosmos to get to their current state then yeah all at once.
Will you guys ever stop clinging to that ridiculous 'six day' argument?
Are you aware of how juvenile you appear with it dribbling from your lips every time you feel insecure?

P.S. Have you ever read the entire chapter Gen.1 and compared it to the geological record? If not please do so as it will help you to appear informed when you speak.

The Six Day Argument and the Geological Record: You just said that the Bible must be taken literally (albeit framed with quote marks). Comparing the Genesis story (which clealy says the Earth was made in six days) to the geological record is stretching a story into a metaphor and it's not a literal interpretation.

So which is it? Metaphor, or literal truth?

[Canadian Malcontent]

Dude you are less than a serious arguer , I am finished with you.

I warned you.

[CP489]

The Bible makes NO claims, The Bible relates a story.
The Bible IS 'The Living Word of God'* and in my estimation cannot be appreciated if not taken literally.


In this corner, Canadian Malcontent, arguing the literal truth of the Bible.

If by 'all at once' you mean six periods of time, the first one being all the time before the big Bang and all the time it took for the cosmos to get to their current state then yeah all at once.

P.S. Have you ever read the entire chapter Gen.1 and compared it to the geological record? If not please do so as it will help you to appear informed when you speak.

And in this corner...um...Canadian Malcontent...arguing the...uh...non-literal truth of the Bible.

"Not a serious arguer" indeed.

Again, props to all those who have shown patience with this (not particularly good) troll.

[Canadian Malcontent]

In this corner, Canadian Malcontent, arguing the literal truth of the Bible.



And in this corner...um...Canadian Malcontent...arguing the...uh...non-literal truth of the Bible.

"Not a serious arguer" indeed.

Again, props to all those who have shown patience with this (not particularly good) troll.
In your dreams dude , my best stuff none of you touch. You cant no brains , no balls and you are wrong.

P.S. And by the way where is the fault with that? INNUENDO (such a poetic word) is all you have without your cheering section here you would be ripe for scientology.

[CP489]

In your dreams dude , my best stuff none of you touch. You cant no brains , no balls and you are wrong.

Granted I've never been to Canada, but that's not even close to a coherent thought in the states.


P.S. And by the way where is the fault with that? INNUENDO (such a poetic word) is all you have without your cheering section here you would be ripe for scientology.

Where is the fault? WHERE is the fault? Where is the FAULT??!!

Please tell me you're joking. Please.

Also, I was not aware I had a cheering section *waves to cheering section and thanks them for shielding me from the perils of Scientology*

[Canadian Malcontent]

Stick close to the cult you do have buddy cuz without them you are truly lost. 'Pimpable'

That might seem rude but I tire of the patheticisms I encounter here.

Do you or do you not have an argument?

[CP489]

Stick close to the cult you do have buddy cuz without them you are truly lost. 'Pimpable'

For someone who earlier verbally pissed on another poster's English degree, you show a curious lack of basic lingual understanding.


That might seem rude but I tire of the patheticisms I encounter here.

Do you or do you not have an argument?

It might have seemed rude, but by the time I weeded through the punctuationless sentence, I was bored with it, so I can't say.

The argument is pretty straightforward. In one post you claimed the Bible should be viewed as literal for full effect, and not five posts later you claimed the Genesis story was a metaphor.

That's inconsistent, at best.

[H3LL]

In your dreams dude , my best stuff none of you touch. You cant no brains , no balls and you are wrong.

I have a translation:

Nah! Nah! Na-nah! Naaah! And you smell!

Truly a master linguist.

.

[slingblade]

Truly a master linguist.

.

But definitely not a cunning one.

[H3LL]

But definitely not a cunning one.

If he's actually been near a girl that wasn't on medication I would be extremely surprised.

Apparently hanging from dead guys and sucking their toes is more his thing.

Your just jealous you werent there to suck on His feet and legs as He hung.
I know You

ETA: His linguistic skill don't extend to knowing the difference between your and you're, and an incapacity to find the apostrophe in weren't.

[Canadian Malcontent]

If he's actually been near a girl that wasn't on medication I would be extremely surprised.

Apparently hanging from dead guys and sucking their toes is more his thing.



ETA: His linguistic skill don't extend to knowing the difference between your and you're, and an incapacity to find the apostrophe in weren't.

Inappropriate remarks removed.

[Canadian Malcontent]

For someone who earlier verbally pissed on another poster's English degree, you show a curious lack of basic lingual understanding.



It might have seemed rude, but by the time I weeded through the punctuationless sentence, I was bored with it, so I can't say.

The argument is pretty straightforward. In one post you claimed the Bible should be viewed as literal for full effect, and not five posts later you claimed the Genesis story was a metaphor.

That's inconsistent, at best.

In three hours I would have you out on Church and Wellesley. thats just the kind of man you are.

[CP489]

In three hours I would have you out on Church and Wellesley. thats just the kind of man you are.


Ahhhh, complete and total lapse into ad homs and what seems to be a mental meltdown. *Stewie voice* "Victory is mine"

Huntster, you may want to find yourself another warrior, this one's not fit to fight.

[CP489]

Quoted remarks removed.

That flushing sound is your trolling career.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Gods bless you cp, thank you for your brilliant insight and argument to my postulations. i fel grateful to have made your aquaintance as I am awed by your intellect. Your wit and acuity so masterfully demonstrated over the course of the evening. You are a prize I am sure your mother is stilkl very proud of her boy.
Goodnight sweetheart

[Canadian Malcontent]

Ahhhh, complete and total lapse into ad homs and what seems to be a mental meltdown. *Stewie voice* "Victory is mine"

Huntster, you may want to find yourself another warrior, this one's not fit to fight.

Come home to momma boy we will see who is fit for what.

[Canadian Malcontent]

You know what it is cp its your attitude , everyone knows you are a boy and few here doubt that I could turn you out, make you a male prostitute,
why would I do that? cuz I'm a pimp? No. cuz you are that much of a goof.
You need something like me to bring you back to earth.
Everyone here can see it but you.
You are gay.
Thats why the behaviour.
You need to embrace it sweet boy.
Decide in your heart that you need a mans love.
Make that decision now!!!

[CP489]

You know what it is cp its your attitude , everyone knows you are a boy and few here doubt that I could turn you out, make you a male prostitute,
why would I do that? cuz I'm a pimp? No. cuz you are that much of a goof.
You need something like me to bring you back to earth.
Everyone here can see it but you.
You are gay.
Thats why the behaviour.
You need to embrace it sweet boy.
Decide in your heart that you need a mans love.
Make that decision now!!!


Keep it coming...

[Tricky]

You know what it is cp its your attitude , everyone knows you are a boy and few here doubt that I could turn you out, make you a male prostitute,
why would I do that? cuz I'm a pimp? No. cuz you are that much of a goof.
You need something like me to bring you back to earth.
Everyone here can see it but you.
You are gay.
Thats why the behaviour.
You need to embrace it sweet boy.
Decide in your heart that you need a mans love.
Make that decision now!!!
Compare and contrast with:
I have no problem with adults doing their thing in private. i know and am friends with gay people. I dont condemn.

If your gay friends saw this post, I'm betting you wouldn't have gay friends any longer.

Why is it that your love of Christ fills you with such hate?

They say that alcohol doesn't change a person, it just loosens their control so that you can see what they are really like. When you are sober, you can be a pretty nice guy, CM, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you when you are drunk. You sound like you are in a psychotic rage.

Here's a hint for your love life. Most women don't like that. It scares them. If you ever get a date, try not to get drunk.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Compare and contrast with:

If your gay friends saw this post, I'm betting you wouldn't have gay friends any longer.

Why is it that your love of Christ fills you with such hate?

They say that alcohol doesn't change a person, it just loosens their control so that you can see what they are really like. When you are sober, you can be a pretty nice guy, CM, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you when you are drunk. You sound like you are in a psychotic rage.

Here's a hint for your love life. Most women don't like that. It scares them. If you ever get a date, try not to get drunk.

Tricky, is it ok to bait the bear?
My gay friends would laugh and offer to help 'groom' cp, they can see what he is clearer than others.

[Marc L]

Uh, CM? I'm still waiting for your response.

Marc

[Tricky]

Tricky, is it ok to bait the bear?It's cruel. Sometimes in life it is necessary to be cruel, but I'm not thinking this is one of them.

[Canadian Malcontent]

It's cruel. Sometimes in life it is necessary to be cruel, but I'm not thinking this is one of them.

No Tricky it isnt. This would be a time to actually argue but as usual atheists cant argue. Too caught up in themselvesw and each other
maybe?

[Canadian Malcontent]

Uh, CM? I'm still waiting for your response.

Marc
Ok Marc lets get down to it.
State your position.

[Tricky]

No Tricky it isnt. This would be a time to actually argue but as usual atheists cant argue. Oh, were you speaking metaphorically? If so, it didn't parse well.

Too caught up in themselvesw and each other maybe?
"The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons."
---Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Foster Zygote]

No Tricky it isnt. This would be a time to actually argue but as usual atheists cant argue. Too caught up in themselvesw and each other
maybe?

With so much straw around I hope you don't smoke.

[Marc L]

Ok Marc lets get down to it.
State your position.

Gah! I see you didn't respond, because my post didn't make it to the board, I apologize for that. Just as a heads up, I'll probably repost it either later this morning, or on Monday (I don't usually post on the weekends). Don't think I'm dodging you.

Marc