I'm doing a bit of research for my own benefit or whatnot. But I can't seem to find a place with decent information on the Anti-Christ! Could anyone possibly help me here?

(As for the reason for this question, I have a teeny lil' theory about the Anti-Christ, but I need to do a bit of researching for it.)

Try the Bibles. Go to the source.

------------------
It's all very large.

Mabe this will help...
http://www.ntgateway.com/multibib2.htm

Good luck.

------------------
It's all very large.

And now for a completely different viewpoint, click here: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6074/super.html">Anti-Christ, Superstar</a>

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Three citations that hit me off the top of my head; these should be available in used/secondhand shops (Davidson, Russell), and new shops as well, (Davidson, Pagels).

Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels, including the Fallen Angels. New York: Free/Macmillan, 1967.

* I love this thing; it's described on its cover, by Time magazine as "A wacky and wonderful compendium of angelic lore." At any rate, it's exactly what it sounds like; an alphabetic listing of angels' names, and capsules of varying length describing the traditions surrounding the angels, including a pretty good bibliography, and several appendices including medieval spells, angelic alphabet, and other fun stuff.

Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell, 1984.

* I battered Exosci with this for a couple of weeks in '99. Burton made his reputation as a writer exploring religious superstition, focusing largely on the Devil. As a writer who has not yet, it seems, abandoned the idea that evil is a controllable deviation from nature, Burton provides an excellent picture of the developing superstitions surrounding the Devil in the philosophical explorations of Christianity, and, to some extent, Islam.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Random House, 1995.

Hands-down, this is the best work I've come across on the Devil. Somewhat compact (214 pgs, incl. index & notes), the book is essentially a perspective on the development of satan/Satan in apocalyptic Judaism and early Christianity, focusing largely on the socio-political conditions present during the writing of each gospel. I was actually looking for a book on Satan when I came across this, and bought it instantly because I had used the second chapter of the book as a citation in a paper in about '94, when that chapter was merely an article entitled The Social History of Satan. But I recommend this book above most; it's really quite ... amazing.

There's stuff there on the web, too, but I've had severely less luck. Places like bible.org and newadvent.org are pretty cool (Newadvent includes the Knights of Columbus' Catholic Encyclopaedia), but remembering that they're Christian-oreinted sites, one must remember the obvious biases (I'm thinking of the Encyclopaedia, which sometimes borders on the hilarious; it isn't that they're flat-out liars, but that they dismiss less-relevant or contradictory ideas so easily one wonders if this ideological rigidity hasn't spilled over into society in general). But that's the problem with the Web right now; the really big projects still aren't done. When the whole world has access to Harvard Divinity's library ( http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/ ... I think you need a Harvard ID, but someday ) we'll be making some progress. (I'm waiting for Emerald to humiliate me on that one. ;) )

It's out there, though, if you read through the editorializations all around. Good luck in your search. And let us know how the theory works out.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Tiassa,

Humiliate you? Me? Perish the thought! Well, since you asked... ;)

Here is a webpage from that site which offers <a href="http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/internet/online_journals.html">Online Journals with Full Text</a>, a few of which are free to everyone. The introduction on that page states, "This list, compiled for the Harvard Divinity School community, includes approximately 250 religious, theological, and philosophical journals, magazines, newsletters, as well as other select serial titles in the humanities and social sciences." There is also a link on that page to the <a href="http://rosetta.atla-certr.org/CERTR/e-journals.html">American Theological Library Association</a>.

Great link, Tiassa! Thanks! :)




------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Well, I was hoping that when I researched the AntiChrist, facts would support me, but, oh, well!

I was just playing with this idea of the antichrist being someone who actually believed in God the Holy Spirit and all that, but just despised the church and what it has become, and before I knew it I had an awesome story with demons, angels, hot guys (!!!!!), action, romance, and I needed more info on the antichrist to get it going! *cry*

But everything I've read so far hasn't supported my story idea, so I'm just going to go ahead and make it an all-around fantasy.

Thanks for your Help! :D

But everything I've read so far hasn't supported my story idea,

It happens; the story will do what it will. Let it rise from the vapors, and other silly images. Was it Michelangelo who said that he sculpted nothing, that the form existed already and all he did was clear the extra pieces away?

Incidentally, I wanted to mention that if you make it pure fantasy, you'll have a better approach than some of the theological fictionists around the market today. A quick anecdote:

* While flying from New Orleans to Seattle, I spent one leg of the trip (N.O. to Phoenix) sitting beside a lovely, intellectual, quietly religious couple. In fact, I only say religious because of the wife's reading choice. The gentleman was some sort of teacher; rarely do I see people plowing through Boorstein's The Americans with such enthusiasm (it weighs 22 pounds). But his wife, whom I did not actually speak to directly, was reading the latest paperback release in that end-of-the-world series by LaHaye (I think). As the stewards collected the last of the plastic cups, the woman put the book away and I heard her husband say, "Did you finish your book?"

The answer, here, is very important. Recall, please, that she has been reading a book on the Apocalypse. She smiled cheerfully and told her husband, "It was really, really good. You know? And the whole time, I didn't know how it was going to end."

I guess originality counts for something. But how do you write the blurb on that: The Apocalypse is coming and the Devil assembles his power ... does God have what it takes to win the day?

Didn't know how it was going to end ... :D

Best o'luck w/the tale. Maybe you can teach 'em all something or another about it, too.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 29, 2001).]

Thanks for your support, Tiassa! :D I really hope my story falls together! *crosses fingers*

Now, just have to wait for that spark of inspiration that gets it all started... :rolleyes: *taps foot impatiently*

Huh? I just wanna write a story, not become a Satanist.... :rolleyes:

Emerald,

Hey lady, long time no see! :)

I checked out your Antichrist superstar link...very nice. I love the stuff you turn up. :) Too bad Lori's not around anymore, I bet she'd have something to say on that one, considering how "into" the antichrist she is. ;)

Hi Everyone!

Long time, no debate! I see it's same old, same old out here...keep up the good work! I love you guys! And my take on this topic can be summed up by saying that the Antichrist and the aliens will be like this *crossing fingers*. Ask yourself what could occur on this earth that would possibly promote a one world religion and economy? And the answer is.....a mass landing.

There now, don't ya miss me? Later, taters!

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

OMG, I think I just had a heart attack... :D

Hey MoonCat!!

Happy Imbolc!

It's been ages! I'm not on this board much these days - too much going on. I'll have to email you about it later.

Yeah, I love the provocative stuff, as you well know! The only problem is it doesn't seem to provoke much of anything these days. Bummer. :(

Speak o' the devil, I guess you got your wish! (Hi Lori - good to see ya!)

Blessings,

Emerald



------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Does ‘Anti-Christ’ imply a single individual or can it mean a philosophical position? For example I am anti-Christian, but I also have reason to believe that the alleged individual known as Jesus never existed, and as he is also assumed to be the Christ then I am anti-Christ, or should I say I am an anti-Christ?

Cris--

Though it may sound dismissive, and quite possibly typical of me ... oh, heck, but ... it seems it only matters to Christians.

Oh, heck, indeed. As I had forgotten for the briefest of moments that ideas derived therein constitute the biggest portion of the American superstition.

Okay, so a better answer: You are an antichrist. All things told, you are not, however, the antichrist.

On that note, let me then theorize that The Antichrist, as such, will probably be a single human product of a broader philosophy. We see that much of what you or I might regard as the most potentially positive or progressive aspects of the Christian philosophy is predated at least by Buddhism. It seems that the Christ figure attributed in the Bible combined a number of less tangible, personal facets in the advancement of a particular set of ideas.

Likewise, I think that The Antichrist will probably be an individual bearing a broad--diverse--philosophical heritage, who also combines the rhetorical savvy and personal charisma necessary to drive the final nail into the ol' rugged cross. What Christianity fears in its Antichrist might well be the individual who can assemble the forces of history, anthropology, psychology, and--their common neighbor--metaphysics into a cohesive whole which the superstitions of Christianity will no longer be able to subvert, suppress, oppress, malign, or otherwise escape.

Subtract "church" from the image of Jesus. You're left with an idea of an extremely charismatic political reformer, and a footnote regarding the close bonds 'twixt politics and religion existing in his day. To affect the body politic, you must also affect the body religious. Maybe Robyn Hitchcock was right when he asserted that the Antichrist would be Jesus, pissed off for having bled for two-thousand years in a cheesecloth-draped waiting room while all that love was outright wasted.

In any case, I will also side with Mr Hitchcock in his assertion that if the Devil lives among us, he carries a walkman.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

Lori

I want to ask a question of all of you...when the aliens come, and there also comes a man who in conjunction with these false prophets, heads up a one world religion, and a one world economy, and requires a genetic change (mark of the beast), in order to participate in the system, and survive upcoming cataclysmic earth changes, and requires a denial of Jesus as Saviour, and is killed, and then resurrected by the spirit of Satan himself, and the rapture happens, and they pass it off by saying that all of us Christians were too close-minded to participate in the change and impending new spiritual millenium, so we had to be taken to another planet, and so on and so on, will you guys still think the Bible's a trumped up pos?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,

Fortunately the bible is pure mythology so your hypothetical scenario has a zero probability of realization.

But anything would be better than being a slave to the Christian god who can only be seen as a vicious terrorist thug, who has said worship me and do what I tell you or else I'll make you suffer in the most horrifying manner beyond imagination.

It also lies about love while maiming and killing millions of people in 'acts of god'.

But I'll hold back on what I really think.

Cris

Originally posted by Cris:
Does ‘Anti-Christ’ imply a single individual or can it mean a philosophical position? For example I am anti-Christian, but I also have reason to believe that the alleged individual known as Jesus never existed, and as he is also assumed to be the Christ then I am anti-Christ, or should I say I am an anti-Christ?

Well, if Christ doesn't exist, you'd have to call yourself anti-nothing.

Originally posted by tony1:
Well, if Christ doesn't exist, you'd have to call yourself anti-nothing.

lol! Good one, tony1!

Ariadne2525

How's the search for information going?

Tony1, ariadne2525,

Anti-nothing is not far from the truth. If we consider that Christianity is based on nothing of substance, and quite literally, since gods are immaterial, invisible and silent; properties that match those of something that does not exist, i.e. nothingness.

But on a more serious note, the very real philosophy of Christianity is not ‘nothing’. It is a set of dangerous ignorant beliefs that threaten the progress of the human race and must be opposed. So I stand for those very real principles that oppose those doctrines, I am very much an anti-Christian, and if the concept of a Christ represents those doctrines then I must be an anti-Christ.

Show me how your god differs from the definition of nothing, together with some credible evidence. Otherwise you could be right and I am opposing nothing, but more importantly is the inverse that you are by far worse because you are the believers of nothing.

Cris

Originally posted by Cris:
Anti-nothing is not far from the truth. If we consider that Christianity is based on nothing of substance, and quite literally, since gods are immaterial, invisible and silent; properties that match those of something that does not exist, i.e. nothingness.

But on a more serious note, the very real philosophy of Christianity is not ‘nothing’. It is a set of dangerous ignorant beliefs that threaten the progress of the human race and must be opposed. So I stand for those very real principles that oppose those doctrines, I am very much an anti-Christian, and if the concept of a Christ represents those doctrines then I must be an anti-Christ.

Show me how your god differs from the definition of nothing, together with some credible evidence. Otherwise you could be right and I am opposing nothing, but more importantly is the inverse that you are by far worse because you are the believers of nothing.

It didn't take long for this portion of the thread to get to where the rubber meets the road.

You do realize that if I am a believer in nothing that would make me the ultimate skeptic.
Thus, my position is ironclad, rock-solid and unshakeable.

If I'm right, I win from a "religious" perspective.
If I am found to have believed in nothing, then I am the ultimate skeptic, far surpassing the current state-of-the-art in skepticism.

Antichristians and atheists are forced to define their entire existence and belief system in terms of God and/or Christ, but opposite.

This leads to the strange paradox that atheism is based on a belief in God, but not.
And antichristianity is based on a belief in Christ, but not.

My, but aren't we humans such fickle things. Always full of contradictions, and always ending up back where we started. :D it's amazing we've survived thus far.

To me "religion" is where someone takes a belief too far, and centers his/her entire life around it. I am a Christian by belief, but I don't go to Church every Wednesday, Tuesday, and Sunday. In fact, I don't go to church because I don't like the way many of them preach and so forth. So I don't consider myself "religious". I have a belief, I believe it and I go on with life. Simple.

But it's belief in a higher being that keep us humans going, ya know? We believe that someone up top is watching us, and will help us when we need him/her/it to. That's what causes so many atheists. When something does go wrong, or when someone dies, or they're just having a horrible day, they wonder where's God now? ^_^ It's funny how even atheist seem to believe in God...

(I know I've made no sense, but that's how I am, it seems.)

Ariadne

"(I know I've made no sense, but that's how I am, it seems.)"

Yup that's for sure but I understand.

But when things go wrong I do not call on any god, I simply look to myself as I am usually the one in error. In other words I take personal responsibility for my actions and their repercussions. Do I assume that you would blame your god when things go wrong in the same way that you would praise him when things go right?

Take care.
Cris

Originally posted by Ariadne2525:
It's funny how even atheist seem to believe in God...

(I know I've made no sense, but that's how I am, it seems.)

That would be that paradox thing, like where atheists actually believe in God, but not.

Originally posted by Cris:
But when things go wrong I do not call on any god, I simply look to myself as I am usually the one in error. In other words I take personal responsibility for my actions and their repercussions.
Of course, if your actions lead to your own death, the responsibility issue becomes moot.

Do I assume that you would blame your god when things go wrong in the same way that you would praise him when things go right?
Answering only for myself, since I don't praise him just because things go right, I don't blame him just because things go wrong.

[This message has been edited by tony1 (edited February 19, 2001).]

I don't blame God when things go wrong, and I don't neccesarily praise Him when things are goin' good. I may thank him for giving me life, and giving me my family, but that would happen in good times and bad. God can't be blamed for the things I choose to say and do. I am a human being with the ability to make my own choices with or without the influence of God. If God was there to make all of our decisions for us, then why did he give us a brain period? Religous people say that you should pray to God to tell you what to do, and that's one of the things they preach, therefore that's why I prefer not to attend church.

Just because God knows all that's going to happen and all that has happened, doesn't mean that He decided what was going to happen. He just knows what happened from our human decisions.

(As you can probably tell, I'm not your average Christian. I'm just a completely twisted person, so it's only suiting that my beliefs and opinions should be twisted, too, I suppose. :D )

Ariadne,

Judging from your posts I wouldn’t consider that you are twisted; in fact you sound quite sane and reasonable. If you need a criticism then I might suggest that all you need is to think things through a little more – you might be lazy maybe but nothing worse.

But I know the type of Christians you mention, it seems that every action is the will of God, quite infuriating right? And you’re right, if he gave us the ability to criticize and analyze then he only has himself to blame if we decide to exercise those talents.

So I won’t push you but I’ll leave you with a teaser.

Just because God knows all that's going to happen and all that has happened, doesn't mean that He decided what was going to happen. He just knows what happened from our human decisions.

This is a reference to omniscience, the claim that God has perfect and infallible knowledge of all future events. Now consider that this means that he knew/knows with perfect accuracy absolutely every decision you will make long before you were even born. Since it is claimed that this God created the universe and you, then what makes you think that you have any choice in any of your decisions? Since he knows them all beforehand then all your actions are perfectly pre-determined. You effectively have no choice but to do exactly what he planned long ago. What you think is free will is just an illusion.

Do you agree?

Have fun
Cris

Just because they are predetermined doesn't mean squat. I still made them. God just happens to know the decision before I make it. In fact, this happens among humans constantly. Like when a mother knows her child so well, she knows beforehand what that child might say and do. Or between best friends. I know that I've been able to "predict" what my b/f will say, but that doesn't mean that she didn't choose what to say, did it?

Ariadne,

I don’t know if you’ve ever written a computer program, if not then this might not have the same impact. But I’ve been writing code since 1969. I know with absolute certainty that if am aware of all the inputs to a given program then I can predict with absolute certainty the exact outputs from that program. All the decisions made in the program were completely determined by the nature of the inputs. So the fact that the program actually made choices and decisions is irrelevant since they were only because that is what the input data determined.

If God created your entire environment and also knows with 100% certainty the outcome of all decisions then you cannot make any claim to free will anymore than a computer program. You have been pre-programmed by your God. He will have created all the inputs that force you to make specific decisions according to his plan.

It is true that you made your own decisions, but if God is omniscient then you had no choice in those decisions. You made those choices because you were programmed to do so. If your God existed then you would be no more than a puppet.

Cris

Tony,

What is this garbage!!!

Antichristians and atheists are forced to define their entire existence and belief system in terms of God and/or Christ, but opposite.

Belief system?? Forced?? Entire Existence?? Opposite??

Belief system: Atheism is not a belief system. As an atheist I simply do not believe your claim that a god exists. That is very different from my claiming that I believe a god doesn’t exist. You are the one making the claim, and I am simply disbelieving your claim. I am not making any claims neither am I invoking a set of beliefs.

Forced: If we look at Christianity then we see that its members are indeed forced to take many actions that would be unnecessary otherwise. E.g. praying, attending church, recognizing a savior, worrying about sin, feeling guilt from sin, fear of hell. I on the other hand am free to do as I wish without any coercion or force being applied.

Entire existence: Without having to be concerned with religious doctrines I am free to spend ALL my time on more productive pursuits, unlike the Christian whose entire existence and life is given to religious devotion of a supernatural emptiness.

Opposite: The syntax of your sentence implies that the second phrase ‘ but opposite’ negates the first part ‘forced, belief system, entire existence, god and Christ, etc’. So I agree I am not any of those things or take part in those things. So to be sure I understand your assertion I’ll state my position more clearly and positively –

My entire existence does not involve me being forced to maintain a belief system in terms of God and/or Christ in any way whatsoever.

This leads to the strange paradox that atheism is based on a belief in God, but not. And antichristianity is based on a belief in Christ, but not.

This is utter drivel and not worthy of further comment.

Cris

Originally posted by Cris:
Ariadne,

I don’t know if you’ve ever written a computer program,

Nope, never have.

If God created your entire environment and also knows with 100% certainty the outcome of all decisions then you cannot make any claim to free will anymore than a computer program. You have been pre-programmed by your God. He will have created all the inputs that force you to make specific decisions according to his plan.

Yes, God created me. Yes, I was specifically designed. Yes, He knows all that will happen to me. But this doesn't take away from my concious decision. A bad way of putting it is, "I'm playing into His hand."

It is true that you made your own decisions, but if God is omniscient then you had no choice in those decisions. You made those choices because you were programmed to do so. If your God existed then you would be no more than a puppet.

Cris

Actually, "puppet" is sort of a good way to describe humans. That's really all our physical bodies are, and our souls are the hands moving the puppets. That's why I don't totally disbelieve "reincarnation". (sp?)

And I noticed the "if your God existed". I for one, see no reason why he shouldn't exist. Ya don't see people waltzing around claiming air doesn't exist, now do ya? (and if anyone does then they're probably mental)

[This message has been edited by Ariadne2525 (edited February 19, 2001).]

Ariadne,

Ah I see I'm not going to be able to convince you on the non free will bit, and it looks like you don't mind anyway. Oh well, I enjoyed trying. You sound like a Taurus.

And I noticed the "if your God existed". I for one, see no reason why he shouldn't exist. Ya don't see people waltzing around claiming air doesn't exist, now do ya?

Ah but I can prove that air exists through appropriate scientific tests. On the other hand no one has ever been able to construct a test that shows that any type of god exists.

So I do not see any reason why a god should exist, and since there is no way to show that one does exist then it seems more sensible to live without that particular, seemingly, useless belief.

Have fun
Cris



[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 19, 2001).]

Originally posted by Cris:
Ah but I can prove that air exists through appropriate scientific tests. On the other hand no one has ever been able to construct a test that shows that any type of god exists.


I can think of some good evidence.

The universe. The Milky Way. Earth and all her plants and animals working together in sychronized harmony. We aren't some huge cosmic accident. Someone designed every little detail of our world, and we'd be fools to think that whoever did is anything but a God.

BTW, I'm an Aries. :D

Ariadne,

I can think of some good evidence.

The universe. The Milky Way. Earth and all her plants and animals working together in sychronized harmony. We aren't some huge cosmic accident. Someone designed every little detail of our world, and we'd be fools to think that whoever did is anything but a God.

For every event there is a single unique cause, unless we are talking about infinity, which is a special case, ignore that for now. All the time there are seemingly equal multiple potential and credible explanations for an event then no claim can be made for an accurate cause.

The Earth, plants, animals, etc we can explain through evolutionary processes, and so the need for a designer does not exist. We now have multiple potential causes, yours and mine, I would go on to argue that yours (a god) is not credible, since it introduces unnecessary complexity, at the very least, and has no independent demonstrable evidence of existence.

Evolutionary processes can also explain the Milky Way, other galaxies, and other cosmic bodies, and their positions size and shapes.

We as yet cannot explain the cause of the universe. If there was a cause. And this brings us to a question of infinity. Infinity is something that has no beginning or end and anything with the property of infinity cannot have been created (i.e. has no beginning). The simplest explanation is that the universe is infinite. Your claim will be that your god is infinite and created the universe. Since my suggestion rests purely on understandable and natural phenomena, then my solution is more credible than yours, which rests on the existence of the supernatural, of which we have no comprehension or evidence.

So you see there are no good reasons to suppose a god exists and in fact all the alternatives are much simpler and more credible.

Aries huh! Thanks.

Have fun
Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 19, 2001).]

Where do you come up with the notion that the universe is infinite???? :confused:

I'd pretty much argue with all your post.

There is a ton of evidence for design and there is a lot of evidence verifying the Christian faith.

"So you see there are no good reasons to suppose a god exists and in fact all the alternatives are much simpler and more credible."

They are not more credible and Occam's razor does not disrove the existence of God.

". Since my suggestion rests purely on understandable and natural phenomena, then my solution is more credible than yours, which rests on the existence of the supernatural, of which we have no comprehension or evidence."

If the evidence was lacking as you suggest then your solution would be more credible.

Vinnie

Vinnie,

Where do you come up with the notion that the universe is infinite???? :confused:

Gosh, where have you been? Lots of people have suggested that the universe might be infinite. I can’t believe you haven’t heard this before. :rolleyes:

But I’m not claiming here that the universe is infinite just that the idea is more credible than an invisible immaterial super-thing that no one can properly define, or at least no two people seem to be able to agree on a definition. And then of course this thing is meant to be infinite as well, or do you disagree that your god thing is infinite?

I'd pretty much argue with all your post.

Nah, really? :rolleyes:

There is a ton of evidence for design and there is a lot of evidence verifying the Christian faith.

Yes but for every argument for design there is an equal if not more superior argument against design.

I have no doubt that Christians believe on faith, you have no choice, the alternative is reason and that can’t work for you. But that isn’t what you meant is it? You want to define faith in a way that makes Christianity appear rational. Well here I’d say that my Collins English dictionary sums up faith quite nicely – (1) strong or unshakable belief in something especially without proof or evidence, (4) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion especially when this is not based on reason.

They are not more credible and Occam's razor does not disprove the existence of God.

I guessed that Ariadne hadn’t hit Occam’s razor yet. But unless you can show proof of a god then without real evidence one way or the other it is always preferable to select the simplest hypothesis first.

I have as much interest in disproving the existence of a god as I have in disproving the existence of rainbow colored flying elephants. Both are futile activities. What is really relevant is you proving your claim that a god does exist.

If the evidence was lacking as you suggest then your solution would be more credible.

So show me the simplest possible test you can devise that will prove to me that any god exists or has ever existed. Feel free to draw on any study from the entire history of mankind or the universe.

Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 20, 2001).]

THis is going to be fun....

"Gosh, where have you been?"

I been ice fishing out in Jersey. I been staying on a glacier right off the coast :D

" Lots of people have suggested that the universe might be infinite. I can’t believe you haven’t heard this before."

I was just under the impression the steady state theory (or hypothesis or old wives tale) has like uh...whats 0 times 0? Well, that much evidence supporting it.

I'll just mosey back on over to my blind credulous faith while humming the Gilligan's Isaland theme sing which I know by heart :D

"But I’m not claiming here that the universe is infinite just that the idea is more credible than an invisible immaterial super-thing that no one can properly define,"

Thank you for sharing your opinion. When you start letting loose some facts be sure to let me know ;)

"And then of course this thing is meant to be infinite as well, or do you disagree that your god thing is infinite?"

Infinite as in what? An infinite number of eyeballs? Infinite goodness? Infinite in that God transcends our universe (including time) and does not need to be created and always existed (whatever that means)? Its hard to define a being that transcends the universe. Its best to stick with the revealed information (descriptions of God in the Bible). The Biblical anthropomorphisms will do just fine. Then again, we were created in God's image...

"Yes but for every argument for design there is an equal if not more superior argument against design."

I'll take your word on it :rolleyes:

"I have no doubt that Christians believe on faith, you have no choice, the alternative is reason and that can’t work for you. But that isn’t what you meant is it? You want to define faith in a way that makes Christianity appear rational. Well here I’d say that my Collins English dictionary sums up faith quite nicely – (1) strong or unshakable belief in something especially without proof or evidence, (4) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion especially when this is not based on reason."

And Collin happened to be drunk when he defined that word right? My dictionary on my comp doesn't have anything remotely close to those definitions. Also, the word faith is modified by Christian when I say Christian faith. Its a whole new ballgame regardless of what the dictionary says which mine does not even support your view anyway :confused:

Tell Collin to quit imbibing psycotropic agents... :eek:

"I guessed that Ariadne hadn’t hit Occam’s razor yet. But unless you can show proof of a god then without real evidence one way or the other it is always preferable to select the simplest hypothesis first."

Thats an amazing methodology you have there. "Whatever I find simpler is more correct. I find god less simpler than an infinite universe therefore the universe is infinite and God doesn't exist."

Well, I find not flushing simpler than flushing. The water has to swirl around and go down and all that complicated, chaotic stuff. Friction occurs, more water must fill it in, all the pipes et cetera. Too many components and complications. Therefore, not flushing your toilet is the preferable potty technique. In the long run flushing may have payed off but right at that moment when your done, utilize Occam's Razor. Its just simpler not to. Don't flush, be logical.

You can call that Vinnie's reductio ad flush em argument. I'm going to go print out some bumper stickers that say:

"Just say NO to Flushing."

Then again, wiping in itself complicates things. For that matter so does even sitting on the toilet...

"I have as much interest in disproving the existence of a god as I have in disproving the existence of rainbow colored flying elephants. Both are futile activities. What is really relevant is you proving your claim that a god does exist."

Just like reverse all that. I have as much interest in disproving a lack of belief in God as...

"So show me the simplest possible test you can devise that will prove to me that any god exists or has ever existed. Feel free to draw on any study from the entire history of mankind or the universe."
[Being serious now]
The simplest? Seek God and you will find Him. That is the experiment. If you trully seek you will find. I can't "convince" you on my own that God is real and can transform you. You have to be willing to let God in.
[End of Being serious]

Lots of love,
Vinnie



------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Vinnie,

I give you the winning prize.

Your ability to twist words and truth infinitely exceeds my own dismal attempts.

Time for bed.
C

The anti-christ will be a human clone. Check out The Intruder Bulletins: The Dark Side of Technology by Mark Antony Rossi http://vangoachbooks.com/nonfiction.html

Human clone sucks, I perfer to clone Jesus from the DNA found on Shourd of Tin or what ever it calls.

Originally posted by Chris:
I have as much interest in disproving the existence of a god as I have in disproving the existence of rainbow colored flying elephants. Both are futile activities. What is really relevant is you proving your claim that a god does exist.


You mean you haven't seen the elephants??? :eek: Good Lord! Where have you been?? Mars?? They are the cutest things (granted, very large) but they have all the colors, and they prefer to fly around when the sun sets, cuz it makes them look even prettier.
Very color coordinated animals.

Ariadne,

Yup I was right about you, you poor thing. :rolleyes:

Emerald did post a neat graphic of a flying elephant the last time I used that argument. Unicorns used to work then we discovered there is an animal that is technically a unicorn.

Bye for now
Cris

Originally posted by Cris:
What is this garbage!!!

Belief system?? Forced?? Entire Existence?? Opposite??

Belief system: Atheism is not a belief system. As an atheist I simply do not believe your claim that a god exists.
i.e., you believe I am wrong.
"Not" believing is still believing. It just means believing the opposite view.
That is very different from my claiming that I believe a god doesn’t exist. You are the one making the claim, and I am simply disbelieving your claim. I am not making any claims neither am I invoking a set of beliefs.
You are calling yourself an atheist.
You are defining yourself as being opposed to believing in God. ("a," not and "theist," one who believes in a god)
Forced: If we look at Christianity...etc.. I on the other hand am free to do as I wish without any coercion or force being applied.
There is that death thing.

Entire existence: Without having to be concerned with religious doctrines I am free to spend ALL my time on more productive pursuits,
Such as avoiding death?
Opposite: The syntax of your sentence implies that the second phrase ‘but opposite’ negates the first part ‘forced, belief system, entire existence, god and Christ, etc’.
Well, not quite.
An atheist actually has to accept the existence of God. Then he proceeds to try to negate it. By saying there is no God, one actually has to have an idea of what there is supposedly not one of.
In other words, one has to have a very clear idea of what it is one is attempting to negate.
For example, to say there is no snow, one has to know what snow is.
To say that another's belief that there is no snow is false, or not sufficiently proven, also requires a knowledge of what snow is.

My entire existence does not involve me being forced to maintain a belief system in terms of God and/or Christ in any way whatsoever.
Since you call yourself an atheist, this, prima facie, isn't accurate.

This is utter drivel and not worthy of further comment.
I simply do not accept your claim. Do you have any proof of this?

BTW, infinity does not mean "no beginning," it means "no end."

[This message has been edited by tony1 (edited February 23, 2001).]

Tony1,

"Not" believing is still believing.

Read back what you have written. For example let’s say you do ‘not believe’ you are dead. Using your logic you would have to say that ‘not believing’ you are dead is believing you are dead. Do you see the nonsense you have written?

It just means believing the opposite view.

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

For example: If I say that I have 100 billion dollars in my bank accounts then I suspect that you would not believe me. And since you would not find my name on any lists of the richest people in the world then you would feel justified in that disbelief. You would not believe me because the claim is unlikely or not credible. You would simply disbelieve me and feel justified in requesting I show proof if I want you to believe me. However, you cannot be certain in your disbelief, because to be certain you would need proof (i.e. a view of my bank accounts). So all you say with certainty is that you do not know whether I have the money or not but that it seems unlikely (i.e. disbelief). But you would not be justified in making an opposite claim by stating a positive belief that I did not have the money (a belief that something is false), since you have no way of knowing (no evidence).

You are defining yourself as being opposed to believing in God. ("a," not and "theist," one who believes in a god)

No, that is not correct. I posted a message for you specifically that gave links to all the definitions of atheism with full explanations. Please take the trouble to read the links and stop trying to invent your own definitions. I am not defining myself in any such manner. I simply disbelieve the claims made for the existence of gods. The claims are simply not credible. I lack belief, that is not the same as being opposed to belief.

An atheist actually has to accept the existence of God.

Atheists have no belief or acceptance in the existence of gods. Why do you feel justified in saying the opposite of what has already been clearly stated and understood for many centuries?

Then he proceeds to try to negate it.

BS.

By saying there is no God, one actually has to have an idea of what there is supposedly not one of.

This is obvious but it does not require that the object exists or any acceptance of its existence. I can easily conceive of non-existent objects. For example, I can conceive of people each with 5 heads and 10 arms. I can then proceed to disbelieve such a claim.

“My entire existence does not involve me being forced to maintain a belief system in terms of God and/or Christ in any way whatsoever

Since you call yourself an atheist, this, prima facie, isn't accurate.

My entire existence is composed of many things. One of the things is a lack of belief in gods. Logic commonly deals with three types of quantity – all, some or none. The word ‘entire’ implies ‘all’. Clearly my life involves some activities other than refuting religious arguments. My statement is therefore perfectly accurate.

“This is utter drivel and not worthy of further comment.

I simply do not accept your claim. Do you have any proof of this?

Drivel doesn’t require proof; it is self-evident.

BTW, infinity does not mean "no beginning," it means "no end."

No, infinity is defined as having no limits or boundaries, e.g. has no beginning, no end, no sides, no top, no bottom, etc.




[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 24, 2001).]

Chris,

Good answer regarding the alien thingy. If you don't believe in either, then when one proves to be true, you may want to reconsider the other, or so I hope that you would.

Also, it may help you to view spiritual law in the same way you would view natural or physical laws. We didn't create them, we just discover them, and operate within them given free will. It seems that the earth, when we respect these laws, would maintain a balance. We get into trouble and destruction and pollution when we disrespect these laws and interfere and circumvent. Well, spiritual law is the exact same way. The consequence of sin (disrespect or circumvention of spiritual law) is like spiritual pollution, which the consequence of is death. Now just like with physical law, we have free will, but there are given consequences to our actions. Now that makes perfect sense doesn't it?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Hi Lori,

Please note: No H in Cris.

If you don't believe in either, then when one proves to be true, you may want to reconsider the other, or so I hope that you would.

You have an unusual perspective, but I agree that if I were to be presented with credible evidence and proof, then I should be willing to believe without too much argument. But during my 48 years I have been duped so many times that my heart is now hardened to accepting anything without independent proof. And I don’t believe I am any more gullible than the next person, but I have been adventurous in my time and have been prepared to take risks; I still retain a very open mind when viewing new possibilities. A very experienced and professional salesman can sell anything to anyone. In a very real sense I see evangelical Christianity in the same light as a powerful sales-force. Many have tried to sell me that product numerous times since I rejected Christianity in my teens, but I just do not see any credible evidence or proofs that come anywhere close to convincing me of the Christian path.

Also, it may help you to view spiritual law in the same way you would view natural or physical laws. We didn't create them, we just discover them, and operate within them given free will…………….

I actually like that reminder… that we discover…

But while I can easily recognize natural law and natural processes, I do see spiritual law as something created by mankind. There does not seem to be a need for anything other than natural law and as you say if we don’t interfere then nature tends to maintain a perfect balance. Natural processes obeying natural law can be studied and observed, but spiritual law is not natural, it is created and enforced by human political influences, a product of human imagination. It is a concept that does not exist outside of human intellect.

It is true that if we fight against natural law we are doomed to fail, we must work with such laws. But spiritual law has no hold over me, and once I had rejected such a dead end concept I was able to experience true freedom. The dark clouds of imagined sin and consequent fear and guilt were vanquished forever.

Take care
Cris

Hi Vinnie,

"So show me the simplest possible test you can devise that will prove to me that any god exists or has ever existed. Feel free to draw on any study from the entire history of mankind or the universe."

[Being serious now]
The simplest? Seek God and you will find Him. That is the experiment. If you trully seek you will find. I can't "convince" you on my own that God is real and can transform you. You have to be willing to let God in.
[End of Being serious]

I believe I have tried this, I certainly remember arguing with my parents and other family members for the Christian cause. Perhaps I simply did not seek hard enough, but no, I don’t think I could have tried harder. Throughout that experience I remember an irritating doubt, a discomfort, a something that simply did not have that ring of truth that one experiences when one knows that something is right.

I know we argue about logic and evidence and proofs etc, and I depend on all these things, but I also depend a great deal on instinct and intuition. As I grow older (now 48) I have found these instincts to be far more dependable than in earlier years, perhaps it is an increase in wisdom through aging. But over these last 10 years of active debates as an atheist I have never experienced that irritating doubt or discomfort I felt as a Christian. All my analytical skills tell me that Christianity should not be believed, and all my instincts tell me that Christianity is false.

I cannot any longer conceive of any eventuality that could convince me to try that experiment, that you suggest, again. That ‘letting God in’ as you call it would require me to deny my intuition and instincts that I now find so dependable, and this is before I consider my ability to reason and analyze.

I believe you have significant analytical abilities of your own and I hope that one day in the next few years you will develop those instincts that I have experienced and you will come to doubt the path you have chosen. I recognize that at the present time there is no way you could conceive of that outcome yet.

I wish you well and hope that you will eventually find the truth whatever it is.

Take care
Cris

Originally posted by Cris

I believe you have significant analytical abilities of your own and I hope that one day in the next few years you will develop those instincts that I have experienced and you will come to doubt the path you have chosen. I recognize that at the present time there is no way you could conceive of that outcome yet.



I've read what you posted, and I respect your opinion/non-belief, or whatever you want to call it. I can also understand where you're coming from, and though I've had my doubts about Christianity, I've found no reason not to believe. But I really don't think that you should state that your opinion is the only right, reasonable thing to do, and that sooner or later we'll all come to believe that way. I dunno, that, above, just didn't seem right, or fair to me....

Ariadne,

Originally posted by Ariadne2525
But I really don't think that you should state that your opinion is the only right, reasonable thing to do, and that sooner or later we'll all come to believe that way. I dunno, that, above, just didn't seem right, or fair to me....

You have read far more into what I said than I intended. I cannot claim that I have the only correct solution, and I did not claim that. My post was specific to Vinnie who is at the age where I rejected Christianity after being a very forceful and unquestioning believer. I simply noticed parallels with Vinnie and myself and if he is anything like me (apologies to Vinnie for this insult) then he may indeed reac the same conclusions. And this really does not apply to anyone else, and it is not intended as condescending or arrogant - just an obervation.

Take care
Cris

Hi,

What is your theory?

Check out Conversations with Nostradamus by Dolores Cannon -the antichrist is an inventor

Children of Ezekiel by Michael Lieb -talks about how technology is a tool of God

The prince of the power of the air plays a mean HAARP -a misc. study on-line, suggests Tesla was/is the antichrist.

Lets remember, its impossible to be the opposite of christ as christ is opposites alpha-omega

and the church has gone 180 from Jesus's intent and so too must the christ to deal with it.

It may be too late for you to write a story as the man in question is about a month or two away from outing himself.

Just like 'Browser' said, "Go to the source, the Holy Bible!" Check out the book of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and do some 'soul searching'. (p.s) Most be "born again" to really have an understanding of the Holy Scripture! Believe on the Lord Jesus as Saviour and Lord, any other way you will be deceived. Trust Jesus!

Just like 'Browser' said, "Try the Bible, go to the source"! Read through the book of Daniel, Ezekiel, and more! (p.s) You most be 'born again' to really have an understanding of the Bible and it's message to you! Trust Jesus! Any other way, and you would be deceived by the enemy! (the Devil).

Sir,

Thats a nice knee jerk, blanket response to any situation- the end times is not so simple.

Don't trust Jesus, The christ is not for the church to define...to trust the churchs "JESUS" is to let the church do your judging for you. Individual discernment is your only hope. Trust me, Christians don't know that the antichrist is the christ because the church would be unemployed if the truth was known...they pump out propaganda like THE OMEGA CODE to maintain this whole dualistic G vs. E scenario...its much more complicated, yet so much more simple than that.

....let the reader understand...that the Anti/christ is a misnomer.

Hi!, 'Ada', the Church and the Word of God will forever stand for the truth of Jesus's Holy Word. And this is "Propaganda" only in the unregenerate mind. (un-saved) To what you have said; it is from the 'spirit' of the Anti-Christ (Satan) to try to create doubt and confusion onto the weak. I know where your words are coming from, it is of 'demonic-deception' and we the 'true Christians' can not and will not except the "lies of the Devil"! Jesus said to those that are in Christ and in the word of God: "You shell know the 'truth' and the 'truth' shall set you free". Free from what?, you may say., Free from the power of sin, and Satan's snares. (lies, falsehoods) We trust in only the perfect, unfailing, indestructible, Holy word of God! Not the word of lost ones, who's words are like 'quick-sand'. You have built your house on sand, (sink-hole) and great will be it's fall! Come build your house on 'bed-rock', the rock Jesus the Christ the Son of the living God! You have been long deceived by the "World, the Flesh, and the Devil! Oh ye that are in the 'spirit' of the Anti-Christ! Beware! :)

Sir,

Its go time yo!

You've got to be kidding me??

Why are you even visiting a science forum, better yet why is this part of a science forum?...

....dude...get a clue...I challenge you to a debate and we may as well do it here.

The debate will be based on my questions to you...

Will the second coming descend from the sky in Jerusalem with stigmata?

How will he destroy those who destroy the earth without destroying the earth?

If a demon can appear good can an angel appear bad?

Think for yourself or bend over

Originally posted by ada
If a demon can appear good can an angel appear bad?


Very good question, really. But I think the answer to that can possibly be yes. I mean, the Angel of Death is definitely one angel that I have no desire whatsoever to cross paths with.

***

I started this topic, because I caught part of a program once about the Anti-Christ that I didn't pay that much attention to at the time. But one part caught my attention. It was a scene of a modern-day mother (of course, this was a little over two years ago) dragging her little boy into a temple, and the narrator was saying that the Anti-Christ would despise going to church, since it is a place of God and the such.

Like I said, I didn't really pay attention to the show, but I read a fanfic lately online that dealt with the Anti-Christ, and the memory of noticing that short segment from the program resurfaced. And I started thinking about why I remembered it so vividly, seeing as how I hadn't even thought about it until I read the fanfic. I can remember how I thought it was bad that he wasn't going to church (I had thus far been raised in a highly religious family) but at the same time, understood why he wouldn't want to go to church. I would guess that having grown literally in the shadow of the church, I grew to despise being forced to go to Church ever Sunday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and any other time my dad would decide we had to go. At the time, I was too young to really understand my dislike of going to church, something my subconcious kept to itself, but the older I got, the more I noticed. Of course, my faith in God's existence has remained, but has actually strengthened since I stopped attending church.

Anyways, I read the fanfic, remembered the memory, and wondered. What exactly makes the Anti-Christ? Is s/he/it* really Satan's reincarnate, or whatever? or is the Anti-Christ just an Anit-Church? Because if that's so, then there are many of us who would fit that category. I'm still young and I'm still learning, so I know that I don't know much at all about the Anti-Christ and that there is probably much more to him/her/it that I still am not aware of.

But I think that it is possible to hate the church and what it represents and still have faith in God and basic Christianity. Because, what the church preaches is what it represents, right? Well, the average church warps the Bible and reads into it too much, and therefore distorts the image of Jesus and how the basic Christian should act. So, my over-imaginative mind wondered, is the Anti-Christ really evil? Or is s/he/it just a being that is trying to bring the world to attention of the church's hypocracy?

If there's anything you don't understand about what I've just typed, please tell me and I'll try to explain.
Kindle

*I used the s/he/it because I'm not sure if the Anti-Christ would be male, female, or even human. ^_^; I hope you understand.

The Antichrist. What an honor, eh? This person is basically equal to Christ, except in a diametric manner. Where Christ stands for all that is good, the Antichrist supposedly stands for all that is <i>not</i> good. There will be a scene reminiscent of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (last two roles to be played simultaneously by the Antichrist), with the destined High Noon staredown. Television crews the world over will record this wonderful event; the couch potato will express dismay that his program has just been interrupted to "--report that, what appears to be Jesus Christ, has squared off with none other than his fabled nemesis, the Antichrist. The legions of hell, sneering and gnashing most likely very large canines, are on the side of the Antichrist. Christ, meanwhile, has called on his numerous concourses of destroying angels, a not-so-benevolent group, to come to his side. Non-christians and atheists, prop up a chair and enjoy our commercial-free coverage. Christians ... well, regardless of the outcome, best of luck to you in your new theocracy."

Now, for some cryptic trivial nonsense:
Who's the forerunner, in essence John the Baptist, of these "last days"?
None other than Carl Jung! With his emphasis on archetypes and anima and animus, it's no wonder that people don't realize how close the end is.

The Antichrist?
Ironically, basically anyone that's Christian.

The Christ?
Why, Ann Lee, of course. Unfortunately, she's already six feet under. It's all right, though, she keeps getting reincarnated as various religious leaders.

Now, of course this was done in an entirely satirical fashion. It's intent is to show that (I think) most Christians realize that their respective beliefs are rather uneventful and that they cannot wait until the predicted day when their Christ (who's got some mighty big expectations to meet) and the Antichrist (another scapegoat) challenge one another.

Hope this lightened your day. If not, then please understand that even God does not take your beliefs that seriously.<IMG SRC="images/icons/icon12.gif" HEIGHT=15 WIDTH=15 ALIGN=ABSCENTER alt="Wink">

Originally posted by ada
Sir,

Its go time yo!

You've got to be kidding me??

Why are you even visiting a science forum, better yet why is this part of a science forum?...

....dude...get a clue...I challenge you to a debate and we may as well do it here.

The debate will be based on my questions to you...

Will the second coming descend from the sky in Jerusalem with stigmata?

How will he destroy those who destroy the earth without destroying the earth?

If a demon can appear good can an angel appear bad?

Think for yourself or bend over


[ serious ]

Hello Ada, I like to read and explore science and astronomy on the web. "For the Heavens Declare the Glory of God", " and the Earth do show forth His handy work" (Psalms 19:1) KJ.

And about the 'angels of God', they will not practice deception because they are of God's, and there is NO deception in Him! For God is Holy! The Devil and his 'angels' (demons) or 'fallen angels' and will be deceiving, pretending to be; dead folks talking , or lepricons, or gods, what ever it takes to deceive you. Satan is a LIAR and the truth is not in him!

About Jesus's return, He created the world and when He comes he will rule and wrain for a 'thousand years'. And at the end of the 1000 years, the Devil who was cast into the bottomless pit at Jesus 2cd coming, will be loosed for a season, but will be again cast into the Lake of Fire, this time forever with all that is deceived of the Devil. And there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth, for the former things are passed away. The old heavens will be rolled up like a scroll, and the old Earth will be destroyed by fire! The old world will be destroyed and the New Jerusalem will come down to the New Earth and the saints of God will forever be with Jesus! Now some I hear say or preach that the Earth will be reincarnated, (made new) same planet, completely different conditions. God Himself shell live there with all His Glory! No more death, sickness, etc. Heaven and Earth completely different! Read the Bible, and ask God through His Son Jesus for a clearer understanding. Go to church of your choice, where Jesus is Lord!

Any other way you will NOT fully understand because of unbelief, and could be even more confused. Jesus is our only hope! [serious] You will be DECEIVED if you do it in your own intellect!

Why does the perfect God has such flawed creation--human, that he is not so eagerly to correct at this moment by himself?

When he created 1st human, is he trying to test if his creation can endure the lure of devil? Or he simply created such being for fun? Obviously his creation was not perfect. Was it because he knew he will make such flawed attempt and did it anyway because he couldn't overcome a stronger power? Or it was because he was really bored and need to create some mess that will last thousands of years so he can watch and have something to do?

Maybe God is really bored, that he made a flawed creation so that he can continue to play with them and won't get too bored in the next few thousand years. Isn't that pathetic?

Loony preacher,

! Read the Bible, and ask God through His Son Jesus for a clearer understanding. Go to church of your choice, where Jesus is Lord!

Any other way you will NOT fully understand because of unbelief, and could be even more confused. Jesus is our only hope! [serious] You will be DECEIVED if you do it in your own intellect!

Why would your god create us with powerful intellects then expect us to deny and ignore these vital abilities when it comes to deciding, possibly the most important aspect of our lives (if god(s) exist), whether to believe in him or not? Surely, if he is worth believing then it should be because we can use all of our abilities to the fullest to appreciate his alleged majesty.

Your preaching is an offensive regurgitation of unsupported assertions. This is a debate where we question everything, i.e. we use our intellects to help us discover truth.

Before we could accept your suggestions we would need to be convinced of several things like –

(1). Why read the bible? Men wrote this at a time when ignorance and superstitions were overwhelming. Why would such a highly suspect text be worth reading let alone believing in this age of scientific discoveries and widespread informed education? The bible seems completely irrelevant today and it’s wording is highly ambiguous, confusing and contradictory. Further its contents appear to be entirely based on fictional mythology. What can you offer educated intellectuals that would entice them to read such an incredulous text?

(2). You need to show that a god exists and that he had a son before one could go around talking to invisible mystical ghosts. What can you offer me that might convince me to embarrass myself in such a way?

(3). Why should I follow your suggestions? What makes you a person I should believe? What are your credentials that give you the authority to give such highly suspect advice?

And why are you here? You appear to be a preacher. This is a debate that requires intellectual reasoning. Unsupported assertions do not qualify as debate.

Cris

The antichrist and second coming of christ are the same person.

The church has deviated 180 and so too must the passive alpha lamb deviate into a aggressive omega lion.

The central endtimes character described in Revelations, Daniel and the Apocrypha is is here to judge the nations but also to be judged. For in our judgement of this man we reveal our ability to discern our egos intent from that of the Godhead and its representatives.

Unlike Yeshua ben Joseph who was aware from an early age he was the destined savior of the time, who was versed in organic miracles, who had to allow himself to be crucified- his future counterpart was forced to figure it out for himself, he had to verse himself in ultra advanced disruptive technology, and he has to allow the divine wrath of his creator to flow through him uninhibited by his egos fear of appearing INSANE OR EVIL.

The scenario of our times allows him to complete 3 key functions specific to these times.

1 He must claim to be God in order to be judged, when you judge a Godhead representative you in effect judge God. When you judge God/Creation you reveal your true intent and you are subsequently "Marked" for separation.

2. He must enable credibility for this claim by fulfilling prophecy...

3. He must create heaven on earth as promised, with a little help from our friends in Hyperspace.


Thats the truth like it or not...btw, I didn't like going to church because of some cosmic aversion to God, just the self proclaimed devotees trying to glorifying God. WWXD? sing about himself or KICK ARSE!?

Originally posted by Cris
Loony preacher,



Why would your god create us with powerful intellects then expect us to deny and ignore these vital abilities when it comes to deciding, possibly the most important aspect of our lives (if god(s) exist), whether to believe in him or not? Surely, if he is worth believing then it should be because we can use all of our abilities to the fullest to appreciate his alleged majesty.

Your preaching is an offensive regurgitation of unsupported assertions. This is a debate where we question everything, i.e. we use our intellects to help us discover truth.

Before we could accept your suggestions we would need to be convinced of several things like –

(1). Why read the bible? Men wrote this at a time when ignorance and superstitions were overwhelming. Why would such a highly suspect text be worth reading let alone believing in this age of scientific discoveries and widespread informed education? The bible seems completely irrelevant today and it’s wording is highly ambiguous, confusing and contradictory. Further its contents appear to be entirely based on fictional mythology. What can you offer educated intellectuals that would entice them to read such an incredulous text?

(2). You need to show that a god exists and that he had a son before one could go around talking to invisible mystical ghosts. What can you offer me that might convince me to embarrass myself in such a way?

(3). Why should I follow your suggestions? What makes you a person I should believe? What are your credentials that give you the authority to give such highly suspect advice?

And why are you here? You appear to be a preacher. This is a debate that requires intellectual reasoning. Unsupported assertions do not qualify as debate.

Cris

Cris! You glorify in your own intellect!? ..Well the word of God clearly says; "that our 'righteousness' is as of 'FILTHY RAGS' before GOD!" And that I,& God, would see anyone that boast of there knowledge, and of our technology as unto a bad baby that just needs his/her 'diapers' changed, in a bad way!! :) "The 'wisdom of men' is foolishness in the site of GOD!" You just reminded me of the ancient King "Nebuchadnezzar", he was boasting one day of how great he was, his greatness and glory and splender of his kingdom. But he soon went 'mad' (smote by God), and went running around like a wild animal, eating the grass like a cow or some grazing animal , and that lasted for years before he miraculously regained his scenes! Nebuchadnezzar was an ancient king of Babylon. "Pride goes' before a fall"!
And that 'Pride' is the original sin Satan committed in Heaven, but he and his 'angels' (now demons) where cast down to Earth, and now great is his wrath because he has a little season to do his dirty work of deceiving the nations and individuals like yourself, the host of mankind! And his ultimate deception is in the person of the 'Anti-Christ', and if your not 'saved' you and host of humanity that is not saved could think that he is the "Christ"! And will be greatly deceived and lose there precious souls forever!! God has spoken it in His Holy Word! ...It's your words against the that of the 'Supreme Being', GOD ALMIGHTY!

Proverbs 24:1-2 : And, "Do not envy wicked men, do not desire their company; for their hearts plot violence, and their lips talk about making trouble.

The Holy Bible is the "inspired word of God." It IS from GOD Himself! He is speaking to YOU indirectly through me and others! Read the book! (Holy Bible) The ever living Word of GOD!!

Sir

You are wasting precious memory here, why don't you order the anti/christs book at www.iuniverse.com - GODLIKE THE ABOMINATION although it will be wasted on you the royalties will go towards the ultimate campaign against the error activated paradigm.

I LOVE CHRIST its his followers i can't tolerate

...the same thing we do every night Pinky...

Originally posted by Ariadne2525
I'm doing a bit of research for my own benefit or whatnot. But I can't seem to find a place with decent information on the Anti-Christ! Could anyone possibly help me here?

(As for the reason for this question, I have a teeny lil' theory about the Anti-Christ, but I need to do a bit of researching for it.)

Try meditating in, and reading the Bible, the book of Revelation, the last book in the Bible, look in the Old Testament, the book of Daniel, and in Ezekiel. Go to Church, and go to a video store and get the movie "Left Behind". Don't try to figure on your own, you could miss the point completely! And be more 'deceived' then now if you do not go to the source 'the Bible' Jesus can help only if you let Him! Any other way you would be LOST in 'sarcastic,' 'apathetic', demonic, daze! (you would not comprehend or care) Go to the SOURCE! :)

Don't try to figure on your own
Thank you for striking at the heart of what's wrong with Christianity in particular, and other religions as well.

That's gotta hurt like a spike in the shin.

You know, it's amazing how often evangelical Christianity gets around to that point.

Evan eht nioj!

guh-rinning,
Tiassa :cool:

you would not comprehend or care

Don't be subtle man. Let it all out.

--Tiassa :cool:

So everyone,

Since Loone never answers any of our questions, at least not in any rational form, and since he preaches that human intellect is a very bad thing, do you think it is safe to assume that he has no intellect of his own. And since it is the intellect that is the basis of human thought, then Loone appears to be unable to think for himself.

What is the difference between something that is incapable of independent thought and say the lower primates?

Even KoKo (http://www.koko.org/) has its own independent thoughts...

Originally posted by Cris
So everyone,

What is the difference between something that is incapable of independent thought and say the lower primates?

You're Mean! ;) Heheh :D

Originally posted by Cris
(1). Why read the bible? Men wrote this at a time when ignorance and superstitions were overwhelming. Why would such a highly suspect text be worth reading let alone believing in this age of scientific discoveries and widespread informed education? The bible seems completely irrelevant today and it’s wording is highly ambiguous, confusing and contradictory. Further its contents appear to be entirely based on fictional mythology. What can you offer educated intellectuals that would entice them to read such an incredulous text?
A couple of questions...
<ol>
<li>Ignorance and superstition are overwhelming today. So how do those days differ from these days?</li>
<li>If you claim to be an intellectual today, and claim that there wern't any in those days, then you must be a very evolved person.
Are you also far superior to all of the people of the past, as well as to most of those alive today?</li></ol>

(2). You need to show that a god exists and that he had a son before one could go around talking to invisible mystical ghosts. What can you offer me that might convince me to embarrass myself in such a way?
Since you don't believe in any of this stuff, what do you mean by "god," "mystical" and "ghost?"

This is a debate that requires intellectual reasoning. Unsupported assertions do not qualify as debate.
Vice versa, also.
Some claims may not be unsupported, they may simply be beyond the ability of some to comprehend.
You may be very willing to define your own intellect as being superior to all others, but I'm not willing to accept such an assumption.

What is the difference between something that is incapable of independent thought and say the lower primates?
Before I answer this, how are your thoughts independent from those of other atheists?

Originally posted by tony1

Since you don't believe in any of this stuff, what do you mean by "god," "mystical" and "ghost?"


Does an object/concept described by words needs to be exists to have a meaning? We don't believe Sun will raise from the west, but we are pretty sure what it means.


Vice versa, also.
Some claims may not be unsupported, they may simply be beyond the ability of some to comprehend.
You may be very willing to define your own intellect as being superior to all others, but I'm not willing to accept such an assumption.


For us, we can devise a method to prove our claims on terms and conditions agreed by the opposing party. I don't think you can do that.


Before I answer this, how are your thoughts independent from those of other atheists?

We are willing to drop our old theories if a new theory can explain all of the old ones. I don't think you have this option.

Hi Tony1,

Sorry I have not been able to debate more with you recently, I’m still snowed under here at work, but you deserve more from me.

Ignorance and superstition are overwhelming today. So how do those days differ from these days?

Most people in the world now receive significantly more education compared to 2000 years ago. This has reduced ignorance by a large degree. Superstitions are generally only believed by people who have no way to determine truth or fallacy. Ignorance is the seed of gullibility. Religions depend on people being ignorant.

If you claim to be an intellectual today, and claim that there wern't any in those days, then you must be a very evolved person.

I don’t recall making such claims. The primary, and relative, difference between 2000 years ago and now is our standards of education and information technology. Knowledge and information are able to replace ignorance. Our intellectual abilities have not changed in any significant manner but we are now far better informed and hence are more able to make better decisions and choices.

Are you also far superior to all of the people of the past, as well as to most of those alive today?

I am little different to my ancestors of recent millennia or to anyone alive today. But I do have access to a vast knowledge base, and the abilities to understand it, facilities that were simply not available just a few centuries ago.

Since you don't believe in any of this stuff, what do you mean by "god," "mystical" and "ghost?"

Every religionist appears to have their own personal perception of a god, or a soul, or spirit, or nature of being. All these concepts can be grouped under the heading of supernatural. None are supported by unambiguous and credible proofs.

Vice versa, also.

I couldn’t determine what you were referencing by this.

Some claims may not be unsupported, they may simply be beyond the ability of some to comprehend.

I agree that some people of limited intelligence will have difficulty understanding complex issues. Can we assume then that if such people cannot understand complex religious concepts and therefore reject them then your god will not accept them? You are implying that Christianity is only for the elite. No I am sure you do not mean that.

The less intelligent among us do tend to realize their own limitations and are usually content to be led by others. These represent the base fodder for superstitions and religions. Another view is that the support for religious claims is so incomprehensible that only the stupid would believe them.

No, I think your claim of inability to understand must mean something other than lack of intelligence. But I am not sure what that could be. If the support for a claim, i.e. the evidential proof, is unambiguous, substantial, and can withstand significant and sustained examination, then that support should be acceptable to at least the moderately intelligent among us, e.g. most of us here at sciforums. Or are you claiming that your intelligence and therefore your ability to understand is superior to ours; are you one of the Christian elite?

You may be very willing to define your own intellect as being superior to all others, but I'm not willing to accept such an assumption.

No that is not what I have said or claimed. It is not a matter of superiority of intellect but a fundamental question of whether one should use ones intellect or not. Loone is saying that the human intellect causes confusion when examining supernatural matters and so must be ignored. I simply find that a preposterous and ludicrous requirement.

Before I answer this, how are your thoughts independent from those of other atheists?

I share at least one single thought with all other atheists, a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods. Like most atheists I came by my conclusion independently because there are no groups of atheists trying to convert me to their way of thinking. Atheism isn’t an organized religion. My above average intelligence, my education, and the experiences of my life, have taught me to be wary of charlatans, salesmen, tricksters, politicians, and anyone who wants me to do as THEY wish. Put another way, I need to see proof of a personal benefit before I accept what anyone wants to sell me. The actuality of eternal life is by far the biggest item that could be sold, but the salesmen I meet (the religionists) can offer me no proof that they have this commodity for sale. Please, please, show me some proof because I would love to believe. But until you can show me proof then you remain classed with all the other charlatans, tricksters, and politicians who offer empty promises.

Cris

[QUOTE]Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Why does the perfect God has such flawed creation--human, that he is not so eagerly to correct at this moment by himself?

When he created 1st human, is he trying to test if his creation can endure the lure of devil? Or he simply created such being for fun? Obviously his creation was not perfect. Was it because he knew he will make such flawed attempt and did it anyway because he couldn't overcome a stronger power? Or it was because he was really bored and need to create some mess that will last thousands of years so he can watch and have something to do?

Maybe God is really bored, that he made a flawed creation so that he can continue to play with them and won't get too bored in the next few thousand years. Isn't that pathetic? [/QU
OTE]

Hi! "Dekapak." This is Sir. Loone, or Zangief Loone. God has created Man for His own pleaser, and that He created 'us' (Adam and Eve) perfect beings before the 'fall'. And GOD gave them free-will to choose between 'good' (obeying GOD) or 'evil' (disobeying GOD) and He know's what He is doing in doing so! Because GOD does' not want to have ROBOTS or PUPPETS or ZOMBIES to serve Him with no will of there own! :) GOD Himself really doesn't "make mistakes", but 'we' did ! And GOD wants to have a 'loving relationship with the ones that choose to serve Him and praise Him for our redemption from sin and the 'Evil-one' by His coming into the world Himself as a baby, to grow to a man, live the 'perfect life', Jesus is the only one who has lived the perfect life before GOD the Father; And actually died in OUR place and had raison from the dead unto Glory and eternal life, that [we] may be with Him in paradise! And that those who refuse will be in torment , for ever separated from the "Author of Life Himself", that is Hell. there is more to this then that, you would have to lessen to a sermon or more on the subject. ..

Well He (GOD) is not trying to be cruel, but He gave us freewill to choose! :) He grows the "wheat" and the "tyres" together, and GOD will do the "Thrashing prosses" (separating) in His time! :)

"Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith" I pray that the 'Spirit' will give ye the insight to the message, and that others will help you to better understanding of GOD's will in creation.

Originally posted by pragmathen
The Antichrist. What an honor, eh? This person is basically equal to Christ, except in a diametric manner. Where Christ stands for all that is good, the Antichrist supposedly stands for all that is <i>not</i> good. There will be a scene reminiscent of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (last two roles to be played simultaneously by the Antichrist), with the destined High Noon staredown. Television crews the world over will record this wonderful event; the couch potato will express dismay that his program has just been interrupted to "--report that, what appears to be Jesus Christ, has squared off with none other than his fabled nemesis, the Antichrist. The legions of hell, sneering and gnashing most likely very large canines, are on the side of the Antichrist. Christ, meanwhile, has called on his numerous concourses of destroying angels, a not-so-benevolent group, to come to his side. Non-christians and atheists, prop up a chair and enjoy our commercial-free coverage. Christians ... well, regardless of the outcome, best of luck to you in your new theocracy."

Now, for some cryptic trivial nonsense:
Who's the forerunner, in essence John the Baptist, of these "last days"?
None other than Carl Jung! With his emphasis on archetypes and anima and animus, it's no wonder that people don't realize how close the end is.

The Antichrist?
Ironically, basically anyone that's Christian.

The Christ?
Why, Ann Lee, of course. Unfortunately, she's already six feet under. It's all right, though, she keeps getting reincarnated as various religious leaders.

Now, of course this was done in an entirely satirical fashion. It's intent is to show that (I think) most Christians realize that their respective beliefs are rather uneventful and that they cannot wait until the predicted day when their Christ (who's got some mighty big expectations to meet) and the Antichrist (another scapegoat) challenge one another.

Hope this lightened your day. If not, then please understand that even God does not take your beliefs that seriously.<IMG SRC="images/icons/icon12.gif" HEIGHT=15 WIDTH=15 ALIGN=ABSCENTER alt="Wink">

Hi there! :) When Jesus comes, IT will be NO CONTEST! :) Jesus will destroy the Anti-Christ with the BRIGHTNESS of His coming!! And the Anti-Christ will be worst then 'road kill', Jesus, the word of GOD will be ABSOLUTELY VICTORIOUS!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Sir. Loone
God has created Man for His own pleaser, and that He created 'us' (Adam and Eve) perfect beings before the 'fall'. And GOD gave them free-will to choose between 'good' (obeying GOD) or 'evil' (disobeying GOD) and He know's what He is doing in doing so! Because GOD does' not want to have ROBOTS or PUPPETS or ZOMBIES to serve Him with no will of there own! :) GOD Himself really doesn't "make mistakes", but 'we' did ! ...

If he knew what Adam and Eve were going to pick, then why being a wussy and got mad on them when they didn't pick the side that he liked? If he couldn't predict, then well..., I am not going to blame him for his mistake.

BTW, God gives us the ability to make mistake, and that's his mistake. Too bad....

Originally posted by Sir. Loone


Hi there! :) When Jesus comes, IT will be NO CONTEST! :) Jesus will destroy the Anti-Christ with the BRIGHTNESS of His coming!! And the Anti-Christ will be worst then 'road kill', Jesus, the word of GOD will be ABSOLUTELY VICTORIOUS!!!!!!!

Give me a date so I can start to worry...

dak,

You realise that what Loone says can't be true. Adam and Eve were not able to choose between good and evil because they had no nowledge of such things before they ate from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil.

They couldnt have known that disobeying a god was wrong before they ate the fruit.

This myth shows a god of ultimate deception.

Cris

Originally posted by Cris
You realise that what Loone says can't be true...

I really don't care, because either way it makes whole story look stupid. :D

Originally posted by Sir. Loone
Heaven and Earth completely different! Read the Bible, and ask God through His Son Jesus for a clearer understanding. Go to church of your choice, <i> where Jesus is Lord! </i>



So, er, he's not Lord anywhere else?

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Does an object/concept described by words needs to be exists to have a meaning?
Are you proposing the existence of non-existent meanings here?
It's amazing what a dictionary in a blender will come up with.

For us, we can devise a method to prove our claims on terms and conditions agreed by the opposing party. I don't think you can do that.
So, you are proposing to be able to devise a method by which to prove God doesn't exist?
Wow!
Keep in mind, other atheists are only willing to go as far as to say that God has not been proven to exist to them.
You appear to be saying that you can prove it to everyone.

We are willing to drop our old theories if a new theory can explain all of the old ones.
Well, you haven't been willing to drop atheism.
I don't think you have this option.
I've gone thru all the theories already, including the ones you hold so dear.
You'll find that they're not true, hopefully sooner, but for sure later.

Originally posted by Cris
Hi Tony1,
Sorry I have not been able to debate more with you recently, I’m still snowed under here at work, but you deserve more from me.
I appreciate your taking the time.

Most people in the world now receive significantly more education compared to 2000 years ago. This has reduced ignorance by a large degree. Superstitions are generally only believed by people who have no way to determine truth or fallacy. Ignorance is the seed of gullibility. Religions depend on people being ignorant.
You appear to be making the point that there can be no ignorant although educated people.
This point appears to be combined with the idea that superstition is based essentially upon the absence of education.
However, how many people seek an education on the basis of the superstition that a piece of paper from an educational institution will improve their life, or bring them success or some such thing?
Look at Bill Gates, the richest dropout in the world.
He must have realized a certain superstition involved in his initial foray into the world of education, only to rethink his position.
Who would argue that he made an incorrect choice?

I don’t recall making such claims.
See your post where you claim "above average intelligence."
The primary, and relative, difference between 2000 years ago and now is our standards of education and information technology. Knowledge and information are able to replace ignorance. Our intellectual abilities have not changed in any significant manner but we are now far better informed and hence are more able to make better decisions and choices.
You appear to be implying that more equals better where information is concerned.
Thus, it appears that a person who identifies the sun as the sun 2000 years ago is poorly informed, whereas his modern counterpart knowing the proportion of various elements in the sun is much better off?

I am little different to my ancestors of recent millennia or to anyone alive today. But I do have access to a vast knowledge base, and the abilities to understand it, facilities that were simply not available just a few centuries ago.
This still looks like "quantity equals quality."

Every religionist appears to have their own personal perception of a god, or a soul, or spirit, or nature of being. All these concepts can be grouped under the heading of supernatural. None are supported by unambiguous and credible proofs.
Scientific beliefs fall into this category as well, then.
Most controversy in scientific circles arises simply because there are few unambiguous and credible proofs in science, also.
It is always interesting to see how pro-scientists attempt to present "science" as a monolithic, unified and non-contradictory body of knowledge, where in reality, science consists primarily of huge quantites of data whose accuracy is contested by other scientists, and of conclusions, "based" on this data, which are also hotly contested by other scientists.
This doesn't sound very different from a non-religionist's description of religion.

I couldn’t determine what you were referencing by this.
What I was referencing was that unsupported assertions by non-religionists also do not qualify as debate.
If one non-religionist makes an assertion and another quotes it later, that is still an unsupported assertion.

I agree that some people of limited intelligence will have difficulty understanding complex issues. Can we assume then that if such people cannot understand complex religious concepts and therefore reject them then your god will not accept them? You are implying that Christianity is only for the elite. No I am sure you do not mean that.
I was actually referring to limited comprehension rather than limited intelligence.
Surely, comprehension and intelligence do not have identical meanings.
It is entirely possible to be of superior intelligence and be able to formulate plans far beyond those of an ordinary person, and at the same time be of such limited comprehension as to be unable to choose the right, or any, such plan.

The less intelligent among us do tend to realize their own limitations and are usually content to be led by others.
Interesting.
I've noticed that less intelligent people appear to have no clue that they are such, whereas it normally takes great intelligence to be aware of superior intelligence.

This should be self-evident, in that limited intelligence is, by definition, limited intelligence.

These represent the base fodder for superstitions and religions. Another view is that the support for religious claims is so incomprehensible that only the stupid would believe them.
Hence the great prevalence, and awe of, scientific superstition.

No, I think your claim of inability to understand must mean something other than lack of intelligence. But I am not sure what that could be. If the support for a claim, i.e. the evidential proof, is unambiguous, substantial, and can withstand significant and sustained examination, then that support should be acceptable to at least the moderately intelligent among us, e.g. most of us here at sciforums.
The acceptability of such proof is at such a low level that I actually expect better things from people here.
Granted, there is a great reverence for observation here, however the data collected and accepted as true is based on such a short time-span that it is questionable that it is representative of all time, let alone eternity.

Or are you claiming that your intelligence and therefore your ability to understand is superior to ours; are you one of the Christian elite?
I'm not claiming this.

It is not a matter of superiority of intellect but a fundamental question of whether one should use ones intellect or not. Loone is saying that the human intellect causes confusion when examining supernatural matters and so must be ignored. I simply find that a preposterous and ludicrous requirement.
I'm not sure it should be ignored, however there are things that are felt to be intellect, whereas they may turn out to be manifestations of high dudgeon and not much more.

My above average intelligence, my education, and the experiences of my life, have taught me to be wary of charlatans, salesmen, tricksters, politicians, and anyone who wants me to do as THEY wish. Put another way, I need to see proof of a personal benefit before I accept what anyone wants to sell me.
OTOH, car salesman rank relatively low on most people's trust scales, yet who do most car buyers go to?

The actuality of eternal life is by far the biggest item that could be sold, but the salesmen I meet (the religionists) can offer me no proof that they have this commodity for sale.
"For sale" implies that I have it and stand to benefit monetarily if I transfer it to you.
Eternal life is free for the asking.

Please, please, show me some proof because I would love to believe. But until you can show me proof then you remain classed with all the other charlatans, tricksters, and politicians who offer empty promises.
You say you would love to believe. Proof would deprive you of this, since you would know, rather than believe.
Interesting predicament you've put yourself in.

You realise that what Loone says can't be true. Adam and Eve were not able to choose between good and evil because they had no nowledge of such things before they ate from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil.

They couldnt have known that disobeying a god was wrong before they ate the fruit.
Good point.
Adam and Eve only had God's word to go by. They were OK until they heard the serpent's word and decided to go by that instead.

Originally posted by Ariadne2525
So, er, he's not Lord anywhere else?
He is Lord of all.

Originally posted by Ariadne2525


So, er, he's not Lord anywhere else?

I was being very sarcastic when I said that.

Originally posted by tony1

Are you proposing the existence of non-existent meanings here?
It's amazing what a dictionary in a blender will come up with.

Yes, I gave you an example, and you just ignored it. The Sun won't raise from the West. That's a non-existent event. Yet we do have an existing meaning for such non-existent event.


So, you are proposing to be able to devise a method by which to prove God doesn't exist?

Did I say I am proposing such method to prove God doesn't exist? All I am saying is for things that we are certain, we can prove them by methods that agreed by both parties.


Wow!

Yes, wow!


Keep in mind, other atheists are only willing to go as far as to say that God has not been proven to exist to them.

That's better. You know that already.


You appear to be saying that you can prove it to everyone.

I think I should make it clear that the proves are only for things we are certain of. God is not one of them.


Well, you haven't been willing to drop atheism.

Yes, I am willing to drop atheism if you can prove God's existence in method(s) that agreed by you and me.


I've gone thru all the theories already, including the ones you hold so dear.

Who cares about theories. I want facts; facts that I can experience; facts that everyone can experience, God believers or not.


You'll find that they're not true, hopefully sooner, but for sure later.

Well, I am looking forward to visit Mars and beyond. I hope Jesus don't forget to visit other planets when the Judgement Day comes. Oops, it seems only Earth is acounted in the Judgement Day.

Originally posted by pragmathen
The Antichrist. What an honor, eh? This person is basically equal to Christ, except in a diametric manner. Where Christ stands for all that is good, the Antichrist supposedly stands for all that is <i>not</i> good. There will be a scene reminiscent of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (last two roles to be played simultaneously by the Antichrist), with the destined High Noon staredown. Television crews the world over will record this wonderful event; the couch potato will express dismay that his program has just been interrupted to "--report that, what appears to be Jesus Christ, has squared off with none other than his fabled nemesis, the Antichrist. The legions of hell, sneering and gnashing most likely very large canines, are on the side of the Antichrist. Christ, meanwhile, has called on his numerous concourses of destroying angels, a not-so-benevolent group, to come to his side. Non-christians and atheists, prop up a chair and enjoy our commercial-free coverage. Christians ... well, regardless of the outcome, best of
luck to you in your new theocracy."


Hello! The 'Anti-Christ' is NOT an "equil" to Jesus the Christ, the Son of GOD! But is Satan's counterfit! :) And a poor 'counterfit' at that! He (the Anti-Christ) is the Devil's desparate attempt to be like GOD and to deceive the nations of the world in the END TIMES! The Devil's DOOM is sure!! He's DOOMED FOR ALL ETURNITY!! :) :)







Now, for some cryptic trivial nonsense:
Who's the forerunner, in essence John the Baptist, of these "last days"?
None other than Carl Jung! With his emphasis on archetypes and anima and animus, it's no wonder that people don't realize how close the end is.

The Antichrist?
Ironically, basically anyone that's Christian.

The Christ?
Why, Ann Lee, of course. Unfortunately, she's already six feet under. It's all right, though, she keeps getting reincarnated as various religious leaders.

Now, of course this was done in an entirely satirical fashion. It's intent is to show that (I think) most Christians realize that their respective beliefs are rather uneventful and that they cannot wait until the predicted day when their Christ (who's got some mighty big expectations to meet) and the Antichrist (another scapegoat) challenge one another.

Hope this lightened your day. If not, then please understand that even God does not take your beliefs that seriously.<IMG SRC="images/icons/icon12.gif" HEIGHT=15 WIDTH=15 ALIGN=ABSCENTER alt="Wink">

Originally posted by Sir. Loone


The 'Anti-Christ' is Satan's desperate attempt to immitate GOD, and to deceive the nations of the world! And he, is NO 'equal' with Jesus the Son of GOD Almighty!! You that are unsaved will a that time be GREATLY DECEIVED! By your own 'fleshly minds' , in your fallen nature, may not even know what is going on! Jesus is GOD with us, and He is Earth's only hope of any hope!! Jesus saves! Don't be "Left Behind!" :)

Jesus saves!
Only 'cause his Daddy set him up for it. I guess the kid needed a job. It's not as if God could make a mistake, right? So he must have wanted people to defy him, to establish and re-establish covenants, and finally send his own son to be tortured and murdered in an act of redemption for a situation that God himself chose.

Kinda stupid, if you ask me.

Before you attempt to refute such an assertion, please consider a couple of questions:

1) Does God make mistakes?
2) Does God learn?

We can save a whole lot of rhetoric if we can agree on the answers before we proceed. I'm even willing to work based on your assumption, if you like.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Sir. Loone

The 'Anti-Christ' is Satan's desperate attempt to immitate GOD, and to deceive the nations of the world! And he, is NO 'equal' with Jesus the Son of GOD Almighty!! You that are unsaved will a that time be GREATLY DECEIVED! By your own 'fleshly minds' , in your fallen nature, may not even know what is going on! Jesus is GOD with us, and He is Earth's only hope of any hope!! Jesus saves! Don't be "Left Behind!" :)

I think there are more planets besides Earth in our solar system. Tell Jesus don't miss the others when he decides to come. Well, if he ever decides. By that time, I think Mars will already become over populated.

Originally posted by tiassa

Only 'cause his Daddy set him up for it. I guess the kid needed a job. It's not as if God could make a mistake, right? So he must have wanted people to defy him, to establish and re-establish covenants, and finally send his own son to be tortured and murdered in an act of redemption for a situation that God himself chose.

Kinda stupid, if you ask me.

Before you attempt to refute such an assertion, please consider a couple of questions:

1) Does God make mistakes?
2) Does God learn?

We can save a whole lot of rhetoric if we can agree on the answers before we proceed. I'm even willing to work based on your assumption, if you like.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I believe in what GOD had said. And I believe in absolutes; especially of the Word of GOD! :) The Carnal minded is at a great disadvantage, as of a 'chimpanzee', compared to a group of rocket scientist! :) Seen in a that carnal view. Ye have no 'true' understanding! :) You have built your house of cards on 'sinking sand', and great will be it's fall!

I never did like that "sinking sand" story. Always thought that dude was so stupid...

1) Does God make mistakes?
2) Does God learn?

Seriously ... I'll try to work within your terminology. But have a relevant point. Otherwise, I shall assume that you have no relevant point.

--Tiassa :cool:

Sir. Loone,

Originally posted by Sir. Loone
The 'Anti-Christ' is Satan's desperate attempt to immitate GOD, and to deceive the nations of the world!

So you're suspicious about this Jesus guy too?

And he, is NO 'equal' with Jesus the Son of GOD Almighty!!

What part of <i>deception</i> do you not understand? He's not just equal with him - they're one and the same.

You that are unsaved will a that time be GREATLY DECEIVED! By your own 'fleshly minds' , in your fallen nature, may not even know what is going on!

Apparently we'll have plenty of company.

Jesus is GOD with us, and He is Earth's only hope of any hope!! Jesus saves! Don't be "Left Behind!" :) :rolleyes:

So, do you ever have an original thought? Care to share one with us?

Emerald

Be nice Emerald ;)

Not trying to be mean, but you seriously weird me out.

Corp,

Originally posted by Corp.Hudson
Be nice Emerald ;)

I <i>was</i> being nice! ;)

Emerald

Talk about serious Christian mess ups. Saw left behind, after arguing in the middle of my campus with some Christians. Some girl walked up, told us how she is a believer