Subscribe to PostsQuestion:
| You are completely wrong. Pope doesn’t live in the Rome , he lives in the | independend country called Vatican City ( Citt
Wicca Wiccan
Wicca Myths, Wicca Spells, Wicca Wiccan
Today's Articles
-
Proof that the Pope is the antiChrist Part 2 (turn on htm)
-
Was Prophet Ibrahim a Jew or a Christian?
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Was Prophet Ibrahim a Jew or a Christian? In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. In Tafsir Al-Jalalayn by Imam Jalalud-Deen Al-Mahalli and Jalalud-Deen As-Suyuti, it is stated: "The Jews and Christians believed that Ibrahim (Abraham) is the ancestor of the Jews. So, Allah revealed: "O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye then no sense?" (Al `Imran: 65) The verse addresses the Jews thus: How do you argue about Ibrahim and claim that he is a Jew or a Christian while the Torah and the Gospel were revealed long time after him? This means that your claim is unfounded.
The Quran came centuries after the Torah and the Gospel, you therfor have no claim.
Response:
Was Prophet Ibrahim a Jew or a Christian?
He was, by definition, Hebrew. And he was not a prophet, having prophesied nothing. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. In Tafsir Al-Jalalayn by Imam Jalalud-Deen Al-Mahalli and Jalalud-Deen As-Suyuti, it is stated: "The Jews and Christians believed that Ibrahim (Abraham) is the ancestor of the Jews. So, Allah revealed: "O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye then no sense?" (Al `Imran: 65)
This is true. Many have claimed to be descendants of Abram, including the Egyptians and the Hurrians – And they made their claims at the same time as, or before, the Jews. The verse addresses the Jews thus: How do you argue about Ibrahim and claim that he is a Jew or a Christian while the Torah and the Gospel were revealed long time after him? This means that your claim is unfounded.
It was until Jesus was born of the line of David. The following Qur’anic verses refute this claim further by stating that if the Jews and the Christians base their argument about Musa (Moses) and `Isa (Jesus) on the fact that they have knowledge about those two Prophets, it’s unfathomable for them to argue about Ibrahim (Abraham) concerning whom they do not have any knowledge!
Abram was an Amorite – as were his children (exception: Ishmael who was half Egyptian) Allah says: "Lo! ye are those who argue about that whereof ye have some knowledge: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge ? Allah knoweth. Ye know not." (Al `Imran: 66)
We Christians have the knowledge from the birth of Jesus. Then Allah Almighty says the truth about Ibrahim that he was not a Jew or a Christian, but a "Muslim" submitting to the Will of Allah:
No. Abram was simply an Amorite who rejected his fellow Amorite’s pagan beliefs. Rejecting paganism doesn’t make one specifically a Muslim, Jew, or a Christian. It makes one non-pagan. And Abram certainly was not a Christian. "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; rather he was an upright man who had surrendered to Allah (Muslim), and he was not of the idolaters."(Al `Imran: 67)"
So show where Abram surrendered to Allah. First meeting. And how does Muhamaud know this any more than anyone else, since the Quran was also written after the fact? And, in fact, is in last place? Does he, in fact, have no knowledge either? Just as he said the Jews and Christians have no knowledge? The word "Muslim" in the verse means believing in the Oneness of God and surrendering to His Will.
Then all Christians and Jews are "Muslims" in that verse. In his book Perished Nations, Harun Yahya states: "Christians who believe in the Old Testament think that Ibrahim is the ancestor of the Jews, but with only one difference: according to Christians, Ibrahim is not a Jew but a Christian.
It is impossible for Abram to have been a Christian. What salvation was offered to Abram? The Christians, who did not heed the concept of race as much as Jews took this stand
By race, Abram was an Amorite, being a Semite from Ur of the Chaldeans. and it is one of the causes of disagreement and struggle between the two religions.
Many Jews wrongfully believe they are a race. Allah brings the following explanation of these arguments in the Qur’an: "O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him?
Same for the Quran. Have ye then no sense? "Lo! ye are those who argue about that whereof ye have some knowledge: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge ? Allah knoweth. Ye know not."
Jesus knoweth too. "Abraham was not a Jew,
Why not? nor yet a Christian;
and never was but he was an upright man who had surrendered to Allah (Muslim), and he was not of the idolaters." (Al `Imran: 65-67)
If Abram was not the first Jew, why was Jesus born a Jew? In the Qur’an, very differently from what is written in the old Testament, Ibrahim is a person who warned his people so that they might fear Allah.
The Egyptians knew him – And never said he brought warnings. Starting from his youth, he warned his people, who worshipped idols, to give up this practice. Rather than yielding to his plea, his people attempted to kill him. Having escaped from the wickedness of his people, Ibrahim finally emigrated." http://islamonline.net/
And took wicked Sarai with him? Just curious. ::Clark::
Response:
He sure wasn’t a Muslim, considering that Islam don’t exist in any manner or form whatsoever until Muhammad started innovatiing it around 610 A.D.! — Some Qur’an quotes: 5:20 qaala muusaa 5:21 "yaa qawmi
-
Jesus was a sinner too
Question:
What difference do you think their is? ==="Sacrifice" was a Pagan idea borrowed from mystery religions and inserted into his new cult by Saul/Paul of Tarsus when a man, executed for sedition by Roman authorities, was declared the "Son of God" sent to be "sacrificed" for the sins of humanity. — L. So the Jews never made any sacrfices in their temple? ===Only animals. They did not sacrifice any gods or god-men in the Temple, nor did they believe in redemption by such a "sacrifice". Only the Pagans believed in such things. — L.
Tell me, do you know what a Jewish person had to do when they had a first-born son, and why they had to do it, according to the Jewish (non-pagan) law? RAZA 2004
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JC possibley never existed other than in them minds of creative scribes about three generations on from year one AD. A flagging religion no doubt got a major shot in the arm with the JC story, but they forgot to cover his first twenty hears! Back then they were a simple lot so they thought no one would ask!!!! As they say – ‘the truth will out’. Hence so many ‘truth’ sermons, or ‘cover up jobs’ Bob Young never really existed either. He was just the soured creation of two alligators that got crazy with each other. Oh, I forgot to cover the first 50 years of Bob’s soured life. He one time believed in God and the Christian experience. But the toads told Bob those things didn’t exist and soon he found himself blaming and angry with God. You see Bob was the butt of the toad’s joke, but he thought they were frogs. He was determined to get even with the frogs. His big day was when he stood up on two legs. He found it easier to try stomping the frogs out. But he found that as quick as he stomped, the frogs multiplied faster than he could stomp them out. Soon frogs were everywhere and Bob Young the lizard couldn’t eliminate them. One day Bob Young will have to face the fact that he has no power or authority to stomp out all the frogs. And hopefully before Bob dies, he will learn the difference between a toad and a frog. Then and only then will Bob know the rest of the story. Actually Bob, only 2 occurences(the birth and the temple when He was 12) and 3 years of Jesus life was covered in His 33 years.
Bob, I want to publicly apologize to you if this offends you. The title of which this message is labelled is something I hold dear to my heart and the post set me astray for my own pride. This is not what God would have me to say. I am sorry for the implication this applies only to you.
Response:
JC possibley never existed other than in them minds of creative scribes about three generations on from year one AD. A flagging religion no doubt got a major shot in the arm with the JC story, but they forgot to cover his first twenty hears! Back then they were a simple lot so they thought no one would ask!!!! As they say – ‘the truth will out’. Hence so many ‘truth’ sermons, or ‘cover up jobs’
Bob Young never really existed either. He was just the soured creation of two alligators that got crazy with each other. Oh, I forgot to cover the first 50 years of Bob’s soured life. He one time believed in God and the Christian experience. But the toads told Bob those things didn’t exist and soon he found himself blaming and angry with God. You see Bob was the butt of the toad’s joke, but he thought they were frogs. He was determined to get even with the frogs. His big day was when he stood up on two legs. He found it easier to try stomping the frogs out. But he found that as quick as he stomped, the frogs multiplied faster than he could stomp them out. Soon frogs were everywhere and Bob Young the lizard couldn’t eliminate them. One day Bob Young will have to face the fact that he has no power or authority to stomp out all the frogs. And hopefully before Bob dies, he will learn the difference between a toad and a frog. Then and only then will Bob know the rest of the story. Actually Bob, only 2 occurences(the birth and the temple when He was 12) and 3 years of Jesus life was covered in His 33 years.
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. So basically you’ve forgotten about the *virgin* birth… Because of Eve’s action, women are the real original sinners. If that is true then why didn’t God speak as soon as Eve sinned, why wait until after Adam sinned as well?
===By the time he knew about it, it was too late. They both ate from that fruit and were not dead, but acquired "knowledge" that made them just like the Elohim. So he was proven wrong, got mad, and chased them out of his garden to keep them from becoming immortal by eating that other magic fruit. — L. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. Nice strawman, try again later… Gods and only son’s of gods are the original pagan strawmen. False, monotheism existed long before any paganism existed
===In your fantasy. Take a course in history or anthropology or comparative religion, instead of relying on your imagination. Even the Israelites were polytheists before the Yahwist takeover. — L.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. So basically you’ve forgotten about the *virgin* birth… Because of Eve’s action, women are the real original sinners. If that is true then why didn’t God speak as soon as Eve sinned, why wait until after Adam sinned as well? ===By the time he knew about it, it was too late. They both ate from that fruit and were not dead, but acquired "knowledge" that made them just like the Elohim. So he was proven wrong, got mad, and chased them out of his garden to keep them from becoming immortal by eating that other magic fruit. — L. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. Nice strawman, try again later… Gods and only son’s of gods are the original pagan strawmen. False, monotheism existed long before any paganism existed ===In your fantasy. Take a course in history or anthropology or comparative religion, instead of relying on your imagination. Even the Israelites were polytheists before the Yahwist takeover. — L.
Yep, Libertarius is absolutely correct in this, Lawrence! Shalom, Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
writes: Because of Eve’s action, women are the real original sinners. If that is true then why didn’t God speak as soon as Eve sinned, why wait until after Adam sinned as well?
Why persecute and threaten with death and torture one person when all you have to do is wait a few moments and you can persecute and threaten two. Two for the price of one. Bargain. The bible god might have been despicable and cruel but he wasn’t totally dumb. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. Nice strawman, try again later… Gods and only son’s of gods are the original pagan strawmen. False, monotheism existed long before any paganism existed
Then I stand corrected. Same result but. Do some research on ancient pagan gods and their sons. You’ll be surprised at what you’ll find. I have.
Did you find the same or similar pagan/monotheist concepts in the ancient false religions as in christianity? — Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual) but with acknowledgement that it’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved (agnostic). "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." ~ Pope Leo X (1513-1521) Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Response:
JC possibley never existed other than in them minds of creative scribes about three generations on from year one AD. A flagging religion no doubt got a major shot in the arm with the JC story, but they forgot to cover his first twenty hears! Back then they were a simple lot so they thought no one would ask!!!! As they say – ‘the truth will out’. Hence so many ‘truth’ sermons, or ‘cover up jobs’
Response:
[no KJV included] JC possibley never existed other than in them minds of creative scribes about three generations on from year one AD.
Hi Bob, Jesus was on earth – that is what even the scientists have agreed upon. You cannot deny that anymore. A flagging religion no doubt got a major shot in the arm with the JC story, but they forgot to cover his first twenty hears!
Not really – but they do not matter much. Back then they were a simple lot so they thought no one would ask!!!! As they say – ‘the truth will out’. Hence so many ‘truth’ sermons, or ‘cover up jobs’
You make a big mistake, Bob. You confuse "religion" with God. First there is just God and you – only the two of you. Merry Christmas, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – vera — http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de ::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. ===But "sacrifice" is just Christian "newspeak". It was an EXECUTION, not a "sacrifice". — L. What difference do you think their is? ==="Sacrifice" was a Pagan idea borrowed from mystery religions and inserted into his new cult by Saul/Paul of Tarsus when a man, executed for sedition by Roman authorities, was declared the "Son of God" sent to be "sacrificed" for the sins of humanity. — L.
So the Jews never made any sacrfices in their temple? RAZA 2004
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. So basically you’ve forgotten about the *virgin* birth… Because of Eve’s action, women are the real original sinners.
If that is true then why didn’t God speak as soon as Eve sinned, why wait until after Adam sinned as well? And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. Nice strawman, try again later… Gods and only son’s of gods are the original pagan strawmen.
False, monotheism existed long before any paganism existed Do some research on ancient pagan gods and their sons. You’ll be surprised at what you’ll find.
I have. RAZA 2004
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. ===But "sacrifice" is just Christian "newspeak". It was an EXECUTION, not a "sacrifice". — L. What difference do you think their is? ==="Sacrifice" was a Pagan idea borrowed from mystery religions and inserted into his new cult by Saul/Paul of Tarsus when a man, executed for sedition by Roman authorities, was declared the "Son of God" sent to be "sacrificed" for the sins of humanity. — L. So the Jews never made any sacrfices in their temple?
===Only animals. They did not sacrifice any gods or god-men in the Temple, nor did they believe in redemption by such a "sacrifice". Only the Pagans believed in such things. — L.
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too.
What is actually ignored is the redundancy of calling Jesus sinless. If Jesus is God as they say and if God is all-powerful, then he could’ve changed what is a sin to fit any fashion that he wished. I doubt you can call someone sinless that sets the rules.
Response:
and now, heh heh, the REST of the story… By the banks of the river Jordan a wild man wearing a hair shirt and eating honey and locusts pours water on a young nazarene’s head…the wild man; John the Baptist…the young Nazarene; Jesus Christ. The original sin washed away. thanks for playing dispshit. this has been the rest of the story with paul harvey.
Nearly everyone in christian countries these days gets baptised so that means most people have had their original sin washed away. Therefore hardly any of us are original sinners.
Response:
writes: Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. So basically you’ve forgotten about the *virgin* birth…
Because of Eve’s action, women are the real original sinners. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. Nice strawman, try again later…
Gods and only son’s of gods are the original pagan strawmen. Do some research on ancient pagan gods and their sons. You’ll be surprised at what you’ll find. — Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual) but with acknowledgement that it’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved (agnostic). "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." ~ Pope Leo X (1513-1521) Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Response:
Libertarius answered: Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. ===But "sacrifice" is just Christian "newspeak".
How can the crucifixion be a *sacrifice* when the *sacrifice* returns back to life after a couple of days and leaves this world? Did Jesus not *raise* from the *death*? Does not also the Bible say that Jesus body did not see decay/corruption? Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. It was an EXECUTION, not a "sacrifice". — L.
Yep it was. Josef Oswald, affirming that his views of God are based on the teachings of Rev. Moon. Please don’t Cc: me as I read the newsgroup
— "The people who followed the Lord were called the 12 decibels. Source: IJMC – Children’s Bible Quotes" Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. ===But "sacrifice" is just Christian "newspeak". It was an EXECUTION, not a "sacrifice". — L. What difference do you think their is?
==="Sacrifice" was a Pagan idea borrowed from mystery religions and inserted into his new cult by Saul/Paul of Tarsus when a man, executed for sedition by Roman authorities, was declared the "Son of God" sent to be "sacrificed" for the sins of humanity. — L.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. and now, heh heh, the REST of the story… By the banks of the river Jordan a wild man wearing a hair shirt and eating honey and locusts pours water on a young nazarene’s head…the wild man; John the Baptist…the young Nazarene; Jesus Christ. The original sin washed away. thanks for playing dispshit. this has been the rest of the story with paul harvey.
I was baptized as well so my sin has been washed away too. — Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual) but with acknowledgement that it’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved (agnostic). "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." ~ Pope Leo X (1513-1521) Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wrote Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. and now, heh heh, the REST of the story… By the banks of the river Jordan a wild man wearing a hair shirt and eating honey and locusts pours water on a young nazarene’s head…the wild man; John the Baptist…the young Nazarene; Jesus Christ. The original sin washed away. thanks for playing dispshit. this has been the rest of the story with paul harvey. — Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual) but with acknowledgement that it’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved (agnostic). "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." ~ Pope Leo X (1513-1521) Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria.
===But "sacrifice" is just Christian "newspeak". It was an EXECUTION, not a "sacrifice". — L.
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria.
can u tell me why u dislike christianity so much. was it because someone that called themselves a christian abused u when u were a child ? — Love is all u need.
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too.
So basically you’ve forgotten about the *virgin* birth… And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria.
Nice strawman, try again later… RAZA 2004
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. ===But "sacrifice" is just Christian "newspeak". It was an EXECUTION, not a "sacrifice". — L.
What difference do you think their is? RAZA 2004
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. ===But "sacrifice" is just Christian "newspeak". It was an EXECUTION, not a "sacrifice". — L. What difference do you think their is? RAZA 2004
hey dont forget to answer my question. thanks — Love is all u need.
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria. — Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual) but with acknowledgement that it’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved (agnostic). "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." ~ Pope Leo X (1513-1521) Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Response:
Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam who was the original sinner, so Jesus (the man) is a sinner too. And since it was Jesus (the man) who sacrificed himself, the sacrifice is nul and void according to christian criteria.
and now, heh heh, the REST of the story… By the banks of the river Jordan a wild man wearing a hair shirt and eating honey and locusts pours water on a young nazarene’s head…the wild man; John the Baptist…the young Nazarene; Jesus Christ. The original sin washed away. thanks for playing dispshit. this has been the rest of the story with paul harvey. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual) but with acknowledgement that it’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved (agnostic). "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." ~ Pope Leo X (1513-1521) Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Response:
-
Cathbad to Amergin
Question:
As many know, since 1994 I have said I am similar to Taliesin (Gwion Bach) though I suspect my best poetry is ahead of me. But let me now use the analogy of Amergin, who I also think I am similar to. In that analogy Sarah McLachlan is similar to Eriu, Tanita Tikaram is similar to Flidais, Liz Pickard is similar to Banba, and SInead O’Connor is similar to Fotla. However neither they nor I have what could be termed witch special ability, and which I have been calling wide range special abilities (wide range meaning wide number of subset abilities but at low strength, plus better ability to do magick). Thus to continue the analogy with Amergin, I will list below 16 individuals, each with wide range special abilities with multiple topups, and 15 of them with a topup to telepath 2 (which includes some mind reading ability, but they might not be able to read me) and the other with a topup to ultra strong species someone or nearest match negotiator ability (Tyke Fewer, so he cannot read minds), who are to me as Cathbad was to Amergin. With those abilities they can all participate in a group mind-to-mind meeting and do a flow activation working together. If any of the 16 are reading, none if this is true if you have not noticed anything unusual since the night before last and do not have any mind reading capability. What I have done (I won’t put in all the details partly since then you can independently evaluate my working unbiased by my writing) is pass the St. John’s to Vancouver antenna to the 16, which takes the region to global and near space, and then pass the six bloops to the 16, which should take the region to all/everything, and then pass the funnel working to the 16 (while keeping access myself). That would mean that all 16 now have level 2 meditative and non-meditative access to my funnel working, and may now be getting base chakra area muscle clicks like mine. I would then hope (and ask) that each of the 16 evaluate my funnel working separately and separately insert changes by will to improve it. Then I hope the 16 can set up a group mind to mind meeting and activate the flow to the point of activation. Then a possibly infinite number of loveagents including them could each do the activation of what flows to them (often including their own past workings). Note however that they cannot modify such before activation but immediately after activation would have meditative change access (but I have only non-meditative access, the 16 have both meditative and non-meditative access, and the four women listed above would have meditative access overall and non-meditative in a component, so the evolution component for Sarah McLachlan, e.g., which each other loveagent would also have access to) with which they could modify what they have activated and much more. The way the list was formulated was that I listed some I think are strong in my root paths (I am individual/eclectic but say my root paths are scientific atheism, science fiction and fantasy, Catholicism, traditional celtic paganism, and traditional native spirituality. though really I have come up with much of my stuff on my own) and my past life Romany path, and the orca. Then I had to think of some with the needed abilities who know me online and/or offline, and it turns out all those are also strong. Then later I divined, though it may not be true, that the first group I listed as strong all met me when I was very young (except for the orca which saw me at a distance in BC later and I saw it) (so another analogy to them might be the three wise men). OK, the 16 are: 1. Freeman (Becky) Bennett of St. Paul’s, Newfoundland 2. Aly O’Brien of St. John’s (or is it Torbay), Newfoundland 3. Finbar Furey, famous Irish musician 4. the Conne River Miawpukek Mi’kmaq elder pictured before the Mi’kmaq place names list in the program given out for the Miawpukek Mi’kmaq Arts and Culture Centre show here in St. John’s a few years ago 5. the wife of the Musqueam chief in Vancouver 6. the wife of the old fiddler who did the tear-jerker about Ceaucesceau in the movie Latcho Drom (his real life wife, not necesssarily any actress who played his wife in the movie if any) 7. elder Irish fiddler Francie Byrne 8. The Catholic Mother Superior of Middle Cove, Newfoundland 9. Stephen Hawking 10. the cetacean leader I mentioned before who is a 12 year old female orca pod leader and is political and spiritual leader of the majority of cetaceans and who Kofi Annan could reach mind-to-mind 11. Caitlin, co-chair of the Newfoundland Pagan Society 12. Tyke Fewer of Conception Bay Central, Newfoundland 13. John Nicol, computer sort of West Vancouver 14. Sarah McLachlan’s friend Buffy Childerhose 15. Erin’s Pub regular Helen from Port au Port 16. Kevin of alt.religion.druid newsgroup So anyway, anyone on here who knows any of the 16 mundanely please pass this to him or her, and others could try to reach them mind to mind. So that is that, and I suggest you (or any of the 16 other than the orca) first try to reach the orca leader mind-to-mind as it is very strong and has photographic memory and a great deal of oral tradition information and knows of a past nearly global similar cetacean working of 704 years ago which was the Beothuk "Whale’s Tail" incident. David
Response:
David Dalton <dal…@nfld.com> wrote: > [ world-class insanity, snipped ]
Those entities in your head have apparently performed some kind of brain bypass surgery on you.
Response:
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:01:53 -0330, David Dalton <dal…@nfld.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed: >As many know, since 1994 I have said I am similar >to Taliesin (Gwion Bach) though I suspect my best poetry >is ahead of me. >But let me now use the analogy of Amergin, who I also think >I am similar to. >In that analogy Sarah McLachlan is similar to Eriu, >Tanita Tikaram is similar to Flidais, Liz Pickard >is similar to Banba, and SInead O’Connor is similar >to Fotla.
Actually you are much more similar to a large steaming mass of shit. — Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed" Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT
-
!!! I Have An Interest… !!!
Question:
nice handle, turd… Just curious, what type of animal produces the turd in question? Human? Who is this troll and why is he so obsessed with getting members of a Satanic newsgroup to read his unintelligible propaganda about the "virgin" Mary?
With the religious, any answer will work fine. There’s no need to get so specific. Though I hate all factions of xianity, I am especially appalled with the sheer superstition of the Catholic faction.
It’s by far the oldest group, and thus by nature more rooted in superstitions. By the very definition of the bible’s various commandments, Catholics violate virtually every single one of them with their idolic worship of their multitude of "saints."
Perhaps they do, but that issue is only of importance to funnymentalists. It’s ironic that you would ask that question. What I really see is a form of paganism wrapped up in the purported righteousness of xianity.
So? What’s wrong with a little paganism? Why shouldn’t they get some pleasure out of their religion, as long as it hurts nobody? As a Satanist, I really have no empathy with pagans,
Yes, as a Satanist, you’re a believer in one of the gods of the Christian pantheon, and that explains why you don’t like pagans. You’re much closer to the fundamentalist prots than you realize. Why not abandon superstitions entirely and take up another hobby, perhaps backpacking? Your health and physical strength will improve, fresh air might do you good! And if you listen, you might hear the distant piping of ‘ole Pan out there in the forest!
Response:
Are you about finished? !!! I Have An Interest… !!! !!! Now Visit http://www.clicklinknow.com/ !!! "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. But not in that order."- Brian Pickrell www.devilzown.com
Very good respnse, but I think Albert Einstein formulated the original "There are only two things that have no end, human stupidity and the universe, and I’m not sure about the universe." Who is this troll and why is he so obsessed with getting members of a Satanic newsgroup to read his unintelligible propaganda about the "virgin" Mary? Though I hate all factions of xianity, I am especially appalled with the sheer superstition of the Catholic faction. By the very definition of the bible’s various commandments, Catholics violate virtually every single one of them with their idolic worship of their multitude of "saints." From my interpretation of xian ideology, even the worship of Jebus as a "god" stretches the limit of the bible’s commandments on "having no other gods before me" and "worship of graven images." Yet with Catholicism they worship countless HUNDREDS of "saints," each endowed with a particular magical power and the ability to cure or offer protection of any particular situation, yet they seem to see no conflict at all with the various commandments to the contrary. What I really see is a form of paganism wrapped up in the purported righteousness of xianity. As a Satanist, I really have no empathy with pagans, we might as well all return to the stone age and worship gods of rain, sun, harvest, war, etc. Finally, I read the most excellent historical novel, "Aztec" by Gary Jennings, and its sequel "Aztec Autumn" (there is a final novel, "Aztec Blood," published after his death). Anyway, in both the first and second novels, right after the Spanish conquest, the Aztecs are more than a bit confused about Catholicism. They can’t quite comprehend the concept of the Trinity – three gods while it purports to worship a single god – and to make matters worse it seems that the REAL god of the Catholic Spanish is a FOURTH god, the "virgin" Mary. For all their talk about Gawd and Jebus, the only god they really erected statues of all over the place was Mary. But in the end the Aztecs didn’t have much of a problem embracing Catholicism – it turns out that every single one of their pagan gods had a saint equivalent in Catholicism. Instead of the Rain God, they now worshipped the Patron Saint of Rain. It all worked out very nicely.
Response:
-
306CE: The Council of Elvira: foundation for a holocaust
Question:
In 306, the Church Synod of Elvira, Spain convened. The first Canon of Elvira is a stark exposure of the fierce intolerance found in the emerging Christian world at the time. Tragicly, and against all we regard as principles of liberty, we see in this canon that some non-Christian religious rituals had become capital crimes, reflecting core values of violence, arrogance and intolerance because the ideas are based upon literal readings of scripture. In time the early Christian Emperors would enact pogroms against religious diversity and decree similar laws reflecting this dictatorial religious worldview found in Elvira’s Canons. Canon 1:
-
Potential recruit sighted on soc.religion.paganism
Question:
Hi All, I just spotted a potential recruit on soc.religion.paganism who wrote a very nice article about his family of cats and whether ferals and rescues are as likely to bond to their human as a kitten. The article was titled "OT: The cats as of 15 August". I invited him to join us, let’s hope he does. Regards and Purrs, O J
Response:
Hi All, I just spotted a potential recruit on soc.religion.paganism who wrote a very nice article about his family of cats and whether ferals and rescues are as likely to bond to their human as a kitten. The article was titled "OT: The cats as of 15 August". I invited him to join us, let’s hope he does.
He’s posted here once before, and quite recently, about "The Cats as of Lammas". It didn’t get much of a response, but it was rather distinctly Pagan (beign about Lammas) so perhaps it wasn’t to everyone’s cup of tea. Still, ther’es no harm in trying again, and his more recent article in SRP is far more like a RPCA post than a SRP post
I do so hope he joins us. Yowie — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Response:
-
Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God, is not GOD
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The belief that Jesus is God only gives our life in this reality the value and meaning of a test. Knowledge and good works have no value. Good deeds always have value. However, good deeds alone will not save your soul, unless you also believe in God and accept Jesus as your Savior. Neither will belief in God without good deeds, and without following His Commandments and His laws. God’s Grace has given us this way to salvation, but it is still up to us to pick up the cross and follow the righteous path. To protect us from Satan, Jesus has provided us with the Scripture of the Bible. While you have a beautiful writing style and you are most creative in your critique of Christianity, it in no way changes the satanic nature of your message. No deception can reach or harm those that cling to the Scriptures of Jesus Christ.
I would be a whole lot more comfortable if you said that we should cling to Jesus Christ rather than Scripture. To follow Scripture instead of the Christ is to set Scripture up as an idol.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The belief that Jesus is God only gives our life in this reality the value and meaning of a test. Knowledge and good works have no value. Good deeds always have value. However, good deeds alone will not save your soul, unless you also believe in God and accept Jesus as your Savior. Neither will belief in God without good deeds, and without following His Commandments and His laws. God’s Grace has given us this way to salvation, but it is still up to us to pick up the cross and follow the righteous path. To protect us from Satan, Jesus has provided us with the Scripture of the Bible. While you have a beautiful writing style and you are most creative in your critique of Christianity, it in no way changes the satanic nature of your message. No deception can reach or harm those that cling to the Scriptures of Jesus Christ. I would be a whole lot more comfortable if you said that we should cling to Jesus Christ rather than Scripture. To follow Scripture instead of the Christ is to set Scripture up as an idol.
That certainly is not my intent. I consider the scripture as the word of Christ and as his gift to us to guide our behavior. I don’t think there is anyway to make Christ’s words into an idol. The only value that Scripture has is that it comes from Christ. I certainly do not pray to or worship Scripture, but I do follow what it tells us, and I cling to the commandments and laws that it reveals that it reveals, not because they are Scripture, but because Scripture reveals God’s will. If I failed to make that clear, I apologize, as the worship of idols is something I would not even consider engaging in.
Response:
Your paganism is certainly gaining acceptance as Satan has done great harm to our once Christian country. You have seduced many of our citizens with your political correctness arguments that heap guilt on to those who are more concerned with their appearance than they are in following the Scripture of Jesus Christ. We Christians have allowed you to monopolize our financial systems with your usury, our media, our universities, our government, our public schools, and our legal system. We have not been active in protecting these vital institutions or in fighting you. Christian passiveness and tolerance of Evil are the primary reasons for your gaining of pagan followers, and our loss of control of this nation. There is little doubt you will be putting Christians to the stake and the cross before the end of this century, unless we stand up to you now. We have only to look at the persecution of Christians after Christ’s death on the cross to see what is in store for us if we continue on this path. The only question that remains is will the Christians wait until it is too late to stand and fight. All that is required is to call political correctness the lie that it is, and speak out about what is taking place, and about who is serving Satan. Such a light would burn Satan and his followers into ashes. But Satan’s Deceit is very great, and too many Christians have forgotten that freedom and Goodness, is not free, but must be fought for because Satan never rests. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Chester, This belief system you quote cannot endure into the 21st Century. To love God must I hate myself and life? Luke 14:26 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. You state the standard arguement of "APPLE THEODICY".: "The bible says the sin of man is our reality. Our life, suffering and death are our punishment because Adam and Eve, the father and mother of mankind ate the forbidden fruit acquiring knowledge of life and death, good and evil. This was the sin of disobedience, because God had forbidden it. The sin and punishment of the father and mother is passed on to all the children. Our punishment began with the knowledge that we were naked and we were ashamed of our selves. God’s punishment was that man would have to work to live, woman would suffer the pain of child birth and we would die." I am sick and tired of beating around the bush in Church. Our theology is DEAD DEAD DEAD! It has no relavence to modern life. To view the sunrise or sunset! To walk in the forest at night and marvel at the Majesty of the Divine Mind! To LOVE ourselves, our world and Life! THIS is the religion of the 21st Century. "Apple Theodicy" is an evil doctrine that would have us hate ourselves, our world and Life! The man and woman of the Garden of Eden where NOT "homo sapiens". The word "sapien" means to know. They did not know Good from evil Nor could they sinfully pluck an apple off a tree with the legal guilt of "mens rea". That is to say they could not "deliberate" without the knowlege of good and evil until the fruit droped past their throat when it was too late. Homo Edenicus is not Homo Sapien. Nor will Homo Paridizio be the recreation of Homo Edenicus as the folks of paradise will be "knowers". Jesus died to give the "Great Demonstration" of the reality of life, truth and love. Let us turn away from the silly notion that all of lifes problems are due to Mad Daddy Yahweeh going on a cosmic temper tantrum demanding that his only son die a cruesome death becasue some one dared to take one of his damn apples! This belief system would have us believe that Mad Daddy Yahweeh in heaven is relishing each blow of the nails into Christ’s hands and feet. "oh yes oh yes hammer it in! oh oh oh oh I feel so good. DAMN YOU STUPID ROMANS DON"T FORGET HIS FEET!! HIS FEET NAIL HIS FEET – Ah yes thats it! AH AH MY COSMIC EGO IS SATISFIED. Come give Mad Daddy Yahweeh a nice big hug! Just so long as you know what a worthless human piece of dirt you are". Spend an eternity with that as my diety? — NO THANKS! He will find some other offence to throw you out again. APPLE THEODICY – JUST SAY NO! Brian J Dawson
Response:
Chester, This belief system you quote cannot endure into the 21st Century. To love God must I hate myself and life? Luke 14:26 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. You state the standard arguement of "APPLE THEODICY".: "The bible says the sin of man is our reality. Our life, suffering and death are our punishment because Adam and Eve, the father and mother of mankind ate the forbidden fruit acquiring knowledge of life and death, good and evil. This was the sin of disobedience, because God had forbidden it. The sin and punishment of the father and mother is passed on to all the children. Our punishment began with the knowledge that we were naked and we were ashamed of our selves. God’s punishment was that man would have to work to live, woman would suffer the pain of child birth and we would die." I am sick and tired of beating around the bush in Church. Our theology is DEAD DEAD DEAD! It has no relavence to modern life. To view the sunrise or sunset! To walk in the forest at night and marvel at the Majesty of the Divine Mind! To LOVE ourselves, our world and Life! THIS is the religion of the 21st Century. "Apple Theodicy" is an evil doctrine that would have us hate ourselves, our world and Life! The man and woman of the Garden of Eden where NOT "homo sapiens". The word "sapien" means to know. They did not know Good from evil Nor could they sinfully pluck an apple off a tree with the legal guilt of "mens rea". That is to say they could not "deliberate" without the knowlege of good and evil until the fruit droped past their throat when it was too late. Homo Edenicus is not Homo Sapien. Nor will Homo Paridizio be the recreation of Homo Edenicus as the folks of paradise will be "knowers". Jesus died to give the "Great Demonstration" of the reality of life, truth and love. Let us turn away from the silly notion that all of lifes problems are due to Mad Daddy Yahweeh going on a cosmic temper tantrum demanding that his only son die a cruesome death becasue some one dared to take one of his damn apples! This belief system would have us believe that Mad Daddy Yahweeh in heaven is relishing each blow of the nails into Christ’s hands and feet. "oh yes oh yes hammer it in! oh oh oh oh I feel so good. DAMN YOU STUPID ROMANS DON"T FORGET HIS FEET!! HIS FEET NAIL HIS FEET – Ah yes thats it! AH AH MY COSMIC EGO IS SATISFIED. Come give Mad Daddy Yahweeh a nice big hug! Just so long as you know what a worthless human piece of dirt you are". Spend an eternity with that as my diety? — NO THANKS! He will find some other offence to throw you out again. APPLE THEODICY – JUST SAY NO! Brian J Dawson
Response:
The belief that Jesus is God only gives our life in this reality the value and meaning of a test. Knowledge and good works have no value.
Good deeds always have value. However, good deeds alone will not save your soul, unless you also believe in God and accept Jesus as your Savior. Neither will belief in God without good deeds, and without following His Commandments and His laws. God’s Grace has given us this way to salvation, but it is still up to us to pick up the cross and follow the righteous path. To protect us from Satan, Jesus has provided us with the Scripture of the Bible. While you have a beautiful writing style and you are most creative in your critique of Christianity, it in no way changes the satanic nature of your message. No deception can reach or harm those that cling to the Scriptures of Jesus Christ.
Response:
Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God, is not GOD The reality that Jesus was a man of flesh and blood has greater value for us as men, then the belief he is God. As a man what he did and why is an outstanding example possible for man and demands our respect. This knowledge allows us to achieve what Jesus lived, preached and was crucified on the cross for. What Jesus wanted was all men to know the truth of I AM, God and our father. This truth is the salvation of man. If Jesus was and is God, then his life, teaching and death as a man had no value. Our belief that he is God stops us from knowing and acknowledging I AM the truth he preached. The words and truth Jesus said were not his but were given to him by God. That he died had no meaning when he had nothing at risk. His existence was assured. If Jesus is God then neither his death nor teaching saved us from sin. The bible says the sin of man is our reality. Our life, suffering and death are our punishment because Adam and Eve, the father and mother of mankind ate the forbidden fruit acquiring knowledge of life and death, good and evil. This was the sin of disobedience, because God had forbidden it. The sin and punishment of the father and mother is passed on to all the children. Our punishment began with the knowledge that we were naked and we were ashamed of our selves. God’s punishment was that man would have to work to live, woman would suffer the pain of child birth and we would die. Man still has to work to live. Child birth is still painful. Man still suffers and dies. We are still taught that all men are born with the guilt of sin and that being naked before God and man is wrong and shameful. The guilt and punishments remain the same. The belief that Jesus is God only gives our life in this reality the value and meaning of a test. Knowledge and good works have no value. Only the belief that Jesus is God will save us. The promise is that if we truly believe even though we may suffer more because we believe and we still die; that at the time of judgment, all who lived will be called from the grave and the believers will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven. Those who did not believe may have appeared to prosper in this world, but will face eternal damnation. Only beyond this reality if we pass the test will our sin be forgiven and the punishment which requires us to work, suffer and die not apply. With eternal life what need are children? This is the true reality and value offered. Jesus the man knew the salvation of man is man knowing the truth and claiming the truth as self, father and lord. "I AM the way, truth and life. No one comes to the Father except through the son. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." I AM is existence. I AM is the truth and right of reality. I AM, awareness is Life. The salvation of man is the value, right and power to be the man he is. Only to a self aware being is value possible. Our right of life is existence, I AM. Awareness of living, ability to act by choice, the pleasure and pain we experience is our knowledge of life and death, good and evil. As painful as the knowledge can be, the reality of our existence is not punishment. The knowledge of I AM is the power to be, the gift of freedom. Freedom is not free. We have to work to live. Man and woman must bond together willing to pay the painful cost to give birth and raise children for they are the hope and reality of continuing existence. Death is the fate of every man for the cycle of life and death makes possible and maintains man’s existence in this reality. Freedom is choice. Our choices make a difference. Responsibility is the cost. Only knowing the truth and claiming it makes a man free. The truth of our reality is the same now as it has ever been. This truth can be seen by all men, yet only the Jews believe and accept that the meaning of the word YHWH I AM THAT I AM, I AM is the name of God and the truth. As the Chosen people they are the children of God. To non Jews the God of the Jews could not be seen and no image or symbol could be used to help see, plus God’s name YHWH was never used, but once a year by the high priest within the temple. The meaning of the name was and still is to be kept in the heart and mind. That it was enforced by their interpretation of the commandments (use no symbol in likeness and do not use the name in vain), tradition and punishment made I AM very hard if not impossible to believe in. In the world there were many examples of men who became Gods who demanded and receive worship. In this reality Jesus as Son of God, one and the same God, Son and Holy Spirit could be seen, called by name, understood and believed. When man knew he, Jesus and God are of each other, truly the sons of Gods could men know and believe I AM. Jesus said aloud the name YHWH and kept proclaiming I AM God, father and truth. Jesus said there were only two commandments both of which mean the same that are required of man. "Love I AM the lord thy God with all thy self (mind, heart, body, feelings, actions and soul). Love others as self." Jesus as a Jew knew he was son of God. We are taught that as a boy he studied and his knowledge was respected. When he choose to answer the call and fulfill his duty as the anointed one he knew what he would have to do and that death on the cross was foretold by the prophets as his fate. Son of Man the title he always used for himself was the title used by the Jews for the anointed one of God sent to save his people. Only the truth that all men are sons of the I AM God the father including the sick and the lame who were forbidden as unclean from the temple would save his people and all mankind. He never said that he was the Son of God, but encouraged those who did. The power of the Bible is that the trick and the truth are included. Within the truth, that which works producing beneficial results shows God’s blessing. The tricks used by Abraham and Moses who God reveal himself to and to whom God made a contract with are recorded. Abram later Abraham was promised he would be the father of a mighty nation and of many nations if he would believe and follow the one true God. Abraham sold Sara his wife into marriage presenting her as his sister. This was not a lie for she was his half sister. Bad things happen after Sara became one of the wives. Abraham as a man of God explained the troubles were caused because Sara was his wife. Why this happened Abraham told of his fear of being killed because she was so desirable. Angrily as the tricked ruler was Sara was return and Abraham was forced to leave. He still had what he received and the bible states that Abraham was wealthy having cattle, sheep, servants, gold and silver showing God’s blessing. It is recorded that Abraham does the same thing again and so does his son whose children become the Jews. To Moses who sees God within a burning bush and talks with, God reveals his name YHWH I AM THAT I AM, I AM. Moses is told by God how he is going to deliver those now known as Jews from slavery to freedom. He is told to tell the Pharaoh, Let my people go for a three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. As planed, when they are able to leave taking the gold and silver of Egypt with them, after three days they did not stop though I sure they prayed, but kept on going, God’s contract was I AM the God and truth that has freed you from slavery. If you believe in me and keep my commandments, I promise you a home of plenty and will make you a nation of example. With these examples Jesus knew that if he died as foretold, yet still lived all would know the power and truth was with him. The Jews who were his first followers would understand, respect, see victory and proof that Jesus was truly the son of man teaching the truth of God. Non Jews could believe he was truly son of God. The bible shows he planed and prepared for his trip to the holy city. Jesus arranged a place to stay and meet where he would not be disturbed. Jesus arranged the use of a donkey to ride in upon implying his kingship, because David had done the same when he made it his capital. Jesus disrupts the profitable approved business at the temple and gives a sermon to the thousands gathered there. He told them the Temple, his father’ s home was a place of pray and worships, not a market. He is able to leave untouched by the officials who would punish him for his actions. He sends Judas, the traitor or his best friend, to let the officials know where he will be so he will be arrested easily. Jesus goes there prays and waits. When Judas arrives he kisses Jesus identifying him as the one to be arrested. The kiss was the mark of a true friend who believed and did what asked or it showed his contempt and hatred. During the trial of Jesus no two witnesses could be found who could testify to anything that would convict Jesus of a crime. No two could be found that heard him say that he was the Son of God. The high priest asked Jesus, "Are you the son of the blessed one?" Jesus replied, "I AM (YHWH). You shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power." The high priest cried. "Blasphemy, what future proof do we need?" Jesus is convicted not for claiming to be the Son of God, but for saying the sacred name of God, which by religious law was only to be said once a year by the high priest in the temple. Against the law and punishable by death, it made more practical sense to turn him over to the Romans to deal with then putting to death a leader with followers for saying the name of God. Jesus had implied his Kingship by how he rode into the city. Rome had their own King. Roman authority did not tolerate any challenge and those who challenged could expect a public painful death as punishment. To the charge He … read more »
Response:
-
Why are Satanists Posting to Alt.Pagan
Question:
Newsgroups: alt.pagan First off, everyone has a right to post, you are nothing more than a censor trying to silence those you oppose, idiot. First off I’ve clearly shown that Christians, Jews, Islamics are NOT considered Pagans nore are any religion or philosophy that reject these philosophies/theologies. Satanism is an off shoot of Christianity and thus do NOT belong to a Pagan message board.
Ok I’m not for telling you who should post where. I just want to know why you included alt.discordia in the group since it relates neither to paganism, christianity, or satanism?
Response:
babbled: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: alt.pagan First off, everyone has a right to post, you are nothing more than a censor trying to silence those you oppose, idiot. First off I’ve clearly shown that Christians, Jews, Islamics are NOT considered Pagans nore are any religion or philosophy that reject these philosophies/theologies. Satanism is an off shoot of Christianity and thus do NOT belong to a Pagan message board. Ok I’m not for telling you who should post where. I just want to know why you included alt.discordia in the group since it relates neither to paganism, christianity, or satanism?
WHAT? How does the worship of a Greek Goddess not qualify as PAGAN? — Rev. Klyf S
-
gibson's next blockbuster?
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think you atheists should find someone to make a film for you. The story could go something like this: Some famous dude or dudess, starts this group, fights to get the word "of" out of the pledge of allegience. Then, after awhile, this group accumulates lots of money, and this is converted into gold coins. But the house keeper gets greedy and kills them all. But nobody knows what really happened for a long time, until an investigation is openned up and the culprit is discovered. Then the housekeeper goes to jail. How about that kind of a movie? JM Why not one about a lying scumbag who makes a wager, quibbles when he loses, claims he didn’t make the wager, acknowldges he lost,
Actually, Glenn refuted that. Tough. JM – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – claims he’ll send the money after an overseas trip is complete, returns, denies making the wager, eventually sends an uncashable cheque, denies the cheque is uncashable, again tries to argue the wager wasn’t made, at least not with the person the altered cheque was sent to, eventually sends a valid cheque to an unrelated 3rd party in the wrong country (who kindly passes it on to the correct recipient)? You’d be a shoe-in for the lead, what with your experience. Dunno what to call it though, maybe: _Christians: The Real McCoy_ Have Fun Martin
Response:
As Gibson doesn’t believe in human evolution, then it follows he believes Adam and Eve were real people.
Actually one does not inexorably follow the other. Someone can beleive in humans as divinely created and still consider the Adam and Eve story as allegory, for example. Someone can also beleive in natural selection as a process, but not beleive that humans evolved from apes. Actually in the quote you site Gibson doesn’t address human evolution – natural selection, changes, and evolution within the human species. He disputes that humans evolved from apes. People like that might be wrong, but that doesn’t mean they inexorably beleive that Adam & Eve are real people, nor disupte the process of natural selection. And if that’s the case, then it follows he also believes Noah and his family were real people:
No, it really doesn’t, for the reason I said above. He may in fact believe what you are saying, but not for the reasons cited below. Your extrapolations from his position, that is his thinking that humans evolving from apes is ‘bullshit,’ has only a dubious connection with any literal belief in Adam, Eve, Noah, or Noahs family. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -From the July 1995 issue of PLAYBOY Magazine: PLAYBOY: Do you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or that God created man in his image? GIBSON: The latter. PLAYBOY: So you can’t accept that we descended from monkeys and apes? GIBSON: No, I think it’s bullshit. If it isn’t, why are they still around? How come apes aren’t people yet? It’s a nice theory, but I can’t swallow it. There’s a big credibility gap. The carbon dating thing that tells you how long something’s been around, how accurate is that, really? I’ve got one of Darwin’s books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn funny. Some of his stuff is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the leaves. But I just don’t think you can swallow the whole piece.
Response:
His next film is about how Charles de Gaulle saved Europe.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As Gibson doesn’t believe in human evolution, then it follows he believes Adam and Eve were real people. Actually one does not inexorably follow the other. Someone can beleive in humans as divinely created and still consider the Adam and Eve story as allegory, for example. Someone can also beleive in natural selection as a process, but not beleive that humans evolved from apes. Actually in the quote you site Gibson doesn’t address human evolution – natural selection, changes, and evolution within the human species. He disputes that humans evolved from apes. People like that might be wrong, but that doesn’t mean they inexorably beleive that Adam & Eve are real people, nor disupte the process of natural selection. And if that’s the case, then it follows he also believes Noah and his family were real people: No, it really doesn’t, for the reason I said above. He may in fact believe what you are saying, but not for the reasons cited below. Your extrapolations from his position, that is his thinking that humans evolving from apes is ‘bullshit,’ has only a dubious connection with any literal belief in Adam, Eve, Noah, or Noahs family. From the July 1995 issue of PLAYBOY Magazine: PLAYBOY: Do you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or that God created man in his image? GIBSON: The latter. PLAYBOY: So you can’t accept that we descended from monkeys and apes? GIBSON: No, I think it’s bullshit. If it isn’t, why are they still around? How come apes aren’t people yet? It’s a nice theory, but I can’t swallow it. There’s a big credibility gap. The carbon dating thing that tells you how long something’s been around, how accurate is that, really? I’ve got one of Darwin’s books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn funny. Some of his stuff is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the leaves. But I just don’t think you can swallow the whole piece.
Response:
For his next film, I hope Mel Gibson or Steven Spielberg will consider working with Jim Brenneman (who heads up the Flood Film Project) on a film about Noah’s Ark (unlike the absolutely dreadful NBC miniseries starring Jon Voight from a few years ago). For details, see: Flood Film Project http://www.floodfilm.com
If such a film were undertaken, perhaps scientists such as Dr. John Baumgardner (Los Alamos) could "come on board" as a technical advisor: The Geophysics of God [article from U.S. News & World Report about Baumgardner] http://globalflood.org/papers/geophysicsofgod.html As Gibson doesn’t believe in human evolution, then it follows he believes Adam and Eve were real people. And if that’s the case, then it follows he also believes Noah and his family were real people: From the July 1995 issue of PLAYBOY Magazine: PLAYBOY: Do you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or that God created man in his image? GIBSON: The latter. PLAYBOY: So you can’t accept that we descended from monkeys and apes? GIBSON: No, I think it’s bullshit. If it isn’t, why are they still around? How come apes aren’t people yet? It’s a nice theory, but I can’t swallow it. There’s a big credibility gap. The carbon dating thing that tells you how long something’s been around, how accurate is that, really? I’ve got one of Darwin’s books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn funny. Some of his stuff is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the leaves. But I just don’t think you can swallow the whole piece. David Buckna
Response:
What a joke. If Mel were to make another religious film it will be a Christian one, not a jewish one. Rob
passion of st paul? didn’t he get his ass whupped too? Acts of the Apostles featuring Paul is a natural choice, though my bet is he goes back and does an Old Testement story – maybe Abraham, who has never had much of a movie push. King David has been done a lot but the story is compelling – violence, giants, hot bootie, set-ups for death. Pretty cinematic.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-livmelnext06030604mar06,0,1144996…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gibson’s next movie: A look at heroic Jews? By Mark I. Pinsky Sentinel Staff Writer March 6, 2004 With record box-office receipts for The Passion of the Christ rolling in, now might be the time to ask: What will Mel Gibson do for an encore? Officially, he is scheduled to do Mad Max 4. But in light of the controversy surrounding his first religious film, and the likelihood that it may soon cross the $200 million mark, many in Hollywood doubt Gibson will return to his old action franchise. The filmmaker has been hinting that he may go back to the biblical period, if not the Bible itself. The most intriguing speculation centers on two heroic Jewish struggles that bracket the historical time frame of the filmmaker’s current biblical blockbuster. If the rumors are true, Gibson’s next move could be a stroke of genius, at once disarming Jewish critics of The Passion and providing an ideal dramatic vehicle. Both stories are the stuff of screenplays. One parallels Gibson’s earlier hit, The Patriot, set during the American Revolution. The second is nearly identical to Braveheart, the story of a medieval Scottish insurrection. Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Gibson and his Icon Films, confirmed that the filmmaker has spoken in several interviews, including one with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, about looking to the Old Testament for stories, but said Gibson has not been specific about which stories. The first rumor flitting through the evangelical world is that the filmmaker intends to plow the profits from The Passion into a movie about the central characters of the holiday of Hanukkah, fighters called the Maccabees. Their story is told in sacred writings of the biblical period, although the two books of the same name are not officially a part of either testament. Nearly 200 years before Jesus’ birth, religious Jews in the land of Israel rose in violent rebellion against pagan occupiers and their Jewish allies. A political heir of Alexander the Great, the Syrian Greek emperor Antiochus Epiphanes, tried to impose a single faith and culture throughout his Middle Eastern realm. For Jewish subjects, that meant they could no longer practice their faith. Antiochus banned Sabbath observance and circumcision — on pain of death. The Maccabean uprising was sparked when a government official compelled a Jew to offer a pagan sacrifice. This sacrilegious act enraged a pious man named Mattathias, who killed the collaborator and the official with his sword, and then shouted to the crowd: "Whoever is for the Lord, follow me!" Mattathias led his five sons and their followers into the hills, from which they launched a protracted guerrilla war, led by his son Judah, a brilliant military tactician. Bloody battles and torture ensued, as the outnumbered believers wore down their enemies, some of whom rode into the fray on armored elephants. In the end, after Mattathias died and several of his sons were killed in battle, the orthodox Jewish believers triumphed and the temple in Jerusalem was cleansed and restored to holiness. According to tradition, a remnant of sanctified oil in the temple lamp miraculously burned for eight days, until more could be found. For Gibson, there are several advantages, apart from a familiar scenario. Having succeeded with subtitles, it should be easy to shift from The Passion’s Aramaic and Latin to the earlier period’s Hebrew and Greek. Also, since the Maccabee story takes place only 200 years before The Passion, and peasant fashions probably didn’t change much in those days, he could conceivably use many of the same costumes. A suggested pursuit Last week, the American-born Israeli educator Yossi Katz suggested that Gibson’s next film should be a dramatization of the Bar Kochba Revolt of A.D. 132-135. This rebellion took place a century after Jesus’ death, and 60 years after a failed uprising against the Roman occupation that led to half a million Jewish deaths and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Writing in a column syndicated to Jewish weekly newspapers, Katz recalled that the Roman emperor Hadrian — like Antiochus Epiphanes before him — tried to impose paganism on the Jews at sword’s point. This time, the revolt was led by a sage named Rabbi Akiba and a younger military prot
