It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dome of the Rock is the Abomination of Desolation

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You guys want some seriously well researched proof for what the OP is saying. READ THIS INCREDIBLE THREAD I'll post here and AFTER you read it ALL. I said AFTER reading it ALL then if you can seriously say it's all coincidence and not gain some more understanding I'll eat my hat. You ready drop your preconceived notions and read THE TRUTH and where all of this is going? You are? OK then HERE you go, this thread will totally explain why this piece of land is signifigant to ALL of us not just Hebrew and Christians! This answers ALL and much MORE!

The dome? The land? The people ..The End? THE ANSWERS! CLICK HERE!!

Then be sure and come back and post your new opinion on this matter in respect to the OP. Thank you!

(MODS it was a long night and I realized I actually had found the link I posted in this very thread HA! So you can delete this if you must... but the truth is that that link is the complete story in relationship to this thread. Sorry for the redux on the link folks )




edit on 1/28/2011 by firegoggles because: I added a link that existed in the thread by mistake but never the less its very relevant




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




And the Jews wanting to forcefully demolish a centuries old monument that was built upon ruins isn't disrespectful?

Yes it is very disrespectful. What Chutzpah for those Ishmaelites to build a mosque atop the ruins of the 1st and 2nd Jewish Temples.


I'm sorry, but how is it not disrespectful to the Muslims? How is this and the entirety of the post I'm currently responding to not bigoted ignorance? The site was empty for hundreds of years before the Dome of the Rock was built. Centuries passed with nothing there. Were people just supposed to leave it empty?

Islam is a religion with over 100 times as many adherents as Judaism.



When the Jews demolish it, it would be well deserved and natural, seeing they built it on their holiest site.


You mean that site they weren't using and/or occupying for a few hundred years? The site that they claim they gained through what would be considered one of the most heinous genocides in human history if it had actually occurred? You mean that site for which their entire claim is based in a religious text with no external verification?

I'm sorry, but the Muslims and Jews have equal claim to the land on a religious basis, but the Muslims in this case have claim to it legally.



Imagine the Jews go to mecca, and built a synagogue right in front of the Kaaba.


You mean the Kaaba, which is currently standing? This is a really bad analogy considering that the Hebrew temple was not there for a few centuries while the Kaaba is still there. It's not like the Muslims demolished the temple themselves.



It wouldnt go so well with muslims, would it?





Many Rabbis and leaders have said they would prefer to transport the mosque to mecca or Medina, without destroying it.


Yes, they'd like to transport it for no reason beyond an unverified fairy tale that says they have rights to the land. I'm sorry, but religious claims are no means for humanity to base property claims.



But given Arab audacity,


Wow, racism much? Weren't you aware that the majority of the world's Muslims aren't Arab?



i dont think that will happen. It might have to be destroyed completely.


Yay, let's start an unnecessary war and commit a crime against the world's second largest religion!

Bottom line, the Jews have no legal claim to the site. Now, if Israel would like to conquer the land and then demolish it and kick off a really big international incident by committing that hate crime, they can go ahead and do that.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


That, like the majority of AshleyD's posts, is riddled with errors, inaccuracies, and ridiculousness all around. That thread couldn't find a logical argument with both her hands, a flashlight, a GPS, and the help of Ernst Zermelo (he's a logician...German..I'm currently studying for a German philosophy exam....)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


How can anyone with the name "madness in my soul", not come off as incredibly unreasonable? You live up to your name. Its madness to say "the Jews have no legal claim to the site" when it was theres first. Made holy BY THEM and even during their 2000 years of gentile imposed exile, never stopped dreaming and crying out to their G-d - in their major works, prayer books etc, hoping for the day of their destined return.

That return was not only KNOWN, and predicted by the most famous of books, but even while in exile Muslims and Christians were very aware of it. Islam itself regarded the Jews as the "people of he book". Always immersed in study of their holy Torah. Even the Koran acknowledges the right to Israel and Jerusalem as belonging to the Jews.

Som, when the mosque is destroyed - and it will be, the Jews and supporters of Israel will stand by confident knowing they will defeat their enemies. Just as the Jews overcame the onsluaght in '48, and '67, and '73, they will undoubtedly destroy any enemy that tries to get in the way of G-ds divine convenant with them.

For someone with so much madness in his soul, i dont expect this to make sense to you.
edit on 30-1-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


How can anyone with the name "madness in my soul", not come off as incredibly unreasonable? You live up to your name.


Ad hominem.



Its madness to say "the Jews have no legal claim to the site" when it was theres first.


And then there was a divide between the Judean and Israeli kingdoms, then there was a Babylonian conquest where it got destroyed, then they came back and rebuilt it (which is around the time that monotheism seems to have entered Jewish society), then there was a Roman conquest, then some stuff happened and another monotheistic religion arose, then eventually it got destroyed again and the Jews were scattered...then a few centuries passed and Muslims built a holy site atop the ruins.

I'm sorry, but do Native American tribes have claim to land? Can Roman Pagans demolish parts of the Vatican built upon known Pagan temples?

Claims from historical ownership have no bearing on modern ownership.



Made holy BY THEM


Actually, it's not 'holy', they just think it is. And they think their deity made it holy. And their only claim is from a religious text.



and even during their 2000 years of gentile imposed exile, never stopped dreaming and crying out to their G-d - in their major works, prayer books etc, hoping for the day of their destined return.


And then, after their near genocide, they went through a series of incredibly bloody conflicts, at least a portion of which was their own fault, and now they're currently perpetuating what can only be called a slow genocide to reclaim the land which they claim (and there is no basis for that claim) they got by genocide in the first place...
Isn't it ironic? Don'tcha think?



That return was not only KNOWN, and predicted by the most famous of books, but even while in exile Muslims and Christians were very aware of it.


You mean the self-fulfilled prophecy? Of course the Jews were going to make a prophecy about how they'd return to the land which they made up a story about being promised! (Side note: there is currently no evidence to support the Exodus account and the most likely scenario based upon the available archeological evidence is that the Jewish state emerged in the aftermath of peasant uprisings in the region of Canaan)



Islam itself regarded the Jews as the "people of he book".


And the Christians. It's peoples of the book.



Always immersed in study of their holy Torah.


Not "holy". Appropriate ways to describe the Torah include: Genocidal, genital mutilating, woman oppressing, slave owning, racist, and lacking in factual support.



Even the Koran acknowledges the right to Israel and Jerusalem as belonging to the Jews.


Um...where?



Som, when the mosque is destroyed - and it will be, the Jews and supporters of Israel will stand by confident knowing they will defeat their enemies.


Yay, genocidal holy wars!

Crap, I really hope that monotheism dies out before that idiotic sort of conflict ever happens. You do realize that it would end up as a conflict between nuclear powers if it ever came to it, right? It would end up going from proxy war to all out war. The USA and several other western nations might back Israel, but a major portion of the Arab world, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and possibly China (defending its oil interests) would back the Muslim side.

So yeah, let's tempt nuclear war because we can't just build the temple a few blocks down the road in a place where we would avoid the possibility of nuclear war.

Wouldn't your deity care more about the number of lives saved by being intelligent, empathetic human beings and building the temple somewhere else than a small piece of real estate (especially small on the scale of a deity)?



Just as the Jews overcame the onsluaght in '48, and '67, and '73, they will undoubtedly destroy any enemy that tries to get in the way of G-ds divine convenant with them.


Yes, particularly little children. I've heard they're quite good at shooting children several times in the back. You know, I'm not going to bother. '48 was the fault of "Israel" and the British, '67 was Egypt's fault for being stupid, '73 was due to uber stupidity...but I have a question, how many Israeli citizens died in those conflicts? And how many Palestinian civilians have died since '73? I'll give you a hint, there are orders of magnitude between the relatively small numbers of Israelis killed and the strikingly high number of Palestinians killed.



For someone with so much madness in his soul, i dont expect this to make sense to you.


Of course the idiotic idea that we should start a potentially nuclear war over what could be at most a square kilometer of land because a supposedly all-loving being says so isn't going to make sense. It is quite possibly the most dangerous idea that exists in the world right now due to both its destructive potential and oddly casual adherence.

If you really believed in a divinely inspired book written by a perfect being why doesn't this being recognize the wisdom of compromise in the face of massive destruction and the slaughter of countless innocents.

This is just sick. It sickens me. This is exactly why I am most often in the position of anti-theism. Sure, I'm not going to begrudge a devout Ba'hai individual, but someone who thinks we should start a potentially nuclear war over a square kilometer of land? That's the worst sort of religious fundamentalism.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


No wonder the building of the third temple is associated with the apocalypse. If anyone destroys that mosque and builds the third temple, it will instantly set WWIII in motion. Of course there will always be ecumenical suggestions for a joint Jew-Christian-Islam Temple, but I don't think Christianity needs a temple and Islam shouldn't get a temple on Mount Moriah. Don't like it? Think I should be more pluralistic? Maybe, Islam should stop fulfilling ominous prophecies and stop freaking me out by reversing Revelations. I honestly would stop thinking of them as "of the beast" if they didn't do these things.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


I said something to this effect in the comet elenin thread just last week.

The temple that is there now is the third temple to God.

It's a temple.

It's the third.

It's to God.and it's in the right spot.

What is the problem?
edit on 30-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dontreally
 


[quote/]
And then there was a divide between the Judean and Israeli kingdoms, then there was a Babylonian conquest where it got destroyed, then they came back and rebuilt it (which is around the time that monotheism seems to have entered Jewish society), then there was a Roman conquest, then some stuff happened and another monotheistic religion arose, then eventually it got destroyed again and the Jews were scattered...then a few centuries passed and Muslims built a holy site atop the ruins.
[quote/]

Man archaeologists love to research Biblical peoples without reading the Bible. Have you read the Bible? Of course there was polytheism in Judaism, they say it themselves. They broke the commandments and were punished for it. Oh, but it's a fairy tail book we should just dig up these areas without any context and pull explanations out of our asses.

[quote/]
I'm sorry, but do Native American tribes have claim to land? Can Roman Pagans demolish parts of the Vatican built upon known Pagan temples?
[quote/]
Yes.

[quote/]
Claims from historical ownership have no bearing on modern ownership.
[quote/]

So says the Repo-Man when he throws a family out on the street.

Bureaucracy is the perfect example of living by the letter of the law with no regard for people, feelings, memory, and basically everything that makes life worth living. I know your an atheist, but surely you don't have to take your rationalism to the point where you're an unfeeling automaton like George Bernard Shaw.

[quote/]
Actually, it's not 'holy', they just think it is. And they think their deity made it holy. And their only claim is from a religious text.
[quote/]

Your opinion is based off of a presupposition that their text is not holy. Regardless, it is the ancestral land of the Jews, Islam has Mecca, they do not need a theological vice-grip on Jerusalem, unless they are going out of their way to fulfill ominous prophecy.

[quote/]
And then, after their near genocide, they went through a series of incredibly bloody conflicts, at least a portion of which was their own fault, and now they're currently perpetuating what can only be called a slow genocide to reclaim the land which they claim (and there is no basis for that claim) they got by genocide in the first place...
Isn't it ironic? Don'tcha think?
[quote/]

Maybe if you saw the Canaanites lighting their children on fire you would be a little less sympathetic. Anyway, the state of Israel is secular, and they have proven that time and again by showing an utter disregard for places of religious importance in their quest to establish a police state and kill all of the Palestinians.

[quote/]
You mean the self-fulfilled prophecy? Of course the Jews were going to make a prophecy about how they'd return to the land which they made up a story about being promised! (Side note: there is currently no evidence to support the Exodus account and the most likely scenario based upon the available archeological evidence is that the Jewish state emerged in the aftermath of peasant uprisings in the region of Canaan)
[quote/]

So says those biased archaeologists you love so much. Actually, the reason for prior lack of evidence of the Exodus story was because everyone assumed the Jews lived under Ramses II (not in the Bible), since then they started excavating in older sites and have found mass graves and evidence of some cataclysmic events in Egypt.

[quote/]
And the Christians. It's peoples of the book.
[quote/]

Christians don't care about the Temple Mount. Ya'hshuah is our Temple. I only care when Islam jealously guards a place they have no claim to, whilst fulfilling prophecy.

[quote/]
Not "holy". Appropriate ways to describe the Torah include: Genocidal, genital mutilating, woman oppressing, slave owning, racist, and lacking in factual support.
[quote/]

Again with the presuppositions. As I've explained in multiple threads, there were some damn good reasons for the Canaanites to be eradicated, they were descended from the Nephilim and were downright evil and were just as intent on killing the Jews as vice-versa. You will notice that the Bible doesn't call for the genocide of all of Israel's enemies, no such commandment for the Syrians and Egyptians. The Canaanites were special. As for genital mutilating, I rather enjoy my circumcised penis, as have my girlfriends in the past. I enjoy not having to peal back my foreskin and clean out smegma. Slave owning? Everyone owned slaves at that time, no one said the Jews were perfect, and they eventually stopped that along with stoning people. As for racism I assume you are referring to the mark of Ham? That wasn't a justification for racism, that was a prophecy that was fulfilled in an eerily accurate fashion. Shem(Semitic people) would have the priesthood; strongest religions. Japheth (white people) would dwell in the tents of Shem, build great empires, but would not have the priesthood; big empires, spiritually retarded. Ham (black people) would be a servant to his brothers and be subjugated; look at the lot of black people in the world, sad, but it happened. On the upside for the descendants of Ham, they can be forgiven of sins just like everyone else. You also will notice that Christian black people are much better off than non-Christians.

[quote/]
Even the Koran acknowledges the right to Israel and Jerusalem as belonging to the Jews.
[/quote/]

[quote/]
Um...where?
[quote/]

I don't know either. Dontreally should find that Surrah

[quote/]
Som, when the mosque is destroyed - and it will be, the Jews and supporters of Israel will stand by confident knowing they will defeat their enemies.
[/quote/]

[quote/]
Yay, genocidal holy wars!
[quote/]

Actually, the Jews will be completely massacred in such a way that it will make the Holocaust look like a joke, but it will usher in the apocalypse and the resurrection will be right after that.

[quote/]
Crap, I really hope that monotheism dies out before that idiotic sort of conflict ever happens. You do realize that it would end up as a conflict between nuclear powers if it ever came to it, right? It would end up going from proxy war to all out war. The USA and several other western nations might back Israel, but a major portion of the Arab world, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and possibly China (defending its oil interests) would back the Muslim side.
[quote/]

So we agree that the building of the third temple will start Armageddon? I thought you thought that the Bible was a fairy tail book?

[quote/]
So yeah, let's tempt nuclear war because we can't just build the temple a few blocks down the road in a place where we would avoid the possibility of nuclear war.

Wouldn't your deity care more about the number of lives saved by being intelligent, empathetic human beings and building the temple somewhere else than a small piece of real estate (especially small on the scale of a deity)?
[quote/]

Ah, so like the rest of the west, you admit that you let Islam walk all over you and the concept of ownership because you are scared. If you're scared then the terrorists have already won.

[quote/]
Just as the Jews overcame the onsluaght in '48, and '67, and '73, they will undoubtedly destroy any enemy that tries to get in the way of G-ds divine convenant with them.
[/quote/]

[quote/]
Yes, particularly little children. I've heard they're quite good at shooting children several times in the back. You know, I'm not going to bother. '48 was the fault of "Israel" and the British, '67 was Egypt's fault for being stupid, '73 was due to uber stupidity...but I have a question, how many Israeli citizens died in those conflicts? And how many Palestinian civilians have died since '73? I'll give you a hint, there are orders of magnitude between the relatively small numbers of Israelis killed and the strikingly high number of Palestinians killed.
[quote/]

Not going to argue with you here, the state of Israel is made up of murdering apostates, not Jews.

[quote/]
If you really believed in a divinely inspired book written by a perfect being why doesn't this being recognize the wisdom of compromise in the face of massive destruction and the slaughter of countless innocents.
[quote/]

Actually He did say that the building of the third temple would be a sign of the end of the age. God's will is above man's. You can only see death ahead. We see the fulfillment of prophecy and a veil being lifted that will return mankind to our creator. It is what He told us. You can only see what is at the end of your own nose, we on the other hand, have the benefit of prophecy which shows us what is beyond the veil.

[quote/]
This is just sick. It sickens me. This is exactly why I am most often in the position of anti-theism. Sure, I'm not going to begrudge a devout Ba'hai individual, but someone who thinks we should start a potentially nuclear war over a square kilometer of land? That's the worst sort of religious fundamentalism.
[quote/]

Of course you like the Ba'hai, they are the most pluralistic, compromising religion on the face of the Earth. They try and fit multiple different jigsaws together, make a compendium god, try to reconcile pacifist Christianity with Islam and it's commands to kill infidels. Oh yeah they're great unless, they are compromising the true God with aspects of false ones.

So, the apocalypse happens, fine with me. I can handle a test of faith and the worst times the world has ever seen when I have hope for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. The war starts and Muslims and Jews will be the instigators, meanwhile I will be turning the other cheek and just focus on staying alive so as to see more of the apocalypse. I'll probably be beheaded, when I don't convert to Islam, but that would make me a real martyr, you know, the non-violent kind. As awful as it's going to be, it will be far more interesting than any other point in history, and then we can all look forward to the end, some of us at least.
edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


There's no evidence of the commandments existing as a monotheistic proclamation until the period after the Babylonian captivity. It was talking about not exclusive worship, but primary worship. It didn't exclude the existence of other deities.

...and Exodus and Deuteronomy are unsupported by any historical evidence...


So says the Repo-Man when he throws a family out on the street.


The Repo-Man has a duty to perform and it is based upon pre-existing contracts within legal confines.



Bureaucracy is the perfect example of living by the letter of the law with no regard for people, feelings, memory, and basically everything that makes life worth living.


And demolishing the Dome of the Rock to place a Jewish temple would be an example of having no regard for people, feelings, memory, or life.



I know your an atheist, but surely you don't have to take your rationalism to the point where you're an unfeeling automaton like George Bernard Shaw.



If you leave your art, the world will beat you back to it. The world has not an ambition worth sharing, or a prize worth handling. Corrupt successes, disgraceful failures, or sheeplike vegetation are all it has to offer. I prefer Art, which gives me a sixth sense of beauty, with self-respect: perhaps also an immortal reputation in return for honest endeavour in a labour of love.


Yes, the words of an unfeeling automaton...I'm sorry, I just don't like people defaming great figures in literary history needlessly.

And I'm not a rationalist, I'm more accurately described as an empiricist skeptic. I'm far from unfeeling, I have a great amount of empathy...which is why I realize it would be monumentally insane to demolish the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Jewish temple because it could ignite a potentially nuclear war with massive civilian casualties.

In fact, you'd have to be rabidly devout beyond the point of losing empathy for your fellow humans because they don't happen to share you religious views to want it to happen that way.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Screw it, I'm doing it in two parts. I'm doubling up on breaks, I'll just have to work longer in my next work period.


Originally posted by kallisti36


Actually, it's not 'holy', they just think it is. And they think their deity made it holy. And their only claim is from a religious text.


Your opinion is based off of a presupposition that their text is not holy.


No, it's based on the skeptical position that holiness must be proven and not assumed. Thinking the book is holy is a presupposition. If you bother to read the book, it is far from holy.



Regardless, it is the ancestral land of the Jews,


And prior to them it was the ancestral land of the Canaanites...and the Jews claim (and it is an unsupported claim) to have gained the land through genocide.



Islam has Mecca, they do not need a theological vice-grip on Jerusalem, unless they are going out of their way to fulfill ominous prophecy.


Theological vice grip? Not letting other people destroy your third holiest site for their own selfish reasons to please a religious community their size is a vice-grip? I'm sorry, but they're standing up for their own rights.



Maybe if you saw the Canaanites lighting their children on fire you would be a little less sympathetic.


Maybe if there was any evidence that they actually did this...and I thought two wrongs didn't make a right. What about the mass rape of the virgins of Canaan...? And why didn't the monotheistic deity just come down to Canaan and be all like "Hey, can my people chill here? And please, stop all that baby burning, it's not cool."

Oh wait, that guy prefers to harden hearts...softening them must be too much for an all-powerful being.

Last thing: Isn't genocide a hell of a lot worse than burning children? Genocide involves the murder of children...and everyone else.



Anyway, the state of Israel is secular, and they have proven that time and again by showing an utter disregard for places of religious importance in their quest to establish a police state and kill all of the Palestinians.


Actually, that idea of a genocidal police state lines up exactly with what's described in the Hebrew works...



So says those biased archaeologists you love so much.


Biased archeologists? We have no evidence of several hundred thousand to several million Jews wandering the desert and getting to Canaan and then slaughtering people. The fall of Canaan seems to have happened over a long period of time rather than in a rapid military conquest.



Actually, the reason for prior lack of evidence of the Exodus story was because everyone assumed the Jews lived under Ramses II (not in the Bible), since then they started excavating in older sites and have found mass graves and evidence of some cataclysmic events in Egypt.


Except...the evidence wouldn't be in Egypt alone. It would be littered between the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan...and all over Canaan. No evidence exists in any of these places.

Now, if you have evidence, please feel free to provide it.



[quote/]
And the Christians. It's peoples of the book.
[quote/]
Christians don't care about the Temple Mount. Ya'hshuah is our Temple. I only care when Islam jealously guards a place they have no claim to, whilst fulfilling prophecy.


They aren't jealously guarding a place, they're holding on to their own property.





Not "holy". Appropriate ways to describe the Torah include: Genocidal, genital mutilating, woman oppressing, slave owning, racist, and lacking in factual support.


Again with the presuppositions. As I've explained in multiple threads, there were some damn good reasons for the Canaanites to be eradicated,


Yeah? Really? You mean the same sort of reasons that were used to discriminate against the Jews?



they were descended from the Nephilim


Yay! Using fiction to support genocide!



and were downright evil


Citation needed.



and were just as intent on killing the Jews as vice-versa.


They were intent on killing the guys who were invading their land, the land they had claim to? Oh noes!



You will notice that the Bible doesn't call for the genocide of all of Israel's enemies, no such commandment for the Syrians and Egyptians.


Well, there was the whole 'slaughtering of a whole bunch of innocent children' thing in Egypt...



The Canaanites were special.


So thought the Germans about the Jews...



As for genital mutilating, I rather enjoy my circumcised penis, as have my girlfriends in the past.


Have fun not having any fine-touch nerve receptors, protective covering, and proper glide motion.



I enjoy not having to peal back my foreskin and clean out smegma.


Wow, that's a great argument in favor of removing sensitive nerve tissue.



Slave owning? Everyone owned slaves at that time, no one said the Jews were perfect, and they eventually stopped that along with stoning people.


Yet the Jews received their slave owning rules from a deity...why didn't the deity just go "Hey, that's wrong!"



As for racism I assume you are referring to the mark of Ham?


No, the mark of Ham is just sort of silly...Moses gets drunk, Ham just happens to see hid naked father...so Ham gets punished.

What I'm referring to is the outright proclamations against non-Jews.





You also will notice that Christian black people are much better off than non-Christians.


Tell that to anyone with statistical data. Religiosity correlates to societal ills. Now, the causation might be that bad societies cause people to move towards religion, so I'm not saying religion caused it. This is found whether the community is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else. I would say the best off black people are the atheists.



I don't know either. Dontreally should find that Surrah


I can wait...





Som, when the mosque is destroyed - and it will be, the Jews and supporters of Israel will stand by confident knowing they will defeat their enemies.




Yay, genocidal holy wars!
[.quote]

Actually, the Jews will be completely massacred in such a way that it will make the Holocaust look like a joke, but it will usher in the apocalypse and the resurrection will be right after that.


So Jesus is only going to be about...1900 years late on that? Good to know. And genocide is genocide, no matter who is killed...though I think the Jewish state, having nuclear weapons, would take out a great number of people, and probably their own country, with them.



Crap, I really hope that monotheism dies out before that idiotic sort of conflict ever happens. You do realize that it would end up as a conflict between nuclear powers if it ever came to it, right? It would end up going from proxy war to all out war. The USA and several other western nations might back Israel, but a major portion of the Arab world, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and possibly China (defending its oil interests) would back the Muslim side.


So we agree that the building of the third temple will start Armageddon?


No, the attempt to would cause massive armed conflict. They wouldn't be able to lay the foundations before mass conflict broke out over the site. Not an end of the world, but an incredibly bloody and massively devastating war.



I thought you thought that the Bible was a fairy tail book?


From what I can gather, it is.





So yeah, let's tempt nuclear war because we can't just build the temple a few blocks down the road in a place where we would avoid the possibility of nuclear war.

Wouldn't your deity care more about the number of lives saved by being intelligent, empathetic human beings and building the temple somewhere else than a small piece of real estate (especially small on the scale of a deity)?


Ah, so like the rest of the west, you admit that you let Islam walk all over you and the concept of ownership because you are scared. If you're scared then the terrorists have already won.


I'm scared of the loss of civilian life on both sides from a resulting war. I haven't let terrorist win just because I don't want to take a crap on their face and see what happens.

And I'm respecting the concept of ownership. A few centuries of vacancy is more than enough time to nullify ownership. The Muslims currently own the site.




Not going to argue with you here, the state of Israel is made up of murdering apostates, not Jews.


No, they're murderers because of their religion...there wouldn't really be a problem if they were apostates.



Actually He did say that the building of the third temple would be a sign of the end of the age.


So your dude is going to be happy when a bunch of people die needlessly?



God's will is above man's. You can only see death ahead. We see the fulfillment of prophecy and a veil being lifted that will return mankind to our creator. It is what He told us.


So he can't just return in a peaceful manner? Isn't he omnipotent? This guy is sort of odd for an omnipotent being.



You can only see what is at the end of your own nose, we on the other hand, have the benefit of prophecy which shows us what is beyond the veil.


I see what lies ahead if such a conflict takes place. No prophecy is fulfilled and there is either a sustained non-nuclear conflict that results in the loss of countless lives or the quick death of millions in nuclear blasts...and nothing more than that. The rest of the world would be left to deal with the fallout.



Of course you like the Ba'hai, they are the most pluralistic, compromising religion on the face of the Earth. They try and fit multiple different jigsaws together, make a compendium god,


They're also the only pacifist religion...which is why I'm going to object to the next part.



try to reconcile pacifist Christianity with Islam and it's commands to kill infidels.


I'm sorry, but Christianity is not a pacifist religion. I used to be of the opinion that it was, but it is far from that.



Oh yeah they're great unless, they are compromising the true God with aspects of false ones.


No true Scotsman...



So, the apocalypse happens, fine with me. I can handle a test of faith and the worst times the world has ever seen when I have hope for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.


...so you don't care about the death of millions, so long as you get to have a great time seeing the fulfillment of prophecy. Wow. That is really pacifist.



The war starts and Muslims and Jews will be the instigators, meanwhile I will be turning the other cheek and just focus on staying alive so as to see more of the apocalypse.


Hahaha...oh wow, that makes you a pacifist? You do realize being a pacifist means more than not seeking personal conflict, right?

And I thought Christians were supposed to have a measure of compassion...you know, for the millions of lives sure to be lost in such a conflict.



I'll probably be beheaded, when I don't convert to Islam, but that would make me a real martyr, you know, the non-violent kind.


Wow, persecution complex too. Christian wingnuttery at its finest. A conflict over that land wouldn't spread much further than that region, so you could quite quickly and quietly go to the rest of the world where they won't really be bothering because there would be a large scale war going on.




As awful as it's going to be, it will be far more interesting than any other point in history, and then we can all look forward to the end, some of us at least.


...I know one thing...the end is not as you describe. For humanity I hope for a much, much greater end. An end with a whimper...a whimper of not ourselves but of the cosmos.

I don't await the slaughter of millions for my own personal satisfaction.

 


Sidenote:

Quotes take this format:

[ quote ]
Text
[ /quote]

Remove the spaces. I may disagree with you, but I might as well help you with your formatting.
edit on 31/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Fixed my own quoting.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Sorry mate you're wrong, nothing is the Abomination of Desolation, the bible is bunkum designed to help the elites to control us.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I refer to him as an unfeeling automaton because of the way he tried to manipulate society. Not to mention he seriously suggested panels be set up that would judge the usefulness of individuals, where one would basically have to justify their existence in order to keep on living. Kind of a bastard, really. Funny how we have all these people like Ford and Shaw in our society and we laud them for their ingenuity, but abhor the Nazis. Very similar views (Shaw loved him some eugenics) but the difference is that they're in the society that won and gets to write history.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Claims from historical ownership have no bearing on modern ownership.


Says the one with madness in his soul.

I guess than the way to change that is to destroy the mosque, build the 3rd temple, and therefore make the historical fact of al aqsa, a trivial relic of the past which will have "no bearing on modern ownership".

Also, please do a better job educating yourself.

The Jews NEVER left Israel. Yes, the majority were expelled, but they always returned throughout the ages, and always had a lasting presence in the land. For instance, most town names in Israel are Hebrew, or in other cases Greek or Latin.

The mishna, was written in Israel. The Jerusalem Talmud, was written in Israel circa 150 CE. The Zohar was written in Israel, Circa 150 CE. Many Midrashim were written in Israel between 200 CE and 800 CE. The Jews have always had a place in Israel. In Safed, Sheckem, Hebron (the oldest Jewish city, where the cave of the patriarchs is), Gerar (gush Katiff) Bethlehem, and of course Jerusalem. You can go look it up, if youd like.

The great ARI, Isaac Luria, was apart of the great Safed community in Israel, with Joseph Karo (author of the Jewish code of law), Moshe Cordevero and many other kabbalistic giants, in the 1500s. A community that goes all the way back into ancient times.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Claims from historical ownership have no bearing on modern ownership.


Says the one with madness in his soul.


Ad hominem attack again! madnessinmysoul is a username, it reflected the turmoil I had over choosing a religious preference...in November of 2005!



I guess than the way to change that is to destroy the mosque, build the 3rd temple, and therefore make the historical fact of al aqsa, a trivial relic of the past which will have "no bearing on modern ownership".


Except that would be an entirely different act...the land on which Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock currently sit on was empty for centuries...actually, I doubt that. I'm sure someone decided to set up a merchant cart of some sort over there at some point. But there was no permanent structure on the land for centuries. You cannot compare the construction of a complex of buildings on a site that had been ruins for centuries and had been destroyed by a third party to the demolishing of a building and then the construction of a new building on top of that site by the same party in the same period.





Also, please do a better job educating yourself.


Says the person who is not addressing the majority of my points, using false analogies, and perpetuating attacks on myself rather than my arguments.



The Jews NEVER left Israel.


It wasn't Israel when the second temple was destroyed. It was, if anything, Judea.



Yes, the majority were expelled, but they always returned throughout the ages, and always had a lasting presence in the land.


And never did anything with the temple mount....and were actually treated pretty damn well by the Muslims.



For instance, most town names in Israel are Hebrew, or in other cases Greek or Latin.


Most of the town names in a modern Jewish state are Hebrew? Say it ain't so! Any evidence of the historicity of these names?



The mishna, was written in Israel. The Jerusalem Talmud, was written in Israel circa 150 CE. The Zohar was written in Israel, Circa 150 CE. Many Midrashim were written in Israel between 200 CE and 800 CE. The Jews have always had a place in Israel.


Ethnic population presence isn't a claim to land. They did not administrate the land, they did not bother rebuilding the temple.



In Safed, Sheckem, Hebron (the oldest Jewish city, where the cave of the patriarchs is),


Citation needed on Hebron being the oldest city. Not contesting it, just asking for a reference.



Gerar (gush Katiff) Bethlehem, and of course Jerusalem. You can go look it up, if youd like.


I'm sorry...but that's not how points are made. "You can look it up, if youd like." has no place in a discussion when you are making a claim. Now, if you provide a citation and I dismiss it for no reason, you can say that.



The great ARI, Isaac Luria, was apart of the great Safed community in Israel, with Joseph Karo (author of the Jewish code of law), Moshe Cordevero and many other kabbalistic giants, in the 1500s. A community that goes all the way back into ancient times.


And what are the population statistics on these communities? I mean, my nation has quite the Jewish community. It extends back to the use of Phoenician script in our land (meaning sometime around the first Punic war), though it currently is only 120 people (in a nation of 400,000).

Now, you might be wondering: What the hell does that have to do with anything? Well, it actually has to do with a specific claim about a historical site. There is a historical site referred to as "St. Paul's catacombs", due to the myth (as it is unsubstantiated by evidence) that St. Paul landed in Malta after his shipwreck. What is known of the site is that it was used for early Christian burial...problem is that there is incredibly weak evidence that it was used by Jews...
So some strict Orthodox (as in "I don't shake hands with women in case they're menstruating because my deity seems to have an issue with a process he built into women himself") Jews came here and pleaded with then CEO of Heritage Malta (government heritage agency) to have the supposed Jewish bodies reburied according to custom...
Thing is, that the methods of burial would have violated conservation principles. In the end they managed to come to a compromise, though it wasn't exactly what the Jews wanted and the compromise was only made possible because the Maltese government had a good representative open to compromise?

Now, how do you expect a compromise on this issue when the two factions involved actively hate each other? How do you expect a compromise on the issue when you have the "How about we just take a massive poop all over your beliefs and history?" as an option on the table?

And you might know of Avraham Ben Shmuel Abulafia...he lived in Malta for a while before dying here (well, on the island of Comino which is part of the Maltese islands...which is currently mostly uninhabited save for a hotel). Just a fun factoid since you're a big fan of Medieval Jewish history.

The thing is, the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque are historical sites, whether you think they should be there or not. They have been there for over a millennium. It would be a horrible loss of history to lose them, as it would also be a horrible injustice to the over 1 billion Muslims in the world from a historical, religious, and cultural perspective.

I may be an atheist, but I respect the right of anyone to practice freely and I don't think any one party should forcibly demolish the religious sites of another.

Of course, you just prefer to start a war...I'll make sure to move to Canada when I hear about that.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Actually, the big difference is that Shaw and Ford may have spoken about these ideas, but they never implemented them. The Nazis aren't despised for their rhetoric, they're despised for their actions.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by kallisti36
 



No, it's based on the skeptical position that holiness must be proven and not assumed. Thinking the book is holy is a presupposition. If you bother to read the book, it is far from holy.

Ah, here we are at the infamous debate impasse, I already believe the Bible to be true and you think of it as a collection of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Anyway this is not the subject of debate so I'm going to drop it, this isn't going anywhere.



Regardless, it is the ancestral land of the Jews,




And prior to them it was the ancestral land of the Canaanites...and the Jews claim (and it is an unsupported claim) to have gained the land through genocide.

Actually, the Canaanites settled into the land that Abraham originally settled in, but this doesn't matter to you.



Islam has Mecca, they do not need a theological vice-grip on Jerusalem, unless they are going out of their way to fulfill ominous prophecy.



Theological vice grip? Not letting other people destroy your third holiest site for their own selfish reasons to please a religious community their size is a vice-grip? I'm sorry, but they're standing up for their own rights.

Yes, a theological vice-grip. Jerusalem is nothing to the Jew without the Temple Mount. As dontreally put it, the Muslims up there are doing everything they can to piss off the Jews, such as excavating under the temple to the horror of Jew and archaeologist alike, and leaving a nice pile of shattered crap for them to sift through. As for standing up for their own rights, that would be like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat and telling the dumbass crackers to go sit in back. Not so inspirational now?


Maybe if you saw the Canaanites lighting their children on fire you would be a little less sympathetic.



Maybe if there was any evidence that they actually did this...and I thought two wrongs didn't make a right. What about the mass rape of the virgins of Canaan...? And why didn't the monotheistic deity just come down to Canaan and be all like "Hey, can my people chill here? And please, stop all that baby burning, it's not cool."

Archaeologists have found burned statues of Molech. They're the reason why we know the specifics of the ritual of "passing seed through the fires to Molech". They would heat up the statue in the flames and set their children in the arms of the statue where they would promptly be set ablaze.


Oh wait, that guy prefers to harden hearts...softening them must be too much for an all-powerful being.

Bad Bible translation, but you'll never learn apologetics from evil bible.


Last thing: Isn't genocide a hell of a lot worse than burning children? Genocide involves the murder of children...and everyone else.

The point of it was to remove a horrible influence from the earth. These people murdered straggler Jews in their exodus, lead the people into idolatry, and were a corrupting influence on the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, the Jews are not perfect, they were chosen by YHVH for the important task of giving birth to the Messiah. If you don't think God was angry at the Jews for their barbarism, then maybe you should count how many times they were punished. YHVH shows what he thinks of war when he refuses to let David build the Temple, because he was a man of war. This shows that YHVH as his commandment to not murder suggests, despises war. However, as WWII showed us, sometimes it's a necessity to defeat evil. The Messiah could have been born at numerous times in history, but the failure of the Jews, kept him at bay. This is illustrated in a symbolic fashion in Revelations 12 when the woman with a crown of twelve stars (the twelve tribes of Israel) is giving birth to a child with the dragon standing over her waiting to devour it. Now, the Messiah has come and Christians number in the billions and whereas the Jews were unable to be pacifists because of their harsh environment, Christians are in no danger of being totally exterminated and we have the luxury of being pacifists.

At any rate, your judgments against the Most High are pretty pointless Isaiah 55:9, "My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts are higher than your thoughts.". Now, let me explain this. "The ends justify the means" philosophy has been rightfully demonized throughout history, because humans don't always succeed in their endeavors. As the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". If you use this philosophy and fail, then your good intentions are for naught, and all you have done is more evil. However, God has perfect will, he says and it is fulfilled. God is the only person it is safe to leave "the ends justify the means" philosophy with, because his will will always be manifested in the end.



Actually, that idea of a genocidal police state lines up exactly with what's described in the Hebrew works...

Nice pot-shots



Biased archeologists? We have no evidence of several hundred thousand to several million Jews wandering the desert and getting to Canaan and then slaughtering people. The fall of Canaan seems to have happened over a long period of time rather than in a rapid military conquest.

As you no doubt know from arguing with theists, people will look for evidence to support preconceived notions and ignore other evidence. However, atheists have been just as notorious for this as theists. Most atheists are not simply atheists because of a lack of evidence, but because they hate the idea of God, as you have so aptly proven. Atheist archaeologists (and lets be fair, atheists have a monopoly on nearly all scientific pursuits) don't want to find evidence for the Bible, their bosses don't want them to publish evidence for the Bible. Remember the Piltdown man? Everyone jumped to the conclusion that it meant without a doubt that mankind evolved from apes, there was no God, etc. No one thought to check to see if it was real until over a DECADE later (this is Britain we're talking about, not much in the way of spirituality) when someone took a look at the jaw bone and realized someone just jammed an ourangutang jaw bone into the top half of a human skull. Today's scientific facts are tomorrow's hoaxes and hate fueled psuedo-sciences (eugenics was the rule 70 years ago). Thankfully there are enough unbiased archaeologists, either wishful agnostics or believers that will publish unbiased findings, like the discovery of mass graves and cataclysmic events. Honestly, just look up evidence for the Bible. It wouldn't hurt to read up on apologetics, if only so that you can better argue against them.





They aren't jealously guarding a place, they're holding on to their own property.

Funny thing that, if they just shared it with the Jews, they wouldn't be fulfilling prophecy anymore. You could still argue that the mosque is an abomination, but you couldn't say it was causing desolation and a stop to oblation and sacrifice. If they just did that, this entire thread would be refuted.



Yeah? Really? You mean the same sort of reasons that were used to discriminate against the Jews?

Actually science and racism was used to discriminate against the Jews. Good thing that the rabid atheistic evolutionists have stopped supporting eugenics (allegedly). It lets you take the psuedo-high ground in your accusations against the Most High.


they were descended from the Nephilim



Yay! Using fiction to support genocide!

Not if it isn't fiction.


and were downright evil



Citation needed.

Happy to oblige: www.angelfire.com...
You're going to have to humor the Bible for a moment, because otherwise you'll just think that they made it all up and the Canaanites were actually pacifists and vegetarians and invented kumbaya.


and were just as intent on killing the Jews as vice-versa.



They were intent on killing the guys who were invading their land, the land they had claim to? Oh noes!

Actually, they swarmed around the Jews making their exodus and killed off the stragglers and later made war whenever possible.


You will notice that the Bible doesn't call for the genocide of all of Israel's enemies, no such commandment for the Syrians and Egyptians.



Well, there was the whole 'slaughtering of a whole bunch of innocent children' thing in Egypt...

That got Pharaoh's attention and got the Jews out of Israel, no?


The Canaanites were special.



So thought the Germans about the Jews...

So thought the Canaanites about the Jew...
Evil people seem to think alike.


As for genital mutilating, I rather enjoy my circumcised penis, as have my girlfriends in the past.



Have fun not having any fine-touch nerve receptors, protective covering, and proper glide motion.

Ladies prefer circumcised. Don't really know what I'm missing with those fine-touch nerve receptors, though. Oh, well, no use crying over spilled foreskin. What's important is that most women I know think uncircumcised is gross which brings us to the other point I made:


I enjoy not having to peal back my foreskin and clean out smegma.



Wow, that's a great argument in favor of removing sensitive nerve tissue.

I think so.


No, the mark of Ham is just sort of silly...Moses gets drunk, Ham just happens to see hid naked father...so Ham gets punished.

What I'm referring to is the outright proclamations against non-Jews.
[/quote]
Actually, what really happened is somewhat obscured by the prudish writing of Bible translators. Still, there are clues in the context. It says, when Noah woke up, he knew what had been done to him. How would he know that one of his sons saw him naked? Doesn't make sense unless the scripture is implying something else and Noah woke up... a little sore. What is implied is that Ham took up that famous frat-boy past time of raping his father when he was passed out drunk. That constitutes a punishment, right?

As for Jewish disdain of gentiles, why not? Nearly all of their contact with gentiles lead them into idolatry or war. Also, the Israelites were a religious people, not a race. You could become an Israelite by conversion despite what color skin you had or where you were born. The distinction between gentile and Jew is religious, not racial.




You also will notice that Christian black people are much better off than non-Christians.



Tell that to anyone with statistical data. Religiosity correlates to societal ills. Now, the causation might be that bad societies cause people to move towards religion, so I'm not saying religion caused it. This is found whether the community is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else. I would say the best off black people are the atheists.

And I would say that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism, pessimism, and depression whereas being religious gives you a sense of purpose even if it is a false sense.

Anyway the point I was making with Black people improving their lot, by following YHVH is that they remove any generational curse by trusting in God as Ezekiel said one could do.



So Jesus is only going to be about...1900 years late on that? Good to know. And genocide is genocide, no matter who is killed...though I think the Jewish state, having nuclear weapons, would take out a great number of people, and probably their own country, with them.

Genesis 9:6 " Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" And they will be punished for this when the Black Flags descend on the Holy city and the Jews will be hiding behind rocks and trees to escape the sword. All the more need for a savior in such times.



No, the attempt to would cause massive armed conflict. They wouldn't be able to lay the foundations before mass conflict broke out over the site. Not an end of the world, but an incredibly bloody and massively devastating war.

Sounds apocalyptic to me.


I thought you thought that the Bible was a fairy tail book?



From what I can gather, it is.

Again with the pot-shots.


So yeah, let's tempt nuclear war because we can't just build the temple a few blocks down the road in a place where we would avoid the possibility of nuclear war.

Wouldn't your deity care more about the number of lives saved by being intelligent, empathetic human beings and building the temple somewhere else than a small piece of real estate (especially small on the scale of a deity)?


Ah, so like the rest of the west, you admit that you let Islam walk all over you and the concept of ownership because you are scared. If you're scared then the terrorists have already won.



I'm scared of the loss of civilian life on both sides from a resulting war. I haven't let terrorist win just because I don't want to take a crap on their face and see what happens.

And I'm respecting the concept of ownership. A few centuries of vacancy is more than enough time to nullify ownership. The Muslims currently own the site.

This is what terrorists do. They make you fear the destruction they are capable of so they can get their way.



No, they're murderers because of their religion...there wouldn't really be a problem if they were apostates.

Actually, I will agree with you, that some of the more murderous Zionists are using dead commands to destroy the Amalekites to justify the murder of the Palestinians. That's the saving grace of the Bible, it doesn't have open commands to commit genocide like the Koran does. None of those people exist anymore, therefore, no war is justified unless God calls for one.


Actually He did say that the building of the third temple would be a sign of the end of the age.



So your dude is going to be happy when a bunch of people die needlessly?

The apocalypse means "lifting of the veil". What is interesting about this time is that the nature of the hearts of men are revealed, good or evil. No more gray area. You yourself might reject the tyranny of the beast in favor for the true Messiah. At any rate, if the apocalypse rolls around, being an atheist will be rather difficult, yes?

I have a secret for you: we do not all sleep in death. Some will rise to eternal life and others to shame and condemnation. Once in the afterlife, your value of your mortal coil will seem rather quaint. What will matter is what you did in this life, not how you died or your time was cut short. To better illustrate this point I'm going to quote Albus Dumbledore
" Do not pity the dead Harry, pity the living, and above all those who live without love". I think there is much wisdom in this quote. Suffering is in life (possibly the next if you did poorly here), those who have gone on to their Father suffer no longer. I don't pity those who died in the holocaust, no matter where they are, their suffering is over. I pity those that survived like Elie Weissel who has to carry that experience with him every day.


God's will is above man's. You can only see death ahead. We see the fulfillment of prophecy and a veil being lifted that will return mankind to our creator. It is what He told us.



So he can't just return in a peaceful manner? Isn't he omnipotent? This guy is sort of odd for an omnipotent being.

Ah, but you have forgotten the other guy and God's justice. Evil must be punished and vengeance is the Lord's. What's great about the apocalypse is that it removes all preconceived notions and is the biggest, clearest sign you could imagine that calls one to repentance. You will either be fooled by the Prince of this world or you will remember the word of God and repent. Not so bad if you get to return to the father when all is said and done. Ask the loving mother if the pain was worth it.



Of course you like the Ba'hai, they are the most pluralistic, compromising religion on the face of the Earth. They try and fit multiple different jigsaws together, make a compendium god,



They're also the only pacifist religion...which is why I'm going to object to the next part.



try to reconcile pacifist Christianity with Islam and it's commands to kill infidels.



I'm sorry, but Christianity is not a pacifist religion. I used to be of the opinion that it was, but it is far from that.

"I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you" "Blessed are the peacemakers" "Blessed are the merciful" "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" "Resist not evil; if someone strikes you on the right cheek, present him the other also" Christianity calls us to be pacifists, sadly many Christians call for war. Anyways, there are many ways to defeat evil, not all of them require the final solution of death. Death is an absolute last resort when no other option remains and it is the least preferable, because you have taken away that person's ability to change and become a good person. Still it is preferable to never turn to the "necessary evil" even when it seems the only way. The soldiers of WWII saved many Jews, but that doesn't wash the blood from their hands or stop the nightmares. There is a high cost for committing the "necessary evil".



So, the apocalypse happens, fine with me. I can handle a test of faith and the worst times the world has ever seen when I have hope for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.



...so you don't care about the death of millions, so long as you get to have a great time seeing the fulfillment of prophecy. Wow. That is really pacifist.

I was tired and annoyed when I wrote this, I should have worked on my tone. Christianity at it's core is a rejection of the world, we look for the return of the kingdom when all tears will be wiped away. Everything that happened before once we get to the Kingdom of Heaven will seem stupid and totally avoidable had people turned from their wicked ways.


The war starts and Muslims and Jews will be the instigators, meanwhile I will be turning the other cheek and just focus on staying alive so as to see more of the apocalypse.



Hahaha...oh wow, that makes you a pacifist? You do realize being a pacifist means more than not seeking personal conflict, right?

Yeah, it's not contributing to a conflict either. You won't see anyone drafting me into an army until God himself puts a sword in my hand and the legions of hell stand uncovered before me.


And I thought Christians were supposed to have a measure of compassion...you know, for the millions of lives sure to be lost in such a conflict.

That I do. I will spend as much time as possible in those times trying to get people to reject the beast and repent. Life is no more than raiment, the soul is what is important.


I'll probably be beheaded, when I don't convert to Islam, but that would make me a real martyr, you know, the non-violent kind.



Wow, persecution complex too. Christian wingnuttery at its finest. A conflict over that land wouldn't spread much further than that region, so you could quite quickly and quietly go to the rest of the world where they won't really be bothering because there would be a large scale war going on.

If it's happened before, it is reasonable to expect it again.



As awful as it's going to be, it will be far more interesting than any other point in history, and then we can all look forward to the end, some of us at least.



...I know one thing...the end is not as you describe. For humanity I hope for a much, much greater end. An end with a whimper...a whimper of not ourselves but of the cosmos.

Ah, cosmic nihilism. This is why suicide is so much more prevalent among atheists. I say this with the utmost bitterness...


I don't await the slaughter of millions for my own personal satisfaction.

Neither do I. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but if humanity might return to their maker at the end of all things, wouldn't that make it worth it? Think about it for a moment, entertain the thought that the Bible is true for just a moment and consider the implications of the end. No more tears, no more anger, but a return to the source of all love. Is this not worth the painful road preceding it?


 


Sidenote:

Quotes take this format:

[ quote ]
Text
[ /quote]

Remove the spaces. I may disagree with you, but I might as well help you with your formatting.
edit on 31/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Fixed my own quoting.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Indeed, but the Nazis had something that Shaw and Ford didn't have: a public willing to do this for them. I don't even want to think of how things would have turned out if they were given the reigns and a willing populace. We live in a bleak corporate Orwellian bizzaro-land as it is.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 



Originally posted by kallisti36
Ah, here we are at the infamous debate impasse, I already believe the Bible to be true and you think of it as a collection of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Anyway this is not the subject of debate so I'm going to drop it, this isn't going anywhere.


No, my thoughts are that they are religious stories told for a variety of reasons and that truth can be derived from far more than a literal interpretation. They seem to trace the journey of a people from polytheism to monotheism.





Regardless, it is the ancestral land of the Jews,




And prior to them it was the ancestral land of the Canaanites...and the Jews claim (and it is an unsupported claim) to have gained the land through genocide.

Actually, the Canaanites settled into the land that Abraham originally settled in, but this doesn't matter to you.


Considering that there's no evidence of a dude named Abram eventually Abraham and no archeological discovery to show early Hebrew settlement prior to the Canaanites...





Islam has Mecca, they do not need a theological vice-grip on Jerusalem, unless they are going out of their way to fulfill ominous prophecy.



Theological vice grip? Not letting other people destroy your third holiest site for their own selfish reasons to please a religious community their size is a vice-grip? I'm sorry, but they're standing up for their own rights.

Yes, a theological vice-grip.


So...the desires of 11 million people outweigh that of 1 billion?



Jerusalem is nothing to the Jew without the Temple Mount.


...so then they need to learn to grow up or to find a peaceful solution.



As dontreally put it, the Muslims up there are doing everything they can to piss off the Jews,


Yes, they're doing it just to piss off the Jews. They couldn't possibly have any other reason for it...[/sarcasm]



such as excavating under the temple to the horror of Jew and archaeologist alike, and leaving a nice pile of shattered crap for them to sift through.


I see no evidence of excavations that archeologists object to...and I actually have a direct line to the world heritage community.



As for standing up for their own rights, that would be like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat and telling the dumbass crackers to go sit in back. Not so inspirational now?


...no, that's yet another false analogy. This would be like Rosa Parks telling the guy "I don't care if you sat here yesterday, you got up and now I'm sitting here"



Archaeologists have found burned statues of Molech.


Why yes, they have. And those statues seemed to have been burned in a manner consistent with revolt.



They're the reason why we know the specifics of the ritual of "passing seed through the fires to Molech".


...no, there isn't. There isn't anything to corroborate the Biblical account.



They would heat up the statue in the flames and set their children in the arms of the statue where they would promptly be set ablaze.


Citation needed.





Oh wait, that guy prefers to harden hearts...softening them must be too much for an all-powerful being.

Bad Bible translation, but you'll never learn apologetics from evil bible.


Bad Bible translation? For one thing, I use blueletterbible.org because it has a handy reference to the materials I'm about to use. I don't need something like Evil Bible.

Exodus 4:21:
KJV

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.


The word for "harden" is found here...

Yahweh is directly interceding and stating that he is making it so that the Pharaoh will not let the Jews go...






Last thing: Isn't genocide a hell of a lot worse than burning children? Genocide involves the murder of children...and everyone else.

The point of it was to remove a horrible influence from the earth.


So genocide, quite possibly the worst crime that can be committed is the solution? Again, why didn't the omnipotent deity just alter these people's free will in the same way he altered the Pharaoh's?



These people murdered straggler Jews in their exodus, lead the people into idolatry, and were a corrupting influence on the Jews.


Wow...so that justifies killing a bunch of children and raping virgins.



Contrary to popular belief, the Jews are not perfect, they were chosen by YHVH for the important task of giving birth to the Messiah.


Messianic ideas didn't arise until well after the foundation of polytheistic Judaism...
On another point...why didn't he choose...I dunno...a group that would be in an area where it would be really easy to spread this great and wonderful truth to the most people possible?



If you don't think God was angry at the Jews for their barbarism, then maybe you should count how many times they were punished.


Um...where is the evidence that this was for the genocide? I'm sorry, but he punishes them for idolatry...



YHVH shows what he thinks of war when he refuses to let David build the Temple, because he was a man of war.


Citation needed.



This shows that YHVH as his commandment to not murder suggests, despises war.


Murder as defined in the commandments does not refer to the act of war.

Lev 26:7-8
KJV

And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.




However, as WWII showed us, sometimes it's a necessity to defeat evil.


But killing the children isn't...

Numbers 31:17-18
KJV

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


...keep the women children alive for yourselves? Do you realize what the hell that means?



The Messiah could have been born at numerous times in history, but the failure of the Jews, kept him at bay.


Uh huh...sure.



This is illustrated in a symbolic fashion in Revelations 12 when the woman with a crown of twelve stars (the twelve tribes of Israel) is giving birth to a child with the dragon standing over her waiting to devour it.


So you have the exclusive interpretation to undoubtedly the most allegorical book in the New Testament?



Now, the Messiah has come and Christians number in the billions


And cannot decide on what a Christian exactly is, nor is there reputable evidence to support the historicity of Jesus.

Secondly, Christianity became so big because it became an official religion of an imperial state and was enforced by law for centuries, with penalties for apostasy and heresy ranging from torture to torture followed by death.



and whereas the Jews were unable to be pacifists because of their harsh environment,


Really? Most Jews don't live in Israel, so they don't really need to bother with violence. 5.6 million out of the 13 million worldwide Jews live in Israel. Around as many Jews live in the USA...possibly more. The rest of the Jews tend to live around Europe.



Christians are in no danger of being totally exterminated and we have the luxury of being pacifists.


They're only in danger of internal decay, as we see happening all over Europe and now in North America as well. Christianity is shrinking (those some sects are cannibalizing others for population statistics) and nonbelief or nonspecific belief is growing.



At any rate, your judgments against the Most High are pretty pointless Isaiah 55:9, "My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts are higher than your thoughts.".


And yet I seem to have a better judgement on most actions taken by this being throughout the Bible.



Now, let me explain this. "The ends justify the means" philosophy has been rightfully demonized throughout history, because humans don't always succeed in their endeavors. As the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". If you use this philosophy and fail, then your good intentions are for naught, and all you have done is more evil.


Which is why I don't subscribe to that philosophy. In fact, it is one amongst a colorful spectrum of philosophies.



However, God has perfect will, he says and it is fulfilled.


Except that there isn't an example of this being being perfect...or existing in the first place. Trust me, I'd be the first person to admit he exists...I'd deal with the repercussions in whatever reasonable way I could.



God is the only person it is safe to leave "the ends justify the means" philosophy with, because his will will always be manifested in the end.


Yet with an omnipotent deity the ends don't need to justify the means...any means is available to this deity. Any choice it makes that includes mass amounts of human suffering is an option that is incorrect for it because this deity could have simply chosen a path that includes no human suffering.





Actually, that idea of a genocidal police state lines up exactly with what's described in the Hebrew works...

Nice pot-shots


Truth is truth. Genocide is commanded in the Bible.





Biased archeologists? We have no evidence of several hundred thousand to several million Jews wandering the desert and getting to Canaan and then slaughtering people. The fall of Canaan seems to have happened over a long period of time rather than in a rapid military conquest.

As you no doubt know from arguing with theists, people will look for evidence to support preconceived notions and ignore other evidence. However, atheists have been just as notorious for this as theists.


I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. You see, I came to atheism thinking that the Bible was near inerrant (excluding the first few chapters of Genesis in particular as purely allegorical...)



Most atheists are not simply atheists because of a lack of evidence, but because they hate the idea of God, as you have so aptly proven.


I'm sorry, but I don't hate the idea of God. I might hate the deity described in those religious texts...but wouldn't it actually support my ideas if there was clear evidence of the genocides described in the Bible?



Atheist archaeologists (and lets be fair, atheists have a monopoly on nearly all scientific pursuits) don't want to find evidence for the Bible, their bosses don't want them to publish evidence for the Bible.


I'm sorry, but could you show me evidence that most of the archeology being carried out in Israel, Palestine, and Egypt is being run by atheists? I'm quite aware of a lot of Israeli state projects in Israel run by Jews (odd seeing an Orthodox archeologists) in which these Jewish individuals are perfectly devout yet have no problem realizing that a lot of their religious text is a story that has a point far beyond the literal translation.



Remember the Piltdown man? Everyone jumped to the conclusion that it meant without a doubt that mankind evolved from apes, there was no God, etc.


Lol...wut? Piltdown man was met with some skepticism. It was actually disproved not by people who didn't believe in evolution, but by people who pointed out that it didn't fit into the transitions.



No one thought to check to see if it was real until over a DECADE later


Skepticism was there as early as 1915. GS Miller (an American) was one of those skeptical of the claim. And the reason it went untested is because of the lack of proper testing methods.



(this is Britain we're talking about, not much in the way of spirituality) when someone took a look at the jaw bone and realized someone just jammed an ourangutang jaw bone into the top half of a human skull.


...actually, it's an orang jaw with chimp teeth in a human skull. It wasn't just jammed in there, it was precisely made to deceive. Someone filed down the teeth and treated the whole thing with a mixture of chromatic acid and iron. It actually took microscopic investigation of the teeth to properly determine the origin.

It was never seen as a perfect specimen by most of the scientific community, but those who did think it was correct were the first to admit they were wrong.



Today's scientific facts are tomorrow's hoaxes and hate fueled psuedo-sciences (eugenics was the rule 70 years ago).


Except...no. Piltdown man never entered into the realm of scientific fact.



Thankfully there are enough unbiased archaeologists, either wishful agnostics or believers that will publish unbiased findings, like the discovery of mass graves and cataclysmic events.


Because having a presupposition in favor of something or a wish for it to be true is now 'unbiased'. I didn't know 'unbiased' now meant 'agrees with me'.



Honestly, just look up evidence for the Bible.


I know that there is evidence of King David (though the extent of his domain seems to have been greatly exaggerated)...but there is no evidence for any Biblical figure preceding him.



It wouldn't hurt to read up on apologetics, if only so that you can better argue against them.



I've read all sorts of apologetics. They're all unimpressive or outright deceitful





They aren't jealously guarding a place, they're holding on to their own property.

Funny thing that, if they just shared it with the Jews, they wouldn't be fulfilling prophecy anymore. You could still argue that the mosque is an abomination, but you couldn't say it was causing desolation and a stop to oblation and sacrifice. If they just did that, this entire thread would be refuted.


If both sides cut through the crap and decided to actually give the peace process a chance, that might happen. Unfortunately both sides are unwilling to for both religious and political reasons.





Yeah? Really? You mean the same sort of reasons that were used to discriminate against the Jews?

Actually science and racism was used to discriminate against the Jews.


Science? I'm sorry, but science was never used to discriminate against the Jews. Religious ideas were prevalent.



Good thing that the rabid atheistic evolutionists have stopped supporting eugenics (allegedly).


...I'm sorry, but atheism and evolution don't lead to eugenics. In fact, eugenics is contrary to evolutionary principles as it inherently limits the gene pool through artificial selection and produces uncontrollable variation.

And most people who accept the scientific fact of evolution (and it is fact, go to O&C if you want to join the growing group of people exercising the futility of attacking one of the three foundational theories of biology) are not atheists. My favorite paleontologist is a Pentecostal preacher and he has no problem with it.

Eugenics might have been a social movement, and some atheists might have even supported it. Guess what? It's a stupid, unscientific idea.

And ad hominem attack. Rabid? Really?



It lets you take the psuedo-high ground in your accusations against the Most High.


I'm sorry, but I haven't killed anyone. Doesn't that automatically give me the high ground?





they were descended from the Nephilim



Yay! Using fiction to support genocide!

Not if it isn't fiction.


Considering that Canaanites survived the genocides in the form of some of the virgins that were taken for what can only be assumed to be one of the following: mass rape, indentured servitude, or forced marriage (which would have included rape)...there should be some genetic evidence of this.





and were downright evil



Citation needed.

Happy to oblige: www.angelfire.com...
You're going to have to humor the Bible for a moment, because otherwise you'll just think that they made it all up and the Canaanites were actually pacifists and vegetarians and invented kumbaya.


I'm going to guess that the Canaanites were basic bronze age people. Prone to barbarism, but no more so than any other group. I'm not humoring the Bible. Unfortunately, the citations found at the site you linked me are down. Probably due to the age of the site.





and were just as intent on killing the Jews as vice-versa.



They were intent on killing the guys who were invading their land, the land they had claim to? Oh noes!

Actually, they swarmed around the Jews making their exodus and killed off the stragglers and later made war whenever possible.


You mean the Jews who were nomadically passing through their territory with intent to take it as their own? Oh, and where's the physical evidence of this?






You will notice that the Bible doesn't call for the genocide of all of Israel's enemies, no such commandment for the Syrians and Egyptians.



Well, there was the whole 'slaughtering of a whole bunch of innocent children' thing in Egypt...

That got Pharaoh's attention and got the Jews out of Israel, no?


After God repeatedly hardens the heart of the Pharaoh to make it so that it has to get to that point. God could have as easily softened his heart.





The Canaanites were special.



So thought the Germans about the Jews...

So thought the Canaanites about the Jew...
Evil people seem to think alike.


Um...can you please provide evidence that the Canaanites had any problem with Jews?
Odd thing is, that the prevailing theory (even among a great number of theists...and don't play the suppressed evidence card unless you can show me the suppression) is that the Jews were the Canaanites after a series of revolts throughout the ununified city states of Canaan that eventually coalesced into a single people. The primary evidence for this is how long it took the Canaanite cities to fall (hundreds of years apart) and the evidence that this was done internally.





As for genital mutilating, I rather enjoy my circumcised penis, as have my girlfriends in the past.



Have fun not having any fine-touch nerve receptors, protective covering, and proper glide motion.

Ladies prefer circumcised.


Wow, great argument. No evidence beyond particular cultural bias.



Don't really know what I'm missing with those fine-touch nerve receptors, though. Oh, well, no use crying over spilled foreskin. What's important is that most women I know think uncircumcised is gross which brings us to the other point I made:


Wow...again cultural bias. Hey, crazy thing: a lot of men in certain areas of the world find the clitoris revolting, I guess they're justified in cutting those off.





I enjoy not having to peal back my foreskin and clean out smegma.



Wow, that's a great argument in favor of removing sensitive nerve tissue.

I think so.


Well, it really isn't. Particularly when it's being forced upon infants. An infant has no way to consent to such an act. And of course you're not going to be pissed off. Aside from the obvious cognitive dissonance and cultural bias, it happened to you and you've lived with it all your life with ignorance of what having a protective covering that has fine touch receptors on it is like.

Oh..and if you shower regularly, cleaning the damn thing out isn't that big of a deal.





No, the mark of Ham is just sort of silly...Moses gets drunk, Ham just happens to see hid naked father...so Ham gets punished.

What I'm referring to is the outright proclamations against non-Jews.

Actually, what really happened is somewhat obscured by the prudish writing of Bible translators. Still, there are clues in the context. It says, when Noah woke up, he knew what had been done to him. How would he know that one of his sons saw him naked? Doesn't make sense unless the scripture is implying something else and Noah woke up... a little sore. What is implied is that Ham took up that famous frat-boy past time of raping his father when he was passed out drunk. That constitutes a punishment, right?


I'm sorry, but could you please show me in the Hebrew where it says that...I'm going over the concordance right now and I can't seem to find that.



As for Jewish disdain of gentiles, why not? Nearly all of their contact with gentiles lead them into idolatry or war. Also, the Israelites were a religious people, not a race. You could become an Israelite by conversion despite what color skin you had or where you were born. The distinction between gentile and Jew is religious, not racial.


I used an imprecise term. And it wasn't so much religious as ethnic. It's still ethnocentricism.



And I would say that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism, pessimism, and depression whereas being religious gives you a sense of purpose even if it is a false sense.


And then you would be wrong. Of course, not the forum to debate that issue. If you really want to get into that (and I have so many times before), I will show you the error of your statements.

I'm an atheist, I'm not a nihilist. Nihilism is ridiculous and stupid. Hell, Nietzsche knocked that turd out of the park, and he is a very well known atheist philosopher. Pessimism? I'm sorry, but why would I be pessimistic because I don't believe in any deity? I'm quite optimistic actually. I have a wonderful life full of all sorts of opportunities. Even if my life wasn't so wonderful, I'd still have a lot of freedom (or have you not read another atheist philosopher, Sartre?).

As for depression...I was a hell of a lot more depressed as a theist than as an atheist. Granted, it was a neurochemical thing that balanced out a lot with age...but I'm not particularly depressed unless something particularly bad happens. In fact, my sadness tends to scale with the gravity of the situation (though I do tend to overreact when my loved ones are hurt...but that's because I'm protective).

And here's the thing: You're putting dishonesty above truth. A lie is horrible. I would rather be a depressed, pessimistic nihilist with the truth than someone who is only happy because of a lie.



Anyway the point I was making with Black people improving their lot, by following YHVH is that they remove any generational curse by trusting in God as Ezekiel said one could do.


Wow, that's a bit crazy. Then why is it that the atheists of the world are, in general, just better off? It's not just in the Black community, it's cross-racial. It's cross-ethnic. It's cross-cultural. It's just a universal.





So Jesus is only going to be about...1900 years late on that? Good to know. And genocide is genocide, no matter who is killed...though I think the Jewish state, having nuclear weapons, would take out a great number of people, and probably their own country, with them.

Genesis 9:6 " Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" And they will be punished for this when the Black Flags descend on the Holy city and the Jews will be hiding behind rocks and trees to escape the sword. All the more need for a savior in such times.


I'm making a reference to Jesus being late for the party. In Matthew 24 he openly claims that he will come in a generation. There would be disciples alive who would see both him at that time and him at the second coming.

And swords? Really?





No, the attempt to would cause massive armed conflict. They wouldn't be able to lay the foundations before mass conflict broke out over the site. Not an end of the world, but an incredibly bloody and massively devastating war.

Sounds apocalyptic to me.


Only if you define "end of the world" as "a very brutal conflict in the Middle East".



I thought you thought that the Bible was a fairy tail book?



From what I can gather, it is.

Again with the pot-shots.


Hey, don't knock fairy tales. They're informative in many instances.



This is what terrorists do. They make you fear the destruction they are capable of so they can get their way.


No...I'm not letting them 'get their way' because they could be destructive. I'm just not going to take a crap on anyone's face for any reason. It's an unnecessary action. People would die, and it wouldn't be because of terrorists. The entire Islamic world would rise in uproar, the second largest religious group in the world. Not terrorists, but every day individuals like you and me.



Actually, I will agree with you, that some of the more murderous Zionists are using dead commands to destroy the Amalekites to justify the murder of the Palestinians. That's the saving grace of the Bible, it doesn't have open commands to commit genocide like the Koran does. None of those people exist anymore, therefore, no war is justified unless God calls for one.


You do realize that the Christian religion was spread through violence, right? In fact, Islam is sort of maturing at a faster rate than Christianity by timescale. At the point in history Islam is at now, Christianity was a far more bloody religion.

And the issue with the Koran is I don't see where it commands genocide.



The apocalypse means "lifting of the veil". What is interesting about this time is that the nature of the hearts of men are revealed, good or evil. No more gray area.


I never believed in a gray area, it's always been a spectrum of colors to me. But maybe that's because I was exposed to critical thought early.



You yourself might reject the tyranny of the beast in favor for the true Messiah. At any rate, if the apocalypse rolls around, being an atheist will be rather difficult, yes?


It would be difficult to stay an atheist if the wolf Fenrir ate the moon too. So what?



I have a secret for you: we do not all sleep in death. Some will rise to eternal life and others to shame and condemnation. Once in the afterlife, your value of your mortal coil will seem rather quaint. What will matter is what you did in this life, not how you died or your time was cut short. To better illustrate this point I'm going to quote Albus Dumbledore
" Do not pity the dead Harry, pity the living, and above all those who live without love". I think there is much wisdom in this quote. Suffering is in life (possibly the next if you did poorly here), those who have gone on to their Father suffer no longer. I don't pity those who died in the holocaust, no matter where they are, their suffering is over. I pity those that survived like Elie Weissel who has to carry that experience with him every day.


Wow, preaching.




Ah, but you have forgotten the other guy and God's justice.


He created the other guy. Shouldn't he be executing the justice upon himself?



Evil must be punished and vengeance is the Lord's.


I thought God was all forgiving as well?



What's great about the apocalypse is that it removes all preconceived notions and is the biggest, clearest sign you could imagine that calls one to repentance. You will either be fooled by the Prince of this world or you will remember the word of God and repent. Not so bad if you get to return to the father when all is said and done. Ask the loving mother if the pain was worth it.


...more preaching. Wow. So instead of actually making arguments you're going to make a series of unfounded religious claims that you happen to believe in?




"I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you" "Blessed are the peacemakers" "Blessed are the merciful" "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" "Resist not evil; if someone strikes you on the right cheek, present him the other also"


Would it hurt to put in chapter and verse and translation? I mean, I bother with it...

Throughout the New Testament Jesus repeatedly claims that people who simply refused to believe or didn't care for his preaching (or were upset about him killing a bunch of pigs) are going to be cast into hell eternally.



Christianity calls us to be pacifists, sadly many Christians call for war. Anyways, there are many ways to defeat evil, not all of them require the final solution of death. Death is an absolute last resort when no other option remains and it is the least preferable, because you have taken away that person's ability to change and become a good person.


And yet your deity never seemed to follow this code of conduct.



Still it is preferable to never turn to the "necessary evil" even when it seems the only way. The soldiers of WWII saved many Jews, but that doesn't wash the blood from their hands or stop the nightmares. There is a high cost for committing the "necessary evil".


Yes, but that is a different situation. They aren't omnipotent.




I was tired and annoyed when I wrote this, I should have worked on my tone. Christianity at it's core is a rejection of the world, we look for the return of the kingdom when all tears will be wiped away. Everything that happened before once we get to the Kingdom of Heaven will seem stupid and totally avoidable had people turned from their wicked ways.


Yes, wicked ways like...what specifically? Not obeying a book that is internally contradictory?



Yeah, it's not contributing to a conflict either. You won't see anyone drafting me into an army until God himself puts a sword in my hand and the legions of hell stand uncovered before me.


Though I would expect you to do everything in your power to peacefully prevent the conflict as well.



That I do. I will spend as much time as possible in those times trying to get people to reject the beast and repent. Life is no more than raiment, the soul is what is important.


That thing? The soul? We sort of figured out that we have a brain that controls consciousness, we no longer have a need for that hypothesis unless you can define the function of a soul.





I'll probably be beheaded, when I don't convert to Islam, but that would make me a real martyr, you know, the non-violent kind.



Wow, persecution complex too. Christian wingnuttery at its finest. A conflict over that land wouldn't spread much further than that region, so you could quite quickly and quietly go to the rest of the world where they won't really be bothering because there would be a large scale war going on.

If it's happened before, it is reasonable to expect it again.


I'm sorry, but what? Christians and Jews alike were allowed to retain their religion under Islamic rule...pagans weren't so lucky, they had to convert or die..much like what the Christians did.



As awful as it's going to be, it will be far more interesting than any other point in history, and then we can all look forward to the end, some of us at least.



...I know one thing...the end is not as you describe. For humanity I hope for a much, much greater end. An end with a whimper...a whimper of not ourselves but of the cosmos.

Ah, cosmic nihilism.


Cosmic nihilism? I'm sorry, but humanity surviving for a few trillion years is far from nihilistic. In fact, it would be the ultimate achievement.



This is why suicide is so much more prevalent among atheists.


Citation needed. I'd also need to see an experimental model for the cited factors that rule out societal pressures (an atheist who is ostracized by his community and commits suicide because of the resulting depression isn't doing it out of atheism...) and cultural factors.



I say this with the utmost bitterness...


You do seem oddly bitter.



Neither do I. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but if humanity might return to their maker at the end of all things, wouldn't that make it worth it?


Why do we have to return to the maker of all things? Why not give us a few billion years to muck about and explore this universe? Why not set up things so that we can experience a reawakening of purity and light or whatever you'd like to call it and have a utopian existence where we still get to live and then go to heaven?

I'd say the concept of a divinely inspired plan is quite nihilistic. It is the ultimate in futility. There is nothing we can do.



Think about it for a moment, entertain the thought that the Bible is true for just a moment and consider the implications of the end.


According to Jesus, most people will be weeping and gnashing their teeth...



No more tears, no more anger, but a return to the source of all love. Is this not worth the painful road preceding it?


...for a few people, sure. The most will be sentenced to unfair and eternal weeping and gnashing of teeth.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by kallisti36
 




Trust me, I'd be the first person to admit he exists...I'd deal with the repercussions in whatever reasonable way I could.

Well my last reply took me around 2 hours to set up and I'm not going to undertake such a lengthy endeavor again seeing as it won't get me anywhere. Besides, there's a reason Revelations closed the canon, 66-80 books (depending on your denomination) is a lengthy enough self help book from God, after a certain amount of time, you have to put down the book and start getting things done. Diatribes are pointless when they fall on deaf ears.

It appears as if we have had the opposite experience with life. I up until recently, was a spiritually dead nihilist hovering around agnosticism and self serving cop-out spirituality. I saw enough of atheist philosophy and how it ate up my friends (who, like you were certain they had the philosophical, intellectual, and moral high ground) leading to moral relitivism (not all atheists are guilty of this, you obviously aren't), severe drug use, and suicide. Sure, you can say you can be a perfectly happy atheist, but that is only if you don't consider the implications of such a philosophy. If there is no God, everything happened by accident and thus there is neither plot nor point to this thing we call existence. So, naturally, the right minded atheist doesn't contemplate death to much, just thinks of it as an end of conscious thought, and goes about their daily life without considering the yawning void of implications their philosophy entails. My circle of friends did not have this luxury of blissful, just-don't-think-about-it-ism. The environment was very momento mori, it was inescapable, it snuck into your thoughts when you looked at every one of their faces and you could see who would crack, who wouldn't make it, and who would be consumed by their own demons (literal and figurative). Separating myself from this pessimistic mindset and learning to rejoin the stupid happy people who took happiness for granted because they didn't know what it meant to be miserable (my thought process at the time) was the first step on my journey away from being a miserable angsty pissant. However, I was still caught up in this self serving cop-out spirituality in which I believed all thoughts and ideas to be a manifestation of various dimensions and spiritual planes (I'm a fiction writer by the way so this philosophy connected me with my characters a bit more and made me feel less alone. I still use this philosophy to some extent in writing so I can create my characters with more respect and sentimentality). Eventually I fell in with a crowd of Christians, the same kind-of super positive people who knew each other from youth group when they were younger, I would have thought of as puerile in my pessimist years. Despite being totally different, they accepted me in the Christian way that is so freaking rare nowadays. I had a spiritual revival during this period and it totally transformed me. I suppose you could say I was "born again", but these people were Catholics and I think the term "born again" is abused and has a bad connotation now. Further cementing this change was my study of the works of Seraphim Rose and Justin Marler (ex-guitarist of Sleep turned monk and a contemporary of Rose) who pointed out the spiritual death-trap of nihilism and basically picked apart my previous ideologies and exposed them for what they are. Since then I've refined my Christianity and have my own views within the mindset of orthodox Christianity. I appreciate Marler and Rose's philosophy and spiritual guidance, but shied away from their stranger and heterodox views such as aerial tollhouses.

I write this not because I think my own personal testimony will convince you, but because I want you to know who I am and why your philosophy doesn't do anything for me. I've already heard your story and even talked to you about it (you might not remember, that was a big thread). I didn't even bother to include my objective spiritual experiences such as my encounter with a demon and conversations with God. It's personal experience and some people have to make due without it. "The Lord sends his rain on the just and unjust", but sometimes you live in the shadow of the mountain and no rain comes at all. Ya'hshuah has filled my life and saved my soul and I hope you have your own personal experience with Him. This brings me back to the quote I kept from your last post, because I find it to be the most important. You seem to be humble enough to admit you are wrong if God reveals himself and not all atheists are so. A lot would sulk or join the other team (I kid you not. I've heard that so many times it's scary). This is why I think the apocalypse is important, it will remove the need for faith based belief, everyone will know that there is a God. The trade off is that life will be absolute crap compared to the time when your greatest concern was having, not having, or maintaining faith. But as I said before is not life more than raiment?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Mandness in my soul.

I refuse to respond to any more of your points, or put up with your nonsense.

Considering your name is "madness in my soul", it is not an attack on your character, but a basic deduction made from your username. You chose to call yourself madnessinmysoul. Thus, i imagine you must think that characterizes your personality in some shape or form.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join