posted
Well this article certainly doesn't paint such a bad picture of him.
quote: "I had some questions that they couldn't answer and that also caused me to stray some," he says. "I had a real problem with the attitude that those who were not saved were going to suffer eternity in hell. And that's what the church believes, certainly the Baptist and Christian churches. And there's no way around that. "I said, 'What about somebody in India or in the jungle of Africa who has never heard the Word?' Their answer was, 'That's why we've got to get the Word out.' You mean, people are going to suffer for eternity if they don't, you know, get born again? So. That was one of the questions. That's probably a question a lot of people get hung up on. And there were others."
quote:About 10 years ago, when he was working for a radio station in San Francisco, he says he traded a pair of Prince concert tickets for the chance to touch the Dead Sea Scrolls with his bare hands.
quote:I've probably done a poor job of something because I've allowed myself to be categorized as something I'm not," he says. "But there's nothing I can do about that."
quote:
"Look, I do believe that you have to go to church. I don't believe these people who say, 'Well, you can feel God in your living room.' I think that's true, and I think I feel closer to God on a canoe trip with my brothers than I do in any church. But I do think it's important to go and hear the word. . . . And I certainly think when we have kids, it's something I won't want to miss."
quote: The Mullers both read the Bible regularly, and they pray. "I believe in prayer," Mancow says. "We pray for each other. We pray for our marriage." Sandy is attempting to read the entire Bible this year and reads Scripture each night before going to bed. Mancow, a voracious reader in general, says he regularly turns to the Bible, most recently to find passages about forgiveness.
posted
Let me take a crack at it. Mancow thinks Paul is the anti-Christ. Meanwhile, snake-handling Catholic Klansmen are beating someone up because Revelation told them to.
Did I miss anything?
Dagonee Edit: I forgot. The Jehovah's Witnesses are doing...something to atheists.
posted
Dag, I came home from work early because of a migraine. Since I woke up, everything seems so ... peculiar.
Whether or not Paul was/is the Antichrist is a debatable (albeit perhaps pointless) claim.
Whether or not there are substantial congregations of people who base their entire faith on Revelation and/or one phrase of the Judeo-Christian Bible is another debatable claim.
Whether or not we beat up on newbies is yet another (favorite and well-covered) topic.
Whether or not Jesus had a childhood is another debatable claim.
Whether or not you can base a branch of a religion off of part of a holy book is still another, and whether you should is still one more.
But what do these have to do with one another?
And most importantly, why is Caitlin wrought up, and at whom? Here, especially?
My brain is feeling kinda creaky these days, sort of like my knees first thing in the mornings. Must be that I don't have so much of those hormones lubricating things up like these whippersnappers do. *grin
(Dag, you're no flaming Commie, right? You have a sort of right-ish vibe for Hatrack, if I remember correctly, although it varies according to topic. But I'm counting on you to be balanced in answering this question -- What's with the newcomers coming in all flame and firebrand from the right, itching for a fight? Are there leftist firebrands I'm missing? Not that everyone isn't welcome, I'm just flummoxed.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might try the brain freeze technique. Drink something really cold with a straw until you get brain freeze. When the freeze wears off, sometimes the headache goes with it. Warning: This works for me, and I have no idea if I'm chipping neurons of my cerbral cortex. But I figure you're well-qualified to evaluate the risks for yourself. It really does work, though. Sometimes.
I'd say that's a fair description of me. I have no idea what's up with the rightish newbies. If they were good at this, or at least had sources that don't make their living siphoning off Rush Limbaugh's audience I'd understand. Or if they participated in a few threads they didn't start. Something to indicate they're here to discuss, and don't think they're going to find the precise way to put things to make everyone who disagrees with them see the light.
They remind me of seagulls - fly in, make a bunch of noise, crap all over everything, and leave.
posted
Yes that article doesn't paint too bad a picture of him. But imagine that article written about someone who has a show a lot like Howard Stern's, and there's a major discconnect.
quote: I'll try to keep an eye out for it in myself and others
I must have missed this earlier. CT I've never taken anything you've ever written for anything but mass intelligence and kindness. There are some who, without meaning to I'm sure, get a little harsh sometimes. Then again, I'm a marshmallow, so what do I know.
quote: (Does this make sense to anyone? Am I having a particularly uncomprehending day?)
I don't think there's anything wrong with your comprehension. This has indeed been very confusing. I hope I haven't made it more confusing by stating my two cents here and there.
Everyone has been amazingly patient and kind around here lately. Wow!
(((CT))) Hope you're feeling better soon! You're a doctor dang it...isn't it illegal for you to be sick?
quote:quote:...hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6
Didn't Jesus teach forgivness? Is he Raphiel?
This has a lot to do with the phrase 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. Nothing is said in this verse about hating people - rather just their practices. And what does Raphael have to do with anything? I'm assuming you're refering to the angel Raphael?
quote:quote: Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Revelation 2:16 and 17
Did He teach that you had to convert all who did not believe?
He's specifically addressing a Church of Jesus Christ in this instance, and is warning them about false doctrine in their midsts. HE's trying to correct them, and basically saying if you don't weed your ways out on your own, he'll have to come down and shout them down about it in person!
quote:quote: Those whom I love I rebuke... Revelation 3:19
Thats it for a while, give me time.
Just like parents - in the ideal case, they punish their children because they love them, and want to set them on the right path. Your child runs out into the street, you shout after them, and give 'em a spank on the bum. Not out of anger or hatred, but out of regard for the child's wellbeing.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm not really in the business, but maybe I should start collecting minions, the people who agree with me are too few and far between to let them go easily!
What do you say Tammy? Want to be my Head Minion? I like the "kinder and gentler" minion variety.
posted
Since I'm writing a novel about "Revelations in space" (as one of you put it ), I just want to ask if guys like this idea:
The events of Revelations can be changed, not altogether, but they can be changed. It all has to do with the anitchrist. The question is: is it possible for the antichrist to resist his destiny? All humans have free will, and if the antichrist is a human, can't he choose to be good?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a pseudo-fantasy story that came to mind based on the question raised 'could a person choose to become a Prophesied Individual, and could personally working towards fulfilling the prophesies themselves be the way they were meant to be fulfilled in the first place?'
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bleh... I thought this was going to be about Paul and how a lot of people (me included) think he corrupted the teaching of Jesus. Oh well. That would have been interesting.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elric of Melnibone provides some interesting speculation into the art of becoming a "prophesied individual" and is better written than the Thomas Covenant books (or *gasp* the Drizzt Do`Urdon books) . . . . Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
"you might be surprised. subjective judgement of the timelessness of creative endeavor can be amost fickle mistress, much like her sisters the muses... - don't get me started!"
posted
Well, gee, kwea . . . I dunno - seems to me any number of sci-fi/fantasy authors have explored religious beliefs/philosophy through their own writings (C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle and OSC also come to mind, but they are by no means the only ones)
My own personal thought regarding the Bible (and other "holy" works) is that they were written by human beings and therefore subject to fallacies, no matter how divinely inspired they may be. (Shrugs)
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you really think that Moorcock will still be around in 2000 years? I somehow doubt it.
I didn't think you were religious by your anology to Elric, but I think that even as merely classic lit the bible is slightly more important than Elric, Corum, or Cornelias...or even John Draker (see, I HAVE read him a bit).
quote:I have a pseudo-fantasy story that came to mind based on the question raised 'could a person choose to become a Prophesied Individual, and could personally working towards fulfilling the prophesies themselves be the way they were meant to be fulfilled in the first place?'
Shan responded:
quote: Elric of Melnibone provides some interesting speculation into the art of becoming a "prophesied individual" and is better written than the Thomas Covenant books (or *gasp* the Drizzt Do`Urdon books) . . . .
Kwea said:
quote: And while I like those books, how does that compare to the bible? Moorcock is good, but lets see who is reading him in 2000 years...
Shan replied:
quote:Well, gee, kwea . . . I dunno - seems to me any number of sci-fi/fantasy authors have explored religious beliefs/philosophy through their own writings (C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle and OSC also come to mind, but they are by no means the only ones)
My own personal thought regarding the Bible (and other "holy" works) is that they were written by human beings and therefore subject to fallacies, no matter how divinely inspired they may be. (Shrugs)
To which Kwea replied:
quote:So you really think that Moorcock will still be around in 2000 years? I somehow doubt it.
I didn't think you were religious by your anology to Elric, but I think that even as merely classic lit the bible is slightly more important than Elric, Corum, or Cornelias...or even John Draker (see, I HAVE read him a bit). Kwea
Okay - firstly: People still read The Oresteian Trilogy (Agamemnon, The Choephori and The Euminedes.) For that matter, they still read The Odyssey (and just made a silly movie out of it.) I quite distinctly remember having to read and write interminable essays about Grendel in high school - which granted was quite a few years ago. So the age thing doesn’t quite slice it with me. For all I know, Harlequin romances will the bible of the 25th century.
Secondly: I posted in response to Taalcon wondering about “prophesied individuals” and the potential for scifi/fantasy - not as a means to start an argument but purely to offer information. I.e., "check these authors out" kinda thing.
Thirdly: Recognizing the “holy” books as written by “man” does not make me “irreligious” - it just makes me skeptical. And the last I heard, that wasn't a bad thing - "free will" and all that sorta stuff, y'know?
(Breaks off to chuckle remembering Moses in The History of the World dropping a section of the Commandments so that they went from 15 to 10 in one blast of shattered rock. )
I think G*d has a sense of humor and a great deal of imagination and that He probably isn't nearly as concerned with the petty details as he is with the overall picture. Could be wrong - but I'll let the great I AM have the final say on that one . . . Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think revelations is an allegory for things that happened at the time it was written, for things that have happened throughout history, and for things that have yet to happen. That's the nature of truth.
quote: Oh, and has anyone noticed that Jesus goes from a baby directly to an adult? Why does he have no documented childhood?
Don't you watch TV? Kids always get old enough to be interesting faster when they are in the public eye. In the future, as we have seen in every Star Trek series, this development will soon be able to be accomplished in a few days. Maybe she meant John Frakes is the antichrist.
I guess some folks are taking the "ignore that Caitlen said she was 13" mode and some are taking the "kinder gentler" mode. I'm taking the "injecting Star Trek into the conversation at every opportunity" mode.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Revelations is by far the most difficult book in the Bible for people to understand and use. I have yet to see any claims for understanding it from credible scholars that don't include a whole raft of caveats, limitations, and cautionary statements.
Given that is the situation for people who actually study this stuff deeply, I'm very concerned about anyone who would claim to know the meaning behind Revelations enough to draw any conclusions with any degree of certitude. I think, also, that one can be a truly wonderful Christian and never read Revelations.
But that's just personal opinion and is neither here nor there.
What really matters is whether someone is so seriously in error that they put themselves outside the community of God's people. It seems to me that using the Bible as an excuse for violence (which has happened throughout history) is a good sign of something gone awry.
I also think that, so far, everyone who has pointed to another human being as being "THE ANTI-CHRIST" has turned out to be wrong. So, the other caution I would add is to worry about something else.
There are far more productive things to be doing as a Christian than trying to puzzle out the meaning of Revelations or identify the anti-Christ in our midst.
Even if you believe that the end times are upon us, you'd probably want to be doing something other than speculating on who and how, and concentrate on preparing yourself for what is to come, no?
Does Jesus' message change if you believe the Anti-Christ is born? Should you do anything different, act any differently toward other people, or be in any way a different person than you should be if we are just living through a normal, boring time when the Second coming is still far off?
And didn't Jesus tell us that we wouldn't be able to figure it out and know the day and time?
I just think there are better things to work on.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That story's been done, Archer. Read Good Omens, among others.
Really? I figured it probably was, but is there anything that made much of an impact?
Anyway, you don't have to read, or even believe any book in the Bible past John to be a true Christian. In fact, Acts and on is just an early history of Christians from a Christian perspective, and doesn't have anything that you need to be saved.
People can be stupid sometimes when they try to find the date of the appocalypse, and the antichrist, seeing as how if you believe they even will exist, then you almost have to believe that you can't find them, seeing as how if you do, there's a few contradictions getting in your way...
BTW, the antichrist has to be human. That's what he is. Just as the Christ was God as man, the Antichrist is (will be?) Satan as man.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about the Star Trek digression. I've been reading The Worthing Saga and it just makes so much more sense now than it did when I was 23 and on Lithium.
SPOILERS . . . . . . . Basically, what the children of Worthing are carrying out in their "watching" is what in LDS theology is known as Satan's plan. We live without agency and no possibility of failure. But does that really make Abner Doon godlike in any way? If one believes as LDS do that in the Garden of Eden there were two conflicting commandments and Adam and Even had to transgress one or the other? (that is, they could not multiply unless they partook of the fruit). I realize this is a huge presupposition, but in that case it was God's choice to destroy Eden. . . . . . End spoilers
I think most of us just think it would be pretty sad if it were appointed unto John the Beloved to bring about the end of the world. From a certain point of view. If we talk about it, instead, as "The World" then it would be appropriate for him to bring it down. But he still wouldn't be the anti-Christ. He wouldn't be a figure for us to fear, unless we really do love our prosperity more than God.
So no one is speculating on whether he is the undead?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little touchy, Shan? Perhaps more than a little.
Free will and freedom of speech cuts both ways, kid. Not that I know (or care) how old you are, just assuming by your tone. I didn't say you were wrong about Moorcock, as a matter of fact I probably have read more of him than you have. Unless you own every single book he has written, including 2 1ST editions printed before either of us were born, as I do.
I was simply trying to guide the thread back toward it's original topic, which had nothing to do with fantasy novels.
Not that I minded the digression, but some of us were still waiting for on-topic replies from others who have posted.
You can think Moorcock IS God for all I care, it wouldn't be any less silly (to me, anyway) than the idea of Paul being the Anti-Christ, but if you have the right to say that then I have the right to disagree with it.
I don't think Moorcock will survive, not for that long, not in any meaningful way. I don't think people will be praying to Elric, or Cornelius, or Draker, or Corum....get my point? I don't think they will affect the world in that fashion.
You do have the right to disagree, of course. Maybe you are even right.
But what does that have to do with mancow, or St. Paul, or the Anti-Christ? That was my point...
Posters are only allowed to post replies that are specifically directed towards the first poster? It's not permissable to veer slightly off course and respond to another poster's innocent comments about a related topic? Perhaps you can show me where in the rules it states that?
In which case, all the other blatherings about youthful posters, which saint Caitlin really meant, which DJ she was talking about, inserted pics of teens, what remedies might be helpful for CTs migraine, and all the other assorted comments shouldn't be a part of this, either?
If it makes you feel any better at all, my original comment was truly a simple suggestion to Taalcon as to some reading material. In some way you appeared to construe an attack out of that - and continue to do so, for some odd reason. Actually, I was going to ask if you were feeling touchy earlier but decided that might be a shade too intimate a question - and certainly none of my business.
Go pick a fight somewhere else, Kwea. I'm already raising an adolescent. And I thankfully don't have to care for aging, crotchety parents yet.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you two please stop arguing? It's really annoying when I want to talk about what people think of the antichrist. Have a go at each other on AIM, I'm sure you'll have fun...
Anyway...
Where were we? Let's talk more about the possibility of Revelations being true, but changable... What are your thoughts, guys?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How the hell do you think I was attacking you?
I refuse to let you make me the bad guy here...and anyone with eyes and the ability to read should know what I mean, just by reading this thread.
All I said was that I was trying to steer the conversation back to what I thought was the topic, and that I didn't think that your suggestion (Moorcock) was equivalent to the bible, in terms of longevity and/or relevance to the topic.
At no point did I make a personal attack on you; in fact, I thought you were someone I had spoken to earlier (who is younger, I think), and I didn't want that person to get rilled up thinking that I was bagging on her age! So that is what I meant by the age comment, but as far as the other things that were said....
quote:
Thirdly: Recognizing the “holy” books as written by “man” does not make me “irreligious” - it just makes me skeptical. And the last I heard, that wasn't a bad thing - "free will" and all that sorta stuff, y'know?
quote:
I never said anything about your religion, or lack of...I said that I didn't think you were referring to Moorcock as a religious writer/figure. I also offered my opinion that even as Lit the bible was better, as it has stood the test of time; after all, I'm sure that my collage isn't that only one that teaches Bible as Lit classes, right?
quote:
In which case, all the other blatherings about youthful posters, which saint Caitlin really meant, which DJ she was talking about, inserted pics of teens, what remedies might be helpful for CTs migraine, and all the other assorted comments shouldn't be a part of this, either?
quote:
Where did I say ANYTHING about other posters, or refer to a set of rules that prohibit free discussion? Did I even tell you not to comment on something? I don't think so....all I said was that I didn't agree with you. That I think the bible was better Lit than Moorcock, and had more cultural significance.
And I said that you were entitled to your opinion, but that I was too, and somehow this was an attack?
Speaking of attacks...
quote:
Go pick a fight somewhere else, Kwea. I'm already raising an adolescent. And I thankfully don't have to care for aging, crotchety parents yet.
quote:
Nuff said about attacks...I just edited my own personal attack to you out, because I was ashamed of it, and I don't want to contribute to this any more than I may have already.
All I was trying to say was that I though Moorcock was good, but that the Bible has changed people and history in ways that Elric never will. You may be right, maybe I am wrong about it's significance....maybe Harlequins will be the new Bible for the ages . I hope not...we ALL know LOTR should be, right?
But, in a free forum, I AM allowed to try to stick on topic, and I AM allowed to have opinions of my own. I agree that lots of writers have tackled godhead questions, and that some have come up with interesting ideas; but I simply used the same criteria to judge both the Bible (as Lit) and Moorcock, and found one wanting. It wasn't meant (or phrased) as an attack, and I'm sorry you took it as such.
But I'm not sorry for what I said, or that I wanted to return to the topic (as silly as I find it to be) at hand. BTW, if you are raising an adolescent, then we probably are about the same age....sorry to disappoint you, not being old and crotchety and all. Just crotchety.... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sorry. Yeah, it wasn't helpful. That was a running-by-and-tossing-in-a-comment kind of post.
As for whether or not Revelation is relevant, I don't think we can take the parts of the Bible that make sense and reject the parts that don't. I say that fully knowing that I do that, but I disapprove of myself for it.
What do I think? I don't understand Revelation, and I have to admit I haven't really tried. I think it would make more sense if someone read with faith and prayed for wisdom, but that wisdom wouldn't be transferable. I think its the fun and exciting part of the Bible - the biblical equivalent of wearing a crystal around your neck to school and refusing to discuss it.
No, I doubt some DJ in Chicago is the anti-Christ - I have a feeling the events of the Second Coming aren't going to be ambiguous.
I've decided not to beat myself up for rejecting parts of the Bible. If they don't make sense to people who actually study this stuff for a living, what exactly should I be doing with it?
Really, am I going to act differently using Jesus' example based on a flawed and personally idiosyncratic understanding of the Revelation of John?
I don't think it would make sense to do so.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hey, Dag. I might just do that.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Not that everyone isn't welcome, I'm just flummoxed.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
BannaOj
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
