***B.S. DISCLAIMER.Some ppl might find this to be a stupid thread. The only thing I can say to those ppl, is well, often when I see a post that's stupid to me I don't post there. A lot of other ppl do this as well and the post gets swallowed further and further down the page, til it's not even on the the page anymore.***



Ok, ealier I've said that maybe Earth is hell. Well maybe this maybe isn't a maybe at all.

First let me say that the bible uses the word 'in', in the stead of 'on'. The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell.

Revelation 12:9, says he was cast to earth. Wouldn't this then mean that hell is earth?

In the begining of earth's existance, it was a place of fire, and stones, and lava(river of fire). Being an angel and seeing Gods' work, in motion, I think it amazed them. Maybe seeing as this is the way the earth started, the first way they saw it. God and his angels speak of it this way.(Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)

Because it is they way they first saw it, the will forever remember it this way. Just a thought. Just another one of, or piece of, my theories.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-11-2004).]

I wouldn't be so literal if I were you

quote:Originally posted by evolove:

I wouldn't be so literal if I were you

Elaborate

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-11-2004).]

to all u fucked up non-catholic christians (protestant,methodist etc.) what ur doing is sooo fuckd up and wrong!!! like you my friend!!! you dont just read lines from one gospel!!!! it will mislead you!!! every story in the bible has a moral lesson,and thats the message of that gospel/story!! just dont believe in one line u dumbfucks!

***This is my own disclaimer, mines just shit, I might edit later, but I don't think it would survive a major operation, sorry Metalligod, I would have liked it to be better, but I'm so damn tried, I should never have started, but it's going to have to do for now***



You seem have come up with you idea based on this equals that, when it's not realy thought through.

Your saying that we are cast to Earth, which is Hell, it's just that Earth itself is given the discription being fire and brimstone. I don't know why you have meantioned Angels seeing Earth this way as I don't think they're responsible for Hell being referred to as such a place. Plus they had vissited the Earth after it was formed. When hell is referred to in the Bible it is in the context of being another place seperate from Earth. It would have to be our delusion, and that of the prohets of God, that were not in Hell. Which would kind of void any of the writing from the Bible, as the 'divine' knowledge it's based on is flawed, and this is the knowledge that your basing the assumptions on.



Miester Eckhart wrote that, I got this from Jacob's Ladder-an impressive film I might add- that there are no such things as Angels and Devils, that where one would see an Angel, another would a Devil, it matters what we are attached to, and what is being taken/given.

This is an idea that closely relates to how I see hell.



This is about Satan being cast down to Earth, one of my major sticking pionts with what you wrote.

I go for the figurative meaning which is based on the interpretations of Eastern mystics and to a lesser extetnt, Jewish ones, though on this, as far as I've read, they're in very close agreement.

Moses was given by God two sets of "Laws" one was written down, the other was an oral law passed down from Him. This is Qabbalah, which teaches methds for a person to come into direct contact with God, from this, and part of the method itself, comes a deeper understanding of the Biblical texts, divine in it's source, not just born of human theory. This is one reason why I listen to these types of people/schools before the fundamentalist types.

I was going to write a nice and elaborate piece about the symbolism of the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and Satan siting in the Tree of the Knoweldge of Good and Evil, but I don't have the understanding, I think perhaps somebody else would be more apt to take this up, or maybe just correct me.

The Garden of Eden ->microcosmicly the body, the chakric system, and states of concsiousness, macrocosmicly the different worlds, earth being the lowest, 'Kingdom'-I've forgoten the Hebrew name, this is concerned with our normal waking state, identified with the body and the information attained by the physical senses.

Adam is the Yang, masculine and Eve Yin, feminine, Pingla amd Ida in the yogic traditions, Satan is the Kundalini energy, which is not quite right, but I'm a little rusty, and it's a pretty complex piont in itself. Interesting to note, that Kundalini is also represented as a Snake in yogic texts.

(there is a little difference, as the first "Trees" are said to be perfect, and in a Perfect Tree, say a Buddha, there is no chakra that is related to our common level of consiouness. In Qabalah this is lifted up to become Daath, which is I think the gateway to the negatively-existant roots of the 'tree' ie. the state of God-Union or Nirvana. Kingdom is related to physical limitations, but this only occurs in a "Fallen" tree, which MAY be related to Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden. I might be able to pick this up later if I do some research or some thought. There are differences in the Chakric Systems of Qabbalah and Yoga, from what I know the Yogic system doen't deal with perfect trees, for one reason they've no need for such things, however differences arn't suprising as both addmit to there being many different chakras that they don't dierectly deal with, and as they're related to perception are not so much concrete as A and B, which could also bring in the word of the Hebrew and Sanskrit alphabetes and aspects of mystical thought on these and interpretation of scriptures infolving this. Sorry about that I'll get back to the piont)

The snake is in the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, temping Eve she talks Adam into tasting this fruit which God has forbiden, this knoweldge is of duality, specificaly between God and Man, sinking from a non-dual state of union with God, to a state of perception of seperatness or not perceiving God at all, this I guess could be hell, and is indeed at least a part of it. But as Buddha said, Nrivana and Samsara are one. Though our inabilty to see this is the delusion we suffer from. They taste the fruit of this, the perception of it and realise they are naked -they're attention or consciousness becomes centred in/on they're bodies, or body.

Satan descends to Earth, the Dust, the lowest chakra, and becomes a destrutive force that seperates man from God. An Adversary that has to be overcome (adversary is the name given to Satan in th Old Testement, and see Jesus about 'overcoming.')

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

***B.S. DISCLAIMER.Some ppl might find this to be a stupid thread. The only thing I can say to those ppl, is well, often when I see a post that's stupid to me I don't post there. A lot of other ppl do this as well and the post gets swallowed further and further down the page, til it's not even on the the page anymore.***

So we should tolerate your bullshit just because you don't have answers to things that we think are true?

Uh...the earth kicks ass. Maybe you should open your eyes every once in a while.

I thought that once you were banished to hell, you still had your recollection of just why you were put there in the first place? But as we only know of this one life and as the vast majority of the world's population are religious I seriously doubt we are all hell worthy. Never mind in hell. Surely hell wouldn't hold such beautiful scenery and have a complete lack of nasty, fiery demons and burning rivers of torture etc

Your saying that we are cast to Earth, which is Hell, it's just that Earth itself is given the discription being fire and brimstone.

I haven’t a clue, what post you read. Cause not once did I say we were cast to hell. I stated things as clearly as possible, how you got that above, out of me specifically saying: The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell. Revelation 12:9, says he was cast to earth. is beyond my knowledge.

I don't know why you have meantioned Angels seeing Earth this way as I don't think they're responsible for Hell being referred to as such a place.

For what I hope is the last time, I’ll say this: In Hebrew the angels were called ‘The Watchers’, these creatures witnessed creation. So this would then mean that they’ve seen earth in its first earliest stages. Science says when the world was in its earlier stages it was a place of fire, lava, and some cooled rocks.

Science and the bible are the reasons why I say that angels saw it this way. And if I’m not mistaken, isn’t Revelations spoken by an angel?



Plus they had vissited the Earth after it was formed. When hell is referred to in the Bible it is in the context of being another place seperate from Earth.

Show me where it (hell) is spoken by God or an angel to be another place separate from earth. Yeah they visited earth After it was formed, but while it was forming it was indeed a place of molted rock, and fire. This science proves.

It would have to be our delusion, and that of the prohets of God, that were not in Hell.

Ok, I’m not saying were not in hell. I’m saying we possibly are.

Which would kind of void any of the writing from the Bible, as the 'divine' knowledge it's based on is flawed, and this is the knowledge that your basing the assumptions on.

Something can be flawed and still have some truth in it, and to believe that something is completely dismissible because it has flaws in it, is imbecilic. I don’t believe in a god, or God. But I believe that it is very possible that one could indeed exist. Vampires are not completely folklore.

The stories told of them about their abilities are overrated. However, there is a disease that makes people vampire-like and it is proven that human blood does indeed, assuage the symptoms of the disease.

And garlic does harm a person with this condition, and the gum-line does retract making it seem as though the teeth are elongated, like fangs. It’s unintelligent to completely dismiss something, because it has flaw in its structure.

And for anyone who’s going to try and accuse me of lying the disease is called Poryphoria.

Miester Eckhart wrote that, I got this from Jacob's Ladder-an impressive film I might add- that there are no such things as Angels and Devils, that where one would see an Angel, another would a Devil, it matters what we are attached to, and what is being taken/given.

This is an idea that closely relates to how I see hell...

Just because you or anyone else has a idea of hell, does not mean it is true, and it does not mean that other ideas are inadmissible. I believe that Satan is not evil and I have a version of events that could have possibly happened, that are reasons for his banishment. But it doesn’t mean that it’s true.

Just like you have an Idea about Satan I do as well, one could possibly be the truth, so don’t just dismiss everything that is not what you believe. I have the bible(including the book of Enoch), the Hebrew bible, and logic to back up my theory. Just as you have with yours, but we can only speculate as to what truly happened.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by skoolboy_arts:

to all u fucked up non-catholic christians (protestant,methodist etc.) what ur doing is sooo fuckd up and wrong!!! like you my friend!!! you dont just read lines from one gospel!!!! it will mislead you!!! every story in the bible has a moral lesson,and thats the message of that gospel/story!! just dont believe in one line u dumbfucks!



Bitch I'm not even Christian, don't use this as your little posting place to bitch and moan. Talk about the fuckin subject. Did you not read my B.S.DISCLAIMER. If you don't like it don't post. If you have an opposing view then post it. But don't come in here with your imbecilic whining!

If I were Christian I wouldn't even be thinking of things happening in a way other than what the bible states, you stupid whinny BITCH!

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

So we should tolerate your bullshit just because you don't have answers to things that we think are true?



What? If you don't think something is true by all means PROVE it.

But don't make another bicker fest like you did on the topic about how angels look. I brought info that held true. You had none for for your accusations.

Is this true or not? Did I, or did I not prove you wrong?

It's not BS if it's not false. Now plz do answer the above questions, and think on it. I don't specialize in BS that's your field. I proved you wrong and other Totse posters saw that.

Your so pathetic you took something I said and put it with something else I said afterwards and made it seem as though I'd said something that you knew I had not. Your tactics were cowardly, childish and unintelligent. Did I, or did I not, prove you wrong?

quote:Originally posted by ihaveatorso:

Uh...the earth kicks ass. Maybe you should open your eyes every once in a while.

Ah...A side from intolerant and stupid ppl, I love Earth. I've said this several times.

Why is it so hard to understand that I posted something that is a possibility, and that I don't believe it to be true? Just a possible happening?

Why is that hard to take in? Besides hell is only a freakin name, and I've said before, what is hell for one could be something desireable for another.

Maybe His angels see hell as a place without Gods light. Anywhere could be called hell, it's only a freakin name!

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

I thought that once you were banished to hell...



Accurding to the real bible(Hebrew), everyone goes to hell. It just supports again one of my THEORIES. Maybe we go to hell until we forgive God, and that's how we become excepted into heaven.

In Hebrew hell was not a place of flames and eternal torture. That was made up, added in the KING James edition. Of course a King would have such a thing said, most likely as a means of controlling the populous.

So basically I agree with you, I believe hell would be a place of reflection, we'd have to know why we were put there. We'd subconsciously torture ourselves til we got over it, til re feel we have been punished enough for the bad we've done.

I just don't believe fire and brimstone makes sense. Such a place contradicts everything said about God. But again maybe this place is 'Called' Hell, but this is not truly where we are redeemed of the things we've done.

The Book of Revelations is prophetic in nature. What is written there is not taken as what happened, but what will happen; a prophecy.

Satan being cast out in Revelation 12:9 doesn't in any way mean that Earth is Hell; it just means that Satan will be cast out to Earth.

They are two different scenarios. In one, God cast him down to hell, then he cast him down to Earth...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The Book of Revelations is prophetic in nature. What is written there is not taken as what happened, but what will happen; a prophecy.

Satan being cast out in Revelation 12:9 doesn't in any way mean that Earth is Hell; it just means that Satan [b]will be cast out to Earth...

Revelations 12:9- And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which decieveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Excuse me I totally missed the, -'will be'- part. Where is that at? Where's your backing?

Sorry left the 't' out of serpent, had to edit.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-12-2004).]

You don't have to use "will be" if you are narrating the future in first person…

Let me simplify the concept for you:



Let's say Jim wrote a story. In that story he says he hit Tom in the neck. Then, after a few chapters, he says he hit Tom in the stomach. Does it mean that the stomach and neck are the same thing? No.



If the book of revelations were referring to the Genesis, were Satan was first cast out; then you would have a case. But the book of revelations is referring to a completely different instance, an instance believed to be in the future.

He's still not going to believe you.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:



Bitch I'm not even Christian, don't use this as your little posting place to bitch and moan. Talk about the fuckin subject. Did you not read my B.S.DISCLAIMER. If you don't like it don't post. If you have an opposing view then post it. But don't come in here with your imbecilic whining!

If I were Christian I wouldn't even be thinking of things happening in a way other than what the bible states, you stupid whinny BITCH!

dumbass i dont care about ur disclaimer!!! i post if i wana post!!! MY WILL BE DONE YOU FUCKED UP BITCH!!!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You don't have to use "will be" if you are narrating the future in first person…

Let me simplify the concept for you:



Let's say Jim wrote a story. In that story he says he hit Tom in the neck. Then, after a few chapters, he says he hit Tom in the stomach. Does it mean that the stomach and neck are the same thing? No.



If the book of revelations were referring to the Genesis, were Satan was first cast out; then you would have a case. But the book of revelations is referring to a completely different instance, an instance believed to be in the future.



To answer scenario number 1, It would mean Tom's a pussy, and he got his ass whipped.

Now onto what you said about Genesis, and blah blah blah...

I agree with you. Now that's the way you prove something, maybe you should give your cheerleader, Ashes some pointers.

That's what I wouls say if you were completely right. Revelations is both part and prophecy. I understand it was Johns visions. It speaks of prophecy, but when it gets to the Satan taking over heaven part, that's not prophey.

It's telling why he was kicked out. And you would notice that they switch to use of words in the PAST TENSE. Because it is recollection.

You seem to be a totally different person than the dim-wit who makes those inane replies in the Angel topic.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by skoolboy_arts:

dumbass i dont care about ur disclaimer!!! i post if i wana post!!! MY WILL BE DONE YOU FUCKED UP BITCH!!!

Yeah you can post where ever you want.

But it doesn't make you look very smart, I was doing your gay ass a favor. Go dildo your useless self to death.

You post your messages that are completely void of meaning, and intelligence. Your a mere child seeking attention, you've gotten it now go play. Or

GO TO SLEEP HO!!

quote:

It's telling why he was kicked out. And you would notice that they switch to use of words in the PAST TENSE. Because it is recollection.



"

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.



Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,



Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.



Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.



Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.



Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”



Tell me, where is this "switching of tenses"? Show me when the narrator switches. I'll be waiting forever because you will not find it.

The Book of Revelations does not suddenly change and starts talking about Satan in Genesis. It is not a recollection. Look at the verses before Rev 12:9! They clearly talk about a war being waged in heaven and Satan being cast out to earth. This is not even similar to what happened in Genesis. Genesis and Revelations talk about two different episodes; Satan’s casting to Earth is not similar to his casting to Hell thus Earth and Hell are not the same.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The Book of Revelations does not suddenly change and starts talking about Satan in Genesis...

Um...I'm not trying to be nasty at all. But could you plz tell me where in Genesis, that there is a confrontation between Satan and Gods' army of angels?

I've read the bible many times and not once come to this confrantation of which you speak. I'm really intrigued, and I'm asking out of curiosity, I'm not being combative.

quote:Um...I'm not trying to be nasty at all. But could you plz tell me where in Genesis, that there is a confrontation between Satan and Gods' army of angels?

I've read the bible many times and not once come to this confrantation of which you speak. I'm really intrigued, and I'm asking out of curiosity, I'm not being combative.



I never said their was a war in Genesis... Their is a war in The Book of Revelations.

I said that there is no change. The Book of Revelation does not suddenly change into a "recollection" of Satan or Genesis.

quote:The Book of Revelations does not suddenly change and starts talking about Satan in Genesis.

Never said it did.

quote:I never said their was a war in Genesis...

Then

quote:If the book of revelations were referring to the Genesis, were Satan was first cast out; then you would have a case

quote:Never said it did.



You claimed that Rev 12:9 was a "recollection" and that it changed to past tense to say why Satan was kicked out.

The point is they are different events! If the Book of Revelations were talking about Genesis then your theory would have credibility, but the Book of Revelation is not talking about Genesis, nor about what happened to Satan in Genesis. Thus you cannot connect Satan being cast out to Earth in Revelations to Satan being cast out to Hell in Genesis. They are not the same.

quote:Then

Huh? Did I even mention the word war in that quote? What do you mean by "Then"?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Great! Now please point out where in either of those quotes do I even mention the word war(Other than "I never said their was a war in Genesis...")? Please do so, I am very curious... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I'll go quote by quote for your sake:

1:

"The Book of Revelations does not suddenly change and starts talking about Satan in Genesis."

You claimed that Rev 12:9 was a "recollection". I said, in the above quote, that the Book of Revelations does not suddenly change and starts talking about what happened to Satan in Genesis.

2:

"If the book of revelations were referring to the Genesis, were Satan was first cast out; then you would have a case."

If the Book of Revelations were referring to the Genesis, or what happened to Satan in Genesis then your theory would have at least some credebility.

Sorry, but did you even read my post?

WHY WAS SATAN CAT OUT? HE STARTED A FUCKIN WAR!!! THAT'S WHY!

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE PART THAT SAYS SATAN WAS THROWN OUT OF HEAVEN TALKS ABOUT THE PART WHERE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WAR.

CONCLUSIVELY ONE COULD REASON(EXCEPT IN YOUR CASE) THAT IF SOMEONE SAYS SATAN WAS KICKED OUT IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE BIBLE, THEN THEY ARE ALSO SAYING THAT'S THE PART ABOUT THE WAR.

BTW: HE WAS NOT THROWN OUT IN GENESIS EITHER. WHAT NONCLEVER ROUSE WILL YOU PULL NOW?

IF YOUR SAYING REVELATIONS HASN'T HAPPENED YET, THEN YOU ARE ALSO SAYING THAT SATAN IS NOT IN HELL, AND HE IS STILL AN ANGEL AMONGST GOD! AND GOD HAS NOT YET DUBBED HIM-SATAN-THE DEVIL!

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-12-2004).]

I've refrained from insulting you, but you take the cake. Your stupidity has surpassed my limits. Sorry.

quote:WHY WAS SATAN CAT OUT? HE STARTED A FUCKIN WAR!!! THAT'S WHY!

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE PART THAT SAYS SATAN WAS THROWN OUT OF HEAVEN TALKS ABOUT THE PART WHERE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WAR.



I never claimed otherwise you idiot! Look at what I said! Satan was cast out to EARTH for starting a War in the Book of Revelations. But he was cast out to HELL in Genesis (depending on the interpretation this could vary), were he didn't start a war!

quote:CONCLUSIVELY ONE COULD REASON(EXCEPT IN YOUR CASE) THAT IF SOMEONE SAYS SATAN WAS KICKED OUT IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE BIBLE, THEN THEY ARE ALSO SAYING THAT'S THE PART ABOUT THE WAR.



Only a freaking moron would conclude that. I just showed you how the book of revelations talks about a war! This is not the case in the book of Genesis therefore they are different events! Get it? One time God cast out Satan to Hell, and then at a later time he cast him out to Earth as a result fo the war in heaven.

quote:BTW: HE WAS THROWN OUT IN GENESIS EITHER. WHAT NONCLEVER ROUSE WILL YOU PULL NOW?



Actually, you will find many interpretations to this, but it is commonly believed that he was cast out before Genesis 1:1, during Genesis or some other people believe it was after World War 1 (yes you 'heard' me right).

quote:IF YOUR SAYING REVELATIONS HASN'T HAPPENED YET, THEN YOU ARE ALSO SAYING THAT SATAN IS NOT IN HELL, AND HE IS STILL AN ANGEL AMONGST GOD! AND GOD HAS NOT YET DUBBED HIM-SATAN-THE DEVIL!

You have to make the distinction that The Book of Revelations is prophetic! It tells of Satan's final rebellion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) This is different from the first time Satan was cast out.

This stupid bitch has yet to point out a confrontation of Satan and God in Genesis.

Everyone can see that you use false info, you lie, you don't know what your talking about, your gay, and your childish.

Go post somewhere, where your false words have value. Genesis 1:1 talks about creation, no conflicts.



You pathetic and you should die slow.

there isnt actually a hell described in the bible. its a mis-translation, and used by most christian religions as a way to scare people. the bible says "the dead are conscious of nothing at all"...they aint in hell then are they? the word for hell is gehenna (sp?) means the grave, not hell. i dont have a bible on me right now, so i cant really give scriptures to this, but if you want i can (im in a rush right now). The bible says Satan was cast down to the earth, and so the whole thing of satan being in hell is just false doctrine. Satan being cast down to the earth is part of a whole long prophecy which is hard to explain... but basically, yeah you are right in that the earth is hell at the moment, as it is biblically speaking in the power of the devil. the bible says he's using it to mislead righteous belivers of god. so it is hell in a way....

quote:Originally posted by nevermind:

there isnt actually a hell described in the bible. its a mis-translation, and used by most christian religions as a way to scare people. the bible says "the dead are conscious of nothing at all"...they aint in hell then are they? the word for hell is gehenna (sp?) means the grave, not hell. i dont have a bible on me right now, so i cant really give scriptures to this, but if you want i can (im in a rush right now). The bible says Satan was cast down to the earth, and so the whole thing of satan being in hell is just false doctrine. Satan being cast down to the earth is part of a whole long prophecy which is hard to explain... but basically, yeah you are right in that the earth is hell at the moment, as it is biblically speaking in the power of the devil. the bible says he's using it to mislead righteous belivers of god. so it is hell in a way....



Thank you.

But if this Rost, idot posts a reply toy you.

I advise that you ignore it. However many times you prove the bitch wrong. It will still bark stupid shit at you.

If you and he were standing right across from eactother. And you had a dollar in your pocket, he'll try to prove to YOU that YOU don't have a dollar in your pocket. When you could indeed just stick your hand in there and fell it.

It's a headache that I am trying to save you from, plz, just trust me on this. He's inhumanly stupid. http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)

quote:This stupid bitch has yet to point out a confrontation of Satan and God in Genesis.

Everyone can see that you use false info, you lie, you don't know what your talking about, your gay, and your childish.

Go post somewhere, where your false words have value. Genesis 1:1 talks about creation, no conflicts.



You pathetic and you should die slow



You freaking moron, where the fuck did I ever say that there was a confrontation in Genesis!? Tell me!

For the third time, I said there is no confrontation in Genesis. There is confrontation in the Book of Revelations. Therefore they are different events! You cannot say Earth equals Hell because they are different events!

You stupid fuckin moron, when Satan was cast out, there was a confrontation.

Now where in Genesis was Satan cast out?

You can dance around that question all day, you'll still be as gay idiot!

You'll still be a useless homo!

You'll be a lying, faggot-bitch!

quote:You stupid fuckin moron, when Satan was cast out, there was a confrontation.



Yes, when he was cast out in the Book of Revelations.

quote:Now where in Genesis was Satan cast out?

I already told you! Can't you read? The common interpretations of when Satan was first cast out are that: 1. He was cast out during Genesis although it does not say it explicitly. 2. That he was cast out before Genesis 1:1 or that the was cast out years later. Not during the Revelation.

Did you visit the link? It clearly explains that the Book of Revelations talks about Satan's final rebellion in Armageddon.

P.S. You've really shown me with those insults. You've put me in my place... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B] I already told you..

I already told you bitch!

Genesis is about creation, and there was no one being cast out, except Adam and Eve.

Now since you love to do this so much, quote it bitch!

And stop doing rolleyes so much. It just makes you seem even gayer!

Do the research yourself. Go and see the divisive arguments about Satan's banishing.

I'll save you the trouble anyway. Lets say, for the sake of argument and to stop your stupidity even faster, that the Book of Revelations is as you claim. So what? It is already understood that Satan's realm is Earth and Hell! Two different things. Earth being for us humans to live in and hopefully "win" heaven and Hell for us to be punished for doing the opposite. That's how wrong your argument is.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Do the research yourself. Go and see the divisive arguments about Satan's banishing.

I'll save you the trouble anyway. Lets say, for the sake of argument and to stop your stupidity even faster, that the Book of Revelations is as you claim. So what? It is already understood that Satan's realm is Earth and Hell! Two different things. Earth being for us humans to live in and hopefully "win" heaven and Hell for us to be punished for doing the opposite. That's how wrong your argument is.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-12-2004).]

Can't research what doesn't exist.

Since yo gay ass is the one who believes Earth and Hell are 2 different places you prove it bitch.

It's not my job to prove your lies. Face it they're lies so they can't be proven true.

Yo gay ass don't have proof, that's why you quote everything else, except the thing that would close the arguement.

Take yo faggot ass to a bar or something, go meet a mate. Instead of posting useless bull online all day. You've wasted too much of my time, and too much space on this great website.

This'll be my last post to you. If oneday, you mature, and can offer something worth my time, I'll post then. Have a nice life(if you dare to call it that).

if earth is hell, can I be satan? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Metalligod, can you post references to the verse that says he was cast to Earth, and the verse in which he was cast to Hell?

By the way, Revelations IS prophetic; it's a description of the future, not the past. Satan's initial banishment was for defying God, in which he was banished to Eden; that is why he starts the war prophesized in revelations in which he is killed by God.

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 04-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Satan's initial banishment was for defying God, in which he was banished to Eden...

Where is Eden? Ummm....EARTH

I needn't say more on this.

(My Melatonin's kickin in, so I'll make other replies tomorrow)

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-13-2004).]

I understand that Metalligod; but Revelations is prophetic, Satan has yet to be banished to Hell because Hell does not exist. As someone else pointed out, there was a mistranslation: Satan is going to be killed, not sent to hell, as his punishment for waging war on God.

"...For the wages of sin are death..." Can't remember book or chapter or verse, sorry.

If Christianity is correct in their beliefs that a God exists who either punishes or rewards souls for their faith and acts, the punishment for sin is not a fiery torment in eternal hell, it is eternal monotony in death. The unrepenting souls will suffer the exact same fate as Satan will.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

***B.S. DISCLAIMER.Some ppl might find this to be a stupid thread. The only thing I can say to those ppl, is well, often when I see a post that's stupid to me I don't post there. A lot of other ppl do this as well and the post gets swallowed further and further down the page, til it's not even on the the page anymore.***



Ok, ealier I've said that maybe Earth is hell. Well maybe this maybe isn't a maybe at all.

First let me say that the bible uses the word 'in', in the stead of 'on'. The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell.

Revelation 12:9, says he was cast to earth. Wouldn't this then mean that hell is earth?

In the begining of earth's existance, it was a place of fire, and stones, and lava(river of fire). Being an angel and seeing Gods' work, in motion, I think it amazed them. Maybe seeing as this is the way the earth started, the first way they saw it. God and his angels speak of it this way.(Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)

Because it is they way they first saw it, the will forever remember it this way. Just a thought. Just another one of, or piece of, my theories.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-11-2004).]

The bible was written by Man.

Not god.

I'll try exit with a little grace, I did misunderstand you a little, and you me.

quote:Originally posted by LordPyro:

The bible was written by Man.

Not god.

I've never said otherwise.

As a matter of fact, I've said the bible was written by man several times. I can't recall ever saying a god wrote the bible.

The subject is about Where hell is occurding to the bible. Not who wrote it, or if it's true. It's strickly about what it says.

:JA:Mistranslation!!!:

If Earth were Hell, we would not be able to communicate with God which we can now.

quote:Originally posted by micho:

If Earth were Hell, we would not be able to communicate with God which we can now.

BE4REAL!!!!!!

When have you communicated with God?

That is bullshit, if ppl could commune with Him, then there wouldn't be a big contraversy about His existance.

Don't say stupid shit and just expect ppl to be like, "Oh yeah ok, we can communicate with Him."

Communicate-2 a : to convey knowledge of or information about : make known

3 : to open into each other

When God does any of the above, then and only then can you honestly say that we communicate with Him!

What would the Bible be, then (taken in the context of it's claims)?

Stories written by men.

Men who wanted ppl to believe in their god, so they could have a means of controlling them.

quote:Stories written by men.

Men who wanted ppl to believe in their god, so they could have a means of controlling them.

Nice try, but he specificly said, "taken in the context of it's claims". The Bible claims it is Divine Inspiration. If you give the Bible validity in its claims then their has been comunication between God and man. If you do not give it validity, then there is no point in arguing the position of hell because it would be a lie. Which one is it?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Nice try, but he specificly said...

You are right, I completely over looked the:

"taken in the context of it's claims".

However I can't make it clear enough to you ppl that "I don't believe in God, or the bible!" Though if I'm trying to make a point of something in the bible, then and only then do I take it into context.

So I don't know why you say: "If you do not give it validity, then there is no point in arguing the position of hell because it would be a lie."

That's a stupid thing to say. No, I don't believe in the bible, but when I am trying to make a point out of something in it, then and only then will I have to "take it in the context of its claims"

Don't you agree that it would sound rather silly, if I try to make a point out of something in the bible, without giving it validity?

Just because someone gives it validity when trying to make a point, does not mean that they have to believe in it.

I don't believe in God, but it would sound stupid if I'm trying to make a point of something in the bible, and not give it validity, like for instance, if someone says: "God is omniscient."-and then I say something like: "No He's not because He's not real."

That would sound real stupid. So when talking about God, and I'm trying to prove or disprove something I would then have to use the bible. I don't believe in the bible, but it does indeed say that earth and hell are one in the same.

-No(I have to say this for the stupid ppl) it does not come rigt out and say it the way I stated.-



If someone said "Freddy Kruger is powerfuller than God." Would you then say no he's not because he's not real? If so that would make you sound very stupid if so.

You would then have the burden of proving that God is real. And proving that he does indeed have more power than Freddy.

Now if you took into context the movie, you'd then not have to prove Gods existance, and only have to prove why Freddy is inferior. You would see that he could be killed, and taking into context the claims of the bible, that God cannot.

quote:That's a stupid thing to say. No, I don't believe in the bible, but when I am trying to make a point out of something in it, then and only then will I have to "take it in the context of its claims"

Don't you agree that it would sound rather silly, if I try to make a point out of something in the bible, without giving it validity?



The point is you cannot, out of your own whim, say, "this is true and this isn't" if you don't provide evidence. Now do you believe the Bible is the Divine Inspiration of god (which would mean he has communicated with people) or do you think it is false? In other words, why should I even discuss Hell's position if you do not believe the bible is of divine inspiration in the first place? It not being of divine inspiration would discredit it entirely.

Apparently your just don't get it.

I never said you had to argue whether earth was hell or not. That was your choice.

Why it is that you believe, someone has to believe in the bible to make conversation of the points in it, or to make sense of it, is beyond me.

If it is your belief that someone who doesn't believe in the bible can't argue its points, then that's what you believe.

But it doesn't mean ppl can't do it.

I took what the bible says is hell and posted it. Now if you believe it is not, then prove where in the bible it says otherwise.

To think that if someone doesn't believe in something, they can't talk about it, then that is infinately pious and stupid.

You can argue whatever you want, you just can't use the bible as your evidence. You can't say, "Earth is Hell because in Revelations 12:9..." Why? Because if you think it was not Divinely inspired, then any credibility the bible had as evidence ceases to exist.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You can argue whatever you want, you just can't use the bible as your evidence. You can't say, "Earth is Hell because in Revelations 12:9..." Why? Because if you think it was not Divinely inspired, then any credibility the bible had as evidence ceases to exist.

That is BS.

I, and any other person that does not believe in the bible, can post things on the subject that bring up good points.

I don't have to fuckin believe in it, to say: "Occurding to the bible, eart and hell are one in the same."

If it is a point made in the bible I and any other person can point it out. If there is evidence to back it up, then do it.

To believe that since someone does not believe in the bible they can't point out points made in it, makes you seem to be an ignorant and morrally shallow person.

That's equivalent to you saying, "You shouldn't have a view on whether Satan is evil or not. Because you don't believe in the bible."

That is just plain stupid. I don't believe in the bible, no not at all. But If Satan were real I don't believe he would be evil, that just doesn't make since.

I don't believe God is omniscient or omnipotent, occurding to the very text of the bible, He's not.

But just because I don't believe He would be omniscient if He were indeed real, does not mean I shouldn't be able to have a POV on the matter.

quote:That is BS.

I, and any other person that does not believe in the bible, can post things on the subject that bring up good points



I never said otherwise.

quote:I don't have to fuckin believe in it, to say: "Occurding to the bible, eart and hell are one in the same."

You didn't say "according to the bible". You said that it was one of you theories. You back up theories with evidence; you cannot back it up with evidence that has already lost any and all validity in your eyes.

quote:To believe that since someone does not believe in the bible they can't point out points made in it, makes you seem to be an ignorant and morrally shallow person.

How would that make me morally shallow? Stop using words that you don't even know the meaning of.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-15-2004).]

Metalligod-Rust

You are full of lies.

I've never said the bibles claims were my theory. How can it be my theory if it is already said somewhere else?

I said the part abot the way angels saw earth was my theory. You need to learn to understand this great language, of english.

I can't claim something that is written somewhere else as my theory. I can only use things written somewhere else to help prove my theories.

Me:That is BS.

I, and any other person that does not believe in the bible, can post things on the subject-(which is, what the ible says.) that bring up good points.

You:I never said otherwise.

Before the above statement-you just can't use the bible as your evidence.

This makes you a flat out liar.

Then another one of your lies.

I said:The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell.

Then you said:You didn't say "according to the bible". You said that it was one of you theories.

This makes you a liar again.

You:you cannot back it up with evidence that has already lost any and all validity in your eyes.



When did I say the bible has, NO, validity?

Just because I don't believe in the god of the stories, does not mean it has no validity. Did you not read what I said about vampires? I made it quite clear, that false stories could still have some truth.

You again, huh:How would that make me morally shallow? Stop using words that you don't even know the meaning of.

Moral-1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Shallow-1 : having little depth 3 a : penetrating only the easily or quickly perceived.

Morally shallow=you=having philosophy, with easy, and/or not well thought out principles.

Now back-up your claims, show a word that I don't know the meanging to. I'd love to see you try. So I guess this is another one of your lies.

It makes you morally shallow because, again, you lack well thought out, or meaningful principles. Need I say it another way? Need I speak in laymans? Can you not understand what is truthfully being said about you?

Stop using morally reprehensible, philosophies, and expand your vocabulary, and do more learning, instead of thinking you are smart and cannot learn.

(No you didn't say you couldn't learn anything, but you speak like you think so. *And it's sad that I have to subscript my writings to you.

It's sad you lack the knowledge to read things for what they are, instead of trying to find loopholes, so you could say it could be taken as though the writer meant something else. When knowing full well what they meant.)

quote:

I said the part abot the way angels saw earth was my theory. You need to learn to understand this great language, of english.



Okay, let’s say you meant the part about the angels as your theory. Guess what? You still used the bible as your evidence! My point doesn't change one bit. You still cannot propose a theory and then try to support it using evidence you yourself give no validity to.

You did this in here, "God and his angels speak of it this way.(Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)

"

quote:You:I never said otherwise.

Before the above statement-you just can't use the bible as your evidence.

This makes you a flat out liar.



How is that a lie? Where the hell did I say that "You, and any other person that does not believe in the bible, cannot post things on the subject that bring up good points"?

I said that you cannot support a theory with evidence you yourself give no validity too. These are very different sentences.

quote:When did I say the bible has, NO, validity?

Just because I don't believe in the god of the stories, does not mean it has no validity. Did you not read what I said about vampires? I made it quite clear, that false stories could still have some truth.

The only credibility the Bible has, as a possible explanation of supernatural phenomenon, is the supposed argument that it was Divinely Inspired. If you claim it was not Divinely Inspired then the bible means jack shit. It would be have no insight to these phenomenons because it was written by man. According to you, “Men who wanted ppl to believe in their god, so they could have a means of controlling them.”

quote:Moral-1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Shallow-1 : having little depth 3 a : penetrating only the easily or quickly perceived.

Morally shallow=you=having philosophy, with easy, and/or not well thought out principles.



Definition of Morality, from a credible Dictionary source:

"1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct."

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.



Merriam Webster:

"Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty

Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -ties

1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson

2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE



Me “believing that since someone does not believe in the bible they can't point out points made in it” (which is a wrong statement in the first place) has nothing to do with right or wrong conduct. Similarly, you cannot claim that someone is morally banktrupt for doing a math problem wrong, because that does not have anything to do with wrong or right, conduct.

You need to take some English courses because apparently you've been skipping them for years.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-15-2004).]

Metalligod:

It makes you morally shallow because, again, you lack well thought out, or meaningful principles. Need I say it another way? Need I speak in laymans? Can you not understand what is truthfully being said about you?

Stop using morally reprehensible, philosophies, and expand your vocabulary, and do more learning, instead of thinking you are smart and cannot learn.

(No you didn't say you couldn't learn anything, but you speak like you think so. *And it's sad that I have to subscript my writings to you.

It's sad you lack the knowledge to read things for what they are, instead of trying to find loopholes, so you could say it could be taken as though the writer meant something else. When knowing full well what they meant.)

(whole section quoted for context)

from Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.webster.com):

subscript:

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin subscriptus, past participle of subscribere

1: a distinguishing symbol (as a letter or numeral) written immediately below or below and to the right or left of another character

Evidently, that's one that you don't know.

edit: Major format fuckup.

edit2: Well said, Rust. You explained the point that I was trying to make earlier quite fully (and I didn't even have to do all that typing). http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 04-15-2004).]

O, and I missed the most important part of the above quote. This should have been at the beginning of my last post. Apologies, everyone, I'm half-drunk.

Metalligod:

Now back-up your claims, show a word that I don't know the meanging to. I'd love to see you try. So I guess this is another one of your lies.

Anyway, hopefully my previous post makes a bit more sense now.

MetalligodAshes

subscript-

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin subscriptus, past participle of subscribere

1: a distinguishing symbol (as a letter or numeral) written immediately below or below and to the right or left of another character

Evidently, that's one that you don't know.

Ay, Fagboy. Why don't you try and do some learning yourself.

A symbol does not mean marking. As you will find out before this is over.

Symbol-2 a: something that is taught

b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.

Why didn't you also bring that up?

Oh yeah, it would have killed your argument.

A subscript is a signed doctrine. Which is what posts are.(Speaking of the ones on this site.)

You also conviniently did not add that subscribe also means-3 : to assent to: SUPPORT.

It also means 'support', how peculiar that you would leave that out. Ignorant piece of shit.

edit: Major faggot fuckup.

edit2: Not well said, Rust and Ashes.

You explained the point that I was trying to make earlier quite fully (and I didn't even have to do all that typing).

And what point would that be? Oh, the one where you claim I don't know the meaning of words I use. Which is a point you have not yet proven true. You who always speak of proof. Your so pathetic, it isn't even funny to me anymore. It's just plain sad. Sad that you've reached unfathomable stupidity.

-You think you smart your not, it's plain to see that you want me to fall off! It's killing me, lets see... You got the gall, come take me on._Not Meant For Me, as edited by Metalligod-

Metalligod:

Why didn't you also bring that up?

Oh yeah, it would have killed your argument.

A subscript is a signed doctrine. Which is what posts are.(Speaking of the ones on this site.)

O, did I fail to mention that you used "subscript"--which is a noun--as a verb?

You also conviniently did not add that subscribe also means-3 : to assent to: SUPPORT.

Yes, but you didn't use the word subscribe; you used the word subscript.

"Ignorant piece of shit," as you so eloquently put it.

It also means 'support', how peculiar that you would leave that out. Ignorant piece of shit.

Subscript does not mean support. A subscript is generally any symbol dropped below the normal line of text. Usually used in mathematics to differentiate between two related variables. Or, sometimes, in footnoting.

Now, these are my own words, so this may not be exactly correct.

And what point would that be? Oh, the one where you claim I don't know the meaning of words I use... ...as edited by Metalligod-

I was actually referring to the other point. And I don't have to prove what I'm saying to you, you'll never let anything be proven to yourself. I find it sufficient to prove my point to the rest of 'em.

edit:

O, yes. I'll also use your definition to replace the word "subscript," as used, in your previous post.

Metalligod (excerpted):

*And it's sad that I have to subscript my writings to you.

Metalligod (excerpted):

A subscript is a signed doctrine. Which is what posts are.(Speaking of the ones on this site.)

Therefore, by your definition, your statement would read:

*And it's sad that I have to a signed doctrine my writings to you.

So, then, what the hell is that supposed to mean, since you know you're words so well?

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 04-15-2004).]

Metalligod-Rust

Okay, let’s say you meant the part about the angels as your theory. Guess what? You still used the bible as your evidence! My point doesn't change one bit. You still cannot propose a theory and then try to support it using evidence you yourself give no validity to.

You did this in here, "God and his angels speak of it this way.(Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)

Apparently what I said in the previous post, had no affect or effect on your small brain.

First of all when did I ever say that the bible had no validity? I can't recall a time that I did. But it seems you have, so plz point that out.

I've said specifically that, "I made it quite clear, that false stories could still have some truth."

Your still avoid what I asked. Where's your proof? When did I say the bible has no validity?

What evidence that I give no validity to, did I use to supprot my thoery? WHAT evidence did I ever say had no validity?

You can't show any, this means that you are in fact, lying.

How is that a lie? Where the hell did I say that "You, and any other person that does not believe in the bible, cannot post things on the subject that bring up good points"?

Where's the proof? Here:You can argue whatever you want, you just can't use the bible as your evidence.

Is that enough PROOF? If it is not, then here you go:Why? Because if you think it was not Divinely inspired,[b]

Huh, what you say?... You need more? Ok:

you just [b]can't use the bible as your evidence.

It is quite clear that you believe someone can't use the points(evidence) in the bible, if they don't believe the bible was/is "Divinely inspired".

The only credibility the Bible has, as a possible explanation of supernatural phenomenon, is the supposed argument that it was Divinely Inspired.

Just because you believe that, that is the only credibility the bible has.. Does not mean everone else has to. To believe that is the ONLY credidibility it has, is a very stupid, narrow-minded POV.

Apparently you totally grasped nothing from what I said about vamps.

accurding to me, the bible was made as a means of controlling the populous, and still is. However, wasn't the bible edited by a king? Isn't controlling things what kings like to do?

The Hebrew version makes alot more sense. And in case you didn't know, the bible is made like it is so that it can be reshaped time after time, so that ppl can translate it to mean what they want it to mean. All to control.

Definition of Morality, from a credible Dictionary source

I never gave the definition of morality, I gave the definition of MORAL, if you owned a cintilla of intelligence then you'd realize that. If you want the fuckin source I used it is:

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy.

If yo dumbass gat, aol then go to edit, and go to dictionary. It's quite simple to do. Just as simple as realizing the difference in the words, MORAL AND MORALITY.

quote:Ay, Fagboy. Why don't you try and do some learning yourself.

A symbol does not mean marking. As you will find out before this is over.

Symbol-2 a: something that is taught

b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.



Post your dictionary source. Your brain doesn't count.

Symbol:

"

1. Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible.



2. A printed or written sign used to represent an operation, element, quantity, quality, or relation, as in mathematics or music.

Psychology. An object or image that an individual unconsciously uses to represent repressed thoughts, feelings, or impulses: a phallic symbol."

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

Hell, look at his definition! It clearly says: "a distinguishing symbol (as a letter or numeral) "

In this case a symbol IS a marking.

Let's see the definition of subscript in two credible dictionary sources:



Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: sub·script

Pronunciation: 's&b-"skript

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin subscriptus, past participle of subscribere

: a distinguishing symbol (as a letter or numeral) written immediately below or below and to the right or left of another character

- subscript adjective (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=subscript)



Encarta Dictionary:

sub·script ( súb skrìpt )



noun (plural sub·scripts)

character printed on lower level: a character that is printed on a level lower than the rest of the characters on the line, for example, the “2” in the chemical formula “H2O”

adjective:

printed below character: printed below a character in a line of type



[Early 18th century. From Latin subscript , the past participle stem of subscribere (see subscribe). Originally, “writing at the end of a document.”] (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861716547)



I suggest you shut the fuck up before you embarass yourself anymore.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-15-2004).]

quote:First of all when did I ever say that the bible had no validity? I can't recall a time that I did. But it seems you have, so plz point that out

I already spelled it out for you! When you claim it is not divinely inspired automatically it has no validity! Get it? Any and all validity it had derives itself from it being supposedly inspired by god. If you claim it isn't it then has no validity!

If I were to write a book saying that you were a homosexual, and I didn't site any sources, would it have validity? Would it have credibility? No. That's the point. The only validity or credibility the bible has would be from the argument that is was divinely inspired. If you say it wasn't, then its validity and credibility ceases to exist!

I never claimed you came said it had no validity with those exact words, but when you say that is was not Divinely Inspired you are in essence saying that.

quote:Where's the proof? Here:You can argue whatever you want, you just can't use the bible as your evidence.

Is that enough PROOF? If it is not, then here you go:Why? Because if you think it was not Divinely inspired,

Huh, what you say?... You need more? Ok:

you just can't use the bible as your evidence.



Great. Now please tell me how THAT is evidence of me saying this:"You, and any other person that does not believe in the bible, cannot post things on the subject that bring up good points".

quote:I never gave the definition of morality, I gave the definition of MORAL, if you owned a cintilla of intelligence then you'd realize that. If you want the fuckin source I used it is:

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy.

If yo dumbass gat, aol then go to edit, and go to dictionary. It's quite simple to do. Just as simple as realizing the difference in the words, MORAL AND MORALITY.



I wont even bother trying to explain to you how they are still usable, so here is the definition of "morally"

"mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb

synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good."

You're still wrong. How does that I said earlier have anything to do with Ethics, or what is right or wrong behavior? Nothing.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-15-2004).]

Metalligod:

accurding to me, the bible was made as a means of controlling the populous, and still is. However, wasn't the bible edited by a king? Isn't controlling things what kings like to do?

Kings wear clothes. Does that mean that clothes are a means of controlling the population? Kings eat. Does that mean that food is a means of controlling the population? If a king wrote a book about mathematics, would mathematics suddenly become a means for controlling the population?

Just because someone in a position of power is involved in a project does not necessarily mean that that project is meant to increase or shore up that person's power.

edit: To clarify this, I'll reiterate a frequent problem I see with your logic. Here is how one of your statements often goes:

All x are y

therefore

all y are x.

However, this is not necessarily always the case:

All dogs are mammals

therefore

all mammals are dogs.

Quite obviously false.

Another example:

All squares are shapes

therefore

all shapes are squares.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 04-15-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Post your dictionary source. Your brain doesn't count...

I have now come to the realization that you cannot read.

I believe I've already poster my dictionary source. It is not in code, so why can't you understand it? What is the hard part to take in?

I never argued what the damn definition of symbol was in the sentence. You fuckin illbred fool.

I said to subscribe is to support something, just die!

And you shouldn't be the last person to speak of embarrassment. Your whole being is embarrassing. Lets not speak of the fiasco in the how would an angel llok thread.

Lets not talk about the endless contradictions made in here, and in the Angel thread. You constanly lie, and you have very narrow-minded views. You sir, shouldn't speak of such a thing. You are highly unintelligent.

I was wrong about subscript, I can admit things and it does not hurt me. I have learned. Finally, something out of the two of you useful.

I have no problem in admitting that I used subsript in the place of subscribe.

Thank you Ashes, you were finally useful. Even though it was something as simple as a word it is useful.

It still does not excuse the fact that you both lie constantly, and bicker when someone doesn't agree and/or proves you wrong.

It still does not excuse the fact that Ashes will get mad and make dumb posts, all because you've proven him wrong. Or that he will follow you around and make stupid replies to you, until you finally do something wrong.

It does not make right any of those things, or the fact that you Rust do the same thing. You must have lied a thousand times in the how an angel look, thread. You lie in here, and you get mad and try over and over to convince others and yourself that you are right. You're infinately pathetic.

quote:I have now come to the realization that you cannot read.

I believe I've already poster my dictionary source. It is not in code, so why can't you understand it? What is the hard part to take in?



I was referring to the dictionary source of the definition of the word "symbol". In that post you did not post any source. How the fuck I'm I supposed to know which is it? Here I'll quote your entire fucking post so you can point it out for me:



MetalligodAshes

subscript-

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin subscriptus, past participle of subscribere

1: a distinguishing symbol (as a letter or numeral) written immediately below or below and to the right or left of another character

Evidently, that's one that you don't know.

Ay, Fagboy. Why don't you try and do some learning yourself.

A symbol does not mean marking. As you will find out before this is over.

Symbol-2 a: something that is taught

b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.

Why didn't you also bring that up?

Oh yeah, it would have killed your argument.

A subscript is a signed doctrine. Which is what posts are.(Speaking of the ones on this site.)

You also conviniently did not add that subscribe also means-3 : to assent to: SUPPORT.

It also means 'support', how peculiar that you would leave that out. Ignorant piece of shit.

edit: Major faggot fuckup.

edit2: Not well said, Rust and Ashes.

You explained the point that I was trying to make earlier quite fully (and I didn't even have to do all that typing).

And what point would that be? Oh, the one where you claim I don't know the meaning of words I use. Which is a point you have not yet proven true. You who always speak of proof. Your so pathetic, it isn't even funny to me anymore. It's just plain sad. Sad that you've reached unfathomable stupidity.

-You think you smart your not, it's plain to see that you want me to fall off! It's killing me, lets see... You got the gall, come take me on._Not Meant For Me, as edited by Metalligod

---

quote:I never argued what the damn definition of symbol was in the sentence. You fuckin illbred fool.

No you argued that symbol doesn't mean marking. You argued that here: "A symbol does not mean marking. As you will find out before this is over" Well, it does.



Now that you have done all your daily whining, will you admit that you're wrong? That you cannot use the bible as evidence when you discredit it completely by stating it was not Divinely Inspired?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-15-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If I were to write a book saying that you were a homosexual, and I didn't site any sources, would it have validity? Would it have credibility? No. That's the point. The only validity or credibility the bible has would be from the argument that is was divinely inspired. If you say it wasn't, then its validity and credibility ceases to exist!

But if he had stated in this discussion that all along he were simply playing Devil's advocate and arguing for the side of theists (just as you are not refrained from bias atheism) then surely a valid, objective argument could arise. Lets not deny him his democratic right of none scrutinised debate. Carry on the initial discussion...

And, actually, I must add that the Bible can either a) have no validity b) have some historical validity or c) have religious/metaphysical validity.

However, to make claim c), one must, in essence, take the assumption that it is divinely inspired at face value.

quote:But if he had stated in this discussion that all along he were simply playing Devil's advocate and arguing for the side of theists (just as you are not refrained from bias atheism) then surely a valid, objective argument could arise. Lets not deny him his democratic right of none scrutinised debate. Carry on the initial discussion...



Yes and if he were playing Devil's Advocate he would have never claimed that the Bible isn't Divinely Inspired.

I'm not denying that he could say: "If we take the bible as true... blah blah" He could very well have said that. But he said "theory". You don't support theories with evidence you yourself discredit.

--

ashesofzen explained it perfectly.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-15-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by ashesofzen:

And, actually, I must add that the Bible can either a) have no validity b) have some historical validity or c) have religious/metaphysical validity.

However, to make claim c), one must, in essence, take the assumption that it is divinely inspired at face value.

If you are reffering this to me, it does not make you seem to have any intelligence.

I say this because I've been quite clear on my POV of the bible.

If you are talking about me, then you have greatly misread what I've said. I pointed out clearly and quite specifically that this is not the case with me.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yes and if he were playing Devil's Advocate...

Let me say it this way.

Show one post where I've used evidence to support my theories. Then show when I've discredited that evidence. Plz do so, I am honestly beging you.

Metalligod, if I was going to direct a comment at you, don't you think I would make some indication? Perhaps, like I did in this post.

Metalligod:

Show one post where I've used evidence to support my theories. Then show when I've discredited that evidence. Plz do so, I am honestly beging you.

as excerpted from Metalligod (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/002414.html):

Ok, ealier I've said that maybe Earth is hell. Well maybe this maybe isn't a maybe at all.

First let me say that the bible uses the word 'in', in the stead of 'on'. The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell.

Revelation 12:9, says he was cast to earth. Wouldn't this then mean that hell is earth?

In the begining of earth's existance, it was a place of fire, and stones, and lava(river of fire). Being an angel and seeing Gods' work, in motion, I think it amazed them. Maybe seeing as this is the way the earth started, the first way they saw it. God and his angels speak of it this way.(Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)

Metalligod (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/002414-2.html):

I've never said otherwise.

As a matter of fact, I've said the bible was written by man several times. I can't recall ever saying a god wrote the bible.

The subject is about Where hell is occurding to the bible. Not who wrote it, or if it's true. It's strickly about what it says.

If the Bible is not the word of God, how can it have any validity in regards to God?

And, if it's not an authority, then your evidence, which comes from the book, is invalidated.

Dig what our point is, now?

Metalligod-Ashes

Kings wear clothes. Does that mean that clothes are a means of controlling the population?

See this is my problem with you. I've given up on you before, and this is precisely why.

I can never understand why you would make such comparisons or say such stupid things.

You have to be the most mentally incapable person I've ever conversed with.

I'm not even going to make any remarks on the above question. I can only hope that you understand how stupid such a thing comparison is. I can only hope that one day you are able to know that it has nothing at all to do with what I said.

I hope that you are able to realize that only one who posseses supreme stupidity could utter such a sentence.

And to have Rust believe this is good that you have said this, makes me lose even more hope for this race. Even though I think low of Rust, I'd never imagine that he'd praise such stupidity.

I'm not going to dare answer, no, never! I wouldn't dignify it with a response, never. I just hope you realize the stupidity of it.

I won't even go to the sentence you said after that, but I, forget it!

If a king wrote a book about mathematics, would mathematics suddenly become a means for controlling the population?

What would make you say such an imbecilic thing? Why would you say this? You think I'm playing when I say things, but I'm not. I can't stress to you how maddening this question is. But this just proves you are dumb beyond restoration.

Just because someone in a position of power is involved in a project does not necessarily mean that that project is meant to increase or shore up that person's power.

When in the hell have I said otherwise? I've never said all kings, or all people in power, or any such things as to make you make those hideous, mind-scarring comparisons.

And then the pivot of your stupidity does not stop there. No, you show you have more.

To clarify this, I'll reiterate a frequent problem I see with your logic...

You should not even dare to speak of my logic, when you don't understand something I say you just go on bitching about it.

You don't ask me what my reasoning is or could I explain it in another way. Or even say to me, Could you explain this. You immediately criticize. So don't even dare to speak on my logic, you don't know my logic.

You act or rather behave like an ass, instead of telling me to explain something. Don't try and elaborate on something you don't know anything about. And have never once given yourself a chance to understand. Don't fuckin do it! You can honestly speak on what YOU think my logic is, but don't dare to speak on what it actually is.

For this very reason, and the fact that you support false info. This is why I'd stopped even bothering to read your post, because you did the exact samething in the "Is Satan truly evil?" thread. It's just sheer ignorance on your part.

How the hell is any of that discrediting?

And the whole bible is not said to be the word of God. So this does not make you seem smart at all.

If you think that everyword in the bible is what God is supposed to have said. Then you REALLY REALLY need to do some reading! Like right now!

You prove what I say everytime you post. You never fail to say, or ask something very stupid.

You need to go back and re-read what you think you've read and interpreted correctly.

AND LIKE I SAID B4, SOMETHING THAT IS SAID TO BE FALSE, CAN ALSO HAVE TRUTH IN IT.

IN OTHER WORDS-NOT ALL FALSE THINGS ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

IN OTHER WORDS-FALSE TELLS CAN HAVE SOME PIECE OF THE TRUTH IN THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND ALSO, WHEN IN THE HELL DID I SAY THE BIBLE WASN'T TRUE. I SAID ONLY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT.

DOES ME NOT BELIEVING IN SOMETHING MAKE IT FALSE?

DO YOU TWO NOW SEE WHY YOU APPEAR TO BE LESS THAN STUPID?

IT'S NOT FUCKIN CODE PPL.

Incase it's not clear who I'm talking to, it's you Ashes.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-15-2004).]

When I said "Kings wear clothes. Does that mean that clothes are a means of controlling the population? Kings eat. Does that mean that food is a means of controlling the population? If a king wrote a book about mathematics, would mathematics suddenly become a means for controlling the population;" I was pointing out the flaw in your statement that (to paraphrase) because a king had edited the Bible, it was a tool for controlling the populace.

So, if you'll assert that such statements are stupid, are not also saying that statment you advanced is stupid?

And, since you failed to rebut it, that must be the case.

Metalligod:

When in the hell have I said otherwise? I've never said all kings, or all people in power, or any such things as to make you make those hideous, mind-scarring comparisons.

Right about here:

Metalligod:

accurding (sic) to me, the bible was made as a means of controlling the populous, and still is. However, wasn't the bible edited by a king? Isn't controlling things what kings like to do

And, if you're not saying that the king (person in power) wasn't involved in creating this "means of controlling the populous," please explain to me exactly what you were trying to say.

Metalligod:

You immediately criticize. So don't even dare to speak on my logic, you don't know my logic.

"Your" logic, eh? There aren't different flavors of logic--it's not something where someone gets to decide the rules. There is only logic.

And I never give myself a chance to understand? Really?

Did it ever occur to you that I already know where your argument is going? You think that no one else has ever had the thoughts you have? A tad pretentious, wouldn't that be?

I support false info? Such as?

*************

So, what you're saying (in the second post) is that God didn't inspire the Bible?

Then, how does what it say provide any support whatsover for Earth being Hell? If it wasn't a result of God's authority, why does it have any more credibility that Grimm's Fairy Tales, the Necronomicon, or the Book of Mormon?

Metalligod-Ashes

So, if you'll assert that such statements are stupid, are not also saying that statment you advanced is stupid?

No the statement that I made was not stupid. I spoke to you as though you were educated that's the stupid thing I've done. I spoke as though you knew King James edited the bible.

I spoke as though you knew that there was one king who edited the bible, that was dumb of me. Dumb of me to think you'd then know this, thusly knowing that I could be speaking of one king. You are so stupid, you speak on things you don't know about. Just pathetic.

And, since you failed to rebut it, that must be the case.

I've already said why I didn't rebut. But apparently your stupid to know even that.

I believe what was said was: See this is my problem with you. I've given up on you before, and this is precisely why.

I can never understand why you would make such comparisons or say such stupid things.

I figured that it was a highly stupid question that had nothing to do with the subject. I figured it didn't need to be answered just because you were too stupid to know that I was talking about one king. Singular not plural.



And then you stupidly you go and quote:However, wasn't the bible edited by a king? Isn't controlling things what kings like to do

Which a half-brained person could understand but not you. A half-brained person could realize that it would just sound very stupid to say: Isnt controlling what king like to do?

And they would still be able to understand that I was talking about one person. Yet you can't, hmm. Why should I waste time with you then, if you can't understand something so simple?

Can you now see why you saying, "Right about here" and then going on to quote what you had quoted, makes you seem very unintelligent?

"Your" logic, eh? There aren't different flavors of logic--it's not something where someone gets to decide the rules. There is only logic.

Yes and every person 'Reasons'(another word for Logic) differently, and for you to try and accrue everyones reasoning so stupidly makes you stupid. Any creature that would amass mans' thinking patterns so collectively has got to be vastly underestimating it, and be immeasurably STUPID. In this case you!

And I never give myself a chance to understand? Really?

No! No was the response and not written in code. No, icksnay, nadda, ah uh, um um, nope, naaaa, nauh.

Did it ever occur to you that I already know where your argument is going? You think that no one else has ever had the thoughts you have? A tad pretentious, wouldn't that be?

It occurd to me that you think you know, and you have several times, and have been wrong. You never pay attention to my reasoning of why.

But let me ask you this, did it ever occur to you, that for the most part you are the only one who criticizes what I say? The others who criticize, do so after I've said very nasty things, and that is the main reason why, they do it.

I support false info? Such as?

Such ass the reason why Satan was thrown out of heaven.

False info such as, neutron stars don't have atoms.

Supporting false info such as when Craftian said I was wrong about what I said about the angels.

I'm tired of this, so if it is not enough to make you see that you do indeed support false info, then I'll be wasting my time conversing with you.

So, what you're saying (in the second post) is that God didn't inspire the Bible?

No that's not what I meant, nor could it be construed from what I said by anyone but an idiot.

I recall specifically saying, that everything in the bible is not said by God. Which is the exact opposite of what you said.

(Speaking of which:If the Bible is not the word of God, how can it have any validity in regards to God?

The whole damn bible is broken into parts, that have different ppls stories, John, Paul, etc. So what you are saying is that they're all God?

Yeah I can see why you make so much sense.)

Why this is not clear, I can't know, that answer is infinately beyond what I can grasp.

Then, how does what it say provide any support whatsover for Earth being Hell?

The better question is, Why do YOU believe that the bible only has validity if it is the words of God?

if it wasn't a result of God's authority, why does it have any more credibility that Grimm's Fairy Tales, the Necronomicon, or the Book of Mormon?

I never said if wasn't a result of God's authority. I can't recall ever saying anything about its credibility being better than any other tales.

Quite the contrary, and why this is hard to understand is astounding me. You have completely peaked my curiosity with this.

What makes you not understand. Is it a disease, is it on purpose, is it just that you are that much impared that you can't underatand?

Whatever the case it is remarkable.

Like I said before, ALL tells can have some truth in them, if not completely true.

Why you can't grasp this, again is astounding.

quote:How the hell is any of that discrediting?



Because you give up any authority the bible has among "supernatural phenomenon" when you say it is not divinely inspired.

quote:AND LIKE I SAID B4, SOMETHING THAT IS SAID TO BE FALSE, CAN ALSO HAVE TRUTH IN IT.

IN OTHER WORDS-NOT ALL FALSE THINGS ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

IN OTHER WORDS-FALSE TELLS CAN HAVE SOME PIECE OF THE TRUTH IN THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



That is true. But that doesn't apply here. It is a totally different case.

quote:

AND ALSO, WHEN IN THE HELL DID I SAY THE BIBLE WASN'T TRUE. I SAID ONLY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT.

DOES ME NOT BELIEVING IN SOMETHING MAKE IT FALSE?

Read my post! Where the hell has anyone here said you said it wasn't true?

Now, let me explain it to you, yet again:



Why is the bible even respected as a source of information when it comes to Angels, Hell, devils, demons, gods, miracles, etc.? Why? Because it is said to be inspired by god, plain and simple. Because people believe it was inspired by god, then they give the bible credibility when it speaks of super natural occurrences like angels, devils, miracles and such.

If you say that it was not divinely inspired, then any credibility the bible had about super natural phenomenon ceases to exist! Now, you may believe that some of it is true; but you cannot use it as evidence to support your theory. How could you use it if it lost any and all credibility!

An analogy:

Let's say you read a book that accurately describes extraterrestrials. You then come to know that the author was stoned out of his fucking mind when he wrote it. The book then, has lost any and all credibility. It may still hold some truths; but you cannot use it to support or prove you theory on how extraterrestrials look because it lost its credibility! Get it?

Something that may be true is weak evidence, and not enough to theorize on. The Bible, if not the inspired word of God, has as much validity as me writing about Pale'krae...

Pale'krea are mutant humanoid insects that hunt the human strongholds for fresh virgin blood. However, Nerothos, the human's God, helps keep them away from the strongholds.

Now, if divinely inspired, then there exist Pale'krea, the God Nerothos exists, and that God protects the humans from Pale'krea.

If not divinely inspired, then those words back nothing but my imagination and typing skills.

It can't be used to support any theory on a religion centered around it, as it has no basis in fact unless it is made under divine influences. That is the point Rust is trying to make.

AAA similar triangles MAY be congruent triangles, but it's a conditional piece of evidence, without corroborating evidence it is completely useless to the proof; the bible, if not fact due to divine inspiration, is potentially true, but not evidence of anything in itself due to lack of corroborating evidence. If you believe something to be the word of man when it deals with the ethereal, it's not evidence. If you believe it to be the inspired word of God, then you may believe it to be evidence; without the pre-existing notion that the Bible is fact, it is not evidence of jack shit, including your "theory"...theory being used loosely as a true theory is backed by hard, generally testable evidence. Yours is backed by something you consider to be fiction, with a possibility of some truth in it. It can warrant research to determine if it is factual, but it is not factual unless it can be proven so.

I'm not trying to insult you, but if 'evidence' is not tested and found to be fact, then it is not evidence. That's true in logical exercises, hence the court systems loving to use that whole 'evidence needed to convict' method.

Metalligod:

No the statement that I made was not stupid. I spoke to you as though you were educated that's the stupid thing I've done. I spoke as though you knew King James edited the bible.

I spoke as though you knew that there was one king who edited the bible, that was dumb of me. Dumb of me to think you'd then know this, thusly knowing that I could be speaking of one king. You are so stupid, you speak on things you don't know about. Just pathetic.

I did know this. What does that have to do with the point I made?

I've already said why I didn't rebut. But apparently your stupid to know even that.

I believe what was said was: See this is my problem with you. I've given up on you before, and this is precisely why.

I can never understand why you would make such comparisons or say such stupid things.

I figured that it was a highly stupid question that had nothing to do with the subject. I figured it didn't need to be answered just because you were too stupid to know that I was talking about one king. Singular not plural.

You know, you have quite a lot to say about my stupidity. Why don't you try and focus on what I'm saying, instead? If my questions are so intellectually inferior, surely they mustn't be too difficult to tear down?

I'm sorry that I used the plural case of the word "king." Would you like me to repeat my statement with the singular case inserted? Will you understand my point, then?

And then you stupidly you go and quote:However, wasn't the bible edited by a king? Isn't controlling things what kings like to do

Which a half-brained person could understand but not you. A half-brained person could realize that it would just sound very stupid to say: Isnt controlling what king like to do?

And they would still be able to understand that I was talking about one person. Yet you can't, hmm. Why should I waste time with you then, if you can't understand something so simple?

Can you now see why you saying, "Right about here" and then going on to quote what you had quoted, makes you seem very unintelligent?

I can't make heads or tails of this passage. Could you please repeat that with fewer insults and more content?

Yes and every person 'Reasons'(another word for Logic) differently, and for you to try and accrue everyones reasoning so stupidly makes you stupid.

What? I can't understand what the hell this is saying? "...Accrue (sic) everyones (sic) reasoning so stupidly makes you stupid" makes absolutely no sense. It's gibberish. Please restate this along with the previous statement.

Any creature that would amass mans' thinking patterns so collectively has got to be vastly underestimating it, and be immeasurably STUPID. In this case you!

Again, restate this so that it's intelligible, please.

It occurd to me that you think you know, and you have several times, and have been wrong. You never pay attention to my reasoning of why.

Yes, actually, I do.

But let me ask you this, did it ever occur to you, that for the most part you are the only one who criticizes what I say? The others who criticize, do so after I've said very nasty things, and that is the main reason why, they do it.

I don't care. Others can choose to respond, or not. Their lives, not mine. My convictions aren't chosen because they are most popular among everyone else at the moment.

Such ass the reason why Satan was thrown out of heaven.

False info such as, neutron stars don't have atoms.

You're going to bring that all out again?

Honestly, you missed the entire point of that argument. There's no sense going back there, you still won't get it.

After all, you're the one who tried to claim that all matter was atomic in nature. And that God (the J.C variety) could not be omniscient simply because he asked Satan where he'd been.

Supporting false info such as when Craftian said I was wrong about what I said about the angels.

I don't even remember what the hell you are referring to. Link me, please?

...No that's not what I meant, nor could it be construed from what I said by anyone but an idiot.

I recall specifically saying, that everything in the bible is not said by God. Which is the exact opposite of what you said.

Now, the post i'm referring to (excerpted):

...And the whole bible is not said to be the word of God...

Now, it could be construed that you are, in fact, saying that God didn't inspire the Bible.

(Speaking of which:If the Bible is not the word of God, how can it have any validity in regards to God?

The whole damn bible is broken into parts, that have different ppls stories, John, Paul, etc. So what you are saying is that they're all God?

Yeah I can see why you make so much sense.)

O, of course. And, if I write a song inspired by Pearl Jam, I am now Pearl Jam. Is that an example of how your ability to reason is superior? Am I stupid, since I apply the logic to a different situation?

The better question is, Why do YOU believe that the bible only has validity if it is the words of God?

Hexadecimal covered this one already, I believe.

...Quite the contrary, and why this is hard to understand is astounding me. You have completely peaked my curiosity with this.

What makes you not understand. Is it a disease, is it on purpose, is it just that you are that much impared that you can't underatand?

It's a disease, alright. And the only person I've had discourse with is you...therefore, you owe me for the bills, m'boy. And you better tell all of your other partners, so they can get tested.

In regards to retroactive edits to one of Metalligod's posts ("angry caps" removed):

And like I said b4, something that is said to be false, can also have truth in it.

In other words-not all false things are completely false.

In other words-false tells can have some piece of truth in them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, sometimes something which is false is flat-out false.

And also, when in the hell did I say the Bible wasn't true. I said only that I don't believe in it.

So, if you're saying that the Bible is true, why don't you believe in it? When one believes in something, is that belief not founded in the fact that it is true? That is, can someone believe something if they know it to be false? Can someone disbelieve something if they know it to be true?

Does me not believing in something make it false?

Of course not.

...Incase it's not clear who I'm talking to, it's you Ashes

You're such a sweetheart, talking to me all specific-like.

edit: Well said, Rust & Hex. Your clarity never ceases to amaze, I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the various points-counterpoints.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 04-16-2004).]

Something that may be true is weak evidence, and not enough to theorize on. The Bible, if not the inspired word of God, has as much validity as me writing about Pale'krae...

The whole freakin bible is a theory in itself. It is also evidence for Christians, so according to you it is weak evidence?

It can't be used to support any theory on a religion centered around it, as it has no basis in fact unless it is made under divine influences. That is the point Rust is trying to make.

I knew from the get go, what point he was trying to make. There is no need in saying it over and over.

What you ppl don't get it, number 1 I've never said it wasn't divinely inspired. So what you are saying is needless, and annoyingly repeditive.(No offense, but the point your arguing has no purpose)

Not once did I say, "It was not Divinely Inspired" so just stop bringing it up. If you had read my posts you'd know that.

Just because somebody does not believe in every word and detail of the bible, does not mean they think it is entirely untrue.

No, I don't believe God is exactly the way the bible says He is. For someone to believe so, would mean one of two things. 1-They stupidly follow and believe every word in the bible, and ignor the hypocrisies, and contradictions, and the sheer ignorance of their god, whom they believe is all knowing and all powerful.

Or 2, they take into context the glaring hypocrisies, the errors in judgement of the Lord, the erroneous belief that He is omnipotent, and omniscient. Erroneous factors, and purposely confusing stories, the fact that angels are supposed to be wise, yet one would challenges His power.

The inconsistancies, the needless suffering, the happening of Christ, they(to shorten this up) don't ignor all of this stuff and think to themselves, "God can't be exactly the way He's described in the bible because everything is too inconsistant."

Anyone who has a freakin mind and takes the bible for everything it is claimed to be, has got to be very stupid. And that just aint me.

I completely understood what Rust was trying to say, but it does not hold true in everyones case.

And for you to say it is weak evidence is a stupid and insulting comment. Again, the whole bible is evidence to something that has supposedly happened, and something that supposedly will happen.

YOU just completely discredited every religion, there is nothing but chance that says a religion is true. There is a CHANCE that Christianity is true, there is a CHANCE that Buddhism and a huge list of many other religions are the ones that are true.

There is no concrete proof to support any religion that speaks of a higher being. So it is your belief that something that maybe true is weak evidence, then you shouldn't even be posting in this forum.

There is only the maybe factor when it comes to religion. Now until YOU can show some concrete truth of any religion, I suggest that you not ever have an oppinion on a religion, because you have already dismissed it in your post.

What ever you submit, you have already dubbed it "weak evidence!"

It is sad that someone would even say the word 'evidence' and 'religion' in the same post, accurding to you. Because all religions have no concrete evidence, only the maybe factor.

No, I don't believe the bible word for word, so when you say: "If you believe something to be the word of man when it deals with the ethereal, it's not evidence."

Remember what I've said previously, "false stories could still have some truth."

I'm still sticking to my belief, yes I backed up my theory with the bible.

BUT, when I did this, was I or was I not, taking the bible in the context of its claims?(As Ashes so greatly put it)

Now in this case Rust's, "The Bible, if not the inspired word of God, has no validity"

Does not even apply in this situation. So there wasn't even any need to say the Divine blah blah, it has no bearing on this situation. I took the bible in the context of its claims, so my theory then has validity. There's a CHANCE the it is true.

And there's a chance that what Hex just typed above is true. Are you going to take that into account, now?

Metalligod:

...Just because somebody does not believe in every word and detail of the bible, does not mean they think it is entirely untrue.

Yes, but if the book sum toto is supposed to be the Word of God, and you say that parts of it are not, then you are saying that it cannot be entirely Divinely Inspired.

No one is claiming that you think the whole book is untrue. However, if it is not true in whole, how does one make any decisions about which parts to select as truth? Only those things which back up you argument? How can we evaluate it if it is not wholly true?

No, I don't believe God... ...yet one would challenges His power.

Interpretation can easily be used to make Scripture mean damn near anything. With no criteria for judging the Book in regards to spiritual matters, it becomes a mere tool for any fool to come up with a crackpot theory (no, Metalligod, I am not taking a shot at you).

I did know this. What does that have to do with the point I made?

You were asking dumbass questions about all kings. I was speaking of one king, you felt that I was not. I proved to you I was speaking of one king, and you still don't understand what the point was, your hopeless.

I've already said why I didn't rebut. But apparently your stupid to know even that.

I believe what was said was: See this is my problem with you. I've given up on you before, and this is precisely why.

I can never understand why you would make such comparisons or say such stupid things.

I figured that it was a highly stupid question that had nothing to do with the subject. I figured it didn't need to be answered just because you were too stupid to know that I was talking about one king. Singular not plural.

You know, you have quite a lot to say about my stupidity. Why don't you try and focus on what I'm saying, instead? If my questions are so intellectually inferior, surely they mustn't be too difficult to tear down?

They're not, but why bother? Your whole game is about asking stupid questions, and straying from the issue. I don't want to play your game, so why then would I answer assinine questions?

I'm sorry that I used the plural case of the word "king." Would you like me to repeat my statement with the singular case inserted? Will you understand my point, then?

I completely understood your point. But again it had nothing to do with anything. Just another chance at straying from the topic.

You tried to make a dumb point about all kings when I was speaking of only one, a paticular king. one, uno.

You tried to make about about all kings, saying something childish like, "just because kings wear pants, does that mean they're trying to make you wear them.

Or something equally as lame and stupid.

I can't make heads or tails of this passage. Could you please repeat that with fewer insults and more content?

I'll try but some how you always find a way to be nasty, and I can only respond with nasty words.

I was saying that you didn't need to make that post about, what kings wear and whatnot. It was plain stupid and childish.

I wasn't saying all kings were trying to control everything, as you made it seem. You made it seem like I was saying, everything a king does, is just another scheme for controlling ppl.

When in actuality, I was speaking of only one king. And then I went on to say that kings like to control. Which is true, it's something they have to do, that's why they're kings.

But when I said that, I said: Isnt controlling things what kings like to do?

I read your response and it seemed as though you thought I was talking about all kings. I tried to stress to you that a half-brained person could realize I was talking about one king. But your reply said all that stuff about, if kings did this, and kings did that, would it mean they were trying to make everyone do this?

And I just thought you were extremely stupid for making such a reply. I never said it meant something deeper if kings were envolved in something. And I made no such remarks that implied that I thought so either.

What? I can't understand what the hell this is saying? "...Accrue (sic) everyones (sic) reasoning so stupidly makes you stupid" makes absolutely no sense. It's gibberish. Please restate this along with the previous statement.

I won't restate it. It was said quite clearly, and it is your fault that you can't understand it. It's also very sad. I will however, help you, Accrue means to like..., hmmm, collect!, or group!. Yeah great word, group, that's it, it means to group.

And amass means, hmmm, ok ok I got it, group.

I used different words with the same meaning so it wouldn't make the paragraph seem so repetitive. It's the same as when ppl say the word 'like' too much. It's distracting and annoying.

Again, restate this so that it's intelligible, please.

It is again your own fault you don't know the meaning of these words, o great english scholar sir. If that is unintelligible to you, then it's your own fault that your that dumb.

Yes, actually, I do.

Yes actually you don't but I haven't the energy for another one of your bicker fests.

But let me ask you this, did it ever occur to you, that for the most part you are the only one who criticizes what I say? The others who criticize, do so after I've said very nasty things, and that is the main reason why, they do it.

I don't care. Others can choose to respond, or not. Their lives, not mine. My convictions aren't chosen because they are most popular among everyone else at the moment.

Coulda fooled the hell out of me. Sure doesn't seem like it.

Such ass the reason why Satan was thrown out of heaven.

Hehe, I just pointed that out, cause I messed up, and put ass.

You're going to bring that all out again?

You asked, so don't get mad at me, you support false info, and it's your own fault.

Honestly, you missed the entire point of that argument. There's no sense going back there, you still won't get it.

Can't mis a piont where there is none.

After all, you're the one who tried to claim that all matter was atomic in nature. And that God (the J.C variety) could not be omniscient simply because he asked Satan where he'd been.

Actually, you're wrong I did not. And again it was another one of you games, that strayed away from the topic. Not one thing you posted in that thread was on topic.

You made a lame attempt to get on topic but it was again another lame game of yours.

Supporting false info such as when Craftian said I was wrong about what I said about the angels.

I don't even remember what the hell you are referring to. Link me, please?

Not my job.(Remember those words?) Do it yourself, it's quite simple, are you too impared to do even that? Just go to page2, and click on the topic which was about how angels look. And then click on it. A very simple task.

Now, the post i'm referring to (excerpted):

...And the whole bible is not said to be the word of God...

Now, it could be construed that you are, in fact, saying that God didn't inspire the Bible.

I've already addressed this,(excerpted):nor could it be construed from what I said by anyone but an idiot.

O, of course. And, if I write a song inspired by Pearl Jam, I am now Pearl Jam. Is that an example of how your ability to reason is superior? Am I stupid, since I apply the logic to a different situation?

O, of course another gay ass question. What does this have to do with anything I've said? When did I say that God did not inspire the bible?

I could have sworn, the very question that you asked me was: "If the Bible is not the word of God, how can it have any validity in regards to God?"

My exact answer was:The whole damn bible is broken into parts, that have different ppls stories, John, Paul, etc. So what you are saying is that they're all God?

Now plz do explain, what in the hell does any of that have to do with inspiration. Your question was not did God inspire the bible? It was that lame ass shit about the bible being the word of God.

Which it is not. It is broken into specific part for different ppl's POV's, one of which is not God. Also parts by angels. Why hmm, not a person, nor an angel. Can you now see why I have so many names to call you? Can you now see why I say you are so childish and dumb? Because it's simply true.

The better question is, Why do YOU believe that the bible only has validity if it is the words of God?

Hexadecimal covered this one already, I believe.

Just another bitch ass cop out, that ppl use when they have nothing to say. What the hell happened to, "I don't care. Others can choose to respond, or not. Their lives, not mine. My convictions aren't chosen because they are most popular among everyone else"

Just more of your Bull shit. I can now add hypocrit to your description.

...Quite the contrary, and why this is hard to understand is astounding me. You have completely peaked my curiosity with this.

What makes you not understand. Is it a disease, is it on purpose, is it just that you are that much impared that you can't underatand?

It's a disease, alright. And the only person I've had discourse with is you...therefore, you owe me for the bills, m'boy. And you better tell all of your other partners, so they can get tested.

WOW, I didn't know you were funny. So a being of your kind can have a sense of humor. Absolutely astounding!

But let one thing be clear. This disease is inherited. sorry bub, http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)

However, sometimes something which is false is flat-out false.

Right, and everything should be assessed differently, instead of just dismissing things as you so regularly do.

And also, when in the hell did I say the Bible wasn't true. I said only that I don't believe in it.

So, if you're saying that the Bible is true, why don't you believe in it?

I'm not saying the bible is true or isnt true. I'm not agnostic, nor atheist, or theist. I believe that things are possible. I'd never devote my life to something that could be the workings of someones imagination.

But I'm not going to just dismiss something either, because it's not what I want to be true. So I stand alone on these situations. And I can only assure myself of one thing. That things things are possibilities.

When one believes in something, is that belief not founded in the fact that it is true?

Not all the time Ashes. Use the mind you BELIEVE you have.

People believe in the bible, but they can't prove it's true, and they don't know that it is true. The belief that it is true is what makes them stick to it. The hope that it's true. Hope is all that they have, because they certainly don't have PROOF.

That is, can someone believe something if they know it to be false?

Yes they can. They can believe that if they want it so bad it can become true. You mean to tell me that you've lived amontst humans this long and you don't know this?

For instance the bible again. It's beliefs have been proved wrong so many times. Don't you know this, that religions worst enemy is science?

Don't you know that many scientists have been persecuted for disproving such things?

Such as Gods kingdom being in heaven, which was once thought to be the sky. And scientists were executed for disproving such things. Like when proving that stars in the sky were distant planets and suns. Not the kingdom of God.

Can someone disbelieve something if they know it to be true?

Yes, it is done in the great U.S. quite often. You live here, you know this. Those polygamists up north, know the truth. The Amish know the truth. That the 'civilized' world is not a world of 'demons' and/or sinners. This whole freakin planet is the world of sinners.

The white supremist know it. They are just mad cause they're broke, they know they're not superior. Some of them live in disintergrating shacks in the woods, dude. They know they're not superior to anything.

Those fuckin stupid homophobes know that aids isn't sent by God to smite gays, they just wanna believe it.

Of course not.

So then why ask such stupid questions?

You're such a sweetheart, talking to me all specific-like.

What can I say, dammit I love ya. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

edit,blah,blah,blah

Are you sure you don't care? Because it really! really! doesn't seem like it.

Metalligod, you got a lot of growing up to do.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Metalligod, you got a lot of growing up to do.

Beany if your gonna say something elaborate.

You befuddle me with your stupidity. You always say something really stupid. And then have no reasoning why, or never talk about the subject. You just pick something stupid to say and leave.

Well next time just skip the talking part and leave.

Before you even dare to speak about someone else, you need to assess how it'll make you look. You say I need to grow up and you come and say an insult then have nothing to say about why you said it, or the subject. That is very childish. Just die, you Useless Imbecile.

Metalligod...there is something to be said about brevity.

Metalligod:

You were asking dumbass questions about all kings... ...I was talking about one king. Singular not plural.

I know that you were talking about a specific king. The point was: Simply because a king edited the Bible, it is not necessarily written as a means to control the populace.

Whether or not I used the singular or plural case is extraneous.

You tried to make a dumb point about all kings when I was speaking of only one, a paticular king. one, uno.

Are you honestly that dense?

I won't restate it. It was said quite clearly, and it is your fault that you can't understand it... ..It's distracting and annoying.

Here, again, is the statement:

"Yes and every person 'Reasons'(another word for Logic) differently, and for you to try and accrue everyones reasoning so stupidly makes you stupid. Any creature that would amass mans' thinking patterns so collectively has got to be vastly underestimating it, and be immeasurably STUPID. In this case you!"

Translated, roughly, as:

"Yes, and every person reasons differently, and for you to be so stupid and try to accumulate everyone's reasoning makes you stupid. Any creature that would gather mans' thinking patterns so collectively has got to be vastly underestimating it, and be immeasurably stupid. In this case you!"

That's the best I can get out of the passage. It still really makes little sense. All I can really get out of this is that, apparently, it's stupid for me say that there are logic and illogical ideas and that applying one standard of logic is "stupid." Also, for someone so terribly concerned with redundancy, you sure use the word stupid an awful lot.

O, and group (http://www.webster.com/)'s synonyms include: assemble, cluster, collect, gather, and round up.

O, of course another gay ass question. What does this have to do with anything I've said? When did I say that God did not inspire the bible?

I could have sworn, the very question that you asked me was: "If the Bible is not the word of God, how can it have any validity in regards to God?"

My exact answer was:The whole damn bible is broken into parts, that have different ppls stories, John, Paul, etc. So what you are saying is that they're all God?

No, but the point is that they were supposedly writing under divine inspiration.

Now plz do explain, what in the hell does any of that have to do with inspiration... ...The better question is, Why do YOU believe that the bible only has validity if it is the words of God?

Did you not read any of the posts on this page? I think that myself, Hexadecimal, and Rust have all restated the reason several different times!

Just another bitch ass cop out, that ppl use when they have nothing to say. What the hell happened to, "I don't care. Others can choose to respond, or not. Their lives, not mine. My convictions aren't chosen because they are most popular among everyone else"

I agreed with Hexadecimal. It would have served no purpose for me to post the same argument again. It would have been redundant, and silly, to waste everyone's time doing so. If he hadn't, I would have done so.

People believe in the bible, but they can't prove it's true, and they don't know that it is true. The belief that it is true is what makes them stick to it. The hope that it's true. Hope is all that they have, because they certainly don't have PROOF.

Nothing can be absolutely proven true. However, people who hold to the Bible are convinced of it's truth. Have you ever talked to anyone who does? My family has deep ties to Roman Catholicism; as a matter of fact, the priest comes over fairly frequently. Therfore, I do have direct experience with deeply religious people.

For instance the bible again. It's beliefs have been proved wrong so many times. Don't you know this, that religions worst enemy is science?

Don't you know that many scientists have been persecuted for disproving such things?

Such as Gods kingdom being in heaven, which was once thought to be the sky. And scientists were executed for disproving such things. Like when proving that stars in the sky were distant planets and suns. Not the kingdom of God.

Unfortunately, the scientists who disproved the Bible, as you put it, were the one's who saw it as false. Not the people who actually believed in the Book. They saw these scientists as heretics &c. As far as I can tell, your argument has absolutely no validity.

Yes, it is done in the great U.S. quite often. You live here, you know this. Those polygamists up north, know the truth. The Amish know the truth. That the 'civilized' world is not a world of 'demons' and/or sinners. This whole freakin planet is the world of sinners.

The white supremist know it. They are just mad cause they're broke, they know they're not superior. Some of them live in disintergrating shacks in the woods, dude. They know they're not superior to anything.

Those fuckin stupid homophobes know that aids isn't sent by God to smite gays, they just wanna believe it.

When did you gain the powers of telepathy?

edit: format error

edit2: format error

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 04-16-2004).]

Metalligod:

Beany if your gonna say something elaborate... ...That is very childish. Just die, you Useless Imbecile.

Here is some honest advice, Metalligod. If you wish to become even half of the intellectual you claim to be, you must learn several very important things.

First, you must learn to love questions. Questions give you a chance to exercise your ability to reason. Even a question that seems idiotic at fist glance could have a very important point buried inside. The only way that one can arrive at answer is through asking questions. Without them, all of the theories and logic in the world won't help you one bit.

Secondly, you must learn to abandon the pettiness and lack of sophistication that the slurs which you almost constantly use indicate. No one looks highly of a man who insults those around him, even if he does raise good points.

Third, learn to take criticism more lightly. If you've got something to say, and it's intelligent, no one who matters is going to call you an idiot. On an internet forum, what you say is who you are. If people ask for clarification, or start a debate with you, it's of far stronger character to be civil and keep a bit of humor rather than resorting to insults and putting words in the opposition's mouth.

You can do what you will with this advice, I just thought it may be good for you to see.

mother fucker, jews, catholics, mother fucking niggers, as far as im concerned can all be mother fucking shot like the scum they are

Metalligod:

quote:I knew from the get go, what point he was trying to make. There is no need in saying it over and over.

What you ppl don't get it, number 1 I've never said it wasn't divinely inspired. So what you are saying is needless, and annoyingly repeditive.(No offense, but the point your arguing has no purpose)

Not once did I say, "It was not Divinely Inspired" so just stop bringing it up. If you had read my posts you'd know that.

Just because somebody does not believe in every word and detail of the bible, does not mean they think it is entirely untrue.



No, you said God has not communicated with anyone. They are mutually exclusive! That's simple logic for you... Either the bible was divinely inspired, and thus a form of communication, and you were wrong from the beginning. Or the bible wasn't divinely inspired and thus you were wrong after that.

Which one is it?

quote:I completely understood what Rust was trying to say, but it does not hold true in everyones case.

Err.. then you didn't understand what I said! My statement stands true for every single scenario explained in it. That is: 'You cannot support a theory with evidence you yourself give no credibility to.'

I never once said that you cannot make points; you obviously still don't understand my point, or at least don't understand the difference of what you just said and what I said

quote:Does not even apply in this situation. So there wasn't even any need to say the Divine blah blah, it has no bearing on this situation. I took the bible in the context of its claims, so my theory then has validity. There's a CHANCE the it is true.

You said that god doesn't communicate with us and this refutes the bible ever being divinely inspired. They are mutually exclusive. Choose one, the outcome is the same; that is, you were wrong.

---

Not to mention ashesofzen's route; if you claim that parts of the bible are not true, then outomatically the bible was either: 1. Not divinely inspired or 2. "Divinely" inspired by a moron. In both cases the bible looses any and all credibility.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-17-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Something that may be true is weak evidence, and not enough to theorize on. The Bible, if not the inspired word of God, has as much validity as me writing about Pale'krae...

The whole freakin bible is a theory in itself. It is also evidence for Christians, so according to you it is weak evidence?

It can't be used to support any theory on a religion centered around it, as it has no basis in fact unless it is made under divine influences. That is the point Rust is trying to make.

I knew from the get go, what point he was trying to make. There is no need in saying it over and over.

What you ppl don't get it, number 1 I've never said it wasn't divinely inspired. So what you are saying is needless, and annoyingly repeditive.(No offense, but the point your arguing has no purpose)

Not once did I say, "It was not Divinely Inspired" so just stop bringing it up. If you had read my posts you'd know that.

Just because somebody does not believe in every word and detail of the bible, does not mean they think it is entirely untrue.

No, I don't believe God is exactly the way the bible says He is. For someone to believe so, would mean one of two things. 1-They stupidly follow and believe every word in the bible, and ignor the hypocrisies, and contradictions, and the sheer ignorance of their god, whom they believe is all knowing and all powerful.

Or 2, they take into context the glaring hypocrisies, the errors in judgement of the Lord, the erroneous belief that He is omnipotent, and omniscient. Erroneous factors, and purposely confusing stories, the fact that angels are supposed to be wise, yet one would challenges His power.

The inconsistancies, the needless suffering, the happening of Christ, they(to shorten this up) don't ignor all of this stuff and think to themselves, "God can't be exactly the way He's described in the bible because everything is too inconsistant."

Anyone who has a freakin mind and takes the bible for everything it is claimed to be, has got to be very stupid. And that just aint me.

I completely understood what Rust was trying to say, but it does not hold true in everyones case.

And for you to say it is weak evidence is a stupid and insulting comment. Again, the whole bible is evidence to something that has supposedly happened, and something that supposedly will happen.

YOU just completely discredited every religion, there is nothing but chance that says a religion is true. There is a CHANCE that Christianity is true, there is a CHANCE that Buddhism and a huge list of many other religions are the ones that are true.

There is no concrete proof to support any religion that speaks of a higher being. So it is your belief that something that maybe true is weak evidence, then you shouldn't even be posting in this forum.

There is only the maybe factor when it comes to religion. Now until YOU can show some concrete truth of any religion, I suggest that you not ever have an oppinion on a religion, because you have already dismissed it in your post.

What ever you submit, you have already dubbed it "weak evidence!"

It is sad that someone would even say the word 'evidence' and 'religion' in the same post, accurding to you. Because all religions have no concrete evidence, only the maybe factor.

No, I don't believe the bible word for word, so when you say: "If you believe something to be the word of man when it deals with the ethereal, it's not evidence."

Remember what I've said previously, "false stories could still have some truth."

I'm still sticking to my belief, yes I backed up my theory with the bible.

BUT, when I did this, was I or was I not, taking the bible in the context of its claims?(As Ashes so greatly put it)

Now in this case Rust's, "The Bible, if not the inspired word of God, has no validity"

Does not even apply in this situation. So there wasn't even any need to say the Divine blah blah, it has no bearing on this situation. I took the bible in the context of its claims, so my theory then has validity. There's a CHANCE the it is true.

Hence why I don't theorize on religous matters. It's pointless and leads absolutely nowhere as even if we convince ourselves 100% that we have found the truth, we have no evidence and no LOGIC behind that belief. Religion is great for imaginative exercise, but in the end it's a bunch of bullshit because it is backed by absolutely nothing but faith in that your 'holy text' or 'beliefs' are backed by the word of a god or some sort of force.

Also, an explanation is not a theory if its chance of being right is based on pure imagination and faith rather than evidence.

I have a theory that the box of contact lenses in front of me is made of sawdust.

Now, I have good reasoning and logic behind that statement; I can prove it to be true through examining the composition of the box, and comparing that composition to that of sawdust.

However, I have a theory that Gandolf was an angel.

There may be reasoning behind this, but certainly no well-reasoned logic nor evidence to support it in REALITY. Tolkien's writings can not be proven to be factual, so anything said within them cannot be applied to reality. It can be applied to Tolkien's intents and symbolism, sure, but that isn't reality, that's Tolkien's imagination and my interpretation of it.

I know that you were talking about a specific king. The point was: Simply because a king edited the Bible, it is not necessarily written as a means to control the populace.

I wasn't saying it was a means of control simply because a king wrote it. If you didn't waste so much fuckin time being an ass, you'd know this. If you had instead, asked me to elaborate, asked me to tell 'why'(aka, my reasoning) I believe it was a form of control, then you'd know that the reason why I believe it.

For instance, and I have proof for this, though I won't quote anything, if you don't know this it is your own fault.

In King James's version, hell was changed to a fiery place of eternal torture, the ppl of his country and those not in his country, who've read or been taught the ways of the bible know this. Knowing this the Churches used things like this to exstort money from ppl. Telling them that God wouldn't love them if they did certain things. Telling them they'd burn in hell if they didn't work(this was mainly used in the Industrial Rev.)

Girls were tormented because they came on their periods, they were told that they were unclean. As Eve was in the garden. They'd foce men into armies because they'd say God wouldn't love them and they'd burn in hell if they didn't fight 'for their countries'.

Tactics like these forced men into wars, which by no means, were noble. What nobility is their in slaughtering ppl and families even?

If you'd asked my reasoning was then you would know that those and many more reasons, are why I say the bible was a mean of controlling ppl. I would also have told you that many other verses in the bible, had their meanings stripped and replaced with what ever way the King had them translated.

You'd understand that it was indeed a tool for controlling ppl. They used the bible to strike fear into ppl to control them. If you've watched any movies that have sayings used in colonial times or before that.

Then you'd know that it was a saying back then and seldomly used know, "God Fearing People." You notice that they didn't want ppl, to just worship God. They wanted fear. This was also used to control slaves. Those ways are still being used in our time.

Now let me ask, what meaning did your little comments about what kings wear, have to do with this? Why was it so important to say those things? Instead of just asking me, 'why', I'd said, what I'd said?

You didn't find it a childish thing to do? You really thought those remarks were neccessary? And now dare to speak to me on logic? And dare to say you know my reasoning? If you know my reasoning then why'd you make those snide statements? Are my reasons not valid ?

Are you honestly that dense?

Translated, roughly, as:

This is more of your childishness, and then bitch about me not replying, this a good reason to not reply.

Accrue-Synonyms:agglomerate, aggregate, amalgamate, assemble, bring together, cache, collect, collocate, compile, concentrate, cumulate, draw together, expand, gain, gather, grow, heap, heap together, hoard, incorporate, load up, lump, make money, mass, pile, pile up, procure, profit, rack up, round up, stack up, stockpile, store, store up, swell, unite

-Not done responding-oh BTW, you REALLY know your english, plz.-

quote:[/analogy]

If the book of revelations were referring to the Genesis, were Satan was first cast out; then you would have a case. But the book of revelations is referring to a completely different instance, an instance believed to be in the future.[/B]



Actually,scientists have proven that Revelations was not about the future. It was a group of letters written by John(or jon,whatever)for his followers after he was banished to some island(can't remember the name of it).They were political in nature.And the whole 666 thing,back then he couldn't just come out and say someone's name because he would be sought out and killed,so he used the name-number thing(can't remember the name of the process either).If you look at it that way,he was talking about the beast being Caligula Caesar.

Metalligod:

I wasn't saying it was a means of control... ...Are my reasons not valid ?

Thank you! You finally got the idea. Whether I agree with your statement or not, I will not accept an assertion with obviously flawed logic unless some evidence is provided to back it up. This is all you needed to do.

This is more of your childishness... ...store up, swell, unite

Accrue will rarely, if ever, be used in the context that you used it in. Copying and pasting words in so that you don't sound redundant will often result in words which are much more commonly seen utilized in an entirely different way. From my experience, if someone uses "accrue," it is generally meant as "accumulate." Just because accrue can mean "group" doesn't mean that it's the most common usage of the word.

You've just pulled a long list of synonyms there; don't you think that some of those others would have made your sentence much clearer and still avoided redundancy?

Honestly, my reading comprehension scores on almost every test I've taken since I started school have been perfect. My language scores have been in the 95-99th percentile. I do know English, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt any number of times.

All you had to do was restate. I cannot reply to a statement if I don't know what the writer is saying.

De_Lete_Me_Please:

Actually,scientists have proven that... ...he was talking about the beast being Caligula Caesar.

Interesting, I'd like to read up on that. Have a link to this information for me?

quote:Originally posted by De_Lete_Me_Please:



Actually,scientists have proven that Revelations was not about the future. It was a group of letters written by John(or jon,whatever)for his followers after he was banished to some island(can't remember the name of it).They were political in nature.And the whole 666 thing,back then he couldn't just come out and say someone's name because he would be sought out and killed,so he used the name-number thing(can't remember the name of the process either).If you look at it that way,he was talking about the beast being Caligula Caesar.

Thank you!

Secondly, you must learn to abandon the pettiness and lack of sophistication that the slurs which you almost constantly use indicate. No one looks highly of a man who insults those around him, even if he does raise good points.

Wow, are these Ashes words?

Third, learn to take criticism more lightly.

Um, this is like BS. I take criticism well. However, I don't take insults and petiness too well. You make replies that are very, sarcastic, snide, stupid, and your words reveal a very standoffish attitude. You should do what you told me, and try to present them in a different way.

If you've got something to say, and it's intelligent, no one who matters is going to call you an idiot.

It sounds good, but we both know how you are.

On an internet forum, what you say is who you are. If people ask for clarification, or start a debate with you, it's of far stronger character to be civil and keep a bit of humor rather than resorting to insults and putting words in the opposition's mouth.

Are you kidding me. I believe I've said this to you, in other words. I've even come to begging you to be civil with me. But you have a very nonchalant attitude. And I don't mean that in a good way. And when I try to be civil you make snide remarks and you try to twist and bend everything I say. You to often, try and twist the meanings of my posts.

You can do what you will with this advice, I just thought it may be good for you to see.

Practice what you preach.

Accrue will rarely, if ever, be used in the context that you used it in. Copying and pasting words in so that you don't sound redundant will often result in words which are much more commonly seen utilized in an entirely different way. From my experience, if someone uses "accrue," it is generally meant as "accumulate." Just because accrue can mean "group" doesn't mean that it's the most common usage of the word.

That's a bullshit cop out, and you know it. But whatever.

You've just pulled a long list of synonyms there; don't you think that some of those others would have made your sentence much clearer and still avoided redundancy?

Did you not read the part where I said too much use of a word makes things annoying and repetitive? And I also use different words when I can't think of the word I'm trying to say. I simply couldn't think of group. I'm sure you say things some times and can't think of the word you mean to say.



[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-17-2004).]

Err.. then you didn't understand what I said! My statement stands true for every single scenario explained in it. That is: 'You cannot support a theory with evidence you yourself give no credibility to.'

I never once said that you cannot make points; you obviously still don't understand my point, or at least don't understand the difference of what you just said and what I said

Did I or did I not take the bible in the context of its claims? In such a situation, how am I not giving the bible credibility. What you say is very stupid, and you don't care to believe it.

I made an 'if and then scenario', in which case the bible had all validity. So again what you say DOES NOT APPLY. Why is this so hard to take in.

You said that god doesn't communicate with us and this refutes the bible ever being divinely inspired. They are mutually exclusive. Choose one, the outcome is the same; that is, you were wrong.

Ok, you just don't seem to get, so I'll give up now. It's sad that you can't see that I did not dismiss the beliefs of the bible. I personally don't believe the events of the bible happening the exact way it says it happened. However it has absollutely nothing to do with this scenario. And you too dense to see that. What I believe personally has no bearing on a situation where I've given the bible all its validity and added to logic to the story.

I tool a tale directly from the bible and elabed on it. Don't try and make it my prob, because your not letting yourself see that.

Not to mention ashesofzen's route; if you claim that parts of the bible are not true, then outomatically the bible was either: 1. Not divinely inspired or 2. "Divinely" inspired by a moron. In both cases the bible looses any and all credibility.

Again what does either scenario have to do with the situation I proposed as the topic.

I made a situation in which the bible has all validity, what I believe personally has nothing to do with it. (When I say it, I mean the bible. So don't come with one of your childish post twister. Where you try and switch the meaning of the post.)

Metalligod:

Wow, are these Ashes words?

Entirely. Though I'm sure many others have the same sentiments.

Um, this is like BS. I take criticism well... ...and try to present them in a different way.

I don't know, every time I ask a question, or point out a flaw in your reasoning, it's either 1) "stupid" or 2) "gay faggety." And, do I take the time to call you sarcastic, snide, stupid, standoffish, et cetera? Though my tone may be harsh at times, I at least refrain from calling people names.

For example, your reply to Beany called him stupid, childish and a "Useless Imbecile;" said he never added anything of value or stayed on subject, and told him to "just die."

All simply from Beany's statement: "Metalligod, you got a lot of growing up to do."

It sounds good, but we both know how you are.

How can you claim to know anything at all about who I am? If I remember correctly, in some other topic, you told me that I had no idea about who you were.

Are you kidding me... ...You to often, try and twist the meanings of my posts.

Well, if by nonchalant (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nonchalant) you mean "having an air of easy unconcern or indifference," then I don't know how that can be a bad thing, in this situation. How have I tried to "twist and bend" everything you say?

Secondly, I would not be able to twist your meanings if you stated your ideas clearly and concisely. At least, not without a great degree of difficulty.

Practice what you preach.

I can't remember telling anyone who's asked me a question that it's "stupid" or "gay" and that they should "just die." Except, perhaps, in jest. I generally strive to keep insults and ad hominem attacks out of my posts (although, of course, I'm not perfect). And, the only criticism that I've taken offense to was the near-constant stream of "gay" and "stupid" &c that you've thrown back at me (at least, in recent memory).

That's a bullshit cop out, and you know it. But whatever.

Why is it a cop-out? I merely stated why your choice to use "accrue" in the applicable passage made no sense to me. I proceeded to explain my reasons. How exactly was I copping out?

Did you not read the part where I said too much use of a word makes things annoying and repetitive? And I also use different words when I can't think of the word I'm trying to say. I simply couldn't think of group. I'm sure you say things some times and can't think of the word you mean to say.

Did you not read "don't you think that some of those others would have made your sentence much clearer and still avoided redundancy?"

quote:Did I or did I not take the bible in the context of its claims? In such a situation, how am I not giving the bible credibility. What you say is very stupid, and you don't care to believe it.

I made an 'if and then scenario', in which case the bible had all validity. So again what you say DOES NOT APPLY. Why is this so hard to take in.



You said it was your theory! That is not an "if and then scenario”. As soon as you say that it is your theory then you cannot support it by using evidence that does not have credibility. You removed any and all credibility from the bible by claiming god does not communicate with people.

quote:Ok, you just don't seem to get, so I'll give up now. It's sad that you can't see that I did not dismiss the beliefs of the bible. I personally don't believe the events of the bible happening the exact way it says it happened. However it has absollutely nothing to do with this scenario. And you too dense to see that. What I believe personally has no bearing on a situation where I've given the bible all its validity and added to logic to the story.

I tool a tale directly from the bible and elabed on it. Don't try and make it my prob, because your not letting yourself see that.

...

Again what does either scenario have to do with the situation I proposed as the topic.

I made a situation in which the bible has all validity, what I believe personally has nothing to do with it. (When I say it, I mean the bible. So don't come with one of your childish post twister. Where you try and switch the meaning of the post.)



Nice try, but you said theory. Now that may be what you wanted to say, but you didn't say that. I'm not psychic so I have no possible way of knowing that you were stupid enough not to write what you meant. Now admit that you were wrong and shut up. Hopefully we won’t have to explain this to you again.

For example, your reply to Beany called him stupid, childish and a "Useless Imbecile;" said he never added anything of value or stayed on subject, and told him to "just die."

As much as I hate you, I’m annoyed by Beany even more. This character often makes stupid one-sentence remarks to me. Never elaborates. And always says something stupid, something which has nothing to do with the subject. So I told it/him/her off.

How can you claim to know anything at all about who I am? If I remember correctly, in some other topic, you told me that I had no idea about who you were.

See this is your problem. This is why we always end up bickering, you like to argue. You said some great words, with a lot of meaning. But apparently you’ve forgotten both them and the meaning already. I light of what you said about my words, I will not become them devil tongued jerk I can surely be. Those words were: On an internet forum, what you say is who you are.

Oh, and by nonchalant, I mean: cavalier, offhand, and inconsiderate. None of which do I mean in the kewl way.

Did you not read "don't you think that some of those others would have made your sentence much clearer and still avoided redundancy?"

Did you not read, “I simply couldn't think of group. I'm sure you say things some times and can't think of the word you mean to say?”

This is a qoute of the insults you threw before Beany's comment, bolded words being my own comments:

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

...dumbass questions...your hopeless...your stupid to know even that...why you would make such comparisons or say such stupid things...it was a highly stupid question...you were too stupid...stupid questions...assinine questions...lame and stupid...nasty...plain stupid and childish...stress to you that a half-brained person could realize...you were extremely stupid...you don't know the meaning of these words (My own words in here: He demonstrated he did know those words, you just used them in a confusing manner and he asked for clarification, which instead of doing you insulted his comprehenstion)...your that dumb...your bicker fests (You've raised three points so far in the post and have thrown many insults and used condescending tone several times as well, it's rather hypocritical to call it his bicker fest when you are the one doing all the insulting towards intelligence rather than staying on topic)...Can't mis a piont where there is none (There was a point, a rather vague one, but there was a point, if you want me to clarify I'll do such)...lame game of yours...are you too impared...A very simple task (Condescending ending to a condescending paragraph, I'll clarify again if you wish)...anyone but an idiot (He brought up a good point and used decent reasoning to reach his conclusion on the meaning of your words. Once again, I'll clarify if necessary)...gay ass question...What does this have to do with anything I've said? (It was on topic, ocne again I'll clarify if necessary)...lame ass shit...so childish and dumb? Because it's simply true...another bitch ass cop out (It wasn't a cop out, explaining something right after another person does so is redundant and unnecessary if you can just qoute or point to their message instead)...your Bull shit...I can now add hypocrit to your description (You call him childish and dumb when he doesn't insult you but you consistently insult every comment he makes, and him. How does that not make you a hypocrit as well?)...impared that you can't underatand?...So a being of your kind can have a sense of humor. Absolutely astounding!...just dismissing things as you so regularly do. (He hasn't dismissed it. He's been debating it, as have you, hence why you're still posting about the shit instead of both of you just ignoring everything. Use a little judgement in a comment as such, no debate or arguement would occur if he dismissed your points as there would be nothing to argue)...Use the mind you BELIEVE you have (Ashes is quite an intelligent person and some of his points do go above your head, instead of insulting his intelligence when you don't understand one of his analogies or points of discussion, ask him what he means, and if he asks the same of you, then explain what you mean to avoid misunderstandings that are rather common between you two)...The belief that it is true is what makes them stick to it. (Just pointing this out not as an insult, but right here you admitted that the only reason they stick to it is because they believe it's true...it's only evidence of their beliefs if they find it to be the truth)...fuckin stupid homophobes (Not directed towards Ashes, but an insult nonetheless)...why ask such stupid questions?...

Now, most of those are out of context, but you can go back to page four and see them in context. I believe Beany's point was that you call others childish while insulting everyone who disagrees with you left and right. Sure, his comment was hypocritical, but if the pot calls the kettle black they're still both black.

Comments that are hypocritical in nature can still be true: a gay can call another person gay and still be right in their criticism, the person making the arguement doesn't nullify the arguement by their own characteristics. You insult people constantly, it's incivil, hence Beany's immature and hypocritical, but rather accurate comment.

You said it was your theory! That is not an "if and then scenario”. As soon as you say that it is your theory then you cannot support it by using evidence that does not have credibility. You removed any and all credibility from the bible by claiming god does not communicate with people.

Are you truly this stupid or are you just playing? Everyone else can distinguish between what the bible says and what is written. Except in your case, now why is that so? If you are not well versed in the bible then why even dare to speak on a matter about it? I made plain fuckin view what my theory was.

And plain view what part came from the bible. I knew all along you didn’t know what you were talking about, that’s why I’d taken so long to even acknowledge your posts.

It’s fuckin specific: Ok, earlier I've said that maybe Earth is hell. Well maybe this maybe isn't a maybe at all. -Palpably part, of the theory part.-

First let me say that the bible uses the word 'in', in the stead of 'on'. The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell.-Humanly obvious that this is about the bible(not theory)-

Revelation 12:9, says he was cast to earth. -Freakin obvious that it’s from the bible, is it not?- Wouldn't this then mean that hell is earth?

In the beginning of earth's existence, it was a place of fire, and stones, and lava(river of fire).-Science proves this, did I not say so?- Being an angel and seeing Gods' work, in motion, I think it amazed them.-quite obvious that this is more theory. Pointed out when I said, ‘I think-Maybe seeing as this is the way the earth started, the first way they saw it.

God and his angels speak of it this way. (Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)-Obvious that it’s more theory stuff, perhaps just a question even. This part made obvious to be my ideas by me saying MAYBE.

Which proves that I was suggesting, a possibility of something, in this case, that angels and God saw earth in its early stages, and will always speak of it as a place of burning sulfur, fire, and rivers of fire. Because this is the way they first saw it. Thus also proving that I TOOK A PART OF THE BIBLE, and ELABORATED ON POSSIBILITIES.



Also proving was again that you are a LIAR! I never said it was my theory, and if you had knew more on the discussion you chose to dispute; then you wouldn’t seem to be the howling idiot, you’ve shown yourself to be.

Nice try, but you said theory. Now that may be what you wanted to say, but you didn't say that. I'm not psychic so I have no possible way of knowing that you were stupid enough not to write what you meant. Now admit that you were wrong and shut up. Hopefully we won’t have to explain this to you again.

Nice try but you are extremely unintelligent, just brainless! I cannot do what Ash, has suggested when it comes to you, I pray that your just trying to piss me off. For this level of idiocy should never be permitted to be accomplishable. You don’t even fuckin make sense in this post.

You’re the result of a whores’ condom malfunction, an abomination and you should kill yourself! You think just because Ashes and Hex are poorly trying to back you, that you have a point? You’re sad. You don’t make sense in this post and in all others.

And to prove you to be a liar yet again, let me reiterate what I said: Revelation 12:9, says he was cast to earth.-Again this means from the bible.

In the begining of earth's existance, it was a place of fire, and stones, and lava(river of fire). Being an angel and seeing Gods' work, in motion, I think it amazed them. Maybe seeing as this is the way the earth started, the first way they saw it. God and his angels speak of it this way.(Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)-Again theory, and scientific proof backs up the part about how earth looks.

So where did I say this whole post was my theory? Lying BITCH!

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-18-2004).]

Let me make something crystal clear.

1.First I've resolved my issue with Ashes, at least for now. We'll argue, I'm sure in the near future.

2. I'm really not trying to be mean, but Hex, you can stop trying to play the peacemaker. I can't bear to pretend to listen to you, I really really truly don't like you.

I have my problems with Ashes. But I don't need you gettin involved. I honestly do not like you. I just don't. But when Ashes and I have a problem we'll resolve it, if not oh well. But don't get in the line of fire.

I'm still not over the way you came into the convo the other time. I know it's stupid to harbor such feelings, but I have little control over that. In this case it's true I need to grow up, because I cling to all my feelings about things to strongly.

So I hal-heartedly appologize to Beany, because I still think you should elab when you make the comments you make.

But My issues are mine, and I don't need your words. So it would be a waste of your time if I let you continue and not tell you this. I genuienly despise you. Just thought you should know, that's all.

Metalligod:

See this is your problem. This is why we always end up bickering, you like to argue... ...Those words were: On an internet forum, what you say is who you are.

I was merely pointing out a blatant hypocrisy on your part.

I still hold to my statement. I've held to it since day 1. Hence, the first long argument we had (remember that one?).

Oh, and by nonchalant, I mean: cavalier, offhand, and inconsiderate. None of which do I mean in the kewl way.

Cavalier: When have I dismissed something important?

Offhand: Why shouldn't I be informal?

Inconsiderate: You've given me no reason whatsoever to care about your feelings.

Anyway, if you want my last major statement, I'll repost it:

How can you show that someone believes something true and knows it to be false? Or, that they believe something false and know it to be true?

I think that the closest you'll get is speaking of cases of denial. And, personally, I'd need to do some research to adequately build an argument of such a psychological nature.

Are you truly this stupid or are you just playing? Everyone else can distinguish between what the bible says and what is written. Except in your case, now why is that so? If you are not well versed in the bible then why even dare to speak on a matter about it? I made plain fuckin view what my theory was.

It's not a case of what the Bible says. It's an issue of the credibility of your evidence.

Also, it's not "everyone else" who can distinguish between what the Bible says and what is written. There are so many different interpretations out there, and hardly any of them are qualified from any logical viewpoint.

In regards to Revelations 12:9

source: (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev012.html)

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

source: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation12.htm)

The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

source: (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl?book=rev&chapter=12)

So that huge dragon--the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world--was thrown down to the earth, and his angels along with him.

source: (http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvrev12.htm)

12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

source: (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Revelation%2012:9)

So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

source: (http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/Revelation12.htm)

In Revelation 12:4-9, we are given a dynamic passage that refers to three events. First, Satan’s fall from Heaven is illustrated because he takes one third of the angels with him. This fall is evidenced in Jude 1:6, Daniel 8:10, Job 38:7 and Job 1:6. However, since Satan still has access to God and Heaven, as seen in Zechariah 3:1-3, we know this verse refers to more than one event.

Metalligod, I honestly don't care what you think of me commenting on your arguement with Ashes and Rust. You asked Beany to elaborate on his comment, and he didn't...you seemed to still want the meaning to what he said so I pointed it out that you insult constantly, showing great immaturity in a generally respectable activity (debate), which is what he meant in his statement. I wasn't trying to get between your arguement with Ash, I was explaining Beany's comment; if you can't value an explanation of a comment, then don't even ask for one.

quote:So where did I say this whole post was my theory? Lying BITCH!



Where have I said you said the whole post was your theory? Never. I said you said, "it" was your theory; what that "it" means is up for interpretation.

quote:It’s fuckin specific: Ok, earlier I've said that maybe Earth is hell. Well maybe this maybe isn't a maybe at all. -Palpably part, of the theory part.-

So you admit this was part of your theory? Great, thank you for proving my point.

quote:Being an angel and seeing Gods' work, in motion, I think it amazed them.-quite obvious that this is more theory. Pointed out when I said, ‘I think-Maybe seeing as this is the way the earth started, the first way they saw it.

God and his angels speak of it this way. (Eternally a place of fire and brimstone)-Obvious that it’s more theory stuff, perhaps just a question even. This part made obvious to be my ideas by me saying MAYBE.



Even more parts of you theory, correct? I thank you for making my job immensely easier.

Now:

Yes these are you theories; I've said this all along. That was my point. What are you using to back up your theories? Lets check on what you said to find out. You said:



2. "First let me say that the bible uses the word 'in', in the stead of 'on'. The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell."

In that sentence you are using the bible to support your theory that "maybe Earth is hell". You cite that the bible uses the word, "in" instead of "on" and that is said that "Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell".

2. "God and his angels speak of it this way"

In this sentence you are saying that God and his angels "speak of it this way", clearly using the bible to support your theory.

You then proceeded to say that god does not communicate with people. Divine Inspiration is a form of communication. If you claim that god has not communicated with people, or that he doesn't, then you cannot claim the Bible was Divinely Inspired. That is why I say you have discredited your whole argument.

Because you claim that god does not communicate with people, then you automatically remove any credibility the bible has when speaking about angels or hell. You cannot use it to support your theories, as I showed you did above. You cannot.

Now, you either were wrong about god not communicating with people, or you were wrong about using the bible as evidence. Which one is it?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:



So I hal-heartedly appologize to Beany, but I still think you should elaborate when you make the comments you make.



I elaborate to people who can benefit from my explanations.

You're immaturity is the kind that would take offense at any kind of disagreement or criticism and immediatly retaliate rudely without pondering over whether or not what is said contains any truth or lessons.

You are the kind of person who would argue against anyone and anything until they just can't be bothered anymore. This thread is a typical example.

Your posts show examples of higher degrees of pride and anger than most users have. Not to mention your immature way of expressing your anger, which shows no respect for the other users opinions.

This is where you need to grow (up).

Is this forum a place for you to learn, grow and find answers? Or is it somewhere to exercise your ability to lock horns with people?

Do you see that? Did you benefit from reading my elaboration? Do you need more? Or do you immediately disagree without giving it some thought?

Calm the fuck down. We are all working towards the same thing.

Just out of curiosity, I pulled out the "big family Bible," and looked for the applicable passage.

from The New American Bible, "Catholic Parish ed."

"Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All Ancient Sources

and the Revised New Testament Authorized by the Board of Trustees of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Approved by the Administrative Committee/Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference"

1994-1995 ed.

Rev. 12:9

The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who decieved the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Metalligod, I honestly don't care what you think of me commenting on your arguement with Ashes and Rust. You asked Beany to elaborate on his comment, and he didn't...you seemed to still want the meaning to what he said so I pointed it out that you insult constantly, showing great immaturity in a generally respectable activity (debate), which is what he meant in his statement. I wasn't trying to get between your arguement with Ash, I was explaining Beany's comment; if you can't value an explanation of a comment, then don't even ask for one.



See the point is I never asked YOU

I don't care what you say, because I don't care for you. Not to say that I love or care for anyone else. I just really dislike you, and don't care about your help or your view of things. I wasn't trying to be nasty I just thought you should know.

As far as Beany is concerned, this person has shown its immaturity as well, by making comments like it made, and just a few minutes ago I read another immature message directed at me from this person.

My point is, you shouldn't get involved in other ppls debocals, especially mines. Cause I don't care to know you or know anything that is being brought up by you.

I was merely pointing out a blatant hypocrisy on your part.

How could it be hypocrisy, if I was just going by what you said? You make it hard to change the way things are done, if you say one thing, and then when I change it you whine about it. That makes you a hypocrite, a major one.

It's not a case of what the Bible says. It's an issue of the credibility of your evidence.

This is exactly why ppl shouldn’t jump into other ppls arguments. You make this claim however; Rust says I called it a theory, thus making it not an issue of credibility, but an issue on what I’ve said. Don’t jump into arguments you don’t know anything about.

I’ve already proved that it wasn’t an issue of credibility, because I took the bible as though it were true in this situation. So there is no need to argue the credibility of the evidence.

Also, it's not "everyone else" who can distinguish between what the Bible says and what is written.

Well that’s dumb on them. They need to take that issue up with their educators. I made it quite plain that the part about the bible was indeed about the bible and not my theory. If they couldn’t see that I’d pointed it out from where in the bible it came. Next, all those interpretation you pointed out mean the exact same thing so what the hell is there to misinterpret?

I’ve already pointed out that into and in means ‘on’, when said in the bible. Those interpretations you pointed out just said ‘to’ which in this case, is obvious that it means ‘on’. We still use the word to’ in that manner, in these days.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-18-2004).]

Where have I said you said the whole post was your theory? Never. I said you said, "it" was your theory; what that "it" means is up for interpretation.

Ok ‘it’ meaning the whole thing, lame ass bastard. You did not say, “Part of it.” You said ‘it.’ You may not know this but in English, this means you’ve said the whole thing was my theory. Now go find someone else to lie about. Every time I prove you wrong, you change what your argument is about. Bitch elsewhere!

So you admit this was part of your theory? Great, thank you for proving my point.

Bitch this is not what you said was my theory, this is part of what you said was my theory. You’ve never said this part of that part, you said ‘it’. Face the facts you’re a Lying BITCH! I swear this is my last post to you, you have no credibility. Why don’t your friends help you out know. Why are they not telling you to just shut up cause you’ve been proven to be a liar?

It was quite palpable that this part was my theory, indicated by the uses of ‘Maybe.’

You then proceeded to say that god does not communicate with people.

Yeah that is about what I personally believe. And it was not written in this post that began the subject it was said later on down the line. The post that is the bases for your argument says nothing that discredits the bible. In the post of the discussion, I used the bible and had taken it into the context of its claims. Therefore it holds its credit. In which case what you said has no bearing. Don’t start fuckin taking one post and connecting it to a post that has nothing to do with it.

Ignorant piece of shit!

Because you claim that god does not communicate with people, then you automatically remove any credibility the bible has when speaking about angels or hell. You cannot use it to support your theories, as I showed you did above. You cannot.

Why is it hard to see that in the situation that you’re whining about was said as though the bible were entirely true? Why is it hard to then see that it holds its credibility in this situation? It was a freakin if and then condition, in which I say, if this in the bible happened, then ‘this has to be true.

This was indicated when I said: Revelation 12:9, says he was cast to earth.—this is the ‘if’ part, later signified by the use of then. Wouldn't this then mean that hell is earth?—the ‘then’ part, obviously.

Why, for what reasons is this hard to understand? Are you fluent in the English language? Can you truly, full understand English writings? Now plz tell then how is this not an ‘if and then’ situation?

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

I elaborate to people who can benefit from my explanations...

You don't even freakin know me to truly assess me and make such judgements.

I've not once seen a post from you that had anything good to say. Anything intelligent, anything worth while. Yet you would even dare to make such an assessment on my behavior. Plz, you need to save it.

Not once have I been entranced by anything you've said, not once has one of your post had some great heap of knowledge to feed on. So shut up. You made a post directed at me, purposely to insult, and dare to speak of my immaturity, pa leeze.

You not only made 1 ignorant childish post, you've made three so far, that I've taken notice of. So don't dare to call anyone childish, especially not me.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-18-2004).]

I've a confession to make:

Maybe sometimes my post don't make sense to ppl. In which case it would be much simpler if ppl just told me this.

I don't super detail things because I think that if it is too much writing it will disinterest the reader.

Too often when I go to someons topic, if everything is clustered together, or if the pages are super long, I become, very uninterested in what the writer has to say.

So often I try to make everything some small and compact, but I don't always give my full resoning. I just figured that if when I see clustered writings it makes me not want to read, maybe then others will feel this way.

Do you all not feel this disinterest I speak of, when you view a post that is clustered together, or super long?

This is one of the reasons I make so many paragraphs and a lot of them are small para's. so that the reader doesn't loose interest. In doing this I often leave out, needed info, is this something that only happens to me?

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-18-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-19-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by skoolboy_arts:

to all u fucked up non-catholic christians (protestant,methodist etc.) what ur doing is sooo fuckd up and wrong!!!!

Are you fucking dumb? What you just said is possibly the most offensive, intolerant piece of shit I have ever heard.

Metallidog, here's an immature post for you.

Piss, the fuck, off.

Now is the time to ignore you.

Metalligod, if all these arguements with myself, Ashes, and Rust have been based on misunderstandings due to your formatting then I shall have a damned good laugh when told so. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:

Ok ‘it’ meaning the whole thing, lame ass bastard. You did not say, “Part of it.” You said ‘it.’ You may not know this but in English, this means you’ve said the whole thing was my theory. Now go find someone else to lie about. Every time I prove you wrong, you change what your argument is about. Bitch elsewhere!

God you're ignorant. The word "it" refers to an inanimate object, or an being which sex is unspecified. In this case it refers to something. it could refer to everything, or just one thing. Who decides what it refers too? Me.

--

I ignored the other part of your post because you evaded the whole freaking point. If you want me to refute something in it, just tell me and I will.

Now, yet again: You used the bible to support your theory! I clearly showed that when you said, "First let me say that the bible uses the word 'in', in the stead of 'on'. The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell." and" "God and his angels speak of it this way."

In saying that, like it or not, you were using the bible to support your theory.

God you're ignorant. The word "it" refers to an inanimate object, or an being which sex is unspecified. In this case it refers to something. it could refer to everything, or just one thing. Who decides what it refers too? Me.

Ashes, why don't you help your friend out? He's obviously very stupid, he says 'it' refers to an inanimate thing. Isn't a post an inanimate thing? Therefore I was right in saying he was talking about the whole post, right? You can also help by showing him what a huge liar he is. And how he always changes what his arguement was when he's proven wrong.

He's lying in the very post in italic above. He's first he says I'm ignorant which is obviously untrue, given the number of times I've proven him wrong. Then he changes his arguement here:

Now, yet again: You used the bible to support your theory!-and here: In saying that, like it or not, you were using the bible to support your theory.

Now when did I say I didn't use the bible to support my thoery. Was that ever my arguement? Can you ppl now see the way he lies, and then changes his arguement in hopes that he can prove someone wrong, so that ppl can't see that he's lied?

His begining arguement was that, I supposedly discredited the bible, but I proved that to be a lie. He tries to make it seem as though I discredited the bible by connecting two obviously different posts, that shared no bond, save for the fact that I typed them. Since you all like to join him in trying to prove me wrong, help him face his lies so that he doesn't continue to look like the ass that he is. Help him face himself.

Hell is cool, that is where all the sluts and drugs are!!

Heaven sounds like the most boring place ever!

All religion is a crock of shit, the sooner we all realise that, and take responsability for ourselves, the better

Guys and gals...

Heaven and hell are both spiritual concepts - a haven or torment for your soul.

How can the physical beautifull earth be hell? - our experience of it is on the physical plane!

If hell is an after death option, then it would have to be in a spiritual , non physical realm, therefore the earth can not be hell.

If you religious types would care to study something other than the bible (a book of doubtfull origin) - the Vadas / Cabala / basic Magick theory, you would discover that each planet in this and all the other solar systems has an overseeing angel or demon (demons are only angels who are percieved to be bad). Earth has an overseer called Satan - Saturn has Mettatron etc etc.

The bible seems to be right there, but so what?

I think you guys bicker too much, and take comments too personally - if you can not discuss and debate a topic, how are you going to explore new ideas??

To Metalligod:

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Before you even dare to speak about someone else, you need to assess how it'll make you look. You say I need to grow up and you come and say an insult then have nothing to say about why you said it, or the subject. That is very childish. Just die, you Useless Imbecile.

You need to chill. Calm down, life isn't so severe and every insult is not worth arguing about. You especially shouldn't be insulting people that at least try to bring up intelligent conversation. Of all the people in this thread, you are the one who has been the most insulting. Take it how you will and as Hex said:

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Sure, his comment was hypocritical, but if the pot calls the kettle black they're still both black.

quote:Ashes, why don't you help your friend out? He's obviously very stupid, he says 'it' refers to an inanimate thing. Isn't a post an inanimate thing? Therefore I was right in saying he was talking about the whole post, right? You can also help by showing him what a huge liar he is. And how he always changes what his arguement was when he's proven wrong.

He's lying in the very post in italic above. He's first he says I'm ignorant which is obviously untrue, given the number of times I've proven him wrong. Then he changes his arguement here:



I know a post is an "inanimate object"! And 'part of a post' is also! Get it? I decide what "it" refers to, not you who didn't even say the word.

quote:Now when did I say I didn't use the bible to support my thoery.

You idiot that's the whole point! You cannot use it to support your theory because you removed any validity it had!

quote:His begining arguement was that, I supposedly discredited the bible, but I proved that to be a lie

Where the fuck have you proved that to be a lie you moron? You said god didn't communicate. Well if he doesn't, then the bible cannot be divinely inspired. If it is not divinely inspired, it looses any credibility it has.

Originally posted by dizztrezzed:

To Metalligod:

You need to chill. Calm down, life isn't so severe and every insult is not worth arguing about. You especially shouldn't be insulting people that at least try to bring up intelligent conversation. Of all the people in this thread, you are the one who has been the most insulting. Take it how you will and as Hex said:

Before you jump into a conversation you need to get the facts. What I said to Beany was valid, and had you paid better attention you'd know that. I know I say foul things, and have admitted so, and have apologized to those I thought deserved it at the time.

Now I will shut the hell up if you can show a post in this thread that was intelligent, that was posted by Beany. Plz do so, plz show me one good post he/she/it has made.

It may seem like I'm trying to be rude...but I'm not.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-20-2004).]

Metalligod-the He-She A.K.A Rust

You said it was your theory! That is not an "if and then scenario”.

Again, never pointed out any specific part. Cause the bitch meant the whole thing.

As soon as you say that it is your theory then you cannot support it by using evidence that does not have credibility. You removed any and all credibility from the bible by claiming god does not communicate with people.

Again, she's talking about the whole thing. And never did I discredit the bible. She has a bad habbit of taking one post and stringing it to a post that has nothing to do with it.

Nice try, but you said theory.

Again, she says this, but I've already proven otherwise. I give her this, she's very manipulative, she can try to turn thing around on you in an instant. A very deceptive creature indeed, for instance: Now:

Yes these are you theories; I've said this all along. That was my point. What are you using to back up your theories? Lets check on what you said to find out. You said:

2. "First let me say that the bible uses the word 'in', in the stead of 'on'. The bible says Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell."

In that sentence you are using the bible to support your theory that "maybe Earth is hell". You cite that the bible uses the word, "in" instead of "on" and that is said that "Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven, to hell".

2. "God and his angels speak of it this way"

In this sentence you are saying that God and his angels "speak of it this way", clearly using the bible to support your theory.

[b]You then proceeded to say that god does not communicate with people.

You see how she points out all this stuff in the first post. The post that began the topic. She quotes the things from the first post, then she stops, and you can notice it is not a quote that I said God does not communicate with ppl. She then reverts to a post made later by me, that has absolutely nothing to do with the post she began talking about, which was the one that began the discussion. In the post that began the topic, I used the bible in the context of its claims. She then took a post that was about my personal feelings, which had nothing to do with the one that began the topic, and tried to connect them, as though they're about the samething.



Also notice that I said God does not communicate with people. Which is present tense, I never said God did not communicate with ppl. Her arguement is not valid for two reasons, I did not say God never communicated with ppl. I also took the bible in the context of its claims, when I began the discussion. But for some reason she can't seem to notice that. Whatta stupid BITCH!

Also notice how in the begining of the topic before I ever became nasty towards her, that she said time and time again that Satan was cast out in Genesis. When I approached her with the question, "Could you plz tell me where in Genesis, that there is a confrontation between Satan and Gods' army of angels?"

She never answered the question. She does a lot, a lot lot, of quoting, yet she could never quote the part where she claims thatSatan was cast out. She has gone on to make other quotes from the bible, yet not the part that could have ended her begining arguement. A dumb, deceptive bitch she is indeed.

Now I'll quote her again: quote:If the book of revelations were referring to the Genesis, were Satan was first cast out;

Now is she, or is she not, saying that Satan was cast out? Yet she can't quote it like she's done so many other times...Peculiar, really.

He's still not going to believe you. Says his friend, Ashes. Yet niether could he back up his friends accusations, what a strange pair. They have no basis for their accusations, yet makes them, left and right.

quote:Again, never pointed out any specific part. Cause the bitch meant the whole thing

So you claim to know what I meant to say, even more than me? Brilliant! So you're not only stupid, but you're psychic too...

quote:And never did I discredit the bible. She has a bad habbit of taking one post and stringing it to a post that has nothing to do with it.

You discredited it when you said it was not divinely inspired.

quote:Again, she says this, but I've already proven otherwise. I give her this, she's very manipulative, she can try to turn thing around on you in an instant. A very deceptive creature indeed, for instance: Now:



How the fuck have you proven otherwise?

quote: She then reverts to a post made later by me, that has absolutely nothing to do with the post she began talking about, which was the one that began the discussion. In the post that began the topic, I used the bible in the context of its claims. She then took a post that was about my personal feelings, which had nothing to do with the one that began the topic, and tried to connect them, as though they're about the samething.



Of course it has everything to do with it because you cannot use the bible as evidence and then later discredit it.

quote:Also notice that I said God does not communicate with people. Which is present tense, I never said God did not communicate with ppl

Bibles still exist you idiot. By inspiring the writers of the bible, god is communicating through it. Hence, if I read it now, I am gaining information that he inspired, that he said. This is communication.

Lets use the definition you used of "Communicate":

"Communicate-2 a : to convey knowledge of or information about : make known

3 : to open into each other"

Thank you for proving it for me.

quote:I also took the bible in the context of its claims, when I began the discussion. But for some reason she can't seem to notice that. Whatta stupid BITCH!



And you then discredited it by saying it wasn't inspired by god.

quote:When I approached her with the question, "Could you plz tell me where in Genesis, that there is a confrontation between Satan and Gods' army of angels?"

She never answered the question. She does a lot, a lot lot, of quoting, yet she could never quote the part where she claims thatSatan was cast out. She has gone on to make other quotes from the bible, yet not the part that could have ended her begining arguement. A dumb, deceptive bitch she is indeed.



Look at my posts idiot. I already answered that. I said that it was a common belief that Satan was either cast out before Genesis 1:1, during it although it doesn't say, or after Genesis. Want me to look it up for you?

P.S. I'm a "he".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-20-2004).]

Sure I understand. I read all of the posts and it just seemed like you were looking to rip someone's head off over an argument on the internet. I don't want to enter into your discusion, and I mean everyone involved. Just don't like to see a very intelligent debate degenarating into mudslinging. And thats all, I'll just fade back amongst the spectators now.

It seems to me that when you translate a language like Greek, which is much more precise and specific in it's connotations, into English, you lose any ability to judge anything but the basic meaning of the text. You can't be picky about the exact wording when the wording isn't what was originally written to start with, what we have is only the best we can manage to do in getting the ideas in the original across.

quote:Originally posted by dizztrezzed:

Sure I understand. I read all of the posts and it just seemed like you were looking to rip someone's head off..

Your right. I completely understand, but the others make it hard to be kind, when after you prove them wrong thousands of times they continue to say the same immoral and imbecilic things. But I do agree with you.

Metalligod-Rust

So you claim to know what I meant to say, even more than me? Brilliant! So you're not only stupid, but you're psychic too...

Don't need to claim, you said it well enough. Therefore I needn't make claims, you say it all.

You discredited it when you said it was not divinely inspired.

More lies is it? When did I say, "Not divenly inspired?" You base all your claims on lies. Why, if you don't have a good basis for your areguement, then don't argue. It's quite simple, you should try it.

How the fuck have you proven otherwise?

Oh my, such hostility. You should tone it down old lady. You don't want to go and have a heart attack, now do you? I'll tell you, as you say, "how the fuck I proved it wrong."

Said said that I said my post was a theory, this I did not do. I used the bible as you so frequently pointed out. And elabed on it, therefore the post was not a theory. Part of it had some of my theory and some bible stuff. That's how I proved you wrong, you said I said it was a theory, but I did not. Therefore you've lied again.

Of course it has everything to do with it because you cannot use the bible as evidence and then later discredit it.

Well it may be your, piuos, ignorant, immoral belief, that ppl can't use the bible if they don't believe in it. But don't tell someone what they can and cannot do. Your ways are childish and imbecilic, and morally reprehensible.

It is my belief that an intelligent atheist or agnostic should use the bible to support their "why's and why not's." It may be your belief that stupid atheism is good, but not mines and lots of others. But if I were an atheist I'd be disgusted by you.

Smart atheist don't say stupid things like, "God is not real." or "The bible doesn't make sense." without giving good reasons why. You believe that atheist can't use the bible, and you don't think that's pious and imbecilic. That just proves everything I've said about you.

It is also your belief that an agnostic can't use the bible to support their statements or make a point. It just proves how ignorant and intolerant you are. And you and Ashes ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Especially Ashes, why you guys believe that atheists shouldn't use the bible is beyond me. It seems like you 2 don't own a cintilla of tolerance or intelligence.

Basically what the 2 of you are saying is, a person cannot argue whether Freddy Kreuger is more powerful than Jason, or not. If they don't believe in them, and that is just again ignorant and intolerant. By your own admission, a lack of belief is decrediting them both.

Your also saying ppl can't argue who the more dominant vampire is between, Lestat & Dracula. If we believe the books of them weren't divinely inspired. Your a liar, and a pious jerk and you won't admit it to yourself because it'll just prove how intellectually inferior you are to everyone else.

Bibles still exist you idiot. By inspiring the writers of the bible, god is communicating through it. Hence, if I read it now, I am gaining information that he inspired, that he said. This is communication.

Oh, so I can add hypocrit to your description? You complain about the name calling the do it(No you didn't directly complain). How very mature of you.

So by the above statement, you are saying that God wrote the bible? Because if not it seems as though you don't know the meaning of the words you use, how truly pathetic you are. It's sad, really.

Look at my posts idiot. I already answered that. I said that it was a common belief that Satan was either cast out before Genesis 1:1, during it although it doesn't say, or after Genesis. Want me to look it up for you?

P.S I know that your a she, you don't have to tell me that.

I didn't say answer, I said quote, no let me do it this way: QUOTE. Can you quote it like you do everything else? If so then do it.

And BTW, the above quote makes no sense. Learn English bitch, ok.

quote:Don't need to claim, you said it well enough. Therefore I needn't make claims, you say it all.

In other words, you don't want to accept that you're wrong.

quote:More lies is it? When did I say, "Not divenly inspired?" You base all your claims on lies. Why, if you don't have a good basis for your areguement, then don't argue. It's quite simple, you should try it.



I already told you. If you said god does not communicate with people, then the bible is not divinely inspired. Period. Do you know what "mutually exclusive" means?

quote:Said said that I said my post was a theory, this I did not do. I used the bible as you so frequently pointed out. And elabed on it, therefore the post was not a theory. Part of it had some of my theory and some bible stuff. That's how I proved you wrong, you said I said it was a theory, but I did not. Therefore you've lied again.



Here we go again. To stop this useless bickering, please tell me what part of your post was a theory. I only need one thing to be a theory, and I'm correct, so make it quick.

quote:Well it may be your, piuos, ignorant, immoral belief, that ppl can't use the bible if they don't believe in it. But don't tell someone what they can and cannot do. Your ways are childish and imbecilic, and morally reprehensible.

It's not that you cannot use the bible, is that you cannot use it as evidence. Period. Explain to me how you can use evidence that has no credibility? It ceases to be evidence!

Apparently you don’t know the meaning of pious...

quote:Smart atheist don't say stupid things like, "God is not real." or "The bible doesn't make sense." without giving good reasons why. You believe that atheist can't use the bible, and you don't think that's pious and imbecilic. That just proves everything I've said about you.

It is also your belief that an agnostic can't use the bible to support their statements or make a point. It just proves how ignorant and intolerant you are. And you and Ashes ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Especially Ashes, why you guys believe that atheists shouldn't use the bible is beyond me. It seems like you 2 don't own a cintilla of tolerance or intelligence.



Again, I have never made such statements; I did say that you couldn’t use it as evidence. If it has no credibility then how the hell can you use it as evidence? It's simple logic.

quote: Oh, so I can add hypocrit to your description? You complain about the name calling the do it(No you didn't directly complain). How very mature of you.



Yes, I complained days ago. I have grown tired of your constant insults and poor logic. I admit that. How is that hypocrisy? I however, have never insulted you without reason, you have…

quote: So by the above statement, you are saying that God wrote the bible? Because if not it seems as though you don't know the meaning of the words you use, how truly pathetic you are. It's sad, really.

I’m saying that he conveys information, which is the very definition of “communicate” ( the definition you yourself provided).

quote:I didn't say answer, I said quote, no let me do it this way: QUOTE. Can you quote it like you do everything else? If so then do it.

"When I approached her with the question, "Could you plz tell me where in Genesis, that there is a confrontation between Satan and Gods' army of angels?"

She never answered the question."

Oh, but you "NEVER" asked for an answer... NEVER! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Nevertheless, how can I quote something, which I specifically say is not in the Bible? Care to read what I said again?

quote: And BTW, the above quote makes no sense. Learn English bitch, ok.

Have you even seen your posts? You should at least correct your grammar and spelling before even brining up that issue…

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Not once have I been entranced by anything you've said

You can't entrance a baby with gold.

Again, I have never made such statements; I did say that you couldn’t use it as evidence. If it has no credibility then how the hell can you use it as evidence? It's simple logic.

Note the lie, and the imbecilic, oxymoron statement. He says, "I have never made such statements" and then goes on to say, " I did say that you couldn’t use it as evidence." Ok doesn't this make her a liar? And doesn't the second sentence contradict the first? To clearify, I said, "You believe that atheist can't use the bible, and you don't think that's pious and imbecilic." and, "It is also your belief that an agnostic can't use the bible to support their statements or make a point." He then respodend with the quoted above.

If it has no credibility then how the hell can you use it as evidence? It's simple logic.

No, correction, it's 'Simple Minded Logic.' And you're the only one who thinks it has no credibility, so you explain 'how.'

I however, have never insulted you without reason, you have…

When did I insult myself without reason? I called myself an insulting name? So then if I could prove that I have not used an insult on myself, would that not make you a liar?

I’m saying that he conveys information, which is the very definition of “communicate” ( the definition you yourself provided).

Apparently your so dumb that you don't even know the meaning of the words you've been using. Divinely inspired would mean that God Himself wrote it. Not that He inspired someone else to write it. But that He wrote it. Do you understand that? Or are you too dumb to know the difference? Your the one, not me, who believes the bible is Divinely Inspired. Your the one, not me, who believes ppl can't use the bible as evidence, if they don't think He wrote it. And for some strange reason you don't think that's ignorant, stupid, pious, and morally reprehensible.

"When I approached her with the question, "Could you plz tell me where in Genesis, that there is a confrontation between Satan and Gods' army of angels?"

She never answered the question."

Oh, but you "NEVER" asked for an answer... NEVER!

Do you get an orgasm every time you lie? I mean, that could be the only reaon I would lie as much as you do. That or I'm getting something of value. When did I say that I NEVER, asked for the answer? Are you naturally this stupid and naturally this much of a liar, or did you have to learn this? You make things up a lot, were you one of those kids who made up stories about ppl, or things you've done? Or are you like the old women who sit in circles and gossip about everyone? Whatever the case, you need help!

And BTW, to anyone who has been following these strings of post that prove this Rust woman is a liar. Note how she's doing exactly what I accused her of yesterday. She's trying to remove the attention from what I really said by deceptively turning the topic around. You see she's avoiding the question, the request. Quote the part from Genesis that has a confrontation were Satan is cast out. Just incase you try to avoid it further, quote the part in Genesis where Satan was cast out.

Oh yeah the bitch lied again, this time blatantly. She says, "Nevertheless, how can I quote something, which I specifically say is not in the Bible? Care to read what I said again?"

Which is something that she did not specifically state. Ashes your a pathetic asshole for joining in with this bitch. Like I said before, you support false info and your more a hypocrit than her. You're just as stupid as her. For proof that I needn't reply to this menstrual-waste eating whore, just look here:

Look at the verses before Rev 12:9! They clearly talk about a war being waged in heaven and Satan being cast out to earth. This is not even similar to what happened in Genesis. Genesis and Revelations talk about two different episodes;

The point is they are different events! If the Book of Revelations were talking about Genesis then your theory would have credibility,

Satan was cast out to EARTH for starting a War in the Book of Revelations. But he was cast out to HELL in Genesis

Actually, you will find many interpretations to this, but it is commonly believed that he was cast out before Genesis 1:1-What the hell comes before genesis, you dumb fag!?

Let me just stop right quick and point this out, he says, For the third time, I said there is no confrontation in Genesis. -Is it just me, or does this putrid trashbag-ho, saying that she never said there was a controntation in Genesis? Isn't someone being castout of somewhere a confrontation? Whata bitch!

[i]Have you even seen your posts? You should at least correct your grammar and spelling before even brining up that issue…

Why should I correct the spelling if it does not change the meaning of my posts. If a brain-dead person could understand it then everyone else could too... oh shit I forgot...it is YOU I'm talking about here. And yo gay ass need not speak on my spelling and grammar, sense you can't spell or know the meaning of a phrase you use too often. Now had you read the post that I said didn't make sense you'd realize that I was being honest not nasty. Get yo head right and stop being a faggot ass dramaqueen.

quote:Note the lie, and the imbecilic, oxymoron statement. He says, "I have never made such statements" and then goes on to say, " I did say that you couldn’t use it as evidence." Ok doesn't this make her a liar? And doesn't the second sentence contradict the first? To clearify, I said, "You believe that atheist can't use the bible, and you don't think that's pious and imbecilic." and, "It is also your belief that an agnostic can't use the bible to support their statements or make a point." He then respodend with the quoted above

Read, it's a useful skill! You said ”It is also your belief that an agnostic can't use the bible to support their statements or make a point.” I said, "You can't use it to support your theory".

Get the difference? You can support statements, what you cannot do is support theories.

quote:No, correction, it's 'Simple Minded Logic.' And you're the only one who thinks it has no credibility, so you explain 'how.'

You forgot Hexadecimal, he supported me also. Again, simple logic. How can you support your theory with something that has absolutely no credibility left? The answer is you cannot.

quote:When did I insult myself without reason? I called myself an insulting name? So then if I could prove that I have not used an insult on myself, would that not make you a liar?

If you can't see that in this case the "you have" means "vice versa" then you really have a problem. Want me to spell it out for you?

quote:Apparently your so dumb that you don't even know the meaning of the words you've been using. Divinely inspired would mean that God Himself wrote it. Not that He inspired someone else to write it. But that He wrote it.

You're so thick you can't even see the problem in that! Not only are you wrong, but also if we took what you just said as truth, then it would support my argument. Here, the definition of “Inspired”:

Inspired:

To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.

To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion: hymns that inspire the congregation; an artist who was inspired by Impressionism.

To stimulate to action; motivate: a sales force that was inspired by the prospect of a bonus.

To affect or touch: The falling leaves inspired her with sadness.

To draw forth; elicit or arouse: a teacher who inspired admiration and respect.

To be the cause or source of; bring about: an invention that inspired many imitations.

To draw in (air) by inhaling.

Archaic.

To breathe on.

To breathe life into."

Tell me, where in that definition does it say, "write"?



Now, in your previous post you said that god does not communicate with us. Well if he wrote the bible himself, then he is communicating with me when I read it. Thus you were wrong.

quote: Your the one, not me, who believes ppl can't use the bible as evidence, if they don't think He wrote it.

Of course they can't! Not to explain paranormal phenomenon.

quote:What the hell comes before genesis, you dumb fag!?

Nothing! That's the whole point! It is common belief that Satan was cast out before Genesis, but because there is no book before Genesis, we don't know about it. Get it?

quote:Why should I correct the spelling if it does not change the meaning of my posts. If a brain-dead person could understand it then everyone else could too... oh shit I forgot...it is YOU I'm talking about here. And yo gay ass need not speak on my spelling and grammar, sense you can't spell or know the meaning of a phrase you use too often. Now had you read the post that I said didn't make sense you'd realize that I was being honest not nasty. Get yo head right and stop being a faggot ass dramaqueen.



Because you challenged my English skills, that’s why. If you challenge them, and yet use worse grammar and spelling yourself, then you're a hypocrite.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-21-2004).]

Read, it's a useful skill! You said ”It is also your belief that an agnostic can't use the bible to support their statements or make a point.” I said, "You can't use it to support your theory".

Get the difference? You can support statements, what you cannot do is support theories.

Point-1 a : to indicate the fact or probability of something specified

Theory-1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances; often used in the phrase in

Now are you done with your gay rouses? A theory is a point, and/or has points.

Face the facts and stop trying to find loopholes, you were and are wrong.

You forgot Hexadecimal, he supported me also.

Oh, so you are gay? That's all you depend on, the hope that one of them will 'support' you.

Just beacause someone supports you or anyone else, does not make you or anyone else right. I've proven this many times. To you and to Ashes. And don't ask me how, go back and look at the other posts. You know how, just like I'm doing now.

How can you support your theory with something that has absolutely no credibility left? The answer is you cannot.

Again, YOU believe it has no credibility, not me. I believe it does have some credibility.

If you can't see that in this case the "you have" means "vice versa" then you really have a problem. Want me to spell it out for you?

Why ever would I want you to spell 'it out' for me? I can spell 'it out' just fine you imbecile.

What does 'you have' have to do with anything? You specifically said, "I however, have never insulted you without reason, you have…"

Which would mean I've insulted myself. Now just for kicks, lets do it the way you claim it is supposed to be said. I however, have never insulted you without reason, vice versa…

Doesn't make much sense to me. This would then mean that I haven't insulted you without reason either, so then you agree that I had reason to call you all those things. Thank you for making it soooo easy. Anyone else care to elab?

I said it doesn't make sense this time becasue, your contradicting yourself again. At first you said, "I have grown tired of your constant insults" So now you agree then that you're a contradictive asshole?

You're so thick you can't even see the problem in that! Not only are you wrong, but also if we took what you just said as truth, then it would support my argument. Here, the definition of “Inspired”:

First of all yo retarded ass just pointed out that you were wrong...Proof? ok:

To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.

To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion: hymns that inspire the congregation; an artist who was inspired by Impressionism.

It is well known that people could do all of the above to themselves, so of course this God creature would be able to.

Here's more definition:

Main Entry: inspired

Function: adjective

Date: 15th century

: outstanding or brilliant in a way or to a degree suggestive of divine inspiration <gave an inspired performance>-could have only been talking about...hmm...let's see...GOD!

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Need more proof? Ok, Divenly-Main Entry: [1]di·vine

Pronunciation: d&-'vIn

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): di·vin·er; -est

Etymology: Middle English divin, from Middle French, from Latin divinus, from divus god —more at DEITY

Date: 14th century

1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b : being a deity <the divine Savior> -Same source

Is this enough of this game where I constantly prove you wrong?

Well if he wrote the bible himself, then he is communicating with me when I read it. Thus you were wrong.

That's just it, you dim-wit! He did not wright the bible. Do you not know this? Are you truly far more dense than I first tried to calculate? Did you brake another Geiger for dumbness?

Of course they can't! Not to explain paranormal phenomenon.

This is your problem, you believe in this dictation on what ppl can and cannot do. And by saying this you also admit that you believe God wrote the bible. When Ashes sees this he's probably gonna vomit. Oh and Hex, sense you love to have you input on everything, what do you think of him believing this bull?

Nothing! That's the whole point! It is common belief that Satan was cast out before Genesis, but because there is no book before Genesis, we don't know about it. Get it?

Yeah dude I get it, but that's what happens when ppl can't think of anymore bs do add on. They make the rst up as they go along.

Because you challenged my skills at using English, that’s why. If you challenge them, and yet use horrid grammar and spelling, then you are a hypocrite. Another simple, logical argument that evades you.

Sorry but, what I've learned very quickly on here is that you need to back up your accusations. Challenging someone does not someone a hypocrit. Go look up the definition, again use of words ya don't know.

(replies in the mornin, need to go take my Melatonin, bye)

quote:Point-1 a : to indicate the fact or probability of something specified

Theory-1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances; often used in the phrase in



Nice try but your definitions of "point" is that of it's verb usage. Why didn't you quote the example? Because it would show it was referring to the verb. <everything points to a bright future> You did not use the word "point" as a verb, but as a noun.

quote:you.

Just beacause someone supports you or anyone else, does not make you or anyone else right. I've proven this many times. To you and to Ashes. And don't ask me how, go back and look at the other posts. You know how, just like I'm doing now.



Then why say that I'm the only one that thinks it has credibility? Get your act together.

quote:Again, YOU believe it has no credibility, not me. I believe it does have some credibility.



Again. You automatically discredit any credibility it has among paranormal phenomenon when you say god does not communicate with people.

quote:Why ever would I want you to spell 'it out' for me? I can spell 'it out' just fine you imbecile.

What does 'you have' have to do with anything? You specifically said, "I however, have never insulted you without reason, you have…"

Which would mean I've insulted myself. Now just for kicks, lets do it the way you claim it is supposed to be said. I however, have never insulted you without reason, vice versa…

Doesn't make much sense to me. This would then mean that I haven't insulted you without reason either, so then you agree that I had reason to call you all those things. Thank you for making it soooo easy. Anyone else care to elab?

I said it doesn't make sense this time becasue, your contradicting yourself again. At first you said, "I have grown tired of your constant insults" So now you agree then that you're a contradictive asshole?



What I meant to say, to your anal retentive self, is that you have insulted me without me insulting you first.

quote:Main Entry: inspired

Function: adjective

Date: 15th century

: outstanding or brilliant in a way or to a degree suggestive of divine inspiration <gave an inspired performance>-could have only been talking about...hmm...let's see...GOD!

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Need more proof? Ok, Divenly-Main Entry: [1]di·vine

Pronunciation: d&-'vIn

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): di·vin·er; -est

Etymology: Middle English divin, from Middle French, from Latin divinus, from divus god —more at DEITY

Date: 14th century

1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b : being a deity <the divine Savior> -Same source



Yes does proceed from god. What proceeds form god? The INSPIRATION! DIVINELY (proceeding from God) INSPIRED. Meaning, INSPIRATION that comes from god. Wow, that was easy.

quote:That's just it, you dim-wit! He did not wright the bible. Do you not know this? Are you truly far more dense than I first tried to calculate? Did you brake another Geiger for dumbness

Notice the operative word, "if". It was meant as hypothetical scenario.

There are only three possibilities when it comes to the bible. Either:

1. God wrote it himself. He therefore communicates with it. Thus you were wrong.

2. God Inspired other people, and they wrote it. God still communicates with it because the bible is based on his thoughts. He is conveying knowledge

or

3. God did not write nor inspire the bible. The bible would not have any credibility as proof or evidence. It would be as if I suddenly started to write about your sexual preferences. Because I have no knowledge of this, I have no credibility.

Now, to end this stupid bickering. Choose which one you think is correct. Whichever one you choose, you will be wrong.

quote:This is your problem, you believe in this dictation on what ppl can and cannot do. And by saying this you also admit that you believe God wrote the bible. When Ashes sees this he's probably gonna vomit. Oh and Hex, sense you love to have you input on everything, what do you think of him believing this bull?

Sorry, that’s logic for you. It dictates what you can logically do or not do.

Do you really think other people are reading this? They've gone. They are tired of bullshit. I don't leave because I get a kick out of this. But by the lone chance that Hexadecimal or Ashes are still reading, I would like for them to point out any flaw I have.

quote:Sorry but, what I've learned very quickly on here is that you need to back up your accusations. Challenging someone does not someone a hypocrit. Go look up the definition, again use of words ya don't know.



Idiot, you challenged my skills, meaning you criticized them. If you criticize me for something you do worse, that is hypocrisy! Hell, that's basically the definition of hipocrisy.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-21-2004).]

"Oh and Hex, sense you love to have you input on everything, what do you think of him believing this bull?"

This arguement has been devoid of civility and constructive posts for some time; I think someone would have to be retarded to take anything serious at this point, especially considering you two are now arguing the semantics of Divinely Inspired (to make it simple, here's the definitions I could find: 1) Inspired directly by God, or a god. 2) Made with thoughts or motives directed by God or a god).

Metalligod, you do everything to put up strawmen and knock it down to avoid admittance of being wrong, stop that shit, being wrong isn't such a bad thing, admit it when you're wrong instead of dancing around the subject with a word game. Just let this thread die, it's devoid of purpose.

Hex, there in lies the problem, I'm not/wasn't wrong. I've proved him to be wrong, and a liar several times.

Now it is not new to anyone who pays attention, that I will admit wrong doing in an instant, just prove something I've said wrong. If you can't do that then what is there to admit to?

My question to you is, what is your take on your friends belief that, if you don't believe God wrote the bible then you can't use it to prove a point?

I think you'll find his opinion on the matter a few pages back. Here I'll quote what he had to say at that time:



"Something that may be true is weak evidence, and not enough to theorize on. The Bible, if not the inspired word of God, has as much validity as me writing about Pale'krae...

Pale'krea are mutant humanoid insects that hunt the human strongholds for fresh virgin blood. However, Nerothos, the human's God, helps keep them away from the strongholds.

Now, if divinely inspired, then there exist Pale'krea, the God Nerothos exists, and that God protects the humans from Pale'krea.

If not divinely inspired, then those words back nothing but my imagination and typing skills.

It can't be used to support any theory on a religion centered around it, as it has no basis in fact unless it is made under divine influences. That is the point Rust is trying to make."



P.S. Don't forget to choose. Which one is it? Did God himself write the Bible, thus he communicates? Did he inspire the people that wrote it, and thus still conveys knowledge; meaning it is still communication? Or did simple man write it without any inspiration from god, which would mean it has no authority or credibility on the subject of hell and angels?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-21-2004).]

Nice try but your definitions of "point" is that of it's verb usage. Why didn't you quote the example? Because it would show it was referring to the verb. <everything points to a bright future> You did not use the word "point" as a verb, but as a noun.

To indicate something is verb usage, and when you are talking about a theory your are indicating ideas dumbass!

Indicate-1 a : to point out or point to-(from the same source.)

Therefore I used point correctly. You are pathetic. Bitch just admit you were/are wrong, it'll make you feel better. Stop letting pride stump you down. To talk about or try and support your theory, you are making points, showing points, proving points.

Then why say that I'm the only one that thinks it has credibility? Get your act together.

I never said your theonly one who thinks it has credibility, you're dumber than shit. I said your the only one who thinks it DOES NOT have credibility. Stop making shit up.

Again. You automatically discredit any credibility it has among paranormal phenomenon when you say god does not communicate with people.

How so, are you truly this stupid? It is your belief that God wrote the bible, since you believe that it has no credibility to someone who says that it was not. Then that's a problem of your own.

What I meant to say, to your anal retentive self, is that you have insulted me without me insulting you first.

Well that again is a problem of your own. You should learn english so you can learn to convey what you mean to say. You may have meant to say that but it's not WHAT YOU SAID. Sounds like a PP to me.

Yes does proceed from god. What proceeds form god? The INSPIRATION! DIVINELY (proceeding from God) INSPIRED. Meaning, INSPIRATION that comes from god. Wow, that was easy.

Again, read this to yourself, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you understand it, but your readers won't. I don't get it, 'yes does proceed from god' 'What proceeds form god?' I don't know what forms God, I don't even know if He truly exists.

There are only three possibilities when it comes to the bible. Either:

1. God wrote it himself. He therefore communicates with it. Thus you were wrong.

WTF!!! You are truly stupid, everyone already knows that God did not write the bible. The bible was made by a King. Not the originial version though. But the bible itself shows that God did not write it. It has books from many different authors who weren't God. You need some SERIOUS re-education. Sorry but your first possibility has been ruled out. It seems that your the only person who believes God wrote the bible.

2. God Inspired other people, and they wrote it. God still communicates with it because the bible is based on his thoughts. He is conveying knowledge

What The Fuck! God communicates with the bible? The bible is based on His thoughts? You are infinately more stupid thean could ever be calculated. You IQ is lower than that of a lint balls.

Now, to end this stupid bickering. Choose which one you think is correct. Whichever one you choose, you will be wrong.

I don't agree with, or believe in any of those statements sorry.

Sorry, that’s logic for you. It dictates what you can logically do or not do.

So you thought up some bullshit logic just for me? Wow, didn't know I was that special to you. So you're telling me what I can and cannot do? That's insane, and a little funny.

Do you really think other people are reading this? They've gone. They are tired of bullshit. I don't leave because I get a kick out of this. But by the lone chance that Hexadecimal or Ashes are still reading, I would like for them to point out any flaw I have.

Yes I do think others are reading this. That's evidents in the responses, duh! They are tired of bullshit, and so am I so stop making posts, Rust. You don't leave because you want to be right, it kills you that you have been proven wrong so many times, it probably killed the image of yourself that you had/have. You get a kick out of this because you're unintelligent and boring. I don't know Ashes but I do know this about him, he's a little lazy, and he's probably not gonna want to point out all of your flaws, because he'd be on here forever.

Idiot, you challenged my skills, meaning you criticized them. If you criticize me for something you do worse, that is hypocrisy! Hell, that's basically the definition of hipocrisy.

Again, not the definition of a hypocrit, if I'm a basketball fan and criticize a player for their poor skills, and they're better than me at basketball. That does not make me a hypocrit, so get it right, shit for brains. And for the record, no one makes worse/more mistakes than you, fuckin retarded poster bitch.

quote:To indicate something is verb usage, and when you are talking about a theory your are indicating ideas dumbass!

Indicate-1 a : to point out or point to-(from the same source.)

Therefore I used point correctly. You are pathetic. Bitch just admit you were/are wrong, it'll make you feel better. Stop letting pride stump you down. To talk about or try and support your theory, you are making points, showing points, proving points



No no no no. You had a "point". That is a noun. You can "point" out something, though. Then what is it that you were "pointing" out? Another noun! In this case a theory or an argument. Hence the definition of "point" is either taken as a noun or it is irrelevant! I'm not arguing if you "pointed" out something or not. I'm arguing WHAT you pointed out.

quote:I never said your theonly one who thinks it has credibility, you're dumber than shit. I said your the only one who thinks it DOES NOT have credibility. Stop making shit up.



Ooops, my bad. You still didn't answer.

quote:How so, are you truly this stupid? It is your belief that God wrote the bible, since you believe that it has no credibility to someone who says that it was not. Then that's a problem of your own.



No it is not my belief that god wrote the Bible, I'm agnostic. Yet this is a case of logic. You cannot use evidence to support something, when that evidence has no credibility to you.

quote:Again, read this to yourself, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you understand it, but your readers won't. I don't get it, 'yes does proceed from god' 'What proceeds form god?' I don't know what forms God, I don't even know if He truly exists.



Obviously I'm taking what the bible says at face value. That is, that it is divinely inspired. You quoted the definition of "divinely" as "proceeding from god". Yes it is proceeding from god. What is proceeding from god? Inspiration. Thus Divinely Inspired means inspiration from god.

quote:WTF!!! You are truly stupid, everyone already knows that God did not write the bible. The bible was made by a King. Not the originial version though. But the bible itself shows that God did not write it. It has books from many different authors who weren't God. You need some SERIOUS re-education. Sorry but your first possibility has been ruled out. It seems that your the only person who believes God wrote the bible.



I said POSSIBILITES. Did you miss that part? Have you grasp of POSSIBILIITES? It is a possibility that god himself wrote it. Get it?

quote:What The Fuck! God communicates with the bible? The bible is based on His thoughts? You are infinately more stupid thean could ever be calculated. You IQ is lower than that of a lint balls.

I'm taking your definition of communicate. You said that it is conveying knowledge. If God inspired the bible, then he is in fact conveying knowledge through it, whenever I read it. Thus, he is communicating.

quote:I don't agree with, or believe in any of those statements sorry

How nice, you evade the third point because you know it disproves you. Sorry, but you can't run away from logic. If you discredit something completely, then it doesn't serve as evidence. Period.

quote:So you thought up some bullshit logic just for me? Wow, didn't know I was that special to you. So you're telling me what I can and cannot do? That's insane, and a little funny.



Yes, I thought up of some logic. That's how little you know that you even believe that someone can 'think up' some logic... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Maybe if everybody just ignores Metalligod he'll go away. I think that's the only hope for our sanity and whatever is left of his dignity.

Why in the first place believe that God exists When all scientific knowledge can show a way of everything from the universe down to people evolving naturally?

Now it is possible that god exists but surely any person should go for the most basic straight forward explanation.

Why think the universe was created by a being we know nothing about, with energies we dont know anything about based on ideas in ancient scriptures written by people who had nothing to base their teaching on but "divine inspiration".

Or scientific, logical arguments compiled from documented discoveries/data which we can understand and explain?

I said POSSIBILITES. Did you miss that part? Have you grasp of POSSIBILIITES? It is a possibility that god himself wrote it. Get it?

So the fuck what, earlier you said God wrote the bible, that is obviously what I was referring to.

I'm taking your definition of communicate. You said that it is conveying knowledge. If God inspired the bible, then he is in fact conveying knowledge through it, whenever I read it. Thus, he is communicating.

One minute you claim He wrote the bible the next your saying He inspired it. Can you not see that this is what I'm trying to stress to you? Either He wrote it or inspired someone else to write it. Make up your mind idiot. You said He wrote it so that's the info I went with.

How nice, you evade the third point because you know it disproves you. Sorry, but you can't run away from logic. If you discredit something completely, then it doesn't serve as evidence. Period.

First of all, bitch how does it disprove me? I said from the begining I believe in only POSSIBILITIES. Therefore I believe the bible possiblely happened, or that at least SOME of it is true. I needn't evade anything you throw at me, I'm not like you. You're not smart enough to bring up anything that could make me think of evading it.

Yes, I thought up of some logic. That's how little you know that you even believe that someone can 'think up' some logic...

Yeah I do believe you need re-education, because that damn statement make no sense. Fucking cunt-whore!

As for Craftian, your mother thought the samething about you.

quote:Originally posted by AlfMan:

Why in the first place believe that God exists When all scientific knowledge can show a way of everything from the universe down to people evolving naturally?

Now it is possible that god exists but surely any person should go for the most basic straight forward explanation.

Why think the universe was created by a being we know nothing about, with energies we dont know anything about based on ideas in ancient scriptures written by people who had nothing to base their teaching on but "divine inspiration".

Or scientific, logical arguments compiled from documented discoveries/data which we can understand and explain?



Those are things tings I've been trying to strees to ppl, but it doesn't register with Rust.

Metalligod, please look these up in a dictionary:

sarcasm

satire

analogy

metaphor

simile

If you can understand and detect when these are being used, you'd have a solid argument. All but one of your arguments has centered around you not understanding when Rust or Ashes was using one of the above techniques.

I'm not trying to insult you, trying to help actually.

quote:So the fuck what, earlier you said God wrote the bible, that is obviously what I was referring to.



Yes and I was again referring to possibilities. I already know all of this; that is why I don't want you to lecture me on it again.

quote:One minute you claim He wrote the bible the next your saying He inspired it. Can you not see that this is what I'm trying to stress to you? Either He wrote it or inspired someone else to write it. Make up your mind idiot. You said He wrote it so that's the info I went with.



Read! I said these are the possibilities. I numbered them so you could choose one, which you have yet to do. Again, there are three of them. Either 1. he wrote the bible, 2. inspired somebody who then wrote it, or 3. man alone wrote it.

quote:First of all, bitch how does it disprove me? I said from the begining I believe in only POSSIBILITIES. Therefore I believe the bible possiblely happened, or that at least SOME of it is true. I needn't evade anything you throw at me, I'm not like you. You're not smart enough to bring up anything that could make me think of evading it.

You either don't want to admit or are to ignorant to even understand that if man alone wrote the bible, without any divine inspiration, then the bible cannot be used as evidence! This is what Hexadecimal and I have told you.

Lets define “credibility” first: “The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=credibility)

In other words credibility deals with the question of, "why should I believe in that?"

Tell me, if I were to write a book about your sexual preferences, and in it, I never once quote a source. Moreover, I have never even met you. Why should you believe in it? You shouldn't! It has NO credibility!

This is the same with the bible. If man alone wrote the bible, without the inspiration of god, then the bible has no credibility when dealing with angels and/or hell, because man knows jack shit about angels and hell.

quote:Yeah I do believe you need re-education, because that damn statement make no sense. Fucking cunt-whore!

It makes sense, you apparently don't know how to detect sarcasm. I'll dumb it down for you:

"You know nothing of logic if you believe I can 'think up' a form of logic".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2004).]

Before i get to this topic, let me talk about ancient egyptians first. There have been scrolls/writings in pyramids and caves which indicate evolution and technological advancements (the drawings concluded technology to advance in this form: first there was a picture of a helicopter, then a plane, then a weird hover-kind craft, then a round disc), now dont you think thats weird that these drawings were made thousands of years ago?? (I have visited egypt and seen these in museums, monuments, etc.) In which case, i believe that egyptians used astronomy to perceive these things. Therefore i theorize that egyptians may have actually written the bible eventually using atronomy as a way to give the messages, and altered it a bit to make it less mysterious by writing that "god" handed down the bible to this guy, etc etc etc. So, what im saying is, i think people should organize a group of geniuses to try to decode the bible in ways never tried before. Because then i think we will fully understand everything we are not sure about.

Now, about the heaven/hell and where they are; this comes down to dimensions. I believe dimensions exist, because paranormal things have happened to almost everybody, and no one has been able to fully see or feel these things with our senses, therefore i think these "things" live in different dimensions, which makes me wonder if hell/heaven are just different dimensions here on earth, explaining the theory that hell is here on earth and in the bible it is written that satan was cast to the earth, which could just be a different dimension here on earth. Again, this is just one of many theories, i might be wrong and i might be right i am sure we will not know for a long time to come. Please respect my opinion, although im only 14, never underestimate a theory because of your own opionions. I would much appreaciate comments or thoughts but try not to discriminate me, thanks.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

As for Craftian, your mother thought the samething about you.

Hmm, I take it back. That comeback shows some promise; now please show promise in your arguments.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Metalligod, please look these up in a dictionary:

sarcasm

satire

analogy

metaphor

simile

If you can understand and detect when these are being used, you'd have a solid argument. All but one of your arguments has centered around you not understanding when Rust or Ashes was using one of the above techniques.

I'm not trying to insult you, trying to help actually.

Just because I don't respond like I understand, does not mean that I don't. Sarcasm is the real reason Ashes and I argue, he uses too much of it.

My problem with Rust is that he wants too badly to be right. Even after you've proven him wrong he'll try and bend your words. So I did the exact samething to him, just read what I've posted in these last 2 pages.

I could completely understand what they're doing all the time, but some times it just agrivates me to a point where I've got to get nasty. Rust will take your words and say that it could mean something different, instead of taking it for what it says. So I gave him a taste of his own medicine, and anyone reading our posts should be able to see that, that's what I was doing.

Notice that I never took Ashes's words and turned them around on him, only Rust. because he does this constantly.

BTW, as you may be able to see now, I was not trying to be nasty when I said all that stuff I said to you. I was just still mad because of the way you came into Ashes's and I's arguement the last time.(To Rust and anyone else, I know that this last sentence is grammatically incorrect so don't bother posting any BS about it)

Back to Hex- As you can see now I'm over it. But I just did not appreciate the way you came in cursing me out.

quote:Even after you've proven him wrong he'll try and bend your words

Where have you proven me wrong? At best what you have is me making a mistake. I must admit, that because English is my second language, I commit errors; but the brunt of my argument is intact.

1. Revelations is prophetic in nature, thus you cannot use it as evidence to indicate where Satan was cast off. They are two different events.

2. If you claim that god does not communicate with people then the bible cannot be divinely inspired, therefore it has no credibility when dealing with angels and/or hell.

3. If god does communicate with people, then you were wrong when you said otherwise.

Tell me, which of those arguments have you refuted? None of them. Like I said, what you have is me making an grammatical and/or semantic error, my arguments remain intact.