I just came to a very sad realization, sad only because I knew this long ago and never brought it up in my defenses.

The KJ bible is full of lies, Eve was NOT the first women as some of you already know. But did you also know that she was not the second either? It turns out Adam was around longer than the bullshit bible(KJ) tried to some up. And it also turns out that Satan was a man-whore.

The reason why the highest order of angels, (not Seraphim) are called the fallen is because they fucked women. But these where supposed to be duaghters of Adam. Well some of us know that there's been talk that this Satan, was in trouble even before that.

He had sex with the two women that came before Eve, and then had sex with one of Eves grandchildren, (or further down the line). Who's name was Naamah.

Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same beings, nor is Azazel, and several other names, they are simply other Fallen ones. Satan(Satanil,Satanial,Salamiel, Sammael) is the prince of the angels. And could anyone tell me why he's also called the 'Prince of Darkness'?

There's obviously a higher power than he, and everyone should know who that is. He, Satan, being so powerful and all, can have only one that could challenge him and Win; his Maker. Satan's the Prince, but 'He' is surely the King, therefore, if evil is a force(which is a ridiculous thought) He's 'The Big Bad'. -Omnibenevolent- http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

This helps anyone who'll argue that at least the revised bible is crap. I should also add that another name for Satan was Los, who happens to be a completely different being. In the original bible, it's made quite clear that God sees human acts as beneath He and His angels. When Satan becomes enthralled by women, He sees it as a sickness.

Thus dubbing him, Sammael. When you learn to 'read between the lines', you find out great things, such as: Sam means, Poison; and El is a suffix for, Angel. Hence the name, Sammael, and the other similarities.

I *should add:

The four brides of Satan were strangely made angels; but even stranger...They're called the fuckin agels of 'Prostitution'. WTF?!

The reason that Satan is the prince of the angels, or rather a king to them...They are all his children.



[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-30-2004).]

What I find funny is that you think the KJ is full of shit because it doesn't go in depth into angels. I think it's full of shit for thousands of reasons, along with even discussing "angels" (aka acid trip hallucinations; I've seen angels too...only during sleep deprivation and drug trips though)

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

What I find funny is that you think...

What I find funny is, that's what YOU think I meant. Don't try and assess the totallity of what I THINK on something, when the fact is that YOU'VE seen only one point that I've brought up as opposed to the many many others I've brought up. I've stated in the past thousands of other reasons why it's full of shit.

But as you hopfully are able to tell, it would be rather pointless to type more than what I typed, because I obviously had a lot to say on even this simple point. Me attacking the bible on all of its mistakes would require my writing a book.

I'm sure the atheists on this site would agree that attacking the bible on every fault it has would be like writing another bible. Hell a couple of bibles.

Now the point of this thread wasn't to whine about the abscence of angels in the bible, it was to prove that it was purposely and erroneously mistranslated. The fact that there were 2 women before Eve, proves the bible to be a pack of lies. The fact that God is said to have made everything would mean that He too has to be considered evil as is Satan...

-This post has gotten lengthy, so I'll state whatever else I have to say at a later time.-

d00d, it's not just the KJV; they are very few Bibles that contain the Apocrypha and other assorted heresies which you seem to have embraced. It's kind of funny, actually - some of this stuff is so insane that even most Christians reject it, and they'll believe just about anything.

Where are you getting your information from?

Metalligod:

...The KJ bible is full of lies, Eve was NOT the first women as some of you already know. But did you also know that she was not the second either? It turns out Adam was around longer than the bullshit bible(KJ) tried to some up. And it also turns out that Satan was a man-whore.

What qualifies the creation story, if the book is so flawed?

The reason why the highest order... ...Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same beings, nor is Azazel, and several other names, they are simply other Fallen ones. Satan(Satanil,Satanial,Salamiel, Sammael) is the prince of the angels. And could anyone tell me why he's also called the 'Prince of Darkness'?

Again, what are you using as the source for these facts?

...This helps anyone who'll argue that at least the revised bible is crap. I should also add that another name for Satan was Los, who happens to be a completely different being. In the original bible, it's made quite clear that God sees human acts as beneath He and His angels. When Satan becomes enthralled by women, He sees it as a sickness.

Surely, there are better points to argue against the Bible.

Thus dubbing him, Sammael. When you learn to 'read between the lines', you find out great things, such as: Sam means, Poison; and El is a suffix for, Angel. Hence the name, Sammael, and the other similarities.

Again, I'd like to check that out. Source?

What I find funny is... ...thousands of other reasons why it's full of shit.

What I find funny is how quickly you become belligerent. As for all your reasons...meh.

But as you hopfully are... ...mistakes would require my writing a book.

I won't hold by breath waiting for that scholarly work.

I'm sure... ...Hell a couple of bibles.

You just told him about how he couldn't know what you think. Yet, you're sure "the atheists on this site would agree that attacking the bible on every fault it has would..."?

Now the point of this thread wasn't to whine about the abscence of angels in the bible, it was to prove that it was purposely and erroneously mistranslated. The fact that there were 2 women before Eve, proves the bible to be a pack of lies. The fact that God is said to have made everything would mean that He too has to be considered evil as is Satan...

Why?

-This post has gotten lengthy, so I'll state whatever else I have to say at a later time.-[/i]

The Big Bad?!?!?

Yes well let me call Buffy and the Scoobies so we can battle the First......lol



Metalligod,I once again agree with you...Do I need to say more?

{In response to Optimus}

...Another point of this post was to show that I hope to open ppls eyes to the ridiculousness of the bible. And make them see that people don't dislike their God, or not believe in Him becaue of the inane rules set forth or His abscence. It's simply because a lot of the shit makes no sense. That's why it's an atheist fav to bring up the MAJOR contradictions.

I am also hoping to at least get through to 1 person so they too could understand that evil is not a force, just a POV. Now if you eliminate some of the ridiculosness in the bible, and replace it with logic and reason you'll have a little more peace of mind. And a better chance of figuring this whole religion thing out.

quote:Originally posted by Odysseus:

The Big Bad?!?!?

I couldn't resist the 'Big Bad' comment, I was thinking of Spike, he cracks me up.

quote:What qualifies the creation story, if the book is so flawed?

That's my point; it's not qualified. The KJ ver. which sooo many Christians go by, cannot be true. It cannot be true for various reasons, but as I've said, posting them all would require writing a book.

For instance, dinosaurs; as so many of us have brought up already. They were here before man, we know this do to scientific evi. Lets say they weren't here before man. I find it highly illogical that one would think Noah loaded every animal into his Ark.

No animals would have made it to their destinations after being caged with a feakin T-rex, or pack of Velosa Raptors. We, man, would not have become as civilized as we have in the presence of such massive and sufficient killers. They would have wiped us out, especially with all the goddamned waring man loves sooo much to do.

quote:Again, what are you using as the source for these facts?

I'm mainly running on memory as usual, from the convos I used to have with the Rabbi I once told everyone about. But here are some web pages I've visited recently:

The Watcher (http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/watchers.html)

Brides of Satanial(Satanial sounds so much better than, Satan) (http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/queen.html)

Go to: Sons of God (http://www.angelicartistry.com/grigori.htm)

There are more.

quote:Surely, there are better points to argue against the Bible.

I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this statement.

quote:Again, I'd like to check that out. Source?

Already addressed.

quote:What I find funny is how quickly you become belligerent. As for all your reasons...meh.

Don't start with me. I wasn't being belligerent I was simply stating facts. If you can't handle facts then you needn't post. Especially not to me, cause I can only back up what I say with facts. You come at me with this bull completely ignoring the fact that like I said, I was right.

No reasonable being judges ones overall view on something based on a tiny excerpt from many other reasons stated. Especially when in the small part they've chosen to comment on is one they don't fully understand do to the fact that they didn't see how it was connected to other things.

I wasn't being beligerent, I was simply being honest, and if any1 thiks I was being honest harshly so, then they need to grow up. I would never dare to sum up someones thoughts on something based on one small claim they've stated. I rebut only when I find the REASONING faulty.

BTW: what is 'meh'?

quote:I won't hold by breath waiting for that scholarly work.

Boy, grow up already. You'd dare to speak on belligerence and make childish, inane comments like that? It's truly pathetic.

quote:You just told him about how he couldn't know what you think. Yet, you're sure "the atheists on this site would agree that attacking the bible on every fault it has would..."?

Learn to read, it's a great quality to have. It's quite apparent that you seek only to argue, so I'll give you the heads up: Know that when next I visit this site, if I come across a lame excuse for a post such as, the one which I'm quoting, I'm ignoring you do to that fact.

Don't for a second let yourself think you've said something so great and worth hearing, that I just couldn't rebut, that you were just too smart for Metalligod. Because that'll never be the case.

Now, as I've said, learn to read. I stated quite clearly that, he couldn't know my thoughts on why I think the KJ bible is full of shit, BASED ON ONE POINT I'VE MADE. I thought I made that clear when I said:

"What I find funny is, that's what YOU think I meant. Don't try and assess the totallity of what I THINK on something, when the fact is that YOU'VE seen only ONE POINT that I've brought up AS OPPOSED TO THE MANY OTHERS I'VE BROUGHT UP. I've stated in the past thousands of other reasons why it's full of shit."

Which was in response to his saying:

What I find funny is that YOU THINK the KJ is full of shit BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GO IN DEPTH INTO ANGELS.

Which, again, was not why I thought it was/is full of shit. That was just a small piece of info he picked out and DECIDED that that was my FULL REASONING. Can you now see the difference? Is it begining to resonate yet?

Then we come to your complaining on what I said of other atheists. Well I've yet to see post from an atheist rebutting the comment. And I've yet to see any responses such as yours, and I THINK that's because others who've read what I had to say could tell that I wasn't judging someones complete view on something, based on a tiny fragment of what they've said.

I was going on the fact that I've been a Totse post-er for yrs, and I've seen several post about 'WHY CHRISTIANITY MAKES NO SENSE', or 'CHRISTIANITY HAS SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS'.

Now why then is it you and only you who can't see the difference in the two. He was going on something that wasn't true btw, and I was going on something that is true. It needs no examining, it's simply obvious.

I'm sure, again, that I've heard numerous atheist views on this site, in this very forum, to know that they believe attacking the bible on all of it's faults would require some major writing. As a matter of fact, I've heard someone say exactly that, and I believe it was Hex, though it was so long ago, I won't make that assessment.

quote:Why?

Why what? You need to be more concise, there were many things said in the part you quoted, which part of it do you want to know the 'why' of?

quote:-This post has gotten lengthy, so I'll state whatever else I have to say at a later time.-

Belligerence? Yeah! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I won't aid you in your endeavors to be lame and imbecilic, so just grow up or give up. You almost had it, you were almost mature enough to be worth conversing with, you were good up until the lame 'scholarly' comment. There's a little hope for you yet. This is why I respond.

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-30-2004).]

Metalligod:

That's my point... ...require writing a book.

So, then, do you accept any of it, or none?

For instance, dinosaurs... ...animal into his Ark.

Logic isn't at issue; remember, the Bible has this marvelous escape route.

No animals would... ...sooo much to do.

Some mammals must to have survived in the presence of such "massive and sufficient killers."

I'm mainly running on memory as usual... ...There are more.

The first site doesn't seem to be very scholarly. The second merits some reading. Thank you.

I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this statement.

Point being, if you're arguing about the internal consistency and rationality of the Bible, attack weaker points which don't require you to step out into non-canonical texts.

Don't start with me. I wasn't being belligerent I was simply stating facts.

"...What I find funny is, that's what YOU think I meant. Don't try and assess the totallity of what I THINK on something, when the fact is that YOU'VE seen only one point that I've brought up as opposed to the many many others I've brought up. I've stated in the past thousands of other reasons why it's full of shit..."

Doesn't come off as stating facts; it comes off as spoiling for a fight. That's all I was referring to.

If you can't handle facts then you needn't post. Especially not to me, cause I can only back up what I say with facts. You come at me with this bull completely ignoring the fact that like I said, I was right.

What facts have you shown thus far? Most of your statements have been conjectures based on many different sources from antiquity that deal in the metaphysical realm. Metaphysics isn't exactly strong on facts.

No reasonable being judges ones overall view on something based on a tiny excerpt from many other reasons stated.

One does when that is all that is available. You weren't willing to post the "book's worth" of reasons, what else did you expect him to go on?

Especially when in the small part they've chosen to comment on is one they don't fully understand do to the fact that they didn't see how it was connected to other things.

Again, you're talking about "seeing inside his skull." But, above, you just said "...Don't try and assess the totallity of what I THINK on something, when the fact is that YOU'VE seen only one point that I've brought up..."

I wasn't being... ...I would never dare to sum up someones thoughts on something based on one small claim they've stated. I rebut only when I find the REASONING faulty. (emphasis added)

(see above)

BTW: what is 'meh'?...

Something like "eh" or "blah" or "*sigh*."

Learn to read, it's a great quality to have. It's quite apparent that you seek only to argue, so I'll give you the heads up: Know that when next I visit this site, if I come across a lame excuse for a post such as, the one which I'm quoting, I'm ignoring you do to that fact.

I know how to read, and I know it's practical value. Why do you think I "seek only to argue?"

Don't for a second let yourself think... ...Because that'll never be the case.

O, of course not. I'm certainly not more intelligent than you are.

Now, as I've said, learn to read. I stated quite clearly that, he couldn't know my thoughts on why I think the KJ bible is full of shit, BASED ON ONE POINT I'VE MADE. I thought I made that clear when I said:

You said, roughly, that he cannot know all of your thought process/theory from one, or a few, points. Yet, you're willing to make such a sweeping generalization as you did?

Which, again... ...based on a tiny fragment of what they've said.

Sure seems that you were making a judgement to me.

I was going on the fact... ...it's simply obvious.

Again, "obvious /= true."

I'm sure, again, that I've heard numerous... ...I won't make that assessment.

Whether or not that is the case, stating that someone cannot generalize your thought process from a few points, and then promptly making a generalization about a group of people seems rather two-sided.

Why what? You need to be more concise, there were many things said in the part you quoted, which part of it do you want to know the 'why' of?...

How the hell can I be more concise than "Why?"

You said "The fact that God is said to have made everything would mean that He too has to be considered evil as is Satan..."

Explain why, if you would.

So, then, do you accept any of it, or none?

I accept the possibility of the logical parts of it.

Logic isn't at issue; remember, the Bible has this marvelous escape route.

That's part of my point. I believe I stated that, I also believe I stated that my hope was to get at least 1 person to realize the idiocy of the bible, a Christian person. I don't mind baby steps, I just hope that one day the puritanic views of the bible will be thrown out, and replaced with logic.

The religion doesn't need to change, the way people look at the religion needs to change. Peoples views on God and other aspects of the bible need to change. And Christians need to take into context that their religion is supposed to be a shared religion, it has just been translated to the English language.

They need to realize that it was translated the way it was to cause confusion and become a tool of control. The religion it was translated from was far more concise, and this translation contains added text that is NOT in the original version. True religion they've taken part in.

Some mammals must to have survived in the presence of such "massive and sufficient killers."

Yes and no. Mammals are/were physically incapable of combat with these beasts. Humans were much larger at one time, however, not nearly as large as the other huge beasts that roamed earth. Beasts that would make a much better kill than the small man.

The mammals that were around during the time of these beasts were either very small apes, large apes, or sea creatures. Now small apes could excape a raptor by way of trees. Out wit a T-rex by way of hiding do to their small size.

Large apes travel in packs, as well as small ones. Now large apes are very strong, and were bigger at one time, so of course they had more strength. With these factors being so, it would be hard for any creature to try and attack them. They're too intelligent for reptiles. And are capable of emotional attachment, not just survival attachments as are reptiles.

Needless to say the sea creatures were off limits. Not meant offensively, but it's apparent that you don't already know that most mammals came from the see, man is believed to be one of these. And we did not come until some time after the exstinction of such fierce creatures: T-rex, Allosaur, etc.

The first site doesn't seem to be very scholarly.

I posted that because it directly corresponds to my comment on the fact that Satan and the other names are diff beings. Read between the lines, so to speak, because it states clearly that Azazel was a watcher, but did NOT 'fall'. Satan, as we know, 'fell'.

From the first site: *In the Book Of Enoch, it describes that God had sent a legion of angels to earth in order to watch over and assist man during the beginning of civilization.

*Not all the Watchers descended: those that remained are the holy Watchers, and they reside in the 5th Heaven. The evil Watchers dwell either in the 3rd Heaven or in Hell.

(It goes on to list them)

**3. Azazel: Taught men to make knives, swords, and shields, and to devise ornaments and cosmetics.

-And you're welcom.

Point being, if you're arguing about the internal consistency and rationality of the Bible, attack weaker points which don't require you to step out into non-canonical texts.

Why, it's so mundane and overworked to attack the weak points. The strong points are the ones that count, thus making them strong. If you can prove faultiness in them, then you've got something worth hearing. At least in my opinion, because I've grown quite bored with the usual, 'the bible is contradictory'(with no dialog to explain this pov), 'it's hypocritical'(again, with no dialog), 'the bible can't be true cause there's no proof'.

I find those excuses inane, boring, stupid, overused, retro-idiotic, uneducated atheistic views. I've simply grown tired of hearing them and similar arguements. Come up with something hard, something that 'matters', something that not even a Christian could ignore. That's my goal, I simply can't stand to share the world with stupidity; idiocy and intelligence are disease-like.

Inject either into someone, it'll eventually spread.

Doesn't come off as stating facts; it comes off as spoiling for a fight. That's all I was referring to.

Ashes, you wound me! How can you not see this as being equivalent to misquoting? You know how unfair and immature that is. You wound me because you've not only read what I've said but you've quoted it, and still ignores the fact that my statements were facts.

Isn't it a fact that he took a small portion of what I said and deduced his opinion of MY thoughts on that? Isn't it true that he went on to respond to what I had to say with not only having read a small portion but also did not completely understand what was said?

Would you tell someone what their views are on something without knowing what their views are first? I believe that it would piss you off if you made a post about how stupid Seinfeld's show was because his jokes were corny, and some1 rebutted saying, 'I find it ridiculous that you think the show was dumb because he didn't tell enough jokes.

You'd probably have the WTF reaction, ya know, when you go, 'what the hell are you talking about?'. I find it sad that you can't see that my comments to him were facts. I don't see him rebutting what I said, thus far anyway.

What facts have you shown thus far? Most of your statements have been conjectures based on many different sources from antiquity that deal in the metaphysical realm. Metaphysics isn't exactly strong on facts

You need to learn to stick to what you're talking about, no offense. When I said what I said about facts, it was in direct response to your comments on how 'belligerent' I was to Optimus. Now as far as I know, everything I said to Optimus was true. Can you point out anything that was/is not true that I've said to him.

Now how is telling someone they need to get they're story straight, being belligerent? Again, everything I've said to him was true, so how then?

As far as what you said about metaphysics, we're talking about scripture, and according to scripture I speak truths(Though I've never said they were true). Now rebut.

One does when that is all that is available. You weren't willing to post the "book's worth" of reasons, what else did you expect him to go on?

I warned you, I'd ignore you, this is just a display of sheer ignorance. You could whine on my supposed personal attacks but what I'm saying is true. I stated quite concisely and firmly, "No reasonable being judges ones overall view on something based on a tiny excerpt from many other reasons stated.

Which points out that I've given MORE THAN WHAT HE CLAIMED AVAILABLE. Learn to read, sincerely. It seems you're back to making comments without thought. I expected him to go on the various other things I've stated in the post of which he responded to.

I believe in more than ONE response to him I pointed out many points made in the post he chose to comment on. Read, and ye shall find the answer.

Again, you're talking about "seeing inside his skull." But, above, you just said "...Don't try and assess the totallity of what I THINK on something, when the fact is that YOU'VE seen only one point that I've brought up..."

[i]Again, you're talking about "seeing inside his skull." But, above, you just said "...Don't try and assess the totallity of what I THINK on something, when the fact is that YOU'VE seen only one point that I've brought up..."

What part did I post that had anything to do with 'seeing in his skull'? I went solely on what he's written, again I've yet to see him rebut.

And I have no choice but to comment on your level of stupidity, I just think it'll become greater if nothing is said. You freakin mean to honestly display that you've not only read what I've said but you've gone on to quote it, and come with that senseless reply? It's truly pathetic.

I won't bother to point out the absurdity in that, I'll just hope and pray that one of your friends will explain it to you, ya know, break it down. Though I can't understand how much simpler it could be made.

I'll help though, I state that it's stupid to make a full assessment on what someone thinks without them telling you what they think, or in this case, you not understanding them after they've told you. If you don't unsderstand, why then would you make an assessment on their views? Makes no sense to me.

But I understood what he had to say, as did everyone else(hopfully). He was saying, that it's funny that I've chosen to 'dis' the bible based on the fact that they don't speak much about angels. But the problem is, THAT'S NOT WHY I 'DISSED' IT. Ya dig?

And I meant, 'based on one SMALL PART of a claim they've made'. I thought it was a little obvious, but whatever, my bad. I thought at least that would be made clear by my earlier saying; as you quoted, 'No reasonable being judges ones overall view on something based on a tiny excerpt from many other reasons stated'.

But it's a diff story if they have ONLY ONE REASON. Which I did NOT. Why isn't this clear to you?(real quest.)

Something like "eh" or "blah" or "*sigh*."

Why not just say, 'eh', or 'blah'? Why not just use terms that'll be better known by your eaders?(Ribbing)

I know how to read, and I know it's practical value. Why do you think I "seek only to argue?"

Huh, see this is what I hate...I like you smart-mouth. It would be so easy to hate you, but I just can't. Ya crack me up, and your little rebut was totally credible.

O, of course not. I'm certainly not more intelligent than you are.

Wow, so you do know something. Peculiar creature http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

You said, roughly, that he cannot know all of your thought process/theory from one, or a few, points. Yet, you're willing to make such a sweeping generalization as you did?

Close but not quite. The thing is, not only did he read the whole thing, he DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. He's basing his opinion of what I said when he doesn't understand my view. How could he understand my view if he's going only on one point of so many? It makes no sense.

If I were to make a speech, and someone listening shuts their ears after hearing me say, 'Vegetables aren't that great tasting'. And he believes my view on the subject ot be that I hate veges and they're nasty, would be inane and void of intelligence. it's just stupid to assume something based on one part of something, and you can't understand the one part you heard.

My view could very well be that I love veges and they're good for you, they just don't taste as great as fruit. Hell, I could be a freakin vegetarian. I'm begging you to understand, it's maddening that ou can't see the obvi.

Whether or not that is the case, stating that someone cannot generalize your thought process from a few points, and then promptly making a generalization about a group of people seems rather two-sided.

You make me sick. I'll say it this way:

I NEVER STATED THAT SOMEONE COULD NOT GENERALIZE MY THOUGHTS BASED ON A FEW POINTS. He generalized my thoughts based on A POINT. Dude there's a big diff, I feel like you're purposely being antagonistic, because I refuse to believe that you're this...ditsy.

You understand the big words, you read, but miss the obvious, ALL THE TIME. I refuse to believe that you're not doing this on purpose, because that would mean there's a lack a intelligence, and I so don't want to believe it.

Back to the generalization, it's not double-sided nor is it a generalization if what I'm saying came 'straight from the horses mouth'. I know for a FACT the thinbg I say, he does NOT. There's a huge diff, I know these things because these were the things said to me.

How the hell can I be more concise than "Why?"

Exemplar of reason for my foul words towards you. Now, you also need to work on being more reasonable. I pointed out 'how the hell you could have been more concise'. Did you or did you not also quote prior to your question:

"Now the point of this thread wasn't to whine about the abscence of angels in the bible, it was to prove that it was purposely and erroneously mistranslated. The fact that there were 2 women before Eve, proves the bible to be a pack of lies.

I believe you did sir, if not, prove it plz.

You said "The fact that God is said to have made everything would mean that He too has to be considered evil as is Satan..."

Explain why, if you would.

Because if He made everything, including the evil that is Satan, then He's evil as well, because everything came from His hands and mind. If not completely evil then partly, beecause again, He also condones evil.

He also embarks in evil activity, He chooses torture over teaching.-Hell

:major editing:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-31-2004).]

"What part did I post that had anything to do with 'seeing in his skull'? I went solely on what he's written, again I've yet to see him rebut." -Metalligod

And what the fuck do you think I was doing in your case, you hypocritical mentally handicapped fool?

I went solely on what you wrote, nothing more, nothing less.

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

What I find funny is that you think the KJ is full of shit because it doesn't go in depth into angels. I think it's full of shit for thousands of reasons, along with even discussing "angels" (aka acid trip hallucinations; I've seen angels too...only during sleep deprivation and drug trips though)

This is what I said...I still stand by what I said. You think the KJ is full of shit because it doesn't talk about all that angel shit that the non-cannonized texts go into; in fact, it contradicts the non-cannonized texts. Perhaps though, that means the non-cannonized texts are the ones full of shit? You take time to ponder that? Or perhaps the whole religion is full of shit, think of that one?

Don't bitch at me about making generalizations based on misunderstanding when it's quite clear I know what the fuck you're talking about. How you presented your arguement gives the appearance that the bible is full of shit because it doesn't go in depth into Adam's "wives" (based on 3rd party non cannonized texts) and "angeology" (a pure bullshit study based on 3rd party texts not even considered to be inspired by God by some of the craziest motherfucking Christians). I found that funny, because I would find it full of unbelievably LARGER amounts of shit were it to include the book of Enoch, the Apocrypha, and others.

One short easy question:

What ancient text talks about Lilith and all of these other wives of adam you are speaking of?

I personally have only heard of lilith through a couple of *NEW* books.

And what the fuck do you think I was doing in your case, you hypocritical mentally handicapped fool?

I went solely on what you wrote, nothing more, nothing less.

Plz fuckin tell me where in the bloody hell I said anything about the goddamned bible not having enough info on angels. Can you do that?

I'd sooo fuckin love to see you try. When it turns out that you can't(which it will) it'll prove you to be nothing more than a fuckin liar. Now eat shit and die slow. Don't ever fuckin come at me with your false accusations and your whiny ass nonsense.

I did not once complain about the bible not having enough info on angels. The fuckin point was made obvious when I said what I said about the damned KJ vers. named Eve as the first woman.

Did you even read the damned topic sentence? If Satan had sex with women, one of which who is said to be the mother of angels, that means Eve was not the first fuckin womean. Therefore, the KJ version has lied on that point.

This woman was not born an angel she was later dubbed an angel by God. Before you ever decide to call me anything you make sure it's accurate. I made not one hypocritical statement, you dumb fuckin cunt.

Now again, can you show me where it is that I said the KJ vers. doesn't go in dept into angels, or anything close? Can you show where that was my argument or complaint if you will?

Watch this fool avoid the questions simply because the answers aren't in his favor.

Opt, my fecal matter has a higher IQ than you, don't ever dare to speak on my character you worthless mass of particles.

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

Don't bitch at me about making generalizations based on misunderstanding when it's quite clear I know what the fuck you're talking about.

Oh, you knew, did you? Well I totally missed the part where you had anything to say about the actual points I made, I've yet to come across anything that implicates that you understaood anything.

quote:How you presented your arguement gives the appearance that the bible is full of shit because it doesn't go in depth into Adam's "wives"

It does, does it? Plz do tell were I stated that Adam had mre than one wife. Because I only know of one, therefore I'm apt to speak on only one. So could you point out the part where I stated the he(Adam) had others?

quote:(based on 3rd party non cannonized texts) and "angeology" (a pure bullshit study based on 3rd party texts not even considered to be inspired by God by some of the craziest motherfucking Christians).

First, what text did I bring up that's from angeology? I can only recall what I've learned from the bible. I've never studied angeology, therefore I don't speak on it. Only what the Bibles have to say.

Oh, and I guess we chould dismiss something just because some Christians won't acknowledge it, yeah that's a very intelligent atheistic view. That's a very intelligent theistic rebutist view. It's very wise to just throw out info because the people that don't want any1 to believe it, denies it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You've proven to be a very intelligent adversary, I'm sorry I crossed you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) **sarc**

quote:I found that funny, because I would find it full of unbelievably LARGER amounts of shit were it to include the book of Enoch, the Apocrypha, and others.

So.

It seems you don't like logical things, the book of Enoch clears everything up. Dismisses the idiocy of the 'good, evil' notion. And explains the 'why' of things. I suggest that you learn more on matters you decide to comment on. It's very useful.

--Everyone who's into reading, I highly recommend(again) reading 'Memnoch the Devil', by Anne Rice.--



*Don't bother making comments on 'rebutist', or any other words. (WOT)

I still don't understand why what you THINK is right.

quote:Originally posted by evolove:

I still don't understand why what you THINK is right.

On what issue?

Even without KJ the bible was a bullshit book. It was still judged and certain parts kept out or in. And i'm sure it was bulshit when it was first written up too.

I was going to post a response, but, I hit a link accidentally (damn laptops) and lost the information 3/4 through. I'm inebriated, and I don't feel like trying to type the whole damn thing up again.

Have fun with your game.

Metalligod, although you've got some right points, Sammael was a Seraphim, not a Grigori. The Grigori were destroyed later, after Eden.

quote:Originally posted by ashesofzen:

I was going to post a response, but, I hit a link accidentally (damn laptops) and lost the information 3/4 through. I'm inebriated, and I don't feel like trying to type the whole damn thing up again.

Have fun with your game.

It's happened to me several times, I totally understand. But STOP GETTING DRUNK!

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Metalligod, although you've got some right points, Sammael was a Seraphim, not a Grigori. The Grigori were destroyed later, after Eden.

Actually you're kinda wrong, Sammael, and Satanial are one in the same, he is the leader of ALL angels. He was a Grigori/Watcher. But do to the 'fall', the Grigoris/Watchers were destroyed as a group, not literally. God has yet to destroy any of His angels.

Do to the 'fall' most of the Watchers were no longer members. Therefore there wasn't an adequate number of them to take care of the task that God had made them to do. Not all the Wacthers 'fell', Michael and Uriel were Watchers. Do to the 'break-up', a new Choir of angels were made to become the new highest order, the Seraphim.

There was also a short lived eleventh choir, the Nephalim, who were sons of the fallen ones. These were normal looking beings, save for the fact that they were as beautiful as angels, and they grew into titans.

God was so pissed off that not only did He punish His angels, but He dubbed His grandchildren demons(the Nephilim).

Satanial was the leader of one group of seven Watchers who first disobeyed the Lord and were punished. These were held in a penal area within the Fifth Heaven which is described as reeking of sulfur. (http://www.angelicartistry.com/grigori.htm)

Who are these Nephilim? (http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/Demi-godsOfGenesis6.html)

Isn't it strange how Greek mythos is connected to the Christian religion? Even before it was revised by KJ. Even before the religion began to get messy. The KJ vers. also acknowledges the existance of demi gods, thus it does acknowledge the existance of paganistic deities. -Galiath=demigod/titan-.

I should ad...

The world 'El' also means God, it depends on how it's used. With so many languages one word could have several meanings, it depends on the sentence you use it in that you extract the correct meansing from it. Its almost like English except that it's not; some Hebrew words can be plural and singular even if saidin the same way.

The have a lot of words that could be equated to the the English 'You'. Only that with our language the following word(s) will describe whether or not 'you' was used plurally. But this isn't so with Hebrew; I could say Elohim, which could mean either 'God', 'Gods'', 'Gods', 'gods'.

El, could mean angel or God.

To Optimus: Do you concede?

I thought I was pretty clear:

"Why is what -YOU THINK- right?"

Generaly

From an outside perpsective it seems as arbitary as any another beleif system. Including the one supposed by the KJV bible. Just different people with different understandings and access to different stimuli.

[This message has been edited by evolove (edited 06-02-2004).]

Ok, I know all about the nephilim and the anakim (who you forgot to mention) and their relation to the Grigori.

The nephilim were never considered angels - they were weird beasts of no set form.

The anakim were the six-fingered giants, from whom Goliath was descended.

Sammael WAS the leader of the angels, but he was a Seraph. The Seraphim though, stayed in heaven, while the Grigori were sent into the world to watch and guide humans. Shemihasah was the leader of the 200 Grigori, before they were destroyed. (BTW, I've seen that site on the Grigori before, it's not too accurate)

And another comment - Michael is a Seraph, but Uriel is a Cherub.



Oh, and in reference to 'other gods' and whatnot, the bible is strewn with other gods (Baal and Dagon just to name 2). It just says they're false gods. And Goliath wasn't a demigod - he was a demiangel at best.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 06-02-2004).]

No Metalligod, I don't concede. I don't plan on making any more posts in here, but I don't concede. This is me no longer posting because it is futile to get you to realize a few simple things: you're hypocritical constantly...I've only seen a few posts from you that weren't hypocritical; you revert to childlike behavior and rely on attacking the person who comments on your posts rather than what they say; you rarely provide sources for what you say and then get pissed off if people ask for a source, and if you do provide the source, you act condecending towards the person who asked for the source as if they intended to call bullshit on you rather than just check up on interesting information.

All you fucking do is insult people who bring up some very good points simply because its contrary to something you think.

Also, on the matter of you accusing me of making a sweeping generalization on you: I was going on your first post in this thread, and that alone; I made no generalization. You said the KJ was full of shit, and your supporting reasons (atleast in this post, the only source of information I had) were from non-cannonized texts (Meaning they were not believed to be inspired by God). I said that it was funny you thought it was full of shit for not containing that information in it, when I think it would be even more full of shit had it included that information. Once again, my comment was based on one post, the only post I had read of yours. I wasn't generalizing your entire viewpoint, I was commenting on the viewpoint in expressed in that one single post. YOU generalized my intellectual level, my comprehension, and my viewpoint based on the false assumption that I had generalized your views; had I generalized your views and honestly thought that was the only reason you think the bible was full of shit, I probably would have called you a fucking idiot. You assumed far too much from a single god damned comment that referred to one post, and one post only.

QUOTE]Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Ok, I know all about the nephilim and the anakim (who you forgot to mention) and their relation to the Grigori.[/quote]

Anakim? So what, they weren't mentioned because tey're not important. Going into who they are/were would be swaying too far off topic. The nephalim were mentioned to so that they wouldn't be confused with being, the ones who fell, as so many think they are.

And what exactly is their relation to the Grigori? Because I was taught that they were descendants of man.Anakim was the sons of Mizhaim(or however it's spelled), who was a son of Ham, who was a son of Noah(the ark dude), who was a son of Methusala, who was a son of Enoch, who didn't die but became an angels, a scribe angels for God. Enoch was the son of Jared, and it goes on and on, back down to ADAM. Who was of course, a man.

[b]The nephilim were never considered angels - they were weird beasts of no set form.

First off, I don't recall saying they were angels, pardon me if I did, could you point that out? Second, I'd sooooo love it if you'd 'back-up' what you say, because I've never heard such a thing.

Again, plz back-up what you say, because I think you're makin stuff up. You have no basis for what you say as far as I know, and again, I've never heard such things you say. As far as I was taught, demigods were beings that are half gods, gods are immortal, but not as is God. Lets venture into Merriam:

Main Entry: demi·god

Pronunciation: 'de-mE-"gäd

Function: noun

Date: 1530

1 : a mythological being with MORE POWER THAN A MORTAL but LESS THAN A GOD.

god(**not to be confused with, God**)

2 : a being or object believed to haveMORE THAN NATURAL ATTRIBUTES and POWERS and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

Did angels not have the attributes of the very definition of a god? They could make themselves flesh; make themselves invisible; become huge, as they naturally are, or they could become human sized; they could fly; shape-shift; wield the elements, etc. How are they not gods? Don't confuse the term with, again, 'God'. So again, can you back up your assertions?

[b]Sammael WAS the leader of the angels, but he was a Seraph.

Ok, I don't see the point on the emphasis of 'was', so what WAS it? Was, is, what's the diff, we're talking about something that supposedly happened in the past.

The Seraphim though, stayed in heaven, while the Grigori were sent into the world to watch and guide humans.

Ok, plz back this up, because now I really think you're, as Craftian calls it, 'pulling shit out of your ass'. Apparently you've never heard of the archangels, they aren't an actual order. They are a faction of angels who had to take over the job of 'The Watchers', or Grigori as you seem to prefer. If you look into archangels/guardian you'll see that amongst them are none other than, Micheal-Seraph,Uriel-SERAPH, Gabriel-angel of revelation and decrees, Azreal-the angel of death(one of four of them anyway, Uriel is one as well).

The bible clearly states that Uriel's a Seraph, so plz tell me what makes you say otherwise. Do to the fall of Satan and some other Watchers, the Seraphim was made the highest order and the archagels was made to take the place of the watchers. Notice that All the other orders are CHOIRS but archangels aren't, it's just an order, made to do a specific duty, Watch Man. I believe Micheal is also an archangel, he is said to be the angel of War if you will. In thessalonians and many other parts of the bible you'll find that he fights/ aids in war.

And sammeal wasn't just called the 'leader' of the angels, he was acutally in hierarchy to God's position. He was/is the Prince of the angels and has not been thrown into hell yet, nor has Micheal been appointed the 'leader' of the angels yet. Notice how he's said to becomes a leader but not Prince. There's no was for Satan if he exists. Micheal won'e be leader until the supposed rebellion, but even then, he won't take Stan's place, will he?

Shemihasah was the leader of the 200 Grigori, before they were destroyed. (BTW, I've seen that site on the Grigori before, it's not too accurate)...And another comment - Michael is a Seraph, but Uriel is a Cherub.

First off, you really need to learn what's considered scripture and what's not. Shemihasah is just another name for Satan, number 1. And two that was a story made up by a non-biblical member, the story of Shemihasah. The Christian religions has its contradictions, but none so idiotic and blatant as the ones in the bullshit story. In the real scriptures it took far more than two freakin angels to subdue Stan, he's called the most powerful and the Prince for many reasons.

And since when does God so deliberately condone torture. I don't mean the average burn in hell sentence, I mean the filleting hanging and burning of His own angels. Plz, show me some real scripture where it is shown that God has punished any of His angels. Ppl love to bitch about what Metalligod says(nevermind the third person tone), and it's mainly becuase I've caught them lying or they're mad because I've questioned them and proved they had no clue as to what they were talking about.

Even the dimmest of Christians know that their religion is not so open about its contradictions, it usually takes some thinking and rationalizing to find them. For the Christians to try and preach of an Omnibenevolent being, and then to turn and say He had one of His angels beaten, restrained, hanged, burned and tortured, would be stupid for even them. They're slick in most of their contradictions, so again, I believe you're bulling this stuff out of your ass.

Oh, and in reference to 'other gods' and whatnot, the bible is strewn with other gods (Baal and Dagon just to name 2). It just says they're false gods.

Apparently you need to do some SERIOUS re-reading. It's uite sad that you cannot comprehend that false gods means that, THEY'RE NOT REAL! When He was saying false gods, he was saying they aren't real gods, that the ppl were worshipping nothing, and that the worship should be directed to He and only He.

Let me break it down for you: False

Main Entry: [1]false

Pronunciation: 'fols

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): fals·er; fals·est

Etymology: Middle English fals, from Old French & Latin; Old French, from Latin falsus, from past participle of fallere to deceive

Date: 12th century

1 : not genuine <false documents> <false teeth>

2 a : intentionally untrue <false testimony> b : adjusted or made so as to deceive <false scales> <a trunk with a false bottom> c : intended or tending to mislead <a false promise>

3 : not true <false concepts>

7 a : based on mistaken ideas <false pride>

Now lets see, gods... oh yeah, we've been there already. What He's saying is, 'don't worship gods that aren't real, I'm the ONE True God'. Or, 'The other gods aren't real, there's only me'. Or, the gods you're now worshiping aren't real'.

All with the same meaning, however, angels are gods, but they weren't worshipped (save for Satan). It is well known that the angels are of God, and are for God, and in believing in Satan you have to believe in God, so it still serves His purpose, whatever that may be.

And Goliath wasn't a demigod - he was a demiangel at best.

I've already proven otherwise, need me to reitterate?

I thought I was pretty clear:

You we'ren't that's why I asked you.

"Why is what -YOU THINK- right?"

Generaly

I don't know, you tell me. I can't recall saying that what I THINK is right. I go by only what I know, and thus far, no one has ever proven a thing I've said wrong, save for Ashes. That's partly why I continue to be bothered by his frequent immaturity, he's my biggest challenge. Though what he proved me wrong on was completely decimal, compared to my debouching him. I like tey guy, he always pushes me to learn more, whether he knows it or not. He makes me have to look into everything and confirm what I say is correct, and in the process I learn more.

The question is why do YOU think I'M RIGHT? Generally. What I say can be proven, at least scriptively when speakin on religion. And everything else, can be proven by trial and error and science. For instance, our little spat about physics, he has yet to acknowledge it, but I was correct in everything I said. Including my mishap on fission. **Wow, right when I'm wrong, I rock.**

:forgot to add...don't make any comments on the use of the 'script' word: WOT

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 06-03-2004).]

No Metalligod, I don't concede. I don't plan on making any more posts in here, but I don't concede. This is me no longer posting because it is futile to get you to realize a few simple things: you're hypocritical constantly...

It's quite funny how you bitch and moan about that, yet you can't PROVE IT! You bich and moan, and say that you aren't making anymore posts in here, yet you avoid the questions that'll either make you right and shut me up, or make you look really really bad, all to make this post. I know for a FACT that you did not answer those questions because number 2 is right, it'll make you look bad.

You completely avoid that to make this whiny ass post, grow up. You can call me names all day, but don't get mad when I do the same, don't get made because what I say about you is true, which could be PROVEN. And what you say is nothing more than the babbling of a whinner proven wrong. You belong in the Bitch and Moan forum.

I've only seen a few posts from you that weren't hypocritical; you revert to childlike behavior and rely on attacking the person who comments on your posts rather than what they say; you rarely provide sources for what you say and then get pissed off if people ask for a source, and if you do provide the source, you act condecending towards the person who asked for the source as if they intended to call bullshit on you rather than just check up on interesting information.

Why the hell shouldn't I attack the person if they make personal comments towards me. I'll do it so much that it annoys the hell out of them, I'll make them regret it.

Now, I agree I have a habbit of attacking people but it's not because they ask for a source, it's the way some ask. I have somewhat of a foul history with Ashes and it is well known that we constantly argue. I call him and some others names do to the fact that I feel they've asked me an absurd question. The people I get that way towards, are flammed because of my very own perception of them. I think Ashes is smart, and when he asks a question that could be answered by himself I feel that he's doing it purposely to piss me off.

It goes that way with a couple of others too. When Ashes asked for sources I did not once get nasty with him, I provided them and he said thanx, end of story. When ppl ask a certain way I get pissed, because I can tell that tey're saying in a way as to say that I'm lying. As I've done a few posts ago with Vampireslaya.

I always provide sources for what I say, well known for that, I usually don't do ituntil some asks though. When ppl make posts and make certain ascertainments I go and check up on them myself with out their provision, because the last time I asked someone to provide a source for what they'd said to me they got very nasty(Ashes). I was told to do something for myself, so I began to urge the same to others, but if someone asks nicely I'll provide. No prob.

And far far too often, you ppl try and find flaw and/or combat what I say, rather than first letting it resonate in your heads. And that pisses me off, I think I should be shown the same respect as everyone esle, and not constantly badgered for my prespectively 'outlandish' views.

quote:proven, at least scriptively when speakin on religion This is a huge problem....Why are what ever scriptures you refer to correct?....Why are your reading these as opposed to a Hindu or Eygptian words on paper?

I don't think your right, that's the whole deal, as I said in my post, what your saying seems like just as much bullshit as the KJV.

quote:First off, I don't recall saying they were angels, pardon me if I did, could you point that out?

quote:There was also a short lived eleventh choir, the Nephalim, who were sons of the fallen ones. These were normal looking beings, save for the fact that they were as beautiful as angels, and they grew into titans.

Both by you.

quote:And what exactly is their relation to the Grigori?

The anakim and the nephilim were their children.

The anakim were the sons of Anak (hence the name), who was decended from Nephilim (Numbers 13:33).

quote:Ok, I don't see the point on the emphasis of 'was', so what WAS it? Was, is, what's the diff, we're talking about something that supposedly happened in the past.

The WAS was an agreement, with a 'but'.

quote:Apparently you've never heard of the archangels, they aren't an actual order

The archangels are the second lowest quoir of heaven! You're referring to the Graced Seven, who come of all different quoirs.

quote:If you look into archangels/guardian you'll see that amongst them are none other than, Micheal-Seraph,Uriel-SERAPH, Gabriel-angel of revelation and decrees, Azreal-the angel of death(one of four of them anyway, Uriel is one as well).

You're all over the place.

Here's the seven:

- Gabriel (Cherub)

- Michael (Seraph)

- Uriel (Cherub)

- Raphael (Virtue)

- Zadkiel (Domination)

- Raguel (Principality)

- Remiel (Throne)

quote:The bible clearly states that Uriel's a Seraph

The bible only refers to 2 angels by name (Michael and Gabriel) and one other by his job description (the angel of death). All others are just refered to as 'angels' or 'messengers' (malachim). In fact, using my concordance, the only Uriels in the bible are human - one's the leader of 120 relatives and helped move the ark of the covenant, the other was a priest.

In fact, if you want the order of quoirs, they are as follows (with the number of members):

Seraphim: 4

Cherubim: 15

Thrones: 70

Dominations: 400

Virtues: 3,400

Powers: 25,000

Principalities: 777,000

Archangels: 52,000

Angels: 215,000,000



Sammael's title is no longer Prince of Angels - it's Prince of Earth too. There is no current Prince of Angels, but the highest (or most powerful) currently is Metatron.

quote:In the real scriptures it took far more than two freakin angels to subdue Stan, he's called the most powerful and the Prince for many reasons.

In the 'real scriptures' heaven's rebellion isn't mentioned.

quote:Plz, show me some real scripture where it is shown that God has punished any of His angels. Ppl love to bitch about what Metalligod says(nevermind the third person tone), and it's mainly becuase I've caught them lying or they're mad because I've questioned them and proved they had no clue as to what they were talking about.

Show me a real scripture that says what you're saying. I don't bitch about what you say because it's you, I'm just telling you, you've got your facts out of wack.

quote:Apparently you need to do some SERIOUS re-reading. It's uite sad that you cannot comprehend that false gods means that, THEY'RE NOT REAL! When He was saying false gods, he was saying they aren't real gods, that the ppl were worshipping nothing, and that the worship should be directed to He and only He.

No shit.

This is a huge problem....Why are what ever scriptures you refer to correct?....Why are your reading these as opposed to a Hindu or Eygptian words on paper?

What the hell are you talking about? First of all, who said anything about them being correct or not? What the fuck?! You question makes no sense. You're asking a very stupid and inanae question, why ask something so dumb? Everyone knows that the King James VERSION is a VERSION/translation of the Hebrew bible. So what the fuck are you talking about?

I simply stated that the KJv MISTRANSLATED A BUNCH OF THINGS. For instance, the concept of hell. In the original bible, everyone goes to hell. It's not a place where 'bad' ppl are sent to suffer. Satan was not sent to hell for not praising man. He ws sent because he was too enthralled by man, and ignored his duties as an agel, and the Prince of the angels.

So what the hell are you taling about? What do you mean why is the scripture I refer to correct? Because it's the freakin original and it was not concieved to be used as a tool of control. It's quite obvious that there were A LOT of things CHANGED in the KJ vers, that AREN'T in the ORIGINAL bible. If you right a freakin story in French and I translated it to English, and changed a bunch of things it would no longer be your story, it would be a variation. A false variation, is are most stories from books that are made into movies.

Why this isn't apparent to you is beyond me, and therefore I find your questions inane. If you call yourself translating something and you misconstrue just about everything you're supposed to be converting, then you've either, A)Lied - or, B)Didn't know what the hell you were talking about. It was deliberate that the book of Enoch not be translated, becase it DISPROVES everything said about Satan that the KJv tries to express. It disporves the KJ concept of hell, it disproves the notion of God's omniscience, it dsiproves many things changed by KJ.

Therefore it is unreasonable to believe everything in the KJ version. Now I don't know where you get off with this 'Right, Wrong' stuff. Because I thought it would be well known by now that I, Metalligod HAS NO RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND! So I don't know for a fact whether or not Budhism and all that other stuff is true or not. But I don't look into it, because I don't find those religions logical. The Christian religion is logical, not the Bibles but the Religion. Or rather, their religious concepts are more logical. That's why most people focuses on this God being. Or esle no one would waste time discussing Him so often.

Contrary to what ever the hell some atheists might try to say, that's the reason why I assure you. Because if that wasn't the case, we'd be arguing about Thor, or Dhahak, or Amon-Ra, or Cronus, or Chu-Jung, etc.

Ok, on to your second question, it also makes abosolutely no sense. When have I said that my readings are correct? According to the religion we are speaking on, I'm right. This can be proven, all you have to do is look into it. I don't recall ever saying that Hindu and blah blah are WRONG. So could you plz point out to me when I have?

P.S---I'M HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND---

Me, Metalligod:

quote:There was also a short lived eleventh choir, the Nephalim, who were sons of the fallen ones. These were normal looking beings, save for the fact that they were as beautiful as angels, and they grew into titans.



By Vamp: Both by you.

...And, your point? I never, again, said they were angels, they were, however, called a choir. I believe I stated that they were material creatures, unlike angels who are immaterial. No, I didn't state it quite that way, but I think calling them TITANS and saying that they GREW and whatnot would indicate as much.



Because as far as I know, angels don't grow, they just are, as they are. I also thought ppl were smart enough to know that TITANS are/were material creatures. Creatures bound by physical laws, they were of the flesh, unlike angels.

I believe I stated that they were SONS OF THE FALLEN and they were as beutiful AS angels. Which as well, I thought indicated that they indeed WEREN'T ANGELS. Sorry for overestimating intellect. I'm, also sorry that not only did you read what I had said, but you obviously re-read it, because you quoted it, and still did not pick up the facts that I just discussed.

The anakim and the nephilim were their children.

The anakim were the sons of Anak (hence the name), who was decended from Nephilim (Numbers 13:33).

Wow, thanx for the info, I always thought they were but never could recall seeing any info indicating such, Thanx again. But again, what's the point, why was it important that they be brought up? And you were/are still wrong about the Nephilim, because they were giants. Therefore they had a set form, and they are also described, which also indicates a set form.

The WAS was an agreement, with a 'but'.

I see. Do understand that I wasn't being nasty then, I simply did not know. Sometimes the way you guys word things confuses me. As I'm sure my wording does to others sometimes.

Sorry wasn't speaking on only the KJv.

You're all over the place.

Here's the seven:

- Gabriel (Cherub)...The bible only refers to 2 angels by name (Michael and Gabriel) and one other by his job description (the angel of death)....the only Uriels in the bible are human ...

Well, it seems we're both right. Maybe the angels are ranked for a reason, they can grow in rank. Uriel is said to be a Cherub but also said to be a Seraph. Satan was a Watcher/Grigori as we already know, but he was also a Seraph.

And also, as I've said b4, angels can be in more than one order.



01-SERAPHIM-Michael, Seraphiel, Jehoel, Uriel, Kemuel, Metatron, Nathanael and Satan before he fell.

02-CHERUBIM-Gabriel, Cherubiel, Ophaniel, Raphael, Uriel, Zophiel, and Satan before he fell. (http://www.freepaul.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/angels/angels6.htm)

...And also: (http://www.thekingofkings.org/astral_citadel.htm)

Great site (http://www.steliart.com/angelology_angelic_orders.htm)

Pay attention to Uriel (http://www.heart7.net/spirit/aapp2.html[/url)

In the 'real scriptures' heaven's rebellion isn't mentioned.

I actually wasn't speaking of that rebellion and if the bible's beings are real I don't believe that that rebellion will happen, it makes no sense. I was speaking of the 'fall', in which God was the one to repremand Satan. God rarely interviens in anything, He always sends someone else to do His 'dirty work'.

Show me a real scripture that says what you're saying. I don't bitch about what you say because it's you, I'm just telling you, you've got your facts out of wack.

I've shown scripture to back what I say at all times. I don't feel the need to search and repost them everytime I bring up the same or similar points. Like I said READ the book of Enoch and or some Hebrew, re-retranslated, not the King crap. I had the luxury of knowing a Rabbi, and learning from him ,he who was REALLY into his religion and learned most of his ancestrial language.

Remember, Bible-Enoch. Those are my sources. Hell use the KJv, I've yet to see/hear of an angel being so blatantly tortured and/or destroyed in there as well.

quote:No shit.

So why in the bloody would you say, and I quote, "Oh, and in reference to 'other gods' and whatnot, THE BIBLE IS STREWN WITH OTHER GODS (Baal and Dagon just to name 2)."

Now you're a liar. Flatout! That's not acknowledging a god, that's denying a god's existance. Now can you not see howyou've lied? Apparently you DID NOT understand what FALSE GODS meant, because you went on to babble about them being acknowledged, which they weren't, they were, again, DENIED.

Damn you guys have some hardcore posting skills.

I was un-aware that you didn't nessecarily beleive what you write.

My assumption, my folly, yes.

So your just researching this stuff.

I wonder do you put any of it into practice?

Relgion, and especialy Judaism, and what Christianity should be, is a life to lived down to your socks, not an intellectual persuite, and you will never REALY find anything unless you do this, and you will never realy be able to do that if you don't believe it.

So I'm wondering why your wasting you time.

Mental Masterbation?

I'm probably going to be way off the mark here, again, but I think it's obvious that I don't understand you. And you are very interesting to me, perhaps the way religion is to you. Will you indulge me a little every now and then?



Edit: Thats not quite correct, illtellectualy you can come to a piont with religion, but it's only after that piont is breached, especialy if it's a simple or cold curiosity, will any great discoveries be found. That is at least the way I look at it. The Bhakti and Jnani end up the same, and cross paths many times. Which is also why a central collum or 'straight' path is often best. One that is completely balanced in every respect.

How much do you know about the practices that have lead to people comming into a postition to authoritively write the down what they know about God (and everything else)?

[This message has been edited by evolove (edited 06-04-2004).]

I dont mean to kill topics, sorry about that.

So your just researching this stuff.

I wonder do you put any of it into practice?

Relgion, and especialy Judaism, and what Christianity should be, is a life to lived down to your socks, not an intellectual persuite, and you will never REALY find anything unless you do this, and you will never realy be able to do that if you don't believe it.

As for your first question, yes and no. I do what I feel is morally right, I needn't look into a bible to tell me what's moral, nor does anyone else, they just know. I practice basic bible things, such as, 'Thou shalt not kill'. I am a 'hot head' and I do get nasty with stupid ppl, but never do I lay my hands on someone b4 they've attacked me first.

However, heated a debate gets with me, expect always that I won't strike you, it's just morally right.(Obviously speaking on when in person with some1)

As for what ever else you've said in the quoted above, it makes no sense to me. Sorry. I think it's worded a little funny and I can't make out what you mean to say.

So I'm wondering why your wasting you time.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was. I'm damned sure that in my posting here, ppl have learned SOMETHING from me. Despite my foul-mouthed behavior, my meanness, despite my uncanny ability to be civil one minute and infuriated and belligerent the next. I'm sure that ppl have learned from me, whether or not they're willing to admit it, and as I 've said in a previous post: STUPIDITY AND INTELLIGENCE ARE LIKE DISEASES, IN THAT, IF YOU INJECT EITHER ONE INTO SOMEONE IT'LL SPREAD.

Intelligence and stupidity are contagious, and I hope to spread intelligence for I have been burdened to share this planet with you ppl. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Mental Masterbation?

Sorry, I don't' shake hand with the devil'; not mentally nor figuratively.

I'm probably going to be way off the mark here, again, but I think it's obvious that I don't understand you. And you are very interesting to me, perhaps the way religion is to you. Will you indulge me a little every now and then?

Sure thing.

quote:And, your point? I never, again, said they were angels, they were, however, called a choir.

You called the Nephilim the 11th choir. Counting the Grigori, there were 10 angelic choirs. By inference there, you are suggesting that Nephilim are angels.

quote:Wow, thanx for the info [on the anakim], I always thought they were [the sons of Anak] but never could recall seeing any info indicating such, Thanx again

quote:I was taught that they were descendants of man.Anakim was the sons of Mizhaim(or however it's spelled), who was a son of Ham, who was a son of Noah(the ark dude), who was a son of Methusala, who was a son of Enoch, who didn't die but became an angels, a scribe angels for God. Enoch was the son of Jared, and it goes on and on, back down to ADAM. Who was of course, a man.Both by you. Try to keep out your contradictions, please?

quote:The bible clearly states that Uriel's a Seraph, so plz tell me what makes you say otherwise

quote:

01-SERAPHIM-Michael, Seraphiel, Jehoel, Uriel, Kemuel, Metatron, Nathanael and Satan before he fell.

So websites equate to the bible now do they?

quote:God rarely interviens in anything, He always sends someone else to do His 'dirty work'.

You've obviously missed half of the bible where he does stuff on his own.

quote:Like I said READ the book of Enoch and or some Hebrew, re-retranslated, not the King crap

I have yet to read Enoch, but I've traced its history, and I don't find it so accurate as say Sepher Raziel (which I do have a copy of). And if you look at the history, the book of Enoch was written by a man, while Sepher Raziel was written by Raziel himself.

quote:Now you're a liar. Flatout! That's not acknowledging a god, that's denying a god's existance. Now can you not see howyou've lied? Apparently you DID NOT understand what FALSE GODS meant, because you went on to babble about them being acknowledged, which they weren't, they were, again, DENIED.

You've obviously missed the fact that I was referring to your comments on the bible 'mentioning other deities' - nothing to do with 'acknowledging' or 'denying' them.

I agreed with pretty much everything you said, or was a least sympathic with it.

About the bit you said you had a hard time understanding; what I meant was, unless you have some belief in what your researching, in the feild of religion, you will never realy be able to understand, in my opinion, at least not in the correct manner. Like you can sit on the sidelines and watch a sport, know every single thing about it, but if you've never played, you understanding will be still minimal in many respects. Most of us were raised reigious, I don't beleive that counts so much, in this case it would be an ongoing beleif.

I overall, don't think this realy matters though. Just a self-centric based opinion.

This is some massivly interesting matrial. I recently was reading some greek mythlogy, and found it very interesting that it jives so nicely with Christianity.

I really need to look into this more. It's very intriguing.

Here's an interesting page anyhow.

http://users.iafrica.com/n/ne/nephilim/fields1.html