Doomsday Clock FB materical (cont...)

[RoM]

Yeah alot of the things in Revelations shouldn't be taken literal, John probably just saw all that modern shit and didn't know how to describe it so he had to use terms and things that were common back then, it's not like he knew what a helicopter or nuclear bomb was, so he just described them the best he could.
And where's the verse that gives time/date? Source or it didn't happen.

Your post makes me think you've got John the apostle and Nostradamus completely confused for each other. Wtf does it mention anything about modern technology metaphoricly or otherwise in revelations.... your lack of education on the matter is astoundingly only dwarfed by your ability to speak on it in such an ignorant fashion.

I'm sorry, you should go check your bible again there, chief. There is exactly dick of a prophecy made by it. It's people like you that give christianity a negative connotation. It should also be noted that the "church" (read: vatican, the religious authority) does not subscribe to either revelation or the rapture anymore.

http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/...998-5125-417E-9E24C50C3E5E02FF&method=display

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/revelation.htm

Study before you speak, m'kay?

*that last link's a doozy.

no, there was no 'timeline' given. However any non-plebian can draw the line between what is written and what was happening during the time John supposedly wrote revelations ... and i say supposedly because almost none of the gospels are accurately recorded in the first person. They all rely on second and third hand interpretations in the present-day bible. Making them herecy if you believe everything you find in revelations. According to god in revelation those who 'addeth or taketh away' from his word are committing the gravest sin of all.

I'll see you and guttenberg in hell.

 

[Amidamaru]

this is turning into a disturbing thread

 

[Excalibur]

Well that was short lived. Here we were discussing something without bitching and arguing and you come along and flamebait. Your the one bitching at me for having a different opinion, telling me I don't know wtf I'm talking about and I'm the one giving Christians a bad name, k.

Actually it does

and then

no, there was no 'timeline' given

So thanks for doing what I asked and not changing the subject or flat out contradicting yourself.
Little rule of thumb for ya, if you don't wanna get called out on your bullshit, don't smear it all over the thread, m'kay?

 

[Amidamaru]

Some religious extremists get pissed to fuck when they see something "wrong" or "oposed" to their beliefs.

 

[RoM]

Well that was short lived. Here we were discussing something without bitching and arguing and you come along and flamebait. Your the one bitching at me for having a different opinion, telling me I don't know wtf I'm talking about and I'm the one giving Christians a bad name, k.

You'll have to pardon me if i feel the need to set someone who's so absolutely incorrect straight with facts instead of allowing the filth of their ignorance taint a thread with such good conversational material in it. Meanwhile, i've provided links to support the information i was speaking about and quite clearly know more about your faith then you do. Yes, your lack of education and overbearing need to speak about it is the type of thing that gives christians the world over a bad name.

Me? Not christian, can't give them a worse name then people like you do for them. I am however quite respectful of the christian mythos and the slim ammount of factual information contained therein. Mayhaps if more of you found it as important to learn about your faith as i do there wouldn't be so much static between you folks and everyone else who's not stuck in the dark ages following the rules a bunch of church businessmen laid down to get the rich to buy their way in to heaven. Learn your history or shut the fuck up. Plain and simple.

If providing you material to educate yourself with so as not to sound like such a clod in the future is flamebaiting, then i indeed am guilty.

I like how you left this part out:

However any non-plebian can draw the line between what is written and what was happening during the time John supposedly wrote revelations.

All very well documented in the links provided. This provides a timeline, but that's entirely too simple an argument for you, right?

So thanks for doing what I asked and not changing the subject or flat out contradicting yourself.

Subject was the clock. Not revelation, not the mayans. The clock. You can thank everyone else if that's what you're on about with derails. Hell, you're guilty of it also, get that report post button out and start clicking away.

If you can show where i contradicted myself i'm all eyes for it. Unfortunately without quoting me out of context this is not possible. Such a shame, you were on a roll too, amirite?

Little rule of thumb for ya, if you don't wanna get called out on your bullshit, don't smear it all over the thread, m'kay?

You might practice what you preach there, pokey. Again, not something folks like you do all that well historically. I don't see links coming from you to debunk what you personally requested of me to post. All we've got that shows your mental accuity on the issue is some random bullshit that doesn't even fit revelations and some trite rambling about atomic bombs and how i'm such a poopyhead. Good job.

So sorry it didn't work out for you, maybe next time.

Edit: Edited to reflect our new location.

 

[Amidamaru]

Do you really wanna turn a religious post into a flame post?? Thats kinda out of hand/unnecesary. IT should just be deleted.

 

[RoM]

Do you really wanna turn a religious post into a flame post?? Thats kinda out of hand/unnecesary. IT should just be deleted.

Agreed, however the thread was not even remotely flamable until such time as i was asked to provide proof of what i had stated as opposed to blatantly spewing bullshit and hoping no one noticed ala Excalibur.

If you're going to lay blame there's where it belongs. Not my problem you're insecure and uneducated, Ex. I simply sought to answer the question you asked of me. That you weren't happy with the syntax or the correctitude of it isn't remotely my problem.

 

[Alyada]

A.) I don't like deleting things.
B.) There could be a pretty decent topic out of this. I wanna see how it progresses before I get involved though.

 

[Amidamaru]

Y do you wanna provoke a flame that has to do with religion. That something delicate and personal on most people and you have diferent beliefs depending on what religion you in. It shoulnt be a topic to bring flames about.

 

[RoM]

Y do you wanna provoke a flame that has to do with religion. That something delicate and personal on most people and you have diferent beliefs depending on what religion you in. It shoulnt be a topic to bring flames about.

It has nothing to do with religion.

It has everything to do with facts and ignorance.

Ex made ignorant statements with no facts to bolster or support. I countered and quite nicely, if i do say so myself. Ex asked for facts and links. I provided them. Begin the sore vagina party.

Obviously you've never seen a religious discussion on QCDN. After someone brought up the good book in the clock thread it was only a matter of time. If you're going to speak on religion you better damn well have your facts straight and present them in a respectful manner or someone's going to throw a shitfit.

 

[Xean]

Someone seems to feel all high and mighty of himself for being "educated" by reading some links. When shown this post, I skimmed over and just saw a bunch of junk, pointless threats, anti-religious bias, and so on.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/revelation.htm

Study before you speak, m'kay?

*that last link's a doozy.

I first saw that link and didn't care. Both sides for and against Christianity will always have their say, but that doesn't mean either is always right. So, just because someone opposes one little particular thing about a religion, doesn't mean it's right. That's why I didn't care.

But then you said that "last link's a doozy." That snide arrogance pricked up my ear, so I decided to click the link. After reading the first fifth and the bottom part of the page, I decided to not waste my time continuing reading the rest. If you claim yourself to be an educated being and believe that gives you the right to condescend another for not being so, you're wrong, both logically and morally. A lot of that webpage was a bunch of garbage conclusions, most of which were opinions, because there was no sight of any kind of evidence seen.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]badly written, repetitive and self-contradictory.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

That is one of the most obvious opinions I've found near the very beginning. Where I instantly noticed another fallacy of any arguments on this webpage, was when the writer said

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The early origin of the book [of Revelation] is attested by its doctrinal incompatibility with the rest of the New Testament. The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere in sight.[/FONT]

Doctrinal incompability? Whoever said that the New Testament had to be "compatible"? That book was chosen to be in there at the Council of Nicea, and definitely not on some need to be alike the rest of the New Testament. Edit: The Old Testament and New Testament were chosen so based on timeline, the Old Testament being before the birth of the Messiah, and the New Testament being after. And the doctrine of the Trinity? The doctrine of the Trinity was NOT written by anyone before the rise of the Catholic Church. That doctrine was written by the Catholic Church, so it's need to be found in the Bible is fallacious, deceiving. This is pretty much where I decided to stop reading such garbage.

If you want to call yourself "educated", learn to evaluate your sources.


The second link I chose to click on was about the Catholic Church abandoning the Bible.

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

Does this make the entire Bible not true? No. In fact, the existence of the Hittite civilization and the names of the Egyptian pharaohs Osorkon and Shoshenq were found in the Bible way before archeologists ever discovered them, those being some examples. That news article was about some of the faithful failing to understand that there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, but figuratively. I will go so far as to say that it was this very Church that has aided the blindness of many believers since that church was established. The biggest piece of evidence to this was that the Catholic Church did not allow anyone not members of the clergy, being the laity, to NOT have access to the Bible. They went so far as to executing people for this, one important case in history when they didn't want their Bible being translated from Latin to English for European people. The Church was one to use "strategies" to bring people into the faith by scaring them with a literal devil. Yes, read: literal. And at those times, the common people believed easily just like that, and the Church got what they wanted out of the people.

According to god in revelation those who 'addeth or taketh away' from his word are committing the gravest sin of all.

You should actually read the Bible to prove if this statement is correct or not. Where does it say that? I'm very sure you have got that mistaken with one of the last statements in Revelation, it being the closest thing to what you are saying. Revelation 22:19, "And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Take that however you want it, literally or not. It is specifically talking about the singular book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. Oh, and nowhere in there did it say it is the "gravest sin of all".


...I'm disappointed with myself for even taking time out of my life to post too much on a forum like so many people on here do. But I had to.

I'll see you and guttenberg in hell.

lmao

 

[RoM]

A bunch of crap i could care less about that has little to nothing to do with the thread..

And then...

But then you said that "last link's a doozy." That snide arrogance pricked up my ear, so I decided to click the link. After reading the first fifth and the bottom part of the page, I decided to not waste my time continuing reading the rest. If you claim yourself to be an educated being and believe that gives you the right to condescend another for not being so, you're wrong, both logically and morally. A lot of that webpage was a bunch of garbage conclusions, most of which were opinions, because there was no sight of any kind of evidence seen.

Obviously you and i have two very different definitions of what qualifies as 'a doozy'. Personally i found the last link to be nothing more than an interesting read with loosely related information about the subject Ex and i were speaking to. If you want to read condescention and me being snide in to it that's certainly within your right however don't mistake me posting a link for believing it to be incontrivertable fact. I simply believe there's room for even the most off-kilter of sources if they happen to have some grains of fact and truth in them.

If you want to call yourself "educated", learn to evaluate your sources.

1 source out of 4. You bitch about one source that i myself called in to question immediately after posting it. Forget the fact that the entirety of your post has NOTHING to do with what ex was speaking to and what i was railing against. You have 1 source that you misunderstood my comments about to go hopping on the cross over.

It's astounding.

The second link I chose to click on was about the Catholic Church abandoning the Bible.

At least you stop to read and consider what's said. Bravo.

Does this make the entire Bible not true? No.

Never said it did. What i said was that ex was having some problems quoting scripture and based on his responses it was quite clear he had john and nostradamus confused. Way to read what you want to because we're on a sensitive subject.

In fact, the existence of the Hittite civilization and the names of the Egyptian pharaohs Osorkon and Shoshenq were found in the Bible way before archeologists ever discovered them, those being some examples. That news article was about some of the faithful failing to understand that there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, but figuratively.

This is you basicly agreeing with me on what i had to say to excalibur about his interpretation and/or the interpretation he was fed and felt like turning around and spouting off about to the boards. Thank you.

I will go so far as to say that it was this very Church that has aided the blindness of many believers since that church was established. The biggest piece of evidence to this was that the Catholic Church did not allow anyone not members of the clergy, being the laity, to NOT have access to the Bible. They went so far as to executing people for this, one important case in history when they didn't want their Bible being translated from Latin to English for European people. The Church was one to use "strategies" to bring people into the faith by scaring them with a literal devil.

/Yawn, preaching to the choir. It's not as if i link things at random and hope for the best, give me some credit. I'll give you the same as it's obvious you, unlike ex, know what you're talking about.

Yes, read: literal. And at those times, the common people believed easily just like that, and the Church got what they wanted out of the people.

As i put it a historical account of then current events doesn't put butts in the pews or money in the collection plates. Glad we're agreeing so much in this conversation. Keeps me from having to try to hard.

You should actually read the Bible to prove if this statement is correct or not. Where does it say that? I'm very sure you have got that mistaken with one of the last statements in Revelation, it being the closest thing to what you are saying. Revelation 22:19, "And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Take that however you want it, literally or not.

Exactly the verse i refer to. If revelations is a futuristic prophecy and is to be taken literally, as ex did. Then it's a very easy leap to calling on that verse and claiming herecy. Personally i prefer to take anything contained in the bible as a moral lesson and to be taken with a grain of salt. It's intended to be thought provoking, so i think about it. I don't just spout off at the hip about what i think i might remember so i can post it to a message board and masacre the intended message unlike some people. This is why i can and will condescend to those who don't think or fact check before posting about such things. Deal with it, i feel i have the right.

If we were in opposing situations and i was talking out of my ass i'd expect no quarter be given as well.

It is specifically talking about the singular book of Revelation, not the entire Bible.

Meanwhile back at the ranch john wasen't the one who wrote revelation and any attempt to re-interpret or translate hold true to being herecy by that standard with regards to revelation. We sure do agree alot.

Oh, and nowhere in there did it say it is the "gravest sin of all".

You caught me paraphrasing. Although i don't suppose i would have quoted the 'addeth or taketh away' (lolkingjames) and not quoted 'the gravest sin of all' if i haden't been paraphrasing. Way to flex the comprehension muscles.

...I'm disappointed with myself for even taking time out of my life to post too much on a forum like so many people on here do. But I had to.

And i'm very glad you did. I was looking forward to someone else who had half a clue popping in and adding their 2 cents.

Edited because i broke the entirety of the quote function and then danced on it and drooled a little before hitting 'post'.

 

[Mishaela]

No one's religion is "wrong". Everyone believes what they will, everyone believes their own god(s). Some people believe there's no god, some people believe there are multiple gods. Someone's beliefs may be BASED ON a certain religion, or BASED ON multiple religions, but in the ends everyone's beliefs are different, and the greatest thing they have in common is what their beliefs are, again, BASED ON.


And it's "couldn't care less", so you know. =P

 

[RoM]

No one's religion is "wrong". Everyone believes what they will, everyone believes their own god(s). Some people believe there's no god, some people believe there are multiple gods. Someone's beliefs may be BASED ON a certain religion, or BASED ON multiple religions, but in the ends everyone's beliefs are different, and the greatest thing they have in common is what their beliefs are, again, BASED ON.


And it's "couldn't care less", so you know. =P

what part of

Yeah alot of the things in Revelations shouldn't be taken literal, John probably just saw all that modern shit and didn't know how to describe it so he had to use terms and things that were common back then, it's not like he knew what a helicopter or nuclear bomb was, so he just described them the best he could.
And where's the verse that gives time/date? Source or it didn't happen.

Has anything to do with right and wrong religious choice?

As if such things existed..

Exactly, nothing. It's just some dumb shit to say for the sake of saying some dumb shit.

Simply put it's ignorant drivel. No religious figure or person with even the most limited of understanding of scripture would be so boldly retarded when speaking on a matter of faith.

This is my complaint. Plain and simple.

Feel free to worship who/whatever/however you want. Just don't be an ignorant braying jackass about it, that's all i'm saying.

 

[Xean]

Since we seem to be agreeing a lot, then there's no hard feelings. Which is a relief really. That's what I expect all the time out of anything on this forum. Anyways, the point of my post was going against the notion that finding sources was the end-all-be-all as supporting evidence thus granting to right to condescend someone, in case you happened to miss that.

Wtf does it mention anything about modern technology metaphoricly or otherwise in revelations.... your lack of education on the matter is astoundingly only dwarfed by your ability to speak on it in such an ignorant fashion.

Personally i prefer to take anything contained in the bible as a moral lesson

I countered and quite nicely, if i do say so myself.

Then let's try to be just a bit more nicer then ok? I'm sure the Bible suggests that. :biggrin:

 

[RoM]

Surely links are not the end of the conversation. Moreso the beginning i would figure. I just could not comprehend myself being in the same situation and writting what he had written and actually seriously hitting the post button. In much too simple terms it balked me completely. It's something i'm becoming increasingly aware of around here.

I cannot fathom the idea that someone would write some of the things you see on these boards with regards to serious subject matter worthy of discussion and consider it a contribution to the topic.

At the very least what ex brought to the table was laughable and at the very most it's disturbingly ignorant. I simply sought to educate as was requested of me by him.

That i do so in a caustic syntax is no one's fault but my own, however i do stand by it considering the medium of communication we're using and the response it garnered from him after being polite about it haden't really counted for anything.

Edit: As stated in another thread the intelligent have very little to fear from me when posting. You and i have done the religious conversation thing before, Xean. I have nothing but respect for your knowledge on the subject.

 

[Uzor]

I'm sorry, you should go check your bible again there, chief. There is exactly dick of a prophecy made by it. It's people like you that give christianity a negative connotation. It should also be noted that the "church" (read: vatican, the religious authority) does not subscribe to either revelation or the rapture anymore.

Well, that's a matter of taste. I'd say the people giving christianity a bad connotation are the extremists who believe everything in the bible is correct.

 

[Garvin]

You are all damned in the eyes of FSM.

 

[RoM]

Well, that's a matter of taste. I'd say the people giving christianity a bad connotation are the extremists who believe everything in the bible is correct.

I'd agree.

Imagine that.

Whether an extremist or simply out and proud about not knowing your faith, you do it no credit.

(editorial 'you')

Thought you were going to bed?

 

[RoM]

Double post. ><