Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

a reply to: whereislogic

Back at it again?

Quick, more comments so we can get to the next page before anyone sees something important.

And what, you think a few clips of Stargate Atlantis and pissing all over people like the late Stephen Hawking is something important?

I find it funny, you watch a TV show like Atlantis, Rodney Mcay (I think his name was) would wholeheartedly worship at the feet of Hawking. Stargate Atlantis was a scifi show, whos core was trying to expand science and knowledge and yet you seem to still live in the darkages and I'm the Devil?!?!?!

a reply to: Kurokage

Well, you speak the Devil's words pretty well, making his points for him. Expressing his thoughts. Becoming a proponent of Satan's purpose.

The Apostle Peter, A Loyal Follower of Jesus | True Faith

...

However, Jesus later stated that those given much would have more to answer for, and the truth of those words is borne out in Peter’s case. (Luke 12:48) Jesus continued to reveal vital truths about the Messiah, including the certainty of his own impending suffering and death at Jerusalem. Peter was disturbed to hear such things. He took Jesus aside and rebuked him, saying: “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this destiny at all.”​—Matt. 16:21, 22.

Peter surely meant well, so Jesus’ reply must have come as a surprise. He turned his back on Peter, looked at the rest of the disciples​—who had likely been thinking something similar—​and said: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.” (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:32, 33) Jesus’ words contain practical counsel for us all. It is only too easy to allow human thinking to take priority over godly thinking. If we do so, even when we mean to help, we may inadvertently become proponents of Satan’s purpose rather than God’s. How, though, did Peter respond?

Peter must have realized that Jesus was not calling him Satan the Devil in any literal sense. After all, Jesus did not speak to Peter as he had to Satan. To Satan, Jesus had said: “Go away”; to Peter, he said: “Get behind me.” (Matt. 4:10) Jesus did not cast off this apostle in whom he saw a great deal of good, but he simply corrected Peter’s wrong thinking in this matter. It is not hard to see that Peter needed to stop getting in front of his Master as a stumbling block and needed to get back behind him as a supportive follower.

Did Peter argue, get angry, or sulk? No; he humbly accepted correction. He thus demonstrated loyalty again. All those who follow Christ will need correction at times. Only if we humbly accept discipline and learn from it can we continue to grow closer to Jesus Christ and his Father, Jehovah God.​—Read Proverbs 4:13.

...

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, you speak the Devil's words pretty well, making his points for him. Expressing his thoughts. Becoming a proponent of Satan's purpose.

Quick, get your pitch fork!!
I speak my own words and nobody elses and I'm certainly not so blinded by religious doctrine that everything else is the Devils work. If you believe looking at and reading science to educate yourself is so evil why are at a computer and also watching TV, which were all created by Evil science?
I think thats some deep Psychosis you got going on there my friend.

Is this how you see the people and the world around you I wonder???

I am the one who whispers in your ear,
Seducing you with promises of forbidden delight.
I am the serpent coiled around your desires,
Leading you astray into the depths of the night.

originally posted by: Kurokage
I think thats some deep Psychosis you got going on there my friend.

He posts walls of Jehovahs Witness stuff. I don't bother reading.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that he's posting Christian beliefs.
Both Catholics and Protestants disagree with him.

a reply to: FlyersFan

But it's people like him and Cooperton who give the Christian religion a bad name. They look like crazed zealots who belong in a horror movie about cults!!

a reply to: Kurokage

I can't argue with you on that one.
Just be glad no one has been posting Jack Chick tracts yet.
That's when it gets really bad.
There is a segment of Christians who act like that.
But most just leave each other, and other people, alone to their beliefs.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: FlyersFan

But it's people like him and Cooperton who give the Christian religion a bad name. They look like crazed zealots who belong in a horror movie about cults!!

People can think differently than you and you don't have to call them crazed. As I've said elsewhere, people can believe whatever they want. I don't call people dumb or stupid for thinking differently than me, that is a fast track to dogmatism. My defense of the words of Christ and Judeo-Christian history is against the worldly secular ideology, which is why you consider it "bad".

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Kurokage

Well, you speak the Devil's words pretty well, making his points for him.

There's another verse I often associate with Jesus exposing Satan speaking through Peter. It's where Jesus says anyone who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire:

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22

Such a profound statement. Because by calling another a fool, among other deeper implications, we are in essence claiming ourselves as better than them. This sort of pride makes us contemporaries with the 'Accuser/Adversary', which is the etymology of "Satan".

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, you speak the Devil's words pretty well, making his points for him. Expressing his thoughts. Becoming a proponent of Satan's purpose.

Which amounts to calling the following Satan-appeasing snake oil salesman (like a charlatan):

Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Dave Farina, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Alan Guth, David Bohm, Charles Darwin,

And then you go and bring the Stargate franchise into this. SG1, while better with MacGyver, was still good over its final seasons.

They had a story arc of an evangelical alien religion with a high level of fundamentalist prostration. They also considered many things blasphemy. Or anything that opposed their teachings the work of deception and evil, that must be destroyed.



Destroy the unbelievers.
Hallowed are the Ori!

a reply to: Degradation33

When the devil was speaking through Peter it was merely him trying to get Jesus not to go through with the crucifixion, which he knew would inevitably dethrone him. Anyone acting against truth could be considered to be an agent of the adversary in ways that they don't even know. Agent smith in the matrix is a great depiction of this phenomenon.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh, I know thats the gist. But calling Carl F*cking Sagan a deceptive enemy of truth is myopic, and I take issue with it.

Saying Carl Sagan unknowing serves evil is insane when the dude was so sappy Contact is actually way more wholesome than The Bible. Sagan was secretly a Taoist fluffball, I'm convinced of it.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Oh, I know thats the gist. But calling Carl F*cking Sagan a deceptive enemy of truth is myopic, and I take issue with it.

Saying Carl Sagan unknowing serves evil is insane when the dude was so sappy Contact is actually way more wholesome than The Bible. Sagan was secretly a Taoist fluffball, I'm convinced of it.

I don't know enough about him to make an opinion, but I try to stay away from opinions like that, especially if I don't know someone personally.

They also considered many things blasphemy. Or anything that opposed their teachings the work of deception and evil, that must be destroyed.

It is funny how our evolution vs intelligent design debates do tend to end up in such a turd slinging fight where the opposition is a blasphemy that must be shut down. From what I have read I have a high degree of certainty that evolution is untrue, and that extra-dimensional intelligence is responsible for the creation of our material interface, but who knows?! We all want to be right, and unfortunately the need to be right can get in the way of actual righteousness.

originally posted by: cooperton
When the devil was speaking through Peter...

The devil never spoke through Peter. Peter was never possessed. That's some pretty bad theology you've got going there. Jesus said 'get thee behind me Satan' ... he was making a point that Peter was saying something against Christ's mission on Earth, and was not saying that Peter was possessed.

Got Questions

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Kurokage

Well, you speak the Devil's words pretty well, making his points for him.

There's another verse I often associate with Jesus exposing Satan speaking through Peter. It's where Jesus says anyone who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire:

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22

Such a profound statement. Because by calling another a fool, among other deeper implications, we are in essence claiming ourselves as better than them. This sort of pride makes us contemporaries with the 'Accuser/Adversary', which is the etymology of "Satan".

Jesus seems to be a mythological character if you haven't realised. You can't use the Bible to argue about Christianity and the Bible and it falls under the circular argument category.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Oh, I know thats the gist. But calling Carl F*cking Sagan a deceptive enemy of truth is myopic, and I take issue with it.

Saying Carl Sagan unknowing serves evil is insane when the dude was so sappy Contact is actually way more wholesome than The Bible. Sagan was secretly a Taoist fluffball, I'm convinced of it.

I don't know enough about him to make an opinion, but I try to stay away from opinions like that, especially if I don't know someone personally.

They also considered many things blasphemy. Or anything that opposed their teachings the work of deception and evil, that must be destroyed.

It is funny how our evolution vs intelligent design debates do tend to end up in such a turd slinging fight where the opposition is a blasphemy that must be shut down. From what I have read I have a high degree of certainty that evolution is untrue, and that extra-dimensional intelligence is responsible for the creation of our material interface, but who knows?! We all want to be right, and unfortunately the need to be right can get in the way of actual righteousness.

There is are no debates when it comes to evolution and intelligent design. Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories and intelligent design is a myth that has its roots in the bronze age.

You haven't read anything useful unfortunately despite claiming the opposite and you just deny facts based on your religious faith.

The only people who claim evolution is untrue are creationists and deeply religious zealots. Evolution is a fact and it's better if you come to terms with this reality.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

It's one of 5 languages I speak pretty fluently. You should try having these debates in a foreign language. Pretty fun and challenging, good thing most are challenged already so we're kind of starting off at the same point...

Did you know that languages define your thinking patterns, it gives you extra dimensions to think in, pretty wild. It's science

It would be in his best interest to be literall with his written words.
Everyone who wants to make sure his sarcasm is well received makes something like /sarc

But I guess grammar and spelling is what we focus on...

Not the proper transmission of ideas and sentiments...

It still is a drama queen move...

Ah- that explains the slight disconnect in your writing. There has been several times now I read something you wrote and it just doesn't quite compute, lol.

originally posted by: Kurokage

I am the one who whispers in your ear,
Seducing you with promises of forbidden delight.
I am the serpent coiled around your desires,
Leading you astray into the depths of the night.

Hey aren't these lyrics from A Nightmare Before Christmas??

originally posted by: cooperton
...
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22

Did you notice the motivation there for someone calling someone else a fool? One can have different motives for using that description. Only 1 motive is discussed there as being wrong. Actually, this comes out even better in the translation I'm using, as to why someone might call someone else a fool (looking down upon the other person out of anger, rather than making the statement as an attempt to help the person or others who may be listening become aware that they shouldn't listen to the arguments of a fool, cause then they will be following in his footsteps before too long if they end up convinced that they have something 'wise' to say; the opposite of foolishness as the terms are used in the Bible).

Matthew 5:22 (New World Translation, Study edition)

However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; and whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Ge·henʹna.

There is a certain state of the heart that is described there as causing a person to say ‘You despicable fool!’. That's not helpful.

A bit more about the term "foolishness" or "fool" as used in the Scripture (as the opposite of wisdom), which, when used to refer to this, is not the same as the expression ‘You despicable fool!’

Fool (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

Rather than denoting a person who is lacking in mental ability, the word “fool,” as used in the Bible, generally refers to an individual who spurns reason and follows a morally insensible course out of harmony with God’s righteous standards. Various Hebrew terms denoting such a one are kesilʹ (‘stupid one’; Pr 1:22), ʼewilʹ (“foolish one”; Pr 12:15), na·valʹ (‘senseless one’; Pr 17:7), and lets (“ridiculer”; Pr 13:1). The Greek aʹphron refers to an “unreasonable one” (Lu 12:20), a·noʹe·tos to one “senseless” (Ga 3:1), and mo·rosʹ to a ‘fool’ or “foolish” one (Mt 23:17; 25:2).

The course of the man Nabal illustrates the way of a fool (1Sa 25) as does that of people who know the true God and then worship created things. (Ro 1:20-25) Isaiah said a fool, or senseless person, will speak “mere senselessness, and his very heart will work at what is hurtful, to work at apostasy and to speak against Jehovah what is wayward, to cause the soul of the hungry one to go empty, and he causes even the thirsty one to go without drink itself.” (Isa 32:6) The fool despises wisdom and discipline. (Pr 1:7) Instead of heeding counsel, the fool continues walking in a way he considers “right in his own eyes.” (Pr 12:15) He is quick to take offense and bursts out in disputing. (Ec 7:9; Pr 20:3) He says in his heart (his actions indicating what his lips may not say in so many words): “There is no Jehovah.”​—Ps 14:1.

Jesus Christ rightly referred to the scribes and Pharisees as “fools and blind ones,” that is, persons lacking wisdom and being morally worthless, for they had distorted the truth by man-made traditions and followed a hypocritical course. Moreover, Jesus backed up the correctness of this designation by illustrating their lack of discernment. (Mt 23:15-22; 15:3) However, the individual wrongly calling a brother a “despicable fool,” judging and condemning his brother as being morally worthless, would make himself liable to Gehenna.​—Mt 5:22; Ro 14:10-12; Mt 7:1, 2. [whereislogic: see, in some cases it's OK, in some cases it's not, and it all has to do with motive and how you put it; in the first case, the example of Jesus, his motive was to alert others to this truth/reality, including us today cause it's been recorded in the Bible. In the other case, it is not true ("wrongly" as in "falsely/incorrectly"), and the motive is bad as well, it's done out of anger, in anger, being wraithful with someone, and continuing in that course/with that feeling towards another. You're not trying to help them or anyone else by calling them 'despicable fools'. You're not trying to wake anyone up to that as Jesus was trying concerning those at the time that might have been listening, or us today. Obviously, he knew that the ones he was talking to directly would never wake up to whom they were serving (on another occasion he told them that they were 'of their father the Devil' and that they wished to do their father's will. That information was not for them, but for everyone else. It was a heads-up so to speak for everyone else.]

...

a reply to: Degradation33

Hook, line and sinker. Put them all in the Ori box, that's why it was written that way. You can still actually take something positive away from the Ori storyline concerning false religion and the behaviour of its religious leaders.

I like the part where Tomin explains that the Prior is twisting the book of Ori for his own agenda or purpose. For what the Prior wants to do or be done. That's the good stuff, focusing on the positive. Of course the way the storyline goes about the book of Ori itself, is meant for people to see the Bible as such a book, which it isn't, the book of Ori is more akin to the Koran or the Hindu religious texts. You need to do a lot more twisting, in a much more obvious manner, to do the same with the Bible (get people to go on a crusade and burn "heretics", see video He is a liar! (part 1 of 2) and part 2, to see how and when this was done to the Bible by the false religion known as Christendom, the leading or biggest part of Babylon the Great; which the whole Ori crusade storyline is an analogy of, with a few inaccuracies like the one I just explained; cause the writers of Stargate don't have an entirely accurate understanding of the full picture either, it's their perspective that they are sharing in this Ori storyline; one can't expect too much from Hollywood, or the entertainment industry in general).

“Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.”—Philippians 4:8, New World Translation.

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”—Philippians 4:8, New International Version.

More of the good stuff (you may still need to filter out a few things, but not much, as long as you don't interpret a few things according to the false religion of Rastafarianism, such as when the term "His Majesty" is used, which, when interpreted the right way, is simply referring to the King of God's Kingdom, Jesus Christ, and not some guy from Ethiopia; instead of hearing "black survivors" in the song "survivor", you can hear "human survivors", cause the color doesn't matter, we are all victims of the same Satanic system, "Babylon system" = Babylon the Great/false religion, including Rastafarianism, so not just "building Church and university", but also mosques and other temples; "know your history", don't fall for the Black pride ideology, pride comes before the fall. You can't really go wrong with Bible quotations if you put them in your lyrics, as long as those hearing them understand them correctly. And "Jah" of course remains short for "Jehovah", wherever he uses it.):

Bob Marley good stuff (playlist)

Coming back to the Ori box, do those who do not do military service fit in that box (the box for the followers of the Ori that is, the ones going on a crusade and killing people for having different beliefs, and allowing themselves to be deceived to do evil like that)?

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Fool (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

...

Jesus Christ rightly referred to the scribes and Pharisees as “fools and blind ones,” that is, persons lacking wisdom and being morally worthless, for they had distorted the truth by man-made traditions and followed a hypocritical course. Moreover, Jesus backed up the correctness of this designation by illustrating their lack of discernment. (Mt 23:15-22; 15:3) However, the individual wrongly calling a brother a “despicable fool,” judging and condemning his brother as being morally worthless, would make himself liable to Gehenna.​—Mt 5:22; Ro 14:10-12; Mt 7:1, 2. [whereislogic: see, in some cases it's OK, in some cases it's not, and it all has to do with motive and how you put it; in the first case, the example of Jesus, his motive was to alert others to this truth/reality, including us today cause it's been recorded in the Bible. In the other case, it is not true ("wrongly" as in "falsely/incorrectly"), and the motive is bad as well, it's done out of anger, in anger, being wraithful with someone, and continuing in that course/with that feeling towards another. You're not trying to help them or anyone else by calling them 'despicable fools'. You're not trying to wake anyone up to that as Jesus was trying concerning those at the time that might have been listening, or us today. Obviously, he knew that the ones he was talking to directly would never wake up to whom they were serving (on another occasion he told them that they were 'of their father the Devil' and that they wished to do their father's will. That information was not for them, but for everyone else. It was a heads-up so to speak for everyone else.]

Now what does Jehovah want people to do when they receive such a "heads-up" about a particular type of people? 2 Timothy 3:1-5 (first the full description of the type again, i.e. the foolish ones who do not act in wisdom, and Godly wisdom is not 'before their face', Prov. 17:24, see the stuff I regularly quote in the box about "understanding"; keep in mind, the part I will bold pertains the entire description, not just the last description):

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

Don't listen to them, don't read their comments. Especially not when you are already vulnerable. Once a person has sufficient understanding how all this works, and is properly equipped (2 Tim 3:16,17), then you can rebuke them and warn others for them (and thus may read a little bit here and there in their comments to better and more accurately expose the foolishness in those comments). And in this spiritual war (Eph. 6:10-17) you use "the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word". As your main tool. Because...

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16,17, notice, it's the same chapter as the one with the description of people in the last days, it's the end of that chapter)

If you've had sufficient sword practice and adequate training, you can't go wrong with that sword. As long as you don't strike the air.

“24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air;” (1 Corinthians 9:24-26)

Ephesians 6:10-17

10 Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of his strength. 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 For this reason take up the complete suit of armor from God, so that you may be able to resist* [Or “withstand; stand your ground.”] in the wicked day and, after you have accomplished everything, to stand firm.

14 Stand firm, therefore, with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having your feet shod in readiness to declare the good news of peace. 16 Besides all of this, take up the large shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the wicked one’s burning arrows. 17 Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word,

Continuing with the link about the term "fool" (last paragraph):

Answering a fool in harmony with or “according to his foolishness” in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument puts the one so doing in agreement with the fool’s unsound reasonings or ways. In order not to become like the fool in this respect, we are counseled by the proverb: “Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness.” On the other hand, Proverbs 26:4, 5 shows that answering him “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous, and showing that his own arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn can be beneficial.

Proverbs 26:4,5

4 Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness,

So that you do not put yourself on his level.* [Or “So that you do not make yourself his equal.”]

5 Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness,

So that he does not think he is wise.

A person with a lack of understanding, may come to believe or interpret that text as being contradictory. But perhaps the explanation in the box above can help with that wrong impression now. The 2nd sentences are meant to elaborate on what was meant in the first sentences, i.e. not that way, but this way. (even though both are described as 'answering the stupid one according to his foolishness', but there are 2 different ways to do that, one is exposing the foolishness, the other is 'answering' with your own foolishness, in accordance with his foolishness in that sense).