Re: OT: The will of God
BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAAA wow. yeah, all the islamic countries are third world. thats why, before we invaded, iraq had a higher standard of living and qol than we, and complete equality for men and women, including equal pay laws that we still refuse to pass here. your ignorance is showing. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:14:54 -0600, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith Nagel and Horace Heffner responded; J. Swift writes: Our histories of six thousand moons make no mention of any other My first reaction was to say that I fail to see the connection between this part of Gulliver's Travels and the the question at hand. On further reflection You have the misguided idea that the difference between Judeo Christianity and Islam is the same difference between a Lutheran and a Baptist. This is just not the case, all you have to do is look at the fruits of the two systems; Islamic nations have no rights for women and are all third world economies. We have rights for women and are all first and second world economies. At 1:32 PM 3/10/5, thomas malloy wrote: The scenario which is being played out was prophecized 4000 years ago, ergo it is the will of G-d. The Islamists believe that Allah has Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. So I'll try again. If some hacker hijacks my email account and starts out by declaring that I have just decided to change my name to Elmer Fudd, and that I have just converted to Islam, you can be sure that It's not me posting it. Yehovah declares himself to be King of the Universe. A king can't resend his laws. See the story of Daniel and the Lion's Den. The King in the story was obligated to follow his own laws, even though it meant throwing his friend and trusted advisor to the lions. The difference lies in the words and thus opinions of men, not in the two gods. Peace between these world factions must finally be won in the hearts of humanity, not in the interpretation of scripture. More nonsense, why are there two world views? Two gods perhaps? That's the story, starting in Genesis 3 and ending in the last chapter of the Revelation. -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
Re: OT: The will of God (key points and loose ends)
Terry Blanton wrote: --- revtec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lucifer is Lucifer is not Satan. There is but one reference to Lucifer in the bible. Do you know it and to what it refers? As the one who first refered to Lucifer here, I should admit that I didn't check the name in the relevant verses, either in Genesis or in the Testament of Moses. The post was done from memory and the entity refered to may or may not actually be named Lucifer. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: OT: The will of God
At 2:45 AM 3/26/5, thomas malloy wrote: and Horace Heffner replied; You believe what you want to believe. I have suggested two propositions and a conclusion. These things are not a matter of my faith or what I believe. What matters is the general doctrine of Christians, Jews, and Moslems concerning Abraham and his one god. Your argument seems to be that because the Islamists call Alliah the G-d of Abraham, that makes him so. This makes no sense to me, however having exhausted my arguments to the contrary, all I can conclude is it that you believe what you want to believe. I've pointed out that the two entities have; different names, different legal systems, and the train of human thought that they produced bore different fruit. If you still believe that they are the same entity, you have blinded yourself to what is obvious. Once again you have failed to address either the propositions or the logic. Instead you again frame the problem as a matter of personal faith and attack the conclusion on the basis of what men have done in the interim. Once again I have said all that I have to say in the above paragraph. If those arguments don't convince you, nothing will. [snip] There is only one way in which peace can be achieved when one system, or group of people, is sworn to destroy the other. One of us has to destroy the other. When civilized men are unwilling to do what needs to be done in order to maintain their existence, they will be replaced by uncivilized men, who are willing to do what needs to be done. I believe that this quote is from Victor Davis Hanson, frequent guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Genocide can not be the only means to peace. If anything in this world is utterly evil, genocide has to be at the top of the list. This war is not my idea, but there are three factors which made it inevitable, the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, the oil wealth, and the Islamists, particularly the Wahabi's reaction to the reborn state of Israel. Two of them are clearly acts of G-d, the first one can be argued is the result of the Satanists having created their workers paradise, AKA communism. The coming genocide would not be my preferred way of working this out, but I lack the chutzpah to criticize HaShem (G-d), in print anyway. I never loose sight of what's about happen to the last being who though himself better qualified to run the universe. Iraq would be peaceful and prosperous today, were it not for the actions of the Islamist fanatics who are out to destroy anyone who stands in the way of their version of the Workers Paradise. I totally refuse to be accountable for their actions, or for the genocide that their actions will necessitate
RE: OT: The will of God
Title: RE: OT: The will of God Horace Heffner replied At 11:14 AM 3/24/5, thomas malloy wrote: The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. You completely failed to address the issue and you seem to not even understand the point. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. You believe what you want to believe. I've pointed out that the two entities have; different names, different legal systems, and the train of human thought that they produced bore different fruit. If you still believe that they are the same entity, you have blinded yourself to what is obvious. So I'll try again. You might try addressing the premises or the logic which derives the conclusion. The difference lies in the words and thus opinions of men, not in the two gods. Peace between these world factions must finally be won in the hearts of humanity, not in the interpretation of scripture. More nonsense, why are there two world views? Two gods perhaps? If you seek differences you always find them. If you seek peace the road lies through what we share in common. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. There is only one way in which peace can be achieved when one system, or group of people, is sworn to destroy the other. One of us has to destroy the other. When civilized men are unwilling to do what needs to be done in order to maintain their existence, they will be replaced by uncivilized men, who are willing to do what needs to be done. I believe that this quote is from Victor Davis Hanson, frequent guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show. If you doubt that Islam is sworn to destroy us, I'm happy to document this assertion. I have previously mentioned Prophet of Doom, and there are others, including Whallet Shumblot, a Moslem convert who will tell you the same thing. Terry Blanton posted; I think you might find this of interest: There are certain striking similarities between the Hindu god Brahma and his consort Saraisvati, and the Jewish Abraham and Sarai, that are more than mere coincidences. There is a general solution. If G-d is Omnipresent, there is but One by exclusion; and,all monotheistic religions are worshiping the same G-d by definition. The story tells about two super human entities who are in a life and death struggle. One is bent on destroying as many humans as he can. He uses counterfeits in order to deceive men. I don't understand how you can conclude what you have in the above paragraph, you have to blind yourself to what is obvious. This in no way detracts from their being an omnipresent G-d. It's just that he has given us free will, to either serve him, or go our own way. like sheep. Steven Lawrence posted; was, was Abraham. He existed. (Whether he called himself Abraham or the name was altered in a scribal error is, of course, not determinable, and also somewhat irrelevant IMHO.) Abraham's God was, by definition and scribal errors notwithstanding, Yhwh. I would refer to by previous postings about the Bible Code. I'm reading Cracking the Bible Code by Jeffery Satinover. He mentions that the Israeli's used Code to predict future events. The book was written before the Helitical (Legal) degree forbidding them (religious Jews) from saying so. If you question the statistical anomaly that the existence of the Codes represents, I have an ebook that addresses the subject. The existence of the Codes, and their making accurate predictions, is, IMHO, evidence of the Book's divine authorship. In addition, and far more subjectively, I would assert that the very strange incident of Melchizidek provides strong internal evidence for the historical authenticity of at least some of the stories of Abraham. Melshizidek means something like prince of righteousness, He had no physical lineage, and lived in what is now Jerusalem. In our opinion, (Rabbi, and mine) he is a picture of the coming Messiah. G-d in human form. The name of Bethel, which has some significance in Jewish history, is also interesting: It means house of G-d. which included Baal. which means the master. YHVH doesn't want to be our master, he wants to be our father, and husband. We submit to him because we love him. Is it possible that Yhwh was connected in some way with the same pantheon? The word Elohiem is plural and it is clear from both the Torah, and the Book of Enoch, and the holy Zohar that the G-d head has a plurality, kind of like multiple personality. Furthermore, entities called called the sons of the elohim had sex with the daughters of men. This is where the Nepthilim came from. They were polluted by sin, and had at least some of the powers of G-d, the Hebrew word shum is translated in the KJV
Re: OT: The will of God
Merlyn replied; Fundamentalists always cite that God influenced those keepers of knowledge so that the translation is just as accurate as the original, but I have problems believing that. History abounds with examples of men misinterpreting scripture to justify heinous acts. That's why it's important to learn to read Hebrew. We know that the text has come down to us unchanged because Bible Code works. It's not just that it's there, but it has accurately predicted events. --- Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Merlyn wrote: As for prophecy, that's all in the interpretation, True, but Evangelical Christians, who approach the Bible as inerrorant, and literal have by in large come to the same conclusions This verse NAMES CYRUS, specifically, and designates him the instrument to be used in ending the Exile. Cyrus was born perhaps 150 years after Isaiah died. No way this was just a lucky guess!! And it's not open to much interpretation. Alexander the Great was so impressed with the prophecies concerning him that he set up a commission to translate the Hebrew version into Greek.
Re: OT: The will of God (key points and loose ends)
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:19 PM Subject: Re: OT: The will of God Lucifer is, of course, not exactly big on humankind -- according to the Testament of Moses he is horribly jealous of Adam's place in the universe and hence detests all humans. It is Lucifer's goal to destroy the human race. To do this he must separate us from our Creator God and must prevent our reconciliation with God by discrediting our our only means of reconciliation, Jesus Christ, God the Son. To do that he must prevent or destroy our faith. Jesus, the myth, can't save you. Jesus, the good man, can't save you. Jesus, the teacher, can't save you. Jesus, the prophet, can't save you. Only Jesus, God in the flesh, has the power to save you, and then only if you truly believe He is who He said He was. One of Lucifer's two most successful strategies is to start false religions. He's been doing it for thousands of years and it is still happening today. Some exclude Jesus entirely, but the exclusion of Jesus is not necessary. Just portray Jesus as less than God and the scam is a success. The other key strategy is to convince humans that he (Lucifer) doesn't even exist. We wouldn't be on guard against someone who does not exist, would we? Jeff
Re: OT: The will of God (key points and loose ends)
--- revtec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lucifer is Lucifer is not Satan. There is but one reference to Lucifer in the bible. Do you know it and to what it refers? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: OT: The will of God
At 2:45 AM 3/26/5, thomas malloy wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ; format=flowed Horace Heffner replied At 11:14 AM 3/24/5, thomas malloy wrote: The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. You completely failed to address the issue and you seem to not even understand the point. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. You believe what you want to believe. I have suggested two propositions and a conclusion. These things are not a matter of my faith or what I believe. What matters is the general doctrine of Christians, Jews, and Moslems concerning Abraham and his one god. I've pointed out that the two entities have; different names, different legal systems, and the train of human thought that they produced bore different fruit. If you still believe that they are the same entity, you have blinded yourself to what is obvious. Once again you have failed to address either the propositions or the logic. Instead you again frame the problem as a matter of personal faith and attack the conclusion on the basis of what men have done in the interim. [snip] There is only one way in which peace can be achieved when one system, or group of people, is sworn to destroy the other. One of us has to destroy the other. When civilized men are unwilling to do what needs to be done in order to maintain their existence, they will be replaced by uncivilized men, who are willing to do what needs to be done. I believe that this quote is from Victor Davis Hanson, frequent guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Genocide can not be the only means to peace. If anything in this world is utterly evil, genocide has to be at the top of the list. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: OT: The will of God
The my God is better than your God approach to religion disgusts and frightens me. This use of God is only a thin disguise used by one group to justify taking life, liberty, and property from another group. For example, the white race thought they had the God given right to enslave the blacks and the Germans thought they had the God given right to kill the Jews and other people, to provide only some recent examples. The use of a god justification does not excuse the actions. This attitude is so alien to the basic teachings of all religions that it is a wonder that a sane person would have the nerve to make such an argument. Christ, as well as every other spokesman of God, taught us to treat others as you would treat ourselves. This is not limited only to those people who worship our idea of God, an idea I might add that changes with time. Christians are taught that we are all made in the image of God. This concept is not applied only to Christians. We are all part of God, we are all trying to make sense of a confused message, and we all are expected to give each other a chance to learn the message in our own way. Killing or condemning other people who fail to learn our lesson or share our limited beliefs is not permitted. When hate and killing is motivated and justified by assuming that the action is God's wish, civilization breaks down and countries are destroyed. How often must these events be repeated before people learn that this approach leads to disaster. If evil exists in the would, this attitude must be at the top of the list. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: At 2:45 AM 3/26/5, thomas malloy wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ; format=flowed Horace Heffner replied At 11:14 AM 3/24/5, thomas malloy wrote: The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. You completely failed to address the issue and you seem to not even understand the point. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. You believe what you want to believe. I have suggested two propositions and a conclusion. These things are not a matter of my faith or what I believe. What matters is the general doctrine of Christians, Jews, and Moslems concerning Abraham and his one god. I've pointed out that the two entities have; different names, different legal systems, and the train of human thought that they produced bore different fruit. If you still believe that they are the same entity, you have blinded yourself to what is obvious. Once again you have failed to address either the propositions or the logic. Instead you again frame the problem as a matter of personal faith and attack the conclusion on the basis of what men have done in the interim. [snip] There is only one way in which peace can be achieved when one system, or group of people, is sworn to destroy the other. One of us has to destroy the other. When civilized men are unwilling to do what needs to be done in order to maintain their existence, they will be replaced by uncivilized men, who are willing to do what needs to be done. I believe that this quote is from Victor Davis Hanson, frequent guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Genocide can not be the only means to peace. If anything in this world is utterly evil, genocide has to be at the top of the list. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: OT: The will of God (key points and loose ends)
At 6:43 AM 3/26/5, Terry Blanton wrote: Lucifer is not Satan. There is but one reference to Lucifer in the bible. Do you know it and to what it refers? Perhaps you refer to Is 14:12: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the Dawn! You have been cast down to earth, you who once laid low the nations! Is 14:12 is also translated as: How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground - mighty though you once were against the nations of the world. This is a metaphorical reference by Isaiah likening the King of Bayblon to Helal ben Shahar, the day star, son of dawn, who in Canaanite myth wanted to be chief god but was hurled down to earth instead. Uncanny the relvance and possible future relevance of Isaiah to modern times. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: OT: The will of God (key points and loose ends)
--- Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uncanny the relvance and possible future relevance of Isaiah to modern times. Yathink? The PVTs (Prophet Veracity Filters) of the time were quite sharp and steep. I came *this* close . . . __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
RE: OT: The will of God
Keith Nagel and Horace Heffner responded; J. Swift writes: Our histories of six thousand moons make no mention of any other My first reaction was to say that I fail to see the connection between this part of Gulliver's Travels and the the question at hand. On further reflection You have the misguided idea that the difference between Judeo Christianity and Islam is the same difference between a Lutheran and a Baptist. This is just not the case, all you have to do is look at the fruits of the two systems; Islamic nations have no rights for women and are all third world economies. We have rights for women and are all first and second world economies. At 1:32 PM 3/10/5, thomas malloy wrote: The scenario which is being played out was prophecized 4000 years ago, ergo it is the will of G-d. The Islamists believe that Allah has Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. So I'll try again. If some hacker hijacks my email account and starts out by declaring that I have just decided to change my name to Elmer Fudd, and that I have just converted to Islam, you can be sure that It's not me posting it. Yehovah declares himself to be King of the Universe. A king can't resend his laws. See the story of Daniel and the Lion's Den. The King in the story was obligated to follow his own laws, even though it meant throwing his friend and trusted advisor to the lions. The difference lies in the words and thus opinions of men, not in the two gods. Peace between these world factions must finally be won in the hearts of humanity, not in the interpretation of scripture. More nonsense, why are there two world views? Two gods perhaps? That's the story, starting in Genesis 3 and ending in the last chapter of the Revelation.
RE: OT: The will of God
At 11:14 AM 3/24/5, thomas malloy wrote: The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. You completely failed to address the issue and you seem to not even understand the point. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. So I'll try again. You might try addressing the premises or the logic which derives the conclusion. The difference lies in the words and thus opinions of men, not in the two gods. Peace between these world factions must finally be won in the hearts of humanity, not in the interpretation of scripture. More nonsense, why are there two world views? Two gods perhaps? If you seek differences you always find them. If you seek peace the road lies through what we share in common. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: OT: The will of God
Horace Heffner wrote: At 11:14 AM 3/24/5, thomas malloy wrote: The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. You completely failed to address the issue and you seem to not even understand the point. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. This is in danger of turning into a serious argument. Time to derail it again. I have run across some references to cuneiform records on clay tablets found in a temple(?) which served as a way station for caravans traveling the road between Babylon and Canaan. The tablets included records of the names of those who stopped there on their journeys. Included in the roles were a group of people with Jewish names (of course, I mean names like Benjamin, _not_ names like Goldstein, duh). The tablets date to about 1800 BC. This jibes pretty well with the time period of the events in Genesis in which Abraham led his clan from Babylon to Canaan. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it suggests strongly that there was indeed a clan of Jews traveling that road at that time, which supports the notion that Genesis is more or less correct on this point: They migrated from the east into Israel some time between 1500 and 2000 BC. Whoever the leader of the clan was, was Abraham. He existed. (Whether he called himself Abraham or the name was altered in a scribal error is, of course, not determinable, and also somewhat irrelevant IMHO.) Abraham's God was, by definition and scribal errors notwithstanding, Yhwh. In addition, and far more subjectively, I would assert that the very strange incident of Melchizidek provides strong internal evidence for the historical authenticity of at least some of the stories of Abraham. Nobody who was inventing stories about a mythical Abraham would have invented such an out-of-character tale; it seems far more likely that it documents a real incident, and in fact may be the only record that remains of a far more extensive connection between the god of Abraham and the god of Melchizidek. The name of Bethel, which has some significance in Jewish history, is also interesting: As I understand it, it means the seat of El. Who was El? El, the Lord Most High, was the chief god in the pantheon which included Baal. Is it possible that Yhwh was connected in some way with the same pantheon? This seems likely to me, though I've read arguments that it could not be, since Yhwh was a god of the cities and Baal a god of the countryside (or perhaps I have it backwards) but I didn't find that all that convincing. I expect somebody in Vortex knows more about this than I do, and can jump in and correct the errors in this :-)
RE: OT: The will of God
There is a general solution. If G-d is Omnipresent, there is but One by exclusion; and,all monotheistic religions are worshiping the same G-d by definition. "I am that I am"Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the godof Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: The will of God
I think you might find this of interest: "There are certain striking similarities between the Hindu god Brahma and his consort Saraisvati, and the Jewish Abraham and Sarai, that are more than mere coincidences." http://www.hermetics.org/Abraham2.html"Stephen A. Lawrence" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This jibes pretty well with the time period of the events in Genesis in which Abraham led his clan from Babylon to Canaan. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: The will of God
Terry Blanton wrote: There is a general solution. If G-d is Omnipresent, there is but One by exclusion; and, all monotheistic religions are worshiping the same G-d by definition. I am that I am Um ... You are assuming all those who _think_ they are worshiping the One God are indeed doing so. As I read the OT there are at least _two_ major power centers in the universe, Lucifer and Yhwh. Lucifer is, of course, not exactly big on humankind -- according to the Testament of Moses he is horribly jealous of Adam's place in the universe and hence detests all humans. None the less there's no reason to think he couldn't find it entertaining to try to convince humans to worship him in some apparently innocent guise. Furthermore, if we take the whole Bible as literally true, then we must also include the rather intriguing book of Job. The devil portrayed in that book is clever enough to talk God Himself into sending a series of nasty plagues to one of His most devoted followers. Such a clever devil is surely capable of duping a few hundred million humans into worshiping him in the mistaken belief that he's God, don't you think? In addition to the main devil in the story, there is certainly a historical record of many people mistakenly worshiping Baal who (according to the Jews) either had no existence at all or was an evil entity of some sort. And there was the Fish-God of the Phoenician -- who was that, anyway? You may claim these are all aspects of a single Deity but that's not the interpretation authors of the Bible brought to the situation. And finally, at the other end of the book we find references to an Antichrist and hints that people might worship that entity. So, once again, we see that people may just be plain confused about what sort of supernatural entity it is that's manifesting over their alters. If we go a little farther afield, we find that there are supposedly even people who are so misguided they worship Cthuhlu, thinking he/it is some sort of god, and boy are they going to be in for a surprise when he/it turns finally wakes up and _eats_ them ... er, oops, I think I've jumped the tracks here, time to rein it in. */Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: The will of God
Nope, I make no assumptions about the worshiper. The condition is that G-d is Omnipresent. This is an interesting philosophy in that before there was a Creation, there was only the Creator. The only material to compose the Creation must come from the Creator; therefore, all that is, is G-d (depending on what the meaning of 'is' is :-) I further conjecture that to be the Creation, it must be not G-d; therefore, all that lives is separate from G-d. If G-d is all that is Good; then, all that is must be Evil and the end of Creation is the return to G-d. Is this why 'live' is 'evil' spelled backward? Maybe we should ask Nora Barton eg. "Thou art G-d" -Stranger in a Strange Land"Stephen A. Lawrence" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: There is a general solution. If G-d is Omnipresent, there is but One by exclusion; and, all monotheistic religions are worshiping the same G-d by definition. "I am that I am"Um ... You are assuming all those who _think_ they are worshiping the One God are indeed doing so. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: OT: The will of God
Terry Blanton wrote: Nope, I make no assumptions about the worshiper. The condition is that G-d is Omnipresent. This is an interesting philosophy in that before there was a Creation, there was only the Creator. The only material to compose the Creation must come from the Creator; therefore, all that is, is G-d (depending on what the meaning of 'is' is :-) I further conjecture that to be the Creation, it must be not G-d; therefore, all that lives is separate from G-d. If G-d is all that is Good; then, all that is must be Evil Whoops -- hold it right there. First, how can something which is all good spawn something evil? How can pure evil come from pure good? Clearly it can't -- if the good gives birth to the evil then the good must have incorporated the evil to start with and the good must not have been pure good, after all. The archetype for evil cannot be good. Second, you have a fundamental semantic difficulty, which is that you have defined good as that which G-d is or wants, have you not? And then you have taken that definition, which reduces good to little more than an alias for G-d, and used it in an attempt to reason about the goodness of G-d and not-G-d. That's highly circular. This problem is not unique to your approach, of course: it's a basic problem with any rational discussion of morality. Any attempt at defining good as anything except that which God wants tends to result in an awful lot of wasted paper. On the other hand, explicitly defining it as a synonym for God results in a very short discussion with little in the way of interesting conclusions. and the end of Creation is the return to G-d. Is this why 'live' is 'evil' spelled backward? God likes round numbers. God works in decimal. (Hence dates such as 1000 and 2000 are significant.) God speaks English. Maybe we should ask Nora Barton eg. Thou art G-d -Stranger in a Strange Land But Heinlein didn't leave out the 'o'. After all, if we're all in this together, how can it be wrong to refer to us all by name? Good is better than evil because it's nicer -- Al Capp */Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: There is a general solution. If G-d is Omnipresent, there is but One by exclusion; and, all monotheistic religions are worshiping the same G-d by definition. I am that I am Um ... You are assuming all those who _think_ they are worshiping the One God are indeed doing so. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=31637/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: OT: The will of God
Terry Blanton wrote: I think you might find this of interest: There are certain striking similarities between the Hindu god *Brahma* and his consort *Saraisvati,* and the Jewish *Abraham* and *Sarai*, that are more than mere coincidences. http://www.hermetics.org/Abraham2.html Thanks -- very interesting reference. At a quick glance there's quite a bit there that I might not agree with, but there's also quite a lot that looks really fascinating of which I had been unaware. In particular, I knew nothing of historical events leading up to the Jewish migration of ~1800BC -- but obviously there must have been some, right? It deserves a longer look, when I have a few more minutes than I have just now. */Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: This jibes pretty well with the time period of the events in Genesis in which Abraham led his clan from Babylon to Canaan. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: The will of God
LOL! You shouldn't read my posts. Sometimes my NLP goes haywire. :-) Have you ever heard of the Cathars? It's my own gnostic variation. Well, actually, I got it from a Playboy article about 30 years ago. It goes something like this. G-d got bored so he created Man for his entertainment. Man does those things which G-d can not do, evil. So, it is sin which keeps Man separate from G-d. But, that's the way G-d wants it. Crazy, eh?"Stephen A. Lawrence" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, how can something which is all good spawn something evil? Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Re: OT: The will of God
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: First, how can something which is all good spawn something evil? How can pure evil come from pure good? Clearly it can't -- if the good gives birth to the evil then the good must have incorporated the evil to start with and the good must not have been pure good, after all. Oh come now. You are describing metaphysics, not physics. Anything can happen. This is not chemistry. There are no formulas, standards for purity or logic. The whole business is nonexistent as far as I am concerned. Nature knows no such concepts; they are a human invention. They describe our subjective impressions of life, more or less the way romantic love describes sexual attraction. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. The cows and sheep we eat surely consider us evil, heartless, brutal villains. We have equally low opinions of the bacteria and mosquitoes that infect us. But Mr. Mosquito thinks that Mrs. Mosquito is a divine creature -- the essence of pulchritude -- and of course he is right. Evil people exploit other people with no more thought than a butcher kills a sheep, but a man from Mars would not be able to judge whether that is dysfunctional evil or just another way to make a living. Many species, including all primates and carnivores as far as I know, murder members of their own species and periodically cannibalize their offspring (when they kill or drive off a rival male). Of course we consider that evil -- and it is from our perspective -- but from a larger perspective or the point of view of some other species there is nothing wrong with it, any more than there is something wrong with wasps paralyzing their prey and laying eggs in them. It must be horrible to be slowly eaten alive, but it ridiculous to call it cruel or evil. There is no higher purpose or meaning or morality or lesson in any of this behavior -- not even the worst human exploitation or war. It is just animals doing what they do. We may eventually succeed in domesticating humans to eliminate such behavior -- and most people will agree that would be a good outcome -- but it has no larger meaning that another species would appreciate, and there is no intelligence or judgement in the universe except in living species. Other species don't care what we do to one another any more than we care what wasps do to caterpillars. They may care about us and love us the way I love cats and red-wing blackbirds, but I would never condemn a cat for killing a blackbird. That is what cats do. - Jed
Re: OT: The will of God
Oops! That should read 'Nora Baron'. "Onegod dogone it!" - Me, after an insane day on the nutfarm.Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should ask Nora Barton eg. site! Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: OT: The will of God
From: Terry Blanton ... I further conjecture that to be the Creation, it must be not G-d; therefore, all that lives is separate from G-d. If G-d is all that is Good; then, all that is must be Evil and the end of Creation is the return to G-d. Is this why 'live' is 'evil' spelled backward? Maybe we should ask Nora Barton eg. Thou art G-d -Stranger in a Strange Land Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought Woody Allen's movie The Sleeper answered this mystery long ago. There is a scene where Luna Schlosser, played by Dian Keaton, is incessantly babbling on about different philosophical points of view. Both Luna and Miles Monroe, played by Woody Allen, are on the run and are looking for some fast transportation to evade the authorities. The two of them have just discovered a very old looking Volkswagen beetle. The rusted bug is probably over a hundred years old and Miles wonders if the contraption will still run. He has his doubts. As they approach the relic Luna pauses in the middle of her philosophical babbling, and then blurts out: Did you know that 'God' spelled backwards is 'dog?' Makes you think, doesn't it. Miles, somewhat exasperated, rolls his eyes and asks Luna to help him move the car. Miles eventually gets into the car and turns the key. Being a Volkswagen it starts on a dime! We may never know the true answer to Luna's epiphany. OTOH, I suspect the beetle may have been retrofitted with a CF engine! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OT: The will of God
I apologize for not hearing the sarcasm, which is now obvious to me. I live and work with fundametalists every day and so sometimes I am inclined to take people at their word when they say such things. I must admit it has been a fun conversation though. --- Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And now I really will shut up :-) Cheers... Cheers... Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: The will of God
At 1:32 PM 3/10/5, thomas malloy wrote: The scenario which is being played out was prophecized 4000 years ago, ergo it is the will of G-d. The Islamists believe that Allah has blessed their enterprise too. The fact that Allah isn't god has no bearing on their behavior, they believe that he is god, and they will do what the Quran tells them to do. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. The difference lies in the words and thus opinions of men, not in the two gods. Peace between these world factions must finally be won in the hearts of humanity, not in the interpretation of scripture. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: OT: The will of God
Of course I'm being nit-picky Stephen, I believe the bible to be a good book, and to have some excellent lessons for our society, but I do not believe it to be the revealed word of God as you obviously do. The main point is that the bible you and I read is not only a translation of a translation, but the original written text had been passed by oral tradition for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Fundamentalists always cite that God influenced those keepers of knowledge so that the translation is just as accurate as the original, but I have problems believing that. History abounds with examples of men misinterpreting scripture to justify heinous acts. --- Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Merlyn wrote: As for prophecy, that's all in the interpretation, Oh, dear, you're being much too nit-picky here. Check out the book of Isaiah, which, one could argue, is the most important OT book (that's Old Testament, not Off-Topic) for most liturgical Christians. But first, note well that scholars and Christians agree that Isaiah lived and died a number of decades _before_ the Exile. OK so far? Now let's look at Isaiah 45:1 (NRSV): Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him -- This verse NAMES CYRUS, specifically, and designates him the instrument to be used in ending the Exile. Cyrus was born perhaps 150 years after Isaiah died. No way this was just a lucky guess!! And it's not open to much interpretation. So, if we accept that the book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah (which, surely, all those who accept the entire Bible as being 100% divinely inspired and accurately transmitted and properly attributed must agree is the case), this seems to prove, in one easy step, the miraculous nature of Biblical prophecy. And whatever it is, it's certainly not just a matter of interpretation! Of course, the more skeptical among us might feel this example could be taken to indicate that parts of Isaiah were not correctly attributed, but such an absurd and heretical viewpoint can surely be safely dismissed. After all, if we accept that parts of Isaiah were mis-attributed and anachronistic, then we might have to consider that some other parts of the Bible could have been similarly mis-dated, which could affect the interpretation of other examples of highly inspired prophecy, perhaps even some in the New Testament itself... If I didn't think the Bible was a truly fine text I would not have read it a second time. But I make no attempt to explain away the anachronisms, peculiarities (e.g., the incident of Melchizedek), 4-legged insects, or strange fate(s) of Judas. Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: OT: The will of God
Merlyn wrote: Not to interrupt, thomas malloy wrote: As for prophecy, that's all in the interpretation, Oh, dear, you're being much too nit-picky here. Check out the book of Isaiah, which, one could argue, is the most important OT book (that's Old Testament, not Off-Topic) for most liturgical Christians. But first, note well that scholars and Christians agree that Isaiah lived and died a number of decades _before_ the Exile. OK so far? Now let's look at Isaiah 45:1 (NRSV): Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him -- This verse NAMES CYRUS, specifically, and designates him the instrument to be used in ending the Exile. Cyrus was born perhaps 150 years after Isaiah died. No way this was just a lucky guess!! And it's not open to much interpretation. So, if we accept that the book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah (which, surely, all those who accept the entire Bible as being 100% divinely inspired and accurately transmitted and properly attributed must agree is the case), this seems to prove, in one easy step, the miraculous nature of Biblical prophecy. And whatever it is, it's certainly not just a matter of interpretation! Of course, the more skeptical among us might feel this example could be taken to indicate that parts of Isaiah were not correctly attributed, but such an absurd and heretical viewpoint can surely be safely dismissed. After all, if we accept that parts of Isaiah were mis-attributed and anachronistic, then we might have to consider that some other parts of the Bible could have been similarly mis-dated, which could affect the interpretation of other examples of highly inspired prophecy, perhaps even some in the New Testament itself... If I didn't think the Bible was a truly fine text I would not have read it a second time. But I make no attempt to explain away the anachronisms, peculiarities (e.g., the incident of Melchizedek), 4-legged insects, or strange fate(s) of Judas. which never seems to happen until after the event has occured. If you want to convince me, you are going to have to find a very specific prophecy, something that says on this day this will happen to these people and you are going to have to find it before that date and have it witnessed in some fashion. Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: OT: The will of God
Steven Johnson replied; Hi Thomas, From: thomas malloy First of all, our world view is that there are two religious systems, Judeo Christian and everything else, which we call the pagan religions. Now that every thing else is a range of beliefs, what they all have in common is a disregard for the Bible. I have pagans friends and acquaintances. I've known these pagans for decades. The pagans I've known over the years don't have the time or inclination to hate jews. I'm not saying that all pagans hate Jews, just that all Jew haters are pagans. Now there are some people who call themselves Christians and believe in Replacement Theology, the Christian Church has replaced Israel. At some level these people hate Jews. Then there are the Christians who take a liberal interpretation of theology, they question some or all of the following; the preexistance (divinity) of Yeshau, (Jesus) the virgin birth, the sinless life, the vicarious atonement, the physical resurrection, and the ascension. These people have taken over the main line protestant churches, and are the reason that people like me left. The leaders of the Presbertarian Church USA, recently called for an economic boycott of Israel, which IMHO, is tantamount to cursing them, see Genesis 12. The people who run the ELCA have decided that same sex relationship are not so bad, and have allowed people engaged in them to be pastors. This sort of sexual immorality of condemned as an abomination in both testaments. On the other hand being pagan appears to have taught many of them the meaning behind to word tolerance since many of them have experienced first hand the bigotry of others, Then you have the leftists who call themselves liberals, they have little or no respect for Christianity, These Liberals are tolerant on some things, but when it comes to Christianity and the Christian roots of civilization they are totally intolerant. Witness the instructor at CU Bolder who was fired for assigning a reading assignment which talked about the Christian roots of our civilization. of how ignorant individuals in our society have unfortunately acquired the irrational belief that pagans must be performing all sorts of horrible secret rituals in their basements or garage, maybe even sacrifice a baby or two. The people who are sacrificing children are by in large Satanists, they give all pagans a bad name. It's been my observation that the pagans I've known over the years tend to spend their resources on being concerned about improving the condition of Gaia, the environment, and each other. The worshipers of Gaia worship the created rather than the creator. There are lots of people who believe themselves to be god, they are in for a rude awakening come the Judgment Day. With respect to Islam. the webmaster of www.prophetofdoom.net, Craig Winn, and I are of the opinion that the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamists have the correct interpretation of the Qu'ran. I highly recommend Mr. Winn's book as a truthful look at the true nature of Islam. The correct interpretation? The writing of history, which includes the interpretation of religious text, tends to be rewritten by the victor. Such rewrites, however, don't make their version any more truthful than an myriad of interpretations held by the looser. One of the fundamental tenets of Judeo Christianity is the resurrection of the dead and the Judgment Day. If you worship the G-d of Israel, you have a chance, if not, you're screwed. With respect to Craig Winn's scholarship, I would suggest that you read his book. This morning I listened to interview that was conducted by a local ministry with another scholar of Islam. He talked about how Islamists have infiltrated America. The interview will be available on the website, www.olivetreeviews.org next Friday. Both of these men's scholarship shows that Islam's intention is to take over the World. There's no interpretation necessary in order to understand that, or to understand what's coming. I throughly enjoyed marijuana, but I came up with some really stupid ideas when stoned. It was my experience that it seemed to take forever to cut a grapefruit when stoned. If your scenario is correct, and Carl ignored the religious teachings of the hospice workers who ministered to him in his final days and died without accepting Yeshua as Lord and Savior, then he had even more stupid ideas than I did. IMHO, you are making judgment calls on the spiritual welfare of people you've never met when it would be wiser to simply focus on sweeping the floors of your own mansion. Some in our society would consider your judgment calls on the spiritual health of others exceedingly arrogant, and I can't say I would blame them. I listened to Carl's series programs, and he made it quite plain that he wasn't a Christian them. You're saying that he died unrepentant. I'm doing my duty to the G-d of Israel by
Re: OT: The will of God
Hi Thomas, I hope you don't find this too forward of me to ask but I could use a clarification as to what your religious preferences are. It is my understanding that you are of the Evangelical persuasion. Pardon my ignorance but what remains unclear to me is whether this means you are Christian, Jewish, or perhaps something else. Not at all, we call our religion Messianic Judaism. We keep Sabbath and the Levitical Festivals and do our best to be Torah Observant. ... From: thomas malloy Allah = dictatorships? Islam means submission, does that answer your question? That's why Allah isn't god? A comparison of the two systems that resulted from them makes that obvious. Consider the possibility that there are many of the Islamic faith that are as tolerant of others as are many of the Christian and Jewish faith. Consider the possibility that in certain portions of the globe Islam has been hijacked by bigots in order to justify their hatred of outsiders for which they don't understand, and as such, fear. Consider the possibility that the efforts of these bigots who hide under the banner of Islam have twisted the meaning of this religion into convenient interpretations in order to justify their hatred of outsiders - and as a way to sanction acts of violence against outsiders. It is not all that different than what goes on at a good old fashion god-fearing Christian KKK rally. If you ignore the Hebraic roots of Christianity you can twist the Bible into a pretzel and be able to justify the beliefs of groups like the KKK. I'm not responsible for their beliefs and actions. I visited the website of a pastor who claimed to be a Christian, but who hated those Jews. I asked him if he had heard that Jesus and 11 of the 12 apostles were Jews, number 12 being a prostalite, a gentile convert to Judaism? I've yet to receive a reply. Most Jew haters are pagan, some just don't like to admit it. The worst person that you can lie to is yourself. BTW, the man who founded the KKK, was Albert Pike, a famous Free Mason, and Satanist. With respect to Islam. the webmaster of www.prophetofdoom.net , Craig Winn, and I are of the opinion that the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamists have the correct interpretation of the Qu'ran. I highly recommend Mr. Winn's book as a truthful look at the true nature of Islam. Mr. Sagan kept many areas of his private life secret from public scrutiny during his life. For example, he used marijuana extensively. I believe Carl supported the notion to get the substance liberalized, particularly as a way to help alleviate the suffering he experienced from bone cancer. But I digress here. I throughly enjoyed marijuana, but I came up with some really stupid ideas when stoned. If your scenario is correct, and Carl ignored the religious teachings of the hospice workers who ministered to him in his final days and died without accepting Yeshua as Lord and Savior, then he had even more stupid ideas than I did. I am a great believer in herbal medicine, and find the efforts of the American government to suppress it reprehensible. This week on C to C AM, there were numerous people whose symptoms have been relieved or ameliorated by the use of marijuana. The primary beneficiaries of this is the pharmaceutical industry, given what the Greek root of that name means, it adds credence to the Satanic Conspiracy Paradigm. It is best to let Mr. Sagan speak for himself such as on the top of THEISM and ATHEISM: questioning, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God. -The Amniotic Universe, Broca's Brain, p. 311. Hopefully, Mr. Sagan has answers to some of the questions he raised. Amen has been reconvened after 1900 and some years. One of my rabbi's talks about this issue can be purchased at www.hatikva.org . And what happens after the temple is rebuilt? The sacrificial system is reinstituted. This will be stopped during the midpoint of the tribulation by the man commonly known as the Anti Christ. The existence of the Temple is necessary for there to be a Holy of Holies, in which he will sit down (only a king can do that), and declare himself to be god.
Re: OT: The will of God
Hi Thomas, From: thomas malloy ... Not at all, we call our religion Messianic Judaism. We keep Sabbath and the Levitical Festivals and do our best to be Torah Observant. Thanks for the clarification. I can pretty much respect anyone who remain true to their own school. I only wish to add here that, IMHO, there are many schools that one can remain true to. ... If you ignore the Hebraic roots of Christianity you can twist the Bible into a pretzel and be able to justify the beliefs of groups like the KKK. I'm not responsible for their beliefs and actions. I visited the website of a pastor who claimed to be a Christian, but who hated those Jews. I asked him if he had heard that Jesus and 11 of the 12 apostles were Jews, number 12 being a prostalite, a gentile convert to Judaism? I've yet to receive a reply. Most Jew haters are pagan, some just don't like to admit it. The worst person that you can lie to is yourself. BTW, the man who founded the KKK, was Albert Pike, a famous Free Mason, and Satanist. I've learned through our recent public OT vortex-l discussions that you are an exceedingly perceptive and intelligent. You appear to be well informed on a number of intellectual, philosophical, and scientific fronts. I've discovered that you possess a rich abundance of eclectic interests. In other words, You're SMART! But then you make a patently absurd statement like Most Jew jaters are pagan, some just don't like to admit it. I repeat. Thomas, that is an absurd statement. What I find distressing is the realization that, based on our past conversations, I KNOW you are both intelligent and perceptive enough to realize how stupid making such a judgment call really is. I have pagans friends and acquaintances. I've known these pagans for decades. The pagans I've known over the years don't have the time or inclination to hate jews. On the other hand being pagan appears to have taught many of them the meaning behind to word tolerance since many of them have experienced first hand the bigotry of others, of how ignorant individuals in our society have unfortunately acquired the irrational belief that pagans must be performing all sorts of horrible secret rituals in their basements or garage, maybe even sacrifice a baby or two. It's been my observation that the pagans I've known over the years tend to spend their resources on being concerned about improving the condition of Gaia, the environment, and each other. With respect to Islam. the webmaster of www.prophetofdoom.net, Craig Winn, and I are of the opinion that the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamists have the correct interpretation of the Qu'ran. I highly recommend Mr. Winn's book as a truthful look at the true nature of Islam. The correct interpretation? The writing of history, which includes the interpretation of religious text, tends to be rewritten by the victor. Such rewrites, however, don't make their version any more truthful than an myriad of interpretations held by the looser. ... I throughly enjoyed marijuana, but I came up with some really stupid ideas when stoned. It was my experience that it seemed to take forever to cut a grapefruit when stoned. If your scenario is correct, and Carl ignored the religious teachings of the hospice workers who ministered to him in his final days and died without accepting Yeshua as Lord and Savior, then he had even more stupid ideas than I did. IMHO, you are making judgment calls on the spiritual welfare of people you've never met when it would be wiser to simply focus on sweeping the floors of your own mansion. Some in our society would consider your judgment calls on the spiritual health of others exceedingly arrogant, and I can't say I would blame them. My father died last January after a long battle against cancer. During those last couple of months of my father's life I observed an increase in his desire to observe religious rituals. This is understandable as rituals, in my view, are meant to help us focus on the important issues, as well as give us comfort. My father was Episcopalian. One day his priest came to his bedside to give communion. I climbed in bed, sat next to my dad and shared in the ritual of communion. It was not because I'm Episcopalian (I'm not), but because I wanted to share in the ritual with my father. I especially appreciated the part where the priest asked my dad to give HIM communion. It brought home the fact that we are all the same and equal under one roof - just as Jesus performed the ritual of washing the feet of his disciples. I observed a number of thoughtful, caring, and highly perceptive hospice workers who came in to check in on the welfare of my father. They were all very good at listening to and administering to his needs. However, none of these hospice workers behaved in such an arrogant manner as to feel it was their duty or spiritual obligation to administer
Re: OT: The will of God
While I was raised Baptist, I certainly am not now. AAMOF, I wasn't too sure what I was until I found: BELIEF-O-MATIC!!! Not sure about what religion you are? Then go to: http://www.beliefnet.com and take the 20 question test of the belief-o-matic (third bullet on the left). I am 100% neo-pagan. What a relief to know! __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: OT: The will of God
From: Terry Blanton While I was raised Baptist, I certainly am not now. AAMOF, I wasn't too sure what I was until I found: BELIEF-O-MATIC!!! Not sure about what religion you are? Then go to: http://www.beliefnet.com and take the 20 question test of the belief-o-matic (third bullet on the left). I am 100% neo-pagan. What a relief to know! What fun! I took the Belief-O-Matic test too. Same fate here. Thomas, if you're eavesdropping on this conversation I wish to assure you that I don't hate Jews. Actually, I think I may have been a rabbi in a former life. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. No matter. As far as my personal perception of you: You fascinate me. You have taught me how differently other people can perceive the world around them. Thank you for enlightening me. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.Orionworks.com
Re: OT: The will of God
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I think I may have been a rabbi in a former life. Yeah, my wife is a Messianic Jew and we have been together over 20 years. We *do* argue over her tithe thing . . . I say it's *after* taxes! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
RE: OT: The will of God
Not to interrupt, thomas malloy wrote: Steven Johnson posted; So, you know for an absolute fact that Allah isn't God? Different name; yod hay vav hay as opposed to Allah, and Merlyn added; Same God, different interpretation. The Jewish/christian god has NO name, this is why He/She is referred to as God. Allah is arabic for god, so the translation is the same. So, you know for an absolute fact that Allah isn't God? My reply In other words, if you believe in Allah you must prefer dictatorships over democracies? Allah = dictatorships? Islam means submission, does that answer your question? That's why Allah isn't god? My reply He, the G-d of Israel, has a name, it is spelled yod, hey vav hey, it means I am what I am. There is no way that the two entities are the same, there is only room in the universe for one all powerful king. Or as a pastor I listen to puts it so eloquently, we can't both of us be right. A comparison of the two systems that resulted from them makes that obvious. Brief (and simplified) History Judaism was first. Some jews believed that the messiah came and became Christians, other jews continued to wait for his arrival. Some Jews followed a new prophet and became Muslims, others retained their original belief structure. My reply Very few Jews converted to Islam. By in large the converts were Arabs and other people who were in the way of Islam's conquest. As for prophecy, that's all in the interpretation, which never seems to happen until after the event has occured. If you want to convince me, you are going to have to find a very specific prophecy, something that says on this day this will happen to these people and you are going to have to find it before that date and have it witnessed in some fashion. My reply We have predicted the return of the Jews, the conquest of the land of Israel, and the rebuilding of the Temple, which is happening now. As for dates, forget it. Steven Johnson also responded that Carl Sagan never accepted Christianity. He seems to know more about it than I do. This was an interesting discussion. The bottom line is that a group of religious Jews and Christians are continuing their efforts to rebuild the Temple. In what is, IMHO, the most under reported story of 2004, the Sanhedrin, the religious Jewish equivalent of a court, has been reconvened after 1900 and some years. One of my rabbi's talks about this issue can be purchased at www.hatikva.org .
RE: OT: The will of God
Not to interrupt, thomas malloy wrote: Steven Johnson posted; So, you know for an absolute fact that Allah isn't God? Different name; yod hay vav hay as opposed to Allah, different legal system; Sharia verses Torah, different treatment of women; no need to comment further on that, eh? different outcomes, the nations whose legal systems are based on British Common Law are first and second world economies and democracies, the Islamist nations are, with the exception of Turkey, all third world dictatorships. Same God, different interpretation. The Jewish/christian god has NO name, this is why He/She is referred to as God. Allah is arabic for god, so the translation is the same. Brief (and simplified) History Judaism was first. Some jews believed that the messiah came and became Christians, other jews continued to wait for his arrival. Some Jews followed a new prophet and became Muslims, others retained their original belief structure. The government is unrelated to religion, rather it has to do with how religious rule was enforced. You could base similar arguments on the differences between Christian and Jewish countries or even between different Christian denominations. As for prophecy, that's all in the interpretation, which never seems to happen until after the event has occured. If you want to convince me, you are going to have to find a very specific prophecy, something that says on this day this will happen to these people and you are going to have to find it before that date and have it witnessed in some fashion. Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: OT: The will of God
Steven Johnson posted; A recent comment by the esteemed Mr. Malloy got me to thinking... The problem I always have when I hear catchy little phrases like: We Evangelicals see W's [Bush's] election as the will of G-d, or It is Allah's will The scenario which is being played out was prophecized 4000 years ago, ergo it is the will of G-d. The Islamists believe that Allah has blessed their enterprise too. The fact that Allah isn't god has no bearing on their behavior, they believe that he is god, and they will do what the Quran tells them to do. the face of the Will of God, this inevitably invites others to take control over their powerless lives. All the better if these self-proclaimed leaders state they are on a first name basis with God, or Allah. That's why men study the scriptures. The Islamists do the same with the Quran. As human beings, most of us (if we're lucky) will be confronted with events one is given the rare opportunity to question the underlying Blueprints of Life - for which one in the past had always assumed had been carved in stone. But you see it is carved in stone Regardless of whether one is an Atheist or not, I would hope most individuals would be able to find deep down within themselves a spark of divinity, or least the proxy of divinity. Have you ever heard of eschatology? Of the verses which were prophetic at the time they were written, 75% have come to pass. Does that suggest something about the other 25%? Further more, this war which is between us and Islam, was not my idea, but it was prophecized, and we are powerless to stop it. The election of W, along with the controversy surrounding it, and the war were all predicted in the Bible Code. As for electing Bush, I certainly didn't vote for him. Of course you didn't
RE: OT: The will of God
Hi Thomas, From: thomas malloy Steven Johnson posted; A recent comment by the esteemed Mr. Malloy got me to thinking... The problem I always have when I hear catchy little phrases like: We Evangelicals see W's [Bush's] election as the will of G-d, or It is Allah's will The scenario which is being played out was prophecized 4000 years ago, ergo it is the will of G-d. The Islamists believe that Allah has blessed their enterprise too. The fact that Allah isn't god has no bearing on their behavior, they believe that he is god, and they will do what the Quran tells them to do. So, you know for an absolute fact that Allah isn't God? the face of the Will of God, this inevitably invites others to take control over their powerless lives. All the better if these self-proclaimed leaders state they are on a first name basis with God, or Allah. That's why men study the scriptures. The Islamists do the same with the Quran. ...and your point? As human beings, most of us (if we're lucky) will be confronted with events one is given the rare opportunity to question the underlying Blueprints of Life - for which one in the past had always assumed had been carved in stone. But you see it is carved in stone I think Mel Brooks playing the role of Moses got it right when in a movie he comes down from the mountain holding three tablets in his arm given to him by God. Behold! Moses shouts to his people, I give you... and then one of the three tablets slips out of his hands hits the ground shattering into a thousand tiny little pieces. Moses, hesitates for a second and then holds up the remaining two tablets ...I give you the ten commandments. Anybody can have a bad day. Regardless of whether one is an Atheist or not, I would hope most individuals would be able to find deep down within themselves a spark of divinity, or least the proxy of divinity. Have you ever heard of eschatology? Of the verses which were prophetic at the time they were written, 75% have come to pass. Does that suggest something about the other 25%? Further more, this war which is between us and Islam, was not my idea, but it was prophecized, and we are powerless to stop it. The election of W, along with the controversy surrounding it, and the war were all predicted in the Bible Code. It wasn't my idea either. However, regarding the Bible Code, I suspect some may disagree with you on that point. As for electing Bush, I certainly didn't vote for him. Of course you didn't Presumably meaning you did. If so, I'm curious. Did you vote for W because you personally felt he was the right man for the job or because it was the will of god? Speaking of bible code: You might enjoy reading Carl Sagan's book Contact. The ending was particularly ingenious, IMHO. I think Mr. Sagan, struggled most of his life trying to reconcile conflicting feelings he had about religion versus science. I suspect the late Mr. Sagan had a religious side which he kept meticulously hidden from public view. However, being the scientist that he was I speculate that Sagan felt compelled to reconcile these two areas in his life. I thought Sagan came up with one of the most elegant ways I've ever read in a novel of a way to suggest how the Hand of God might be carved into the structure of the universe. In Sagan's novel the Hand of God isn't revealed till the last page of the book either, so you gotta read it to the end. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
