My HighSchool Biology Class Coves Evilushun

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-14 08:15am

Nick wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I think it should be mandatory to teach evolution.
It is mandatory to teach evolution. . . (at least, it is in most places in developed nations).

Yeah, but that hardly covers one of the greatest creationists breading grounds: The South.

And in all too many places creationism is given equal if not greater weight than evolution. The fundies demand that their bullshit theory be treated with the same respect a valid and proven scientific theory. And they get away with it because they can shout louder and have more numbers.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-14 04:35pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:But you're just a JW: a God damn cult, with no actual mythology, unlike Catholicism. Shit, the fact that you guys have been WRONG on the date for the end of the world SEVERAL TIMES IN A ROW [interjection:twice, and we don't predict it anymore] should be ringing a bell in your head that something might be up.

And after saying something moderately intelligent, Spanky has to return to form with this...

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-10-14 04:59pm

Australopithicus wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:But you're just a JW: a God damn cult, with no actual mythology, unlike Catholicism. Shit, the fact that you guys have been WRONG on the date for the end of the world SEVERAL TIMES IN A ROW [interjection:twice, and we don't predict it anymore] should be ringing a bell in your head that something might be up.
And after saying something moderately intelligent, Spanky has to return to form with this...

What's wrong with what he said? The end of the world was predicted to happen in 1844 (Millerites, who are a precurssor of JW), again in 1914, 1925, 1975, 1984, and probably more I'm not aware of.

When someone makes a prediction that doesn't come true it should send a signal that other things they say are not reliable. And 5 failed predictions about the end of the world speaks volumes.

As for the other points made:

1.) Imminate doomsday predictions are a sign of a cult. I should know, I run one.

2.) As for your claim, 'we don't predict anymore' ... JW claim to be devinely inspired when it came to these predictions. So you can't revise them later on, or you're admitting they weren't devinely inspired in the first place. And if you admit that, you admit your religion is a man made endevour and not 'the true religion.'

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-14 06:30pm

I'm still curious as to why God is compelled to throw a massively dramatic homecoming if he's just going to end up killing everybody. Why not just snap his fingers?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-14 07:12pm

Answer my fucking question, you non-Christian freak.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-14 07:14pm

Durandal wrote:I'm still curious as to why God is compelled to throw a massively dramatic homecoming if he's just going to end up killing everybody. Why not just snap his fingers?

He an egomaniac on a scale no mere human can come close.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2002-10-15 05:42am

Nick wrote: Oh, and to the person who asked if anywhere other than the US has creationists - yeah, we've got a few making irritating noises in Australia. Fortunately, what we also have in Australia in an extremely secularised society - we've got our share of people who aren't the brightest sparks on the planet, but they tend to expend most of their energy indulging in bigotry and xenophobia, rather than fundamentalism.

Here in Europe, we strangely enough have something as rare as secularistic creationists - the infamous Raëlian Movement (who actually have members all over the world - most notably in Canada), who believe that all life on earth was created by....

(fasten your seatbelts)

.... a bunch of little green men called Elohim.

Nope, I'm not joking.

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-10-15 06:12am

The sad thing is....that's got a better chance of being true than Christanity. If that's all their belief is, it's not as if it tries to conflict with established science and history too much. It's an unneeded term in the equation in any case.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-15 10:38am

Durandal wrote:I'm still curious as to why God is compelled to throw a massively dramatic homecoming if he's just going to end up killing everybody. Why not just snap his fingers?

It's not just a homecoming--it's a cleansing. He has to create war and famine to kill enough "unbelievers"--such as Jews, Muslims, and atheists--so that Christians are will reign supreme. What's more amazing is that Christian fundies are looking forward to this bloodshed. Apparently, their morality does not coincide with the welfare of all people, just their own.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-15 05:25pm

I always found it interesting that Christians feel a compulsion to help people suffering on Earth, but they have no such sympathy for those in Hell.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-15 05:41pm

Oh, I heard about the Raelins on my visit to France. Loved the religion.

Was terrified when I found out it was serious.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-15 07:04pm

Australopithicus, I demand that you answer my question.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-15 07:29pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Australopithicus, I demand that you answer my question.

He's a JW, what do you expect him to do? Answer questions? Use logic?

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-10-16 12:57am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Australopithicus, I demand that you answer my question.
He's a JW, what do you expect him to do? Answer questions? Use logic?

Aren't JW's not allowed to discuss their religion unless they are trying to convert someone? Same with Mormons, IIRC.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-16 01:31am

Fuck that. I just want to fucking know why the fuck he says that Christ and the Archangel Michael are the same fucking entity. His fucking non-religious rules be damned.

You hear me, you coward?! Answer me!!

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-16 01:44pm

I'm not a coward, I've just been busy.

As it is, I'll get back to you once I find a 'Reasoning from the scriptures' book. As it is, you'll just have to stew in your own juices for a while.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-16 03:01pm

Fine, Spanky - whatever turns you on. I've found the entry. Page 218 of the Reasoning book under 'Jesus Christ'.

Is Jesus christ the same person as Michael the archangel?
The name of this Michael appears only 5 times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears this name is referred to as 'one of the chief princes', 'the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel's] people', and as 'the archangel'. Michael means 'Who is like god?' The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah's sovereignty and destroying God's enemies.
At 1 thessalonians 4: 16(Revised standard version of the holy scriptures, published 1971), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as 'the archangel's call', and Jude vs 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus' commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression 'archangel' is never found in the plural in the scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)
Revelation 12: 7 - 12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of Kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later described as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world in Revelation 19: 11 - 16. Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as 'ruler of this world' in John 12:31, Satan the devil? Daniel 12:1 associates the 'standing up of Michael' to act with authority with 'a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.' That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.
So, the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to Earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-16 04:50pm

Then who is the Archangel Gabriel?
Who is The Archangel Uriel?
Who is the Archangel Raphael?

Canonically, there are SEVEN Archangels.
Who are the other three unamed Archangels?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not mention Jesus. Only the the Archangel's call and 'God's trumpet'.

Revelation 12: 7-12 and 19: 11-16 refer to two different events. The first concerns The Archangel and one of the Seven Visions. The other concerns Christ and the destruction of Babylon after the Seven Bowls (after the Seven Visions). Michael refers to Christ in the third person.

That concerns Spanky's question, now here's my next question: What is the Jehovah's Witnesses' take on Lillith, the first woman?

(Don't get me started on God originating as a mountain deity, son of Bull-El, husband of Ashtoreth...)

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-16 05:29pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Then who is the Archangel Gabriel?
Who is The Archangel Uriel?
Who is the Archangel Raphael?
Canonically, there are SEVEN Archangels.
Who are the other three unamed Archangels?

Those who are aforementioned were only mentioned as angels in the Bible.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not mention Jesus. Only the the Archangel's call and 'God's trumpet'.

Ah. Conflict of translation. Ours (And the revised version of 1971 which was mentioned with it) says:

'Because the lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangels voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.'

Revelation 12: 7-12 and 19: 11-16 refer to two different events.The first concerns The Archangel and one of the Seven Visions. The other concerns Christ and the destruction of Babylon after the Seven Bowls (after the Seven Visions).

No, it doesn't necessarily. Before verse 16 of chapter 19, there is no mention of Babylon, and after it there is none either. In chapter 15, it refers to Babylon the Great, which is not literal Babylon. Babylon had fallen 5 centuries or so prior to the writings of John. This Babylon means the world empire of false religion. verses 11 - 16 are describing the leader of the heavenly armies. It says, 'he has a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords'. This can only refer to Jesus. As it describes Michael as the leader of the angelic army before in chapter 12, the book is doing one of 2 things:

1. Contradicting itself, or
2. Putting Michael as Jesus' heavenly name.

Michael refers to Christ in the third person.

Show me the scripture with Michael even speaking, let alone referring to Jesus as a separate entity, and I'll dignify that statement with an argument.

That concerns Spanky's question, now here's my next question: What is the Jehovah's Witnesses' take on Lillith, the first woman?

She's not in the Biblical canon, so she doesn't exist. Or DIDN'T, I suppose would be more accurate. There's no mention of the creation of Lillith. Only Eve.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-10-16 06:29pm

I thought tht Lillith appears in Hebrew texts, or legends or something. Or something like that.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-16 07:23pm

Australopithicus wrote:
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Then who is the Archangel Gabriel?
Who is The Archangel Uriel?
Who is the Archangel Raphael?
Canonically, there are SEVEN Archangels.
Who are the other three unamed Archangels?
Those who are aforementioned were only mentioned as angels in the Bible.

They were still considered Archangels. To say otherwise would be to deny their canonical roles.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not mention Jesus. Only the the Archangel's call and 'God's trumpet'.
Ah. Conflict of translation. Ours (And the revised version of 1971 which was mentioned with it) says:

'Because the lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangels voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.'

Um, are my eyes going wonky, or does anyone else not see how "an Archangel's voice" (why an and not the, I wonder?) and "union with Christ" equal the same entity?

Revelation 12: 7-12 and 19: 11-16 refer to two different events.The first concerns The Archangel and one of the Seven Visions. The other concerns Christ and the destruction of Babylon after the Seven Bowls (after the Seven Visions).
No, it doesn't necessarily. Before verse 16 of chapter 19, there is no mention of Babylon, and after it there is none either. In chapter 15, it refers to Babylon the Great, which is not literal Babylon. Babylon had fallen 5 centuries or so prior to the writings of John. This Babylon means the world empire of false religion. verses 11 - 16 are describing the leader of the heavenly armies. It says, 'he has a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords'. This can only refer to Jesus. As it describes Michael as the leader of the angelic army before in chapter 12, the book is doing one of 2 things:

1. Contradicting itself, or
2. Putting Michael as Jesus' heavenly name.

I guess you're right about Babylon, I summarized wrong. But chapter 19 still reffers to events long after the 3rd Vision, when Michael led the Angels and Satan was cast out. Chapter 19 concerns Christ preparing for the final judgement. Just because He and Michael take on a similar leadership roles in different events, doesn't mean you can take it all out of context.

Michael refers to Christ in the third person.
Show me the scripture with Michael even speaking, let alone referring to Jesus as a separate entity, and I'll dignify that statement with an argument.

Spanky mentioned Revelations 12:10 to me as a quote from Michael, but I see now it doesn't specifically say it was him. You could still deduct that that it was neither God nor Jesus, though:

"This is the time of victory for our God, the time of his power and soverignty, when his Christ comes to his rightful rule! For the accuser of our brothers, he who day and night accused them before our God, is overthrown."

It's not a direct quote, (I only mentioned it on Spanky's behalf). I'll admit. But regardless, since when did your arguments dignify anything?

That concerns Spanky's question, now here's my next question: What is the Jehovah's Witnesses' take on Lillith, the first woman?
She's not in the Biblical canon, so she doesn't exist. Or DIDN'T, I suppose would be more accurate. There's no mention of the creation of Lillith. Only Eve.

Fair enough, considering their perspective. Then again, that's assuming that JW misinterpretations are anywhere near as canonical as the Talmud, let alone the Bible (before fundementalist bastardization). Real quaint to know that people can ignore the original parts of the scriptures (such as Og, and Ashtoreth). You realize that any dumbass can rewrite a book and claim it's 'more accurate'.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-16 07:39pm

Um, are my eyes going wonky, or does anyone else not see how "an Archangel's voice" (why an and not the , I wonder?) and "union with Christ" equal the same entity?

Mine does.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-17 04:47pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote: They were still considered Archangels. To say otherwise would be to deny their canonical roles.

I'm not sure how you quantify canon, sir, but if they're called angels in the Bible (as you have admitted), then they are ANGELS. To write something that contradicts what the Bible says and then to claim that this is canonical is merely hypocracy.

Um, are my eyes going wonky, or does anyone else not see how "an Archangel's voice" (why an and not the, I wonder?) and "union with Christ" equal the same entity?

Are you joking? The last part has nothing to do with the Christ - Michael issue. It's the first part. As that confused you so comprehensively, I'll rephrase it with the relevant part:

'Because the lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangels voice and with God's trumpet...'

There, that better?

But chapter 19 still refers to events long after the 3rd Vision, when Michael led the Angels and Satan was cast out. Chapter 19 concerns Christ preparing for the final judgement. Just because He and Michael take on a similar leadership roles in different events, doesn't mean you can take it all out of context.

You've obviously missed the point again, so I'll rephrase it once again. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHEN IT HAPPENED. That's not the argument here. The argument IS, however, the fact that both Michael and Jesus are described as commanding the same heavenly army, in the same commanding position. If Michael did such a good job against Satan, why doesn't HE prepare for the final judgement while Jesus tells him what to do? Answer: They're the same person.

You could still deduct that that it was neither God nor Jesus, though:
"This is the time of victory for our God, the time of his power and soverignty, when his Christ comes to his rightful rule! For the accuser of our brothers, he who day and night accused them before our God, is overthrown."

You could also deduct that it's Jesus speaking. He was known to refer to himself in the third person a lot on Earth as well, referring to himself as 'the Son of Man', rather than 'I'. However, it could've been just any other angel, as it just describes who said it as having 'a loud voice', and that's not much to base upon, seeing as all angels have loud voices. In fact, in Daniel 10:6 describes the voice of the angel speaking to Daniel as 'like the sound of a crowd'. So it could've been anyone.

You realize that any dumbass can rewrite a book and claim it's 'more accurate'.

Mm - hm. And do you realise that it takes more than a dumbass to research original copies of the Biblical text in the original Greek and Hebrew (and aramaic, in some cases), and produce something which was described as 'closer to the original translation' rather than making it 'easier to understand'?

I guess not.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2002-10-17 06:25pm

Australopithicus wrote: 'Because the lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangels voice and with God's trumpet...'

So god will come come down accompanied by an archangel and Israfel blowing away on the trumpet. So what?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-17 06:30pm

Australopithicus wrote:In fact, in Daniel 10:6 describes the voice of the angel speaking to Daniel as 'like the sound of a crowd'. So it could've been anyone.

That's the Archangel Gabriel, who acts as the Voice of God throughout the entire Bible, according to mine.