Dan L

Not really. For two reasons: 1: We all have little flaws that we don't like about ourselves, whether they appear in our thoughts and actions daily, or less regularly. We also usually have things that we personally believe, but which go against the beliefs of our friends. The normal response is to try to cover them up so that we may be accepted, or even just not mention them because it'd cause argument, even though a lot of the time it doesn't matter a massive amount. 2: There are some very pretentious people around who will only accept people who appear to be like them. Whether they are actually like them or not is never really an issue, but rather it's an issue of image. So what I'm saying is that we're all far from perfect, and it's impossible for anyone to live a life without compromising their true self at some point. However if it were possible for someone to go their whole life without compromising their beliefs or themselves (which we Christians believe happened, but heh.. that was a different kind of guy altogether), you wouldn't be accepted by everyone because some people are just pretentious like that. (Entering religious opinions mode.. will add spoilers in case you don't wish to read. If you do, then don't complain, because you chose to.) [spoiler]Jesus never compromised himself for the whole time he was down on earth. Of course, it's not so easy for us because we are 100% human and nothing else. However, despite this refusal to comprise himself, the Pharisees [i]hated[/i] him and were very open about it.[/spoiler] So in my opinion, you can't really have it both ways, even if you could go your life without compromise. Of course, there are always [i]some[/i] who accept you as you are (after re-reading the post I dunno whether you meant being accepted by some people or all people), but there are also always those who don't and require compromise.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DarkOrderKnight [/i] [B]It's not that you mean to sound angry, but sometimes posts just come across like that. You obviously harbor a deep love for Christianity. When one is arguing their point, they can sound mean. It's something that just happens. And when the topic is religion posts can seem especially angry. [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah I know.. I think I can kind of come across that way sometimes.. I'll have to start putting disclaimers at the bottom of my posts: "Things said in the above post are from the opinions of the author and are therefore subjective. No-one is obligated to believe them." (I sometimes have to write a longer version of that into e-mails where my personal opinion is involved) But I do know exactly what you mean. Even if I don't mean to inflame someone it does sometimes happen. edit: added a disclaimer of sorts to my sig. I'll try to refer to it when my arguments get on the empassioned religious side.. heh

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]wiccans NEVER say that wicca is the one right way, so you are wrong in that way. so there is hope for, me, i guess.[/B][/QUOTE] oops.. sorry. When I said "all" I actually meant "the majority of". There are exceptions to that ;) [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]Saw this coming. A large religious debate. How sad that we all can't just have a nice conversation about a certain religion.[/B][/QUOTE] We are.. however my opinions on that religion (which is what was asked in the middle of the thread.. heh) are based on my beliefs according to my own. An atheist's viewpoint is no less subjective than a viewpoint from a different religion to the subject of the thread. The only difference is that atheists generally look at religions as "ideals different to ours because we don't believe in God" and other religions look at it as "a different belief on who the true god is". But either way the conversation is never completely objective. The atheist (or agnostic) simply doesn't normally have a similar specific personal belief to comment on, so you don't. I do have a specific personal belief, so I do. I don't mean to inflame people or encourage aggression between religions. If that's the impression I give off, then sorry.. but I personally don't really think I've attempted to agitate someone anywhere in this thread, but rather to state my views on the matter. Just because I believe something doesn't mean you have to.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]i dont think it matters wat religon is right, and which is wrong. if there is a god, goddess, or multiple deities, im sure they wont care wether or not u followed them, as long as your intentions were pure. that was sappy. ah well. [/B][/QUOTE] That's not the point I was making. What I meant was that there can not be "no right or wrong answers" because all religions claim to be right. You may belive that if there is a God, he or she doesn't care if you follow them or not. But at the end of the day that's your belief. It may be right, it may be wrong. If the "no right or wrong answers" philosophy is correct, then practically [i]all[/i] major religions are wring, because they claim to be the [i]only[/i] right answer. So it's not a matter of whether God minds, but rather whether religions are right or not. They all claim absolutes, therefore either they're right and you're wrong or vice versa, [i]whether God judges you for it or not[/i].

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by D*Star [/i] [B]Okay, so I'll wait until the announcment? [/B][/QUOTE] It's here already, at the top of all the forums.. edit: damn, I didn't realise I replied that quick.. heh *points to times at bottom of posts..*

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]its not magic, really. its the power our goddess grants us. its just prayer. [/B][/QUOTE] Not in the sense that I mean. Christian prayer for things such as healing is not a power that God grants us to use ourselves, but it is asking God to use his power for us. I think there's a bit of a difference between the two. If a Christian prays for something bad to happen that God's against, then it won't because God is in control as to whether our prayers are answered. However the sheer fact that there's a wiccan code what when you should and shouldn't use spells (or somewthing like that) implies that you have some control over the power itself. So yeah, it's kind of like prayer I suppose, but at the same time you have some control over what actually happens (as opposed to just asking it to happen), so it's a bit different. I define "spells" as magic.. but then, I guess it's debatable. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]spells, Dues, are, in actuality, praying. think back a few hundred years. even christianms lit incense and did other things when praying, so its not all that different from christianity.[/B][/QUOTE] As I said, the only thing that makes spells slightly different and in the "magic" category (in my view, but you don't have to think that if you don't want to) is the fact that Wiccans seem to ultimately have some control over the outcome. More than in Christian prayer anyway. When Christians pray, we just kind of ask that God does something (not empowering us) and wait and see if he does it. At the end of the day it's all up to God whether he answers, and if he does, we have no control over the outcome of that. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]In fact, i believe in gods as being sumthing likie a really big diamond. theyt are all facets of this diamond. There is no "right" or "wrong" way, every1 has a chance to co-exist.[/B][/QUOTE] Being a human, how can you possibly expect to accurately speculate the nature of God? The (main) reason there is such a widespread view that "All the religions are just different views on the same thing" is the concept of relativism. The concept of relativism goes something like this: "All truths are relative, there is no absolute truth" Which quite frankly, I think is a load of rubbish. A common argument against it is "if there is no absolute truth, how can you say that there is no absolute, for that in itself is an absolute", but heh.. that's kind of over-used as it is. Think of it this way, If there are no absolutes: there is a God, because so many believe in him, and yet at the same time there isn't, because so many don't. The Earth is flat, purely because some people still believe it is. Evolution is correct, and yet at the same time it isn't, because some people believe either way Christianity is correct and Islam is wrong, and yet at the same time Islam is correct and Christianity is wrong (the two do NOT worship the same god; I've seen both Christians AND Muslims say this) Don't be so foolish as to fall for relativistic crap. If there is no "wrong" way of doing things then I am perfectly justified in saying that my religion is absolutely correct in every way. But then that contradicts you because my religion says that others are not the true way. And so do most of the others. Hence in order for nothing to be wrong, some things must be wrong because the things that can't be wrong say that they are. OR everything must be wrong because they all claim to be the only right way. In other words, relativism is fine in physics, with the general theory of relativity and such, but the whole relativism philosophy with regards to religion is a big mess that just doesn't work. Now what I'm [i]not[/i] saying is that I should go around saying that my religion is the one true way and you must follow me or go to hell. And I don't do that for three good reasons: 1: It's condemning 2: It's stupid, and 3: It'll give people one more reason to hate Christianity However what I AM saying is that while we should go around dissing other people's beliefs, at the very least we should acknowledge that in most cases (not all) if [i]one[/i] of the religions is right (ie. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) then all the rest [i]must[/i] be wrong. And if the relativitstic view of things is right then they must [i]all[/i] be wrong, because they all claim to be the only right one. Thus, there is a quite clear right or wrong based on the way things turn out in the end. Call my views black and white if you must, but in the relativistic scheme of things they're just as valid as anyone else's.

Firstly, wrong forum... Secondly, there may be a similar thread in the right forum. Thirdly, I'd probably say the last two. I never can understand them fully (as goes with the last two episodes of most anime series') but heh.. I did like them.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MillieFan [/i] [B]These are the future's murderers. [/B][/QUOTE] Correction: These are the future's society. I can assure you that they're probably in no worse mental health than any of us, and they all know what they're doing, and they know it is wrong. What they lack is the want to not do such a thing. I wish it were an uncommon thing, but I'm afraid not. The sad thing is that when most of the people involved in this were younger, they wouldn't have understood why anyone would do such a thing. I mean, I know a huge amount of kids I grew up with who swore they'd never smoke, get involved in fights, do drugs, and then they ended up doing all three. The fact that those three things aren't good ideas (in fact they're all pretty stupid ideas) hasn't changed, but only their attitude towards them. Rather than thinking "those're bad ideas" they think "so what? I do what the hell I want". Unfortunately this incident is no different other than the magnitude and type of harm done to others of the stupid idea in question. Of course, I'm not comparing the shock of this kind of thing to something as little as smoking a cigarette after saying you wouldn't, but rather I'm saying that the thoughts behind each of those things are essentially the same, whether the acts are different or not. It's all down to peer pressure.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]So god might of created the people that started magic, (which never in fact started, it was just added onto slowly for thousands of years. AFAIK) but he did not in fact start it. (Btw you say anything different and you?re stepping into the nice little tangle of "God gives us free will".) :) :devil:[/B][/QUOTE] I didn't mean God made people follow magic, or that he inspired the ones who did start following it. Following magic itself is a human thing. According to Semjaza (I don't personally know) the apocrypha says that some angels showed humanity how to use magic. But whether that's true or not I don't know. The point is, that the act of [i]using[/i] magic was created by man, but magic itself was not. How exactly can man create magic, I mean, how can man create the sheer power behind it? He can't. The point is that whether you believe the Wiccan religion or Christianity, or any other religion, magic doesn't make any sense without a higher being of [i]some[/i] sort, otherwise why would it work at all? I mean, people can say spells, and sometimes some right weird stuff can happen.. but how would that happen if magic wasn't there to start with? People simply can't make that sort of thing in the natural world we live in. Make it [i]up[/i], maybe, but not turn it into substance.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai[/i] (spelling amended) [B]what kind of spells do you think cross the line? Like love spells? I think they go way too far, unless it's a true love spell. But healing spells are fine as long as you have permission. what's your opinion?[/B][/QUOTE] I'll tell you my opinion, but bear in mind that it is my opinion and therefore you have the right to ignore it if you want. I'm a pretty open Christian, and I tend to take the scriptures of Christianity seriously. So I belive that any form of usage of magic is wrong. Now, before you reply back with "but we only use it for good", bear in mind that that's [i]not what I said[/i]. There are a [b]lot[/b] of perfectly well-intentioned people out there, who unfortunately do things wrong. Having a pure intent is no guarantee that you're doing the right thing. Think of it this way: God created everything. Including magic. Now, magic isn't an Earthly force so much as it's a spiritual or heavenly one (if you believe it is real). We are [i]not[/i] heavenly beings, but we are Earthly ones, with all the imperfections that come with that. Now, if you pray for healing, it doesn't require any kind of power, control, or knowledge of what we're doing, because God knows what he's doing, so we simply ask him to do it. Heavenly things, like magic, were not meant for us to take any control over, because we simply can't be trusted, and even if our intentions are pure, we lack so much knowledge that God and the other heavenly beings have, that neither we nor God can possibly trust our own judgement on whether something is alright, if you intend only to do good. So yeah, I don't really care about your intentions [i]at all[/i], because that's not the point I make whan I say that "magic is prohibited by scripture". Oh and please, don't take this as a bashing of the Wiccan religion.. I completely respect your freedom to do what you want, however you did ask for opinions ;) and those are mine. You don't have to agree with them.

[img]http://www.members.aol.com/shadowedcloudx/eggs[/img] the cooking term "beat the egg" has been misunderstood yet again...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]It can easily be refuted by any logical person[/color][/B][/QUOTE] So can your very existence.. therefore I choose to ignore that statement. On the ground that either you may not exist, or that you do and that "logic" is flawed. As for the matter at hand, I have no particular opinion of my own. Though I do think that getting involved with your first cousin is a bit too far..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sara [/i] [B][size=1]Actually, there's a verse in Genesis, just before the story of the Flood, that says the Nephilim took human wives, and their children were the great heroes of the age. And I have to agree with Ginnylyn, [i]Many Waters[/i] is definitely worth a look if your interested in "Christian Mythology."[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] I could have sworn it was the other way around.. but then, in my Bible it never even mentions the word "Nephilim". However the KJV says: "Genesis 6: 1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 4 [b]The Nephilim were on the earth in those days[/b], and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown" In that version it never really says who the Nephilim were, only that they were around... Verse 4 is also translated in a different version of the KJV as: "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." A great number of translations have translated the word "Nephilim" into "Giants", whereas, as I said earlier, the true translation is close to "demons". In the message translation the verse reads: "This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones." Which is clearly saying that the Giants (or Nephilim) are the offspring of the "sons of God" (some translations say "heavenly beings") and the human women. Other translations read: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown." "The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later" "There were giants on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men who were of old, men of renown." "In those days, and even afterward, giants[1] lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with human women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes mentioned in legends of old." (Footnote: 1: Hebrew [i]Nephilim[/i]) So after cross-referencing various translations it can be clear that when some only say "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them" what the actual meaning is, is that the Nephilim are the children of the "sons of god" (or heavenly beings, or supernatural beings) and human women, rather than the ones who took the women for brides, or just beings which happened to be around. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]It gets confusing because the name Lucifer (originally a mythological god) wasn't even applied to Satan until St. James' Bible was made based on translations my St. Jerome even earlier. Lucifer is a Latin word, not a Hebrew one which makes its existance makes even less sense. The original Hebrew books don't even make mention of anything called Lucifer, it was always Satan or that king I mentioned (I think he was kind of Tere or something). So really, it's more of a mistranslation than anything. There isn't an actual Lucifer. Satan never changed his name, it's just what he became known as due to mistranslations (which originally, like I said, were speaking of an ancient fallen king).[/B][/QUOTE] If you look in new translations from the original hebrew like the NIV (New International Version) and GNB (Good News Bible version), you won't find any mention of the name "Lucifer". And as I said, these are translated directly from the original hebrew (or greek, as the New Testament may be) rather than an earlier translation... which kind of illustrates your point

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Oradriel [/i] [B]Okay... nicknames are usually done out of fondness for that person, titles and labels are done for the purpose of insulting, or humiliating that person[/B][/QUOTE] I knew a guy who had a degrading nickname for most people. Not a title or a label, which infers that the same title or label can be applied to someone else, but an individual nickname. Also, "president", "director", "Head master" are all titles, yet they aren't made with the purpose of insulting or humiliating anyone. So I really don't think titles and nicknames differ in terms of whether they're bad or good at all. They both have a lot of each.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i] [B]Heheh. :D This is the essence of the problem as I see it. The premise here is that the Bible only says one thing. This is a very common misconception. It does not. At least not to a common reading of it. In fact, if the Bible were a textbook and you were asked to write an essay about the messages contained therein, many people will come up with many different answers. We color the Bible by our own misconceptions and prejudices, or to put it another way, the Bible means different things to different people. Now, some of you will already start shaking your heads at this point and say with adamant conviction that this is untrue, that only those who have departed from the path laid out to us by The Bible have misconstrued it, and twisted it for their own disingenuous purposes. Perhaps. But how do you know the path [i]you[/i] follow is not a false one? You don't. Not unless you can claim to be divine and know 'the truth' by way of some personal 'revelation'. Most of us are not so blessed. Most of us follow one interpretation or another, handed down by one who we believe is so blessed. If you're a Mormon, then that person is likely to be Joseph Smith, if you're a Catholic, that's the Pope, and so on. People have waged war and died for their interpretations of the Bible. So before anyone starts saying the Bible says this or that, they might want to bear this in mind. Another thing they might want to do is read the freaking thing from cover to cover. And not just one version but several versions (I'm not directing this at anyone, I'm directing it at [i]everyone[/i]! :D). [/B][/QUOTE] 1- I don't [i]know[/i] that my path is the true one, I simply believe it. I never even claimed to know such a thing. 2- Mormons claim that their followers can become Gods of their own world. And much as the Catholics aren't as bad as some cults (not inferring that they are one, by the way), they have some dodgy ideals too, which I won't go into here. The point is that the idea of becoming a God, and even that God was once a man (also a mormon belief) actually goes against biblical ideals anyway, which is why they tend to follow the book of Mormon. I personally, as well as a lot of people I know, don't follow the tradition or viewpoint laid down by someone before me, with the exception of the version of the Bible that I prefer to read. The reasoning behind that is that men get things wrong, and when you begin following in men's footsteps, you get things wrong too. 3- Why don't you actually stick to the point at hand. Yes, the Bible [i]can[/i] be viewed in many ways, but I feel it is very clear about [i]this issue[/i]. So rather than simply giving me a general statement that "the Bible can be interpreted many ways", which doensn't really transcend the arguments of [i]anyone[/i] in this thread, why don't you actually give me an example of where the Bible can be seen to [i]condone[/i] this behaviour rather than condemn it. Seeing as how you are encouraging people to read it. After all, it's one thing just saying that the bible has many interpretations, it's another thing proving it (On the issue of pornography and lust, seeing as that's what the thread's about.) So please, if you're going to make general statements about why the Bible can't be trusted - don't bother. Firstly, it's not going to convince me unless you can give examples, and also it's not going to radically change those who don't believe the Bible anyway - PM me rather than keeping this argument going when I tried to end it. And with regards to your comments about lust, I agree that repression is always a bad thing, but I don't believe that "control" constitues getting on with it, but not excessively. Rather, I believe any form of sexual activity should be reserved for the proper setting, i.e. between married people, as illustrated by this verse: [b]To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.[/b] (1 corinthians 7:8-9) In other words, if you can't control your urges, it's better to be married than to let those urges out in other ways. Now, please don't respond by discrediting what I just said on the grounds that I just quoted the Bible. that's what I do, and you can't change that. I just expressed an opinion, and rather than arguing with the source, try arguing for or against the opinion.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sage [/i] [B](they fall into the same category as devils, right? :toothy: ). [/B][/QUOTE] As far as I know there is no difference whatsoever, except the "devils" you refer to are Satan's angels, who fell from grace. They're still angels though. "Angel", in biblical terms, tends to refer the being in question being one of the heavenly beings, [i]not[/i] an "angel" in the definition of being something innocent, that is much used today. (You probably know that.. but just for the sake of those who don't..)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080]And I'd say that 99.9% of the stuff we have there is still very relevant. ^_^[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I must have no life... I'm actually tempted to work out the true percentage.. edit: OK, I have no life.. 6.2 % of the site rules are out of date (mostly the "Jobs@otaku" forum). Also a small part of that is the fact that the rules say that they may be updated, and they haven't yet ^^... heh ..... It's not like I actually [i]counted[/i]... I got word to do that for me.. I'm not that sad..

[center][img]http://otakuboards.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=390066[/img] [b]And now we return to... WHEN DOLL COLLECTORS GO BAD[/b][/center]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]God has already shown he will wipe out anything at anytime of his (it's) choosing. (The Nephilim is a good example of this.) So why doesn't he just wipe out the devil and all his crowd?[/B][/QUOTE] I have no idea, personally.. That's a good point, which I've wondered before.. and it's one of the things that you really can't question (in terms of, you can look into it but it's hard to find an answer, not in terms of "you have to accept it") [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]For people who aren't following where most of this is coming from you must remember that when the original bible was put together out of the numerus books they had to leave a lot out for shear size, and they also left out a lot that "didn't fit in with the faith".[/B][/QUOTE] From my understanding, a few of the books that were rejected weren't simply rejected for not fitting in with the beliefs of Christians at the time, but because a lot of those that would have been in the new testament (not the old) were written by churches to fit in with [i]their[/i] personal way of doing things, and they made stuff up to fit into what they wanted to be said. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]Satan symbolizes a choice, or human's free will (which technically Adam and Eve gave everyone, despite people saying it was God's "plan" all along)...[/B][/QUOTE] I don't personally think God planned the fall of mankind or Satan, or any of the angels. He knew it was going to happen, but that doesn't make it a part of his plan. I believe the plan (for restoration) came about as a result of the fall, rather than the fall being a part of that plan. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]Honestly, this all can be argued to death because God is supposedly omniscient (which brings questions like - so why couldn't he forsee these things, or deal with them instantly?)... so I don't think there will ever be a real answer to it.[/B][/QUOTE] OK.. there are two verses I can think of off the top of my head where God either appears less than omniscient. The first is Genesis 3:9-13 "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" The man said, "The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."" Now, just because God asked the man (Adam) where he was, and what he'd done, that doesn't mean that he didn't know himself. In order to illustrate this, I'll draw on the second verse, Genesis 4:9-10 "Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground." Again, God asks Cain where his brother was, the same as he asked Adam where he had gone. But in this case, Cain doesn't answer the question, but instead says he doesn't know. But God doesn't persist to ask, or even ask "did you kill him", because he already knew, as can be seen by the fact that he says "Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground", despite the fact that Cain never admitted to killing Abel. In the same way, God already knew what had happened in the Garden of Eden, but he asked Adam simply so that he may confess that he had done wrong. And that's a key element of the faith even today. When you do something wrong God doesn't come down and say "You have sinned" in a big, bold voice, but allows us to confess to him instead. I've also heard someone say that the fact that God asks where Adam is is symbolism of the separation between God and man at the time of the fall.. but I dunno much about that. By the way, I know you weren't actually asking a question, but I just had to answer anyway ;) with regards to the actual topic.. I don't really know a great deal about the whole Satan/Lucifer thing, except a lot of people seem to believe they are one and the same. The Nephilim are kind of interesting though.. in Genesis is talks about the heavenly beings (or the angels) taking human brides, and the Nephilim were the offspring. That word is generally transliterated into "giant", but apparently the original meaning is closer to "demon" (I think). There are a few people that believe that the Nephilim are what we see as UFOs today (apart from the ones known to be frauds.. heh), mostly because the account of people who have apparently been "abducted by aliens" is [i]remarkably[/i] similar to old accounts of demonic possession. I'm not saying I necessarily agree on any of that UFO stuff, but it's interesting to think about.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lady Macaiodh [/i] [B][color=darkblue]if someone doesn't agree with the Bible [i]you're not going to change their mind by preaching at them![/i] You're just going to piss them off. Great way to win souls for the kingdom.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] OK.. maybe I gave out the wrong impression.. I didn't want to say that the Bible is definitively, unmistably correct, but rather I was trying to point out [i]why[/i] it was opposed to it, when so many people believe it not to be. I didn't ever mean to say "this is what you have to do" but "this is what the Bible says" whether or not you want to follow it is up to you. [quote][i]originally posted by cloricus[/i] [b]Deus watch it, your last two posts have been solidly on the bible and have had nothing to do with the topic. If you want to use the bible in your opinion in twine it in your view.[/b][/quote] Don't worry, I've already decided to finish with with that bit.. if anyone else responds I'll PM them from now (and I already have done) rather than run the risk of getting the thread closed. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lady Macaiodh [/i] [B][color=darkblue]Now this is odd. There are countries where the women walk around topless all day, yet that's obviously not porn. The guys there don't care because they're used to it. The point is, since when did a naked body automatically become perverted? Since someone took a picture of it? [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] It's not the naked body itself which is perverted, but the lustful attitude towards it. If anyone buys this stuff for anything other than their own sexual drive (and honestly, rather than just as an excuse) then I see no problem with that. And if any material is published without the intention to appeal to people's urges, then I see no problem with that either, even if a few pervert this original intention. In other words, it's not the display of the naked body, or the body itself, that I see as a bad thing, but the lustful attitude that many people have towards them.

[b]Physically[/b] I dunno.. I really don't.. hmm.. I'll get back to you on that one [b]Personality[/b] My mindless, unwavering optimism rules. Oh yes. Of course, by "unwavering" I mean "except for the odd occasional blip"

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i] [B]Its inevitable that a thread on pornography would end up being a debate about the Bible. As if Christianity was the only religion in the world. And as if religion was humanity's only source of morality and ethics.[/B][/QUOTE] hey.. if anyone wants to bring in what the Koran or another text says, then fine, but they didn't, so it didn't enter the discussion. For the simple reason that I'm not qualified (ie. I don't know enough about it) to comment on that. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i] [B]And as for the idea that we are saved by the simple act of accepting forgiveness, I find that rather unsatisfactory. Does that mean I can rape and pillage and murder, and commit all manner of vices repeatedly, and that I need not concern myself, for I shall ascend to Heaven, and be in God's grace, as long as I ask for forgiveness on my death bed?? That doesn't make any sense to me.[/B][/QUOTE] that kind of "insurance policy" kind of forgiveness I don't look very kindly upon. However yes.. if that person asked for forgiveness then yeah, they could be taken into heaven. [b]However[/b] You are completely forgetting the fact that if the Bible is true, then God can see into our minds. If the act of asking for forgiveness isn't done in a repentful way, in the mind, then it's not really repenting. In other words, you wouldn't just ask for forgiveness for what you did, but also for presuming upon God's grace, AND you'd have to mean it (i.e. if you're doing it just to get into heaven, and not because you recognise the [i]true[/i] error of your ways, it just won't work). (Maybe I forgot to mention in the last post that you need to repent in order to be forgiven.. and it's not as simple as just saying it, it has to be meant) I in no way condone mass-murder or any other large-scale sin, of any kind. However, I am firm in my belief that they can all be forgiven, [i]if[/i] the repentance is truly meant. And if you plan from the start to sin on a large scale and then repent to get into heaven, then it's NOT truly meant, unless you somehow truly change before then.

*decides to rip-off a UK ad campaign for "freekee soda"* [center][img]http://otakuboards.com/attachment.php?postid=389078[/img] [b]How do we make M&Ms both crispy and chocolatey?.. well, we make them the time-honoured way. First, we let all our M&Ms have as much drugs as they want.... hey.. they're aaalright..[/b][/center]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Deus I know it sounds weird, but yes I've had several Christians put up good reasons why certain areas of computing is against god's word therefore law. Now at the time I was so shocked at their reasoning I didn't get a chance to laugh, but it has happened. Not only to me but a lot of people...[/B][/QUOTE] It doesn't sound weird at all.. there are a load of Christians who just use the Bible as a means to justify their ends. The point I was making isn't whether people can make a biblical point of view out of it, but whether there [i]is[/i] one or not. And when it comes to computers, the only real quote that you can follow is that somewhere (I forget where) it says we should obey the laws of the land that you are in, whatever they may be at the time. So yeah.. I didn't mean to say that no-one uses the Bible to say that computers are against God, but that they can't very easily justify that with scripture. [quote][i]Originally posted by Mitch[/i] [b]So you're saying that the ten commandments were written to show us we're "far from perfect"?.[/b][/quote] No.. the Ten Commandments were written for us to follow (or to try our best). However, no-one can follow them perfectly for their whole life. I mean, sure.. you can go your whole life in most cases without killing, but very few can go their whole life without lying or wanting to own someone else's possessions. Now, the point of the commandments is not to say that you're imperfect. Think of it this way.. There's a tribe in isolation somewhere, which western civilisations found fairly recently (I dunno when, but probably some time last century). In that ribe, there is no concept of stealing, because they're never been told not to do it. Now, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. It does.. the thing is they don't consider it to be wrong. The ten commandments were brought in not only to show us where we are living wrong now (and hence that we are far from perfect), but also to show us how we can live properly. Now again, no-one can follow them perfectly.. but the point is that they give you some idea where you should be heading. [quote][i]Originally posted by Mitch[/i] [b]So tell me this, isn't that just contradictory? It still condemns you. And people are prejudiced against one another for what the bible says. Heck, just for someone who doesn't believe in God, they get a lot of negativity about it. I know it's like that the other way around, too. But seriously, everyone knows they're far from perfect, unless they're some stuck-up little moron.[/b][/quote] It's not condemnation at all, it's conviction. There's a huge difference. Think of it this way- In the court system, the judge must do two things to the person on trial: 1- Proclaim them "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" 2- If found guilty, the sentence must be passed Now, the first step is the conviction here. We're all guilty of some thing or another, which can pretty much be summed up as "falling short of perfection". So we all get convicted by God at some point or another. Now, condemnation is the sentence, which in the Bible's case is being sent to hell. The more condemning type of Christians go around telling everyone they're going to hell for everything they've done wrong, but that's not the point of the bible at all. Now, if any one person were to have to face up to the consequences of his or her sin in this life, according to the Bible they would be going to hell (as no-one is sinless), but God chooses to forgive us instead if we accept that we are far from perfect, strive to become closer [i]to[/i] perfect, and ask his forgiveness. In short: - We're all [i]convicted[/i] of sin - If not for grace, we would be [i]condemned[/i] to hell but - We can accept forgiveness and that forgiveness can come at any point in your life. You don't need to "repent of sin and start a new life before you reach the age of 30, because otherwise you won't be able to do enough good to pay for your salvation" or anything like that. Salvation has no cost at all, and you don't need to do anything good to obtain it. However, the ten commandments and the teachings of Jesus offer us guidelines on how to live better. [quote][i]Originally posted by Mitch[/i] [b]I don't think what you said actually really means anything. If that's the point of the entire bible, the entire commandments, other than god, then what's the point of it? I don't know. Religion is just so pointless to me, especially of late. [/b][/quote] Like Desbreko said, the point is not just to say what's good and bad, and that God is there, but also to document what he's done. Much as few would like to admit it, the Bible is not merely a collection of nice poetry and metaphorical journeys. It's written as an actual history of what God did for his people as well.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B] As for the bible, it doesn't apply to this. Its context is a guy that's just payed for a girl to come into his house and take her close off, and we can see where that leads. So you can see the reasoning for it in the bible. Personally I think the bible angle is the same rot that religious people try to apply to hackers; computers did not exist 2009 years ago. Why the hell could it then be against the laws of god if it didn't exist? So personally I don't buy that angle.[/B][/QUOTE] Firstly, the verse I put up was from the sermon on the mount. It wasn't said to some guy who just payed for a woman to take her clothes offf for him. Secondly, the bible never mentions computers, so I don't see how there can be a true "bible angle" on that. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B] If just looking at a women as sexual is wrong, then almost any man has commited adultery in their lives. This is why I don't like the bible; it's too much common sense, and it tells you what's right and wrong. To me that's like society just talking right there, eh. That's why if I do believe in God, it certainly won't be the one in the bible. I swear, the bible's against anything that's seen as wrong. Homosexuality, all of it.[/B][/QUOTE] That's true.. if just looking at women in that way is wrong then pretty much everyone has done that wrong in their lifetime.. the thing is, as sabretooth said.. the idea isn't to condemn people because of that, but just to acknowledge that we're far from perfect. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by genkai [/i] [B]Don't take the bible so literally. It's your interpretation of the bible and how you act upon it that makes you a good person, not doing EVERYTHING IT SAYS WORD FOR WORD... Much of the bible is exaggerated to make the point clear to simple minded people , so don't tak it so literally, since I know you guys aren't simple-minded since I've seen you all have intelligent conversation. Crazy orthodox christians [/B][/QUOTE] I fail to see how the verse I pout up earlier can be interpreted any other way than "don't so much as look at anyone you're not married to in a lustful way". I mean, yes, we're all going to do it at some point or another, but the point is it's not necessarily right. And it's not your interpretation of the bible that makes you a good person. The reason being that it's not possible to be "good" in the eyes of God because we get so many things wrong, all the time. What makes us "good" is the acceptance of forgiveness, not the good things we do.