My theory why goths/satanists are actually happy little Christians

The fool...God isn't a doormat,but it isn't our job to get him 'of the hook' when things turn to sh*t.He dosn't need our help OR our belief...if god is god,then he will exist and go about his will whether or not we have faith.Also,in ALL versions and translations of the bible ive read it says evil,not 'trials and tests'...it clearly says EVIL...if you can direct me to a translation where 'trials and tests' are substituted for evil,please inform me.Why is god responsible?We are his creation...why wouldn't he be?If I rolled a car down a hill and it killed some kids on the way down,I would be held responsible...what If I knew which kids it would hit and planned it...I would definitley be held responsible.Check bible-truths again and more in depth to find why we are held accountable...I forget,but that dude explains it.

As for evolution,we havn't been on this earth nearly long enough to evolve to our current state.Lets assume our 'root' mammal evolved from bacteria or smaller mammal 30 million years ago(pending a long re-proccess from the extinction of dinosuars 65 million years ago).remnants of our progressing states of proccess should/would be scatterd under bedrock and sediment...why arn't our primitive states forensics existint?The popular medium for our evolution(monkeys,chimps and gorillas)are still existant with no change in structure from the earliest fossils to now.There is especially no time for our different races to take form.Evolution is a theory of a long proccess based on a young earth(and young universe at that).There has been NO proof of anything evolving from a former state of being over time...adapting yes,but its base remains the same.A certain bacteria reproducing while increasing tolerence to antibiotics over time isn't evolution...it simply adapts to conditions which are expected from over exposer.Insects adapt to change in climate,location e.c.t as well,but they dont make any leaps and bounds in structure.

Also,what the actual length of time 7 days of creating is for god is debatable,since our 'day' was incredibly longer during the formation and cooling of the earth.Also
Eternity,forever and ever,and everlasting are mis-translated from aonian(greek) or 'eon' in the king james bible...an age with a beginning and an end.

Just a theory I had...The bible speaks of giants roaming the land before god flooded the earth...could this be reffering to dinosaurs?I'm not sure,but I think its an interesting thought.

I dont believe without proving(with reasonable doubt)and I dont attempt to prove or uncover proof without reason to believe.I certainly don't believe in god to explain what can't be explained by science.Also Jesus was a real person(even common history shows us that)and while some speculate the real events through his life were different from what the scriptures say,he is among the only men ever to really claim they were God,live by it and die by it for the sake to bear the sins of men...of course that dosn't mean jump from the roof blindley or anything,but its ultimitley unique and unrivaled by any mere martyr,philisophical prophet or unseen spirit.

As for the beginning subject...satanists believe in self worship/empowerment.They dont pray to the 'devil' and from all that ive read,have no real stance on life after death.A pretty lame 'religion' like all the social crutches people use to stand on.

[Edited by chucklivesoninmyheart on 01-28-2004 at 10:27 PM]

LOL...God dosn't instill 'if I do or dont do this,I'll go to HELL!"...thats religion...religion is manmade.

Religion is a social crutch.We all have a consciense(some to a higher degree than others)..thats what keeps us 'decent' and not complete savages raping and killing through life...

even cannibals,ancient barbarians and vikings e.c.t had some standards.

Originally posted by the fool

i've said this so many times to people but even evolution contradicts itself if you take a look at it. Just look for instance mutations. The human body is a very fragile body- at the time before conception, so many things are happening that even a slight change or mutation such as an extra chromosome would potentially make the child abnormal.
Just one good, healthy mutation is very hard to come by. Imagine then how it was possible for humans to have evolved from monkeys with so many "healthy or good mutations" in just a a course of a couple of hundreds of millions of years. The odds are close to impossible.

Also, evolution tends to favor those mutations that enable us to adapt at environments tend to be preserved. If this is the case, then why didn't we develop small heads? In the pre historic times- in the abscence of doctors and education etc. many mothers have died of childbirth because of the child's big head. why didn't our heads mutate to smaller ones? evolution is simply a theory that scientists use to explain the unknown- it is no different from religion. Some philosophers say that religion was born out of man's means to explain the unknown. Since both are made by humans, they can't be perfect. they're also doomed to fail.

What you just wrote contradicts. You said that a 'healthy' mutation is rare, implying that mutations are totally random and no one controls them, which is true, but then you say 'why didn't our heads mutate into smaller ones?' suggesting that humans almost had a choice in the matter.

It's pretty simple to see how we still have big heads. First, the reason that humans are who we are, is because of our large brains, which inturn caused large heads because of evolution.

When a mother who dies during child birth and the large headed child survives, the 'large headed' trait or allele survives with it. If that child then has viable offspring, the 'large headed' trait still remains in that gene pool for another generation and that allele is still as frequent, even if the mother dies.

Babies also have their skull in fragments so their head isn't rigid when born, allowing them to be 'squeeze' out.

About humans evolving form apes. It was stated previously in this thread that 97.6% of our DNA the same as chimapanzees. I don't see how 2.7% of our DNA couldn't be mutated and passed on over hundreds of millions of years. It isn't all 'healthy' DNA either. There are sh*t loads of genetic disorders like haemophilia, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, colour blindness and dwarfism that are passed of from generation to generation.

Read Darwin's stuff about natural selection. He believed in god and religion but also believed inherited traits were passed on from generation to generation causing evolution. It's pretty funny though, that he had to travel to the Galapagos Islands and see the different species of finches in different environments to discover natural selection when the Peppered Moth, mentioned before by aiwass, was just miles away from his home.

chucklivesonmyheart

i respect your opinion. this is truely one of the problems- with religion- the friggin translations! See, its because of this that there's so many subdivisions in Christianity. If you want to see the that evil meant trials- not as the "absolute evil." I suggest you research real books by scholars about the real translation of the bible from Aramaic. There's been a lot of crap in the internet lately.

Seve 420

My example is supposed to be to support my statement that evolution is contradictory. When all is said and done, evolution is simply about mutations and survival of the fittest. I said that a'healthy' mutation is rare- and yes, mutations are totally random and no one controls them. I simply used the example of the baby's head mutating into smaller ones as an example that evolution is wrong. If a baby's head was the leading cause of mortality rate in mothers, then according to evolution, this trait or characteristic shouldn't pass on. Look at the case of sickle cell anemia. Because Malaria was killing a lot of folks in Africa, some people there develop a phenomenon known as sickle cells which helps them survive malaria. These folks never had a choice to have this ability but according to evolution, it just happened and the trait survived because it is the trait that enables them to survive in those kinds of condition. Now, I'm just wondering- if this is possible, then in the name of evolution, it should have been also possible for humans to have little heads. The interesting thing about all this, is that although it looks like humans almost have a choice in the matter (although they really don't)- there seems to be some intelligent process that is behind with this evolution theory that these materisalistic scientists propose. If you read your Darwin and his friend Dawkins, you will discover that both of these guys found evolution fascinating that they feel there is an intelligence to it. And some folks identify this intelligence as God.

Reagarding your comment:

"Babies also have their skull in fragments so their head isn't rigid when born, allowing them to be 'squeeze' out."

Pardon me, but this seems to be quite silly. I think, its the other way round. I think it's because of the fact that the bones in a baby's head is underdeveloped that you don't squeeze the baby's head out. If you don't believe me, ask your local doctor.

finger cruncher:

I think this is more accurate:

"CONCEPT of" God = crowd control, a man-made (or to be more politically correct, human-made) deception to instill fear in the masses. God is feared. God prevents humans from being savages.

And believe me, when all else fails- I can't stress this enough, people will revert to a religion of some sort.

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by chucklivesoninmyheart

even cannibals,ancient barbarians and vikings e.c.t had some standards.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they were very religious based too, may i add.

I think religion in it's barest definition is something to believe in. Your religion is stating what you believe in, not who you are. Even if your a nilihist and you don't believe in anything, you still have a believe. The thing I hate about religion is people think it can justify wrong doing. Everyone has the capacity to do good or do wrong. I denounce the worldly christian believe because of all the atrocities in the name of god, like crusades, and wars. Also the way that someone who is christian looks at you when you don't believe exactly what they believe. The stroy "if you don't believe exactly what I say you should believe you suffer in eternity" message is weak. As long as your a decent person and you do what is right by yourself, everything is cool. I think if jesus did come back, alot of the people who are christians would be struck down. Afterall, they break more of there own rules than anyone else. Serial killers kill in the name of god, world leaders kill in the name of god. If god is such a good person don't you think he/she would be pist.

Noticingthemistake...theres a verse that justifies what your saying(as far as doing things in gods name like killing,wars,missionary stuff e.c.t.)

Its something like "and they said,Lord we cast our demons in your name,we prophesised in your name...and the lord said,depart from me workers of iniquity,I never knew ye."

Something like that...Of course the lord knows these people(I knew ye before you were born),but dosn't recognize them 'in his purpose/will'.

Yes,many 'professing' christians will have alot to answer for.There works will be made manifest and be burnt up by fire(God),but they themselves will be saved.

I know of many 'christians' that have nothing but hate for fellow believers and non-believers.If you want gossip,just go to your local 'christian' based church...its horrid.

I believe and trust Jesus,but I sure dont go to church.Keeping the sabbath(sunday)is old testament and Jesus made no priority to urge people to church.
I never do ANYTHING in Gods name...eph 1.11 says "all works in accordance with his will"
so I'm convinced I should leave his will to HIM.


[Edited by chucklivesoninmyheart on 01-29-2004 at 12:36 PM]

Congratulations, you are the buddha.

No really.

I moderate a couple forusm on http://www.totse.com, if you've never checked it out.. its like a haven for people that think they're smarter than they are. The religion forum there... has threads EXACTLY like this one multiple times a week.

People are so stupid.

The best(most accurate)Bible seems to be a concordance...it uses properly the greek word 'eonian'(age) in place of 'forever and ever','eternal' and 'everlasting'.Thats the biggest fault in the King James(the use of forever and ever e.c.t.).

The greeks didnt even have a word that meant 'forever' or 'eternity'.

Anyway...check out bible-truths.com aiwass,he talks about the origin of satan and lucifer e.c.t.

Nobody's claiming to be smarter sambob.I sure don't know much and enjoy hearing opinions that rival what I do know...that leads to further knowlege(as long as its not a vicious ignorance circle/cycle)...

Totse is cool though.Thats right!I submitted a 'bad idea'(or at least thats where it most likley will be posted).Wonder if its on there yet...well,gotta go check!

They may not be claiming it, but I'm pretty sure they're thinking it :p

They always do..

There is black and white, men and women, night and day, good and evil. It make sense... without one, would there be the other?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by noticingthemistake

I think religion in it's barest definition is something to believe in. Your religion is stating what you believe in, not who you are. Even if your a nilihist and you don't believe in anything, you still have a believe.....

------------------------------------------------------------

I truely agree with you statement. that's why i always believe that if everything else fails, people will always revert back to a religion of some sort. You will have your fair share of good and bad since religion is not perfect but even so, its one of those things that you just either learn to live or hate because it will always be there. And you are right about that one- religion can make certain evils look right. But I don't see why we should condemn real christianity for it. The crusades and the war, the jews and muslims that were massacred- although done in the name of christianity, are not the real works of real christians. the bible never promoted killing. These folks are simply assholes hiding under the cloak of christianity. That's why I don't condemn christianity. I only condemn those who pretend to be one- especially those who kill in the name of christ. The Bible has warned of this. That's why in the end, when these people present themselves to God, the lord will say to them that I do not know you- they will be ignored by the Lord.

Like you, I'm also very pissed off with certain christians- The way some christians look at you when you don't believe exactly what they believe and all the threat about hell and stuff if you don't follow. Real christians don't do this.
I strongly believe that the christian god is not like this. Rather, i c the christian god as very loving, forgiving, and merciful father. Whatever hell awaits for us is something that we create for ourselves. Read my post about the TAO- i've provided a very good analogy of this.

@ sambob

if you are referring to me, i don't feel/ think like I'm smarter than myself or anybody else. i am merely asking questions- not stating answers- just like a good philosopher. even the stuff that i say here isn't even mine. i'm just sharing the works of many philosophers and theologians that i've read. i claim no absolute knowledge. like everyone else, i'm still in my own personal pursuit of a god.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chuckylivesonmyheart

"Its something like "and they said,Lord we cast our demons in your name,we prophesised in your name...and the lord said,depart from me workers of iniquity,I never knew ye."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL! why didn't i see this? chuckylivesonymyheart, you nailed the passage that i'm talking about! thnx for looking that up.

Aiwass,theres no doubt he(the guy at bible-truths.com)is not objective.A god that makes mistakes isn't much of a god...not a god at all in fact(at most mabey a higher being,but no god).

Unless you believe what the bible says is true and believe in a god/jesus in the first place,none of its truth is credible.

Good(according to the bible)did exist without evil.Evil is simply anything 'against' God.God must have always had a 'knowlege' of evil,but nothing was 'against' him before he created his adversary(as far as we know).
In contrast it would seem that evil can't exist without good...biblicaly anyway.

i only just noticed this thread, its a long read!
without dragging all the arguments back up... has anyone taken into account that the whole christian belief system is based on hundreds of years of people (usually an 'educated' minority in charge of the uneducated majority) using, and often abusing, a book that has been rewritten/mistranslated more times than we've all had hot dinners.

now, i have no great affity with any side of this argument, but people seem to put alot of faith in what can only be described as the longest game of chinese whispers in human history.

i think the bible is full of some very wise guidelines for how a moral society should function, but it is very difficult to fully trust/take as law the ideas and teachings that have had so long and so many people to corrupt them.


belief systems can be seen to change and evolve in the same way that animal species do. christianity has thrived through being misused by those in society with the power/education/influence.
heres a little known fact for you, when newton discovered that white light was made up of the 'colours of the rainbow' he classified 6 colours, red/orange/yellow/green/blue/violet. as 6 is the devils number, the church made him add a colour, indigo, so that the rainbow had 7 colours, 7 being a holy number. we are still taught that the rainbow has 7 colours even though it was a lie forced by the church.

food for thought...

Note: I said enlightened, not smarter.

And I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, but I'm sure what I said applies to someone in here.

Originally posted by the fool

If a baby's head was the leading cause of mortality rate in mothers, then according to evolution, this trait or characteristic shouldn't pass on.


Reagarding your comment:

"Babies also have their skull in fragments so their head isn't rigid when born, allowing them to be 'squeeze' out."

Pardon me, but this seems to be quite silly. I think, its the other way round. I think it's because of the fact that the bones in a baby's head is underdeveloped that you don't squeeze the baby's head out. If you don't believe me, ask your local doctor.

First of all, the size a baby's head really isn't the cause of mothers dying during birth, it is the size of their pelvis but I'll continue to use your reason, the head size, for this post to prove my point.

In evolution, the only way a trait doesn't get passed onto the next generation is if the organisms who have that trait don't have viable offspring. 'Good' traits that allow them to adapt well to their environment gives them a better chance of surviving and producing offspring, that is how 'good' traits become more frequent. A large head doesn't stop someone from being able to survive and have children (unless of course they may be seen as less attractive, but there is usually someone who would sleep with them). That is why the trait survives.

The same applies to pelvis size. They still survive and have children (or of course just the one) no matter what size pelvis they have.

About the baby heads being in fragments. I put squeeze in inverted commas for lack of a better word. I didn't mean that the baby's head gets squashed but rather it can slightly flex and become more of the shape of vaginal entrance. If you've ever seen a baby straight after birth, it's head isn't perfectly round and slightly out of shape, which varies from child to child. Some times they come out with cone shaped heads and even the bones in the head cross over.

My mother is a nurse and has delivered several babies and taken care of many more soon after birth. That is why I know. I suggest YOU see your local doctor.