The Antichrist

[Limper]

So do you think this refers to an individual or is it a categorical classification of those who oppose the teachings of JC?

[Brynja]

Look Limper you have to stop bragging about Vlad. He is an adorable tyke but come on!

[Limper]

Look Limper you have to stop bragging about Vlad. He is an adorable tyke but come on!

Look I'm just being a hopeful parent and grasping at straws of denial!

[Brynja]

It's ok. I will stop derailing your thread now and answer.


If it were a group- we have had the antichrist around FOREVER.


I think it refers to an actual individual.

[Limper]

It's ok. I will stop derailing your thread now and answer.


If it were a group- we have had the antichrist around FOREVER.


I think it refers to an actual individual.

I don't know about that. It could be that when most folks have turned utterly from the path of Christ and deny him thats when Big Daddy, JC and the Spook will jump from the bushes like a bunch of reving ninjas and kill the unbelievers and laugh at the burning infidel souls.

[Brynja]

So how do you explain all those crazy neo pagans?

[Limper]

So how do you explain all those crazy neo pagans?

They are prominent or important enough in the grand scheme to tip the balance on the rest of us.

Although they are annoying to us mortals I'm guessing the Big Three, being in a position for the last laugh, are taking advantage of that option.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Topekas Zip Codes all start with 666

Fred Phelps lives in Topeka

I'm just sayin'

[Brynja]

An interesting observation and one worth considering.


Limper, do you believe in a judeo-christian god?

[Limper]

An interesting observation and one worth considering.


Limper, do you believe in a judeo-christian god?

By that do you mean the one expressed in the Bibles of those faiths? Or do you mean a singular creator and maintainer?

[Brynja]

Answer both questions you just asked.

I mean biblically but it seems you idenitfy as a monotheist only.

[Limper]

Answer both questions you just asked.

I mean biblically but it seems you idenitfy as a monotheist only.

Biblically... not at all. I would hope the creator of all wouldn't be as petty, spiteful and pathetic as the Hebrews and Christians present it.

I'm a Deist by general belief on the divine. If god was able to create the universe I doubt it would something knowable and I'm comfortable with that.

For a long time I felt that man created God... in fact he created a whole bunch of them and they hover around the edges of the collective soul of mankind. Over time I shifted to singular force of creation.

If mankind were able to understand the actual of equation for what happened at the begining of the universe we will understand god and be one with him.

The creator really only wants one thing from us and that is that we try and understand what he did. If he cares at all for us its as I care for my goldfish... I like them but if they die I don't care that damn much. Now if one of them asks me a question someday I'll take notice... I thinks its about the same relationship between man and the divine.

I'm using God and Him in the above cause its easier.

[Brynja]

You bring an interesting idea to mind- does our belief in our created gods give them some sort of power that takes on a life of its own?

[Limper]

You bring an interesting idea to mind- does our belief in our created gods give them some sort of power that takes on a life of its own?

I believed that enough hopes, dreams and thought on a subject produced reality of the subject... I kind of still feel that but its shaky now.

[Brynja]

Why is it shaky?

[Limper]

Why is it shaky?

Empirical data indicates that the collective will of mankind to any end has little mystical impact.

I lean more toward God being a function of advanced Calculus.

[Harry]

Some folks have already done the ciphering for this. If I am reading the following chart correctly, the Antichrist is either Prince Harry, Lindsey Lohan or Bob Costas...

[doc]

It's ok. I will stop derailing your thread now and answer.


If it were a group- we have had the antichrist around FOREVER.


I think it refers to an actual individual. Ditto

Topekas Zip Codes all start with 666

Fred Phelps lives in Topeka

I'm just sayin' Who is Fred ?

Since according to the Bible the Antichirst will lead a new world religion before takeing over I'm not betting on Lohan, you'll know when the end times are here heathen when the Dead In Chirst rise, of course the media will harp on some celebs drug problem but Hey ~shrug~

[mollygrue]

fp is a hate mongerer

[Dacke]

Who is Fred ?
The godhatesfags.com guy.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Yup, I got to flip him off the other day! :D

[EhtoZed]

Some folks have already done the ciphering for this. If I am reading the following chart correctly, the Antichrist is either Prince Harry, Lindsey Lohan or Bob Costas...
He's actually a guy named Bob who works as a dishwasher in Delaware and lives in a one bedroom appartment. He bowls on thursdays and spends most of his off time regretting the fact he didn't burn that house down when he was 11 like the devil told him to.

[Brynja]

Empirical data indicates that the collective will of mankind to any end has little mystical impact.

I lean more toward God being a function of advanced Calculus.



I can entertain that idea. Though I cant grasp why science and religion cannot co-exist.

[Limper]

I can entertain that idea. Though I cant grasp why science and religion cannot co-exist.

I think they needed to diverge so that both could learn that they aren't seperate things.

The nice part of my brand of Deism is that it promotes science and science is the language and tool for experiencing the divine.

[Brynja]

I couldn't agree more. Though science is fraught with moral dilemmas left right and center and they trick is not to play god.

[Limper]

I couldn't agree more. Though science is fraught with moral dilemmas left right and center and they trick is not to play god.

How else are we to understand God and Creation if we do not emulate God and experiment with Creation?

[JavaElemental]

I can entertain that idea. Though I cant grasp why science and religion cannot co-exist.

Science and religion have always had trouble co-existing, and I expect the mostly always will.

The problem began when science started answering questions that the Church had always maintained were "Mysteries". Since then, because both sides are chock-full of people who just absolutely have to prove themselves right, they haven't been able to get along. There's also people like those who run the "Discovery Institute", who keep trying to shove a clearly religious idea like Intelligent Design into science classes, or Ken Ham and his Creation Museum, and they keep aggravating those on the science side of the debate. Aggravating the religious side would be the likelihood that the more you learn about science, the less you'll believe in the more fundamentalist versions of religion.

[Brynja]

Right, you outline the argument nicely. You bring up good points as to the why's of not getting along. Perhaps at the root of it all is the power that each institution can wield. In the end it seems to always boil down to power anyhow.

That said I think Limpers idea of a Divine Clockmaker harmonizes the two well. The extremeists on each end have a hard time conceeding any ground but I can understand why. Power and this is a battle that goes back to the middle ages when the church would routinely lay the smack down on scientists. See: Galileo (sp).

Limper, the idea we play God to understand God is arrogant at best- because then your concept of god implies we are on part with an omnipotent being. I am not eschewing the idea but I want to hear your thoughts on it.

[cnath.rm]

Power and this is a battle that goes back to the middle ages when the church would routinely lay the smack down on scientists. See: Galileo (sp).:p The man was an ass who might have been fine if he hadn't written a piece all but directly calling the pope an idiot and an ass. Not saying that he deserved to get smacked, but when you slap people across the face, you lose a bit of your right to be annoyed when they slap back.

The above in IMO, and YMMV of course. :)

[Northcott]

I think they needed to diverge so that both could learn that they aren't seperate things.

The nice part of my brand of Deism is that it promotes science and science is the language and tool for experiencing the divine.


Newton, Einstein, and Hawkings all held/hold similar views. I'm always left rolling my eyes when I hear people spout crap about how incompatible science and religion are, or how faith excludes reason. Open. A. Fucking. Book. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history were (or in Hawkings' case, are) fine with the concept of divinity.

Not a jab at you, Limper. I'm just sick of running into that myopic bullshit everywhere I go: fundamentalists of either stripe spending all their time pissing down their legs while they wring their hands about what other people are thinking. [/rant]

[Limper]

Limper, the idea we play God to understand God is arrogant at best- because then your concept of god implies we are on part with an omnipotent being. I am not eschewing the idea but I want to hear your thoughts on it.

We should strive to be on par with the divine... its the only way we can get his notice and the only way we can truely experience it. We are what we are and conciet is part of that we'll make mistakes and eventually learn from them.

How else do we know if we've learned a factor about the divines great project if not to emperiment? Futzing with things is a very big part of what makes humans what we are. The danger you imply comes from the fact we've already futzed with the safe and simple stuff.

As our knowledge base grows it eliminates the easy things (and safe things) from the pool of things to be understood.

[Brynja]

This tickles my sci-fi bones. It sounds a bit like Dr. Moreau (sp). I think it is an interesting idea (no I am not saying it needs to be a house rule) but it so very dangerous.

Of course nothing great is ever gained by sitting on our asses.

Though if you go in for the judeo-christian idea of being made in gods own image and likeness this logic bears itself out well.

[Ancalagon]

Newton, Einstein, and Hawkings all held/hold similar views. I'm always left rolling my eyes when I hear people spout crap about how incompatible science and religion are, or how faith excludes reason. Open. A. Fucking. Book. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history were (or in Hawkings' case, are) fine with the concept of divinity.


Hmmm... I think that science and religion are not about the same things at all. So in that way, they are incompatible. But *because* they aren't about the same things, there can't be a real conflict between them... so they can happily co-exist, each teaching us about different aspects of the world we live in and the human experience.

[Northcott]

Hmmm... I think that science and religion are not about the same things at all. So in that way, they are incompatible.

Why should compatibility be limited to those things that are similar and/or the same in nature? Look at the branches of fundamentalist Islam and Christianity -- very similar, not at all compatible. Or the way some physicists feel about quantum physicists. :)

My statement on compatibility is the recognition that science and religion are not one and the same, but that they are not necessarily to be held in conflict, either. In the hands of a responsible person they may even compliment each other.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

:p The man was an ass who might have been fine if he hadn't written a piece all but directly calling the pope an idiot and an ass. Not saying that he deserved to get smacked, but when you slap people across the face, you lose a bit of your right to be annoyed when they slap back.

Plus there's the fact that Galieo couldn't actually prove his claims - the technology just wasn't up to it

Edit: Back to the OP. I dunno, but if you spot anyone with ten horns and ten heads (or is it the other way around, I can never remember), you should probably give him a wide berth, but that's probably good advice anyway

[cnath.rm]

Plus there's the fact that Galieo couldn't actually prove his claims - the technology just wasn't up to it

Edit: Back to the OP. I dunno, but if you spot anyone with ten horns and ten heads (or is it the other way around, I can never remember), you should probably give him a wide berth, but that's probably good advice anywayAgreed on both, though on the latter I'd normally go with looking at it a bit more as a prophetic metaphor for kingdoms.

[NRG]

My statement on compatibility is the recognition that science and religion are not one and the same, but that they are not necessarily to be held in conflict, either. In the hands of a responsible person they may even compliment each other.

If responsible people were the primary force pushing religion in societies around the world, religion would be much less of a problem.

(Just to insert the same disclaimer I always mean to imply when I use the shorthand term "religion", I am referring to monotheism. In particular, I am referring to what's been referred to as "exclusivist" monotheism, i.e. those who hold that what they believe is right, and therefore by definition nobody outside their sect can be right. Buddhists, Taoists, most Deists, and whoever else doesn't want to impose their narrow view onto others by force of politics or arms fall largely outside the definition I have in mind when I use that shorthand term.)

NRG

[Northcott]

If responsible people were the primary force pushing religion in societies around the world, religion would be much less of a problem.

(Just to insert the same disclaimer I always mean to imply when I use the shorthand term "religion", I am referring to monotheism. In particular, I am referring to what's been referred to as "exclusivist" monotheism, i.e. those who hold that what they believe is right, and therefore by definition nobody outside their sect can be right. Buddhists, Taoists, most Deists, and whoever else doesn't want to impose their narrow view onto others by force of politics or arms fall largely outside the definition I have in mind when I use that shorthand term.)



I can jive with that. Though I'd go so far as to simply wish for responsible/compassionate people in positions of leadership, period. Osama's boys are a source of consternation, but I never really found Saddam or Crazy Kim to be particularly comforting either.

While I can't really call myself an anarchist, as I think the utopian anarchy that some dream of is it's own kind of crazy, I think our species' capacity for creating arbitrary hierarchies is perhaps our most dangerous trait. Democracies serve to temper this somewhat, but even then we have to practice constant vigilance.

[doc]

Most men would say thier Mother in Laws is the Antichirst