You know, I just read The Book of Revelations, and it seems to me that both me and Mancow think he's the antichrist... Now that I mentioned Mancow, I know that some close-minded Liberals are gonna shoot some firey pot shots at me cause thats easy to do to a 13 year old. Anyway, read it. I think you'll agree with me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Okay, first shot. What does Saint Paul have to do with Revelation?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
<registers confusion> huh?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
1. (dkw has #1)
2. Who is mancow? (and why do you think we care about "mancow"?)
3. Whatever gave you the idea that Hatrack has a history of taunting younguns for being younguns? Some of our most respected members (Hobbes, Shlomo, etc.) are or were young while posting here.
Note that we are hard on those who state facts or opinions that they cannot support or which they haven't really thought through, but that's regardless of age. Even then, we're pretty nice.
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
Sorry, John was the one who wrote The Book of Revelations, got mixed up... Anyway, it has the standard things in an apocolypse... If war, famine, disease, and earthquakes are standard apocoliptic things... But there are some churches that are based ENTIRELY upon this book. I think you have to base a church on the Bible, not a section of it. Anyway, I didn't really say what I meant... I'll try to rephrase it later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mancow Muller is a pretty pedestrian Chicago-area shock jock. He's perhaps a step above Howard Stern, which puts him only three or four hundred steps below "average human."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*gently
Caitlin, you are at no risk for being pot-shotted for your age.
Take some time, think it through, get your facts straight, and try again. We'll listen. But if you want to make a point about something you take seriously, it will help your argument immensely to be clear about what you want to say and why you believe in it.
I'll post the latest FAQ for newcomers in your honor. Welcome to Hatrack! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Caitlin. I'm glad you're here - this sounds like a great topic. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know that some close-minded Liberals are gonna shoot some firey pot shots at me...
It's best to wait until after they've demonstrated their close-mindedness before calling them on it.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll confess that I didn't take any potshots at Caitlin because what seemed to be her point -- that the antichrist is working the phones on a Chicago radio program -- was, well, not one that I found credible enough to address. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You've failed the cabal, Tom.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Hey, everybody's got to start somewhere, even the antichrist.
So why is this guy called "Mancow"? Does he have some kind of minotaur thing going on, or did he just somehow decide that that was a catchy name?
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
No no no. I didn't mean that Mancow was the antichrist, just that he agreed with me that John was the antichrist
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Christ was a carpenter to kill time until he got around to being all Son-of-Gody, wasn't he? Why can't his antiself work phonelines in Chicago until he feels like bringing about some sort of armageddon? I submit that working the phonelines of a radio station in Chicago is as good a place as any to work of the rage and frustration required to for a good old fashioned armageddon.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK, here's a question for people that actually believe in Revelations:
Do you believe that there is there is one single person who is/will be the antichrist, or is it something more general?
Personally, I don't think that it's one single person, but I've been wrong before.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Slightly off topic, I understand that most demon spawn get stuck spending their formative years doing outbound telemarketing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That, or else writing for reality television shows.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As Belle is so rarely with us these days, I’ll point out her particular pet peeve – there is no ‘s’ in the title of the book of Revelation.
(That was two pot-shots in one thread, do I get to be in the cabal?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's the liberal cabal, and both you're shots were accurate, so you don't qualify. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If you weren't such a close-minded conservative you'd know how to spell "your."
Now am I in?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep. Although I have it on authority from a poster here that I'm actually a moderate. Who knew?
Dagonee P.S., And you got that in 2 seconds before I was going to edit it. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Whatever gave you the idea that Hatrack has a history of taunting younguns for being younguns?"
Because it does, strongly. Any appearance of youth or difference that might indicate weakness brings out the worst in some of the Hatrack regulars, like chumming for sharks.
I haven't bothered commenting on it cuz, frankly, my "It's Clobbering Time" responses against those regulars are strong enough to merit deletion-before-posting. And after the self-deletion, I've already burned out any desire to respond to the thread.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:difference that might indicate weakness brings out the worst in some of the Hatrack regulars
This does appear to happen sometimes.
Caitlin
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure I understand, Caitlin. Are you saying that Mancow has suggested that John, the author of Revelations, is himself the Anti-Christ as described in that book?
Because that would be, um, really silly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, why exactly couldn't that be true? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He didn't say that it's false -- just silly. And he's right.
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
You know, that was the best book in the series, IMO. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So is bagging on a thread without actually contributing anything.
Why do you think it is wrong/silly, MPH?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For one thing, what would his motivation have been? If anything he wrote was accurate -- and clearly we're assuming at least some of it was, since we're assuming the existence of the Anti-Christ -- why was so much of it inaccurate (again, assuming that John of Patmos was the Anti-Christ and therefore did not fulfill a number of the prophecies he presumably wrote about himself)?
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Maybe he's waiting until after lunch to tackle the rest of those prophecies? I mean.... he's probably a pretty busy guy... That list is just a big 'To Do' list for him, if that IS him, right?
[ June 21, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Damien ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It seems odd, then, that he would detail so lovingly his own ultimate destruction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He's lulling us into a false sense of security.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, I'm not sure how subtly making fun of the newbie is any nicer than just telling her she's silly. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know - I'm holding out hope she can come back and explain more fully what she's trying to discuss. It sounds interesting.
And in the meantime, there's all these setups for one-liners.
Dagonee
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If the author of Revelation is the anti-Christ, how did he/she know in advance about the "great mountain burning with fire" that will be cast into the sea, or about the star called Wormwood falling from heaven as recorded in Revelation, Chapter 8.
If we assume that God owns and controls those heavenly objects, do you think God would tell the anti-Christ of his/her intentions regarding those objects?
If the anti-Christ owns and controls those objects and can drop them on us at will, then we're all screwed, and further discussion in this thread is meaningless. If the anti-Christ has the power to observe distant celestial objects, chart their orbits, and predict the consequences of their inevitable collisions with earth and then tell us about it without God intervening, then we're all screwed as well.
If the author of Revelation was lying about the existence of these celestial objects, then the whole Book of Revelation is suspect, and assigning the title of anti-Christ to its author is meaningless.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Tammy, aspectre, I'm sorry to hear that.
I'll try to keep an eye out for it in myself and others.
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
John the Beloved, a.k.a. John the Revelator, as the anti-christ? Are we speaking of the same John who Jesus charged with the care of his own mother? Is this the same John who, along with Luke and Paul, is responsible for most of the New Testament? Is this the same John who was blessed to be with Christ, Moses, and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration?
I wonder somehow if this is based on the fact that he was the only one of the original twelve apostles not to die a violent death? Was this some new secret that author Dan Brown has given us in his latest, a la The Da Vinci Code? (next, he'll be trying to convince us that the cross was actually made of plastic and is really hidden in plain sight on that mountain outside of Rio).
Please share with us what makes you believe that one of the apostles closest to the Master is a servent of Satan. This has nothing to do with age, but everyone should back up their assertions.
I used to live in Amarillo, Texas. The largest religious congregation/organization in town, we'll call it McChurch, had a rather interesting minister. He claimed that God had revealed to him that Prince Charles of Britian was the anti-christ. If this is the best Satan could come up with, we can win Armageddon with a troop of boy scouts!
McChurch taught a rather Calvinistic viewpoint and was very popular among the upper and upper middle class. They said that if you were wealthy or comfortable, it was because God was blessing you with material posessions due to your righteousness. If you were poor or needy, you were being punished for your sinful nature. Yep, I always wanted a church telling me I was a good boy just because I could put more money on the plate!
[ June 21, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Jalapenoman ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was pretty sure the John in Revelation isn't John the Gospel author. Can anyone confirm?
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
When I was in high school it was Ronald Warren Reagan (6 letters in each of his names) that was the Anti-Christ. Oh well, I guess the Revelation changes as time goes on.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Are we speaking of the same John who Jesus charged with the care of his own mother? Is this the same John who, along with Luke and Paul, is responsible for most of the New Testament.
No, and no.
Or yes, depending on which biblical scholars you believe. But there is not consensus that John of Patmos and John the Evangelist are/were the same person.
Either way, though, I have a hard time believing that the author of Revelation would write a book in which he was the anti-hero.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wilson, not Warren.
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
No, they are one and the same. John wrote both the Gospel of John and the Revelation. He also wrote 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John.
He actually wrote the book of Revelation before he wrote the Gospel of John.
Luke is the author of both Luke and Acts.
Paul wrote everything from Romans to Hebrews.
All other books are written by the titled person (Matthew, Mark, James, etc.)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
and which one did Bob write?
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
I thought that Cliff Claven of Cheers said that the Coyote (the Roadrunner's nemesis) was really the anti-christ?
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
Well, if you take a look at some of the extreme Catholics that run these churshes, they take you outside, beat you, and say "Jesus loves you" as they're doing it. And since they are based off of Revelation, doesn't that point to John being the antichrist? He might not have know, just like Jesus didn't know about Judas... Oh, and has anyone noticed that Jesus goes from a baby directly to an adult? Why does he have no documented childhood?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
According to your tradition, Jalapanoman, according to your traditon. If dkw says that religious studies scholars disagree on whether the two are one or the same, I think the chances are pretty good that she's right.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Could you break that down a little?
What "extreme Catholics," and which churches are you talking about?
[edit -- this was to Caitlin, of course]
[ June 21, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
John wrote it, but didn't expect it to get published until after Armegdon. His agent said it would be a cold day in he---before it would see the light of day. Unfortunately, some new Editor with his Aramaic Major still wet off the presses, saw it on the slush pile, edited it, changed The Beast from a pathatec hero into a vibrant Anti-Hero, and the rest is publishing history.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, do tell, Caitlin...
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
Well, we have Jesus being taken to the temple when he is 8 days old. Then, we are told that Joseph had a dream and took the family to Egypt for several years. Then, we have Jesus and his parents visiting Jerusalem when he is 12 years old. THis is followed by a verse saying that he increased in wisdom and stature and learning in God and Man. We do not what happened to him in that time, he prepared for his ministry!
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
Basicly the Klu Klux Klan, the snake worshipers who base their worship off of one verse, the people that claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned, ect. Do I need to tell more? Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I always thought the "Holly Rollers" and snake handlers were Protestant, not Catholic....
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
So, by your logic, if I write a book that includes a vision from the resurrected Jesus that people misconstrue 1500 years later and use to justify their evil actions, then I am the anti-Christ?
Abraham Lincoln referred to Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom's Cabin) as the woman that started the war between the states. Does the millions of deaths that resulted from the Civil War and the eventual reconstruction, civil rights movement, Jim Crow laws, and murders by our modern sports figures make Mrs. Stowe the anti-Christ also?
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
Oh yeah... oops... Just remembered the snake thing from Discovery... Sorry.
[ June 21, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
Caitlin, if you believe so strongly in not taking a section of the Bible out of context (i.e. when you criticized churches based only on Revelation), do you not believe the verse "all Scripture is God-breathed"? Would God ask Mr. Antichrist to please sign his holy book?
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
Don't remember that one... Well, everyone is entitled to a mistake now and then right? But that doesn't mean I swerve in my belief that you can't base a branch of a religion off of part of a holy book!
P.S. And yes, I reilize that every holy group has their extremist coots(except for Buhdists ).
P.S.S. Isn't it weird that this has been up for one day, but has more than 55 posts? Must have hit a hot topic... Not bad for a beginner
[ June 21, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The problem, Caitlin, is that so far you haven’t given us an actual example of who it is you think is basing their religion solely off the book of Revelation, or why you think its author is/was the anti-Christ. You said you came to this conclusion after reading the book. How about citing some specific verses, or giving us a little of your reasoning?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But that doesn't mean I swerve in my belief that you can't base a branch of a religion off of part of a holy book!"
What CAN you base a branch of a religion off of, then?
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
"All Scripture is Godbreathed..." 2 Timothy 3:16a
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Paul wrote everything from Romans to Hebrews.
Actually, there's a lot of internal evidence that Paul DIDN'T write Hebrews. I believe it's the only one of that group of letters that doesn't specifically state it's Pauline origin, plus many of the descriptions the author gives of himself don't seem to fit of what we know of Paul. The thoughts and mindset are very similar, but it probably wasn't Paul. The reason it was placed at the end of those letter was because of its disputed authorship.
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
I meant off of one particular part. The bible has alot of them, but I think a religion has to encompass all of them...
Oh, and I'm at a freinds house right now(without the bible, she's an atheist[and I have no problem with that, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness]) Once I get home and look for some, I'll get back to you. I only remember parts of verses and stuff.
P.S. Taalcon, lets not argue for the sake of arguing, k?
[ June 21, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmm.. Saint Paul... father of Christianity. He was a cool dude. Christianity never would have taken over the empire if not for him.
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
biblegateway.com The whole Bible on the net. Go!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Why would your being a Jehova's Witness have any particular bearing on your feelings toward athiests? We have both Witnesses and athiests who post on this board, and they like and respect one another.
Oh, as for your surprise about this thread leaping to 50+ posts in a day's time--welcome to Harack! It's a pretty fast moving board.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:P.S. Taalcon, lets not argue for the sake of arguing, k?
Again, welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
All Scripture is Godbreathed...
Do you think the scriptural canon that Paul was referring to included Solomon's Song?
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
K...
quote: ...hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6
Didn't Jesus teach forgivness? Is he Raphiel?
quote: Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Revelation 2:16 and 17
Did He teach that you had to convert all who did not believe?
quote: Those whom I love I rebuke... Revelation 3:19
Thats it for a while, give me time.
[ June 21, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:All Scripture was godbreathed
That begs the question, then--exactly what texts were considered to be scripture when Timothy was written? Does this apply to later works of scripture as well? Does it apply to texts that were considered scripture by one sect of Christianity or another when Timothy was written, but are not included in the Bible?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"she's an atheist[and I have no problem with that, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness])"
Yeah, I bet some of your best friends are atheists.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Caitlin, if you could, please cite your source--give us the chapter and verse; that way we'll be more able to evaluate your argument, and provide you with a more reasoned response.
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
Ouch! *falls to the ground with an arrow through her heart* You got me...
Oh plese, can't you think of any thing better to do besides pick on a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD!!!
I got it from that site posted earlier... I already closed it, but yeah... hold on...
[ June 21, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
No one is picking on you darlin'. If anything they are respecting you by arguing your points. Just roll with it. Cheers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My OSC-fan sense is tingling...
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
lol Yeah, even as I'm typing this, I'm re-reading Ender's Game(my comp has dial-up)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I think she's just who she says he is.
Noemon is paying you an enormous compliment, dear. He'd be the last person in the world to pick on anyone - if you have computer, you have access to the text of the Bible. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
<is still snickering at the "Catholic" Klan>
sorry...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Still patiently waiting for some explanation of the Catholics beating people crack...
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
No... I was talking about Tom, not Neomon.
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
Dagonee, I just heard it on Mancow. They did it to him... But you gotta put out some trust sometimes, you know?
[ June 21, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. I've never had the urge before to write one of those posts that aspectre and Tammy were talking about.
Must...restrain...post...of...death...
Dagonee
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
A few posts back, did someone imply that there is actually a version of the Bible that uses the word "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16? Seriously?
Hm. And here I thought that was just a silly word invented by certain modern Christian sects.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Caitlin, I'm curious. Why do you believe what Mancow says? Do you think he is a truthful person on his radio program? Is he someone you would respect and look up to in real life? And if so, Why?
(I'm also wondering why your parents allow you to listen to him in the first place considering how vulgar he is, but that's a different subject.)
AJ
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
??? Who are they? ??? My brother said that you can look at people's posts... He's Chamrajar or something...
P.S. Yes, I do believe him, and my parents don't know, and them both being liberals, I'm not about to tell them.
[ June 21, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Caitlin Strand ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
maybe that's the wrong citation, but I have always seen that translated "inspired by God" which merely means "God-Breathed"
the thing about Catholics beating people is a little ruffling to us Catholics, so forgive us if we're edgy...
13 or no, it might be wise to apologize for said crack, especially when the board at large is being so solicitous to you, miss Caitlin.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Especially the irony of putting it in there with the Klan. You know why there was a thriving Klan in Oregon at the beginning of the 20th Century? I'll give you a hint: there weren't a whole lot of African Americans there.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok your parents don't know. That's fine.
WHY do you believe him? That's the part I really want to know. Why do you think he tells the truth. What proof do you have that he is telling the truth?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I mean why do you believe him, instead of Rush Limbaugh (who I'm sure your parents would be even more upset about you listening to if they are as you describe them) or NPR, or the former Roe and Gary show (though I can't remember what it's called now).
AJ
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Caitlin, so far you haven't posted any chapter/verse, you have implied (to put it mildly) that one of the main authors of the bible was the anti-Christ, and the only source you have given is mancow...and you can't quote him either.
We aren't using your age as a reason to pick on you....how about you stop trying to use it as a shield to hide behind.
You have also managed to imply, on a site filled with (and sponsored by) Mormons that the LDS faith is intolerant of other faiths.
I think we had been pretty tolerant, all things considered.
P.S. and no, I am not a Mormon...
Sorry, you were bagging on JW, not mormons.....
[ June 21, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Actually, this is the nicest I've ever seen the board be to someone acting as immature as you're acting right now. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
He's a man...
He's a cow...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
wonder if he has an udder... Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Kwea, I don't think she's said anything at all about Mormons, just Jehovah's Witnesses.
Where's Ralphie when you need her?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
oooooohhhhh *anxiously await's Ralphie's entrance into this thread*
Her remarks in these sorts of situations are always so appropriate...
AJ
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Same principles hold true, though...
I edited to make a correction, but left my original post the same...I just added to it.
Thanks for the heads-up..
Kwea
[ June 21, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
...ruminating the countryside...
MANCOW!
MANCOW! Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Caitlin, I'm also amazed that you could possibly think Mancow is conservative considering I'd heard he'd been recently fined by the FCC and conservative groups like the one in that link hate him!
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I like the idea of someone rebelling against liberal parents by becoming a - gasp - conservative!
"I'll show mom and dad they don't control me. Pass me the National Review!"
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Btw this may explain the mumbo jumbo Catilin's spouting.
AJ
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
ag, I think the "Catholic beatings" phrase may be a reference to Catholic school discipline in ages past.
That's my best guess.
-Bok
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Well this article certainly doesn't paint such a bad picture of him.
quote: "I had some questions that they couldn't answer and that also caused me to stray some," he says. "I had a real problem with the attitude that those who were not saved were going to suffer eternity in hell. And that's what the church believes, certainly the Baptist and Christian churches. And there's no way around that. "I said, 'What about somebody in India or in the jungle of Africa who has never heard the Word?' Their answer was, 'That's why we've got to get the Word out.' You mean, people are going to suffer for eternity if they don't, you know, get born again? So. That was one of the questions. That's probably a question a lot of people get hung up on. And there were others."
quote:About 10 years ago, when he was working for a radio station in San Francisco, he says he traded a pair of Prince concert tickets for the chance to touch the Dead Sea Scrolls with his bare hands.
quote:I've probably done a poor job of something because I've allowed myself to be categorized as something I'm not," he says. "But there's nothing I can do about that."
quote:
"Look, I do believe that you have to go to church. I don't believe these people who say, 'Well, you can feel God in your living room.' I think that's true, and I think I feel closer to God on a canoe trip with my brothers than I do in any church. But I do think it's important to go and hear the word. . . . And I certainly think when we have kids, it's something I won't want to miss."
quote: The Mullers both read the Bible regularly, and they pray. "I believe in prayer," Mancow says. "We pray for each other. We pray for our marriage." Sandy is attempting to read the entire Bible this year and reads Scripture each night before going to bed. Mancow, a voracious reader in general, says he regularly turns to the Bible, most recently to find passages about forgiveness.
"The more I study, the more I believe," he says.
Hmmmmm
[ June 21, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So, um, which is the antiChrist, St. Paul or St. John?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Caitlin, who here are you arguing with?
When I read your posts, you seem wrought up about something, but I can't for the life of me tell what it is.
(Does this make sense to anyone? Am I having a particularly uncomprehending day?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let me take a crack at it. Mancow thinks Paul is the anti-Christ. Meanwhile, snake-handling Catholic Klansmen are beating someone up because Revelation told them to.
Did I miss anything?
Dagonee Edit: I forgot. The Jehovah's Witnesses are doing...something to atheists.
[ June 21, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dag, I came home from work early because of a migraine. Since I woke up, everything seems so ... peculiar.
Whether or not Paul was/is the Antichrist is a debatable (albeit perhaps pointless) claim.
Whether or not there are substantial congregations of people who base their entire faith on Revelation and/or one phrase of the Judeo-Christian Bible is another debatable claim.
Whether or not we beat up on newbies is yet another (favorite and well-covered) topic.
Whether or not Jesus had a childhood is another debatable claim.
Whether or not you can base a branch of a religion off of part of a holy book is still another, and whether you should is still one more.
But what do these have to do with one another?
And most importantly, why is Caitlin wrought up, and at whom? Here, especially?
*feeling woozy
[ June 21, 2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But what do these have to do with one another?
If we knew that we'd know what medication to recomend.
I have no idea what she's talking about at this point. The first post hinted at something interesting, which, alas, never developed.
Take care of your migraine and feel better!
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hey, Dag. I might just do that.
My brain is feeling kinda creaky these days, sort of like my knees first thing in the mornings. Must be that I don't have so much of those hormones lubricating things up like these whippersnappers do. *grin
(Dag, you're no flaming Commie, right? You have a sort of right-ish vibe for Hatrack, if I remember correctly, although it varies according to topic. But I'm counting on you to be balanced in answering this question -- What's with the newcomers coming in all flame and firebrand from the right, itching for a fight? Are there leftist firebrands I'm missing? Not that everyone isn't welcome, I'm just flummoxed.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You might try the brain freeze technique. Drink something really cold with a straw until you get brain freeze. When the freeze wears off, sometimes the headache goes with it. Warning: This works for me, and I have no idea if I'm chipping neurons of my cerbral cortex. But I figure you're well-qualified to evaluate the risks for yourself. It really does work, though. Sometimes.
I'd say that's a fair description of me. I have no idea what's up with the rightish newbies. If they were good at this, or at least had sources that don't make their living siphoning off Rush Limbaugh's audience I'd understand. Or if they participated in a few threads they didn't start. Something to indicate they're here to discuss, and don't think they're going to find the precise way to put things to make everyone who disagrees with them see the light.
They remind me of seagulls - fly in, make a bunch of noise, crap all over everything, and leave.
Maybe they're all one person messing with us.
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm going to try the freeze. Sounds like fun.
Maybe there was a particularly probe-y OSC article recently, or maybe it is just one person pulling our collective leg.
(we have a collective leg? who knew? )
Thanks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The collective leg was a Trotsky innovation after the Revolution. It didn't come to much. Then Stalin said, "What about farms instead of legs?"
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes that article doesn't paint too bad a picture of him. But imagine that article written about someone who has a show a lot like Howard Stern's, and there's a major discconnect.
AJ
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote: I'll try to keep an eye out for it in myself and others
I must have missed this earlier. CT I've never taken anything you've ever written for anything but mass intelligence and kindness. There are some who, without meaning to I'm sure, get a little harsh sometimes. Then again, I'm a marshmallow, so what do I know.
quote: (Does this make sense to anyone? Am I having a particularly uncomprehending day?)
I don't think there's anything wrong with your comprehension. This has indeed been very confusing. I hope I haven't made it more confusing by stating my two cents here and there.
Everyone has been amazingly patient and kind around here lately. Wow!
(((CT))) Hope you're feeling better soon! You're a doctor dang it...isn't it illegal for you to be sick?
Edited to agree completely with BannaOj!
[ June 21, 2004, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:quote:...hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6
Didn't Jesus teach forgivness? Is he Raphiel?
This has a lot to do with the phrase 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. Nothing is said in this verse about hating people - rather just their practices. And what does Raphael have to do with anything? I'm assuming you're refering to the angel Raphael?
quote:quote: Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Revelation 2:16 and 17
Did He teach that you had to convert all who did not believe?
He's specifically addressing a Church of Jesus Christ in this instance, and is warning them about false doctrine in their midsts. HE's trying to correct them, and basically saying if you don't weed your ways out on your own, he'll have to come down and shout them down about it in person!
quote:quote: Those whom I love I rebuke... Revelation 3:19
Thats it for a while, give me time.
Just like parents - in the ideal case, they punish their children because they love them, and want to set them on the right path. Your child runs out into the street, you shout after them, and give 'em a spank on the bum. Not out of anger or hatred, but out of regard for the child's wellbeing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wow, someone agrees with me 100%!
I'm not really in the business, but maybe I should start collecting minions, the people who agree with me are too few and far between to let them go easily!
What do you say Tammy? Want to be my Head Minion? I like the "kinder and gentler" minion variety.
Let me make my point clearer.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Since I'm writing a novel about "Revelations in space" (as one of you put it ), I just want to ask if guys like this idea:
The events of Revelations can be changed, not altogether, but they can be changed. It all has to do with the anitchrist. The question is: is it possible for the antichrist to resist his destiny? All humans have free will, and if the antichrist is a human, can't he choose to be good?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I have a pseudo-fantasy story that came to mind based on the question raised 'could a person choose to become a Prophesied Individual, and could personally working towards fulfilling the prophesies themselves be the way they were meant to be fulfilled in the first place?'
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't think the anti-christ is human, or not neccessarily human.
I don't think someone could be Satan himself and not know it.
Kwea
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Bleh... I thought this was going to be about Paul and how a lot of people (me included) think he corrupted the teaching of Jesus. Oh well. That would have been interesting.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Elric of Melnibone provides some interesting speculation into the art of becoming a "prophesied individual" and is better written than the Thomas Covenant books (or *gasp* the Drizzt Do`Urdon books) . . . . Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And while I like those books, how does that compare to the bible?
Moorcock is good, but lets see who is reading him in 2000 years...
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*cues time machine and ARRIVES...*
"you might be surprised. subjective judgement of the timelessness of creative endeavor can be amost fickle mistress, much like her sisters the muses... - don't get me started!"
*disARRIVES*
*smooft*
fallow
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Want to be my Head Minion? I like the "kinder and gentler" minion variety
BannaOj
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, gee, kwea . . . I dunno - seems to me any number of sci-fi/fantasy authors have explored religious beliefs/philosophy through their own writings (C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle and OSC also come to mind, but they are by no means the only ones)
My own personal thought regarding the Bible (and other "holy" works) is that they were written by human beings and therefore subject to fallacies, no matter how divinely inspired they may be. (Shrugs)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The question is: is it possible for the antichrist to resist his destiny?"
That story's been done, Archer. Read Good Omens, among others.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
So you really think that Moorcock will still be around in 2000 years? I somehow doubt it.
I didn't think you were religious by your anology to Elric, but I think that even as merely classic lit the bible is slightly more important than Elric, Corum, or Cornelias...or even John Draker (see, I HAVE read him a bit).
Kwea
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Taalcon said:
quote:I have a pseudo-fantasy story that came to mind based on the question raised 'could a person choose to become a Prophesied Individual, and could personally working towards fulfilling the prophesies themselves be the way they were meant to be fulfilled in the first place?'
Shan responded:
quote: Elric of Melnibone provides some interesting speculation into the art of becoming a "prophesied individual" and is better written than the Thomas Covenant books (or *gasp* the Drizzt Do`Urdon books) . . . .
Kwea said:
quote: And while I like those books, how does that compare to the bible? Moorcock is good, but lets see who is reading him in 2000 years...
Shan replied:
quote:Well, gee, kwea . . . I dunno - seems to me any number of sci-fi/fantasy authors have explored religious beliefs/philosophy through their own writings (C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle and OSC also come to mind, but they are by no means the only ones)
My own personal thought regarding the Bible (and other "holy" works) is that they were written by human beings and therefore subject to fallacies, no matter how divinely inspired they may be. (Shrugs)
To which Kwea replied:
quote:So you really think that Moorcock will still be around in 2000 years? I somehow doubt it.
I didn't think you were religious by your anology to Elric, but I think that even as merely classic lit the bible is slightly more important than Elric, Corum, or Cornelias...or even John Draker (see, I HAVE read him a bit). Kwea
Okay - firstly: People still read The Oresteian Trilogy (Agamemnon, The Choephori and The Euminedes.) For that matter, they still read The Odyssey (and just made a silly movie out of it.) I quite distinctly remember having to read and write interminable essays about Grendel in high school - which granted was quite a few years ago. So the age thing doesn’t quite slice it with me. For all I know, Harlequin romances will the bible of the 25th century.
Secondly: I posted in response to Taalcon wondering about “prophesied individuals” and the potential for scifi/fantasy - not as a means to start an argument but purely to offer information. I.e., "check these authors out" kinda thing.
Thirdly: Recognizing the “holy” books as written by “man” does not make me “irreligious” - it just makes me skeptical. And the last I heard, that wasn't a bad thing - "free will" and all that sorta stuff, y'know?
(Breaks off to chuckle remembering Moses in The History of the World dropping a section of the Commandments so that they went from 15 to 10 in one blast of shattered rock. )
I think G*d has a sense of humor and a great deal of imagination and that He probably isn't nearly as concerned with the petty details as he is with the overall picture. Could be wrong - but I'll let the great I AM have the final say on that one . . . Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think revelations is an allegory for things that happened at the time it was written, for things that have happened throughout history, and for things that have yet to happen. That's the nature of truth.
quote: Oh, and has anyone noticed that Jesus goes from a baby directly to an adult? Why does he have no documented childhood?
Don't you watch TV? Kids always get old enough to be interesting faster when they are in the public eye. In the future, as we have seen in every Star Trek series, this development will soon be able to be accomplished in a few days. Maybe she meant John Frakes is the antichrist.
I guess some folks are taking the "ignore that Caitlen said she was 13" mode and some are taking the "kinder gentler" mode. I'm taking the "injecting Star Trek into the conversation at every opportunity" mode.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Revelations is by far the most difficult book in the Bible for people to understand and use. I have yet to see any claims for understanding it from credible scholars that don't include a whole raft of caveats, limitations, and cautionary statements.
Given that is the situation for people who actually study this stuff deeply, I'm very concerned about anyone who would claim to know the meaning behind Revelations enough to draw any conclusions with any degree of certitude. I think, also, that one can be a truly wonderful Christian and never read Revelations.
But that's just personal opinion and is neither here nor there.
What really matters is whether someone is so seriously in error that they put themselves outside the community of God's people. It seems to me that using the Bible as an excuse for violence (which has happened throughout history) is a good sign of something gone awry.
I also think that, so far, everyone who has pointed to another human being as being "THE ANTI-CHRIST" has turned out to be wrong. So, the other caution I would add is to worry about something else.
There are far more productive things to be doing as a Christian than trying to puzzle out the meaning of Revelations or identify the anti-Christ in our midst.
Even if you believe that the end times are upon us, you'd probably want to be doing something other than speculating on who and how, and concentrate on preparing yourself for what is to come, no?
Does Jesus' message change if you believe the Anti-Christ is born? Should you do anything different, act any differently toward other people, or be in any way a different person than you should be if we are just living through a normal, boring time when the Second coming is still far off?
And didn't Jesus tell us that we wouldn't be able to figure it out and know the day and time?
I just think there are better things to work on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think, also, that one can be a truly wonderful Christian and never read Revelations.
Especially since there is no book called Revelations...
*ducks* Sorry Bob. Beating Dana to the punch there.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeay! I have my first Minion! Does this mean I'm now a contender to be the Anti-Christ? I've got a lot of catching up to do...
AJ
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:That story's been done, Archer. Read Good Omens, among others.
Really? I figured it probably was, but is there anything that made much of an impact?
Anyway, you don't have to read, or even believe any book in the Bible past John to be a true Christian. In fact, Acts and on is just an early history of Christians from a Christian perspective, and doesn't have anything that you need to be saved.
People can be stupid sometimes when they try to find the date of the appocalypse, and the antichrist, seeing as how if you believe they even will exist, then you almost have to believe that you can't find them, seeing as how if you do, there's a few contradictions getting in your way...
BTW, the antichrist has to be human. That's what he is. Just as the Christ was God as man, the Antichrist is (will be?) Satan as man.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Archer, Good Omens did make a pretty significant impact. You really should check it out. It's a great story.
Here's a link to it on amazon (yes I know it doesn't look like it). http://snipurl.com/79cz Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sorry about the Star Trek digression. I've been reading The Worthing Saga and it just makes so much more sense now than it did when I was 23 and on Lithium.
SPOILERS . . . . . . . Basically, what the children of Worthing are carrying out in their "watching" is what in LDS theology is known as Satan's plan. We live without agency and no possibility of failure. But does that really make Abner Doon godlike in any way? If one believes as LDS do that in the Garden of Eden there were two conflicting commandments and Adam and Even had to transgress one or the other? (that is, they could not multiply unless they partook of the fruit). I realize this is a huge presupposition, but in that case it was God's choice to destroy Eden. . . . . . End spoilers
I think most of us just think it would be pretty sad if it were appointed unto John the Beloved to bring about the end of the world. From a certain point of view. If we talk about it, instead, as "The World" then it would be appropriate for him to bring it down. But he still wouldn't be the anti-Christ. He wouldn't be a figure for us to fear, unless we really do love our prosperity more than God.
So no one is speculating on whether he is the undead?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
quote:Does this mean I'm now a contender to be the Anti-Christ?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Good Job Head Minion, keep me on the kinder gentler path...
AJ
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*busy typing up ad for the classifieds to enlist help...this job is just tooooo much for one.*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
A little touchy, Shan? Perhaps more than a little.
Free will and freedom of speech cuts both ways, kid. Not that I know (or care) how old you are, just assuming by your tone. I didn't say you were wrong about Moorcock, as a matter of fact I probably have read more of him than you have. Unless you own every single book he has written, including 2 1ST editions printed before either of us were born, as I do.
I was simply trying to guide the thread back toward it's original topic, which had nothing to do with fantasy novels.
Not that I minded the digression, but some of us were still waiting for on-topic replies from others who have posted.
You can think Moorcock IS God for all I care, it wouldn't be any less silly (to me, anyway) than the idea of Paul being the Anti-Christ, but if you have the right to say that then I have the right to disagree with it.
I don't think Moorcock will survive, not for that long, not in any meaningful way. I don't think people will be praying to Elric, or Cornelius, or Draker, or Corum....get my point? I don't think they will affect the world in that fashion.
You do have the right to disagree, of course. Maybe you are even right.
But what does that have to do with mancow, or St. Paul, or the Anti-Christ? That was my point...
Kwea
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Let me see if I get this right, Kwea.
Posters are only allowed to post replies that are specifically directed towards the first poster? It's not permissable to veer slightly off course and respond to another poster's innocent comments about a related topic? Perhaps you can show me where in the rules it states that?
In which case, all the other blatherings about youthful posters, which saint Caitlin really meant, which DJ she was talking about, inserted pics of teens, what remedies might be helpful for CTs migraine, and all the other assorted comments shouldn't be a part of this, either?
If it makes you feel any better at all, my original comment was truly a simple suggestion to Taalcon as to some reading material. In some way you appeared to construe an attack out of that - and continue to do so, for some odd reason. Actually, I was going to ask if you were feeling touchy earlier but decided that might be a shade too intimate a question - and certainly none of my business.
Go pick a fight somewhere else, Kwea. I'm already raising an adolescent. And I thankfully don't have to care for aging, crotchety parents yet.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*composes angry self-righteous letters-to-editors and to bretheren and disseminates to the 4 corners of the childish world*
fallow
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Would you two please stop arguing? It's really annoying when I want to talk about what people think of the antichrist. Have a go at each other on AIM, I'm sure you'll have fun...
Anyway...
Where were we? Let's talk more about the possibility of Revelations being true, but changable... What are your thoughts, guys?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I liked the horsing-around cowboy bits. John was pretty Rad.
fallow
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
How the hell do you think I was attacking you?
I refuse to let you make me the bad guy here...and anyone with eyes and the ability to read should know what I mean, just by reading this thread.
All I said was that I was trying to steer the conversation back to what I thought was the topic, and that I didn't think that your suggestion (Moorcock) was equivalent to the bible, in terms of longevity and/or relevance to the topic.
At no point did I make a personal attack on you; in fact, I thought you were someone I had spoken to earlier (who is younger, I think), and I didn't want that person to get rilled up thinking that I was bagging on her age! So that is what I meant by the age comment, but as far as the other things that were said....
quote:
Thirdly: Recognizing the “holy” books as written by “man” does not make me “irreligious” - it just makes me skeptical. And the last I heard, that wasn't a bad thing - "free will" and all that sorta stuff, y'know?
quote:
I never said anything about your religion, or lack of...I said that I didn't think you were referring to Moorcock as a religious writer/figure. I also offered my opinion that even as Lit the bible was better, as it has stood the test of time; after all, I'm sure that my collage isn't that only one that teaches Bible as Lit classes, right?
quote:
In which case, all the other blatherings about youthful posters, which saint Caitlin really meant, which DJ she was talking about, inserted pics of teens, what remedies might be helpful for CTs migraine, and all the other assorted comments shouldn't be a part of this, either?
quote:
Where did I say ANYTHING about other posters, or refer to a set of rules that prohibit free discussion? Did I even tell you not to comment on something? I don't think so....all I said was that I didn't agree with you. That I think the bible was better Lit than Moorcock, and had more cultural significance.
And I said that you were entitled to your opinion, but that I was too, and somehow this was an attack?
Speaking of attacks...
quote:
Go pick a fight somewhere else, Kwea. I'm already raising an adolescent. And I thankfully don't have to care for aging, crotchety parents yet.
quote:
Nuff said about attacks...I just edited my own personal attack to you out, because I was ashamed of it, and I don't want to contribute to this any more than I may have already.
All I was trying to say was that I though Moorcock was good, but that the Bible has changed people and history in ways that Elric never will. You may be right, maybe I am wrong about it's significance....maybe Harlequins will be the new Bible for the ages . I hope not...we ALL know LOTR should be, right?
But, in a free forum, I AM allowed to try to stick on topic, and I AM allowed to have opinions of my own. I agree that lots of writers have tackled godhead questions, and that some have come up with interesting ideas; but I simply used the same criteria to judge both the Bible (as Lit) and Moorcock, and found one wanting. It wasn't meant (or phrased) as an attack, and I'm sorry you took it as such.
But I'm not sorry for what I said, or that I wanted to return to the topic (as silly as I find it to be) at hand. BTW, if you are raising an adolescent, then we probably are about the same age....sorry to disappoint you, not being old and crotchety and all. Just crotchety.... Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*signs My pale-Little Pony up for a tanning-booth session*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
kat,
Yeah, I saw that and thought about going back to edit it.
Didn't bother.
I'm a little dissapointed that the only comment I received was to point out that I put an "s" on the name of the book.
Oh well. I now return you to your normally scheduled argument.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, sorry. Yeah, it wasn't helpful. That was a running-by-and-tossing-in-a-comment kind of post.
As for whether or not Revelation is relevant, I don't think we can take the parts of the Bible that make sense and reject the parts that don't. I say that fully knowing that I do that, but I disapprove of myself for it.
What do I think? I don't understand Revelation, and I have to admit I haven't really tried. I think it would make more sense if someone read with faith and prayed for wisdom, but that wisdom wouldn't be transferable. I think its the fun and exciting part of the Bible - the biblical equivalent of wearing a crystal around your neck to school and refusing to discuss it.
No, I doubt some DJ in Chicago is the anti-Christ - I have a feeling the events of the Second Coming aren't going to be ambiguous.
[ June 23, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
kat.
Thanks!
I've decided not to beat myself up for rejecting parts of the Bible. If they don't make sense to people who actually study this stuff for a living, what exactly should I be doing with it?
Really, am I going to act differently using Jesus' example based on a flawed and personally idiosyncratic understanding of the Revelation of John?
I don't think it would make sense to do so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the practical message from Revelation boils down to "Don't be fooled by a mere demonstration of power into abandoning what I have taught you." So there is some spiritual lesson to extract from even a literal meaning of Revelation. Things will get bad, and how we act during those bad times will matter, even though it won't change the outcome.
That and, stock up on MREs.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, trying to understand Revelation IS on the list for someday, albeit pretty far down - after Isaiah but before Leviticus.
I do think it is scripture, and since it's scripture, it must have been given to us for a reason and contain something valuable, and I believe that if we read with faith and pray for wisdom, the Lord will give us what we seek.
I also have to admit I'm suspicious of just about anyone who says they understand it completely.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think that when it comes to scripture that we don't understand, we benefit from being familiar with it. I believe that while it may not make any sense to us now, we can still benefit from reading and knowing well what is written there and that perhaps with doing so, someday it will make sense to us.
For instance, I don't claim to "understand" Isaiah, but I have come to love reading it. I find his words beautiful and evoking, much as I feel about Shakespear. Each time I watch "Hamlet", it becomes more beautiful to me. A lot of the wording and ideas still feel "over my head", but I feel edified nonetheless after immersing myself in it.
(I say this realizing I am in the company of literary giants who probably feel they do understand all of Shakespear and know it like the back of their hand. I am not one of those.)
I guess I believe that things don't have to be fully understood to have a powerful effect on a person. And when it comes to scripture, I believe that effect is resoundingly good.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd love to see the original vote tallies for inclusion or exclusion of Revelation from the canon.
I suspect that it was a close vote and if it'd gone just a little bit in the other direction we'd be sitting here arguing about whether this quirky book was scripture or some mystical BS of unknown provenance and uncertain value.
Basically, the "because it is scripture" argument assumes that the people who decided what is and is not canon were divinely guided. I think they were politically motivated more than they were divinely guided from everything I've heard to date.
Although I do have to say I'm not all THAT up on the process. Not even sure they actually "voted" in any sense we'd call fair or reliable.
I bet dkw knows, though.
So, anyway, here's a question for you. Do you think the decision on what is and is not canonical, especially in the New Testament, was divinely inspired and thus stands for all Christians for all time?
I know, this is not a fair question for LDS members since your prophets have (I assume) reaffirmed in modern times what is canonical or not, and it is that decision which you place your trust in.
But for everyone else...what do you think? Should this question be re-opened periodically?
Would it matter?
I mean, maybe we could get rid of "Numbers" and "Deuteronomy" and "Revelation" without too much problem. Add in some other stuff?
Also, maybe we should review the Dead Sea scrolls to see if something new in there should be added?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know - it seems like it wouldn't be any easier now than it was then, and probably a lot harder, especially with regard to adding things. There's a continuing line of authority to include these books; this tradition does a lot to boost their provenance.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
D&C 91 says the following about the apocrypha:
quote:1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
...
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.
I think Joseph Smith said the Song of Solomon wasn't scripture. The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 14:18-27) reaffirms that Revelation was written by John the Apostle.
I know that's not exactly what you were looking for in the discussion, but I thought you'd like to know.
[ June 23, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
You can't fool us Bob.
We know you're just pushing to get the Book of Bob put in.
All you really have to do is sneakily replace the Book of Job. How long will it be before people figure out it wasn't just a typo in their Bible?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Bob:"Revelations is by far the most difficult book in the Bible for people to understand and use. I have yet to see any claims for understanding it from credible scholars that don't include a whole raft of caveats, limitations, and cautionary statements."
One of Joseph Smith's most frustrating and baffling comments, for most Mormons, is when he said that the Book of Revelation is "one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written." Ever since then, all the other Mormons have been scratching their heads, wondering what it is that they're missing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nephi said Isaiah is plain and simple to understand. Go figure. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
At UofUlawguy: Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'd never vote to dump Deuteronomy or Revelation. Or Song of Songs. Numbers I'd be a little iffier on. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, the Book of Bob is just like the Song of Solomon, only kinkier.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I said quit arguing. Shan, be the better person and don't post
quote:As for whether or not Revelation is relevant, I don't think we can take the parts of the Bible that make sense and reject the parts that don't. I say that fully knowing that I do that, but I disapprove of myself for it.
Why not? That's what the authors did.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: One of Joseph Smith's most frustrating and baffling comments, for most Mormons, is when he said that the Book of Revelation is "one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written." Ever since then, all the other Mormons have been scratching their heads, wondering what it is that they're missing.
I don't have it handy, but the rest of Joseph Smith's quote makes it clear that it is plan to understand in general, but not in specific. For example, it's easy to understand that at the end, times will be really tough, there will be a lot of conflict, and that the good guys will win. But the specific stuff ---- not so clear.
And katherina -- didn't Nephi say that Isiah is easy to undestand if you have the spirit of prophecy?
[ June 23, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:I think Joseph Smith said the Song of Solomon wasn't scripture.
Do you think that means that he didn’t consider the Song of Solomon to be sacred or authoritative?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...
What does it mean for something to be scripture? I mean, you can tell the difference in text that is written by different authors, but if it is all scripture, how much of a personality can be threaded and injected into the words before it strays too far from was intended to be scripture?
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:One of Joseph Smith's most frustrating and baffling comments, for most Mormons, is when he said that the Book of Revelation is "one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written."
I always thought it was that bit about the proof he wasn't talking to God being the proof that he was... But that's just me. No offense to LDSers (which there are probably a lot here), but that's just baffling...
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
But dana, numbers has the talking ass!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Actually, the Book of Bob is just like the Song of Solomon, only kinkier.
Oooo! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I mean, you can tell the difference in text that is written by different authors, but if it is all scripture, how much of a personality can be threaded and injected into the words before it strays too far from was intended to be scripture?
I'm just thinking aloud here, but perhaps this is one of the reasons why it is so important to take scripture together as a whole, in context with all other scripture? Because I do think there is always a bit of that person's individual self woven in. I've always kinda looked at it that way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's one seriously worried flock of goats, then.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Tammy: [speaking of Joseph Smith's statements about Song of Solomon] "Do you think that means that he didn’t consider the Song of Solomon to be sacred or authoritative?"
In the LDS edition of the KJV Bible, the footnote at the beginning of the Song of Solomon reads, "Note: the JST [Joseph Smith Translation] manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings'." So yes, that means that JS didn't consider the SofS to be sacred or authoritative.
I realize this isn't exactly on topic, but the question was asked.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Now things are getting intersting.
Someone said that for Latter-day Saints it would be easier to determine what is or is not Scripture because of what is called modern revelation. In some ways that is true. The Canon, through various supporting clarifications, has been determined reliable. On the other hand, there are several statements about scripture that makes identification of what is to be considered "Canon" very difficult. In some ways you could say that there is no problem with the identity of what is already considered scripture, but an extremely open question of what could become such. Even determining what is and is not scripture among our Prophets' statements is a hot topic.
As for understanding Revelation, I think Latter-day Saints should understand a lot of what the book is talking about, at least from its own viewpoints. I have studied the book for ten years and have come to definate conclusions about its meaning. Some of it is specific understanding, and some of it is more general. I hardly say I understand all of it, but I think I understand a great deal.
Here is why I believe LDS should understand, from their own viewpoint, the book of Revelation. Lets start with section 77 that gives very specific answers to particular verses. After that, we have the Book of Mormon that is a kind of apocalyptic literature itself. There is also the Book of Abraham with its many allusions to the final days and cosmic events. The same with the Book of Moses, with its warnings and blessings and cosmic discussions. Finally, there is the Temple experience itself that is filled with allusions to final victory over sin and death, and the return to a Celestial City. Of course, add that in with the Old Testament and New Testament -- specifically the JST of Christ's "Little Apocalype" and there is little reason to not understand, again from an LDS point of view, the meaning of the Book of Revelation. As a deeply millenialist church, the idea of the final days is not very difficult to understand. I would like to break down the Book of Revelation for discussion, but that is beyond my time right now. One thing I would like to know is the historical interpretation of the book, as I do believe it was his time that he used as the symbols for the past and future. He saw things beyond himself, but still from where he stood.
With all that said, I must agree that some LDS go way too far in their interpretation of the book beyond what is either known or true. Some are more fanatical than the most literalist of Protestants.
[ June 23, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:But dana, numbers has the talking ass!
Eh, big deal. Hatrack has had at least a dozen of those over the years. They're really pretty common.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, the thing is, I'm not sure everyone wants to discuss what the LDS think of scripture and Revelation...
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
But not canonical! Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Kath, I understand that. My comments are toward Mormons (specifically you to name one) who have stated they don't understand, and those who specifically mentioned mormons. And yes, I don't know how to spell canon or whatever.
[ June 23, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you're just talking to the Mormons, please take it to Nauvoo.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Think we'll ever see Caitlin Strand again?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
*completely confused by these new protocols*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, if there's something that's only directed to and is basically only discussed among LDS, OSC created a whole site just for that purpose. They aren't new protocols, they just haven't been brought up for a while. There's an area called Gospel Discussion (I think) that would be perfect for a dissemination of Revelation.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Sometimes its difficult to determine what is for "Mormon eyes only" and "open discussion" here at Hatrack. I should have said "because of Mormons," rather than "toward Mormons" in my explanation.
[ June 23, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, given the very different outlook on revelation between LDS and Catholicism (for example), I find the Mormon-specific outlook on the canon interesting and fitting for this thread. If it went 2 pages of people disputing some obscure point made by JS, I might get bored. But general introduction to a particular denomination's view on the canon is perfectly suitable here to me.
Dagonee Edit: Kat, I do appreciate you taking the views into account from the recent threads and posting the reminder. It's just that this interests me greatly.
[ June 23, 2004, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Song of Solomon is a prophetic portrayal of God/Christ's courtship of His church, through the ages and to the day of Judgment (Marriage). That is why it is in the Bible.
Jesus told several parables employing the metaphor of marriage, and introduced each one by saying, "the kingdom of heaven is like..." The marriage in those parables is the judgment, when Christ receives His kingdom. (Note the examination scene in Matthew 22:11-13.)
The Apostle Paul portrayed the church as the wife of Christ in Ephesians 5:25-27. In Revelation an angel called the Holy City, New Jerusalem, "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Revelation 21:9). John likened the sight of the New Jerusalem as it came down out of heaven onto the earth as being "adorned like a bride for her husband" (Revelation 21:2) The New Jerusalem, of course, is where Christ's people dwell.
The same theme is throughout the Old Testament, as well. For example Isaiah 62:5 (NKJV): "For as a young man marries a virgin, So shall your sons marry you [Zion]; And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So shall your God rejoice over you."
[ June 23, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Considering what Joseph Smith understood about Canon (ALL canon is open canon, ready for interpretation and reinterpretation in several competing, although equally relavant, forms). I would say he didn't think the Songs of Solomon were of re-interpretive value. In other words, for him the book was of dead rather than living significants.
[ June 23, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*pet peeve that is closely related to Dana's*
cannon *insert exploding emoticon here* does not equal canon
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:The Song of Solomon is a prophetic portrayal of God/Christ's courtship of His church, through the ages and to the day of Judgment (Marriage). That is why it is in the Bible.
I'd always heard that as a sort of forced explanation to try and explain it. Personally, I don't buy it. Some great poetry, but I think pulling it to be a prophetic allegory of Christ and his church is stretching - especially when those in the NT who made those specific claims concerning Christ and his Church didn't even quote the SofS in support for it.
**
And I think he parenthesis of adding why LDS should have a 'greater understanding' of their church's understanding of a particular biblical book according to THEIR Canon was a perfectly fine parenthetical that was relevent to the discussion.
[ June 23, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The Song of Solomon is a prophetic portrayal of God/Christ's courtship of His church, through the ages and to the day of Judgment (Marriage)."
Wow. Christ must think his church is pretty sexy, then.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Damn right. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder which part of the church has breasts like jeweled melons.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Weren't they described as twin deer?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Noemon:
Song of Solomon is erotica. Not particularly good erotica, but not bad.
I mean, Solomon didn't have access to chocolate sauce, and making whipped cream using goats milk is probably more trouble than it's worth.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I wonder which part of the church has breasts like jeweled melons.
Why, the clergy of course!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
We had a priest once use this analogy: "The seven breasts of the holy mother church..."
o_O
I THINK he was talking about the sacraments. But we all collapsed into giggles after he said that.
We all also required therapy for that mental image.
Poor Fr. Cecil had no idea what he'd said that was so funny.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bob, now Dana knows your plan for the nupitual night!
Loose lips, man, loose lips....
I think that a complete breakdown of Relivations might be a little much for me, but I do find the LDS perspective interesting in biblical matters, probably because I don't know much about the LDS cannon.
Just remember that there is a fine line between discussing this sort of thing and preaching it to "unbelievers", if you know what I mean. Catholics (at least some of them) do it too....as a matter of fact, most branches of religion do at times. I like to hear other religious views, but I ahte being preached at....and even I have trouble distinguising between them at times.
Kwea
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*removes My not-so-pale-anymore Little Pony from the tanning bed*
*oops*
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It is CANON not CANNON. Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*tries to revive sunburnt 'lil pony with fresh fodder*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*hands fallow noxema*
*hands mack a match for the cannon*
*continues chuckling at Bob's wry wit*
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
While I think cannon is important, I don't think it really applies to the subject. At least what the subject is supposed to be. What does cannon have to do with revelation? Cannon and revelation are two seperate, although related issues. Let's leave cannon issues for another thread. Cannon cannon cannon.
I think the Song of Solomon was put in there because Solomon was all like "Hey, put my poetry in, dangit! I'm the frickin king of Israel!" and then all the scribes were like "Okay, *mutter* you perverted son of an Amalakite *mutter*" and Soloman was like, "What!?" and they were like, "nothing, Solly" and Solomon was like "I told you not to call me Solly!" and they said "Right, sorry Solly."
The End.
[ June 24, 2004, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: ArCHeR ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
CANON!
FOR THE LOVE THAT IS HOLY, UNHOLY, SACRED, UNSACRED, AND COMPLETELY IN BETWEEN, IT IS SPELLED canon. ONE "N." ONE.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Go stick your head in a canon...
Buy, doesn't take much to set her off, huh? One day she gets holy-roller, and the next she is a spelling nazi.... Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*stabs kwea*
I'm bringing swords to the picnic.
You were warned.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*grumbles*
for the sweet love of little green apples!!!
*feeds pony*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pictures mack as a holy roller*
*is amused for the next three hours*
dum dum dum dum dum...
I hate it when people don't call the Cannon in D by its right name, too.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
*Wonders why Mackie didn't get the joke*
*wonders if Mackie will stab me for calling her Mackie*
*Runs over self with a car for no reason*
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*stabs squished archer body*
Katie: I have that on my computer. If you want a copy, I MIGHT share.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Just mke sure you get it out first...I bought Sting in Boston, so you don't stand a chance..
"You stick them with the pointy end"
Kwea
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Pachelbel's Canon, while truly one fine piece of music, has possibly the most boring cello part in the history of the world. Seriously, the tedium is unbearable. Luckily, it's so easy that you can just turn your brain off and leave your cello on automatic.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I've always liked the Grande Cañon Suite.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Canon in D makes me think of the movie Ordinary People.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Pachelbel's Canon, while truly one fine piece of music, has possibly the most boring cello part in the history of the world."
This always drove me NUTS. My high school orchestra played Pachelbel's Canon every Christmas, and I -- as first cello -- often got called upon to play in roving quartets around town that ALSO insisted on playing Pachelbel's Canon. And I don't think it's possible to explain to someone the complete, mind-numbing -- perhaps even literally agonizing -- tedium of the cello part without showing them the sheet music. As I recall, it consists of eight measures of whole notes with a "Repeat: 87" across the top.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I heard a 5 piece flute arrangement of that while in high school, and it was amazing.
Then on the day of one of the major performances, one of the girls playing it got really hurt (or sick, I don't remember), and they asked me to play it with them. I was first chair flute, and had my own solo to consider, so I wasn't sure if I could do it.
They gave me the cello part.
I played it without sheet music, half an hour after I had seen it for the first time.
We won the competition. But I was still bored.
Sounded amazing though...
Kwea
[ June 24, 2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Tom! You're a fellow cellist? I had no idea. Right on, man.
Yeah, your memory is correct. The whole cello part consists of exactly eight whole notes, repeated ad nauseum.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I must confess that, at times, in attempts to relieve the tedium, I hammed up my part quite a bit. It may be that no one has ever played the same eight whole notes with as much passionate conviction, vibrato, and expressions of fierce constipation as I have. At one point, during my last Christmas concert, I lifted my cello into the air during the final crescendo to lend a certain atmosphere of exuberance.
I suspect it would have been my last Christmas concert regardless of whether or not I successfully graduated.
[ June 24, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you'd lit it on fire and played it behind your back I'd be impressed.
We need a cellist Hendrix!
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*Now has PDQ Bach's version of Pachabel's Canon in D going through her head*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
One of my favorite memories is of a road trip to Seattle. We got the cheap seats for the symphony, and went dressed in our embarassed road clothes. We got a lot of smiles, though - something about a crowd of good-looking college students choosing to spend it at the symphony. OUr seat were on the front row, and there was a cellist soloing that night. We were so close we could see him sweat, and he smiled at us after the encore. Great night.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Now that I mentioned Mancow, I know that some close-minded Liberals are gonna shoot some firey pot shots at me cause thats easy to do to a 13 year old. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Anyway, read it. I think you'll agree with me.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But there are some churches that are based ENTIRELY upon this book. I think you have to base a church on the Bible, not a section of it. Anyway, I didn't really say what I meant... I'll try to rephrase it later.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Caitlin
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
So is bagging on a thread without actually contributing anything.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But that doesn't mean I swerve in my belief that you can't base a branch of a religion off of part of a holy book! ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Not that everyone isn't welcome, I'm just flummoxed.)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
BannaOj
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)