Stanley Kubrick on God and the universe

[80sU2isBest]

Melon, you say that you believe in the "New Testament" God, but not the "old Testament" God...is that how I am to interpret your last post? if so, then you may not know your New testament as well as you think, because the New Testament does indeed speak of the rapture, demons and the "tricks" of the devil.

The New Testament also PLAINLY tells that the second coming will be one of glory, not one in which Christ will be rejected again. There is absolutely no Biblical evidence whatsoever that backs up your assertion that Christ will be rejected in the second coming.

Here are some verse for you:

On Demons and the "tricks of the devil": These verses show how Satan tricks and uses people and prevents them form doing the right things:

Matt 4:24, Matt 9:32, 2 Tim 2:26, James 2:19, Rev. 12:9, Luke 22:3, Acts 5:3, 2 Thess 2:18, 2 Corinthians 11: 12-15, in which Satan's ability to disguise himself and his minions as "angels of light" is discussed. 2 Thess 1-12 tells that Satan is at working "tricking" and "deceiving" people.

Yes, we choose to do the wrong thing, and it is certainly our responsibility. But for the Christian to sin is against his new nature (the nature of Christ), and commits sin when he buys into the lies Satan whispers in his ears.

There are many others, melon.

As for the rapture: 1 Thess 4:14-17

Melon, quite frankly, you are so angry toward Christianity, it would be laughable if it weren't so serious a topic. You say you only hate "Fundamental Christianity", but I don't really believe that, because you are always seeking to discount things that are plainly found in the Bible. Your hatred of Christianity is apparent in almost everything you write. You speak of Jesus' exhortations to love, but you don't show that love to those Christians who disagree with you about Christianity.
You know Melon, I don't agree with Islam, but I don't speak ill of Muslims or even ill about the faith. I think homosexuality is wrong, but you don't see me trashing you or any of the other people who think homosexuality is okay. You say you stand for tolerance , but you don't live it. You don't tolerate Christians, unless they fit in your little box, your idea of what Christians should believe.

[melon]

I do have every right to criticize Christianity, because I am Christian myself. The Pharisees had their "Biblical assertions" as well regarding the Messiah, and they rejected Jesus on Biblical basis. How am I to believe, considering how the faith of the Pharisee is quite similar to the faith of the fundamentalist regarding the Bible, that things won't be any different?

But let's actually look at the Bible passages:

Matt 4:24 "His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them."

I hope you know that this says nothing about "demons." They had limited knowledge of science and mental health, so it's a likely reality that the "possessed" were schizophrenic or something else.

Matt 9:32-33 "As they were going out, a demoniac who could not speak was brought to him, and when the demon was driven out the mute person spoke. The crowds were amazed and said, 'Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel.'"

It's funny. And people used to laugh at images of Catholic exorcism rituals?

This came from my sophomore year religion teacher, but, in regards to the miracles, she brought in the concept of hyperbole regarding them; that Jesus did, in fact, do some miracles, but that the gospel writers often boasted them or added details to make them easier for people to believe.

2 Tom 2:24-26 "A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, and that they may return to their senses out of the devil's snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will."

This, again, has nothing to do with demons, but of St. Paul's opinion on who is in the "devil's snare." St. Paul, a complete Christian stoic, would likely have included all sense of physical pleasure and emotion in the "devil's snare." But I do like the first line (2 Tim 2:24). It's what I try to do in regards to my religious writings, which, most surely, are not intended to be the gospel truth. Of course, like St. Paul, I sometimes fall short and sound arrogant. It's not my intention.

James 2:19 "You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble."

I think it's really funny you brought up this passage of all passages. James 2:18-20 is the Catholic justification for faith and good works for salvation. Let's put in the entire passage:

James 2:18-20 "Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?"

This is in contrast to the Pauline view of salvation, which was faith only. The New Testament contradicts itself, due to the fact that it is the result of the two original factions of Christianity.

In fact, I think this only strengthened my point, which was that Christianity and Christians are not bad, as a whole, but that Satan finds his way into anything regarding humanity, even the Bible, even religion, even those who "preach" the Lord. Hence why I believe the Bible must be read critically and cautiously.

Rev 12:9 "The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it."

Excellent. I never denied the existence of Satan, and, once again, is compatible with what I wrote.

Luke 22:3 "Then Satan entered into Judas, the one surnamed Iscariot, who was counted among the Twelve, and he went to the chief priests and temple guards to discuss a plan for handing him over to them."

I really doubt that Judas was possessed. It's another example of temptation and sin. Plus, this is a very black-and-white example of evil. What I wrote was regarding the hidden evils; that Satan's greatest evil would likely take the face of a "fellow Christian" and use this faith to promote evil and hatred, which is very simple, considering the Old Testament is one gigantic cauldron of hatred, not to mention the Pauline epistles. I find it only interesting how many Christians are ignorant of Romans 13:8-10, but sure know the Sodom and Gomorrah passage by heart. That, to me, is the deception of Satan, disguising himself in goodness, only to divert one away from the true message of the Bible. That is why I cannot, in any capacity, accept fundamentalism.

Acts 5:3 "But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land?'"

See above for the same explanation. Another clear-cut example.

Hmm...there is no 2 Thess 2:18...the chapter stops at 2:17. But the entire chapter is another general and ambiguous discussion of evil, not incompatible with what I wrote.

2 Cor 11:12-15 "And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."

Why thank you for this passage. You've completely justified the point I tried to make Biblically. "Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness." St. Paul put it far more eloquently and concisely than I did.

As for "the rapture," I believe it, but not in the literal sense. I've seen a Calvinist video, where they think that people will suddenly disappear out of thin air. And perhaps this will be. Like I've said, there's no way I can prove any of this, but, quite honestly, it's quite the comforting passage. Only interesting that the video used the Rapture to state that only those of their specific sect would be saved, while everyone else would be destroyed. I guess, as I've thought it out, it's not the Biblical concept that has angered me, but the revisionist "Christian" interpretations.

As for my "little box," it's only ironic again. What I advocate is, simply, for a simplistic and open faith, little more than Romans 13:8-10 to be fulfilled. As I see it, most of Christianity is still clinging to centuries-old tradition racked with guilt with images of an angry and vengeful God, whether consciously or not. And, in my quest for the actuality of infinite love and compassion, I'm labelled intolerant. How curious indeed.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[rougerum]

Melon,

You forget that Kubrick makes no mentions nothing of the gods he talks about being religious, he keeps them in the frame of being scientific gods. Kubrick was asked in another review if he was religious and he basically no, not at all and just moved on with the next question. I think what Kubrick does here is not at all go into talk of the god that created it all or anything but the possibilities of the oldest and supreme aliens, just that their intelligence and capabilities would seem like they are gods to us. Kubrick is not giving any answers here, he is just bringing out possibilities and as he quoted the last saying of a prominent astronomer when he said something along the lines of, "Sometimes I think we are alone, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the idea is quite staggering." I think that is what Kubrick feels about these god like aliens, that the idea they exist are staggering to him and he just has a curious ear to the subject at hand instead of trying to give the answers.

~rougerum

[melon]

Originally posted by rougerum:
Melon,

You forget that Kubrick makes no mentions nothing of the gods he talks about being religious, he keeps them in the frame of being scientific gods. Kubrick was asked in another review if he was religious and he basically no, not at all and just moved on with the next question. I think what Kubrick does here is not at all go into talk of the god that created it all or anything but the possibilities of the oldest and supreme aliens, just that their intelligence and capabilities would seem like they are gods to us. Kubrick is not giving any answers here, he is just bringing out possibilities and as he quoted the last saying of a prominent astronomer when he said something along the lines of, "Sometimes I think we are alone, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the idea is quite staggering." I think that is what Kubrick feels about these god like aliens, that the idea they exist are staggering to him and he just has a curious ear to the subject at hand instead of trying to give the answers.

Oh I agree that that is the sentiment he is trying to make, and I think it is a very interesting article there. I do think, perhaps, people have gone completely on the defensive on this, and I found myself arguing more with the responses than with the article itself, even though, religiously, I don't believe what Kubrick stated.

For what it's worth, the idea that aliens created us is not a new proposition with Kubrick. One of the pair that first mapped DNA and it's structure in the 1950s believed that all life on Earth came from an alien source, if only because he could not see how life could have come together using conditions on Earth.

That "alien source" hypothesis, obviously, could never be tested, but, personally, if it was overwhelmingly found that all life on Earth was directly created from aliens, it really wouldn't shake my faith in God; I would then say that God was still indirectly involved, as He would have created the aliens or somewhere down the line. I'm quite happy that my religion can reconcile scientific progress or whatnot with faith.

In a way, however, I find it odd how humanity obsesses over how it was created. Aside from a curiousity standpoint, does it really matter? Something to ponder.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[foray]

Originally posted by rougerum:
You don't have anything credible to back your theory up, I do and Bubba dismissed it as I didn't when I did. So with that in mind I think I have the right to identify your theory as what I think it is, ridiculous. Give me information to back it up and I might change my mind. Until you do, it will get no respect.

~rougerum

As you may have noticed, I am often reluctant to come back to this thread or comment further. This is simply because I feel very insulted everytime you post back, especially with your arrogant and condescending tone. I think I do have a point that you're having double standards with regards to courtesy. I actually thought Bubba's rebuttal to Kubrick was very comprehensive. Your rebuttal to mine, however, was just a simple "kubrick's theory is 10 mil times better than yours" without telling me how it is better than mine, considering both theories are developed out of reason. But enough about your attitude; I still consider you my friend, I even pray for you sometimes, not like it matters to you. On to the argument itself.

I already realised earlier on that it would be a very difficult discussion to have with you since you don't even believe in the Bible or God, therefore even 80su2isbest's explanation (There's nothing to back up anyone's theories on aliens. I have come to my conclusion about aliens being demons based on the way I know that the devil operates. The Bible calls him "an angel of light" etc...) is declared null and void.

That is why in order to settle the argument, this discussion should turn into a "Does God exist?" and "Is the Bible true?" discussion, so as to start on the same platform. Are you willing to go into that?


foray

[This message has been edited by foray (edited 11-02-2001).]

[foray]

Hi, melon.

As for aliens being "demons," it's laughable at best, especially since the verdict isn't even out as to whether they actually exist!

I think that one can't deny the overwhelming proof of alien and ghost sightings/encounters. I believe that they do exist, but they come not from space nor have they hopped back from the dead. I think that they are rather demons in disguise, aimed at distracting God's people from the Truth and keeping our eyes away from Jesus. How? Through alienmania, consulting mediums, getting people fascinated with ghosts and the supernatural, etc.

Also, I don't see why it would be incomprehensible that life outside of Earth would exist, created in the same God-created evolutionary process that created us.
(This is directed to rouge as well) I have my reasons for not believing in evolution, too. But maybe that is to be brought up in another thread, this one seems very cluttered as it is. I have evidence for my evolution and alien theories/beliefs, but it is in hardcopy form, probably in some cabinet back home in Malaysia. But I could try my best to argue from memory.

And Genesis? It's not the source of truth, really. It's probably one of the most interesting books in that it's also polytheistic, but that "the other gods" were bad gods defending the other tribal cultures.

The "other gods" were demons; are you saying you don't think that? There is only one God, if you believe in the 10 Commandments.

"Nephilim" don't exist, and neither do "witches."
melon, why are you bringing this up? It's only confusing things; for me, in any case . Anyway, Genesis stated that the Nephilim did (past tense) exist. Whether they did or not, I don't think is of as much consequence as trying to figure out whether our God is an alien. And witches, why do you say there aren't any? In my country, there are many witch doctors, also in Indonesia. My friends and family have dealt with them first hand (not saying that we have consulted them, of course!).


Just in the same way that there is no evidence of a "world-wide flood,"
Now we're nitpicking, but it's okay, I guess.

[Melon, I really wish you wouldn't bring up irrelevant things like this, even if you do flippantly say them, because then they open up tangential discussions and only confuse the thread. I'm responding to this anyway because I like to clear up differences in our thinking. All in good spirit, of course.]

This is one of my arguments for a universal Flood. When God created the earth, he said "Let there be an EXPANSE between the waters to separate water from water... So God made the expanse and separated the UNDER the expanse from the water above it... God called the expanse SKY". Therefore, back in those days, the entire atmosphere of Earth was protected by a layer of water. So, when God opened the "floodgates of heaven" to flood the earth, it was literal. Such an act could only result in a universal flood.

If you still don't believe that the Earth was covered in a layer of water before the Flood, how do you explain the rainbow appearing only after it? If you know how a rainbow is made, you'd understand that a concave (or was it convex?) layer of light around the earth would make it impossible for a rainbow to appear.

If Genesis had been written by anyone else--Sumerians, Celts, etc.--we would dismiss it as myth.
Well, they are myths, but I do think that most myths probably have a core of truth to them, or started out with a truth.

Trying to justify demons out of Genesis is like trying to justify aliens out of Kubrick's texts: it's both silly.
Like 80su2isbest, I am perplexed that as a Christian, you don't believe in the existence of demons.

I'm beginning to suspect that maybe you don't really believe in everything you're saying here. Maybe, as you have said so before in other threads, you're saying all this for the sake of arguing. Are you?

foray

[80sU2isBest]

Melon said:The Pharisees had their "Biblical assertions" as well regarding the Messiah, and they rejected Jesus on Biblical basis. How am I to believe, considering how the faith of the Pharisee is quite similar to the faith of the fundamentalist regarding the Bible, that things won't be any different?

80s said:Wrong, Melon. The Pharisees did NOT reject Jesus based on their scriptures. Their scrioptures in Isaiah and other places point to the man they condemned being the Messiah. They fought against Jesus because he did not fit "their" image of what a Messiah should be. He perfectly fit the scriptures' prophecies about the Messiah.

Melon:Matt 4:24 "His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them." I hope you know that this says nothing about "demons." They had limited knowledge of science and mental health, so it's a likely reality that the "possessed" were schizophrenic or something else.

80s:Read the KJV, Melon. It specifically says "possessed with devils". Not only that, but how do you explain the episode in which the demons named "Legion" begged Jesus to send them into a herd of swine, and He did, and they dove off the cliff in their madness?

Melon: This came from my sophomore year religion teacher, but, in regards to the miracles, she brought in the concept of hyperbole regarding them; that Jesus did, in fact, do some miracles, but that the gospel writers often boasted them or added details to make them easier for people to believe.

80s: And I am to believe your sophomore year religion teacher, over this book of my faith?

Melon: 2 Tom 2:24-26 "A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, and that they may return to their senses out of the devil's snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will." This, again, has nothing to do with demons, but of St. Paul's opinion on who is in the "devil's snare." St. Paul, a complete Christian stoic, would likely have included all sense of physical pleasure and emotion in the "devil's snare."

80s: You're right, this one is not about demons, but it definitely goes to show that the devil "entraps" people. And he does. How else do you explain Satanism or the occult?

Melon: James 2:19 "You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble." I think it's really funny you brought up this passage of all passages. James 2:18-20 is the Catholic justification for faith and good works for salvation. Let's put in the entire passage:
James 2:18-20 "Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?"
This is in contrast to the Pauline view of salvation, which was faith only. The New Testament contradicts itself, due to the fact that it is the result of the two original factions of Christianity.

80s:Nope, thsi does not contradict Paul at all. James does not claim that faith without works will lead you to hell. But faith without works IS dead. I agree with that, and so would Paul. The Holy Spirit is He who does the good works through a Christian. It has nothing to do with doing good works as a way to Heaven. You won't get an argument from me that good works need should accompany a Christian's faith. But the issue is - where do teh works come from? From a Christian's own power? No. From the power of the Holy Spirit. So, a Christian who does not let the spirit work through him is not effective. But that does NOT affect his eternal residence - Heaven, if he's truly saved.

melon:, but that Satan finds his way into anything regarding humanity, even the Bible, even religion, even those who "preach" the Lord. Hence why I believe the Bible must be read critically and cautiously.

80s: Do you not think that the God who is powerful enough to make the universe, and to defeat Satan by dying on a cross, isn't powerful enough to keep his word (book) together and blemished by Satan all these years? He certainly is.

Melon: Rev 12:9 "The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it." Excellent. I never denied the existence of Satan, and, once again, is compatible with what I wrote

80s: No, you never denied Satan's existence, but you did say he doesn't "trick" people. This verse right here shows you that he "deceived the whole world". What are tricks, but deceptions? And by the way, his "angels" became demons.

melon: Luke 22:3 "Then Satan entered into Judas, the one surnamed Iscariot, who was counted among the Twelve, and he went to the chief priests and temple guards to discuss a plan for handing him over to them." I really doubt that Judas was possessed. It's another example of temptation and sin. Plus, this is a very black-and-white example of evil. What I wrote was regarding the hidden evils; that Satan's greatest evil would likely take the face of a "fellow Christian" and use this faith to promote evil and hatred, which is very simple, considering the Old Testament is one gigantic cauldron of hatred, not to mention the Pauline epistles. I find it only interesting how many Christians are ignorant of Romans 13:8-10, but sure know the Sodom and Gomorrah passage by heart. That, to me, is the deception of Satan, disguising himself in goodness, only to divert one away from the true message of the Bible. That is why I cannot, in any capacity, accept fundamentalism.

80s: You can doubt that Satan entered into Judas all you want. But the Bible plainly says he did. Otherwise it would say simply "Judas believed the lies of the devil" or something like that. the passage says "entered into". The Old Testament is great gigantic cauldron of hate, eh? Show it to me. And about Romans 13:8-10, yes that is about love. But i don't get your point here, or what that has to do with fundamentalist Christians. When you see Christians reacting with hatred, they're not truly "fundamentalists", when teh obvious definition of "fundamentalist" is to believe in the fundamentals of something. A true fundamentalist Christian is one who believes fully in the fundamentals of the Bible, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The detractors have equated the name "fundamentalist" to hatemonger, but that couldn't be further from the truth. If someone trashes a homosexual, he is not being a "fundamentalist Christian". He's not even acting liek a Christian at all. However, there is a line there. I can say that I believe homosexuality is wrong, but still not hate homosexuals.

Melon:Hmm...there is no 2 Thess 2:18...the chapter stops at 2:17. But the entire chapter is another general and ambiguous discussion of evil, not incompatible with what I wrote.

80s:Oops I meant to write 1 Thess 2:18

Melon:2 Cor 11:12-15 "And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."
Why thank you for this passage. You've completely justified the point I tried to make Biblically. "Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness." St. Paul put it far more eloquently and concisely than I did.

80s: Melon, I am not saying that I doubt that some people who claim to be Christian preach a flase gospel. I know that happens. But your words were much stronger than that. you implied that the devil is strongly entrenched in Christian teaching, which it is not. All true Christian teaching comes from God. And this passage is very good for my point about aliens. People are so enamored an interested in "extra terrestial" activity. What a perfect ploy for Satan to use his disguises to get people interested in anything besides himself and God.

Melon:As for my "little box," it's only ironic again. What I advocate is, simply, for a simplistic and open faith, little more than Romans 13:8-10 to be fulfilled. As I see it, most of Christianity is still clinging to centuries-old tradition racked with guilt with images of an angry and vengeful God, whether consciously or not. And, in my quest for the actuality of infinite love and compassion, I'm labelled intolerant. How curious indeed.

80s:You can't escape, from the Old OR New Testaments, that God does get angry - he is angered by sin. And he is vengeful, even in the new testament. But why should he not be? He offers us love, and we trade it for our own sinful desires. Also, I didn't label you "intolerant" because you seek love and compassion. I labeled you "intolerant" because of your incessant trashing of people who believe in the entire Bible.


[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 11-02-2001).]

[rougerum]

You know what Foray, I don't see how I can be more extensive when all I really have to say is that you have no credible thing to back that up to me and you don't even have to make this into a debate of whether how credible the bible is, I won't give any credit to the Bible in any way since I don't follow it. With that in mind you should realize that with me you will need other credible evidence instead of that for it be considered credible to me. You can get 80s backing for enternity but not mine with using the bible. I think you just have to realize the difference and maybe accept that I won't believe it at all and that it will sound ridiculous to me.

~rougerum

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by rougerum:
You know what Foray, I don't see how I can be more extensive when all I really have to say is that you have no credible thing to back that up to me and you don't even have to make this into a debate of whether how credible the bible is, I won't give any credit to the Bible in any way since I don't follow it. With that in mind you should realize that with me you will need other credible evidence instead of that for it be considered credible to me. You can get 80s backing for enternity but not mine with using the bible. I think you just have to realize the difference and maybe accept that I won't believe it at all and that it will sound ridiculous to me.
~rougerum

Hmmmm...You think it's ridiculous that Foray and I put our trust in the Bible, but you put your trust on this issue in the ideas of a filmmaker. Seems to me that the Bible is a tad bit more credible than Stanley Kubrick.

[rougerum]

Poor 80s, you missed the whole point, that is not Stanley Kubrick's original ideas, that is just what he thinks and he is basing what he thinks off of ideas from other people, specifically from the science community. What you said is basically like me saying your ideas are bad because you are not as respectable as the other person who is giving the argument when both of your information come from other places, yours from the bible. Instead of you saying I got these ideas from Kubrick alone, you should look toward the community of science instead and question their valadity instead of Kubrick's.

~rougerum

[80sU2isBest]

Melon, in my last post to you I said "If I was wrong to mock you, I am sorry". I now change that. I realize I WAS wrong to mock you, and so I apologize. I feel sorry that I did that.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by rougerum:
Poor 80s, you missed the whole point, that is not Stanley Kubrick's original ideas, that is just what he thinks and he is basing what he thinks off of ideas from other people, specifically from the science community. What you said is basically like me saying your ideas are bad because you are not as respectable as the other person who is giving the argument when both of your information come from other places, yours from the bible. Instead of you saying I got these ideas from Kubrick alone, you should look toward the community of science instead and question their valadity instead of Kubrick's.
~rougerum

Poor rougerum, you state "the community of science", as if the entire scientific community believes in the ideas presented by Kubrick, when you must admit that these ideas are on the very outer edges of scientific thought, and not adhered to by a great many scientists. Nevertheless, I shall rephrase. Please make note of my new phrasing:
"I believe the Bible is a tad more credible than a very few whacked out scientists."

[Punch Drunk Love]

Trust me, these ideas and thoughts are not at all on the outer edge of sciene belief. They are actually believed by a great of the scientists for this study of area. Remember, we are not talking about god but aliens that could be as advanced that they would seem like gods to us, when looking at how vast and wide this universe is, aliens like these not existing actually seem not realistic. The people of sicence suspect this but of course we will never be able to prove this anytime soon as we are still constricted about our knowledge of the universe but we will always find this most probable.

~rougerum

[Whortense]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
80s said:Wrong, Melon. The Pharisees did NOT reject Jesus based on their scriptures. Their scrioptures in Isaiah and other places point to the man they condemned being the Messiah. They fought against Jesus because he did not fit "their" image of what a Messiah should be. He perfectly fit the scriptures' prophecies about the Messiah.

Or the gospels, in hyperbole form, posthumously described Jesus around the prophesies to get the fundamentalists of the time to accept Him. The apostles would have had personal, visual, and emotional reasons to accept Jesus as the Messiah, so, Bible or not, it would have been easy. However, to get Jewish converts, a little hyperbole might have been in order. They did reject Jesus on the basis of scripture, as He, constantly and repeatedly, flaunted the Mosaic Law. If you really don't believe that, then you really need to read a bit more closer and take off the proverbial conservative lenses obstructing your vision.

80s:Read the KJV, Melon. It specifically says "possessed with devils". Not only that, but how do you explain the episode in which the demons named "Legion" begged Jesus to send them into a herd of swine, and He did, and they dove off the cliff in their madness?

The KJV is an incredibly flawed text. King James had executed two of royal translators for putting things in that didn't exist in the source texts. He, however, didn't remove any of the contentious passages either, probably because he didn't know what to remove. Subsequent KJV revisions, unfortunately, maintain these same flaws. As such, especially since I'm not Protestant, I don't use the KJV and never will.

But let's get to history again. The people of this world had absolutely no understanding of science in medical matters. "Lepers" likely were anyone with skin diseases, not the literal leprosy. The "possessed" likely had severe mental illness. If possessions were such a common occurrence, then why don't we have more of them in the Western world?

80s: And I am to believe your sophomore year religion teacher, over this book of my faith?

I see this is going nowhere. We're talking apples and oranges it seems, or, better yet, Catholics and Protestants. I find it interesting, though. Catholics try and give more credence to the Bible by trying to uncover their cultural contexts. In other words, you shouldn't have to throw away all reason and intellect to be a Christian, nor should it be necessary to believe every obscure passage. Outsiders simply dismiss it as "picking and choosing," but, honestly, it isn't the case, as you learn through time to discern what are the key points and what are the important passages. I also find it interesting those who laugh at "Catholic guilt," but I've found much larger guilt complexes amongst various Protestant sects than in the modern Catholic Church. But I digress...

80s: You're right, this one is not about demons, but it definitely goes to show that the devil "entraps" people. And he does. How else do you explain Satanism or the occult?

Satanism is a ridiculous modern phenomena, populated mostly by atheists poking fun of religion. I've never understood why anyone would want to be in that subculture.

The "occult" isn't Satan worship. It is an outgrowth of ancient pagan religions, and, while I do not believe it myself, it cannot be called Satanic. I find this interesting, but if God demanded that everyone have been Jewish (like in the OT) and now everyone be Christian (like in the NT), why wouldn't it have been wider in origin? I'm quite content being Christian, so I have no complaints, but what about the areas that have little or no Christian contact?

80s:Nope, thsi does not contradict Paul at all. James does not claim that faith without works will lead you to hell. But faith without works IS dead. I agree with that, and so would Paul. The Holy Spirit is He who does the good works through a Christian. It has nothing to do with doing good works as a way to Heaven. You won't get an argument from me that good works need should accompany a Christian's faith. But the issue is - where do teh works come from? From a Christian's own power? No. From the power of the Holy Spirit. So, a Christian who does not let the spirit work through him is not effective. But that does NOT affect his eternal residence - Heaven, if he's truly saved.

Well, I like the St. Paul view better. It's easier to get into Heaven.

80s: Do you not think that the God who is powerful enough to make the universe, and to defeat Satan by dying on a cross, isn't powerful enough to keep his word (book) together and blemished by Satan all these years? He certainly is.

I believe God is challenging us, quite honestly. He has power to do anything. Gumdrops can fall down from the sky. The world can be a perpetual 70-degrees and sunny on His whim. Everyone could have been Christian on day 1 of man's arrival.

What is most interesting to me is not what God is capable of, but, rather, what He has chosen not to do. He could have, most certainly, brought the Bible down from Heaven, full and intact, but, in Biblical and scientific study, it's found that that is not the case. Luke 1:1-4 is a quite interesting passage indeed, perhaps the most direct and literal evidence in the Bible that this, indeed, was written by humans, lending to possible contradictions (they didn't exactly have news wire services back then) and errors. By "contradictions" and "errors," I'm not saying it's time to throw the entire book away as erroneous. There is much Truth present in the Bible, the reality of Jesus as the Messiah, the necessity for faith and love, the promise of salvation. I'm not disputing any of that. The fact that the world was created in 7 days, the fact that the entire world was covered in flood, the fact that, in Joshua, genocide is commanded by God with the punishment of immediate death for anyone who saves anyone or anything, the fact that St. Paul encourages slavery and commands the submission of women--all unimportant to the real message of the Bible. Does a God-inspired evolution somehow negate Jesus? Does allowing women to speak up in church and allowing women to go to church without hats (forbidden by St. Paul) somehow negate Jesus' teachings?

It's much easier to be a fundamentalist in regards to faith, but it doesn't mean it's correct.

80s: No, you never denied Satan's existence, but you did say he doesn't "trick" people. This verse right here shows you that he "deceived the whole world". What are tricks, but deceptions? And by the way, his "angels" became demons.

And how do you know you're not being tricked by Satan? An infinitely compassionate and loving God would take the faith of the individual in account over semantics. That's what I meant. Those that are hopeless, in my opinion, are those that freely mock and openly reject God. See a few boards outside of Interference.com, and you'll understand what I mean. Humanity, as a whole, is good, but misguided. By Satan? Perhaps.

80s: You can doubt that Satan entered into Judas all you want. But the Bible plainly says he did. Otherwise it would say simply "Judas believed the lies of the devil" or something like that. the passage says "entered into".

Well, if that's the case, I think everyone should give Judas' soul an apology for 2000 years of condemnation into hell. If Satan then indeed possessed Judas, then it was Satan who betrayed Jesus, not Judas.

Regardless, I do think it was Judas himself, and the writings above is fancy literature for temptation and fall. I mean, what treason is greatest than to have it at the hands of friends?

The Old Testament is great gigantic cauldron of hate, eh? Show it to me.

Read the first seven books of the Bible, and count the number of people "God commands" to be killed, the number of cities "God commands" to be destroyed, and the number of Israelites "God commands" to be killed.

I do not believe this is God speaking in these texts, but the texts of overzealous Jewish fanatics, wishing to reassert control over it's people by using the Lord's name. Who will question it? No one, because questioning it was punishable by stoning. Considering the timeline it is believed Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written, when the Jews were freed from their forced exile and dispersion around 500 B.C. where the Jewish leaders attempted to rebuild the same authority at all costs, it's no wonder the books are as bombastic as they they are.

And about Romans 13:8-10, yes that is about love. But i don't get your point here, or what that has to do with fundamentalist Christians.

My point is that, if you truly believe that everything is true, then this passage sums up the point of the Bible, and anything in contradiction to that is not part of "the law."

When you see Christians reacting with hatred, they're not truly "fundamentalists", when teh obvious definition of "fundamentalist" is to believe in the fundamentals of something. A true fundamentalist Christian is one who believes fully in the fundamentals of the Bible, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

An admirable definition, but let's look at what "fundamental" actually means:

fun�da�men�tal (fnd-mntl) adj.

1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.

2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.

"Fundamentally," it doesn't mean to take everything in the Bible and try and justify every last detail. To have a "fundamental" view of the Bible would mean to analyze and look at what is important. What many have is not a "fundamental" view of the Bible, but an "essentialist" view of the Bible.

The detractors have equated the name "fundamentalist" to hatemonger, but that couldn't be further from the truth. If someone trashes a homosexual, he is not being a "fundamentalist Christian". He's not even acting liek a Christian at all. However, there is a line there. I can say that I believe homosexuality is wrong, but still not hate homosexuals.

I'm not judging you in the furthest, I hope you understand that, but that most fundamentalist and born-again Christians have unresolved psychological issues, whether it be a troubled family life, etc. It's not unpredictable that the last fundamentalist revivals took place under eras of great emotional turmoil. I mean, the current fundamentalist movement is about 25 years old now, and was a reaction to the messed up family life of the 1960s-early 1970s. And what was that a reaction to? The restrictiveness of religion and society from the 1940s-1950s. It's all pendulum swings, and I fear that the right-wing extremism regarding religion will swing back to the left within the next generation, as, already, there is discontent over the restrictive climate arising in this sub-culture from the youth. I do not think that the youth, inherently, wish to reject God, but they are clamoring for a way to assimilate the truth of Christ with the truth of science, which cannot be denied. Fundamentalism, while I cannot deny is well-intentioned, has only served to drive this wedge farther open, often forcing many to choose between Jesus and rationalism, although both can be reconciled if you let it. I'm perhaps one of the few Christians I have run into, whether in life or on the internet (apologies to those who think this is arrogant; not my intention), that I've found that has no problems believing in both God and science, as I believe the beauty of science is from God. Like the Judaism of the Biblical era, fundamentalism only drives people further from God, putting extreme requirements on the faithful (i.e., you must believe Adam and Eve, you must hate homosexuals, you cannot question the Bible, etc.) while exulting those who are a part of it as "the elect" or, in the case of Judaism, "the chosen people." The official doctrine might be that faith alone saves all, but there is a lot of implicit ritualistic requirements beyond just "faith in Jesus." And, like I'm saying, I'm not criticizing you, as much as I'm criticizing the whole, which has sizeable organization and political influence that you cannot deny.

80s: Melon, I am not saying that I doubt that some people who claim to be Christian preach a flase gospel. I know that happens. But your words were much stronger than that. you implied that the devil is strongly entrenched in Christian teaching, which it is not.

Let me clarify. I do not think Christianity is inherently Satanic. What I've studied has only given me more appreciation for the beauty of God and the beauty of His creation. I think that the present state of Christianity is entrenched with Satan's influence. Like I've stated, I think that God will judge one on the basis of their personal conscience, rather than on the status of whether their faith was the result of Satan's trickery or not, but, currently, I see a Christianity entrenched in politics again, encouraging intolerance of difference, and making many peoples' lives miserable. I hate to admit it, but this is the reality! No, surely not all Christians are evil and misguided, but I think Satan is using his power to divert Christians not away from Christianity, but to contort Christianity back to it's same state of rituality and intolerance that Jesus Himself rejected. This, to me, is the greatest evil of all; one that is hidden and cloaked in goodness. Where does Satan have more power to deceive? The leader of a Satanic cult or the leader of a well-respected Jewish or Christian denomination? That is what I am telling people to be watchful for. Luke 1:1-4 shows evidence of human interaction in the creation of the Bible, and what evil could be worse than in tempting and deceiving the writers of the Bible as it was being written? I do not think that the Bible as a whole is bad; it is good, and is a testament to the resilience of God, but I think there are elements in it that lend to Satan's influence in some parts.

All true Christian teaching comes from God.

Yes, one of my overall points.

And this passage is very good for my point about aliens. People are so enamored an interested in "extra terrestial" activity. What a perfect ploy for Satan to use his disguises to get people interested in anything besides himself and God.

I have a feeling you're generalizing all those who believe in aliens to be those fanatical "abductee" types you see on "The X-Files." I also think it's incorrect to generalize that these people are not Christians. Of course, when they are being interviewed, they are going to talk all about their experiences in detail, but do they show these people in their private lives? They likely go to church and pray to God in the same capacity that the rest of us do. To say that they and anyone who believes in aliens are allowing themselves to be diverted from God is fallacious.

80s:You can't escape, from the Old OR New Testaments, that God does get angry - he is angered by sin. And he is vengeful, even in the new testament. But why should he not be? He offers us love, and we trade it for our own sinful desires.

Let's recap:

1) I don't think that "God" was part of much of the "Mosaic Law," but, rather, post-exilic Jewish leaders evoking the respected names of "God" and "Moses" to generate support for wars and other evil political motives. As these post-exilic leaders also had the power to add or detract from the Bible as they wish (who was going to question them?), they likely added these texts whenever the Old Testament canon was created, which wasn't as long ago as we would like to think.

2) The "God" of the gospels is not one of vengeance. The radical idea of the time was that God is love. Unfortunately, St. Paul often resurrected the Jewish angry God for his own bidding, who, in rejecting the ritualism of the Jews because of Jesus' sole commandment, "Love God and love one another," creates his own sets of rituals often in contrast to Jesus' own message.

3) As such, I believe it is important to read the Bible both critically and in social and historical context, both in the time the Bible was written, but also in the context of the history of it's translation up to today, which was a bumpy road indeed.

Also, I didn't label you "intolerant" because you seek love and compassion. I labeled you "intolerant" because of your incessant trashing of people who believe in the entire Bible.

Well, even I am not perfect, nor have ever claimed to be, despite your occasional mocking of me on the forums stating that. And don't think I haven't read them either. Just because I don't respond to them, it doesn't mean I haven't read them.

Melon

[This message has been edited by Whortense (edited 11-03-2001).]

[Whortense]

grrr....stupid names!!!!111

and foray, melon will respond to your post in due time. it was exhausting just writing that last post replying to 80s' writings.

------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington

[This message has been edited by Whortense (edited 11-03-2001).]

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Whortense:
Well, even I am not perfect, nor have ever claimed to be, despite your occasional mocking of me on the forums stating that. And don't think I haven't read them either. Just because I don't respond to them, it doesn't mean I haven't read them.
Melon
[This message has been edited by Whortense (edited 11-03-2001).]

Melon, I've always known that you probably read those. I intended for you to read them, because at those times I wanted to blow off steam. The times I mocked you were the times when you came off sounding even more arrogant than usual. Surely you will admit that you often come across as "I have studied everything and therefore I know more"? If it was wrong of me to mock you for that, I'm sorry. But really, you do come off sounding that way to people, not just me. And believe me, I know that I have come across sounding overly sarcastic many times before, and I've been called on the carpet for it. You should be prepared to be called "arrogant" when you act that way.

[foray]

Originally posted by rougerum:
You know what Foray, I don't see how I can be more extensive when all I really have to say is that you have no credible thing to back that up to me and you don't even have to make this into a debate of whether how credible the bible is, I won't give any credit to the Bible in any way since I don't follow it. With that in mind you should realize that with me you will need other credible evidence instead of that for it be considered credible to me. You can get 80s backing for enternity but not mine with using the bible. I think you just have to realize the difference and maybe accept that I won't believe it at all and that it will sound ridiculous to me.

~rougerum

I'm sorry that you remain closed on your opinion that the Bible is not a valid source of knowledge. You seem to think that because you don't follow it, it is not true.

Actually, I think the question is more of whether demons exist, not if the Bible rings true. The most solid proof (other than the Bible) I have for myself is that my very close friends have seen physical manifestations of demons/devils. One friend got possessed, went berserk, just like it is described in the bible, when his Christians friends prayed for the demon to come out. Another had boils/rashes (I can't remember which) inflicted on his body because he is a missionary in Papua New Guinea helping to bring the natives to Christ.

I'm curious about if you think ghosts can see these alien gods/spirits. And do you think that aliens hear our prayers when we pray?

foray

[rougerum]

Foray, what does your friends experiences honestly have to do with aliens that live very far away from our own planet?

I don't see any reason why ghosts would see these kinds of aliens.


I don't know if they can hear our prayers or not, I am not really have no clue now what to think of their potential. I'm sure they could likely hear our prayers if they wanted to if they have evolved enough.

~rougerum

[foray]

Oh sorry for being unclear. I thought that the more fundamental difference between you and I was that you didn't believe in the existence of demons (hence you don't believe aliens=demons) and I do. I thought it went deeper than that, hence I addressed that issue. Yeah, I was pretty murky there.

foray

[foray]

Sorry for bringing thi ghost of a topic to the surface again, but I have new thoughts on it which I will post soon.

4a