Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Top Gun on June 22, 2003, 04:40:49 am
-
http://shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ID=9&ITEM_ID=222
Isn't it nice that loons like this are able to gain such easy access to publishing facilities. Now those true Christian and extremely patriotic Americans who love freedom so much don't have to bother reading about Harry Potter being the work of satan, they can watch it on Video.
-
gullible people.
I have yet to see the first person turned into a frog by using a wooden stick.
However, I have seen people's brains being reduced to primordial soup... but then again, for some people that seems to come naturally. :D
Anyway, do these people live in Salem? Maybe they should have a BBQ then.
Christians, giving Jesus a bed rep. :p
-
Thats right, and we all know that satanism comes hand in hand with witchcraft and paganism...
...whos followers, rather curiously - don't believe in satan.
I love the human race.
-
Oh great, so now not only do I have to put with most kids today being mouthy little pricks, they're going to cast spells on me now too.
Like Thunfireth said above, I can't see how you can relate paganism with Satan because Satan is a Christian concept. I find the inability of these people to think behind their own small minds incredibly funny.
What gets me about the Christian stance on Paganism is that it's portrayed to be some evil devil worshipping cult, when Pagans actually celebrate the earth and nature. Which has parallells with Christian teachings. But go figure.
-
Parallels? Heck from what I gather - Christianity picked a fair selection of pagan customs and incorporated it into the Christian faith in an attempt to make it more endearing to pagans of the time.
I might be wrong of course.
Suffice to say, the vast majority think that paganism and witchcraft are like anti-christianity, killing small cats and worshipping satan. A pity they don't know the truth.
-
ahh, but do pagans believe in monotheism?(the worship of a single god) as such...
-
I think there's a variation there - though I tend to get paganism and wicca mixed up (heh, haven't read up on it for a couple of months now). I do remember something about the goddess as maiden, mother and crone though. There's also a ram-headed god of some sort, which is frequently mistaken for satan.
You'd do better to find a site of some kind about it though, I would but am a little busy just now. Oh, Top Gun - sorry for the thread hijacking :)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
ahh, but do pagans believe in monotheism?(the worship of a single god) as such...
They worship the Earth and nature, not a particular being or entity, though the sun and moon are both seen as high figures. It's not so much a religion, more of a way of life.
-
Dropping bombs on Iraq is fulfilling God's wishes. Alienating gays, Blacks and Jews is not only OK, its great. But Harry Potter, well theres a real bastard. He's dangerous. He'll kill ya five times before ya hit the ground.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
It's true, you know. He turned me into a newt!
Well, anyway. Satan is actually apocryphal last I read the Bible (or, at least, his being evil is- this doesn't apply to Catholicism or, probably, Mormonism, by the way), a pagan or Roman custom adopted towards the tail end of the Roman Empire, but then you didn't hear that from me- I already have enough problems with torch-wielding idiot villagers, and I'm running out of boiling water to dump on them.
-
That just about sums up the position of the good ol' Christian right.
Check out the rest of that site as well (world net daily). I especially like This book (http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1052), his uniquely florid writing style and piercing wit, something this genre particularly is renowned for, characterizes all his literature. The crowning moment comes when he says Ask most left-wingers and they'll suggest that fascism is on the extreme right -- 180 degrees from communism. Unh-uh. I've got news for you, friends. Fascism and communism are ideological kissin' cousins.
Such simple yet completely logical deductions can be found cover to cover in this book. He backs up every claim with reliable evidence and leaves nothing to be assumed upon his authority (as a political genius and philosopher of unparalleled intellect).
His next book go on to explain gow he can both campaign to impose christianity on every citizen and yet remain completely loyal to the US constitution which promotes religious and freedom of speech and was actually written by god and Ronald Ragen, how the liberal media is to blame for Hilter, Stalin, Nelson Mandella and Castro, how Pol Pot was a fierce opponent of homeschooling and removed the ten commandments from all Cambodian classrooms and how Evolution, Godel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, biro pens and french fries are all part of a secret conspiracy by the illuminati to stop american childeren from saying their prayers at night.
One would think that the place he wishes to 'take america back' to, is the Stone Age but then that's what the liberal, jewish, communist, nazi, statist media want you to think and you know better than to listen to them.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It's true, you know. He turned me into a newt!
Well, anyway. Satan is actually apocryphal last I read the Bible (or, at least, his being evil is- this doesn't apply to Catholicism or, probably, Mormonism, by the way), a pagan or Roman custom adopted towards the tail end of the Roman Empire, but then you didn't hear that from me- I already have enough problems with torch-wielding idiot villagers, and I'm running out of boiling water to dump on them.
Ahh, yes you're from the south. Care to share some anecdotes?
-
Matrisciana, author and occult researcher, answer these questions and show Rowling's presentation of the following elements of Witchcraft: Mother Goddess, evolution, reincarnation, communing with the dead and spirit world, seasonal nature celebrations, sorcery, divination, spells, curses, meditation, occult symbology, black magic, demon possession, "dark" aspects of Witchcraft, and more.
Can't stand those god damned satan worshippin' evolutionist bastards.
-
Good (http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=271&RELATED_ITEM_ID=272) 'ol (http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=299&RELATED_ITEM_ID=272) American (http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=71) values (http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=373)
I especially like the last one
-
The plague of all God-fearing people- South Africans wielding assault rifles!:lol:
-
Can anyone explain to me the appeal of a 'God-fearing' religion? Aside from avoiding divine wrath, of course.
-
Well, I just want to state I fully endorse the burning of such books. Not for the same reasons, though.
-
[color=66ff00]Thank God for harry potter. (pun intended) :rolleyes:
BTW did any of you guys actually enjoy those books? I found them to be entertaining in a 'I should be reading something better' kind of way. The movies were better, at least I could get it over and done with in two hours.
[/color]
-
I never read any of these things but from what I have heard I really can't understand why so many people find them so appealing. They seem to some kind of magical fantasy stories (which never appealed to me at all) but why this much popularity?
I remember there were even some Potter lego sets a while ago. They looked pretty decent when looked at as sets only, but the theme seemed really weird. :wtf:
-
I've read the first two and they are actually pretty good. I think the reason why they are so popular is that although they are kids books they aren't condesending so adults can enjoy them too.
-
I read the first three one time. She's a good writer. Not worth all the hoopla, but not bad.
By the way, you'll notice I am a Christian.
-
Never bothered to read them or watch the movies all the way through. I prefer adult books :p
-
So you won't be reading The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings then? I pity you for your lack of taste :p
-
:rolleyes: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Um, sorry to point this out, but LOTR i,ve read LOTR.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
:rolleyes: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Um, sorry to point this out, but LOTR isn't a kids book. I,ve read the trilogy so :ha:
You and half of this board :ha:
The Fellowship is a childrens book. At least at the start. By the time it gets to the RotK it has gotten more dark but the writing in the first book isn't very different from The Hobbit (And don't go telling me that isn't a childrens book!) The whole bit with Tom Bombadil would be at all out of place in the earlier book.
Besides those are just a couple of examples. Animal Farm is still probably one of the finest books about the dangers of totalitarian state. Don't let the fact that there are talking pigs in it make you think otherwise. :p
-
I like Animal Farm, its a good book and one i had to do for exam. But Harry Potter to me, isnt interesting so :ha:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I like Animal Farm, its a good book and one i had to do for exam. But Harry Potter to me, isnt interesting so :ha:
That's your choice but the point is you do like some childrens books despite what you claimed earlier :ha:
Harry Potter is in the same sort of area (though nowhere near as good as the others I mentioned) in that it's a kids book that can be read and enjoyed by adults.
-
Nope, Harry Potter is one of those annoying types of kids books so :ha:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Nope, Harry Potter is one of those annoying types of kids books so :ha:
I really don't know why you think you can win this discussion based on the fact you don't like the book :confused:
If you don't like the book fine. That's your choice but when I say that it is the kind of book that adults can read that's not an opinion that's a fact (based on the simple fact that lots of adults buy the books and read them)
If you don't want to read the book that's your choice. If you don't like that type of book that's your right but don't try to argue that its just a kids book cause book sales figures obviously prove you wrong.
-
As a bit of an interesting point, Lucifer is apocryphal, Satan in the Old Testament basically plays Devil's Advocate (no pun intended), and the entire Christian concept of the Devil comes from Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is also most likely the source of angels.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
As a bit of an interesting point, Lucifer is apocryphal, Satan in the Old Testament basically plays Devil's Advocate (no pun intended), and the entire Christian concept of the Devil comes from Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is also most likely the source of angels.
Mm, not quite. Actually, both angels and Satan in particular are very explicitly present in the book of Job, for example, which is generally considered to have been written during the times of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, prior to the Babylonian exile during which time any Hebrew exposure to Zoroastrianism would have occured. Besides which, angels show up all over the place in the Pentateuch (first 5 books) and Joshua and Judges, all of which either predate or were written in the time of the early kingdom, several hundred years before the exile.
It can, however, be plausibly argued that exposure to Zoroastrianism did cause the Israelites to refine and develop their angelology.
-
But in Job Satan is still apparently working for God, he hasn't gone independent yet. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention him as the center of all evil.
-
Christian theology doesn't say he is the centre of all evil now. (Or at least, real Christian theology doesn't. Popular "theology" might, but that is also the same sort of popular theology that thinks the Bible teaches that when we die we all go to either heaven or hell.) It says that he was an archangel who chose evil and led a rebellion, and likes tempting and hurting people. But people tempt each other and themselves quite easily without him. There is a huge difference between being a powerful being who chose evil and the centre of all evil.
Oh, and nothing in the text indicates that he is "working for" God. It says he stood before God along with all the other angelic beings, not that he was working for him.
-
Do you think the Israelites would have avoided contact with the religions of rest of the fertile crescent? I highly doubt they could.
Anyway, the first real point where there was considered to be a devil as the source of all evil is in the period between the founding of the kingdom of Israel and the beginning of Christianity.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Do you think the Israelites would have avoided contact with the religions of rest of the fertile crescent? I highly doubt they could.
Avoided contact? No. But Egyptian religion was in a much better position to affect Hebrew religion than Persian prior to the exile, and did so. Before one can legitimately claim cross-pollination from Persia prior to the exile, one needs to build a stronger case with more corroborating evidence. Present it to me, and I may change my mind, but I've never seen it yet.
Anyway, the first real point where there was considered to be a devil as the source of all evil is in the period between the founding of the kingdom of Israel and the beginning of Christianity.
See above post. Neither Hebrew nor Christian religion is dualistic like Zoroastrianism (or at least, the historically dominant forms of Zoroastrianism). There is no Great Evil Being in opposition to God. Satan was just an especially powerful angel who went bad. That's all.
-
Heck, you're probably right, considering I got most of my stuff that I'm saying off a History Channel show :p
-
:) I am studying theology right now (in fact, I am procrastinating on a 2500 word review of a book about Proverbs at this very moment), so this is up my alley, I'm afraid.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
:) I am studying theology right now (in fact, I am procrastinating on a 2500 word review of a book about Proverbs at this very moment), so this is up my alley, I'm afraid.
Oooh! I have a love/hate relationship with Prov. 27:5. :D
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Avoided contact? No. But Egyptian religion was in a much better position to affect Hebrew religion than Persian prior to the exile, and did so. Before one can legitimately claim cross-pollination from Persia prior to the exile, one needs to build a stronger case with more corroborating evidence. Present it to me, and I may change my mind, but I've never seen it yet.
Only if you go from the assumption that all israelites were in Egypt.
We know from Egyptian sources (wall-paintings mainly) that there were semites in Egypt. But Semites don't equal israelites.
IIRC, archaeologically there doesn't seem to be much (if any at all) difference between the Canaanites and the Israelites leading to the possible conclusion that the canaanites and the israelites are one and the same.
Remember, you can't just take the Old Testament at face value for historic truths. Although it does contain reports of historical events that did happen (by account of finding archaeological evidence or independent sources), the people who wrote the OT did explain these things from a religious perspective.
Then there's also the fact that
in the Ancient Near East the migrations in the Ancient Near East are a near constant. There was so much migration (forced or voluntary) that by 1000BC the original people had vanished (they went up in the rest of the population). As such we can assume that the 'israelites' themselves were composed out of more than one people/tribe, each of which might have had a somewhat different history/myths/legends (this seems to be backed up by the israelites mentioning the 12 tribes). As a result I wouldn't be all that surprised that when the OT was written down that the authors drew upon the multiple mythologies available in their people (as well as from other peoples).
Then we also have to take into account that, iirc, a big part of the OT was written during the Babylonian Exile, which ended when Cyrus the Great gave the Jews the right to return home. From that time on we have about 200-300 years of Persian Dominion over the Near East.
Let's also take into account that the Levant (Israel, Lebanon) has been a crossroads since time immemorial. Everyone came there, everyone fought there, everyone traded there. There's no better place in the earliest times to be subjected to multiple worldviews as the Levant.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is this: it's uncertain that all israelites were in egypt, it's more certain that the israelites were a hodgepodge of different peoples/tribes that coalesced into one (just like about everyone else in the Ancient Near East). It's also certain that the israelites lived in the most travelled area of the Ancient World and would have been subject to most cultures very soon and for a very long time.
of course this has nothing to do with Potter... but who cares :p
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Only if you go from the assumption that all israelites were in Egypt. ...
:wtf: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about periods of time after that, specifically during the early kingdom. When I say Egypt was in a much better position to influence Israelite religion and culture, I am refering to it geographical proximity, not the time spent there centuries before that.
Remember, you can't just take the Old Testament at face value for historic truths. Although it does contain reports of historical events that did happen (by account of finding archaeological evidence or independent sources), the people who wrote the OT did explain these things from a religious perspective.
And how does being written from a religious perspective entail that an ancient document is any more or less historically reliable? :wtf:
Might I also point out that pretty much every surviving ancient historical document is written from a religious perspective, so if you are going to distrust anything with religious content, you have nothing left from anyone. :):rolleyes::)
Then there's also the fact that
in the Ancient Near East the migrations in the Ancient Near East are a near constant. There was so much migration (forced or voluntary) that by 1000BC the original people had vanished (they went up in the rest of the population). As such we can assume that the 'israelites' themselves were composed out of more than one people/tribe, each of which might have had a somewhat different history/myths/legends (this seems to be backed up by the israelites mentioning the 12 tribes). As a result I wouldn't be all that surprised that when the OT was written down that the authors drew upon the multiple mythologies available in their people (as well as from other peoples).
This sounds plausible, and it is certainly true that the area was a busy one for travel, but there are some serious flaws in your theory as well. First of all, it can only begin by throwing away a great amount of Israelite and non-Israelite evidence to the contrary, which does not do well for any historical theory. Secondly, it neglects to note that family, tribal, and ethnic grouping was extremely important in the ANE, and people did not forget or surrender their heritage easily. People did not just invent new social groupings out of the air. Have you ever read the huge geneologies and census data recorded in the OT? People in the ANE were very concerned with maintaining their identity, and were keenly aware that "We are us, and not them!" Finally, the overwhelming theological unity in the OT disbars the idea that it is a hodgepodge of different mythologies. Thus, it appears from the evidence that while individuals were constantly being absorbed into different ANE cultures, including Israel, entire people groups were not so mixed, and tended to retain their identities.
Besides which, why are we bringing this up?
Then we also have to take into account that, iirc, a big part of the OT was written during the Babylonian Exile, which ended when Cyrus the Great gave the Jews the right to return home. From that time on we have about 200-300 years of Persian Dominion over the Near East.
Yes, significant amounts of it were written during and after, and significant amounts before. Job was written beforehand, like Proverbs and perhaps Ecclesiastes (it is hard to say with Eccl.). Your point is what exactly? :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Oooh! I have a love/hate relationship with Prov. 27:5. :D
Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh. Agreed. :D