Topic: What is the "mark of the beast"? | |
---|---|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Thu 10/02/08 02:38 PM
|
|
I studied this subject for four years. The way I did my study was much like an investigator would solve a crime. I started at the end of the book of Revelation, and worked my way back to the Begining of Genisis. My conclusion was that the "mark of the beast" is lying or any form of deceit! So therefor all art, fiction writings, or songs are satanic?There is no inherent "intent to deceive" involved with art, fictional wrinting, or songs. Peace Ummm... that's not what the dictionary says. So all you're saying there is that you define "lying" differently than the dictionary does. As far as whose definition is more valid? Well ..... I would have to say the dictionary definition is, since there was no contrary definition specified in the original post and the dictionary is generally considered the stable reference for word definitions when no definition is specified. Saying a bear talks is a false statement therefor it is a lie. Not if it's a magical bear.
Lying is presenting a false statement period.whether or not you intend to deceive, humor, or manipulate. Popular agreement does not make it right.... in this crazy world we live in societal agreement sets a precedent... however, it STILL doesn't make it correct. What am I blathering on about? Well, dictionaries, bibles, all sorts of stuff BECAME TRUTH, because popular agreement liked it. |
|
|
|
Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.
Karl Marx |
|
|
|
lily said:
Lying is presenting a false statement period.whether or not you intend to deceive, humor, or manipulate. tribo replies: does this hold true if you don't know what your saying is a lie? If your color blind and someone tells you that red and yellow make green and they have no way to judge the truth or falsity of the statement made - is that, in your opinion, a lie? Can you be absolutely sure that the comment you make above is the truth without the intent of others who say differentlly? Is there only room for your truth as compared to mine or others? what is truth? |
|
|
|
lily said: Lying is presenting a false statement period.whether or not you intend to deceive, humor, or manipulate. tribo replies: does this hold true if you don't know what your saying is a lie? If your color blind and someone tells you that red and yellow make green and they have no way to judge the truth or falsity of the statement made - is that, in your opinion, a lie? Can you be absolutely sure that the comment you make above is the truth without the intent of others who say differentlly? Is there only room for your truth as compared to mine or others? what is truth? I'm the law.... I see your point to an extent. Any statement that is not true is by definition a lie. If someone told you something was blue and you were colorblind and didn't see that it was red and then you told someone that it was blue it is a lie. You're intent was not to lie but what you did was convey a lie that was told to you, that doesn't make it true. Did it all of a sudden become blue or is it still red? It is red, saying it's blue doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 10/02/08 04:15 PM
|
|
I studied this subject for four years. The way I did my study was much like an investigator would solve a crime. I started at the end of the book of Revelation, and worked my way back to the Begining of Genisis. My conclusion was that the "mark of the beast" is lying or any form of deceit! So therefor all art, fiction writings, or songs are satanic?There is no inherent "intent to deceive" involved with art, fictional wrinting, or songs. Peace Ummm... that's not what the dictionary says. So all you're saying there is that you define "lying" differently than the dictionary does. As far as whose definition is more valid? Well ..... I would have to say the dictionary definition is, since there was no contrary definition specified in the original post and the dictionary is generally considered the stable reference for word definitions when no definition is specified. Saying a bear talks is a false statement therefor it is a lie. Not if it's a magical bear. What am I blathering on about? Well, dictionaries, bibles, all sorts of stuff BECAME TRUTH, because popular agreement liked it. Here is the key: The purpose of a dictionary is not to tell you "what it means". It is to tell you "how it has been used." There is a HUGE difference between the two. The first one is similar to the forced and unchangeable beliefs of a dogma. The second one is more akin to the observations of scientific research. The reason to use a dictionary is to aid in communication. The dialog in question is a case in point. When I use the term "lie", the meaning I intend is the one from the dictionary. When I read the word "lie", without a given definition, I have no choice to but to assume that the person using it is also using the same definition. (What reason would there be to assume otherwise?) But if they are not, then we have an instant misunderstanding, and thus the communication suffers. We cannot come to an agreement - not because we necessarily have different viewpoints, but because we're not talking about the same thing! I'm not insisting on any particular definition. I'm just saying that there must be some agreement as to the meanings of the words being used, or there can be no communication. So, without any definition being specified in the argument itself, what other reasonable way is there to obtain an agreed upon definition than from a dictionary? You said Popular agreement does not make it right Well, when we’re talking about the meanings of words, what does make it right? Of course everyone could have their own definition and no one need have the same definition as anyone else. But how “right” is that if no one can communicate with anyone else?
Bottom line is this: without agreed upon definitions, there can be nothing but misunderstanding – and the posts above are the perfect demonstration of that. |
|
|
|
I would find it helpful to ask what the OP's definition of "lie" is exactly because right now it appears two or three people are arguing with his assertion that the "mark of the beast" is deception in some capacity. So I guess until he logs in and fully explains this position, eh, Im tuning out. I was under the impression the "mark of the beast" was a number or something or other and not open to debate. Is it not explained anywhere in the bible? Oh, wait a minute, silly me, nothing is clear in the scripture and its all up for grabs as far as its explicit meaning.
|
|
|
|
I studied this subject for four years. The way I did my study was much like an investigator would solve a crime. I started at the end of the book of Revelation, and worked my way back to the Begining of Genisis. My conclusion was that the "mark of the beast" is lying or any form of deceit! So therefor all art, fiction writings, or songs are satanic? Why and where would you get this...... well if you are capable of thinking beyond a flat plain of thought, when you write a story lets say about a bear named BooBoo and a cat named Sally and they talk and play... That is not reality bears and cats are not friends the bear would eat the cat in a heartbeat, therefore the story is not reality which is a lie. Therefore the story is a lie, hence his statement that all lies and deception are satanic. If A then B = C.... This disproved his therory of the "mark" of satan. Actually this is not true...there are many documented cases of bears and cats loving each other..... Here is one http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/AnimalPhotos/Animals_51-60/DutchBearCat.htm And I think your missing the whole point people about that which is of satan. For example did the Son of Sam who killed all those people do it because he was led by satan......well according to him yes...but in reality no. But just for argument sake let's say God created all and all was good...then satan who was in actuality God's right hand angel said "God I am better then you" and he and the other angels that thought this were banned....now already they are bad for thinking that they were better then God...because no one is better then God. So God's banishes them to earth for 1,000 years...now if satan was already bad do you think he is going to come to earth and be a good satan...I think not....and because he is the epitimy of bad and can influence people as such.....well what do you think that means? For me everything ugly and mean and nasty on this planet is the direct or indirect work of satan.....jmo |
|
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. ' Which of course is not true...because Jesus had no sin.....and if he had sex with Mary out of wedlock that would be sin.....he lived on earth for 33 years and was sinless....so that would an impossible senerio. Remember Christ died sinless but took on the world's sin. |
|
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The "job" of art in any form is to transfer you to another time or place, the only way to do that is to take you there with believeable lies. If it doesn't take you to that time or place, the artist didn't do his/her job. I don't agree with this at all......I look at a sculpture or a painting and I see the beauty of of it.....I am not transformed into or someplace else because of it.....Now writings this would be the case.....but satanic it depends on the writings for example.....imo and just for me...I would never read the Harry Potter series....not this isn't because it's a fiction but more what the fiction is about...which is witchcraft which I do just for me believe is of satan. |
|
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. ' Which of course is not true...because Jesus had no sin.....and if he had sex with Mary out of wedlock that would be sin.....he lived on earth for 33 years and was sinless....so that would an impossible senerio. Remember Christ died sinless but took on the world's sin. So depicting Jesus Christ as a human, kind, peaceful man in love with a woman and sharing physical intimacy with her would be a "sin" in your opinion? See, that kind of reasoning disturbs me. He was a Jewish man and probably had children as that would have been the cultural norm. He was a human! Mary Magdalene is a good historical guess as to whom he might have been involved with on that level if you believe in any of this. |
|
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The "job" of art in any form is to transfer you to another time or place, the only way to do that is to take you there with believeable lies. If it doesn't take you to that time or place, the artist didn't do his/her job. I don't agree with this at all......I look at a sculpture or a painting and I see the beauty of of it.....I am not transformed into or someplace else because of it.....Now writings this would be the case.....but satanic it depends on the writings for example.....imo and just for me...I would never read the Harry Potter series....not this isn't because it's a fiction but more what the fiction is about...which is witchcraft which I do just for me believe is of satan. Witchcraft does not involve the conceptualization of a "devil" or "Satan" feral. We have been over this before. If your religion or belief system has a personified representation of pure evil held within it, then fine, but there is no reason for you to project that fear onto other spirituality where it is not to be found. |
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Thu 10/02/08 04:56 PM
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. ' Which of course is not true...because Jesus had no sin.....and if he had sex with Mary out of wedlock that would be sin.....he lived on earth for 33 years and was sinless....so that would an impossible senerio. Well disturb you or not that just is what is.....Jesus was sinless......I am not saying this because of an agenda for me....it is what it is.....Jesus died a virgin and died sinless. Mary Magdalene if anything was a disciple of Jesus....and also someone who supported Jesus and his disciples...who do you think paid for their lodging, food, clothes....And against what you may believe or not believe this is just what is. And you guessing he had sex with Mary just doesn't cut it...sorry Again you can't re-write what is for your own purposes. It would be like me saying that Hitler didn't kill all the jews and really had multiple wives who were jewish......just wouldn't couldn't shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The "job" of art in any form is to transfer you to another time or place, the only way to do that is to take you there with believeable lies. If it doesn't take you to that time or place, the artist didn't do his/her job. I don't agree with this at all......I look at a sculpture or a painting and I see the beauty of of it.....I am not transformed into or someplace else because of it.....Now writings this would be the case.....but satanic it depends on the writings for example.....imo and just for me...I would never read the Harry Potter series....not this isn't because it's a fiction but more what the fiction is about...which is witchcraft which I do just for me believe is of satan. Witchcraft does not involve the conceptualization of a "devil" or "Satan" feral. We have been over this before. If your religion or belief system has a personified representation of pure evil held within it, then fine, but there is no reason for you to project that fear onto other spirituality where it is not to be found. I know we have...but again I did say imo.....I understand that some witches do not believe in satan...and that was not my point....anyone delving into that kind of thing that is not of God is of satan in my eyes.... |
|
|
|
Edited by
eileena9
on
Thu 10/02/08 04:58 PM
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. ' Which of course is not true...because Jesus had no sin.....and if he had sex with Mary out of wedlock that would be sin.....he lived on earth for 33 years and was sinless....so that would an impossible senerio. Remember Christ died sinless but took on the world's sin. So depicting Jesus Christ as a human, kind, peaceful man in love with a woman and sharing physical intimacy with her would be a "sin" in your opinion? See, that kind of reasoning disturbs me. He was a Jewish man and probably had children as that would have been the cultural norm. He was a human! Mary Magdalene is a good historical guess as to whom he might have been involved with on that level if you believe in any of this. Okay, I usually don't play down here in this forum, although I do read it sometimes..... Just a note about the movie, Last Temptation of Christ...... The scenes with Jesus and Mary being married and having children were, in fact, the final temptation of Satan. Offering Jesus a glimpse into what His life would be like if Jesus walked away from God and didn't die for our sins, offering a life just like those of His friends and other Jews. A normal human life as a husband and father. It was not saying that He was married, (so he would still be without sin because of the marriage,) but if He was......He still died for us. (My belief, anyway) |
|
|
|
anyone delving into that kind of thing that is not of God is of satan in my eyes.... good thing you wear glasses then.... |
|
|
|
Well tribo I was in fact supporting Lily's position. I can see her point. I used the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. This was a fictitious film about the life and times of Jesus Christ yet when it first premiered and ran in the theaters, fundamentalist Christians turned out in droves to protest it being shown. Why? Because it depicted an intimate sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The "job" of art in any form is to transfer you to another time or place, the only way to do that is to take you there with believeable lies. If it doesn't take you to that time or place, the artist didn't do his/her job. I don't agree with this at all......I look at a sculpture or a painting and I see the beauty of of it.....I am not transformed into or someplace else because of it.....Now writings this would be the case.....but satanic it depends on the writings for example.....imo and just for me...I would never read the Harry Potter series....not this isn't because it's a fiction but more what the fiction is about...which is witchcraft which I do just for me believe is of satan. Witchcraft does not involve the conceptualization of a "devil" or "Satan" feral. We have been over this before. If your religion or belief system has a personified representation of pure evil held within it, then fine, but there is no reason for you to project that fear onto other spirituality where it is not to be found. I know we have...but again I did say imo.....I understand that some witches do not believe in satan...and that was not my point....anyone delving into that kind of thing that is not of God is of satan in my eyes.... Burn them all at the stake. Isn't that what good Christians used to do to witches? |
|
|
|
Yeah right, "some" Witches do not worship Satan. Can you hear yourself? You think anyone who is not a practicing Christian is involved with Satan on some level. Thats just paranoia. Its also inaccurate but there is no point in dragging this up again. I also believe that it is very likely Jesus had descendants. There is nothing to dispute that fact that I am aware of. Saying he was "without sin" could mean anything. It seems to me it would have been a sin for him not to participate in a loving relationship with Mary before his demise.
|
|
|
|
1. Deuteronomy 18:10
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, Deuteronomy 18:9-11 (in Context) Deuteronomy 18 (Whole Chapter) 2. 2 Kings 9:22 When Joram saw Jehu he asked, "Have you come in peace, Jehu?" "How can there be peace," Jehu replied, "as long as all the idolatry and witchcraft of your mother Jezebel abound?" 2 Kings 9:21-23 (in Context) 2 Kings 9 (Whole Chapter) 3. 2 Chronicles 33:6 He sacrificed his sons in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced sorcery, divination and witchcraft, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger. 2 Chronicles 33:5-7 (in Context) 2 Chronicles 33 (Whole Chapter) 4. Micah 5:12 I will destroy your witchcraft and you will no longer cast spells. Micah 5:11-13 (in Context) Micah 5 (Whole Chapter) 5. Nahum 3:4 all because of the wanton lust of a harlot, alluring, the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft. Nahum 3:3-5 (in Context) Nahum 3 (Whole Chapter) 6. Galatians 5:20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions Galatians 5:19-21 (in Context) Galatians 5 (Whole Chapter) Now notice their is no distinction between good or bad witchcraft....it is witchcraft at all... |
|
|
|
Can't remember witches ever going on crusades.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/02/08 05:23 PM
|
|
Feral,
Yeah but what point are you making here? I can also show you in Deuteronomy where a cause for stoning ( for males or females) was for the alleged practice of Witchcraft or Sorcery. They were pretty much unreasonable about it. God gives Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan "forever". This promise is still used to justify the unending battles over the land in the Middle East to this very day. An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone, he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family.This is done after Lot offers up his daughters to a bunch of angel raping hooligans from town. The entire religion is based on foolish and cruel behavior. |
|
|