Nighthawk

All of them except Alaska. Oregon's my favorite, inronically I was born there, ironic because I don't remember being there the first time, only my second trip years later.

I think you're alright, because I will read some of those books you mentioned, and your other thread gave me some albums to listen to. I'd disagree with 120 Days of Sodom though. He tries way too hard and it comes off funnier than anything else (excpet tedious, some would say, but I don't think so). I still love it, though it's my least favorite of Sade's full lengths. The Blue Yonder, by William Vollman and appearing in The Rainbow Stories is rather... well, it definitely deserves mention here, we'll leave it at that,

Sure, although I've alluded to it somewhat before. Lots of Catholic stuff is unbiblical, and I would say wrong, without affecting salvation, what sets them apart is their requirement for salvation. There's water baptism, which as I attempted to explain to chaos, is not connected with salvation. They also perform it on infants, unbiblically. They also use a sprinkling version when the very word means immersion. That last two are some of those things I disagree with some denominations on but doesn't affect my opinion of their salvational status, but while I was on the subject, I figured I'd throw a mention out. Regardless of your stance on Mary and the saints, which I sidestep because this point is more clear using the following example, they practice idolatry with the eucharist. And we all know what the Bible says about idolatry. You know... it's against it. Now this is a tricky issue because some denominations, such as Lutherans, believe in transubstantiation, which I would vehemently disagree with, but I would still think of them as Christians. What sets Catholicism apart is that you are required to worship the eucharist as Christ himself, or you will be anathema. I find that to be crossing a line. Beyond the myriad questionable doctrine, this salvational requirement of idol worship is enough to set them apart. It's also something which many Catholics don't do. But by the church's stated doctrine's, a good and true Catholic and a good and true Christian, I find to be mutually exclusive. There are other salvational sacraments also. As well as the concept of a pope who can speak ex cathedra, totally undermining the authority of God. The papal office has quite the sordid history, anyway. I could even present a somewhat convincing argument that Revelation's Antichrist would be a pope. But this is all pure conjecture. Consider, suppose a force out to bring down Christ's church, call it the devil or whatever, tries to set up a false religion. The ideal would be almost exactly like the true religion, but change just enough to keep you away. Also, I'd be the first to admit I'm a very arrogant individual, but I don't think that's what this is at all. Opinion is not something magical which is outside the realm of right and wrong. That's what the tolerance police would like it to be, but everyone is not ok to do whatever they like so long as they don't hurt anyone. The real world doesn't work like that and never has. Now, we're perfectly within our rights, are even commanded, biblically, to examine those claiming the name of Christ, to see whether they be true followers of him. The idea of tolerating a false teaching because it's "your opinion" is unbiblical to an extreme degree. The entire book of 1 John is about this. It's full of tests to see whether we, ourselves, and others, are truly in fellowship with Christ. Chapter 2 verse 4: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." That's a pretty harsh judgement, but it's the judgement God calls us to make. There's also verses that tell you to let it go when it's a disputable issue, but some things just aren't. One of the strongest themes of the New Testament is to beware of false Christs, and false teachers, and the only way we can do that is to examine them against what the Bible says.

It's Tricky Daddy and Lil' Jon. "Let's Go." Taking crunk to new levels of ridiculousness, and that's all right with me. Twista's on there too. That's seriously my favorite song to come out in a few years and is probably in my top ten overall.

If you're going to underline a word, at least spell it right.

This is pretty far from how I am. I have all sorts of problems with all sorts of branches of Christianity, but I let them go because it doesn't change the big picture, and they're still Christians even if we don't agree on everything. I don't have a problem, however, recognizing when the big picture is changed and pointing it out. And Catholics fall here.

Ok, this is going to be the end of Agent's popularity unless he comes up with something better than Cookie and Buster.

Beastie Boys were not a punk band. If they were a band, what instruments did they play? They were punk rappers, but they were definitely rappers.

The best in terms of taking sampling to it's limit is Public Enemy's He Got Game. Just a couple notes, but they worked it right. It put Diddy's shamelessness to shame. Also 2Pac's Changes. Worst was probably I'll Be Missing You, cause it was lazy, which is worse when you're trying to say something about a dead guy. Also, that thing where kids hear the original song and think they ripped off the sampler, that happens the most with this song, in my experience.

Parker's good, Stone's a hanger on.

Catholics change the definition of what's required for salvation, which is what makes them not christians. They have numerous sacraments which they add on to God's grace, rendering it a work based salvation, and therefore not true salvation at all. Yes, some Catholics are Christians, but they're not good Catholics.

Terror Firmer is essential, but watch a lot of their other stuff first. It's very referential.

Not really. Just him. And Tim Robbins. And Alec Baldwin.

Quick, what evolution did you see today? Answer or everything you say is a fairy tale. I really don't care, in fact I wish you well. Cause I'll be laughing my head off when you're burning in hell. Not if they were kids, no. Saying no crime deserves eternal torture is merely ignorance of the immensity of God. Correct. You're really having a hard time interpretting that. Then I don't have anything to worry about. Unless you, you know, reject it. I could show that Hell will be worse for you than most, but you probably don't want to hear it. This ranks up there with the stupidest things I've ever heard. So someone giving you a present isn't a "free" gift because it requires the energy to reach out your hands and take it. Why are you so slow? We do not have the authority to decide who is deserving of pain and suffering, but God does. It is wrong to kill a man, but a judge can sentence someone to death because they have that authority. It is an opinion that he's cruel, because in order for it not to be, you have to say that you have the authority to say that rejecting God is not worthy of punishment, and if it was, it is for you to decide what level of punishment is earned. I can take the deliberately designed pain and torture and say it isn't cruel because I understand what cruel is. Earlier in this thread you yourself said that torture can be good in some cases, and now you attempt to define cruelty as the infliction of pain and suffering regardless of the circumstance or the parties involved. That would be bending the facts to fit your opinion. Repeating over and over again that things don't work a certain way just because you want them to, and then abusing that thought process again and again in your own arguments is what prompts me to call you stupid.

Book of Thugs, Chapter AK, Verse 47

Actually yes, in same sense that JFK's grave has an eternal flame. And now that you mention it, if the flames of Hell destroyed both body and soul, it wouldn't really be eternal, would it? What they thought they wanted was not all it was cracked up to be. I'm saying that when God is absent, there can only be pain and sorrow, it's a condition of his absence. Happiness comes from the presence of God. Lazarus and Abraham were together, and could be seen by the rich man. It was the same place, although clearly different sections of this place (Hades, for the record, is the word used in this instance). The point of the parable is that we should help the poor, by the way. And when they were dead, Abraham told him he had his chance to do right while he was alive, but it was too late. So the point is about the poor and about seizing the moment to do right because it will run out eventually. Well, one of your major points is that God is evil for tormenting people (wrong, for one), and I'm saying it's not even necesarily true. Maybe God just leaves them alone and does nothing to them, and they're tormented simply by being separated from him.

I wanted you to tell me what you think baptism is, because you probably don't know. It means immersion, and the salvational baptism is by the Holy Spirit (self explanitory) and by fire, symbolizing a purification. The water baptism most think of is a symbol of rebirth and is one of two rites Jesus placed on his followers, the other being communion. It's purpose is a public announcement of conversion and symbol of the spiritual immersion of salvation, not the conversion itself. It's a matter of obedience, and should actually be the first act of obedience. But it's not required for salvation, that would place the credit for salvation on an act, the falsity of which is spread all through the Bible. Keep in mind that people were being baptized before Jesus died, and in fact Jesus himself was baptized, and he certainly didn't need salvation. Because he didn't say "he won't come back", and saying "I will go to him" makes little sense outside of the afterlife. He saw him while he was alive, there's no need to point out the significance of going to a dead body. If he had said "I will go to him" alone, you might have a point, but the "he will not come to me" indicates a less than typical implication. It was a baby, he couldn't "come to him" anyway. It's a stretch to interpret "come to me" as coming back from the dead, especially when you try to use "go to him" in the same breath to mean physically viewing the body. Also, many times in the Old Testament, tending to the dead body is referenced, but never with similar terminology, and the phrases for such things do tend to be used commonly. Also, David had other sons die as adults, and he grieved for them immensely after they were dead. No, it's not an airtight belief, but it's believable. Prove it wrong. You won't because you can't. Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible. It's a real city. Therefore, God is above the level of hobbits. Consider yourself proven wrong.

Ok, but what does that mean?

Ah, but that validates carrying interpretations beyond a Biblical basis. Moreso interpretations of the Biblical basis. In any case, that's beside the point. None of that applies to salvation. The point was that the Pharisees would do some ridiculous thing like memorize the entire old testament and then, by the letter of the law, never sin, whereas Jesus pointed out that they were missing the point. Using what, the Bible they put together for you? The Catholic church then was vastly different than it is today. And they weren't so much putting it together as affirming what was already accepted. I mentioned that a while back. In any case, the Bible they picked out does invalidate them anyway. Scripture is actually self-validating, meaning it internally references itself enough so as to create a clear enough picture of the intended word.

Marilyn Manson had two ribs removed so he could suck his own dick. He's been in a couple movies, so that counts.

Let's ask everyone else whose argumentation they respect more. The point was that before is the same as after when you're outside time. Jingus Brian and Rudo may disagree with this concept, but they understand it. Your question about what happens 10 minutes before you pick the cereal shows that you still don't. Ok, try this analogy. Suppose someone said they'd pay you a million dollars to murder your grandmother. You would, I hope, not be able to do that, even though I'm sure you'd like a million dollars. So, you would say that you can't murder your grandmother, but we all know that you're physically capable of pulling the trigger of a gun. You still can't do it because it's not in your nature to do. For another thing, making 2 + 2 5 is an abstract concept. To think outside the box, God could take the word five and make it mean IIII this many. Then he has made 2 + 2 5. It's all relative to perception. For another, the verse doesn't even have to be read as speaking about God. It says with God, so you could say it's talking about with God's help, a Christian can do anything. And people say words like anything, impossible, and so forth all the time without meaning them literally. The Bible being perfect does not make it magic, it still speaks in the same way people do, and requires interpretation. The very first definition on the page you linked contradicts this. If you're trying to argue a point, I'd hope you at least find a website that doesn't shoot it in the foot... What do you imply I should be told by a voice from Heaven saying in a loud voice "I AM GOD! DO WHAT I SAY!"* resulting in unbelief? God doesn't want to make you believe, if he used his Godly knowledge to do exactly what will result in belief, thereby rendering you unable to not believe, you would be... a robot. And sure, you could be a robot and it there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. Except from your perspective. Your analogy about my kids is flawed in that I, an imperfect human, am far short of God, who, being infinitely deserving of praise, is justified in infinitely judging. God can do the impossible. It depends on whose perspective you say impossible from. In this case it's obviously your own. If you define impossible as "things God can't do" then obviously he can't do the impossible. This is an important development: if the Earth was not created in six days, or the flood didn't really happen, it wouldn't make the Bible untrue. It would mean I interpretted it wrong. Yeah, that's circular and impossible to argue. However, this is why you must accept the Bible at face value or not at all. It can otherwise be made to say just about anything. I think you'd agree. If there were an indication in the Bible that the creation and flood stories (no doubt the sharpest sticking point of the skeptics) were not to be taken literally, fine. Actually there is, and that's another discussion. However, judging the two viewpoints, literal becomes the most apparent choice, in my estimation. There are many stances one could take on the apparent age of the universe. One is that, as I said, it has created maturity. Adam was created as a grown man. Considering the distance of some stars, and how long it would take their light to reach us and so forth, the age of maturity of the universe at large, in relation to Earth, could be 15 billion years. Or some have said that Adam lived in the Garden of Eden for 15 billion years before he sinned. This is fairly flawed, I wouldn't recommend it. Why aren't your homies backin you up? See, the very definition of light you quoted would include the moon, you even mentioned terms like moonlight specifically. If we have the term moonlight, that would be light from the moon, thereby rendering the moon a source (if not the original source) of light. Again, the Bible is not a magicaly worded book that isn't allowed to use figure and common phrase. So you wanted the Bible to invent a new word? Aside from anything else, if that's the only word they had, the Bible is at no fault for using it. We park on driveways and drive on parkways. That's wrong. But that's the words we have. Good. Seeing you from that perspective I'm not so offended by your ignorance, because I could argue from your viewpoint just as well. Your repeated page long dissections of my posts may betray the invalidty of your complaint. It went over your head again. I'm not trying to prove the Bible is true, I'm trying to say that you can't prove it false, and you also can't prove atheism true or false, thereby making them equally valid viewpoints. I take objection to the atheistic stance of "We're the smart ones and you're the dumb ones." As well as, for the record, the religious stance of "We're the good ones and you're the bad ones (but I'll pray for you)" Then he would be writing the Bible for us and not for them. If a supposed divinely inspired book came out today which said that the world was built by aliens and the final scene of Men in Black was true, we'd have nothing to do with it. If that later came to be true, that generation might acknowledge the value of such a book. To us, it would be useless. There is some indication of a spherical Earth, unsolid sky and things of that nature, but they're no more hard evidence than what you've presented against it, so I won't belabor the point. You keep coming up with ridiculous scenarios and placing them on the same level as the Bible. Do you really think there is absolutely no evidence in support of the Bible, that there is nothing in it that can be verified or is of any use at all? Can you honestly say that with a straight face? If you read other Biblical geneaologies, the gaps are very apparent and allow to view the line we're discussing with more clarity, but on second thought, much of the idea is rooted in Hebrew, so I shouldn't have expected you to come up with it on your own. For one thing, the word used for father can mean grandfather or even ancestor. I realize that's convenient, but that's just the way it is. Look it up for yourself. Hebrew just cannot be read the way we read English. The words translated in to English say this: “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of Z.” Someone reading the same passage in Hebrew would see a second possibility: “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of a family line that included or culminated in Z.” Now, in spite of this, there's certainly not some immense span of time glossed over, and in truth I really don't care if the Earth was 6000 years old. Gaps don't prove it to be billions of years old, they just provide a little appropriate breathing room. 6000 years is not something to be held to dogmatically. Isaiah realy has nothing to do with this discussion, I just think it's an interesting book you might have enjoyed. Psalms and Job are books of poetry, even classified in most Bibles as such, and as a result are full of that type of language. Poetic statement can be contained in non poetic books, but the fact that all your examples came from poetic books shows how weak an argument it is. You know another poetic book, Song of Solomon. Read that one and try to say there's no reason it shouldn't be literal besides my not wanting it to be. Psalms and Job are exactly the same way, only covering a much broader course and thus less obvious to the casual observer. Catholics aren't christians. I could argue against the Catholic church better than you. I meant semantics between kill and murder, not righteous. The fact that he told them not to kill and to slaughter people negates the argument. The ten commandments were rules to live your life by, a specific command to kill a person or group of people overrides that, and is fulfilled when the person is dead. Beyond this, God even punished people for not killing when he told them to. And of course in times of war, there's a whole other dynamic. Keep in mind that Israel was a theocracy, God was not only their God, but their king and government as well. Not really, no. I had heard the name Jesus, I'm sure, but it meant less to me than Santa Claus. I think you may underestimate how dechristianized this country has become. My early childhood was 100% absent of any sort of religion. In my teen years I worshipped the devil. Not the kind where you don't really believe in a devil either, I was killing cats in a cemetary. So I knew the skeletal version of Christianity then, but from a far different viewpoint. When I did eventually approach the Bible, it was from a purely intellectual standpoint. You're naive. Not so much in what you said, which I agree with to a point, but in your view of christianity as inescapable cultural programming. Except once you've been told, it doesn't apply anymore. So if Zeus is the real god it's news to me, so I'm safe. But hey, Jesus died for you! Oh, now you're gonna burn. Hey, you like Depeche Mode? I'll get to the rest later... *paraphrase

I don't think that's what he meant by personal. If he did, I wouldn't agree with him either. Come to think of it, it does tend to get misused that way. One of the things I disagree with (one among many) in the modern church is the "personal Jesus" concept. That's a good song though. Anyway, it grew out of a personal savior, someone who didn't die for the whole world in some grandiose way, but for you individually. A personal savior then became something of a... spiritual tamagotchi, if you remember those things. God became homogenized, divided and sold off piece by piece as key rings and bumper stickers. The church is in a terrible state, but that's a whole other discussion. Anyway, the true idea of a personal God is not that he is changed by your view of him, it's that he relates to you on a personal level. There's some truth to the variance of perception, but you can see an analogy with any person. If you and I met for coffee and crumpets, you would come away with an idea of what kind of person I was based on your experience, and it may be a somewhat different idea than someone else who knows me. Of course, this doesn't change who I am. Regarding Matthew 6:5, keep in mind who he was speaking to and about whom. The Pharisees would make a loud show of prayer, without their heart anywhere near the right place (a principle played out in many things they did), their only motivation to show observers how righteous they were. Jesus' point is about motivation, and the heart, as opposed to the letter of the law, a point he made several times. For example, saying that the command was "thous shalt not kill" but that if you were angry you have already committed murder in your heart.

Not only has he not aged, he has't changed his hat.

You're very right, in fact I didn't mention that in case you decided to show up I'd let you have the credit. I've listened to a good chunk of Residents stuff by now, it's still the sickest thing they did. Except Krafty Cheese. Now that's scary. I think I'll go out and get a couple of the albums mentioned here today.

So anyway, first you need to get rid of the concept of too bad for heaven or too good for Hell. Nobody is good. Heaven is not something you attain through good works or any other way, it's a free gift and that's it. So the idea of limbo or purgatory is false in that by extrapolation, they suggest you can earn God's favor which is beyond your capability. Purgatory was mainly a tool for extortion, by the way. The church would sell indulgences for exorbitant sums of money which were supposed to shave years off your purgatorial stay. The idea of losing your salvation, or perhaps never having really had it, as seems to be the case under recent discussion, is another tool of manipulation by the Catholic church, although it's very widespread as well. Lutherans even believe that. It's Biblically unsound, however, even blasphemous because it supposes to undercut the power of God. This is again insinuating an earning of salvation through the so called "purity" of a soul, God's gift will not be taken back on the basis of shortcoming, God's word is better than that. We covered this territory before, but the idea of God tormenting someone being petty and cruel comes from a lack of understanding of who he is. People tend to think of him as basically a man with more power (Mormans even teach it dogmatically) but nothing could be further from the truth. Sovereign's post also demonstrated a common and frankly ridiculous attitude among the skeptical, that is, that God's exitance or position as God is somehow dependant on your agreeing with or ability to make sense of what he says, or by extension, that his existance is predicated on your belief in him. Which is, in essence, having yourself as God. SP or anyone can explicate God's plan, and tell Nanks he's going to Hell because God has revealed himself and his plan to us. The idea that all gods lead to the same end may be appealing in it's tolerance and ease, but as much as you may like to believe it, Jesus said they don't. If the importance lies in your actions, what is good enough? Who are you to judge what's good enough? In fact, God has given you the standard of what's good enough, the Mosaic law. Try to obey it, you can't. Nobody can be good enough, that's why you don't have to be. Salvation is offered for nothing, all you have to do is take it. A better plan than anything you can come up with. Nobody is going to Hell for worshipping graven images or for not buying into that Catholic bullshit. We're going to Hell because we're sinners. This doesn't mean we committed sin, it defines who we are. If we want to not go, all we must do is accept God's way out, it has nothing to do with doctrinal differences. Those can be argued later (and believe me, I could tear them apart), but using a denominational rift to essentially say "We all know nothing! As long as you feel good with how you're doing, you're fine." is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. God is personal, by the way. It makes no sense for God to hide and render himself unknowable. That's why he wrote a book.