Armageddon

[Gear]

for those who dont know Armageddon is a war of every one fighting every one in a world war that will be cataclysmic. i am watching history chanals Armageddon week. that stuff freaks me out and makes me want to pick up a gun and practice.

[CyberWar]

Armageddon is actually a location in modern Syria, outside of the town of Megiddo. In Biblical times, when it was an important city, the town was the site of three history-changing battles. Hence the belief that the plains of Megiddo would be the site of the final battle between forces of good and evil.

Mod Edit; Props to Cyber for rescuing this.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Armageddon is actually a location in modern Syria, outside of the town of Megiddo. In Biblical times, when it was an important city, the town was the site of three history-changing battles. Hence the belief that the plains of Megiddo would be the site of the final battle between forces of good and evil.

Mod Edit; Props to Cyber for rescuing this.

Megiddo is actually the name of a prominent hill in Israel, located near the Megiddo Kibhutz.

The Valley of Megiddo (aka the Valley of Jezreel), is also in modern Israel. It's current use is as a grazing area for sheep and goats, under the supervision of the Jezreel Valley Regional Council.

The word "Armageddon" is the English version of the Hebrew "Har Megiddon" - meaning "Mountain of Megiddo".

The Valley of Megiddo is considered the world's ultimate battlefield. It's practically level, it's massive, and it's bordered by both a mountain and water (no escape routes). Napolean himself declared that he had never seen a more perfect place to wage a battle.

As far as it's Biblical significance: it's the location where the armies of the world will gather for the final great battle of history. The Biblical account states that the world will split into two base factions when the Anti-Christ is declared the world's sole monarch - one in his favor and one against him. The armies will gather in Israel, because Israel will be in the center of the conflict. While the battle is in progress, Christ will return and wipe out the Anti-Christ's army; ending the battle and re-establishing Himself as the world's only true King.

[a_zgenesis]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Megiddo is actually the name of a prominent hill in Israel, located near the Megiddo Kibhutz.

The Valley of Megiddo (aka the Valley of Jezreel), is also in modern Israel. It's current use is as a grazing area for sheep and goats, under the supervision of the Jezreel Valley Regional Council.

The word "Armageddon" is the English version of the Hebrew "Har Megiddon" - meaning "Mountain of Megiddo".

The Valley of Megiddo is considered the world's ultimate battlefield. It's practically level, it's massive, and it's bordered by both a mountain and water (no escape routes). Napolean himself declared that he had never seen a more perfect place to wage a battle.

As far as it's Biblical significance: it's the location where the armies of the world will gather for the final great battle of history. The Biblical account states that the world will split into two base factions when the Anti-Christ is declared the world's sole monarch - one in his favor and one against him. The armies will gather in Israel, because Israel will be in the center of the conflict. While the battle is in progress, Christ will return and wipe out the Anti-Christ's army; ending the battle and re-establishing Himself as the world's only true King.

When i was young, i always thought of armageddon as the world's ultimate disaster to come. after reading book of revelation at age of 19, i totally agree with this.

[shetlan]

Revelations' account of Armageddon makes alot more sense than casual readers think it does. John described everything from armored troop transport vehicles, to cruise missiles, to worldwide news coverage.

Placing the final battle in Megiddo makes perfect sense as well. Israel is a highly contested nation in a volatile area. It would also make an excellent base of operations for controlling the world's oil market - hence Revelations' assertion that "He who controls Jerusalem in the last days controls the world."

John talked about a one world currency and marks that would allow you to buy and sell goods. There are plans to create a world currency in the near furure, and the technology to create the famed "mark fo the beast" is already in many credit cards.

He said that two "witnesses" would come and perform miracles before being killed by the anti-christ's army. They would then be hung in a public square and "the entire world will see their corpses" - a reference to news media coverage which spans the globe.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of John's predictions have already come true, the last piece is the coming of the anti-christ.

[Random]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Revelations' account of Armageddon makes alot more sense than casual readers think it does. John described everything from armored troop transport vehicles, to cruise missiles, to worldwide news coverage.

Placing the final battle in Megiddo makes perfect sense as well. Israel is a highly contested nation in a volatile area. It would also make an excellent base of operations for controlling the world's oil market - hence Revelations' assertion that "He who controls Jerusalem in the last days controls the world."

John talked about a one world currency and marks that would allow you to buy and sell goods. There are plans to create a world currency in the near furure, and the technology to create the famed "mark fo the beast" is already in many credit cards.

He said that two "witnesses" would come and perform miracles before being killed by the anti-christ's army. They would then be hung in a public square and "the entire world will see their corpses" - a reference to news media coverage which spans the globe.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of John's predictions have already come true, the last piece is the coming of the anti-christ.

Uh...

Care to cite specific sections of John (I assume you're referring to the Gospel of John) in relation to anything you've suggested here? I have my doubts about much of it.

Where you've stated specific things mentioned in John, please offer cites for each of them.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Random

Uh...

Care to cite specific sections of John (I assume you're referring to the Gospel of John) in relation to anything you've suggested here? I have my doubts about much of it.

Where you've stated specific things mentioned in John, please offer cites for each of them.

I'm referring to John, the guy who wrote the book of Revelations.

Witnesses - News Media Coverage

Originally Posted by Revelation 11:7-10

When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our[b] Lord was crucified. Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow[c] their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

Mark of the Beast - Technology in credit cards

Originally Posted by Revelation 13:16-17

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

Anti-christ's rise as the only world monarch

Originally Posted by Revelation 13:4-7

Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"
The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

As you can imagine it takes a while to look them up individually. I'll post a few more when I have more time.

[sacrednines]

In my opinion John was a lunatic - completely out of his mind by the time he supposedly wrote Revelations. And if taken with a grain of salt it’s not very hard to see that the mood throughout revelations is very "Paganesque" and hardly seems to fit with the rest of the gospels all of which seem much more optimistic. I think it’s an entirely imaginative idea of how the world of human beings will suffer sometime between when the book was written and (x) point in the future. To take it literally is to blur the line between religious belief and a colorfully frightening disassociation with reality.

Also, the Council at Nicea may have slipped Revelations into the binding of the Bible purely as a social fear tactic - the Catholic church would not have been as powerful had the whole of Europe not thought the judgment were right around the corner… Another example of how irrational religious fears can throw a veil over an entire continent so backward and insipid that the entire era comes to be called “the Dark Ages”. Why weren't Thomas's predictions included, why just John's? Each passing year particulars of human history are simultaneously lost and discovered. Truth is what you make it, and the Revelations of John are an awful opinion of the future... one which does little to benefit its subscribers beyond scaring them into devotion (it seems to me). Teach yourself a bit of Jewish cosmology and then decide if the Christians (or someone speaking on their behalf) haven't done some revising since Iesus's day. According to the excluded Gospel of Thomas, Iesus didn't speak near as dramatically of life and death as the other authors of the Bible.

Every decade there is a new "anti-christ" and radical christians have been claiming that "the end is neigh!" since their religion was founded. I don't rule out prophetic foreboding in general, but John falls far short of accuracy when compared to the Hopi's, the Mayans, Mother Tipton, Nostradomus, Merlin the magician, and the Oracle at Delphi. If ancient prophecy myths interest you I suggest listening to at least the Hopi (native American indians). For me, prophecy remains myth until the hour of its manifest - at which point the myth usually becomes a coincidence. The parallels between ancient prophecy and future occurrences on the magnitude of the Armageddon would have to be quite uncanny and certainly less ambiguous for me to take them seriously.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

In my opinion John was a lunatic - completely out of his mind by the time he supposedly wrote Revelations. And if taken with a grain of salt it’s not very hard to see that the mood throughout revelations is very "Paganesque" and hardly seems to fit with the rest of the gospels all of which seem much more optimistic. I think it’s an entirely imaginative idea of how the world of human beings will suffer sometime between when the book was written and (x) point in the future. To take it literally is to blur the line between religious belief and a colorfully frightening disassociation with reality.

So your argument is, "It's not pleasent so it doesn't fit in the New Testament"?

Revelations was written with the stated purpose of informing Christians of what was to come, and motivate them to convert others so they could avoid the terrors it describes. Christians themselves had no need to fear the events Revelation talks about, Revelation itself states that the Christian population will be removed from the earth before this occurs.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Also, the Council at Nicea may have slipped Revelations into the binding of the Bible purely as a social fear tactic - the Catholic church would not have been as powerful had the whole of Europe not thought the judgment were right around the corner…

The Catholic Church came to power under Constantine - it was powerful because Constantine put the full force of the Roman Empire behind it. Revelation's first chapter actually speaks against the Catholic Church's predecessors (the Nicolaitans).

The Catholic Church was powerful because of the political systems of the era. Feudal Kings where beholden to the Catholic church, and the Pope essentially ruled the world. Beyond those points, the Bible was unavailable to the common man until Martin Luther began his work in the early 1500s.

The Catholic Church's power had nothing to do with the inclusion of Revelation - such a suggestion is a blatant display of ignorance of the systems of the era.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Another example of how irrational religious fears can throw a veil over an entire continent so backward and insipid that the entire era comes to be called “the Dark Ages”.

The era was called the dark ages because the upper class had purposely deprived the comman people of knowledge and information (conversly our era is called the information age for the opposite reason). Again, you display an unfathomable amount of ignorance in your blatantly false historical claims.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Why weren't Thomas's predticions included, why just John's?

The Council of Nicea only included works that fit into the Biblical canon. Not all of Thomas' writings could be approved by the canon; however, John's writtings where inline with the prophecies of Daniel, and hence fit into the canon.

If you don't even know why certain writings where excluded from the Bible, you have no place trying to have a conversation about Biblical accuracy.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Each passing year particulars of human history are simeltaniously lost and discovered. Truth is what you make it, and the Revelations of John are an awful opinion of the future... one which does little to benefit its subscribers beyond scaring them into devotion (it seems to me).

Yet more evidence of your appauling lack of knowledge.
The fearful events mentioned in Revelation are completely avoided by believers.
In essence:
If you believe, you don't get hurt.
If you don't believe, why do you care?

One must wonder why people make attempt to void the faith of others. IF you don't believe it to be true, why do you care?

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Teach yourself a bit of Jewish cosmology and then decide if the Christians (or someone speaking on their behalf) haven't done some revising since Iesus's day. According to the excluded Gospel of Thomas, Iesus didn't speak near as dramatically of life and death as the other authors of the Bible.

For a guy who can't spell "Jesus" you have a lot of trash to spew.

You're referencing Thomas, who was knicknamed "Doubting Thomas" for his lack of faith? Good idea, next you can reference Karl Marx on capitalism.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Every decade there is a new "anti-christ" and radical christians have been claiming that "the end is neigh!" since their religion was founded. I don't rule out prophetic foreboding in general, but John falls far short of accuracy when compared to the Hopi's, the Mayans, Mother Tipton, Nostradomus, Merlin the magician, and the Oracle at Delphi.

Really? John specifically wrote that people would never be able to guess the date of the events of Revelation, and asked that they not try.

If you're going to try to reference other "Prophets":
The Mayan prediction of 2012 has already been proven false. The current year according to their calendar is 2013.
I'm yet to hear a single one of Mother Tipton's prophesys coming true.
Nostradomus' predictions are so cryptic that they can mean anything, and they make no reference to anything beyond the technology of his era.
Merlin was fictional.
I've never heard any of the prophesies of the Oracle at Delphi.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

If ancient prophecy myths interest you I suggest listening to at least the Hopi (native American indians). For me, prophecy remains myth until the hour of its manifest - at which point the prophecy then becomes coincidence.

Ah, the belittling and ignorant cocoon of the skeptic. Insulting anything he doesn't understand and dismissing anything beyond himself as lunacy. It's a simple existence, ideal for the simple minds inhabiting it.

[sacrednines]

It’s immature where I come from to insult people personally for a debate on a subjective topic about personal beliefs. You seem loaded with vituperation.

Originally Posted by shetlan

So your argument is, "It's not pleasent so it doesn't fit in the New Testament"?

Not my argument, my opinion. Its entirely silly to suspect that I am out to PROVE any part of the bible – especially Revelations – false. Relax and let’s discourse.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Christians themselves had no need to fear the events Revelation talks about

I disagree. John my have been merely documenting his psychosis, but its quite likely that thousands of Christian ministers (especially missionaries) throughout time have used the frightening imagery (which is very obvious) to scare people into the pews or into the faith. Historically, most of the rest of the world was introduced to Christianity at the edge of a sword… (or through the smoke of a pyre stake).

Originally Posted by shetlan

The Catholic Church's power had nothing to do with the inclusion of Revelation - such a suggestion is a blatant display of ignorance of the systems of the era.

I didn’t suggest that.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Also, the Council at Nicea may have slipped Revelations into the binding of the Bible purely as a social fear tactic - the Catholic church would not have been as powerful had the whole of Europe not thought the judgment were right around the corner…

The word “may” can also mean “may not” in conventional English. Of course I meant it as “may have”, but I’m illustrating the personal lens through which you seem to be seeing my opinion as an attack on your beliefs. “May” is also used to certify uncertainty and therefore an opinion. My wording can also be taken to suggest that I believe the Catholic church benefited from the earlier council’s decision… and that is how I meant it to be interpreted.

The idea that they may have known at Nicea that the establishment of Roman Christianity would help to repair the civil unrest of the time, and that later institutions (the medieval Catholic church) discovered a Theocracy under the Christian belief could be followed and feared by a population – is not as insane as you seem to think it is. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I’m not the only skeptic of Christianity… and this illustrates to me a display of ignorance in the whole of philosophy and epistemology for that matter.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Again, you display an unfathomable amount of ignorance in your blatantly false historical claims.

This just a silly statement – redundant and meant as an insult without any academic merit.

Originally Posted by shetlan

The Council of Nicea only included works that fit into the Biblical canon. Not all of Thomas' writings could be approved by the canon; however, John's writtings where inline with the prophecies of Daniel, and hence fit into the canon.

I’ve read both Daniel and Thomas, I’m very familiar with both actually. And if I were present at Nicea, deciding the composition of the bible, my opinion that they both have useful, incongruent ideas would have compelled me to vote for Thomas’s inclusion. This remains a valid opinion.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Yet more evidence of your appauling lack of knowledge.
The fearful events mentioned in Revelation are completely avoided by believers.
In essence:
If you believe, you don't get hurt.
If you don't believe, why do you care?

One must wonder why people make attempt to void the faith of others. IF you don't believe it to be true, why do you care?

Again, you seem very defensive for a reason I’m not aware of. I quite love Christianity, I’m not a Christian, but I’m very much entitled to disagree with the works of John and the institutions which made a profit from devotees during the middle ages. I don’t like the history of Catholic church for many reasons, and I don’t like Revelations because I believe John was suffering from insanity when it was written.

Originally Posted by shetlan

For a guy who can't spell "Jesus" you have a lot of trash to spew.

I resent that you think my post is a “spew of trash” - again, an immature statement.

Now, the pronunciation “Jesus” (Gee-zuss) is actually a translation misnomer, the same way the name “Jacob” is originally pronounced (Yocahb) in the tongue of the time. The “j” sound is much less prolific in the region’s language. The Nazarene in question pronounced his name, as did his peers many years since, (Yea-zeus). Therefore I pronounce and spell his name “Iesus”, without the erroneous “j” sound. I studied these things collegiatey at NYU where I was employed in the mathematics department. Where were you educated?

Originally Posted by shetlan

You're referencing Thomas, who was knicknamed "Doubting Thomas" for his lack of faith? Good idea, next you can reference Karl Marx on capitalism.

More vituperation... Nicknamed by whom exactly? I wonder how many negative nicknames the other apostles received…

Originally Posted by shetlan

Really? John specifically wrote that people would never be able to guess the date of the events of Revelation, and asked that they not try.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Every decade there is a new "anti-christ" and radical christians have been claiming that "the end is neigh!" since their religion was founded.

Do you seriously disagree with this statement? I don’t care what John intended, this has always, and is currently, happening… and no, I don’t mean all Christendom.

Originally Posted by shetlan

If you're going to try to reference other "Prophets":
The Mayan prediction of 2012 has already been proven false. The current year according to their calendar is 2013.
I'm yet to hear a single one of Mother Tipton's prophesys coming true.
Nostradomus' predictions are so cryptic that they can mean anything, and they make no reference to anything beyond the technology of his era.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I don't rule out prophetic foreboding in general, but John falls far short of accuracy when compared to the Hopi's, the Mayans, Mother Tipton, Nostradomus, Merlin the magician, and the Oracle at Delphi.

Yes, meant to illustrate how little I respect John’s predicitions EVEN when I consider the ridiculous predications of others. Again, your looking glass is quite smeared with a most defensive bias.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Merlin was fictional. I've never heard any of the prophesies of the Oracle at Delphi.

Good guess, although incorrect by the standards of contemporary history. Mother Tipton was the fictional one. You probably knew this since you’re so quick to lecture me on my history knowledge – this doesn’t account for your lack of trivia about the Oracle at Delphi though – probably most famous prophetic seeress of the ancient Mediterranean.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Ah, the belittling and ignorant cocoon of the skeptic. Insulting anything he doesn't understand and dismissing anything beyond himself as lunacy. It's a simple existence, ideal for the simple minds inhabiting it.

For someone trying to defend Christianity you sure are full of slander. Please Quit choosing to ignore my words.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

For me, prophecy remains myth until the hour of its manifest - at which point the prophecy then becomes coincidence.

Not and insult, an opinion - indicated by the "For me," at the very beginning of the sentence. Another critique of someone else’s opinion? And you call me intolerant of other beliefs? I acknowledge many things beyond my myself – Your’s is an ill contemplated statement I think. You are far more insulting sheltan, obviously not looking for an intelligent conversation and very much unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you it appears.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I disagree. John my have been merely documenting his psychosis, but its quite likely that thousands of Christian ministers (especially missionaries) throughout time have used the frightening imagery (which is very obvious) to scare people into the pews or into the faith. Historically, most of the rest of the world was introduced to Christianity at the edge of a sword… (or through the smoke of a pyre stake).

You confuse Christianity (and the teachings of the Bible for that matter) with Catholisism - the two coincide only on occasion. This again is a historical point that a pseudo-philosopher like yourself would not have bothered to educate himself on before coming to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I didn’t suggest that.

No, you said it plainly. Arguing the symantics of "may vs. did" is yet again the refuge of an ignoramus who seeks to make outrageous and blatantly ficticious claims without reprimand.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

The idea that they may have known at Nicea that the establishment of Roman Christianity would help to repair the civil unrest of the time, and that later institutions (the medieval Catholic church) discovered a Theocracy under the Christian belief could be followed and feared by a population – is not as insane as you seem to think it is.

The Roman Empire already ruled the world with a list of gods and goddesses to keep the people terrified in fear of their wrath - these gods and goddesses where later included in the Catholic model as "patron saints". With such a system already in place, it was wholly unnecessary to include Revelation for such a purpose.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I’m not the only skeptic of Christianity… and this illustrates to me a display of ignorance in the whole of philosophy and epistemology for that matter.

I don't mind skeptics, but I reject the concept that one can call himself a skeptic of a subject he is so blatantly ignorant of.
There's an old saying: An atheist is one who has studied all the faiths and religions of the world and after years of painstaking study has finally come to the conclusion that there is no god.
Your obvious lack of knowlege surrounding this subject speaks volumes to the fact that you've studied very little about the concepts you see fit to criticize.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

This just a silly statement – redundant and meant as an insult without any academic merit.

True; but the fact that none of your "suggestions" have had any historical backing only proves it accurrate.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I’ve read both Daniel and Thomas, I’m very familiar with both actually. And if I were present at Nicea, deciding the composition of the bible, my opinion that they both have useful, incongruent ideas would have compelled me to vote for Thomas’s inclusion. This remains a valid opinion.

Interesting, so you would have purposely included a book which had visible contradictions to the other books, hence purposely corrupting the finished work? Well, thank god you wheren't there.

Sicne you cited your reason for inclusion as "they both have useful, incongruent ideas" I can assume you don't even know what the Biblical cannon is - making this entire conversation meaningless.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Again, you seem very defensive for a reason I’m not aware of. I quite love Christianity, I’m not a Christian, but I’m very much entitled to disagree with the works of John and the institutions which made a profit from devotees during the middle ages. I don’t like the history of Catholic church for many reasons, and I don’t like Revelations because I believe John was suffering from insanity when it was written.

News flash: Most Christians don't like the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church itself has been a barrier to Christianity for almost 2,000years. Many (if not most) of Catholic teachings are in contradiction with the Biblical teachings (the very existence of the Pope is blasphemy if one views it with a Biblical eye).

For what reason do you believe John was insane? Because you think it's not nice, and shouldn't have been included?

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I resent that you think my post is a “spew of trash” - again, an immature statement.

What you resent is of little concern to me. I resent ignorance disguised as philosophy, which is what you're peddling.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Now, the pronunciation “Jesus” (Gee-zuss) is actually a translation misnomer, the same way the name “Jacob” is originally pronounced (Yocahb) in the tongue of the time. The “j” sound is much less prolific in the region’s language. The Nazarene in question pronounced his name, as did his peers many years since, (Yea-zeus). Therefore I pronounce and spell his name “Iesus”, without the erroneous “j” sound. I studied these things collegiatey at NYU where I was employed in the mathematics department. Where were you educated?

Ah, I assumed you really wheren't spelling it correctly, which would have been far less rude. I use the spelling "Jesus" because it can be understood by all who are reading, rather than the esoteric and pointless use of the alternate spelling. Using an alternate spelling that you know the less educated readers won't understant is both rude and exclusionary. No different from the Catholic Church producing Bibles in Latin to keep them from the common people.

In any case, your defense for an accusation of poor spelling was that you felt the need to tout a small snippet of knowledge in attempt to make yourself feel superior . . . oh yes, that's so much better.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Do you seriously disagree with this statement? I don’t care what John intended, this has always, and is currently, happening… and no, I don’t mean all Christendom.

I never said it was false. Your assertion was against John, and John had nothing to do with the claim you levied. My goal was to point out that your claim was true but wasn't relevant.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Yes, meant to illustrate how little I respect John’s predicitions EVEN when I consider the ridiculous predications of others. Again, your looking glass is quite smeared with a most defensive bias.

Bias, yes. Defensive, not at all. Thus far, you've said absolutely nothing that's backed up your position (other than claiming not to have one). The way this is going, I appear to be on the offensive.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Good guess, although incorrect by the standards of contemporary history. Mother Tipton was the fictional one. You probably knew this since you’re so quick to lecture me on my history knowledge – this doesn’t account for your lack of trivia about the Oracle at Delphi though – probably most famous prophetic seeress of the ancient Mediterranean.

I hold Merlin to be as fictional as she is - his existence is questionalbe at best, and he is as likely the cousin of the boogyman as he was a wizard.

As you said yourself, the Oracle of Delphi is a matter of trivia, not one of history. Other than one of them's encounter with Alexander the Great she's of little historical relevance - hence why I know little about her.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

For someone trying to defend Christianity you sure are full of slander. Please Quit choosing to ignore my words.

Slander is spoken - this would be libel.
Then again, it would need to be false to be libelous, so I suppose it isn't libel either.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Not and insult, an opinion - indicated by the "For me," at the very beginning of the sentence. Another critique of someone else’s opinion? And you call me intolerant of other beliefs? I acknowledge many things beyond my myself – Your’s is an ill contemplated statement I think. You are far more insulting sheltan, obviously not looking for an intelligent conversation and very much unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you it appears.

Perhaps you're confused, I never called you "intolerant" - I called you "ignorant". Tolerance is of little importance, as it is almost always forced or given begrudgingly.

I'm glad to hear an intelligent conversation, I've been waiting for you to offer one for some time.

I'm accustomed to people having facts and historical reference when they disagree with me. Your style of discourse (babbling unsubstanciated gibberish) is truely foreign to me.

[sacrednines]

It’s well enough obvious now that you are not interested in an adult conversation, and because I have an acute combination of apathy and detachment concerning my relations with other anonymous people on the internet I'm going to be brief. I am correct in my statements and loyal to my opinions. They are supported by these *facts:
Christianity and the Catholic Church
How the Council of Nicea Changed the World
Infidels of the Biblical Canon
Catholicism's Impact on Modern Christianity
Yeshua/Iesus/Yea-zeus
The Oracle at Delphi - Pythia
Mother "Tipton"
Merlin the Wild
Definition of Slander
Definition of Discourse
Adolescent Aggression
Styles of Discourse
Spell-Check Download
Syntax
You have provided as little back-up for your claims as I until now, and until you change your unnecessarily belligerent tone, stop hypocritizing me for what you perceive are errors, and show less emotional concern about an obscure internet forum, I won't be wasting my time responding to your posts.

*I imply sarcasm here. I trust my personal sources far more than the sites posted, but they remain supportive.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

In my opinion John was a lunatic - completely out of his mind by the time he supposedly wrote Revelations.

Other points aside, I'm curious as to why sacrednines believes John was insane when he wrote the book of Revelation. Has an archeological dig uncovered an ancient psychological profile of him?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

It’s well enough obvious now that you are not interested in an adult conversation,

You're yet to provide one.
An adult conversation doesn't invlove talking in circles, making unsubstanciated claims then retracting them, and giving your opinons as though they are fact - this is all you have done since this conversation started.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

. . . and because I have an acute combination of apathy and detachment concerning my relations with other anonymous people on the internet I'm going to be brief.

Good for you. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything being discussed, but feel free to give yourself a pat on the back for that one.

It is a fragile ego that feels the need to speak to it's own complement.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I am correct in my statements and loyal to my opinions. They are supported by these *facts:

I see NYU just did a bang-up job teaching you to debate.
Hold-on, I'm going to claim that the world is ruled by underground lizardmen - give me a minute and I'll find a website to back it up.

Incidentally, which statements are you "correct in"? Are the correct ones, the ones you said you didn't make, the onces you made and then changed, or the ones you made that contradicted the historical accounts? Just curious.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

You have provided as little back-up for your claims as I until now,

That's the beauty of being the guy on the side of the historically accepted. My side requires no backup, as it's been the accepted view for nearly 500years (since the protestant revolution).

The burden of proof is on you to present evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

and until you change your unnecessarily belligerent tone, stop hypocritizing me for what you perceive are errors, and show less emotional concern about an obscure internet forum, I won't be wasting my time responding to your posts.

My so-called belligerance is attributed to conversing with a pseudo-intellectual. I'm sorry, but when the only responce your opponent offers for a ridiculous opinion is "I just think so" - there's not much else you can do.

Secondly, the concern I'm showing isn't for the forum - the forum itself hasn't been discussed till this post. My concern is for the conversation and the subject.

Lastly, I must say, you've followed the baseline methods of liberal debate to a T. Say something stupid - say you didn't say it at all - say it again - defend it as an opinion - when all else fails change your argument to a different subject. It's a popular system, allowing the user to say absolutely nothing while making alot of noise.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

*I imply sarcasm here. I trust my personal sources far more than the sites posted, but they remain supportive.

A handy way to cover your ass. No doubt you didn't even read the sites posted before posting the links. I'll assume these "personal scources" are as much fiction as Merlin.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Other points aside, I'm curious as to why sacrednines believes John was insane when he wrote the book of Revelation. Has an archeological dig uncovered an ancient psychological profile of him?

Well, that would be the crux of his argument and he's entirely refused to discuss it, simply repeating that he thinks John was insane. Don't expect an answer of any relevance or substance Steve, he's not going to give one.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Other points aside, I'm curious as to why sacrednines believes John was insane when he wrote the book of Revelation. Has an archeological dig uncovered an ancient psychological profile of him?

No Steve_TPF, an archeological dig has not uncovered an ancient psychological profile of the John the Apostle… Evidence from antiquity (in this case the writings John is credited with) can give modern researchers enough fodder to assess the mental health of historical figures long since dead… this “retrospective psycho-analysis” is very common in many historical-social-sciences. My opinions of John come from my lack of faith in the conventional concept of how his visions were inspired. Simply put, if the visions of Revelations came to me - I would check myself into a clinic. This has remained (in literal translation) my opinion of what I know of John. And until his Revelations come to obvious fruition I see no reason to believe that he was sane by conventional standards or heard from a super-deity who revealed to him the end of the world... It is a deduced opinion. But not just mine: Psychiatry and Religion

Originally Posted by shetlan

talking in circles, making unsubstanciated claims then retracting them, and giving your opinons as though they are fact - this is all you have done since this conversation started.

(I recant my statement about not responding to your posts) I disagree. This entire conversation as it stands now is primarily you saying I’m wrong, and asking me to back up my claims while having none for your own. I’m not sure what more you are seeing, but it’s clearly not in my prose.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Hold-on, I'm going to claim that the world is ruled by underground lizardmen - give me a minute and I'll find a website to back it up.

Yes, anyone can find a website to back up claims. This is why I usually don't post too many links, why I took a while to post those, and why I have no way of taking what you say seriously. So, specifically, what is it you want? The names of the books I've read; the credentials of all my history professors? Its plain hypocrisy to say I have no evidence for my claims. Please at least be aware of your own words before you even attempt to fault other's.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Incidentally, which statements are you "correct in"? Are the correct ones, the ones you said you didn't make, the onces you made and then changed, or the ones you made that contradicted the historical accounts? Just curious.

Since you have yet to provide supportive evidence for your claims about history, or for your claims about my claims, you have zero room to ridicule me. "You're wrong" ... see, I can say it too... and without sounding offensive.

I post perspectives – the perspectives of my surrounding culture, my own, of people I agree with, of culture's I find interesting, ect… I have yet to be convinced that knowledge itself is not entirely perspective – perspective’s which are sometimes dissimilar, sometimes dominate, sometimes new, or sometimes old. This is why I speak in opinions… there is nothing else to speak in.

Originally Posted by shetlan

That's the beauty of being the guy on the side of the historically accepted. My side requires no backup, as it's been the accepted view for nearly 500years (since the protestant revolution).

So you say your opinions require no backup? Hysterical.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Lastly, I must say, you've followed the baseline methods of liberal debate to a T. Say something stupid - say you didn't say it at all - say it again - defend it as an opinion - when all else fails change your argument to a different subject. It's a popular system, allowing the user to say absolutely nothing while making alot of noise.

Interesting opinion.

Originally Posted by shetlan

I'll assume these "personal scources" are as much fiction as Merlin.

Of course you will. You want to make me look wrong. Assume less, read more: Myrddin Emrys

Originally Posted by shetlan

Well, that would be the crux of his argument and he's entirely refused to discuss it, simply repeating that he thinks John was insane. Don't expect an answer of any relevance or substance Steve, he's not going to give one.

I'm prepared to discuss like an adult, not tantrum like a child. Support.

Insulting people you’ve never met and know so little about is a major character flaw in my eyes. But enough about you and I, let's talk about John. I think he may have had a mental illness... What do you think?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

No Steve_TPF, an archeological dig has not uncovered an ancient psychological profile of the John the Apostle… Evidence from antiquity (in this case the writings John is credited with) can give modern researchers enough fodder to assess the mental health of historical figures long since dead… this “retrospective psycho-analysis” is very common in many historical-social-sciences.

Oh yeah, they can do with a few things he's written what it takes a real psychologist months of personal counseling to do. That's definitely a dependable scientific method - especially since the results can never be tested nor confirmed. How convenient.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

My opinions of John come from my lack of faith in the conventional concept of how his visions were inspired.

Which comes from your relience on a form of psychological evaluation that is obviously not going to be reliable.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Simply put, if the visions of Revelations came to me - I would check myself into a clinic. This has remained (in literal translation) my opinion of what I know of John.

As opposed to the "figurative translation"?

Originally Posted by sacrednines

And until his Revelations come to obvious fruition I see no reason to believe that he was sane by conventional standards or heard from a super-deity who revealed to him the end of the world... It is a deduced opinion.

So you're saying once it's too late to make a difference, you'll believe it? Good for you, let me know how that goes.

Incidently, that's not a "deduced opinion" - you started with an assumption (John being wrong) and you sought a reason to support it (insanity).

Originally Posted by sacrednines

But not just mine:

You're right. There are plenty of crackpots out there that believe alot of crazy things. Lots of people believe that the world is ruled by humanoid lizards in the earth's core - there's books and websites on that to.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

(I recant my statement about not responding to your posts)

That's what, the fifth recanted statement now?

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I disagree. This entire conversation as it stands now is primarily you saying I’m wrong, and asking me to back up my claims while having none for your own. I’m not sure what more you are seeing, but it’s clearly not in my prose.

As I've already said, as the longstanding view, I require no explanation. As the newcomer (the novel idea) you are required to give some resemblance of evidence beyond your opinion and some archiological version of psychology.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

So, specifically, what is it you want?The names of the books I've read; the credentials of all my history professors?

Before you give either, consider where the information is coming from and how it's obtained.
The books you've read are likely irrelevant. None of those people met John, how could they possibly have an opinion of his mental state?
Your professors are no less in question. Unless one of them is over 2,000. Their opinions are no less meaningless than your own, as anything they've concluded is no more than speculation.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Its plain hypocrisy to say I have no evidence for my claims. Please at least be aware of your own words before you even attempt to fault other's.

The difference is, I don't claim to have any evidence beyond the accepted historical beliefs; but frankly I need no more evidence. There's an old saying about attacking the accepted knowlege - If my fortress has been built over a thousand years, you need something sturdier than supposition to bring it down.

As I said already, the burden of proof is on the newcomer, not the traditional.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I post perspectives – the perspectives of my surrounding culture, my own, of people I agree with, of culture's I find interesting, ect…I have yet to be convinced that knowledge itself is not entirely perspective – perspective’s which are sometimes dissimilar, sometimes dominate, sometimes new, or sometimes old. This is why I speak in opinions… there is nothing else to speak in.

Ah, you hold to the subjective reality view - well there's no point in arguing with you then, the folks at NYU have already turned your brain to jelly.

I'll say this, the problem with "perspective" is that reality isn't any different despite what your perspective may be. Your perspective may say that you can fly, but when you jump off the roof, you still fall like a stone.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

So you say your opinions require no backup? Hysterical.

Eh, it's not all that funny. None the less, the long standing opinion doesn't require evidence, it's existence and persistence in existing is its own evidence.
I told you what the existing views of history are - you told me that they where wrong, because you say so; sorry, that doesn't fly.

On a side note: the very suggestion that a new opinion (with no evidence to back it) is every bit as valid as the standing opinion it opposes is a show of pure arrogance of the highest grade.
Your opinion is as valid as those of the historians of old?
Your opinion is as valid as millenia of study which have all concluded the same thing?
I would be hard pressed to think of a greater show of arrogance.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Interesting opinion.

Not an opinion at all.
Your use of the strategy is mapped out in your posts and the institutionalization of the strategy has been a standard in liberal academia for almost fifty years.
I believe it can be found in "Rules for Radicals" if you'd like to look it up. It can also be found in the collegiate text "Rhetoric: A users guide".

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Of course you will. You want to make me look wrong. Assume less, read more: Myrddin Emrys

So, you're retort for my assumption that your un-named sources are ficticious is to attempt to prove that Merlin existed? What does that prove about your sources?
(Note: This is that "change your argument" thing I mentioned).

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I'm prepared to discuss like an adult, not tantrum like a child.

Go for it, still waiting.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Insulting people you’ve never met and know so little about is a major character flaw in my eyes.

Frankly Niner, I don't need to meet you to get a general overview of your personality. You show:
arrogance of the highest grade, as you hold your opinion as highly as history's
ignorance of the subjects you choose to discuss
a love of hearing your own unsubstanciated opinions -
- which points to an underlying craving for acceptance and approval
I won't bother getting into where else that leads or what else I can surmise from it.

Not surprisingly, I can't think of a situation in which I would want to meet you.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

But enough about you and I, let's talk about John. I think he may have had a mental illness... What do you think?

I agree with the standing historical view, as I've already said. As already asked, "What evidence do you have to substanciate your opinion?"
For that matter, what specific mental illness do you think he had?
What reason do you have to believe he had that specific illness?
Are you in any way qualified to diagnose such an illness?
If so, by what qualification?

I'm sure you won't actually answer any of these questions, but I'll look forward to reading additional babble

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Ah, you hold to the subjective reality view - well there's no point in arguing with you then, the folks at NYU have already turned your brain to jelly.

Then quit. Moving on...

Originally Posted by shetlan

what specific mental illness do you think he had?
What reason do you have to believe he had that specific illness?
Are you in any way qualified to diagnose such an illness?
If so, by what qualification?

Dementia, Schizophrenia, maybe ergot poisoning, whatever it was it seemed severe.
He supposedly wrote Revelations as a non-fiction.
Yes, though less qualified than a professional.
I understand enough contemporary psychological theory to know that dragons, angels, and the vivid terrors of Revelations are likely from the mind's own antipodes - not likely external from the human psyche… in this case one seemingly quite disassociated from the reality I experience. I have reason to believe that John was insane. What reason do you have to believe that he was not?

Back to the topic; I do believe the strain modern industrialized society puts on it's essential resources + the booming human population + the rate of person-to-resource consumption -if not checked- could lead to mass famine, civil unrest, social cataclysm, and disastrous world conflict (not at once, but likely years in process)... quite the "Armageddon" by my standards -- gears that have been turning throughout the history of what has become the modern culture (as it appears to me). According to the timelines of contemporary anthropology, human beings are only just recently experimenting with the current social order. Nation-building is new for our species (on an evolutionary timescale), while our ancestors subsisted in primitive clans and tribes for far longer (*and with far less trouble).

*Marshal Sahlins: The Original Affluent Society

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

No Steve_TPF, an archeological dig has not uncovered an ancient psychological profile of the John the Apostle… Evidence from antiquity (in this case the writings John is credited with) can give modern researchers enough fodder to assess the mental health of historical figures long since dead… this “retrospective psycho-analysis” is very common in many historical-social-sciences. My opinions of John come from my lack of faith in the conventional concept of how his visions were inspired. Simply put, if the visions of Revelations came to me - I would check myself into a clinic. This has remained (in literal translation) my opinion of what I know of John. And until his Revelations come to obvious fruition I see no reason to believe that he was sane by conventional standards or heard from a super-deity who revealed to him the end of the world... It is a deduced opinion. But not just mine: Psychiatry and Religion

So your/their belief that he was insane is based simply on what he wrote? That's not convincing. There are at least three possibilities that you cannot rule out:

1: John was under the influence of drugs. (Not far fetched, drug use has often been associated with religious visions.)

2: John could have made the whole thing up. (Which makes him a liar, but not insane.)

3: John could actually have been divinely inspired. (I don't believe this myself, but I don't have any evidence to disprove it either.)

There is simply not enough hard evidence to support the claim that John was out of his mind.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

So your/their belief that he was insane is based simply on what he wrote? That's not convincing.

It is in court where written works can be presented as evidence for criminal insanity. However in such cases there is usually more evidence and the subject is always evaluated for mental illness.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

1: John was under the influence of drugs. (Not far fetched, drug use has often been associated with religious visions.)
2: John could have made the whole thing up. (Which makes him a liar, but not insane.)
3: John could actually have been divinely inspired. (I don't believe this myself, but I don't have any evidence to disprove it either.)

Yes, the first possibility I can agree with, although I would make the claim that some drugs cause temporary insanity - and I'd rather think of him as suffering from a mental illness than take the view that he was a liar.

*I probably should not have posted my opinion after all - it was never my intention to argue it as a fact. Although I do defend my opinion, as it remains as plausible as any other explanation so far discussed.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

It is in court where written works can be presented as evidence for criminal insanity. However in such cases there is usually more evidence and the subject is always evaluated for mental illness.

So a person's writing alone is not sufficient evidence. It would be used as supporting evidence for a psychological profile, which in this case is impossible.

You are entitled to hold an opinion of course, but in this instance there is no particular reason why any of the above possibilities should be given more weight than the others.

Enough of John. Any thoughts on Armageddon? Such as who the anti-Christ might be?

[headcase]

Of the stated possibilities, I'd lean toward John lying as the most probable. There are a lot of miracles described in the various holy books and it's unlikely they were all suffering mental illness.

As for the exact details of Armageddon, I'm not the type to disucss religious text as factual. Sure, John suggested a location suitable for battle as the site for the battle of Armageddon; whether or not he was divinely inspired, Megiddo is still a suitable location for a large-scale battle and this was (in all likelyhood) well known at the time. Why would he not decide to locate his battle there?

As for other coincidences, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into the viability of prophesy apart from to make my own opinion clear; they're largely worthless. Just look at what 2001; A Space Odyssey predicted, and not many people worship Stanley Kubrick or his fictional works.

[Steve_TPF]

They shouldn't. It was Arthur C. Clarke who wrote the books. Kubrick just directed the film.

[Aequitas]

Just a quick thought on John. Did any of you consider that the Book of Revelations is metaphorical and should be treated as a parable. Taking John literally is just silly when you look at the rest of the Bible. Christ used parables in half of what he said and nobody is debating what he said. If you take the Scriptures literally, really you end up like the Jehovah's Witnesses and quite frankly almost nobody likes them.

back to Armageddon, I don't think it will happen in just one place. If it is a war of good versus evil I'm sure it will be spread across the earth. I highly doubt that all 6 billion people on earth are going to gather into one particular place, just to fight each other. This great battle will probably happen everywhere and people will fight in their local areas, forming sides as they see fit.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Any thoughts on Armageddon? Such as who the anti-Christ might be?

As I understand it, an anti-Christ would be someone(s) or something(s) that completely distracts the followers of Iesus and promises some form of salvation opposed to his teachings.

From what I've read of Iesus and how he lived his life - I see too few similarities between most of his modern "followers" and the aim of what I interpret was his ministry. I'm reminded of a statement from Mohandas Gandhi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ." An interesting thought may be that this agent of Armageddon may have long since passed under the radar... leading sheep from their flock one generation at a time. This time I'm reminded of the 11th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita, in which Arjuna is confronted by Krishna incarnate as the order of Nature:

"Now with frightening tusks your mouths are gnashing,
Flaring like the fires of Doomsday morning --
North, south, east and west seem all confounded!
Lord of devas, world's abode, have mercy!

Swift as many rivers streaming to the ocean,
Rush the heroes to your fiery gullets,
Moth-like to meet the flame of their destruction.
Headlong these plunge into you and perish.

Tell me who you are, and were from the beginning,
You of aspect grim. O God of gods, be gracious.
Take my Homage, Lord. From me your ways are hidden."

The answer that follows is clear and unequivocal...

"I am come as Time, the waster of peoples,
I ready the hour that ripens their ruin..."

There is little doubt in my mind that humanity is indeed quite temporal, if not down right fragile. It starts to look like anything promising instant gratification while distracting from Iesus' teachings is suspicious enough to merit considerable contemplation. Although this is assuming that the course of humanity has right and wrong directions to discern, and this of course implies that humanity has a specific goal to achieve... and the only goal I can rationalize is survival. Sadly, if the world were to be subjected to an Armageddonesque cataclysm, the only people I see accomplishing this "goal" would be those in the position to access underground bunkers and billion dollar resources – which, needless to state, are far from the reach of the meek. It appears to me that in the event of global disaster the powerful will still inherit the earth… as the lower classes suffer a meltdown.

[User3rror]

If anything, the Catholics would want to take the book of Revelation OUT of the Bible if I were them because of the prophecy about the woman with the gold cup and purple and red who was a whore with many nations.