sherri, you are right when you say that present day catholics cannot be blamed for the murders of yesteryear.......... but.....
the catholic hierarchy is the same today as it was centuries ago............. full of fraud deceit and lies........
look again at what i said in my first post................
...........the catholic church is basically run by a bunch of faggots who procure money under false pretences by lieing to its flock and offering them a religion that has nothing to do with god, offering false hopes and false idols as their saviours..........
that statement describes the catholic church to a tee......... and it is applicable right from the first day that this mongrel church was created........
as for the next pope........ who cares........
cos just like all the other popes before him......
he wont be sitting on the seat of jesus christ or the throne of god on earth..
he wont be infallible........
and he sure as hell cant save anyone........
he wont pray to god for world peace and prosperity and goodwill to all men etc.etc. etc..............
but he probably will pray for all of those things to a useless bloody statue........
and he wont bother to try and stop pedaphilia amongst the priests......
cos' his job is to keep suckering all the catholics in the world to think that he is the only one who can save this messed up world.......... but with all of his supposed power from god, he doesn't even have the power to save himself......... (didn't the last d!ckhead d*e ???)
he wont want to keep bringing up the pedaphilia problem because being pope, anything he had to say would be big news in the catholic world,
and to speak of "sinful" priests would be bad for their business........
ie: making money......... so no changes there.........
how dense can people get, to see whole nations get sucked in by such an
obviously "screwloose" and dangerous religion.......... it never ceases to amaze me........
hey memor...........
one day i was walking past a church when i noticed SATAN sitting on the front steps crying his eye's out........
whats wrong SATAN i asked.......
as SATAN pointed to the church behind him, he gave out a loud sob and said.........
its all those people in there.......... they blame me for everything.
and your right mate religion doesn't make evil men........
evil men make evil religions.............
A Really Apt Joke
Moderator: andysfootball
-
Little Lisa
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:08 pm
- Location: germany/formally south shields
wow!!!
i have been very interested in reading these posts, everyones view is expressed quite differently, but i do not think the debate will ever be solved as everyone has a different view or religion thats what makes one person different to the next.
but on a better note lets try and lift these posts up a bit and have some humour/fun again,
as we can all switch on the t.v/radio to listen to arguments.
i have been very interested in reading these posts, everyones view is expressed quite differently, but i do not think the debate will ever be solved as everyone has a different view or religion thats what makes one person different to the next.
but on a better note lets try and lift these posts up a bit and have some humour/fun again,
as we can all switch on the t.v/radio to listen to arguments.
-
sherri
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 25239
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
- Contact:
Hi Lisa, I guess I like both kinds of posts myself, the serious and the funny.I don't mind a good discussion as long as it is about issues and not just abusive towards others who don't think the same, and so far I think everyone here has kept pretty much to issues.
I suppose we have trailed off topic though as the original questions were why all the publicity etc about the pope. Personally I think it had nothing to do with whether or not the catholic religion is right, wrong or indifferent. People who went to the funeral probably went because the pope was well known media wise and had travelled a lot and met a lot of people and had some political clout in a way. He was respected by a lot of people for his actions, even if they didn't agree with his faith.
Fame and media attention is a weird thing in that Alan is right-a lot of people who are as good as or better than famous people go to their grave unknown. Look at the late lamented princess Di. A fairly unremarkable woman in most ways, probably a bit too emotional but only fairly average brains, good looking, wore clothes well. Look at all the media publicity she got, and why? She wasn't worth it either. Is charles 'worth' his publicity?
I guess it is their rank that gets the media attention and general public are interested.
Not always fair or logical, but if enough of the public want it, the media will supply it I guess. It is the way of the world, isn't it.
I suppose we have trailed off topic though as the original questions were why all the publicity etc about the pope. Personally I think it had nothing to do with whether or not the catholic religion is right, wrong or indifferent. People who went to the funeral probably went because the pope was well known media wise and had travelled a lot and met a lot of people and had some political clout in a way. He was respected by a lot of people for his actions, even if they didn't agree with his faith.
Fame and media attention is a weird thing in that Alan is right-a lot of people who are as good as or better than famous people go to their grave unknown. Look at the late lamented princess Di. A fairly unremarkable woman in most ways, probably a bit too emotional but only fairly average brains, good looking, wore clothes well. Look at all the media publicity she got, and why? She wasn't worth it either. Is charles 'worth' his publicity?
I guess it is their rank that gets the media attention and general public are interested.
Not always fair or logical, but if enough of the public want it, the media will supply it I guess. It is the way of the world, isn't it.
-
little_tata
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:10 pm
- Location: the cupboard under the stairs
Just a few points for you to ponder over Marvin;
The Pope apologised for the way in which people of the Jewish faith have been treat by Catholic believers. Yes, it may not have achieved anything towards reconciling the ""always" ongoing crises between israel and palestine", yet the Pope did make a step in the right direction by showing that a major faith can apologise without loosing believers.
You say that most of the "perverted p********e priests" would not have created these crimes if they were allowed to marry. That comment in itself troubling to me; what about men and women from other religiois denominations who are child abusers? Are they excused because they are not catholic? If a p********e were married, it would make no difference when the crime is committed. Most Scout leaders who have been found guilty of paedophillia are married, and more often than not, they are parents. (children are generally abused by someone they know).
As you say, "its not just an opinion...........everything i wrote is fact." you are basing your "facts" on a book wrote during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1st, by a man (and yes I know who Our Father Foxe is) who wanted to remain in the Queens favour to save himself the trouble of living in exhile again. (as he had done during the reign of Queen Mary with obvious reason).
One other major point I feel I must make, about your "history book": the Bible is a book, written by man firstly in Hebrew, then Latin, and finally in English. How much was lost during those translations?
Mr.Fox wrote his book using original Latin texts, which he himself translated to English, and ask yourself the same questions. ...Or is Fox infalliable......like the Pope's God??????
The Pope apologised for the way in which people of the Jewish faith have been treat by Catholic believers. Yes, it may not have achieved anything towards reconciling the ""always" ongoing crises between israel and palestine", yet the Pope did make a step in the right direction by showing that a major faith can apologise without loosing believers.
You say that most of the "perverted p********e priests" would not have created these crimes if they were allowed to marry. That comment in itself troubling to me; what about men and women from other religiois denominations who are child abusers? Are they excused because they are not catholic? If a p********e were married, it would make no difference when the crime is committed. Most Scout leaders who have been found guilty of paedophillia are married, and more often than not, they are parents. (children are generally abused by someone they know).
As you say, "its not just an opinion...........everything i wrote is fact." you are basing your "facts" on a book wrote during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1st, by a man (and yes I know who Our Father Foxe is) who wanted to remain in the Queens favour to save himself the trouble of living in exhile again. (as he had done during the reign of Queen Mary with obvious reason).
One other major point I feel I must make, about your "history book": the Bible is a book, written by man firstly in Hebrew, then Latin, and finally in English. How much was lost during those translations?
Mr.Fox wrote his book using original Latin texts, which he himself translated to English, and ask yourself the same questions. ...Or is Fox infalliable......like the Pope's God??????
-
madmarvin
hello little_tata........ (is that an abbreviation for "big spud" ???)
so i take it that the death of 500 million people at the hands of the catholic church is now forgiven because the pope said sorry to a few jews ???.................... not in my book pal..............
and perhaps you are right about the pedaphile priests, perhaps they might still become pedaphiles even if they were married........
but lets look at this realisticly......... these pedaphile priests ALREADY exist....
you have already acknowledged that in your own post.........
and should my statement that marriage should be allowed for catholic priests somehow negate pedaphilia as a crime for these priestly perverts ???
as for "foxes book of martyrs" does the fact that he "MAY" have made mistakes in translations somehow clear all guilt from the catholic church
concerning this filthy churches murderous actions ???
"foxes book of martyrs" is not the only history book that condemns the catholic church.........
look at the filthy spanish catholics and what they did to natives in south america, that is also recorded in history............
the old testament was hebrew, the new testament was greek, either you believe the bible or you dont, its your choice.
and wether you believe the bible is accurate or not......... does this also negate the murderous crimes committed by the catholic church ???
so i must ask you this question, what is your point ??? you have not supplied a valid arguement in defence of the catholic church.........
but you could always try again.............
(and this question i have for ALL catholics..........
do you know who was the very first catholic convert in your family ???
and was this relative/descendant converted by their own convictions and faith in god ???........... or ........ were they converted due to excruciating torture under the threat of death ???........ how many of you, if you found out that your catholic roots stem from the threat of murder and torture would stay in the catholic faith, knowing that your descendant was tortured by the very church that you have innocently become a part of ???)
so i take it that the death of 500 million people at the hands of the catholic church is now forgiven because the pope said sorry to a few jews ???.................... not in my book pal..............
and perhaps you are right about the pedaphile priests, perhaps they might still become pedaphiles even if they were married........
but lets look at this realisticly......... these pedaphile priests ALREADY exist....
you have already acknowledged that in your own post.........
and should my statement that marriage should be allowed for catholic priests somehow negate pedaphilia as a crime for these priestly perverts ???
as for "foxes book of martyrs" does the fact that he "MAY" have made mistakes in translations somehow clear all guilt from the catholic church
concerning this filthy churches murderous actions ???
"foxes book of martyrs" is not the only history book that condemns the catholic church.........
look at the filthy spanish catholics and what they did to natives in south america, that is also recorded in history............
the old testament was hebrew, the new testament was greek, either you believe the bible or you dont, its your choice.
and wether you believe the bible is accurate or not......... does this also negate the murderous crimes committed by the catholic church ???
so i must ask you this question, what is your point ??? you have not supplied a valid arguement in defence of the catholic church.........
but you could always try again.............
(and this question i have for ALL catholics..........
do you know who was the very first catholic convert in your family ???
and was this relative/descendant converted by their own convictions and faith in god ???........... or ........ were they converted due to excruciating torture under the threat of death ???........ how many of you, if you found out that your catholic roots stem from the threat of murder and torture would stay in the catholic faith, knowing that your descendant was tortured by the very church that you have innocently become a part of ???)
-
Little Lisa
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:08 pm
- Location: germany/formally south shields
-
little_tata
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:10 pm
- Location: the cupboard under the stairs
Mr. Marvin,
Firstly I must congratulate you on a well researched, correctly spelled and grammatically correct reply to my post. You see how things can be both seen and read differently even in the same language?
Your argument is one that both intrigues and saddens me. My own personal religious belief does not have any reflection upon my post.
What difference does it make to you what church someone goes to? Does it really make that much difference to your daily life?
I have never denied there are p*edophiles in the Church, nor would I deny their existence in every part of society; they are there and they should be stopped. You made a trivial statement that paedophillia is a bad habit that can be cured by marriage, but only for Catholic priests. What "book" did you find this information in?
I'm beginning to think that your "argument" is against all religions, not just Catholicism.
I did not try to defend nor praise the Catholic Church; all I did was to question a few of your comments and facts. I now know that in the true spirit of free speech there is only one opinion that can be seen and heard. That opinion is yours.
You feel sad for Catholics Marvin; I feel sad for you.
Firstly I must congratulate you on a well researched, correctly spelled and grammatically correct reply to my post. You see how things can be both seen and read differently even in the same language?
Your argument is one that both intrigues and saddens me. My own personal religious belief does not have any reflection upon my post.
What difference does it make to you what church someone goes to? Does it really make that much difference to your daily life?
I have never denied there are p*edophiles in the Church, nor would I deny their existence in every part of society; they are there and they should be stopped. You made a trivial statement that paedophillia is a bad habit that can be cured by marriage, but only for Catholic priests. What "book" did you find this information in?
I'm beginning to think that your "argument" is against all religions, not just Catholicism.
I did not try to defend nor praise the Catholic Church; all I did was to question a few of your comments and facts. I now know that in the true spirit of free speech there is only one opinion that can be seen and heard. That opinion is yours.
You feel sad for Catholics Marvin; I feel sad for you.
I generally try to keep out of religious discussions - but since I am a translator, and the point was made about the Bible being translated, I must say that I absolutely agree that a lot gets lost, or added, or misinterpreted in ANY translation. Translation is NOT always an exact science - a lot of it comes down to interpretation.
I can give you a great example of what I mean. I recently did some research into and translation of someone's family tree. His last name was "Bley" which is a derivative of the German word "Blei" which means "lead" - as in the metal. Now, somewhere down the line, his ancestors were suddenly called "Pflaumbaum", which is the German for "Plum Tree". So how did we get from Lead to Plum Tree to Lead again? Well, it turned out, that back in the middle ages, certain scholars decided to use the Latin word for their names - considering it more intellectual. Well, the Latin for "Lead" is "Plombum" and over the years that got distorted to "Pflaumbaum" or "Plum Tree" then, for whatever reason, the name was changed back to "Plombum" again, and was subsequently translated into German again, to once again give us "Blei" , i.e. Lead.
But I digress. With regards to the Bible, we also need to remember that the stories were not originally written down at all, but were passed on by word of mouth, and we have all played the whispering game "pass it on", so we all know how things can get very distorted that way too!
Furthermore, there are so many versions of the Bible - the most popular one these days being the King James Bible, I believe - so how do we really know which version is the "True" one? Don't you think that every version has probably been "manipulated" in some way to suit the "author's" purpose or beliefs?
Personally, I view the Bible as a book of symbolistic stories, not to be taken literally - much like fables. Oh, I am sure that there is some grain of truth in most of the stories, but I think the most important thing is the message that each and every one of them is trying to convey.
I can give you a great example of what I mean. I recently did some research into and translation of someone's family tree. His last name was "Bley" which is a derivative of the German word "Blei" which means "lead" - as in the metal. Now, somewhere down the line, his ancestors were suddenly called "Pflaumbaum", which is the German for "Plum Tree". So how did we get from Lead to Plum Tree to Lead again? Well, it turned out, that back in the middle ages, certain scholars decided to use the Latin word for their names - considering it more intellectual. Well, the Latin for "Lead" is "Plombum" and over the years that got distorted to "Pflaumbaum" or "Plum Tree" then, for whatever reason, the name was changed back to "Plombum" again, and was subsequently translated into German again, to once again give us "Blei" , i.e. Lead.
But I digress. With regards to the Bible, we also need to remember that the stories were not originally written down at all, but were passed on by word of mouth, and we have all played the whispering game "pass it on", so we all know how things can get very distorted that way too!
Furthermore, there are so many versions of the Bible - the most popular one these days being the King James Bible, I believe - so how do we really know which version is the "True" one? Don't you think that every version has probably been "manipulated" in some way to suit the "author's" purpose or beliefs?
Personally, I view the Bible as a book of symbolistic stories, not to be taken literally - much like fables. Oh, I am sure that there is some grain of truth in most of the stories, but I think the most important thing is the message that each and every one of them is trying to convey.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
-
madmarvin
hello little_tata.........
your following statement refers to what i wrote.........
"You made a trivial statement that paedophillia is a bad habit that can be cured by marriage"............
in actual fact i wrote...........
............"how many kids would not have been raped by pedaphile priests
if those priests had been allowed to marry ???.... a marriage which would most probably have quenched the sexual thirst of most of these perverted priests ???".............
the key words here are this.........a marriage which "MOST PROBABLY" would have quenched the sexual thirst of MOST of these perverted priests..............
please NOTE my words........."MOST PROBABLY" and "MOST"! ............ my statement is not an absolute positive, as you suggest............it doe's however point out that if these priests were allowed to marry which is according to bible scripture (not catholic doctrine which is contrary to bible scripture)............. then some of these "priests" may very well have avoided committing these devious s*x acts........... even the most simplest of us humans should be able to understand the logic in that !
(on the other hand......... if these preists CANNOT avoid such perverseness {which is what you seem to be hinting at}........ then why the hell do catholics allow their children to go anywhere near these filthy mongrels, and in which case....... why are you questioning my opinion ?)
and just to recap the statement..........
"You made a trivial statement that paedophillia is a bad habit that can be cured by marriage, but only for Catholic priests".........
"only for catholic priests" ???
my post was about the catholic faith and its erroneous and murderous history, therefore you assume that i only condemn pedaphiles who follow the catholic faith............. therefore you must also assume that i condone pedaphilia amongst "non-catholics" ???
once again your arguement is flawed,and if you are not trying to make a defensive arguement FOR the catholic church........ then why are you bothering to argue ???
you asked this question of me..........
"What difference does it make to you what church someone goes to? Does it really make that much difference to your daily life?"
as i have said......... the catholic church is responsible for the murder of 500 million people who refused to follow the catholic doctrine (that is history).........
now then, i ask you....... would you also argue to people that they should not bother about taking a stand against "neo-nazi's" ???.........
the nazi's in world war 2 murdered 6 million jews, (that also is history) and now we have the neo nazis who proclaim the murderous holocaust of ww2 to be nothing but propaganda, and these idiots still pay homage to hitler some 60 years after his death............
unless you are a neo nazi...... then it is my guess that you will not tolerate the neo nazis and the possible dangers that they can, and DO impose onto our society...........
likewise...... i will not condone nor will i tolerate the hypocritical catholic church, who proclaim innocence concerning the murder of 500 million people.
you say that you think my arguement is against "all churches".........
not every church murdered 500 million people, and not every church rapes children...............
your following statement refers to what i wrote.........
"You made a trivial statement that paedophillia is a bad habit that can be cured by marriage"............
in actual fact i wrote...........
............"how many kids would not have been raped by pedaphile priests
if those priests had been allowed to marry ???.... a marriage which would most probably have quenched the sexual thirst of most of these perverted priests ???".............
the key words here are this.........a marriage which "MOST PROBABLY" would have quenched the sexual thirst of MOST of these perverted priests..............
please NOTE my words........."MOST PROBABLY" and "MOST"! ............ my statement is not an absolute positive, as you suggest............it doe's however point out that if these priests were allowed to marry which is according to bible scripture (not catholic doctrine which is contrary to bible scripture)............. then some of these "priests" may very well have avoided committing these devious s*x acts........... even the most simplest of us humans should be able to understand the logic in that !
(on the other hand......... if these preists CANNOT avoid such perverseness {which is what you seem to be hinting at}........ then why the hell do catholics allow their children to go anywhere near these filthy mongrels, and in which case....... why are you questioning my opinion ?)
and just to recap the statement..........
"You made a trivial statement that paedophillia is a bad habit that can be cured by marriage, but only for Catholic priests".........
"only for catholic priests" ???
my post was about the catholic faith and its erroneous and murderous history, therefore you assume that i only condemn pedaphiles who follow the catholic faith............. therefore you must also assume that i condone pedaphilia amongst "non-catholics" ???
once again your arguement is flawed,and if you are not trying to make a defensive arguement FOR the catholic church........ then why are you bothering to argue ???
you asked this question of me..........
"What difference does it make to you what church someone goes to? Does it really make that much difference to your daily life?"
as i have said......... the catholic church is responsible for the murder of 500 million people who refused to follow the catholic doctrine (that is history).........
now then, i ask you....... would you also argue to people that they should not bother about taking a stand against "neo-nazi's" ???.........
the nazi's in world war 2 murdered 6 million jews, (that also is history) and now we have the neo nazis who proclaim the murderous holocaust of ww2 to be nothing but propaganda, and these idiots still pay homage to hitler some 60 years after his death............
unless you are a neo nazi...... then it is my guess that you will not tolerate the neo nazis and the possible dangers that they can, and DO impose onto our society...........
likewise...... i will not condone nor will i tolerate the hypocritical catholic church, who proclaim innocence concerning the murder of 500 million people.
you say that you think my arguement is against "all churches".........
not every church murdered 500 million people, and not every church rapes children...............
-
Jim_in_France
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 3469
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:02 pm
- Location: France
- Contact:
I find it odd that - ANY church, or - ANY specific group of people, be branded potential peadophiles. In fact, the official figures show that most of these sort of offences are commited by married men/Women against their own female children. Or other familly members doing the same.
The reason some people think it's a church or "stranger" issue, is that, Vicars and young boys make "Sensational Headlines" and sell papers!
Sadly, these sort of headlines are used by biggots as "Proof" against people they do not like, such as Vicars and Gays.
The reason some people think it's a church or "stranger" issue, is that, Vicars and young boys make "Sensational Headlines" and sell papers!
Sadly, these sort of headlines are used by biggots as "Proof" against people they do not like, such as Vicars and Gays.
"The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast."
"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell."
Oscar Wilde
"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell."
Oscar Wilde
Well I find the 'gay' people of this world are getting the consent lower and lower for young boys, you no what I would do with these that want young boys, castrate the lot of them. Vicars' yes they are high in the headlines, so are all others that are trusted with kids, castrate the bastads also. When you mention families, yes it does happen, and until the law changes we got to put up with it. When it's the law thats reducing the concent age, I find it hard to see who the proper perverts are, I still say put them all together and castrate them, especially the dodgy VICARS'.>>>>> 
-
madmarvin
gooday jim
you say...........
......."The reason some people think it's a church or "stranger" issue, is that, Vicars and young boys make "Sensational Headlines" and sell papers!"........
but i say that the reason that "Vicars and young boys make "Sensational Headlines"........... is because the vicars are getting caught screwing the young boys...............
and i guess that not all priests are potential pedaphiles.......... but why take the chance ??? keep your kids well away from them..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello elaine h i have a very long answer for you......
bear in mind that i am not trying to preach, and i guess people will think of it as a strange or even fanatical post, all i ask is keep an open mind, read the post 3 or 4 times if you have to, and check out the references i have provided, because i believe it to be accurate.
you say that the bible is just a bunch of stories....
just as a matter of interest read the following verses from mathew chapter 24, these verses are dealing with the "second coming" of jesus christ and it also speaks of "the last days" ie: "armageddon".
so read theses verses and then i will explain some very interesting points on verse 29.(this is from the king james version)
mathew 24 verses 21 to 30
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
------------------------------------------------------------
verse 29 states.......
"after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light".......
this perfectly describes what would happen in the event of a nuclear war,ie: dust radiation etc in the atmosphere, the makings of a nuclear winter.
"and the stars shall fall from heaven" i dont know what that means.......
but this next part is the clincher for me.......
"and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"........
you see, the new testament was written in greek, and as such you can look at a "bible concordance" which is a book that gives reference to the original greek words that were used in the new testament scriptures.....
so lets look at the greek words for......."powers" and "heavens"
"and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken".......
the greek word for "powers" in this case is "dunamis"
and the greek word for heavens in this case is "ouranos"
dunamis is the word from which "dynamite" was derived........(look up dynamite in the dictionary, and it will mention the word dunamis)
"ouranos" is the word from which "uranus" is derived.....(look up the word uranus and it will mention the word ouranos------also look up the word uranium, it will mention the word uranus)
so lets have a look at this sentence with these greek words in mind...
"and the dunamis (dynamite explosive) powers of ouronus (uranus-uranium) shall be shaken"
or........and the explosive powers of uranium shall be shaken
if you insert this in to verse 29, you will then read the following.....
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the explosive powers of uranus (uranium) shall be shaken.
now the point i am trying to make here is this.........
if as you say that the bible has lost translation via different translations etc....... then it is REMARKABLE that a scripture that is around 2 thousand years old can "accidently" ???.....describe a nuclear winter that occurs due to the explosive powers of uranium.....
more REMARKABLE in fact, than if the scripture had been "accurately" translated.
but please dont take my word for it, check it out for yourself......
to check those verses you can use an online bible if you want......
http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp..............
and to use a greek concordance you can go to..........
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html..............
to use the concordance just type "powers" into the first search box at the top, press go or enter, on the next page you will see scriptures, pick the corresponding scripture which in this case is mathew 24 verse 29....... the word powers will be in bold, click on the number on its right, this will give you the greek wording, do the same for the word "heavens"..........
for the dictionary i use.......
http://dictionary.reference.com/
..........................
also check this out......
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uranium
uranium uranus Word History:
Some chemical elements, such as ytterbium and berkelium, derive their names from the places they were discovered, but the element uranium owes its name to an earlier scientific discovery, that of the planet Uranus. Sir William Herschel, who discovered Uranus in 1781, wanted to name the
planet Georgium sidus, “the Georgian planet,” in honor of George III; others called it Herschel. Eventually convention prevailed and the planet came to be called Uranus, like Mercury and Pluto the name of a heavenly deity in classical mythology. This god, called Ouranos in Greek (Latinized
as Uranus), was chosen because he was the father of Saturn (Greek Kronos), the deity of the planet next in line, who himself was the father of Jupiter (Greek Zeus), the deity of the next planet.
The name of this new planet Uranus was then used in the name of a new chemical element discovered eight years later by M.H. Klaproth. Klaproth, a German scientist, gave it the Latin name uranium in honor of the discovery of Uranus. Uranium passed into English shortly thereafter, being first recorded in the third edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1797.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
note that uranium was discovered in 1789, way before any scientist came up with the idea of using uranium in atomic weapons..........
and yet the bible distinctly speaks of "the explosive powers of uranus-uranium"
still think the translators stuffed it up ???
check it out...........
you say...........
......."The reason some people think it's a church or "stranger" issue, is that, Vicars and young boys make "Sensational Headlines" and sell papers!"........
but i say that the reason that "Vicars and young boys make "Sensational Headlines"........... is because the vicars are getting caught screwing the young boys...............
and i guess that not all priests are potential pedaphiles.......... but why take the chance ??? keep your kids well away from them..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello elaine h i have a very long answer for you......
bear in mind that i am not trying to preach, and i guess people will think of it as a strange or even fanatical post, all i ask is keep an open mind, read the post 3 or 4 times if you have to, and check out the references i have provided, because i believe it to be accurate.
you say that the bible is just a bunch of stories....
just as a matter of interest read the following verses from mathew chapter 24, these verses are dealing with the "second coming" of jesus christ and it also speaks of "the last days" ie: "armageddon".
so read theses verses and then i will explain some very interesting points on verse 29.(this is from the king james version)
mathew 24 verses 21 to 30
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
------------------------------------------------------------
verse 29 states.......
"after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light".......
this perfectly describes what would happen in the event of a nuclear war,ie: dust radiation etc in the atmosphere, the makings of a nuclear winter.
"and the stars shall fall from heaven" i dont know what that means.......
but this next part is the clincher for me.......
"and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"........
you see, the new testament was written in greek, and as such you can look at a "bible concordance" which is a book that gives reference to the original greek words that were used in the new testament scriptures.....
so lets look at the greek words for......."powers" and "heavens"
"and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken".......
the greek word for "powers" in this case is "dunamis"
and the greek word for heavens in this case is "ouranos"
dunamis is the word from which "dynamite" was derived........(look up dynamite in the dictionary, and it will mention the word dunamis)
"ouranos" is the word from which "uranus" is derived.....(look up the word uranus and it will mention the word ouranos------also look up the word uranium, it will mention the word uranus)
so lets have a look at this sentence with these greek words in mind...
"and the dunamis (dynamite explosive) powers of ouronus (uranus-uranium) shall be shaken"
or........and the explosive powers of uranium shall be shaken
if you insert this in to verse 29, you will then read the following.....
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the explosive powers of uranus (uranium) shall be shaken.
now the point i am trying to make here is this.........
if as you say that the bible has lost translation via different translations etc....... then it is REMARKABLE that a scripture that is around 2 thousand years old can "accidently" ???.....describe a nuclear winter that occurs due to the explosive powers of uranium.....
more REMARKABLE in fact, than if the scripture had been "accurately" translated.
but please dont take my word for it, check it out for yourself......
to check those verses you can use an online bible if you want......
http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp..............
and to use a greek concordance you can go to..........
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html..............
to use the concordance just type "powers" into the first search box at the top, press go or enter, on the next page you will see scriptures, pick the corresponding scripture which in this case is mathew 24 verse 29....... the word powers will be in bold, click on the number on its right, this will give you the greek wording, do the same for the word "heavens"..........
for the dictionary i use.......
http://dictionary.reference.com/
..........................
also check this out......
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uranium
uranium uranus Word History:
Some chemical elements, such as ytterbium and berkelium, derive their names from the places they were discovered, but the element uranium owes its name to an earlier scientific discovery, that of the planet Uranus. Sir William Herschel, who discovered Uranus in 1781, wanted to name the
planet Georgium sidus, “the Georgian planet,” in honor of George III; others called it Herschel. Eventually convention prevailed and the planet came to be called Uranus, like Mercury and Pluto the name of a heavenly deity in classical mythology. This god, called Ouranos in Greek (Latinized
as Uranus), was chosen because he was the father of Saturn (Greek Kronos), the deity of the planet next in line, who himself was the father of Jupiter (Greek Zeus), the deity of the next planet.
The name of this new planet Uranus was then used in the name of a new chemical element discovered eight years later by M.H. Klaproth. Klaproth, a German scientist, gave it the Latin name uranium in honor of the discovery of Uranus. Uranium passed into English shortly thereafter, being first recorded in the third edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1797.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
note that uranium was discovered in 1789, way before any scientist came up with the idea of using uranium in atomic weapons..........
and yet the bible distinctly speaks of "the explosive powers of uranus-uranium"
still think the translators stuffed it up ???
check it out...........
Madmarvin, you have wonderfully proved the very point I was making.
You say in your last post, that I said that "the Bible is just a bunch of stories". Read back and you will see that that is most certainly not an accurate rendition of what I said, but it is simply how you interpreted what I said. My exact words were " I view the Bible as a book of symbolistic stories" and furthermore I went on to say that I believe that those stories contain some truth and have a very important message for us.
By changing what I actually said to your own version, i.e. your interpretation of what I said, you not only distorted my words, but by leaving out the very important word "symbolistic", not to mention the equally important remainder of my statement, you in fact trivialized what I said, and moreover, you lost the whole meaning of my original statement. Do you see now what happens when things are passed on from one person to another?
With your comments regarding Uranus/Uranium too, you have once again proved my point about how things can and do get lost or misinterpreted in translation. Bear in mind, that most people who read the Bible (or anything else for that matter) do NOT consult the Greek original to see whether the words they are reading could possibly have an alternative translation! So I think it is fair to say that most people who read the Bible would NOT even think of substituting Uranus for Uranium. - Again it is a matter of interpretation! In fact, you yourself have not taken the actual verses that you have quoted from the Bible literally! What you did was to interpret the actual words as being symbolistic of a nuclear winter!
You say in your last post, that I said that "the Bible is just a bunch of stories". Read back and you will see that that is most certainly not an accurate rendition of what I said, but it is simply how you interpreted what I said. My exact words were " I view the Bible as a book of symbolistic stories" and furthermore I went on to say that I believe that those stories contain some truth and have a very important message for us.
By changing what I actually said to your own version, i.e. your interpretation of what I said, you not only distorted my words, but by leaving out the very important word "symbolistic", not to mention the equally important remainder of my statement, you in fact trivialized what I said, and moreover, you lost the whole meaning of my original statement. Do you see now what happens when things are passed on from one person to another?
With your comments regarding Uranus/Uranium too, you have once again proved my point about how things can and do get lost or misinterpreted in translation. Bear in mind, that most people who read the Bible (or anything else for that matter) do NOT consult the Greek original to see whether the words they are reading could possibly have an alternative translation! So I think it is fair to say that most people who read the Bible would NOT even think of substituting Uranus for Uranium. - Again it is a matter of interpretation! In fact, you yourself have not taken the actual verses that you have quoted from the Bible literally! What you did was to interpret the actual words as being symbolistic of a nuclear winter!
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
-
sherri
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 25239
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
- Contact:
Elaine is exactly right, I think- with the idea that taking everything literally in the Bible is not the best way to go, but people would be better off to see the symbolic messages there instead. Years ago i did a little bit of bible studies-not enough to be any type of expert- but just enough to know that some of the numbers and things written would have had very symbolic meaning to the audience of the time and our interpretations over time can also be way out. As Elaine said.
Jim in france also has a point. We started off talking about the pope's funeral and now we are on paedophilia. This is the way of noticeboards I guess.
But Jim is right-most p*edophiles are family or friends, not clergy, but clergy make headlines, while the bad uncle or step dad may not. I have known a lot of priests and other ministers in my day and I can say that they have all been decent living people and caring people and as far as I am aware, not peadophiles. Yet they all get tarred with the same brush for the sins of a minority. Yes, I agree, the catholic church would be better off allowing married priests. But if you think that would stop paedophilia, think again. It is something that is not new, I am sure it has happened through the ages, just people are more open about it now. The sad truth is you need to have some common sense and care when letting your children deal with ANY adult men or women. But don't single out just religious.
Just some well known and researched facts about religious beliefs. Studies have shown that people with strong relgious beliefs(any persuasion) fundamentally are happier with their lives overall than non believers. They generally recover faster from illnesses. If children have a parent with mental instability, then the children of churchgoers generally have a better chance of attaining normality and having traditional values The reason seems to be they have a wide supportive group of like minded people as role models.
I guess in other words, and I have seen this happen, church community acts as 'extended family' and in these days where the nuclear family can be isolated, that can be a real support in times of trouble or illness.
That may not make religion 'right' but it would be silly to deny the social benefits or the power of prayer, for that matter.
And I still think the Pope was a decent man with caring values.
Jim in france also has a point. We started off talking about the pope's funeral and now we are on paedophilia. This is the way of noticeboards I guess.
But Jim is right-most p*edophiles are family or friends, not clergy, but clergy make headlines, while the bad uncle or step dad may not. I have known a lot of priests and other ministers in my day and I can say that they have all been decent living people and caring people and as far as I am aware, not peadophiles. Yet they all get tarred with the same brush for the sins of a minority. Yes, I agree, the catholic church would be better off allowing married priests. But if you think that would stop paedophilia, think again. It is something that is not new, I am sure it has happened through the ages, just people are more open about it now. The sad truth is you need to have some common sense and care when letting your children deal with ANY adult men or women. But don't single out just religious.Just some well known and researched facts about religious beliefs. Studies have shown that people with strong relgious beliefs(any persuasion) fundamentally are happier with their lives overall than non believers. They generally recover faster from illnesses. If children have a parent with mental instability, then the children of churchgoers generally have a better chance of attaining normality and having traditional values The reason seems to be they have a wide supportive group of like minded people as role models.
I guess in other words, and I have seen this happen, church community acts as 'extended family' and in these days where the nuclear family can be isolated, that can be a real support in times of trouble or illness.
That may not make religion 'right' but it would be silly to deny the social benefits or the power of prayer, for that matter.
And I still think the Pope was a decent man with caring values.
-
madmarvin
sherri, my outlook on the scriptures in my last post was anything but -"literal"..........
can anyone find it amazing that a scripture from the original greek written 2000 odd years ago can and doe's in effect, describe the harnessed effects of a modern day material known as uranium ???
(and those verses are just the tip of the iceberg concerning the prophecies of armageddon)
as i said, some people would find my post strange or fanatical.........
you can believe it, or you can disbelieve it.......... its your choice.....
also sherri, if we were to talk about ALL aspects of the catholic church then it only stands to reason that pedaphilia would be one of the aspects covered in such a talk......... after all, a lot of these priests are guilty of it..........
and for the last time........ i have in these posts concerned myself with the catholic church..........therefore the "pedaphilia" aspect has been against the catholic church........... that does not mean that i do not agree that there are pedaphiles in other walks of life as well........
everybody knows that these animals are not all catholics...... but we should shoot the b*stards anyway.............
hello again elaine h...........
ok, so i added a word here or i ommitted a word there...........
but we both still understand what this whole post is about.........
i would like to say this............
if just one or two different words can make the vast difference that you claim, then there is a good chance that you never really know what you are talking about.............
you say you are a translator, therefore you should understand that if the new testament was originally written in greek, and if these ORIGINAL "greek" scriptures can be accessed via the bible concordance, then those "greek" words that i used in my earlier post......... are in fact........ more accurate than the english words..........
i stated to sherri that my outlook on the scriptures in my last post was anything but -"literal"..........(that is to say in the english language)
however looking at the greek words i guess you could say that i HAVE taken these verses "literally" ie: "ouranos" as opposed to "heavens"
(just a recap....... ouranos = uranus from which the name uranium is derived from)
so you should now concede that i was being more "literal" as opposed to "interpretation"..........
also, what do you imagine a nuclear winter would do ???
would it stop the suns rays from shining through ???
well, if it didn't......... then i guess it would not be a nuclear winter,
likewise if the sun could not shine through radiation dust etc. then the moon couldn't either......... can that be denied ???
then i guess the scripture in verse 29 IS reminiscent of the effects of a nuclear winter.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello alice
i have actually written a similar post on another forum......... but it did take a while to put it together............
im glad you agree with the point i was making.
but you do understand what this means dont you ???
WE'RE ALL GOING TO GET BLOWN UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
can anyone find it amazing that a scripture from the original greek written 2000 odd years ago can and doe's in effect, describe the harnessed effects of a modern day material known as uranium ???
(and those verses are just the tip of the iceberg concerning the prophecies of armageddon)
as i said, some people would find my post strange or fanatical.........
you can believe it, or you can disbelieve it.......... its your choice.....
also sherri, if we were to talk about ALL aspects of the catholic church then it only stands to reason that pedaphilia would be one of the aspects covered in such a talk......... after all, a lot of these priests are guilty of it..........
and for the last time........ i have in these posts concerned myself with the catholic church..........therefore the "pedaphilia" aspect has been against the catholic church........... that does not mean that i do not agree that there are pedaphiles in other walks of life as well........
everybody knows that these animals are not all catholics...... but we should shoot the b*stards anyway.............
hello again elaine h...........
ok, so i added a word here or i ommitted a word there...........
but we both still understand what this whole post is about.........
i would like to say this............
if just one or two different words can make the vast difference that you claim, then there is a good chance that you never really know what you are talking about.............
you say you are a translator, therefore you should understand that if the new testament was originally written in greek, and if these ORIGINAL "greek" scriptures can be accessed via the bible concordance, then those "greek" words that i used in my earlier post......... are in fact........ more accurate than the english words..........
i stated to sherri that my outlook on the scriptures in my last post was anything but -"literal"..........(that is to say in the english language)
however looking at the greek words i guess you could say that i HAVE taken these verses "literally" ie: "ouranos" as opposed to "heavens"
(just a recap....... ouranos = uranus from which the name uranium is derived from)
so you should now concede that i was being more "literal" as opposed to "interpretation"..........
also, what do you imagine a nuclear winter would do ???
would it stop the suns rays from shining through ???
well, if it didn't......... then i guess it would not be a nuclear winter,
likewise if the sun could not shine through radiation dust etc. then the moon couldn't either......... can that be denied ???
then i guess the scripture in verse 29 IS reminiscent of the effects of a nuclear winter.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello alice
i have actually written a similar post on another forum......... but it did take a while to put it together............
im glad you agree with the point i was making.
but you do understand what this means dont you ???
WE'RE ALL GOING TO GET BLOWN UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mad Marvin,
Yes, you and I both know what this post is about, because you and I have been party to the whole discussion! However, if you were to say to someone who had not taken part in this discussion that I had said, " the Bible is a bunch of stories" - they would NOT know that that is NOT exactly what I had said and would therefore likely misinterpret the statement. You did more than just omit a word here and there, because by doing so, you changed the whole meaning and intent of what I said. Now, you chose to omit words, but maybe the next person that you pass on my statement to would then add a word to what you claimed I had said, and goes and tells someone else, that I had said, "The Bible is a bunch of stupid stories" for example, which of course, is a far cry from what I actually said.
So you see, things get distorted in the telling, and the more times something is told, the more distorted the statement is likely to become! So yes, one or two different words can indeed make a vast difference! And unless you are actually party to the original conversation, you can never really be sure whether anything you are told is, in fact, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! That's also a reason why we have hearsay rules in courts of law!
What's more, every time anyone tells a story, even the same story, they will never ever use exactly the same words in each telling, and furthermore, memory being a fickle thing anyway, we are all likely to distort even our own version of it, every single time we tell it!
Of course the "Greek" original is more accurate than the English translation. But that is exactly what I have been saying all along! Translations are rarely 100% accurate, not only because words can have different meanings, but also because interpretation plays a huge part when you translate anything from one language to another!
Even small things, like where you put punctuation marks, for example, can wholly change the meaning of a sentence! Here is an example:
The Americans said, "the Japanese started the war"
"The Americans", said the Japanese, "started the war"
The words are exactly the same, but the meanings are the total opposite to each other! And believe me, punctuation is something that is often greatly overlooked and forgotten in any written document! So the translator is often only able to "interpret" what he believes to be the true meaning and intent.
Nor can I concede that you were being more "literal" than "interpretive". You interpret "ouranus" as meaning "uranium" rather than "heavens". How do you know for sure that "heavens" wasn't in fact correct? Quite simply put, you do NOT.
Verse 29 MAY be reminiscient of the effects of a nuclear winter to you, but could be reminiscient of something totally different to someone else!
Yes, you and I both know what this post is about, because you and I have been party to the whole discussion! However, if you were to say to someone who had not taken part in this discussion that I had said, " the Bible is a bunch of stories" - they would NOT know that that is NOT exactly what I had said and would therefore likely misinterpret the statement. You did more than just omit a word here and there, because by doing so, you changed the whole meaning and intent of what I said. Now, you chose to omit words, but maybe the next person that you pass on my statement to would then add a word to what you claimed I had said, and goes and tells someone else, that I had said, "The Bible is a bunch of stupid stories" for example, which of course, is a far cry from what I actually said.
So you see, things get distorted in the telling, and the more times something is told, the more distorted the statement is likely to become! So yes, one or two different words can indeed make a vast difference! And unless you are actually party to the original conversation, you can never really be sure whether anything you are told is, in fact, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! That's also a reason why we have hearsay rules in courts of law!
What's more, every time anyone tells a story, even the same story, they will never ever use exactly the same words in each telling, and furthermore, memory being a fickle thing anyway, we are all likely to distort even our own version of it, every single time we tell it!
Of course the "Greek" original is more accurate than the English translation. But that is exactly what I have been saying all along! Translations are rarely 100% accurate, not only because words can have different meanings, but also because interpretation plays a huge part when you translate anything from one language to another!
Even small things, like where you put punctuation marks, for example, can wholly change the meaning of a sentence! Here is an example:
The Americans said, "the Japanese started the war"
"The Americans", said the Japanese, "started the war"
The words are exactly the same, but the meanings are the total opposite to each other! And believe me, punctuation is something that is often greatly overlooked and forgotten in any written document! So the translator is often only able to "interpret" what he believes to be the true meaning and intent.
Nor can I concede that you were being more "literal" than "interpretive". You interpret "ouranus" as meaning "uranium" rather than "heavens". How do you know for sure that "heavens" wasn't in fact correct? Quite simply put, you do NOT.
Verse 29 MAY be reminiscient of the effects of a nuclear winter to you, but could be reminiscient of something totally different to someone else!
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain