Wrong, 'glorytogod' was spamming. 'Mentioning' implies he did so to some
other text on topic, to which there was none.
Did you actually read the bible? There is absolutely NO mention of
'lucifer' or fallen angels or the over taking of heaven. There are some
mentions of angels, like archangels, cherubim and seraphim. They all look
different, and very few actually have wings. Those who do, like the
seraphim, actually have six wings and need all of them to cover their body,
lest they blind or incinerate whoever is unlucky enough to bump into one.
Then there are the thrones, which are described in the bible as "wheels
within wheels," the rims of which are covered in eyes (something easily
believable and seen in real life several times, I'm sure). Now let's talk
about cherubim. As we all know, a cherub is a baby angel, usually with a
little bow and arrow and a leaf protecting his modesty. Except that Ezekiel
10:14
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2010:14&version=NIV)
describes them as frightening four-headed monstrosities that included the
faces of a man, an eagle and a lion. Painters took liberties when
portraying angels
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_in_art#In_Christian_art), and just like
putting capes on superheroes, giving them wings was a visually interesting
way to identify who was the angel in a painting full of regular dudes (wings
were also used in the early church to denote that these creatures lived in
the sky). Archangels like michael and gabriel were given contemporary
military garb. Cherubs in particular didn't get their extreme makeover
until renaissance sculptors revived the ancient practice of putti, which
depicted cute babies dancing and playing around on infant tombs. The
rediscovery and reimplementation of these little cuties brought cupid-esque
cherubs into vogue, as demonstrated by Tomba di Ilaria del Carretto.
Lastly, the thing about the harps was actually invented by John Milton who
wrote about angels "plucking harps" in Paradise Lost, basically just because
it was the cutest thing he could pull out of his ass.
As for the devil, I've never seen one reference to him as satan, lucifer,
beezlebub in the bible, or that he is red with horns and a title. Why? It
isn't in there. He's never physically described except when he visits eve
as a snake, not that was satan anyway
(http://www.infidelguy.com/members/infidelguy/Is_The_Serpent_Satan.html).
Medieval artists who wanted to portray the devil visually had to take a bit
of artistic license, generally drawing whatever seemed evil at the time
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_teaching_about_the_Devil#Middle_Ages).
As for the devil's famous habit of gambling with people's souls, that's not
canonical either. Though his job is to tempt people to sin, he never grants
anybody miraculous powers. We have an old German legend to thank for that
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust). The legend of Faust, made popular
later when it was dramatized by Christopher Marlowe, tells the story of a
doctor who gets bored and decides to strike a deal with lucifer in return
for knowledge, converting the devil from the Prince of Darkness into a shady
snake-oil salesman. There is also no anti-christ as those who believe the
rapture perceive him. The anti-christ is mentioned only four times in the
Bible, and each time he's described the same way
(http://bible.cc/2_john/1-7.htm). "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge
jesus christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such
person is the deceiver and the Antichrist." The anti-christ is anyone who
doesn't believe in christ. The "anti" is basically being used the same way
it's used when we say someone is "anti-war." There are characters in the
book of revelation who will help usher in the end of days: for instance,
there is a 'false prophet', who looks like a lamb and talks like a dragon
(figuratively, we're assuming). And then we have "the beast" from revelation
13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Bible)), which is described as
"coming out of the sea" with 10 horns, seven heads, 10 crowns and other body
parts that do not even resemble a human body accidentally. Also a highly
believable thing. The beast is who is associated with the number 666
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_of_the_beast). It wasn't until the second
century that saint Irenaeus started calling it the anti-christ
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103525.htm), borrowing the term from
another part of the bible that wasn't referring to it. But even that did
very little to change the fact that 'the beast' would have a hell of a time
getting elected to public office since it looked like an actual beast. It
wasn't until the middle ages that the anti-christ character was portrayed as
a guy rather than a huge multiheaded monster
(http://catholic-resources.org/Students/ApocalypticArt/Introduction.htm).
The anti-christ, as a figure in pop culture and cheap-shot accusation was
born. So to summarize, millions are awaiting what they believe is the
fulfillment of an ancient biblical prophecy that is in reality cobbled
together from at least three different characters from the Bible. THis
should effectively shoot down all that rapture silliness.
As for hell itself, the only part you'll find in the bible is the fact that
hell sucks and that there is fire
(http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell) from passages like
Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be
wailing and gnashing of teeth."). That's as specific as it gets. The
version of hell you christians use to scare your kids with actually came
from artists and writers who took those vague descriptions and ran with
them. The understanding of hell as a fiery subterranean cavern full of lava
and demons shoving flutes up your ass for eternity owes its popularity
largely to the medieval double-team of Dante and Hieronymus Bosch. Dante's
Inferno popularized the idea of hell as a nine level of pain and torture. He
pioneered the concept of contrapasso, the idea that prisoners of hell are
subject to ironic tortures related to the sins that brought them there. Like
the "flatterers," who spent their lives bullshitting, and were forced in
hell to "wallow in shit" for eternity. Then that Dutch artist, Bosch, came
along and painted it. As for satan being the ruler of hell, that's a
misconception we can probably blame on John Milton. In Paradise Lost, Satan
famously bitched: "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." But
there's a reason why your god cast satan and his minions into hell instead
of New Jersey: Hell sucks for everyone including imps and demons. According
to 2 Peter 2:4
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%202:4&version=NIV):
"God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,
putting them into chains of darkness to be held for judgment." So there you
go, chains and prisons...for them. No iron fortresses, no fiery thrones, no
mention of satan ruling the cell block...all of that is from the Bible's
extended universe and fan fiction.
So you see, anyone who actually believes in all of this fiction upon fiction
upon fiction, is a kook. No better than Lord Xenu himself, Tom Cruise, and
the rest of his thetan pals.
Sucks when an atheist knows your material better than you, doesn't it?
"ReverendFuzzy" <***@msbministries.org> wrote in message news:66b6cf3e-9ac9-42e4-ab19-***@googlegroups.com...
Did anyone CLAIM it to be alt.religion ? I think not.
1. "Godof Glory" mentioned some scripture
2. I agreed with him, and presented a way it COULD have been on-topic.
3. "Coder X" insinuated that "Godof Glory" had a mental disorder.
4. "Auric_" attempted to de-fuse a possible conflict, with some humor.
5. Deanna insinuated that holy scripture was fiction, because she didn't
believe
6. I corrected her, letting her know her belief is not the only one.
7. Mayayana insinuated that I was trying to force everyone to believe like
me.
8. I corrected her, poiting out that I was attempting to foster peace.
9. You then blatantly chimed in with "go to hell"... an obvious attempt at
conflict.
10. I called you on it.
11. You denied it, and insinuated that I was trying to turn it into another
group.
So where did it happen, Dave?
Show me where someone said this was the "alt.religion" newsgroup?
..and by the way... to tell someone to go to Hell, constitutes belief that
Hell exists... Hell is defined as where Lucifer, and his sympathizers were
placed after trying to take over Heaven. Therefore, to tell someone to go
to Hell constitutes a belief in God, and you just injected religion into a
topic thread in the very same way that you were just complaining about.
It would be SO nice if the religion-bashers in this thread were to write me
directly to say they disagree, instead of wasting my time and google's
server space by making hateful remarks, that will only incite further
disorder.
You don't believe, FINE... that's your belief.
Don't turn around, and say it's fiction, or its being forced on you!
Don't like something I say? EMAIL ME !!!!!
