Off Topic Rants

[SnowyMacie]

Yeah, I like living with rules but not that many rules. It's stupid how people glorify war and militarism when it has been nothing but destructive. The 1938 movie, "All Quiet on the Western Front" was banned in numerous countries because instead of making war look like a glorious adventure, it showed the realities of war the best way they could at the time.

As Pindar said, "War is sweet to those who never experienced it."

And now all of these FPS games don't help either. War is the worst thing humanity has ever done to itself. Personally, I am very pacifist and not even sure if there's ever been a just war. I've never even heard of that movie, I might check it out. My favorite quote on war isn't even really a quote, but more of a dialogue.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[OcifferPls]

I'm not convinced on the connection between FPS games and real violence, and I suspect other contributing factors at work where there have been trends among young males. I do think all of our media sources contribute to a "nothing is real" kind of delusion though.

 

[OcifferPls]

And now all of these FPS games don't help either. War is the worst thing humanity has ever done to itself. Personally, I am very pacifist and not even sure if there's ever been a just war. I've never even heard of that movie, I might check it out. My favorite quote on war isn't even really a quote, but more of a dialogue.

I used to be much more against war than I am now. I still think it's tragic, but now I tend to think that the suppression of war doesn't eliminate conflict, and if a conflict cannot be resolved in any other way, then it festers and divides just grow deeper, possibly making wars even more devastating in the long run. It's almost a necessary stage of growth for societies with competing interests.

War as an industry though I think is an entirely different, and corrupt beast. That I'm very much against.

 

[James of Arc]

said, war, good god, now, what is it good for?
Absolutely, nothing
Say it again, war, what is it good for?
Absolutely, nothing, listen to me
War, it ain't nothing but a heart breaker
War, friend only to the undertaker, war

 

[Imperiuz]

I love nasty video games and movies. Spartacus and Game of Thrones are among my favourite series. And when playing video games (which I hardly have time for nowadays) I'm often the bad guy even if have some kind of honour (not killing animals, maybe me having been a vegetarian for 14 years maybe affects me a little lol )

That's somehow unchristian? Dunno. For me, works of are are supposed to represent human life and thoughts, even the bits we aren't always proud of - that's often the stuff that make it interesting even. Feelings or thoughts expressed in fiction like books, art, movies or video games don't necessarily have to be an expression of good morals or ethics or have to stand for my values in general. It gets kinda hilarious for me when I see some people (not referring to anyone in this thread, more of a personal reflection) who in other instances condemn "moralism" as "judgemental" are fine with moralizing about people in stuff that aren't politically correct in other instances.

I have to say (again, just a personal reflection) who want to push an intellectual idea about how things should be ("nice", "charitable", "feminist", "inclusive to minorities" etc) end up getting emotionally repressed and that's not a good thing for anyone. Worst example I've seen of that is these "safe spaces" the great Milo Yiannopoulos (best gay man I've known of since Oscar Wilde) has exposed on American Universities where students can hide from intellectual discussions that gives them bad feelings of some sort. But I also think this is an issue for many Christians of all kinds - and I don't wanna point fingers on any group or individual, but we Christian guys in particular could benefit from being a bit more alpha so to speak, because that's both what our societies need a lot and the girls like it as well (even if some will not admit it first ).

On top of that, I think a lot of the great works of art and literature of the western world (and I'm sure the rest of the world as well) would not exist if the authors had swallowed emotions they weren't proud of or strived to conform it to some philosophical doctrine.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Left-wing media is depressing. I don't know if it's just their opinions and me disagreeing with them or the fact that they claim to be nice, tolerant people but then decide we're non-Californian/Yankees are scum of the earth who have just voted in Hitler.

 

[OcifferPls]

I'm no psychologist, but I do have experience. One of my recent experiences involved a family member, who shall remain nameless, and who graciously invited me to stay at his home for a short time after I was evicted a few months ago. This person is more than a few years older than myself, but during that time, in the middle of all of his "lessons," he lost sight of himself, and the nature of our relationship as it had been over the past few years. All I really needed was a little help, and I would be on my way, but what I realized was that it wasn't "help" this person was willing to give. Instead I found myself filling a pre-determined role that this person had in mind, whether consciously or sub-consciously, which enabled him to feel better about himself, he being the wise "counselor" who constantly knew best and had the right answers whether or not I needed them, myself of course being the poor desperate soul constantly in need of those answers. In other words, whether well-intentioned or not, this person was attempting to reduce me as a person and to make me dependent on his answers.
That's when I realized that sometimes, in order to be a "better" person, one has to make difficult decisions about personal relationships, because some people can and will keep you down, miserable and dependent, even if they sound "right."

 

[Hawthorne]

Re: Why do people hate the Seventh Day Adventists

I was going to write this on @CodyFaith's wall, but I figured it'd be a tl;dr, but it ought to be right on topic for an off topic rant.

I don't have permissions to post on that thread, but I wanted to mention a couple points. First of all, Jude is referencing a piece of pseudepigrapha called The Assumption of Moses which is believed to be a lost portion of the fragmentary Testament of Moses. With consideration to how St. Jude extensively uses I Enoch for polemic purposes, his motivations for using The Assumption are unclear, but I would suspect it was to defer denunciation and condemnation of false teachers to God.

Secondly, a relevant passage to investigate is Revelation 12 (NOTE: apocalypticism is notoriously tricky and I am well aware of the caution that must be employed when using it as a bolster) in which a cosmic war is reported.

12:9-11 --

9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 11 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"

As often as this has been depicted as some primordial battle, the text simply cannot allow it (Satan was acting as the Adversary in Job); The verses immediately preceding and following it refer to the saga of Jesus.

The focus of the Dragon's wrath is centred on the Woman but is unable to touch her, so he goes to make war with the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus, Christians, in other words.

When would Satan be cast out of heaven? Here's something in St. John's gospel that may be relevant:

John 12:27-36 --

27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him." 30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die. 34 So the crowd answered him, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?" 35 So Jesus said to them, "The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."

It would seem then, by two texts recorded by the same author, that Satan was cast from heaven at the time that salvation and the power and the kingdom of God and the authority of his Christ came. It is my contention this was either at Jesus' crucifixion (cf. John 12) or more probably at the Ascension; Psalm 2 refers to the Ascension and is referenced in Revelation 12:5 and whose undertones are present through the whole chapter.

Was it Michael or was it Christ who secured salvation? The biblical record is clear that it is Jesus, yet Revelation implies that Michael (and his armies) had a major hand in it-- but at the same time that Jesus was in the spotlight. I'm not convinced that Michael (Heb: Who is like God) is another form Jesus took prior to the Incarnation, but the text seems to allow it.

 

[CodyFaith]

Re: Why do people hate the Seventh Day Adventists

I was going to write this on @CodyFaith's wall, but I figured it'd be a tl;dr, but it ought to be right on topic for an off topic rant.

I don't have permissions to post on that thread, but I wanted to mention a couple points. First of all, Jude is referencing a piece of pseudepigrapha called The Assumption of Moses which is believed to be a lost portion of the fragmentary Testament of Moses. With consideration to how St. Jude extensively uses I Enoch for polemic purposes, his motivations for using The Assumption are unclear, but I would suspect it was to defer denunciation and condemnation of false teachers to God.

Secondly, a relevant passage to investigate is Revelation 12 (NOTE: apocalypticism is notoriously tricky and I am well aware of the caution that must be employed when using it as a bolster) in which a cosmic war is reported.

12:9-11 --

9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 11 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"

As often as this has been depicted as some primordial battle, the text simply cannot allow it (Satan was acting as the Adversary in Job); The verses immediately preceding and following it refer to the saga of Jesus.

The focus of the Dragon's wrath is centred on the Woman but is unable to touch her, so he goes to make war with the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus, Christians, in other words.

When would Satan be cast out of heaven? Here's something in St. John's gospel that may be relevant:

John 12:27-36 --

27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him." 30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die. 34 So the crowd answered him, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?" 35 So Jesus said to them, "The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."

It would seem then, by two texts recorded by the same author, that Satan was cast from heaven at the time that salvation and the power and the kingdom of God and the authority of his Christ came. It is my contention this was either at Jesus' crucifixion (cf. John 12) or more probably at the Ascension; Psalm 2 refers to the Ascension and is referenced in Revelation 12:5 and whose undertones are present through the whole chapter.

Was it Michael or was it Christ who secured salvation? The biblical record is clear that it is Jesus, yet Revelation implies that Michael (and his armies) had a major hand in it-- but at the same time that Jesus was in the spotlight. I'm not convinced that Michael (Heb: Who is like God) is another form Jesus took prior to the Incarnation, but the text seems to allow it.

Hey.

The part where in the book of Jude where Jude says "Yet Michael" is saying that even Michael, the highest of angels, did not speak evil of Satan but said "The Lord rebuke thee.". In context it's referring to men at that time who were proud and arrogant and would speak evil of all sorts of powers and dominions, including speaking evil of Satan. So basically, they were trash-talking Satan - something that is not to be done although Satan is evil we aren't to badmouth him.
This verse clearly shows that Michael is not God because it says "yet even Michael" said "The Lord rebuke thee." - which means that Michael turned to a being higher than himself. I know some may point to the relationship of the Father and the Son, the servanthood of Christ to the Father, but it's clear in this verse that's not what is implied but rather a different being altogether submissive to the all-powerful God.

Regarding Satan being cast out, they're 2 different events. Satan was cast out of heaven in the beginning along with his angels (who are now demons), and has been roaming the earth since. In the NT where Jesus says Satan will be cast out, he was referring to Satan's defeat. Christ defeated Satan and sin on the cross. Note how it was pointing to Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection.

Not sure if this is the best forum for all this, as rant implies some sort of negative feelings associated, but regardless I'm happy to reply to these sorts of things (although I will say, I am new to the faith - but these things above I am sure about and confident in my knowledge in).

 

[Hawthorne]

Not sure if this is the best forum for all this, as rant implies some sort of negative feelings associated

Oh, no negative feelings at all on my part; this seemed like the most convenient place to post at the time. I have no emotions behind my postings; they're curiosities only.

This verse clearly shows that Michael is not God because it says "yet even Michael" said "The Lord rebuke thee." - which means that Michael turned to a being higher than himself. I know some may point to the relationship of the Father and the Son, the servanthood of Christ to the Father, but it's clear in this verse that's not what is implied but rather a different being altogether submissive to the all-powerful God.

I feel we will invariably disagree about this since you take this as an actual event and I do not.

However, assuming for a moment this is recounting a historical event, I could still see how it could be used to demonstrate Michael being Jesus. Satan acted as the Accuser (somewhat analogous to a present-day prosecutor) in Job. Evidently the story went that Satan felt he had claim over Moses' body since he was a murderer. Michael reserves that right for God. The tie-in is that, while Jesus is the mediator between God and Man, likewise Michael interceded to God on behalf of Moses. But, again, I'm not convinced this wasn't simply a literary example on Jude's part.

Regarding Satan being cast out, they're 2 different events. Satan was cast out of heaven in the beginning along with his angels (who are now demons), and has been roaming the earth since.

I do not accept the Lucifer-Satan connection, but that's an entirely different topic.

In the NT where Jesus says Satan will be cast out, he was referring to Satan's defeat. Christ defeated Satan and sin on the cross. Note how it was pointing to Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection.

Death and resurrection or perhaps ascension depending on what Daniel 7:13-14 is discussing, but that's hardly worth picking at since they're so closely knit.

But these aren't important issues (in my mind), and there's room enough for individual opinion.

 

[CodyFaith]

Oh, no negative feelings at all on my part; this seemed like the most convenient place to post at the time. I have no emotions behind my postings; they're curiosities only.

Yeah I figured as much haha.

Oh, no negative feelings at all on my part; this seemed like the most convenient place to post at the time. I have no emotions behind my postings; they're curiosities only.


I feel we will invariably disagree about this since you take this as an actual event and I do not.

However, assuming for a moment this is recounting a historical event, I could still see how it could be used to demonstrate Michael being Jesus. Satan acted as the Accuser (somewhat analogous to a present-day prosecutor) in Job. Evidently the story went that Satan felt he had claim over Moses' body since he was a murderer. Michael reserves that right for God. The tie-in is that, while Jesus is the mediator between God and Man, likewise Michael interceded to God on behalf of Moses. But, again, I'm not convinced this wasn't simply a literary example on Jude's part.

Yup, will have to agree to disagree.

I do not accept the Lucifer-Satan connection, but that's an entirely different topic.

Nor do I, Lucifer was a Babylonian king, I was referring to the event as told in Revelations.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[CodyFaith]

You know what I hate? Not getting invited to parties.

Now, I've been to plenty of birthday parties as a child but as soon as I hit my teen years, that ceased. Never got invited to high school parties because I wasn't cool enough. It would be social suicide to even consider having me there. No, don't let that weird kid come! Our whole social standing among the others depends on this level of exclusivity!

It's even more frustrating when people tell me that the parties are not that great because all it is is drinking and yet keep going to the parties. That would be like me going to Disneyland every weekend and then telling a certain person that it's nothing he'd be interested in and shouldn't even be worried about not being able to go there. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Even as an adult, I rarely get invited to parties. I use to have neighbors that would host barbecue's very often and my family would get invited. Sounds awesome, right? Nope. Each time I go over, my mother tells me to go entertain the children while she socializes with all the adults. I end up joking about being the oldest kid there each time.

The first and only adult party I was exclusively invited to was an Islamic wedding hosted by my co-worker. Wanna know how I got invited? I paid a $72 entry fee by hosting a little bachelor party for him and three other co-workers at my favorite bar during wing night. My manager told him in Arabic that I should be invited for this friendly gesture. The wedding itself was fine but I barely knew anyone I could relate to. It was mostly Muslims who could get hostile at any offense, like that one guy who tried to argue with me about the Gaza conflict around that time. I left early.

(Sigh) It's yet another life pleasure I was denied because of my disability. Too bad not many people believe in Luke 14:12-14.

I hear that... I hate not being social at parties either to be honest. I've only been to 2 as a teen, then developed my mental disorder, then went to jail and now none of the social cliques I was somewhat a part of have anything to do with me.

Not a good feeling, I agree.

Also that's one of my favorite commandments. Unfortunately I can't fulfill it and see the fruits of fulfilling that command because I can't financially do it. I also can't see many homeless people in today's generation trusting anyone enough to go to their house for a feast, but I suppose God can make anyone's hearts willing to do such things. No harm in asking anyway, peeps should just be brave, buck up and take the risk by asking these people into your home.

 

[CodyFaith]

Actually now that I think of it, many churches throw feasts that I know of for the poor and stuff. So a way of fulfilling that command without the fear of bringing those types of people into your home could be to just invite them to the church, I see.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[MrMoe]

Film critics who dismiss comicbook movies just because they are comicbook movies and not some boring, pretentious arthouse movie about the meaning of life.

Bunch of pompous, tea sipping, Chocolat watching clowns.

 

[ReesePiece23]

Bunch of pompous, tea sipping, Chocolat watching clowns.

Better to be a pompous tea sipper than a convict.