Conquer Club

Stopper wrote:

Mirak wrote:

Backglass wrote:
And on a side note...why do you never hear of demonic possesion amongst Muslims, Hindu's or Amish? Why only Catholics?

Actually Muslims at least do believe in demons...they call them Jinns...the origin of the word Genie.....there are good Jinn and there are bad Jinn (apparently )

I recently read an article about a Saudi man who was , wait for it......., trying to get a divorce from a female Jinn who he claimed was obsessed with him and would not leave him alone..who he had agreed to marry and had even had conjugal relations with her...he now wanted to divorce her but she would not leave.......he was travelling around the muslim world trying to be exsorcised..

This would make a good movie actually... any ideas for a title?

Just thought you might find the above interesting...

I'm more puzzled, to be honest...So, did this Jinn look anything like the girl in the Exorcist? And if so, what cleric would, in his right mind, agree to marry the man to the Jinn?

I have no idea what she looks like...but she is not a woman possessed by a demon...she is an actual Jinn/demon.....hence only he can see her...
( apparently.......)

Muslims can marry without clerics or other officiation

Mirak wrote:

Stopper wrote:

Mirak wrote:

Backglass wrote:
And on a side note...why do you never hear of demonic possesion amongst Muslims, Hindu's or Amish? Why only Catholics?

Actually Muslims at least do believe in demons...they call them Jinns...the origin of the word Genie.....there are good Jinn and there are bad Jinn (apparently )

I recently read an article about a Saudi man who was , wait for it......., trying to get a divorce from a female Jinn who he claimed was obsessed with him and would not leave him alone..who he had agreed to marry and had even had conjugal relations with her...he now wanted to divorce her but she would not leave.......he was travelling around the muslim world trying to be exsorcised..

This would make a good movie actually... any ideas for a title?

Just thought you might find the above interesting...

I'm more puzzled, to be honest...So, did this Jinn look anything like the girl in the Exorcist? And if so, what cleric would, in his right mind, agree to marry the man to the Jinn?

I have no idea what she looks like...but she is not a woman possessed by a demon...she is an actual Jinn/demon.....hence only he can see her...
( apparently.......)

Muslims can marry without clerics or other officiation

"I'm So Happy to be Stuck with Jinn," now on NBC's revitalized Must See Thursday!

ElMark wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Ok, this is kinda long.... but soooooooo good!


http://www.cwowfoundation.org/Science-Christ.html

Only a simpleton believes the type of garbage provided by your link.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
- Pope John Paul II

"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

Without religion, why bother searching for the truth. Without science, you are doomed to be manipulated by organized religion.

Here is the problem. Science is not bad. All the laws of physics could not exist without God. God is the creator of these laws, man discovers and tests these laws. Man also uses Science to try and disprove God, who is responcible for Science. It is ironic to say the least that Science exists because God created its laws yet at the very same time it tries to exist not acknowleding its creator.

jay_a2j wrote:Here is the problem. Science is not bad. All the laws of physics could not exist without God. God is the creator of these laws, man discovers and tests these laws. Man also uses Science to try and disprove God, who is responcible for Science. It is ironic to say the least that Science exists because God created its laws yet at the very same time it tries to exist not acknowleding its creator.

Hey Backglass/Mirak/heavycola/[insertnonbelieverhere], I'm a bit rusty on my logical fallacies... Is this the argument from authority, the False Dichotomy, Tautology, or a telelogical argument?

It sounds a bit like "A=B because A=B" to me...

vtmarik wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Here is the problem. Science is not bad. All the laws of physics could not exist without God. God is the creator of these laws, man discovers and tests these laws. Man also uses Science to try and disprove God, who is responcible for Science. It is ironic to say the least that Science exists because God created its laws yet at the very same time it tries to exist not acknowleding its creator.

Hey Backglass/Mirak/heavycola/[insertnonbelieverhere], I'm a bit rusty on my logical fallacies... Is this the argument from authority, the False Dichotomy, Tautology, or a telelogical argument?

It sounds a bit like "A=B because A=B" to me...

It contains more than one lol

I'd say the most prominent being either truth by declaration or false dichotomy.

jay_a2j wrote:
Here is the problem. Science is not bad. All the laws of physics could not exist without God. God is the creator of these laws, man discovers and tests these laws. Man also uses Science to try and disprove God, who is responcible for Science. It is ironic to say the least that Science exists because God created its laws yet at the very same time it tries to exist not acknowleding its creator.

Science doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It only searches for truth through the uncovering of irrefutable evidence. Science does not say that there is no God. Science says that there is no irrefutable evidence of God and until that evidence presents itself, a scientist will not accept the existence of God as fact. Scientists are the doubting Thomas.

The problem that many people have with the faith based person is that they cede all thinking and give themselves entirely over to faith making them easily manipulated by a select few. By giving up their ability to think critically, they accept not the word of God as dogma, but the word of God interpreted by a man, many of which have an agenda entirely different from God.

ElMark wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
Here is the problem. Science is not bad. All the laws of physics could not exist without God. God is the creator of these laws, man discovers and tests these laws. Man also uses Science to try and disprove God, who is responcible for Science. It is ironic to say the least that Science exists because God created its laws yet at the very same time it tries to exist not acknowleding its creator.

Science doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It only searches for truth through the uncovering of irrefutable evidence. Science does not say that there is no God. Science says that there is no irrefutable evidence of God and until that evidence presents itself, a scientist will not accept the existence of God as fact. Scientists are the doubting Thomas.

The problem that many people have with the faith based person is that they cede all thinking and give themselves entirely over to faith making them easily manipulated by a select few. By giving up their ability to think critically, they accept not the word of God as dogma, but the word of God interpreted by a man, many of which have an agenda entirely different from God.

I can agree with that. Jay?

edit-

one point I'd like to make though. There is no irrefutable evidence of evolution either, hence the word "theory" attached to it (though I personally am a semi-believer in it, that's a whole different issue....), yet scientists see perfectly fit to glorify it as if it were as true as Snell's Law. Without a doubt, the intentions of most scientists are quite biased toward politically liberal and theologically deistic/atheistic tendencies.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:I haven't read HP because I don't like FANTASY. I also haven't seen any of the Predator movies or Alien movies. Why? Because its fantasy... it could never happen and or I just plain find them BORING. If your faith doesn't tell you to be careful around demonic things, you might re-examine your faith.

If you choose not to read them because you dont like the genre, that's a bit more rational.

A book is not a demonic thing when it is FICTION. J.K. Rowling in no way states that if I wave a wand and say magic words I can make a cat fly. Nor is there any mention of demons or anything such as that in her books.

If you were to follow this line of argument, you could say that Star Wars should be banned because there is "the Force", which is obviously demonic because it is a power given to people which God would disapprove of were it REALLY existant. Most people, myself included, would say that Star Wars is one of the greatest morality tales ever to hit modern audiences.

i agree with ambrose, jay, saying that the alien movies can't really happen is, religious beliefs aside (as you always want us to do for some reason ) a lack of imagination, what caused that lack of imagination? your faith in god, end of story

WintersTwilight wrote:God did not create sin.

then tell me, oh all-knowing christians, who believe god created everything, just who did?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

ElMark wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:
Here is the problem. Science is not bad. All the laws of physics could not exist without God. God is the creator of these laws, man discovers and tests these laws. Man also uses Science to try and disprove God, who is responcible for Science. It is ironic to say the least that Science exists because God created its laws yet at the very same time it tries to exist not acknowleding its creator.

Science doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It only searches for truth through the uncovering of irrefutable evidence. Science does not say that there is no God. Science says that there is no irrefutable evidence of God and until that evidence presents itself, a scientist will not accept the existence of God as fact. Scientists are the doubting Thomas.

The problem that many people have with the faith based person is that they cede all thinking and give themselves entirely over to faith making them easily manipulated by a select few. By giving up their ability to think critically, they accept not the word of God as dogma, but the word of God interpreted by a man, many of which have an agenda entirely different from God.

I can agree with that. Jay?

edit-

one point I'd like to make though. There is no irrefutable evidence of evolution either, hence the word "theory" attached to it (though I personally am a semi-believer in it, that's a whole different issue....), yet scientists see perfectly fit to glorify it as if it were as true as Snell's Law. Without a doubt, the intentions of most scientists are quite biased toward politically liberal and theologically deistic/atheistic tendencies.

So you agree that science is only concerned with the truth, and then generalise that most scientists have a 'politically liberal' agenda? Make your mind up.

Evolution is a theory, yes, like gravity, electromagnetism etc. Please by all means come up with something better and supercede it. Do you really believe that evolutionary scientists are just liberal atheists? Come on man. And pointing to an old book and saying, 'screw the evidence, THIS is what happened' is not a credible alternative (unless you belong to a christian sect that has decided to take the bible literally (except where they decide it is metaphorical, obviously)) - jehovah's witnesses, evangelicals etc.

I'd post a reply to that backglass, but i have to leave for school in a few, so to warm up read jay's little link... ignore the corniness of the professor character, lol

jay_a2j wrote:Ok, this is kinda long.... but soooooooo good!


http://www.cwowfoundation.org/Science-Christ.html

ElMark wrote:Science doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It only searches for truth through the uncovering of irrefutable evidence. Science does not say that there is no God. Science says that there is no irrefutable evidence of God and until that evidence presents itself, a scientist will not accept the existence of God as fact. Scientists are the doubting Thomas.

The problem that many people have with the faith based person is that they cede all thinking and give themselves entirely over to faith making them easily manipulated by a select few. By giving up their ability to think critically, they accept not the word of God as dogma, but the word of God interpreted by a man, many of which have an agenda entirely different from God.

And to that I say AAAAAAMEN!

So you think....

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
I can agree with that. Jay?

You can do whatever you want, free will allows that.

jay_a2j wrote:You can do whatever you want, free will allows that.

Exactly...and that includes supertitions, fortune tellers and fairy tales.

Logic dictates that Logic cannot dictate anything Logical unless Logic has been left out of the equasion. Only through point of view can logic dictate anything, and with the addition of point of view, logic becomes illogical. therefor, anyone attempting to use Logic to advance his/her point of view, is nothing but a pusher of wares!!

God created man kind along with the earth, and it was "good". He created free will and gave it to man. Free will implies a choice. A choice implies things to choose between. The basic choice seems to be between doing the good God wants, and choosing one's self over God by doing the good that the self wants instead. You might notice that people can do good for the sake of doing good, but people do not do evil for the sake of evil.

Evil is not the opposite of good, depending on your definition of opposite. There are some things which we call opposites that can not exist without its counterpart. I call these opposites of relation, because they exist only as a relationship with the other. These are opposites like tall and short. Tall can not exist without short, because tall is only tall if it is compared with something short. There are also things which we also call opposites, but can exist on their own. These I call opposites of position. An example would be when you call a chair opposite another chair. A third thing that we call opposite are things which one can exist without the other but the other cannot exist without the first thing. I call these opposites of creation (for lack of a better name). These include things like heat and cold. Cold is actually the relational opposite of hot, and both measure heat. Heat can exist without cold existing, but cold cannot exist without heat. A copy cannot exist without an original, but an original can exist without the existance of a copy. Good can exist without evil but evil cannot exist without good. A copy comes from an oringinal and in a similar way evil comes from good.

God was not created, and God is good. If both of these are true, then would it not stand to reason that good was also uncreated? Because God is good. It is an aspect of God. If good was not created, then in the same way, evil, which is a corruption of good, was not created. The closest you could come to saying that evil was created, is by saying that Satan was the first to do evil or be evil.



I don't even pretend to be all knowing. I am simply searching for the truth and seeking to understand it. If you find something wrong, please correct me.

Remind me - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

WintersTwilight wrote:These are opposites like tall and short. Tall can not exist without short, because tall is only tall if it is compared with something short.

Ahhh...it's all becoming clear to me now. I am not short...just "Absent of Tall". Cocaine users are not addicts, just "Absent of self control". The next time my wife says she is cold, I will correct her as she is actually "Absent of heat". My neighbor lady isnt ugly...just "Absent of Beauty".

WintersTwilight wrote:If you find something wrong, please correct me.

OK. I would start with the first sentence in your post.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:edit-

one point I'd like to make though. There is no irrefutable evidence of evolution either, hence the word "theory" attached to it (though I personally am a semi-believer in it, that's a whole different issue....), yet scientists see perfectly fit to glorify it as if it were as true as Snell's Law. Without a doubt, the intentions of most scientists are quite biased toward politically liberal and theologically deistic/atheistic tendencies.

You show ignorance by down playing the word Theory. Theory is a heavy word with much meaning. If a hypothesis achieves the level of theory, it means that it has been supported through countless empirical observations. Most work in genetics would not be possible without the theory of evolution. Same holds true for medicine. Ever hear of antibiotic resistance? That's evolution occuring before our very eyes. Ever hear of genetically modified organisms? Not possible without the theory of evolution. It's there and it's real. There is no agenda, just the search for what the natural world actually is and actually isn't.

The abuse that evangelicals put upon the word theory is appalling and done out of gross ignorance. They gotta take off the faith blinders and open their eyes.

http://www.forbes.com/2001/07/26/0726gfp.html
Some evolutionary theory at work.

Dear Backglass,

You seem to have misunderstood opposites of relation. I do not mean that tall is the absence of short, but only that tall is only tall when related to something shorter than itself. You are tall in relation to an ant, but you are short in relation to a skyscraper. If you have nothing to compare something to, then it cannot be tall or short. I think that you may have got relational opposites confused with the kind of opposites that are absents of each other. But if tall is the absence of short, the something could be tall without anything else existing to compare it with.

The first sentance was based on the Genesis story of creation.

-WT

WintersTwilight wrote:You seem to have misunderstood opposites of relation. I do not mean that tall is the absence of short, but only that tall is only tall when related to something shorter than itself.

Yes, I understand it's all about perspective, but it's just silly when used real-world. The next time you are pulled over by a policeman, explain to him you werent going "fast", you were going "very slow" as comets are much faster.

WintersTwilight wrote:The first sentance was based on the Genesis story of creation.

I know...it's a fine book of fiction.

I know i said I would stop posting hear, but I cannot stand on the sidelineds any longer.

Backglass:

You have made your choice. The only true way, the way to eternal life is by choosing God. Thousands of years ago, the Bible was written. If you paly close attention, you would see that prophecies are coming true. The end times are near. You are blinded. Eternal agony is what you are headed for, if you do not leave the path it seems you have chosen.

Knight of Orient wrote:You have made your choice. The only true way, the way to eternal life is by choosing God. Thousands of years ago, the Bible was written. If you paly close attention, you would see that prophecies are coming true. The end times are near. You are blinded. Eternal agony is what you are headed for, if you do not leave the path it seems you have chosen.

You have made your choice. The only true way to happiness is to open your eyes and enjoy this life because there is no afterlife, and no gods. Thousands of years ago the bible was written to control people...keep them in line and encourage them to do "good". There is no "end time". You are blinded. A lifetime of superstition and rituals is what you are headed for if you do not leave the path it seems you have chosen.

WintersTwilight wrote:God created man kind along with the earth, and it was "good". He created free will and gave it to man. Free will implies a choice. A choice implies things to choose between. The basic choice seems to be between doing the good God wants, and choosing one's self over God by doing the good that the self wants instead. You might notice that people can do good for the sake of doing good, but people do not do evil for the sake of evil.

Evil is not the opposite of good, depending on your definition of opposite. There are some things which we call opposites that can not exist without its counterpart. I call these opposites of relation, because they exist only as a relationship with the other. These are opposites like tall and short. Tall can not exist without short, because tall is only tall if it is compared with something short. There are also things which we also call opposites, but can exist on their own. These I call opposites of position. An example would be when you call a chair opposite another chair. A third thing that we call opposite are things which one can exist without the other but the other cannot exist without the first thing. I call these opposites of creation (for lack of a better name). These include things like heat and cold. Cold is actually the relational opposite of hot, and both measure heat. Heat can exist without cold existing, but cold cannot exist without heat. A copy cannot exist without an original, but an original can exist without the existance of a copy. Good can exist without evil but evil cannot exist without good. A copy comes from an oringinal and in a similar way evil comes from good.

God was not created, and God is good. If both of these are true, then would it not stand to reason that good was also uncreated? Because God is good. It is an aspect of God. If good was not created, then in the same way, evil, which is a corruption of good, was not created. The closest you could come to saying that evil was created, is by saying that Satan was the first to do evil or be evil.



I don't even pretend to be all knowing. I am simply searching for the truth and seeking to understand it. If you find something wrong, please correct me.

Maybe God created evil so that he could hit us all over the head with it and say be good because I created you and you are all sinful unless you believe in my son (so all the millions who lived before Jesus never even got a chance to redeem themselves...that's not very kind...) and if you don't do as I tell you I will send you to the most unimaginably evil place possible for all eternity, but you have free will and can choose because I love you all as I created you in my own image...

This I call the opposite of God...which is no God