Ouroboros Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 It doesn't have to be negated that way. "Anti" doesn't have to mean "against" or "negation of", but it could be used as the meaning of "instead of". Hans, without looking it up, I'm pretty sure "anti" means "against" and I'm pretty sure that was the way it was meant when the term was coined. But even if it actually just meant "in place of", due to that one quote from Jesus Himself, "If you are not for me, then you are against me." then any replacement would still be "against" Yes, in a sense you're right, it means "opposite of". But you could also state "Whoever is not against me, is for me", and you suddenly include the passive group instead of excluding it. What I'm trying to say is that the opposite of "Loving God", doesn't have to be "Hating God", since you will have a group between of "Don't Care". An atheist doesn't believe there is any God, so how can he hate him? I don't hate God, but I don't love him either, so how can it be that I must be placed in the "Hate" group? I don't hate Santa Claus for instance, and I don't love him either. But if you're not for Santa, than you must be against him, right? Or take it this way, do you love my dogs? If not, then you must hate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Not why Jesus was so silly and how the Jew is so honorably wise. Neither the ancient Jews nor the character named Jesus are wise all the time. They speak wisdom sometimes, but not all the time. The character Jesus did demonstrate a lot cult leader attitude. Believe it or not, I don't hate the Jews. They just never EVER admit their guilt and are SO quick to divert blame, What is it that the Jews as whole are guilty of? What part do they divert their blame? I would much prefer the Jew to rule than the Muslim.But I would prefer the Buddhist to the Jew. And I would prefer the Christian to the Buddhist (not the SCC tho) I would say religion doesn't matter when it comes to ruling. It should be intellect that should decide that, not which race you belong. You can worship the devil for I care. The scientist is not even in the running because his religion is still too young to be manipulating people so much. Science is not a religion Your Jewish laws and hope will not fail... not until it has won first. I never said that the Jewish law of the OT are perfect. .OORR... were you just trying to demonstrate the role of the "Anti"?? I was trying to demonstrate that the God described in the Bible(both Hebrew and Christian) is no better than the anti christ himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 But you could also state "Whoever is not against me, is for me", and you suddenly include the passive group instead of excluding it. I think what He meant was that due to the particular methodology He was teaching, there wouldn't be any middle ground. This wasn't His choice, it just happens to be it worked out. He was promoting the cause of eternal bonding between peoples so that the psychological weapons of their enemies couldn't have affect. This would indeed create the eternal life He spoke of. Despite all of anti-Jesus rhetoric on this site, the man seriously knew what He was talking about. His problem was that it was just a little too complicated to clearly see exactly why it was a better idea than the what Jew was already entrenched in. But anyway, He was saying that if your NOT intentionally working toward the bond, then by default you WILL be working against it. This is scientifically provable. The only escape from that statement is if you add to the bonding effort in an additional way that He hadn't already mentioned. I happen to know what that addition IS. But for the same reason He couldn't convince the Jew of that time, there is NO way I could even come close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 You're a very interesting person Ssel. Anyway, this sentence doesn't make sense: "He was saying that if your intentionally working toward the bond, then by default you WILL be working against it." Was it intentionally made as a contradiction or was it just a misstatement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Anyway, this sentence doesn't make sense: "He was saying that if your intentionally working toward the bond, then by default you WILL be working against it." Was it intentionally made as a contradiction or was it just a misstatement? ..OOPS..MY bad, sorry... "He was saying that if your NOT intentionally working toward the bond, then by default you WILL be working against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 [..OOPS..MY bad, sorry... "He was saying that if your NOT intentionally working toward the bond, then by default you WILL be working against it. Well it is ironic that Gearge Bush used the same wordings after September 11 in his speech call on the nation of the world to assist with US. How does being indifferent towards a cause is seen at "working against it"? I mean it's like saying if you don't donate in a charitable cause actually means that you are harming the cause. Or would you accept this kind of explanation from a Islamic terrorist " You are not with Allah therefore you are against him. That makes you my enemy because I am with Allah. Hence I should carry out a premptive strike and kill you, otherwise in the future you might become stronger and might harm me" Even Anakin Skywalker gave this dialogue to Obi Wan in ROTS. Obi wan gave a fitting reply "Only the sith believe in Absolutes" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 [..OOPS..MY bad, sorry... "He was saying that if your NOT intentionally working toward the bond, then by default you WILL be working against it. Well it is ironic that Gearge Bush used the same wordings after September 11 in his speech call on the nation of the world to assist with US(and plus George Lucas used it too in the ROTS) How does being indifferent towards a cause is seen at "working against it"? I mean it's like saying if you don't donate in a charitable cause actually means that you are harming the cause. Oops I made this post by mistake. Moderator please delete this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Hi all, Just thinking... What if we are the people that God sends a 'strong delusion' to, so they will believe a lie? If we willingly reject the truth, will we side with The AntiChrist, should one pop up? I'm thinking of the book of Revelation, where at the very end, all the godless turn their guns towards Jesus, in order to stop him from returning to Earth. And how many lurkers here would do so, if they thought there was a chance of stopping Jesus from coming back and 'establishing His Kingdom'? Well, all that depends on xtianity/the bible being true, and being accurate about that truth. So I'm not too worried about 'the antichrist'. I'm far more worried about fanaticism resulting from eschatology - the self-fullfilling prophecy. If you believe the delusional book of Revelations and think you're helping Jesus return (yet again), you're capable of doing just about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 the man seriously knew what He was talking about. His problem was that it was just a little too complicated to clearly see exactly why it was a better idea than the what Jew was already entrenched in. Thats just your opinion now isn't it though? There was nothing "complicated about it", he wasn't the promised Messiah. It's really quite plain and simple. If he is talking about the laws being complicated, I am sorry to say the Hebrew God disagrees with him Deut 30:8-11 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day. And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers: If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off(not too difficult to do). you are clearly anti-jew despite saying you're not...if there's any rhetoric on this site it is your clear anti-jew stance. His rhetorics aren't just restricted to Jews but also to Christians cause he keeps calling them Santa Claus Christian. In fact that's the first one I have heard in my life. Just proves how one can get a elitist attitude from a fallible book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts