Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by Megalith Beast

Before I was a Pagan, I believed that animals were of equal value to humans, and that they should never be purposely harmed (unless you intend to eat them), and should be respected. I believed that all creatures and the earth itself shared a spiritual energy. .

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 pretty much says exactly what you believe in. In fact animals are meant to be respected according to the bible. Just wanted to point that out.

Anyway, my feelings on religion. I personally believe that religion in & of itself is really pointless. It's the reason wars are fought in the name of religion, it's the reason you have lukewarmers. Religon is nothing more than something you have to do, rather than something you do because you believe & get joy from doing. Religion just ends up becoming a list of Dogmas, i.e. the Pharisees, the Catholic Church (especially in the Middle Ages).
Note:John 8:44 is calling out this type of Dogma, not hatred toward Judeans.

My own personal belief is pretty much along the lines of Minion & Fjorder. I went to church, mostly small gatherings. First one was a tiny Church, then a extended trailer, then a farm house, then the current building my church now has. Now, I believe that a church is the people of a congregation, not the building itself. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah & God incarnate, in both the New & Old Testaments. I belive that the Bible was put here so we could see every facet of the human condition, & how God can help us through them.

Suffice to say, I'm more a Bible teaches us how to be good God revering people. It teaches us how to respect people, both Christian & others, & life in general. I don't believe in forcably pushing my beliefs on others. In fact the Bible is against it. It only allows us to tell people the good news when they ask, or when it comes up in a conversation. Never door to door pamphlets, & holier than though utterings. I believe, according to the Bible & my faith, that by living my life the best I can, acknowledging when I'm wrong & correcting it, & being a good representative is what my faith is all about.

I also believe The Holy Bible, is the infallible Word of God, when taken in context. Without which, it's just a jumble of contradictions.

Also, I really, really dislike most evangelists, especially the ones on TBN, & CBN. They are prey upon people, & make up their own theology.

Trivia for you! The Angel of The Lord (Word of the Lord in the Hebrew) in our current day Bibles, is basically Jesus, before he became a human & took a name. John 1:1 says this basically.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Here we go with the two-faced dogma of the Christian. "We don't force our beliefs on others." No, you don't tell people that they have to be Christian. You just tell them that if they're not Christian they go to hell and burn for eternity. That in itself is a subliminal forcing of unbelievers, because they're threatened with eternal damnation if they don't believe Christ is their personal savior..

See, there you go lumping all of the people that claim to be Christian into one category. Not once have I seen, on this forums, where someone who holds Christian beliefs is blunt & say, "You're going to Hell if you don't repent!" That's like me saying all you secularists & pagans are against Christian beliefs, & you all want us jailed because our stuff doesn't agree with you. See, I can lump you togethor & judge you based on certain individuals too. We are never allowed to tell someone they are going to hell. In fact the most we can do, is warn them they are in danger. We can tell someone they are wrong, but we can't condemn them to hell, we aren't God.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

"Angel" does not translate to "word" in Hebrew. It translates to "ambassador, angel, king, messenger." Trying to give it a connection with John 1:1 is rediculous. If anything, John was speaking in a metaphysical sense, probably attributing all forms of language to God, the ability to speak, to be cognizant of ourself. Sticking it into a "prophecy of Jesus" context is poor interpretation.

You don't even seem to be a Christian, yet you have opinions on what John meant? That's kinda like a 2 year old saying 2/3xy=Z is blue. Malak is the root word. Those words you just typed are what malak is turned into. It is a root word, & you have to take context in order to understand what the word means. In the case of the phrase "The Angel of The Lord", it is talking about the messanger of God. And contrary to most "Angels are among us" believers, it was God himself that did all of the work in the OT. The NT gives the second witness. I could go on, but eh, it wouldn't get anywhere. Heck, ask a rabbi if you doubt what the Angel of The Lord means.


I totally understand where your coming from Minion. Perfect example in this post.

More Trivia! Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus/the Lord in the OT. Let the speculation commence!

How ya doing, buddy?

Firstly, no, I am not a Jehovah's Witness. Seeing as Jehovah is a completely made up name, it would be odd. Secondly, the name Michael makes up the phrase "He who is equal to God." Most concordances render it "Who is like." Now, taking context into consideration, the Bible usually uses either Prince or Archangel in front of the name, though both titles both mean cheif prince in the Hebrew & Greek. From here, we can go to Daniel. In Daniel 12:1 Michael is reffered to as the great prince of Israel. Earlier, in Daniel 10, he was the only one that could keep Satan, called Prince of Persia (i.e. Babylon) at bay.
Some will use Jude 9 as a contradiction to this belief,citing the verse in which Michael says "Lord rebuke you." Jesus did the same thing when praying while he was alive, referring to God as if they were seperate entities, when in reality they were on in the same (OMG, potentially more drama!).
Revelation 7:8 is an allusion to Luke 10:18. Revelation 1:8 also leads us back to Daniel 10. Michael could not only hold Satan at bay, but overcome him completely.
In conlcusion, Prince Michael is a title. Loosely translated it would mean, the "Chief prince of Israel, Who is equal to God."

As for hell, well, it's really not given much attention in the Bible, other than to say you don't belong there, but in Heaven. Hell was made for rebellious "angels." But God loves us so much, that he allowed us to enter it if we choose. He allows us to choose our own lives, & even gave us a place to go if we don't follow His way. That's one way to look at it.

To be quite Frank, all this quasi angel worship, as well as the popular angel beliefs are pagan, not Christian. A little research will lead you to the same conclusion.

Sorry if I made this a Bible study, even if it was just a quickie.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

First off, the Michael thing is a really, really touchy subject. I just wrote it down bare bones. There'a alot more to it. Though, either way you take it, it really doesn't matter. If Michael was just a malak, then there is no reason to ever bring him up unless qouting scripture. If the theory that I subscribe to is right, then we needn't ever bring up Michael, other than qouting scripture, because we now know the name of God as Jesus (Yeshua/Eyesus in the Aramiac & greek). If the latter theory is correct, then it would be fair to equate Michael to God, because Michael would just be a title for Jesus in the OT, & Jesus would be the image of God. Thus, it would make sense in that context. Also, the word for angel is never used in tandem with Michael, it is always great prince, or something to that effect.

As for Jehova, there is no original manuscript containing this name. It's a alternate form of YHWH. Yaweh coincidentally, is also a perversion of YHWH, which we have no idea how to pronounce. The translators added vowels to make it more readable, but the correct pronunciation is unknown.

Anyway, the hard thing about root words, especially in Hebrew, is that there are multiple meanings for a single word. So it makes things like root word studying, really, really tough sometimes.

And for that Daniel 10, Revelation connection, my 2 button spazed out. I meant 12:8. I really need a new keyboard :P

Also, to FallDragon. Hell is never said to be fire, or brimstone for that matter. It really isn't delved into that much. So your Burn in Hell argument is based off of pulpit learners, rather than people who actually study.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well, lik I said, either way, the Michael thing is really moot. And as far as proof, Michael is never really gone into in any depth whatsoever. Michael is kinda like hell, in that it's referrenced, but never really explained in depth.

As far as the Fire & Brimstone verses, the burn part simply means they no longer exist. That's right, according to scripture, if you go to hell, at the judgement, you either become a saint, or you cease to exist. If it was any different, then all the talk about Jesus being the only way to eternal life would be moot & pointless. The Gospel in & of itself is of getting into heaven, not to escape hell, but to continue living.

Anyway, I'm pretty much finished posting in the thread about hell & angels & stuff.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Well, one more go won't hurt anything. To back up the non existance:
Matthew 10:28 - Pretty much says that the "Hell" of the Lake of Fire is complete destruction.
Revelation 21:8 - Basically says that the Lake of Fire is the second death to the human souls that are in hell.

It should be noted that verse 10, it is only the devil & the false prophet & the beast that are condemned to torture forever more. Seeing as those 3 make up the fullness of Satan, it could be argued that he can't just be destoyed, & that God has to bind him. Though for regular old souls, the lake means ceasing to exist. If that isn't the way it is, like I said, the whole point of everlasting life is a contradiction. If it weren't this way, then you'd live forever regardless.

I could go on, but eh, you'll believe whatever you want no matter what I say. Though it's enough to argue against your point, seeing as you can only cite a few verses.

And with that, enough derailing the thread for me.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well, I'm going to use "real world" logic with an answer. Killing is the act of, let's say someone broke into your house at night. You have a family & that person who broke in may hurt your family. You decide to take action to stop whatever may occur if you don't. You take this action, but it results in you killing him, which wasn't your intent, but for whatever reasons you did, wether it be him attacking you, or you knocking him a little to hard on the head or something like that. That's killing.

Muder, on the other hand is planning ahead, or killing for no reason other than to kill someone. Wether someone feels the emotion malice is beside the point. It's a malicious act, not one that is accidental, or done to prevent a murder in the heat of the act, like a cop with a armed perp that is about to kill a innocent victim. It's just pure & simple cold hearted killing, i.e. murder.

Also, all of that is backed up in scripture.The distinction between the two in there are rather fine lined.

FELIPE NO

Edited: I'd answer, but I'm tired of this point/counter point. It'll be an endless stream of it's this way, no this way. Like a said in a previous post, I'm not going to continue derailing the thread. We have free will, believe what you want.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?