Left Behind: The Movie : I want this to happen in real life…

..so that all the damn christians would go away and leave us normal people to have fun at last. Besides, religion starts most wars, so if all the righteous zealots go away, there won't be anyone to fight over stupid meaningless s**t.

Very funny!

Unfortunately, most wars are fought over land and resources rather than religious or philosophical differences. An extension of political objectives by other means (Carl von Clausewitz). So you see getting rid of the Christians will not really solve anything here on earth.

Regardless, I still think your post was funny!

It wouldn't solve ANYTHING? Really? Well at least it would be a start. One less dangerously ignorant cult in the world can only be a good thing. But then there are still many others to deal with.

Now that is exactly what Hitler sought to do. Eliminate anyone that did not fit his definition of how things should be. Divide and conquer. 60 million people died because of his attempts to purge the earth of its so-called scum and it appears that no one learned a damn thing from it! So I guess more Hitlers will continue to rise from among the ranks until we either learn the lesson or destroy humanity in the process.

The religion I fear most is intolerance. I am afraid the most dangerous cult on earth is the tribe of man.

Ahh here we go the old Nazi argument. So lets clear things up: Hitler ordered the deaths of people he didn't like. Where in this thread did anyone speak of killing? Apparently they would be going to a better place ("heaven") through some sort of teleporting device that does not involve death. So what is the problem? The religious people get to live in paradise and the rest of us get to live like normal people.

And if you're religious you have no right to speak of tolerance. Those two ideas just don't mix.

My profile is life4all (not life4some). That should strongly suggest that I consider everyone capable of contributing positively to our collective existence. So I would not exclude anyone (no matter what they believe) from living upon the earth. The only thing we can be sure of is that we are all alive and sharing the earth and we have to make the best of it. In truth no one really knows for certain what happens when we die. I used Hitler simply to illustrate where intolerance takes us. We need conflicting points of view in order to arrive at the truth. There are thousands of religions so we are talking about excluding about 3 billion people from life, as we know it. If they were to vanish, other points of view that you might not agree with would simply replace them. Perhaps by philosophies we might consider even worse than what we have now. As we now consider reaching out to explore outer space, who knows what we may we may encounter? Perhaps 100,000 more religions from even more advanced species!

Religion and tolerance are not mutually exclusive. In fact the religious beliefs I grew up with essentially said, focus your attention on fixing yourself instead of worrying about your brothers sins. Obviously not everyone read that part of the book when they joined a church. The idea was to become enlightened enough to actually enjoy living. Have you ever rented a house to unenlightened people? Well I have and they destroyed it because they thought more like immature children than enlightened adults. The early Christians were martyred but some of their successors often ended up doing the martyring! It is human interpretation that causes intolerance and not religion in general. Having a world where there is no religion accomplishes nothing because the unenlightened human mind is still running the show! We entered the atomic age and now face possible annihilation by our own hand (which is exactly what the Book of Revelations is trying to warn us about)!

There is no premium on ignorance (the root word is ignore). An Atheist can hate gays and abortion clinics too! If you look at human history you will find that philosophies like Christianity, Islam, class distinction, sexism, racism, homophobia, socialism, Fascism, Communism, etc. are frequently used as political tools to control people. So until we find ways to deal with dysfunctional humanity in general (and the pragmatic diminishing resources a definite cause of coveting what others possess), any ism will suffice to replace religion. The problems however, will not go away if the religious folks merely depart. My point is simply that you kill a weed by pulling it out at the root. Religion is not the root cause of our unhappiness.

---

An Atheist can hate gays and abortion clinics too!

---

Yes, they can hate cripples too (blind, lame, has a flat nose, broken-footed, broken-handed, or any other "blemish"), but they don't just read that in a book and feel as if it is their job to do so. They don't feel that they are required to do so by some kind of magical being. They don't feel that it is a required part of avoiding eternal torture.

I also agree with you that religion is used to control people. It is no mistake that the "sheep and shepherd" is used so often throughout some religious teachings. You are the sheep. Why would you submit yourself to that? Why would you want to live your whole life as a sheep when you have no credible evidence that your shepherd actually exists? It seems like a big waste of time to me.

And if there are more advanced species with religions of their own out there in the universe, then their god would be different to your god, right? Because your god apparently only created our planet. So someone/something had to have created those other planets, right? And that shoots a big hole in to your god theory.

---

They don't feel that it is a required part of avoiding eternal torture

---

Please don't generalize. There are some Christians as myself that do believe in what Christ taught that the body "and soul" is destroyed in hell. The finality is eternal but the soul does not live in eternal hell.

---

when you have no credible evidence that your shepherd actually exists?

---

What is not credible to you is certainly credible to others. The description of behemoth (from the first earth age) fits no other animal other than a dinosaur. His nose alone can't not be snared, his tail is like a cedar, he could drink up a river and lives in the mountains, etc. Common sense alone tells you this. What other animal today has a nose that can't be snared? And his tail is as long as a cedar tree? In Jeremiah, he talks about the first earth age and how in his anger he moved the mountains (which is why there is no true north today) Things like that might not ring true to you but they do to me. And many other things like how simple plant life can cure this and that. Intelligent design is seen everywhere.

But I realize that's not enough for some and will never be, so to each his own

Your "evidence" of a god comes from your bible? Really? That is almost the same as saying Spiderman is real and citing the comic book as evidence. You're going to have to do better than that. And before you say it, faith is not evidence.

As for your other points:

Is this animal's tail "like a cedar" (which could mean it is strong, thick, hard, etc) or "as long as a cedar" (how long is a piece of string?). They are very different things. Choose one. But either way, it was just a story.

Even a dinosaur could not drink up a river. Maybe a puddle, but that wouldn't sound as interesting would it?

I'm not interested in what this Jeremiah character from a fictional story talks about.

Yes, plant life can cure, it can also kill, or make us hallucinate. What is the deal with that? Did your god just want to mess with us? Did he want us to use what are classed as illegal drugs in most countries? How do you explain that to your child when he/she comes home stoned? Your god made plant life that should not be used?

Does this sound familiar to you? "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

EVERY plant, on the WHOLE earth, and EVERY tree. For food. Surely your god didn't mean we should eat the deadly ones, and surely he didn't want little Johnny eating peyote buttons and cannabis flowers?

Just a story to some but the description given by God himself when dinosaurs had yet to even be thought of is credible enough for me. Say what you will but not one other animal today fits the entire description given by God in Job 40. People will say water ox, rhino, etc. But their nose can certainly be snared, etc. If it's nose alone can pierce though snares, (common sense tells you that's one gigantic nose) this strongly implies they can't be captured. It takes shady trees (trees?) to cover them with their shadow and so on.

---

I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

---

That's a misquote, God brought forth herbs yielding seed after it's own kind, and fruit trees yielding fruit of it's own kind. He didn't say every plant on the face of the earth was good for food. He made trees in the Garden of Eden pleasant to the sight and good for food if that's where you're getting your quote from.

---

I'm not interested .

---

Which is the cue for me to move on..

No, it is not a misquote. You may not like it, but it is not a misquote.

And this animal story you keep coming back to has about as much credibility as the lord of the rings. Just another fantasy to keep the masses amused.

But now I'm interested to know, can you tell me the name of a dinosaur that would be able to drink up a river? Are you aware of how big that dinosaur would have to be? I'm just curious.

I meant your quote about every "plant" on the whole earth.

Every herb after it's own kind and fruit after it's own kind yes, for food. But not every plant on the face of the earth is what I meant when I began that quote. Meaning he gave us every herb and trees yielding fruit on the whole earth for food (it's here) But that doesn't mean every plant life out there is "good" for food. Just that he gave us every herb and tree yielding fruit that is for meat.

And if you're not interested in reading the scriptures for yourself about what kind of animal is described then what's the point of this discussion. If you were really interested (which I'm almost positive you're not) then you would read the entire description in Job and tell me what you think God is describing. Then we can go from there, (if you're really interested)

My quote was correct. Do some research. Then come back and explain why I was wrong.

And no, I am not interested in reading your stories, but what I am interested in is getting an answer from you on that very simple thing I asked of you: name a dinosaur that could possibly drink up a river. If you can't do that, just make a guess at how big a dinosaur would have to be to drink up a river. The size of a football stadium? Bigger? Just make a guess.

And do you take everything in your stories so literally? I'm curious.

I have answered the points you put forward, why can't you do the same?

Again, the scriptures say every "herb bearing seed, and in earlier scriptures he says every herb after it's own kind.

And you have not answered anything and if "you" alone won't do research I refuse to debate with a non believer whose basic knowledge of the Bible (I'm guessing of course) at best probably comes along the lines of the "traditions of men" and not what the Bible is trying to say. It's not important about what "type" of dinosaur. Heck even a small child could read the scriptures (without the traditions of men hanging around) and come up with the same answer. The description is spot on and makes void your Spiderman/comic book comparison. We know dinosaurs were here. They were very real and God gives a very real description in a time when they were already perished. That's credible enough for me. You started this conversation by saying there was nothing credible but haven't even read the Bible. Not all faith is just blind, faith comes by hearing and reading the word. I claimed to be a Christian my whole life but just read the entire Bible less than ten years ago. And by doing so my faith (which was always wavering) grew enormously. If your knowledge is only from what you've heard through the years handed down by again, the traditions of men which include many of the falsehoods, rapture, eternal hell, the earth is only 7000 or so years old, you really know very little about it. The Bible itself teaches none of that. And so with your non interest this discussion is pointless.

Again, my quote was correct. Plants. Food.

Actually, which type of dinosaur is very important, as I'm sure you have begun to realize after I asked you. Think about it for a minute, think about just how large that dinosaur would have to be to literally "drink up a river". You say your stories give a very accurate description, yet you can't come up with a name or even guess at how large that dinosaur would have to be. Why is that?

And are you comparing your intelligence, and that of other religious people, to that of a small child?

I really am interested. I'm interested in knowing how the minds of religious people work.

Oh and you didn't give an answer on whether you take all of your stories so literally. I'd like to know that too.

And once again, go read the Bible "for yourself" (which I'm sure you have no intention of doing) and then we can have a discussion on beliefs, etc. I'm not "interested" in feeding your one sided debate.

---

And are you comparing your intelligence, and that of other religious people, to that of a small child?

---

You know what I'm saying. Trying to belittle I'm sure just comes with the package. Take a small child with no prior knowledge of the Bible, etc and give him the description in Job and I'm sure many would come up with the answer. Only men/women make it harder with their traditions, etc.

And no, you're not interested( who are you kidding) If you were really interested, you would pick up the Bible for yourself (along with a Strong's concordance) and see what drives people's beliefs, etc. You have a basic knowledge that for the most part is only half truths. You want to get into the mind of a Christian, read it. Until then..

It is only a one-sided debate if you won't answer my questions. Go ahead, give your side of the argument.

Your bible contains the motivations of religious people thousands of years ago. I don't blame them for being so ignorant back then, and I don't blame them for trying to explain the world around them through stories. But what I really am interested in is why it has persisted so long. What makes religious people so sure of themselves that they would kill/die for their beliefs, and live their life as sheep.

Would you be comfortable undergoing surgery if the surgeon had been trained in medicine thousands of years ago, and refused to use newer methods? No? Then why would you take advice that affects your whole life from stories written thousands of years ago? It is just as dangerous, and even you can not deny how dangerous religion can be. How many millions of people need to die in the name of religion before the world wakes up?

And by the way, I have read a lot of your story books, and those of other major religions, so don't just assume I haven't.

No, it became one sided when you refused to read the scriptures in Job. I mean even if you think it's fantasy, surely you can form your own opinion on what is being described there?

OK, lets just say you're right, and it is describing a dinosaur, that brings me back to my question: which dinosaur? If no such dinosaur ever existed that was able to "drink up a river" then the story is a lie. You are the one who brought that story up as some kind of evidence, so it is up to you to show me why you think it is valid.

Most people, even religious ones, don't take those stories so literally though. They understand that it is a losing battle to do so. That is why I asked if you take all of the other stories so literally.

It's valid simply for the fact that dinosaurs weren't even thought of at that point. They had perished but nothing had yet to be unearthed. And yet God is describing one.

And yet you fail to see my point, time and time again.

By the way, don't you think the whole dinosaur-age thing would've got at least a little mention in genesis? You know, something like "I made a whole bunch of scary looking big things with big teeth, but they bored me, so I killed them all and made humans instead."

That would be a big deal don't you think? But no the writers of your stories skipped millions of years past that, to the only "beginning" they could think of at the time. How do you explain that?

And again, if you really wanted the answers, you would jump in and see for yourself. The Bible needs to be read as a whole, just like any other book. I made note of the first earth when I brought up Jeramiah and you said you had no interest. There are other passages throughout the Bible that pertain to the time that was.

Even in the beginning with the first few passage when it says the Earth was void, was translated back to the hebrew word is hayah and that means "became". Meaning that the earth was inhabitated at some point. Genesis then starts to focus on this age, but throughout like I said, the age that was is talked about. And how in God's anger, he moved the mountains (which is why the earth is slightly off )(no one knew at that time there was no true north, etc) and broke up the cities and did away with that prior age.

But you see with just one word, it can change a verse's entire meaning. And it's like that with the entire Bible which is why a Strong's Concordance is needed to take much of it back. He also said in Jer he did not create the world in vain and to be void, so it was inhabited.

In Job, he told him, behold behometh, whom I created with thee (this is another clue that souls were here in the first earth age. When Christ says one needs to be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven, this is another mistranslation -taken back it means to be born from above. And he also says in John 3:13 that no one can ascend from heaven without first descending.

But I'll stop there because I've already wasted too much time in this discussion.

But my point is (once again as well) is that if you really wanted to know these things you would dig in and see for yourself.

You're grasping at straws here. Going back to the old "it was translated wrong, but I know what it really means" argument is really just plain lazy and borderline narcissistic.

Was there no "light" before genesis? Was there no plant life before genesis? Both of those were obviously around millions of years earlier, because plant life doesn't exist without light, and dinosaurs ate plant life. So whoever wrote that particular story was obviously unaware of any prior life on the planet before humans, which was understandable for people of the time. But you, however, have no excuse for thinking that way.

Just think about it, please. Don't live your whole life in fear, hoping to win some kind of magical lottery when you die.

because plant life doesn't exist without light

Actually scientists have recently discovered both plant and animal life at ocean depths where only sophisticated equipment could be sent. They exist without any external light at all by a process called bioluminescence. As such this process would either encourage an abstract form of or completely circumvent photosynthesis.

Did dinosaurs eat it?

Of course they did. I was addressing plants and light.

So, before genesis, there were enough accessible bioluminescent plants to support entire populations of very large and very hungry land-dwelling dinosaurs? Is that what you are saying?

Not at all. I am saying that your statement regarding plants and light does not cover all plant life. That is pretty much all I wrote about that.

So do you agree that the myth of creation in the genesis story is just that, a myth? I don't know if you've stated that yet.

Well even if the entire Bible were myth (originally 72 books that took 1,500 to 1,800 years to write), Joseph Campbell would say there is much to gained, even from mythology. I think the book of Genesis has some rather intriguing things to say. Often the Bible uses metaphors such as, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It becomes clear that the fruit of that tree has nothing whatsoever to do with food (other than perhaps food for the mind). Yet at times the texts (such as the the House of Israel) refer to very specific designations. Now let me first say that I think the earth is actually quite old and that this does not contradict the Bible. Permit me to explain.

We age trees according to rings found in the trunks. Geologists use similar techniques to estimate the age of our earth via the geologic layers (and other sources) found from archeological digs across the globe. This compels geologists to believe the earth to be much older than 6,000 years but there is more to the story. Look at what Genesis 1: 1-2 says (kjv):

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Many theologians believe a vast amount of time occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. They believe this in part because it is equally proper to translate Genesis 1:2 this way:

And the earth became a wasteland and a desolation. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now when we look at the moon, we see nothing but craters. The moon is scarred from being repeatedly struck by meteors and the like over long periods of time (perhaps even wars that predate modern man). This is evidence of events that also must have struck and perhaps even destroyed the earth. In the King James translation, God commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. What? Replenish? That presupposes a previous existence of living creatures upon the earth. Dinosaurs or perhaps even other types of humanoid creatures? Noah was also later commanded to replenish the earth.

So Adam could be like what Paleontologists have called Lucy (i.e. the first of a new breed). God could certainly recreate the earth in 6 days, 6,000 years, 6,000,000 years or whatever period of time he wished. However, I believe that he seldom alters the natural laws he has already put in place because doing so prevents many intelligent human beings from seeking the creator by examining the evidence of creation. There are many educated geologists, archeologists, biologists, physicists, entomologists, historians, etc. that believe in God! Their faith is reinforced in part by the disciplines they employ in their chosen field of study. They have more proof than we of what they believe. So science and faith need not sleep in separate beds.

---

Many theologians believe a vast amount of time occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

---

Yes, and just as many if not more believe that it was not a vast amount of time. But either way you look at it, it is their job to try to make sense of these stories. They make a lot of money doing this. Religion is a very lucrative field to get in to. I can't think of anything else so widespread that has filled the pockets of a few while emptying the pockets of the many. Bernie Madoff has got nothing on religion.

And since you mentioned the moon, that actually provides more evidence that the bible stories were written by ordinary men. The moon is referred to in at least one bible story as a light. It is not. It is just reflecting light from the sun. Surely a man who was inspired by a god (who supposedly created everything) would know this, and surely an ordinary man at the time would not know this. I don't blame the writers though. Most civilizations imagined gods and such, because they didn't know any better.

---

There are many educated geologists, archeologists, biologists, physicists, entomologists, historians, etc. that believe in God!

---

That is another thing that interests me. How otherwise intelligent people can still believe in gods is amazing to me.

The point is that there are alternative translations and interpretations. Yes, people make money from religion and it is obvious that all these diverse ideas cannot possibly all be correct. I only point out that there are concepts to found in many of them that can enlighten us. Some regarding mythology as Joseph Campbell suggests and others that can assist in painting a historical backdrop of the times in which they were written. The history of the Hebrew people and their traditions has had an impact on both Western and Middle Eastern cultures. Some of the ideas they put forth such as washing your hands before eating or abstaining from certain type of foods has been beneficial to us. Science and nutritionist are in many cases corroborating the advice. The Bible calls some foods unclean (i.e. not well-suited for human consumption). The doctors recently told my 82-year-old mother to abstain from pork and shellfish to reduce her cholesterol and lower the risk of cardiovascular related ailments. The Bible refers to pork, rabbit, duck and shellfish as unhealthy choices for us to consume. Deuteronomy contains several dietary directives that typically end with the phrase that it may be well with you. So hows your blood pressure?

It is of course no secret that human beings wrote ALL the books in the Bible. These books eventually become canonized in the 4th century AD into what became known as the Bible" (which means "book" in Greek). The men wrote according to their own understanding. Ezekiel appears to describe seeing a spaceship but that word did not exist in his vocabulary so he calls it a chariot. Now we all know that the Gilgamesh epic was written before the story of Noah and the Ark was written so there is plenty of room for debate. I only suggest we not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds wrote the Bible over the course of 1,500-1,800 years. Unless the text says otherwise (i.e. "thus sayeth the Lord" or "write these things down") the author is expressing his own ideas about the God or in many cases, chronicling an event or linage. Many appear to have been inspired by God or the zeal they felt. They had no idea when they were writing that Constantine would one day order the books to be collected and compiled into a Bible. The books were originally written in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Moses is credited with writing the first 5 books. He says among other things, that his people were slaves in Egypt. Egyptian history says almost nothing about the Hebrews but does speak of the Hyksos whom they viewed as "invaders" that were driven out of Egypt around the same time that the Hebrews would have been there as slaves. Were they the Hyksos and the Hebrews the same people? What we may have here is 2 accounts of the same event seen from 2 completely different perspectives. His-Story always reflects the perspective of the one telling the story.

So are all the 72 books (now 66) of the Bible the inherent Word of God? Well you will not find anything in the Bible itself saying that God mandated all 72 canonized books. In some of the books however (like Revelations), the author says he was told what to write. Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was a highly educated man but he had no idea his letters would one day become books in a Bible.

Throughout my life I have had to reconsider many ideas I thought were settled and cast in stone. We see scientists constantly revising their ideas as new information becomes available. This year Einstein is correct but next year they may say he missed a few things and the following year they may say his ideas are correct again. The fact that many highly educated people believe in God should at least give us pause to reassess some of our own ideas.

This took an hour to write.

I'm not saying that religion doesn't have some good points about morals etc., but shouldn't we do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do? And not because we feel threatened by some kind of magical force? You know don't do "this" or you're a sinner, you won't be accepted in to heaven, you'll go to hell.

And religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality. There are plenty of immoral religious people, and there are plenty of moral atheists.

So then, which stories were supposedly inspired by a god, and which were just the imaginings of mere mortals? Should there be some kind of disclaimer before the stories made up by ordinary men? And why should either be trusted? If I woke up tomorrow and wrote stories similar to the bible and insisted they were true, that I was hearing voices that told me what to write, I would be called crazy, and rightfully so. What makes the writers of the bible different? Because they wrote it a long time ago it somehow exempts them from the same scrutiny? I really don't get it.

---

Going back to the old "it was translated wrong, but I know what it really means" argument is really just plain lazy and borderline narcissistic.

---

Are you joking??? LOL. It's the opposite of lazy. Of course they can be translated back. It has nothing to with "my" ego. LOL Talk about grasping at straws. The tools are there to do so so of course a real student of the word would want to try and get the original meaning because, yes, whether you choose to believe it or not, there are plenty of words that can get lost in translation. Just like words in the English language, for examples- world and hell. These two words taken back can mean something entirely different and the word hell when taken back has more than one meaning in the original languages because it can be translated back into different words. I showed you how just one simple word can change and entire verse. And look, even you and I have see lazy as two different things.

God destroyed the first earth age completely. And yes, started again. Earth was quite the paradise before the overthrow. That's why there's been found perfect petrified forests under desert areas, etc. The firmament was as it should have been.

As for living in fear, that's pretty much what I did "before" I read the Bible. Don't try and act like you know how I live my life.

And now I'm starting to see why you're an athiest, it must be hard coming off that pedestal with that all knowing mind of yours..

Yes, words can mean different things in different situations, and you just pick and choose what you want them to mean. If you don't like one translation, you just look for one you do like.

So tell me again, how can you go through life as a sheep when your whole belief system is based on old stories that are so imprecise that they can mean a hundred different things? That is interesting to me.

---

Yes, words can mean different things in different situations, and you just pick and choose what you want them to mean. If you don't like one translation, you just look for one you do like.

---

OMG, really? Again the tools are there, period. You can't pick and choose lol

Do I really have to explain what a Strong's Concordance is?

---

That is interesting to me.

---

um, yeah, sure it is lol

I know this is an old post BUT, yes they were thought of..Bones had been found in ancient timesThe folks back then had no clue of what they really were, and made up all sorts of stories to explain them..A nonexistent "Dragon" could fit the bill as well as a dinosaurOn top of it all, they perhaps were just poor with a snareThere were many myths, and legends of Giant Beast in, and before Biblical times..My main question is would you put a pretty can of poison in front of your little child, and then say don't mess with it, or would you put it on a high shelf where your beloved child could not get to it???? I won't even mention the fact that since you are all knowing, you already knew your child would eat of it..(Opps, I did mention it)

You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..

Better Living Thru Chemistry

"The Bible teaches none of that"??? Really? Interesting, you claim to have been saved for many years, but only ten years ago decided to read the Bible cover to cover, and suddenly you are the Biblical expert on topics believed by those of us who have read the Bible cover to cover multiple times for decades. Are you more knowledgable than my pastor who has been studying with faith the Word for almost forty years, or others for longer, who have studied to know "what saith the Lord", not to read into it simply what they have been taught? Every point you have made regarding the rapture and now, as I see, claims about eternal fire, the age of the earth, etc., can be clearly refuted by these men and women of faith who have dedicated themselves their entire lives to dig deep into what God teaches us. The Word is clear on eternal torment. Most Bible students understand Jesus used the well-known Gehenna, a place of burning of refuge and dead bodies, as a metaphor for the eternal. Jesus spoke of the rich man and Lazarus as an account, not a parable, indicating conscious torment. I am not going into this in detail, nor will I carry on a big debate, ultimately which ends up fruitless. I just admonish you to consider the arrogant tone you exhibit in the statement you made above and others I have read by you about the knowledge you possess. I am humble enough, I guess, to say I read with interest some of your points regarding the rapture and they caused me to consider my beliefs, as others with similar views have in the past. It doesn't change my mind, as I actually once believed as you did, even ridiculing the pre-trib rapture belief, till the Lord brought me to a place of humility to look more fully into what the Word taught on the subject, to rightly divide the Word of Truth and, interestingly, came to opposite conclusions of yours. Ultimately, we both shall see one day. I will say one thing that struck me odd. In one of your posts about the rapture, you suggested those who hold to my beliefs will be the ones who believe the lie through the strong delusion the Lord provides for those who don't believe. However, I realize my belief in the rapture may be wrong, and, no matter whether I am caught up and removed before the Tribulation or find myself in the midst, I know clearly what the Scriptures teach about that period and certainly will not be deluded to follow the man of sin, but will clearly see my belief was wrong and will turn to the Lord for the strength to endure to the end, for it is in Him alone I can do all things. Thos who expect to be raptured and are not will know it and then will see the tribulation proceeding just as the Bible spells out, including the rise of the anti-Christ. We will know we were not taken, he is NOT Jesus, and Jesus has not yet returned. There will be no delusion, just persecution and likely death. Peace.

"His nose alone can't not be snared, his tail is like a cedar, he could drink up a river and lives in the mountains"

This is your proof for dinosaurs in the bible? Laughable. The first two are vague, the other two are wrong. Nothing that lives or has lived can drink up a river and the big dinosaurs lived on flat plains due to their size. Like all christians you are desperate to make the bible fit real life and doesn't care how blatantly inaccurate it is.

If you read the full description in Job, (40 15-20) it really can't describe any other being. What other could be described here that has a nose that can't be snared or a tail that's as long as a cedar? That's not desperation. This is coming from a Christian who questioned their teachers and pastors all their life until actually reading the bible for the first time about 10 years ago completely through and studying it ever since. For the first time in my life the bible actually made sense to me. And I didn't have to believe what most fundies teach, etc. Since many of their teachings aren't even biblical, eternal hell, earth is only 7000 yrs old, rapture and so on It's actually the opposite of desperation for me lol. But feel free to think otherwise.

Yes, plant life can cure, it can also kill, or make us hallucinate. What is the deal with that? Did your god just want to mess with us? Did he want us to use what are classed as illegal drugs in most countries? How do you explain that to your child when he/she comes home stoned? Your god made plant life that should not be used?

Heroin is made from poppies. Heroin is actually a pain killer but the undisciplined mind can easily pervert the use of it. Hence the term, drug ABUSE which by default implies misuse of any drug that properly used, can be a blessing! Bullets are made from lead but that does make lead evil? I have repeatedly tried to assert here on this very thread that ultimately, the responsibility for how anything on earth is used is mans! In the final analysis, we will have EXACTLY the kind of world that we ourselves promote! Some say there is no God or that the stupid things we do with whatever we touch is somehow his fault (for making us) if he does exist. What a copout!

Much secular knowledge of how to proceed is available and many books have been written but every man is turned to his own ways. So even sound, secular information is ignored by the unreceptive mind! The law says not to drive when the light is red yet that rule is broken 1,000 times every single day! So exactly when are human beings ever to be known as the cause of the trouble that they themselves create here upon the earth?

So I should be able to cook up some heroin to use as a pain killer, right? As long as I don't abuse it? Is that what you're saying? Apart from that, you started rambling again as you always do. Please stay on topic if you want to have a discussion.

I have the strangest feeling that I am being played.

When I keep things simple, you tend to divert the message content. Now I think you are actually intelligent enough to clearly understand what was stated the first time so I offer you a compromise: If you abstain from diversion I will abstain from addressing 360 degrees of commentary (i.e. rambling) to clarify what you merely appear to misinterpret. Will you agree to this?

So I would like to begin with a very simple point:

1) The average human being has a brain capable of discerning the many uses of plants and other tangible material on the earth.
2) A human being can use anything for any purpose he/she desires but not every choice they make is a good one.
3) Human beings are always accountable whenever they make choices that cause harm (to whatever is harmed).

So if someone chooses to self-medicate (i.e. get high) and they die from an overdose, is that God's fault or their own?

OK, so with what you're saying, and the quote I gave earlier from your favorite story book, you're putting forward a good case for legalizing all naturally occurring "drugs". Is that what you want? It is a simple question really.

Are we acting out the old Abbott and Costello whos on first? routine? It has been said that a wise man can play the fool but it seldom works in reverse. You get points for acting the part (because we both know that you are only pretending). The exception to that is of course, attacking a perspective without actually reviewing the source material. Isnt that what you accuse religious folks of doing regarding matters of science?

Now we both know that doctors routinely prescribe medications that would be considered illegal in the hands of a layman. Isnt morphine a heroine derivative?

We are deviating again. Can we abide by the rules of engagement? Please go back, read the post again and answer the question.

I must have missed the part in your story book where it says that only doctors may use the plant life created by your god.

As for your question in your other post: it is a flawed question. Are you asking me whether a figment of your imagination (your god) is responsible for human actions? Don't you see how stupid that question is?

Now, feel free to go back in the thread to the earlier posts you made, and answer the questions I asked of you before you mysteriously disappeared for 2 months. You want answers and so do I. It is only fair that you answer what I have already asked before coming out with your own questions.

I must have missed the part in your story book where it says that only doctors may use the plant life created by your god.

Yes you are missing quite a bit by trying to be clever. So who's on first?

Mine was not a stupid question at all. Tis' but a simple question regarding how we choose to handle what we handle. Now, back by popular demand, the same damn question as before! If you just answer it, I will answer yours:

So if someone chooses to self-medicate (i.e. get high) and they die from an overdose, is that God's fault or their own?

P.S.
if belittling people you stop, more weight will carry your opinions.

Yes, it really was a stupid question, and I'll tell you why. In my opinion there are no gods, so how could something that does not exist be at fault for anything a person does?

Do you see how flawed your question is now, considering who you're asking?

Real life is constantly challenging us to defend our position and that will always be the case. A true academician has to respond. The truth often hides somewhere in between the extremes and that is why we all need to be exposed to opposing views. That is how we all learn and mature.

This appears to be almost painful for you and that thought never occurred to me at all. Under the circumstances, I apologize for the intrusion.