Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Opus Magnus

Mark of the Beast

Mark of the Beast  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you take or receive the mark of the beast six hundred three score and six in your right hand or forehead?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      40


566 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Opus Magnus

Well, if the temple has been looted, and its pieces scattered abroad, then it might be a metaphorical temple.  Spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.  Like, how the city of the Whore of Babylon is not just one latitude and longitude, so it might be with everything else.  Or, it might be Jerusalem.

I think nuclear weapons might be a form of the Abomination of Desolation.

The thing that I think defeats the utter length of the Bible completing is that of the spread of the scriptures.  It was prophesized that the Jews and their seed would spread abroad, and that the scriptures wouldn't go away.  Since that time about 2000 years ago, the scriptures have kept spreading around the world.  It's still spreading, until everyone knows about them.  But, it's kept reaching outward and hasn't completely completed its task yet.

So, it seems to me, that many of the things prophesized by Christ might happen in cycles, until they finally complete, at the end of the world.

Knowledge has been increased, and I think something will have to happen soon, especially if the population doubles again to 15 billion people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
On 9/3/2017 at 7:23 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

It would help if you could link or put in some quotes, the important wording to show more on the mutations, such as left-handedness and irreligion. Of course, the magazine you said you read yesterday, would be the one to have the name of the magazine and the issue it was in. 

I could search it yes, but it would help both you and me, if I could have it here, to back up your points, instead of wasting time looking for something, that might take longer. Plus, it would give me a better idea how is it, those things are considered mutations. 

In what way does behavior modify the genes? 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370421/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

http://www.returnofkings.com/36915/what-humans-can-learn-from-the-mice-utopia-experiment

http://www.newsweek.com/how-behavior-can-change-your-dna-71175

http://www.globalresearch.ca/seeds-of-destruction-the-hidden-agenda-of-genetic-manipulation-2/9379

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 9/4/2017 at 1:37 AM, Guyver said:

No, it isn't.  People like to make it that way because it suits their preconceived religious opinions.  Which is odd, because Daniel's Seventy Weeks Prophecy is anything but vague the way that Christians interpret it.  

So, would you accept a mandatory symbol of some kind that the government created?  Not a social security card.  An actual, physical symbol that permitted you to do business and survive?  This symbol would tie you as a servant of a one world leader.  Since it's a hypothetical, it's a lazy dodge not to give a straight answer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
14 minutes ago, and then said:

So, would you accept a mandatory symbol of some kind that the government created?  Not a social security card.  An actual, physical symbol that permitted you to do business and survive?  This symbol would tie you as a servant of a one world leader.  Since it's a hypothetical, it's a lazy dodge not to give a straight answer.

I don't know that not having a symbol would be as difficult as some might imagine, there are always people that have and want and will get it by any means much like the underground or black markets that exist today and always have. Creative people do creative things, I had a welding inspector come into a shop that I was managing a division of to set them up to mass produce a product. He had asked on a couple of occasions for me to take the welding tests for flat and all position for arc and mig, the third time that he came back to the shop he threatened me that he had the power to keep me out of the industry, I laughed and asked him if he had ever heard of me and he replied no, so I told him that I had been welding for more than 20 years and likely could still do as I had always done and that I wasn't overly concerned with what he thought he could do. I did take and pass the test because I wanted to keep good relations for the company but really had no personal concerns as to whether he could affect me or not. Some of us are invisible until we decide to show ourselves.

So for the most part I very much doubt that society will advance past their greed or need to the point that they will or could exercise that much control over the masses within a society, threats and intimidation can only go so far without repercussions to those that want control.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
2 hours ago, and then said:

So, would you accept a mandatory symbol of some kind that the government created?  Not a social security card.  An actual, physical symbol that permitted you to do business and survive?  This symbol would tie you as a servant of a one world leader.  Since it's a hypothetical, it's a lazy dodge not to give a straight answer.

So, in the last howevermany pages of this thread, I've been arguing the reasons why I'm convinced there's no such thing as the mark of the beast, and you'd like me to answer hypothetically whether or not I'd receive it so that I don't give a lazy dodge.  Lol.  I've been giving the anti-lazy dodge by offering truth for the last several pages.

Sigh.

OK.  Well, I just don't know.  I don't know what it's like to be starving to the point that I would do just about anything to survive; the way many people have.  Would you eat another human being to keep yourself alive if you were starving to death?  Would you eat your own mother?  Father?  Child?

Asking me to answer that question is like answering one of those.  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:
On 9/3/2017 at 10:23 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

It would help if you could link or put in some quotes, the important wording to show more on the mutations, such as left-handedness and irreligion. Of course, the magazine you said you read yesterday, would be the one to have the name of the magazine and the issue it was in. 

I could search it yes, but it would help both you and me, if I could have it here, to back up your points, instead of wasting time looking for something, that might take longer. Plus, it would give me a better idea how is it, those things are considered mutations. 

In what way does behavior modify the genes? 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370421/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

http://www.returnofkings.com/36915/what-humans-can-learn-from-the-mice-utopia-experiment

http://www.newsweek.com/how-behavior-can-change-your-dna-71175

http://www.globalresearch.ca/seeds-of-destruction-the-hidden-agenda-of-genetic-manipulation-2/9379

OK, going to these links, I'm getting different messages here. Granted, I see how the various scientists, and so forth, in each link doing and saying how things that would influence behavior, like over population, under population, and other things like eating certain things, might effect DNA and such, but are you pointing to evolution? 

The first link and I think either the second or third one, talks about over population, but in a quick study of the result, it seems thing occur due to behavior and then it's actions, nothing about the Change in DNA. Other links, seems to me, to point to evolution. 

Here's the thing. You brought up left handedness, and it seems you linked that to mutation. Granted it's something wired ina person, but is it a mutation? What do you consider left handed people? Yes, I'm left handed. Not saying I'm over sensitive, just curious. 

As for irreligion, are you considering that a mutation? I ask, because it seemed to me that you linked that to mutation. 

Plus, these two items, that you mentioned, didn't seem to come up in your links. Yes, you're talking about mutations, and thus DNA, but it seems this is getting off tract here, to what I thought you were implying. 

Plus, how does this gear toward the "mark'? In which, more and more I see other's responses, I still don't get. 

50 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So, in the last howevermany pages of this thread, I've been arguing the reasons why I'm convinced there's no such thing as the mark of the beast, and you'd like me to answer hypothetically whether or not I'd receive it so that I don't give a lazy dodge.  Lol.  I've been giving the anti-lazy dodge by offering truth for the last several pages.

Sigh.

OK.  Well, I just don't know.  I don't know what it's like to be starving to the point that I would do just about anything to survive; the way many people have.  Would you eat another human being to keep yourself alive if you were starving to death?  Would you eat your own mother?  Father?  Child?

Asking me to answer that question is like answering one of those.  

 

Uh, so are we discussing what it takes for someone to 'break down' to receive the 'mark, and judging a person from there? 

Why? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

OK, going to these links, I'm getting different messages here. Granted, I see how the various scientists, and so forth, in each link doing and saying how things that would influence behavior, like over population, under population, and other things like eating certain things, might effect DNA and such, but are you pointing to evolution? 

The first link and I think either the second or third one, talks about over population, but in a quick study of the result, it seems thing occur due to behavior and then it's actions, nothing about the Change in DNA. Other links, seems to me, to point to evolution. 

Here's the thing. You brought up left handedness, and it seems you linked that to mutation. Granted it's something wired ina person, but is it a mutation? What do you consider left handed people? Yes, I'm left handed. Not saying I'm over sensitive, just curious. 

As for irreligion, are you considering that a mutation? I ask, because it seemed to me that you linked that to mutation. 

Plus, these two items, that you mentioned, didn't seem to come up in your links. Yes, you're talking about mutations, and thus DNA, but it seems this is getting off tract here, to what I thought you were implying. 

Plus, how does this gear toward the "mark'? In which, more and more I see other's responses, I still don't get. 

Uh, so are we discussing what it takes for someone to 'break down' to receive the 'mark, and judging a person from there? 

Why? 

 

Essentially no.  I think what his experiments are pointing towards, are that unfavorable genetic mutations happened near the end of the rat's civilization that brought about their extinction.  I think the other ideas are hypothesises of how they might reflect on human civilization.  It wasn't me who came up with this stuff, it was the scientist.  You seem to do that a lot, trying to make it out to be someone else.  It does make sense to me however, it seems like a lot of these old moral codes in science have been swept under the rug, which might be part of a genetic mutation showing itself in society, and in science in general.  Genetic mutation, and everything else starts to sound like string theory at these levels, where everything gets it's own particle, which does sound kind of absurd to me.

Anyway, it's just an experiment that replicates an end - of -the -world scenario in rats.  I find it interesting how comic books, and books, and movies picked up his idea, and how it came out around the same time as soylent green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, Opus Magnus said:

Essentially no.  I think what his experiments are pointing towards, are that unfavorable genetic mutations happened near the end of the rat's civilization that brought about their extinction.  I think the other ideas are hypothesises of how they might reflect on human civilization.  It wasn't me who came up with this stuff, it was the scientist. 

What I don't get, is you talk about left handedness (something you're born with) and then you mention irreligion( a path, a behavior) as mutations. (though you mention cultural enforcements, ((interesting)) ) in your post #415:

Quote

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

I came across this experiment earlier called the behavioral sink experiment by John Calhoun in 1972.  It's pretty depressing to think about, and how it may reflect on human society.  Though, one of the ideas expressed by Calhoun was that of mutations increasing as population increases, and he thought irreligion was a mutation, along with left-handedness.

I'm not so sure these are exactly mutations, as much as cultural enforcement, having lived in the world itself.

I wanted to know how those two items were considered such, by Calhoun. The links you have been posting, really don't talk about them. I ask, because I don't think that left handedness is considered (overall) as a mutation. I wondered why that was brought up. 

And irreligion? As a mutation? I don't see how. And the links you posted do not show anything about that. 

Frankly, I don't see how overpopulations would cause changes in DNA. In behavior, yes, understandingly because of the situations. I try to see how in the links you provided, but it kept showing how there were results of behavior in overcrowded populations.

 

1 hour ago, Opus Magnus said:

You seem to do that a lot, trying to make it out to be someone else. 

Uh, what??? What are you talking about? Trying to make what out to be someone else? Exactly who is that someone else? 

I'm talking about your mentioning of lefthandedness and irreligion as mutations, in which you mentioned in a previous post. 

1 hour ago, Opus Magnus said:

It does make sense to me however, it seems like a lot of these old moral codes in science have been swept under the rug, which might be part of a genetic mutation showing itself in society, and in science in general. 

Huh? If we are discussing moral codes like a definition from here:

Quote

So what is a moral code? Let's break the term down into its key words. Moral refers to something that is concerned with determining what thoughts, behavior, actions, traits, and characteristics are right and good and what are wrong and bad. A code is a basically a set of rules. It follows that a moral code is a set of rules or guidelines that a person or group follows in order to live a just and good life. Moral codes are heavily dependent upon culture. This iis because each culture has its own ideas of what is considered right and what is considered wrong. Moral codes dictates many aspects of our lives, from how we act, to how we dress, and even how we treat other people. 

It's dealing in behaviors we control through learning and from teaching. How is it linked and followed through science. I try to see how you see it in the links you posted, but I can't see how. Are you saying we have a moral code gene? We may have something that is linked in how we care, which would tie in how humanity. But, to further tie it in as a gene, I don't think that can be tied into it. 

So assuming moral codes are tied in genetically, I would think there would be something that shows someone finding it in a lab, in the blood and such and showing it to be moral codes. 

1 hour ago, Opus Magnus said:

Genetic mutation, and everything else starts to sound like string theory at these levels, where everything gets it's own particle, which does sound kind of absurd to me.

Anyway, it's just an experiment that replicates an end - of -the -world scenario in rats.  I find it interesting how comic books, and books, and movies picked up his idea, and how it came out around the same time as soylent green.

Well, all the thought provoking books, films, and such aside, there has been a lot reflecting on overpopulation, (it does seem like a well concerned fear considering how many people we do have on our planet right now.) but I can see how varying degrees of negative behavior can occur, but it happening genetically doesn't make sense. It would all would boil down to situational behavior. 

And anyways, I was asking on your reasoning on lefthandedness and irreligion as a mutation, and how you discussed Calhoun came to that. In all the links about Calhoun, and the kitchen sink experiments and such, I have yet to read about lefthandedness and irreligion as mutations. 

Was there anything that mentions this, since you made mention of it in post #415?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Uh, so are we discussing what it takes for someone to 'break down' to receive the 'mark, and judging a person from there? 

Why? 

 

Well sure, why not?  If you know what it is.....at least, what it's supposed to be; you'd have to be completely ignorant of it to take it.  And most likely, most people on the planet are, completely ignorant.....and why not?  Christians are not the majority of people on the planet.  

Anyway....according to the bible if you take the beast's mark, you're damned forever.  So, there's a fifteen hundred page offshoot argument about what that really means.  But, according to the beliefs of some or many Christians, it means you suffer in hell forever.  Now, the hell that many of these people believe in is so heinous that it's hard to really talk about.  

Of course, some believe in annhilation; which intuitively makes alot more sense.  But, religion doesn't make sense....anyway....so you're damned.  Well, let's get real.  If you are starving to death; literally....you go out of your mind.  So, there's no telling what you can or can not do.  But let's say you're able to make a rational decision.  Why would you take the mark?

One obvious reason would be to save others.  I mean, think about it.  What if you're married and have three small children?  If you know that they will starve unless you take this mark so that you can buy them food......do you have any idea how many people would do it for that?  I probably would myself.  I'd suffer and die so that others may live....at least, that's what I'm confident enough to say.  I've also learned that I"m not always completely trustworthy.  Anyway....what's the alternative to that?

What if you could allow someone else to take it for you....so that you may live.  Would you do it?  So, you'd doom someone else to an eternity of torment just so you could keep yourself alive?  Well.....survival is the most basic of all instincts.....isn't it?

It's quite a dilemma.  And certainly not one that a loving God would impose upon anyone.....but I guess that's another topic.  Like, how do certain people have the nerve to say that God is loving, based on a simple analysis of what the bible says about him?  And of course, those who claim God is loving are completely blind to this part.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

God is loving but he's also just.  Do you know how many times I've heard this argument from people who try to justify what the bible says about God?  I mean, it's just stupid.  There, I said it.  If God is love, as his nature is described, and love is what the bible says.....then there's no way that God is like this. 

If God is actually God.....and people actually needed killing.....any compassionate "ulti-being" with omnipotent capability would just make then instantly non-exist.  To make some poor creature suffer in this kind of torment is so ridiculously not loving that people have to complete idiots to believe it.  Which is especially harsh to say since I once did believe it.  

And I'm really not sorry if that offends anyone.  Honestly.  I know stupid is a poor choice of words, since these people are obviously acculturated and indoctrinated...therefore, not exactly thinking clearly anyway.....but still.  I wouldn't even intentionally make a dog suffer; even if it was evil.  And I've seen some evil dogs.  Well, not evil; but mean and will kill you type.  But I certainly would end them immediately instead of making them suffer; should it ever come to that point.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

So, to think that God - the Maker of All Things - loving and compassionate "Father" would make these poor sorry - a** creatures....these humans, suffer this kind of eternal torment, or even the torment of the Revelation is just to express ignorance, thoughtlessness and fear.  It's like the mindset of people who would throw virgins in volcanoes to appease the gods.  It's just high damn time people starting thinking straight.  

But of course, that's just my opinion.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Only humans do stuff like that . 

Giving those qualities to a God, only allows justification of human debased qualities.  

Image result for crusader atrocities

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
11 hours ago, Guyver said:
15 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Uh, so are we discussing what it takes for someone to 'break down' to receive the 'mark, and judging a person from there? 

Why? 

 

Well sure, why not?  If you know what it is.....at least, what it's supposed to be; you'd have to be completely ignorant of it to take it.  And most likely, most people on the planet are, completely ignorant.....and why not?  Christians are not the majority of people on the planet.  

Anyway....according to the bible if you take the beast's mark, you're damned forever.  So, there's a fifteen hundred page offshoot argument about what that really means.  But, according to the beliefs of some or many Christians, it means you suffer in hell forever.  Now, the hell that many of these people believe in is so heinous that it's hard to really talk about.  

Of course, some believe in annhilation; which intuitively makes alot more sense.  But, religion doesn't make sense....anyway....so you're damned.  Well, let's get real.  If you are starving to death; literally....you go out of your mind.  So, there's no telling what you can or can not do.  But let's say you're able to make a rational decision.  Why would you take the mark?

One obvious reason would be to save others.  I mean, think about it.  What if you're married and have three small children?  If you know that they will starve unless you take this mark so that you can buy them food......do you have any idea how many people would do it for that?  I probably would myself.  I'd suffer and die so that others may live....at least, that's what I'm confident enough to say.  I've also learned that I"m not always completely trustworthy.  Anyway....what's the alternative to that?

What if you could allow someone else to take it for you....so that you may live.  Would you do it?  So, you'd doom someone else to an eternity of torment just so you could keep yourself alive?  Well.....survival is the most basic of all instincts.....isn't it?

It's quite a dilemma.  And certainly not one that a loving God would impose upon anyone.....but I guess that's another topic.  Like, how do certain people have the nerve to say that God is loving, based on a simple analysis of what the bible says about him?  And of course, those who claim God is loving are completely blind to this part.  

Thank you for pretty much explaining it to me, what this is all about. :yes:  :)  And boy, it seems very ............ confusing still. And why the ............. availability of the mark? If anyone understands what I mean about that? Is this suppose to be some test that humans have to go through? Really? ( <------- My opinion) I would think, just what you're doing, good or bad, pretty much has a score card kept on ya, and then you're deposited to the proper place due to your actions. 

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

Well sure, why not?  If you know what it is.....at least, what it's supposed to be; you'd have to be completely ignorant of it to take it.

This bit had me going :huh:  I'm not sure I understand this, so bear with me. Are you suppose to be ignorant to take it, or it loses it's meaning to why you're taking it? Then, what's the point in that? 

I think, it is thought provoking, when you consider situations of what loving parents will do, to protect their children. I'm one, so I can understand that. And yes, if I believed in this, I would take it in a minute if it protects and saves my children. This reminds me of a movie "The Heavenly Kid" , where the protagonist was a guy in the past, who died in a failed car race, and is an angel to a present day kid, who he has to help, so he himself can get into get into Heaven. Turns out the kid happens to be his biological son, and the guy tells his angel messenger he will go to Hell, if his son is saved. Of course, he ends up going to Heaven, because of that honest bit and it was because he became a sincere loving dad to protect his son. 

Looking at it, it's like you meant to do what you did, but you're saved for it. So, if this is a lead to have others follow, they would do it, just because they think it will help them, though the first one did it, thinking it wouldn't help themselves, just who they loved. See what I'm getting here. 

In the end, why even say you'll take the mark, if it's to save others? It's pointless, because of how you're considered. If it's to take the mark, to protect yourself from worse, well, in the end, one can only suffer to the point it damages them, and does a higher power really want to do this to the 'children' they profess to love? Yeah, this kind of goes with what you're saying Guyver. :yes: 

I'll bring back my thought of the "Black Box" ideal and consider that a comparison. In the end, my feelings on that, is I wouldn't press the red button, because I will not destroy a life, to get money. This has become, to me, something that doesn't seem to have any real helpful result to mankind. I really think we should concentrate and focus and how we behave and treat ourselves, and then go from there. The 'mark' is just way too complicated for what we really need to do. 

And considering, that I feel that the basis of religions, is to be kind and love others, why the test? For What? To be in Heaven? I don't get that. 

Plus, again, I'm wondering how being left handed, and irreligion, in which that could be me as well, is considered mutations. And is that considered to be 'marks' right there? In fact, I don't get bringing those topics (left handedness and irreligion as mutations) up in this thread.

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
Fix a sentence, so it makes more sense.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

God doesn't always want good things said about him.  There are times in scripture, where it isn't right to bless God, but where he expects to be hated, and those that love him too much he isn't happy with.  Like in Zechariah 11, where the price of Jesus is set for 30 pieces of silver well before his birth.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

What I don't get, is you talk about left handedness (something you're born with) and then you mention irreligion( a path, a behavior) as mutations. (though you mention cultural enforcements, ((interesting)) ) in your post #415:

I wanted to know how those two items were considered such, by Calhoun. The links you have been posting, really don't talk about them. I ask, because I don't think that left handedness is considered (overall) as a mutation. I wondered why that was brought up. 

And irreligion? As a mutation? I don't see how. And the links you posted do not show anything about that. 

Frankly, I don't see how overpopulations would cause changes in DNA. In behavior, yes, understandingly because of the situations. I try to see how in the links you provided, but it kept showing how there were results of behavior in overcrowded populations.

 

Uh, what??? What are you talking about? Trying to make what out to be someone else? Exactly who is that someone else? 

I'm talking about your mentioning of lefthandedness and irreligion as mutations, in which you mentioned in a previous post. 

Huh? If we are discussing moral codes like a definition from here:

It's dealing in behaviors we control through learning and from teaching. How is it linked and followed through science. I try to see how you see it in the links you posted, but I can't see how. Are you saying we have a moral code gene? We may have something that is linked in how we care, which would tie in how humanity. But, to further tie it in as a gene, I don't think that can be tied into it. 

So assuming moral codes are tied in genetically, I would think there would be something that shows someone finding it in a lab, in the blood and such and showing it to be moral codes. 

Well, all the thought provoking books, films, and such aside, there has been a lot reflecting on overpopulation, (it does seem like a well concerned fear considering how many people we do have on our planet right now.) but I can see how varying degrees of negative behavior can occur, but it happening genetically doesn't make sense. It would all would boil down to situational behavior. 

And anyways, I was asking on your reasoning on lefthandedness and irreligion as a mutation, and how you discussed Calhoun came to that. In all the links about Calhoun, and the kitchen sink experiments and such, I have yet to read about lefthandedness and irreligion as mutations. 

Was there anything that mentions this, since you made mention of it in post #415?

IDK...   Pretty sure that's what he's talking about.  I mean, I've heard stuff like this from over people in this generation.  It makes sense to me, pretty sure they're all applied to something genetic.  It wasn't me who came up with it, it was the scientists from that era, but I kinda agree.  Pretty sure if you start searching for it you'll find answers, but I don't really care.  One of the links I provided literally says that behavior can modify genes, in that, how the mother grooms her child depends on if certain genes turn on or off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
6 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

God doesn't always want good things said about him.  There are times in scripture, where it isn't right to bless God, but where he expects to be hated, and those that love him too much he isn't happy with.  Like in Zechariah 11, where the price of Jesus is set for 30 pieces of silver well before his birth.

IDK...   Pretty sure that's what he's talking about.  I mean, I've heard stuff like this from over people in this generation.  It makes sense to me, pretty sure they're all applied to something genetic.  It wasn't me who came up with it, it was the scientists from that era, but I kinda agree.  Pretty sure if you start searching for it you'll find answers, but I don't really care.  One of the links I provided literally says that behavior can modify genes, in that, how the mother grooms her child depends on if certain genes turn on or off.

:blink: 

I don't Opus, I really don't know. I asked for you to show more on Left handedness and Irreligion being mutations, that's all, and you give me links to something else, and don't give me sources to something you're pretty sure was discussed by Calhoun??!! 

I mean, sheesh, you brought up the point of something, that I really haven't found being discussed in your links. I really don't think I need to go off rails about overpopulation causing genetic mutations or not. I just want to know why you brought up Calhoun's points of lefthandedness and irreligion and them being mutations. And I really do not believe over populations can cause genetic mutations, unless constant years of people being pressed together so tight, that they end up with skinny bones genes. 

Besides, it's not that I'm really that interested in proving over population causes gene mutations, ( i fact, I don't believe it) and I'm not going through the trouble to prove what you think is true, and I don't. If you want me to believe it, you go through the trouble. If not, then you didn't succeed in convincing me. 

Which ever, Guyver pretty much explained it to me, the point of this discussion of the 'Mark', (thanks Guyver) and that's pretty much it for me. 

I'm out of this thread. I do not see how anything dealing with the mark can have any bearing with day to day living in the way I see it. 

Laters!

 

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
On 9/3/2017 at 9:22 AM, Guyver said:

I speak with certainty because of the nature of prophecy and the facts.  A prophecy is a foretelling of future events.  If a prophesy is given with an associated time frame, and it does not occur within that time frame, it can be considered false.  There are many examples of this, some recent, like the false prediction of the rapture a few years ago that caught the attention of the world by Harold Camping.  

The Revelation is a prophecy about the end of the world through a series of plagues and wars, ultimately resulting in Armageddon and the destruction of the planet.  The time frame of the prophesy is given in the opening verse and restated several times throughout.  The prophesied events did not occur, and the world did not end....therefore it is a false prophecy.  If you need me to get more specific and offer more "proof" let me know and I will be happy to do so.  

Not to say that we might not do ourselves in, but it won't in accordance with what was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
On 9/6/2017 at 8:15 PM, Guyver said:

So, to think that God - the Maker of All Things - loving and compassionate "Father" would make these poor sorry - a** creatures....these humans, suffer this kind of eternal torment, or even the torment of the Revelation is just to express ignorance, thoughtlessness and fear.  It's like the mindset of people who would throw virgins in volcanoes to appease the gods.  It's just high damn time people starting thinking straight.  

But of course, that's just my opinion.  

We think alike. I have used the virgins in volcanoes analogy, myself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
13 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

We think alike. I have used the virgins in volcanoes analogy, myself.

Good to know.  I think of it like this......if you free yourself from religious bondage, and begin to contemplate with wisdom....you can ask the questions and get some answers.  For example, how is it possible for God to be less moral than a man?  It's not.  So, if I wouldn't even intentionally harm a dog, and would have respect for that life......then God must be even more understanding and compassionate than me and therefore always behave accordingly. I don't see how anyone could take issue with this type of thinking, but apparently they do.  They believe that to criticize the bible is to disrespect God.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Apparently, they don't stop to consider that if the bible needs criticizing, maybe it's not from God.  I don't hear people criticizing the sun, moon, or stars.  They don't need any criticism.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

That's an aspect, about 'how can God be more moral than us.'   I've thought about this myself from time to time, I guess it's just the same thing as how a person might respect their parents as being godlike when you are young, and they are big protectors.  Also, they might be very scary when they get angry and punish the child for something.

Anyway, I think one of the big differences is that of the tree of life.  In Genesis, Adam and Eve took from the tree of knowledge and learned the difference between Good and Evil, but then when God found out he kicked them out of the garden 'lest they eat from the tree of life also and become like us;' 

That is, the tree of life is supposed to give immortality, and I guess that might make God, and his angels tremble if mankind were to reach that state.  Also, I think it's sort of the same thing when they destroyed the tower of Babel and made sure mankind wouldn't reach that stage of development very easily again by confounding language.

However, the thing that I find interesting, is how in many different religions and mythologies, there is the idea of apples that give the gods immortality.  It's quite a common idea, and is associated with apples growing from a certain tree.

Also, the tree of life that grows the apples is sometimes separated from the tree of life that brings forth the waters to the earth from its roots.  Though, in some mythologies, it really gets similar even with how many rivers come forth from the tree.

Though, in revelation Jesus says to do the first works, or he will remove your candle from its lampstand.  Also, he promises that some who conquer or last while keeping his name will eat from the tree of life. 

I think, of this, as the first works, and returning to your first love.  It might mean your first lover, but if you go even further back it might be what you loved in light before you knew things.  Like your first chosen behaviors, or motherly things.  I think of Genesis as one of the ways to think about the first works, also because there were no laws yet, except for the basic ones by Noah. 

I find it interesting how back then everything was wrapped up in sin and certain forms of adultery, that later became illegal in the law. But, I think it's important to remember how life really is, like it is in the chaos of genesis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
2 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

That's an aspect, about 'how can God be more moral than us.'   I've thought about this myself from time to time, I guess it's just the same thing as how a person might respect their parents as being godlike when you are young, and they are big protectors.  Also, they might be very scary when they get angry and punish the child for something.

Anyway, I think one of the big differences is that of the tree of life.  In Genesis, Adam and Eve took from the tree of knowledge and learned the difference between Good and Evil, but then when God found out he kicked them out of the garden 'lest they eat from the tree of life also and become like us;' 

 

It's clear that you beliefs are centered around the bible, and I consider this a "Christian Culture."  And that's fine.  If your faith helps you and makes you a better person, then I support it completely.  

For me, the problem I have is when bible believers start making claims.....like the mark of the beast, the tribulation period, all these things that are in the Revelation.  The reason I object to it is because it's not true.  It's not happening, it's not going to happen, at all.  Not only because the time frame for the prophecy has come and gone, but because there's no Jewish temple, which is the cornerstone of doomsday prophecies.  I do think that a case can be made that it all occurred in 70 AD as the Preterist Christians believe.  I would accept that, but of course it throws the accepted dates of the writing of the Revelation off.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I've been around a good bit, and I can remember the stories of the rapture and tribulation going all the way back to the seventies, when Jesus Movement people were big on the end being near way back then.  And of course, studying the history of it out.....it goes all the way back to the 1700's and 1800's right here in America.  People have been expecting it, and believing it for a long, long, time and it's just not real.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

And PS.  By the way....accepting the Preterist interpretation of the bible prophecies also means that the words used in prophecy were not very accurate to say the least.  They speak of the entire world being under tribulation, and it was really just Christians and Jews who suffered during those times of persecution and war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin
2 hours ago, Guyver said:

 

For me, the problem I have is when bible believers start making claims.....like the mark of the beast, the tribulation period, all these things that are in the Revelation.  The reason I object to it is because it's not true.  It's not happening, it's not going to happen, at all.  Not only because the time frame for the prophecy has come and gone, but because there's no Jewish temple, which is the cornerstone of doomsday prophecies.     

The "cornerstone" of Bible prophecy is Israel becoming a nation again after 2000 years, which happened in 1948. Therefore, the time frame for the Tribulation has not yet come, but is soon to come.

 

Edited by Ogbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

Well, it obviously didn't happen in the 1st century, or we wouldn't be here.  Some of Revelation can happen at any time, like the 7 churches, but the majority of it, seems to be the last days. 

That's one of the reasons I think, Jesus, said not to worry about these things, because they have to happen.  Even the experiment with rats, it isn't wise to worry about, because it has to happen.  But, personally I find it hard to resist contemplating such things.

I guess what it comes down to is picking a world religion, which I guess is just a custom of something people are supposed to do.  Like the rumors of that in higher degrees of Free Masonry you have to pick one of the world religions.  Not sure if that is true, but it makes sense to me of why it would be a requirement..

Anyway, before I decided to finally convert to Christianity, I saw the world as a Christian dominated place, and myself as a minority.  However, after I converted it appears to opposite, that most people aren't Christian anymore, and it almost feels like a minority to be a Christian.

The mark of the beast isn't a fun thing to think about always, I think it's probably the scariest part of the scripture.  Whether it's ingrained into the psyche from youth or not, it also a social calling.  Part of the scripture, how it says, "Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast," seems almost like a side job, to figure out more of the number, and where it is.  Because, there's places where you can find it, like the whole barcode scenerio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.