In "The Omen", Damien hated churches.
Unc John: We makin' trouble?
Stacy: Yeah
Unc John: What kind?
Stacy:...The forever kind
Also, the church is naturally one of the devils primary targets. The bible itself states this in revelation. As far as occult/ satanic relate film, this is the most biblical faithful I can recall. All about free will vs pre destination and how they can be cohesive.
share
isnt damien a demon and al pacino was the devil himself?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKAb-VOit0Q
Damien wasn't a demon. He was the Antichrist, the Son of the Devil.
A demon is a Fallen angel.
Yes, Al Pacino played the Devil himself.
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."
[deleted]
The film takes some liberties in its Bible references. In the Bible, there is Satan, The Anti-Christ, and the False Prophet.
Here, Kevin is 'technically' the Antichrist, but the film adds a fictional spin to it.
When Milton/Satan impregnates humans, they are innocents. Only half-evil, not good enough.
The Antichrist is defined by Milton as the progeny of 2 willingly evil humans.
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."
Excellent and informative conversation. But I believe Satan was a fallen angel.
And, yes, a church is just an edifice built by man for his own purposes to worship. I don't think it's written anywhere that it is actually holy or anointed by God.
We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.
"In the Bible, there is Satan, The Anti-Christ, and the False Prophet."
There is no person in the Bible called "The Anti-Christ". "Antichrist" is just a term used to denote anyone who opposes Christ:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
The term "antichrist" doesn't even appear in the Book of Revelation. The term "antichrist" only appears four times in the Bible, all in 1st and 2nd John, and all of them are merely talking about a mindset or spirit of opposition toward Christ, which applies to anyone who has such a mindset.
The three main "baddies" of the Book of Revelation are the devil (AKA: Satan, dragon, old serpent), the beast, and the false prophet. All three of them are mentioned in the following verse:
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The false prophet is the one who's being referred to when people mistakenly talk about "the antichrist"; he is the one who is prophesied to "perform miracles", but all three of them are antichrist, and there are millions of ordinary people who are also antichrist right now.
"The term "antichrist" doesn't even appear in the Book of Revelation. The term "antichrist" only appears four times in the Bible, all in 1st and 2nd John, and all of them are merely talking about a mindset or spirit of opposition toward Christ, which applies to anyone who has such a mindset."
Its not about "mindset". Anyone who is not Christian is by default "antichrist".
In vs 22 " Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."
So anyone who denies Jesus is God or denies the Father and Son is "antichrist".
This is further supported by 1 John 3:4-10. You are either a child of God or a child of the Devil. There is no in between according to scripture.
"...and there are millions of ordinary people who are also antichrist right now."
I would say more like billions.
"Its not about "mindset"."
Yes, it is.
"Anyone who is not Christian is by default "antichrist"."
Mindset, which is a set of beliefs, attitudes, etc., is what determines if someone wants to be a Christian in the first place.
You can't want or choose to be a Christian.
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him..."
You can only choose to be a false convert.
God ultimately determines those who are his. Ephesians 1:4-5.
"You can't want or choose to be a Christian."
You don't know what you're talking about. That would mean there's no free will, which is utterly absurd.
"John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him...""
That doesn't support your assertion, i.e., being "drawn by the father" has to be accompanied by the person wanting/choosing to be a Christian; if he doesn't want to he isn't going to be forced into it. If your theory were true, the Bible, as well as Christianity itself would be pointless, since no one would have a choice in the matter to begin with. Also:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
"You don't know what you're talking about. That would mean there's no free will, which is utterly absurd."
You have free will to choose your sins amongst other things however, you do not have "free will" to choose your salvation. You have free will to profess yourself a Christian, it doesn´t mean you are one. The Bible says, man´s heart is wicked (Jeremiah 17:9) and is in bondage to sin (Romans, 6:20, John 8:34). We are sinful by nature since Adam disobeyed. Also, the "word of the cross is folly to the perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). All men are by default lost because all men have sinned and fall short (Rom 3:10, Rom 3:23). How can the lost therefore choose their own salvation when the gospel is folly to them? It is ultimately God´s sovereign choice as to who gets saved and who does not. Titus 3:5 supports this, so does Eph 2:8-9.
As for eternal security, we can be sure because Jesus says, none can be snatched out of my Father´s hand in John 10:28-29 and that believers are sealed until the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30)
"If your interpretation is correct, then how could anyone ever be removed from "the book of life"? If they were predestined to be in there, they obviously can't be removed, and if they weren't predestined to be in there, they couldn't be removed either, because they wouldn't be in there in the first place."
Those "removed" are professing Christians. A true believer would not want to add or remove words from the Bible. (John 10:27-28, My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me...)
The idea of false converts is also brought up in 1 John 2:19. They can be the only ones being referred to in Rev 22:19. Jesus also refers to them as the branches "that do not remain in him" in John 15 and also in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13.
"Those "removed" are professing Christians. A true believer would not want to add or remove words from the Bible. (John 10:27-28, My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me...) "
There's no need to reply to the rest of your post because this part of your post negates it, i.e., if they were only "professing Christians" rather than Christians, then they wouldn't have ever been in the book of life to begin with, and therefore couldn't be removed from it (you obviously can't remove something that isn't there to begin with).
1 John 2:19 says "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
So a true believewill never leave the faith. If Rev 22:9 is what you think it means, it contradicts 1 John 2:19 and all the other various scripture that supports eternal security. Jesus promised eternal life to those who believed. That does not come with a caveat.
The book of life is not a literal book. If we are taking Revelation hyper- literally then dragons supposedly exist.
share"So a true believewill never leave the faith. If Rev 22:9 is what you think it means, it contradicts 1 John 2:19 and all the other various scripture that supports eternal security."
It doesn't contradict anything. That verse you quoted merely indicates that there is such a thing as people who claim to be Christians but aren't really Christians, and that's not a point of contention. And there's no such thing as "eternal security":
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Luk 8:13 They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.share
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Those who endure to the end are those who believed.
1 John 5:1-5
"No need to "endure to the end" if "eternal security" is a thing."
Running the race is for eternal rewards in heaven. It doesn´t determine salvation though. Otherwise we would be relying on works to keep us saved. Works-based salvation is not Biblical-
"That says that they believed for a while. It doesn't say they merely pretended or professed to believe, it says they believed, yet they fall away when temptation comes along. That verse alone refutes the idea of "eternal security"."
Luke 8 is identical to the Parable of the sower in Matthew. Those who fall away were never of the faith. It is the same message in 1 John 2:19. There is only one saved group of "soils". The one that produces fruit.
"Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
"That verse adds "baptized" to "belief"."
Yep and yet it only says those who don´t believe are damned, not those who are not baptized. Otherwise Jesus was lying to the thief on the cross because he wasnt baptized.
In addition, Acts 8:15-16 implies that baptism is not sufficient for salvation.
"Are you going to argue that the Apostle Paul wasn't really a Christian?"
Nope but Paul isn´t talking about losing salvation, he is talking about heavenly rewards that are "won or lost" at the Bema seat of Christ. He is talking about disqualification of rewards for the believer in heaven. The entire chapter is referring to this.
Re: Rev 3:5 As a I pointed out earlier those who overcome are those who have already been saved. 1 John 5:4 specifically says this. "For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. "
Re: Gal 5:1
Gal 5:17 says
"For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
Its "easy" to stand firm when the Spirit is keeping us from doing the things we want to do. So much for free will eh?
It does contradict 1 John 2:19 since "their departure meant none of them belonged to us".
According to this verse, a true believer will never leave the faith. Your assertion is that true believers can leave. That means its a contradiction.
"Running the race is for eternal rewards in heaven. It doesn´t determine salvation though."
You're making stuff up. The verse says "he that endureth to the end shall be saved", i.e., it's talking about salvation, not "eternal rewards in heaven".
"Luke 8 is identical to the Parable of the sower in Matthew. Those who fall away were never of the faith."
The verse says they believed, so consider your attempt to contradict the verse dismissed.
"Yep and yet it only says those who don´t believe are damned, not those who are not baptized."
So? Since there are only two outcomes, salvation or damnation, it goes without saying that if you don't do the things which are required for salvation then you're damned.
"Otherwise Jesus was lying to the thief on the cross because he wasnt baptized."
There's no way you could possibly know that since the Bible says nothing at all about whether or not he was baptized. In other words, you're making stuff up again.
"In addition, Acts 8:15-16 implies that baptism is not sufficient for salvation."
What does that have to do with anything? The verse I cited mentioned both belief and baptism.
"Nope but Paul isn´t talking about losing salvation, he is talking about heavenly rewards that are "won or lost" at the Bema seat of Christ."
That's absurd. "Castaway" doesn't simply mean lost rewards. "Cast away" is what you do when you throw something in the garbage. If you're in heaven at all, you're obviously not a castaway, regardless of how many rewards you have:
"Castaway
1 : thrown away : rejected. 2a : cast adrift or ashore as a survivor of a shipwreck. b : thrown out or left without friends or resources."
"Re: Rev 3:5 As a I pointed out earlier those who overcome are those who have already been saved."
That doesn't address Rev 3:5 at all. Rev 3:5 establishes that it's possible to be blotted out of the book of life, but in order to be in the book of life in the first place, you have to be saved. That means there's no such thing as "eternal security" or "predestination", because salvation is something that has to be maintained. As I said, there are lots of verses that establish this. Here's a few more:
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Gal 5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Lol at "making stuff up". The Bema seat of Christ is real not "made up". A call to obedience is to not lose heavenly rewards, not because you might "lose your salvation if you aren´t obedient enough".
Rom 14:10-12, 2 Cor 5:10.
"The verse says they believed, so consider your attempt to contradict the verse dismissed."
If salvation can be lost than Jesus was lying when he said "he who believes in him will have eternal life."
Romans 8:1-2 also says there is no condemnation for those in Christ.
Romans 8:15 "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
"There's no way you could possibly know that since the Bible says nothing at all about whether or not he was baptized. "
So the thief on the cross, who didn´t believe in Christ prior, somehow had been baptised in Christ during Jesus´ previous 3 year ministry during which time he was able to live a criminal life and get sentenced to death at the same time. Yeah, seems unlikely.
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control,[b] lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Not every version has "castaway". As you can see "running the race" is not made up either.
"1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;"
"Again, you can't depart from the faith unless you were in the faith to begin with."
This doesn´t mean salvation can be lost. 1 John 2:19 already says that the faith can be departed by false converts and true converts will never leave the faith.
"He's telling them to walk in the Spirit, which means it isn't something that happens automatically, else he wouldn't have to tell them to do it, obviously."
And yet verse 24 says "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."
"Obviously?" I don´t think scripture is that obvious to you sadly. If it were, you would believe Christ´s atonement on the cross alone was sufficient for your sins. (assuming you have been born again which admittedly, does not seem likely.)
"Lol at "making stuff up"."
Exactly.
"The Bema seat of Christ is real not "made up". A call to obedience is to not lose heavenly rewards, not because you might "lose your salvation if you aren´t obedient enough"."
Your non sequitur is dismissed. The stuff you were making up is that it pertains to the verse I cited, which specifically mentioned salvation, not "heavenly rewards". Once again:
"The verse says "he that endureth to the end shall be saved", i.e., it's talking about salvation, not "eternal rewards in heaven"."
"If salvation can be lost than Jesus was lying when he said "he who believes in him will have eternal life.""
False; he simply wasn't being exhaustive. To get an exhaustive account you have to read the whole Bible. Do you want a list of 15 or 16 verses that emphasize different things for salvation?
"So the thief on the cross, who didn´t believe in Christ prior, somehow had been baptised in Christ during Jesus´ previous 3 year ministry during which time he was able to live a criminal life and get sentenced to death at the same time. Yeah, seems unlikely."
You don't know what he believed prior, and your concession that you couldn't possibly know whether or not he'd been baptized is noted. Also:
Luk 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
G96
ἀδόκιμος
adokimos
ad-ok'-ee-mos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1384; unapproved, that is, rejected; by implication worthless (literally or morally): - castaway, rejected, reprobate.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
"Your non sequitur is dismissed."
Your verse is an example of your belief in the notion that a Christian can lose his salvation. I know this might be a bit above your head but I am not just countering your verse but this entire false concept that you seem to believe in which is why I brought up RELEVANT scripture regarding eternal security.
Your attempted refutation of 1 John 2:19 was weak at best. You could not even provide an alternative meaning with your vague-ish KJV translation. So was your reply about the thief on the cross. My point about the thief clearly was not a concession that I don´t know but clearly a point that the thief COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BOTH BAPTISED AND A CRIMINAL DURING JESUS´ MINISTRY.
RE: Adokimos. Your entire interpretation hinges on this word which has multiple meanings being "castaway". Even if it did, it wouldn´t mean what you think it meant. We cannot earn our salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9. If our salvation is reliant on our actions (which is what your interpretation of 1 Cor 9 would mean), it means our salvation is earnt. The Bible does not preach salvation by works, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, not works and this is not of ourselves.
In the same passage, Paul talks about running with certainty for an imperishable crown. How can he "run with certainty" if his salvation is in doubt?
Your interpretation is severely flawed.
Clearly this is a waste of time though, since you seem rather prideful and stubborn in your responses. I don´t think you genuinely want to engage in a meaningful and constructive back and forth but are desperate to be "right" and have the "final answer" which is why you are so dismissive (calling relevant scripture "non-sequiturs" lol) and ignoring passages you can´t refute. The word of the gospel is folly to the perishing. If you haven´t repented, I suggest you do so. God bless.
"Your verse is an example of your belief in the notion that a Christian can lose his salvation."
It's not a belief, it's what's clearly indicated by many verses in the Bible. You only need the two book of life verses in Revelation for some specific examples of how it can happen.
"I know this might be a bit above your head"
Comical Irony Alert (you know, coming from the guy who established himself as an idiot by continuing to argue after being proven wrong).
"which is why I brought up RELEVANT"
No, it wasn't relevant (i.e., it was a non sequitur), because I never said that you made up "The Bema seat of Christ". You thought that I did because of your unfortunate reading deficiency.
"Your attempted refutation of 1 John 2:19 was weak at best."
There's nothing to refute. That verse is talking about fake Christians, and the existence of fake Christians isn't a point of contention. Fake Christians are a dime a dozen, obviously.
"My point about the thief clearly was not a concession that I don´t know"
Yes, it was. Your entirely unsupported opinion was that it "seems unlikely" that he was baptized, which is a concession that you don't know whether he was or not. It's not even possible for you to know, since the Bible doesn't say either way.
"that the thief COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BOTH BAPTISED AND A CRIMINAL DURING JESUS´ MINISTRY. "
That's a blatant load of horseshit. People can do anything within their means that they want to do, including being baptized and then committing a crime, or vice versa.
"If our salvation is reliant on our actions (which is what your interpretation of 1 Cor 9 would mean), it means our salvation is earnt. The Bible does not preach salvation by works"
That's absurd. Bringing one's "body into subjection" isn't "works". Your entire theory is asinine, because it would mean that it doesn't matter what anyone does, because nothing they could possibly do would affect whether or not they make it to heaven, which as I said many replies ago, would render the Bible utterly useless. All of Jesus' teachings, all of Paul's teachings, etc., telling people what they should and shouldn't do, telling them to repent, and so on; completely useless if "predestination" is a thing.
"In the same passage, Paul talks about running with certainty for an imperishable crown. How can he "run with certainty" if his salvation is in doubt?
Your interpretation is severely flawed."
Is that another joke? He's not doubting his salvation, but he's pointing out what would happen if he didn't bring his "body into subjection", i.e., he would be a castaway, which means it's not impossible for him to lose his salvation, obviously. He doesn't intend to do anything to lose his salvation, therefore he's certain that he won't, just as I'm certain that I'll never, e.g., rob a bank. That doesn't mean it's impossible for me to do so.
"Clearly this is a waste of time though, since you seem rather prideful and stubborn in your responses. I don´t think you genuinely want to engage in a meaningful and constructive back and forth but are desperate to be "right" and have the "final answer" which is why you are so dismissive (calling relevant scripture "non-sequiturs" lol) and ignoring passages you can´t refute. The word of the gospel is folly to the perishing. If you haven´t repented, I suggest you do so. God bless."
Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, I noticed you ignored...
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
Your responses are all in the flesh and unpleasant which makes sense for an unbeliever. You can´t understand scripture unless you have been saved. Matthew 13 and 1 Cor 1:18.
Making this entire conversation pointless. If you really want to understand scripture, I suggest you plead to God for mercy to change your heart so he might give you eyes to see.
God bless.
Your entire post is a non sequitur; consider it dismissed out of hand. Also, since you have no further arguments, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.
shareYour prideful, egotistical responses are also well noted. I won´t "dismiss" you though, since I am sympathetic to the fact that you are spiritually blinded to your sinful nature and the actual gospel.
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
shareYour argumentum ad nauseum is "dismissed". bye bye
share"Your argumentum ad nauseum is "dismissed""
My last two posts haven't been arguments of any kind, dumbass, so consider your laughable attempt to redefine the term "argumentum ad nauseam" (as well as your equally laughable attempt to change its spelling) dismissed out of hand. You're the one who ran out of arguments, remember? My posts since then have been nothing but dismissals of your non sequiturs and notations of your tacit concession due to lack of arguments. And of course, your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
I didn´t "run out of arguments". I decided it wasn´t worthwhile continuing because:
a) you are an unbeliever who thinks he can understand scripture when scripture itself can only be understood by believers and
b) you are highly unpleasant to engage with, not to mention
c) your ironic use of correcting "logical fallacies" while using both ad hominem and argument from repetition. ( I won´t use the latin terminology, since misspelling it might unhinge you further)
"I didn´t "run out of arguments". I decided it wasn´t worthwhile continuing because:
a) you are an unbeliever who thinks he can understand scripture when scripture itself can only be understood by believers and"
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo. Also, it doesn't matter what excuses you have for running out of arguments; the fact remains that you haven't presented any further arguments, therefore you've tacitly conceded.
"b) you are highly unpleasant to engage with, not to mention"
Yet, not only do you continue to reply, you continue to reply with nothing of substance. LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.
"c) your ironic use of correcting "logical fallacies" while using both ad hominem and argument from repetition. ( I won´t use the latin terminology, since misspelling it might unhinge you further)"
Comical Irony Alert: Part III
And:
Reading Deficiency Alert: Part XVI
"Ad hominem" is another term for which you clearly don't know the meaning. An insult in place of an argument is ad hominem. An insult in addition to an argument is not ad hominem, obviously. And I already explained how you misapplied the term "argumentum ad nauseam", and since you still don't get it, that confirms (for the umpteenth time) that you have a reading deficiency, specifically in the area of reading comprehension.
Your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted, of course.
"Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo."
Don´t need a crystal ball to know based on how you conduct yourself that you haven´t been born again.
Your risible attempt at a crystal ball reading remains dismissed, Sylvia Browne, and your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
shareGalatians 5:22-23.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
You clearly exhibit none of these.
"and your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted."
Yeah, you say that like I didn´t read it the first 4 or 5 times but its understandable you need to self-praise as much as possible to stroke your wounded ego.
"You clearly exhibit none of these."
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading remains dismissed, Kreskin.
"Yeah, you say that like I didn´t read it the first 4 or 5 times but its understandable you need to self-praise as much as possible to stroke your wounded ego."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug, and your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
Why not? Every movie gets to make up their own rules.. Heck, why can zombies run fast and vampires sparkle in the sun instead of turning to dust? Repeat to yourself "it's just a show, I should really just relax." LOL
share[deleted]
It had a door.
share