are any guys of opeth satanists?

[OpethNZ]

true, has anyone noticed teh new pope looks like uncle fester from the adams family?

 

[dorian gray]

Props to Silent Song..... We can't know anything with 100% certainty

Hey! *I* said this! it was me me ME ME MEEEEEEE!!!!
*returns to masturbating*

 

[umdebaba]

If eat shit, its a fact that you ate shit and you know that with 100% certainty.

 

[dorian gray]

^yeah yeah yeah. what are your thoughts on the Pope?

 

[deliverance]

true, has anyone noticed teh new pope looks like uncle fester from the adams family?

hahaha, wow.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

We cannot ever learn 'truth', but we can use facts to approximate 'truth'. The more facts we have, the closer we can get to 'truth'. Facts evolve from observation; the question is how you know you have a fact. This, I think, is what SilentSong and Dorian were talking about when they said that number of people matter.

Words are not set in stone, as that umdeababa guy said. Language is subjective. People are constantly morphing it through use (whatever the 'dictionary' meaning is), and can mean different things to two different people. There ARE commonly agreed meanings though, and if you are going to get bent out of shape about this then its these that you should look at. But dont bitch if you dont agree. Language, i repeat, depends on who uses it. Shit, this is what i get after 7 straight hours of law today....i need a drink...

 

[Kirkfjell]

I agree with the first statement, especially since it's impossible to tell if he is or not. Which brings me to my next point...

With regards to Opeth's lyrics, where do you see anything directly related to the occult? Please quote me a line from one of their songs that you feel justifies this.

Yes, there is a lot of imagery related to nature, but I don't think you can use that to justify them as pagan, satanic or otherwise involved in the occult. Sure, they COULD be pagans or Satanists or whatever for all we know (and I wouldn't care if they were), but the point I'm trying to make is, their religion is NOT apparent from the lyrics of their songs.

When I say occult... I don't necessarily mean pagan or satanic or anything that has to do with religion at all... for me the lyrics of My Arms, Your Hearse (guess you know the story) are occult. As stated in the FAQ, the lyrics are often anti-christian which even more adds to the "occult" meaning of them (for me). I DO NOT believe Opeth are satanists or pagans or actually that they have any religion at all...

The "burn in hell" part of my original reply was mainly due to me getting bored of all those christians listening to Death/black metal so desperately trying to get away with it... come on! Every bloody priest in the world would condemn this kind of music, there are no excuses to be listening to anti-christian music as a christian and enjoy it...

Read the bible for fucks sake... God is described as a nontolerant tyrant who would surely not think twice before comdemning you to hell for eternity if he found you listening to music that dragged his name through the dirt... :hotjump:

 

[Shadows Skulk]

shit this thread could have been replied to with "NO." and ended right there

 

[OpethNZ]

just read back of the bible articles on jaypinkerton.com, it shall explain all

 

[Sanzen]

I heart Jaypinkerton.com

 

[Katabasis]

has anyone noticed teh new pope looks like uncle fester from the adams family?

Nick Barker is the new pope?

*imagines Sunday church organ set to blast beats*

 

[Kenneth R.]

i disagree about Christianity being in opposition with DM. once again, i point to the philosophy forum.

 

[Katabasis]

i think something like "i'm typing on a keyboard" is fact and can't be disproven, period

*waits patiently for the 'brain in a vat' argument to be put forward*

 

[Katabasis]

The super-natural is not open to scholarship in a scientific sense.

Although I've agreed with pretty much everthing you've said thus far, I'd call into question this statement. The supernatural is quite often debated in a scientific manner, and science often adopts previously 'supernatural' ideas into its folds. You see science has the distinct advantage that it's definition of what is 'scientific' is essentially that which is - for all intents and purposes - observable fact. For instance, the feats of many fakirs, self-hypnotists, etc was long regarded as 'supernatural', whereas now, science admits that through hypnotism you can undergo, say, stomach surgery with no pain-killers and have a conversation with the doctor operating on you.
Once again, it's a trick of sorts because 'supernatural' and 'science' are mutually exclusive terms: 'supernatural' is beyond the realms of science, 'science' is within the realms of science (observable fact). Even so, science is not above incorporating previously supernatural ideas and taking them into its fold.

Hmmm, I probably could have just used the old Arthur C. Clarke quote 'Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic' and saved a lot of time; essentially all I want to say is that all 'supernatural' ideas are NOT hogwash, many are just un-'proven' science.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i'd agree with that. i think what creates problems in discussion among people who view the world from purely intellectual standpoints is that some of those things cannot at this time be explained through science. thus they require some element of "faith" to be believable, which some observers are willing to trust and others are not.

 

[Jon Snow]

Why can't we just say, "I don't know" when asked a question. Instead of making stuff up or guessing. Nothing wrong with not knowing. I think some things are impossible to know (at least as of right now) and it's ridiculous to argue about things that no one knows for sure or can prove.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

i'd agree with that. i think what creates problems in discussion among people who view the world from purely intellectual standpoints is that some of those things cannot at this time be explained through science. thus they require some element of "faith" to be believable, which some observers are willing to trust and others are not.

I dont think there is any contradiction between religion and science. To me, science explains the 'how', but it is religion (in whatever form you choose) that seeks to answer the 'why'.

 

[NeverIsForever]

I dont think there is any contradiction between religion and science.

I'm not sure how you can say that. If you listen to science, we evolved from single-celled organisms into what we are today via natural selection and evolution, branching from a common ancestor into different classes, orders, families, genera, species, etc. along the way. If you listen to the Bible, God created each species individually exactly the way it is now. Humans were sentient and capable of speech, intelligent thought, etc. from the very beginning. In other words, we did not evolve from monkeys--God created them and he created us, but there was nothing in between (i.e. Neanderthals) the way there is according to evolutionary theory. And conveniently enough, you don't see any reference to dinosaurs in the Bible. Funny--you'd think it would be fairly difficult to omit several-ton sauropods from the list of things God allegedly created... :Spin:

 

[Feicht]

I'm not sure how you can say that. If you listen to science, we evolved from single-celled organisms into what we are today via natural selection and evolution, branching from a common ancestor into different classes, orders, families, genera, species, etc. along the way. If you listen to the Bible, God created each species individually exactly the way it is now. Humans were sentient and capable of speech, intelligent thought, etc. from the very beginning. In other words, we did not evolve from monkeys--God created them and he created us, but there was nothing in between (i.e. Neanderthals) the way there is according to evolutionary theory. And conveniently enough, you don't see any reference to dinosaurs in the Bible. Funny--you'd think it would be fairly difficult to omit several-ton sauropods from the list of things God allegedly created... :Spin:

yeah...

believing in a deity (or deities) is one thing, and indeed, may be a thing that most humans (unfortunately) have a need for.... but believing that what a small sect of bronze age humans wrote down several thousand years ago was the literal truth seems ridiculous to me

 

[Jon Snow]

Creationism is terrible science. They start with the conclusion then look for facts to support it. It's pseudo-science. The mentality of a creationist scientist can be found in this quote: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

--- Martin Luther


Everytime Science has gone up against the Church it has won. Round earth, heliocentrism, etc. And the church has always tried to silence these blasphemies and failed. Then later they would incorporate these facts as if they accepted them the whole time. I'm sticking with science on this one too. Evolution describes two different things: 1) The fact of evolution. Evolution happened. There are many fossil records and massive amounts of evidence for this. 2) The Theory of Evolution. This theory attempts to explain how it happened. Keep in mind that gravity is only a theory too. A scientific theory is not something to be taken lightly. It's not some consipiracy theorist's musings. They are well thought out conclusions based on vast amounts of scientific evidence. Evolution = Scientific Theory. Creationism = The Church trying and failing to fight off Science once again.