#174 JP Star Joseph Mazello (Tim) originally auditioned for the role of the young lead in another Spielberg movie, "Hook". Spielberg found him too young for the role, but promised Mazello personally that he would use him if the right role came up. (From: Matt) Prev - Next
"More Great Videos" On 7/31/2011 at 11:28:16 PM, Monkipzzle started the thread:
Msg #1: On 7/31/2011 at 11:34:15 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: Do you really need three threads for these videos that nobody watched? Replies: 2
Msg #2: On 8/1/2011 at 12:36:16 AM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #1, saying: Why not, especially on this board, which is rarely used anyway. I'll continue to post to my special thread on the General Board, but here I'll post a number of threads over time. Beyond that, watch or not, reply or don't, the choice is yours...
Replies: 3
Msg #3: On 8/1/2011 at 12:39:58 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #2, saying: Honestly, I think it's a testament to your ability to repel people that we haven't had one single poster chime in with support for what you've dedicated your life to (this week). The 9/11 stuff got four or five times more support than the bullshit you're peddling now. Replies: 4
Msg #4: On 8/1/2011 at 12:59:03 AM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #3, saying: I have all the support I need already, thanks. I suffered no illusions about the reception my new direction would receive here, but I was compelled to return and post in spite of this. It is likely that someone on these boards needed this material and are better for my posting of them. They are not likely to speak up because of the treatment I receive, and I'm OK with that. If they were made better through my infamy, so be it. I can take it and will continue to take it.
1 Peter 3:13-17 And who [is] he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. Replies: 5
Msg #5: On 8/1/2011 at 3:28:04 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #4, saying: It is likely that someone on these boards needed this material and are better for my posting of them.
You're absolutely right: I needed a good laugh and an inflated sense of self-worth and superiority over others. Thanks for providing. Replies: 6
Msg #6: On 8/1/2011 at 4:42:05 PM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #5, saying: Glad I could help, but correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you already have an inflated sense of self-worth and a feeling of superiority over others? Regardless, I'm here for a purpose, and despite the vocal scoffers, I believe someone on these boards, perhaps even a lurker, needs this information...
Msg #7: On 8/1/2011 at 8:23:53 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
Monki, you are biologically programmed, as a man, to be unsatisfied physically by one woman for the rest of your life. What's wrong with masturbation, anyway? It beats raping the cat, which is what I'd resort to if I didn't have access to my right hand.
Msg #18: On 8/3/2011 at 6:32:08 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: I can't tell how much you're joking, Ford, as that story is brought up by Christians by explain why masturbation is a sin, but it is also understood in pop culture to actually be about masturbation, which it isn't.
I won't quote the whole story because it's kind of long, but I'll give a brief synopsis: Onan's older brother, Er, took a wife, Tamar, but died before he could impregnate her. According to the ancient custom of levirate marriage, it was the duty of the next eldest son to impregnate his brother's widow. The children would legally be the heirs to the dead brother and would inherit their father's estate, which would allow the widow to retain her honor and economic security by maintaining the estate until the children were old enough to take it over.
Onan didn't want to impregnate Tamar because he considered the potential offspring to be his children, not his brother's. If Tamar was proven barren, his brother's estate would default to him, as well. So when Onan had sex with Tamar, he pulled out at the last moment and ejaculated on the ground so he wouldn't impregnate her. For this violation of custom and law, God immediately struck Onan dead. The story then goes on a bit about Tamar, and it's one of the greatest stories in the bible from a literary standpoint.
Somehow, "onanism" is now considered a synonym for masturbation, even though what it specifically refers to in Genesis is pulling out to avoid impregnating your brother's widow. This is something very few people nowadays have to worry about. Replies: 19, 20
Msg #19: On 8/3/2011 at 6:39:21 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #18, saying: Yeah I looked it up on my favourite academic authority, simple.wikipedia.org, to make sure that was his name and read the article. Never knew the accepted interpretation before though.
Msg #20: On 8/3/2011 at 6:43:31 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #18, saying: I worry about that shit all the time.
See, Monki? There's no reason you can't go jack up a storm. And all this time you were just frustrating yourself for nothing!
Msg #21: On 8/3/2011 at 8:07:30 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: Its just not my thing. I'm perfectly happy with my wife in all regards, and the thought of ever being with another woman is relatively sickening to me. It always has been, even before I became a Christian. She is the only woman I've ever 'been with' and I intend to keep it that way. As far as masturbation, I don't believe that masturbating while thinking of one's spouse is necessarily wrong, but masturbating while thinking or even looking at someone else is adultery. I find it much easier to just avoid the matter entirely instead of putting myself in a situation I don't require...
Msg #22: On 8/3/2011 at 10:42:43 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
Replies: 28
Msg #28: On 8/9/2011 at 2:12:15 AM, dieterstark replied to Msg #27, saying: Monki the whole point of having Faith in God is believing in Him WITHOUT needing proof. That is the very definition of faith. Believing in something or someone without any proof. You will NEVER be able to scientifically prove Gods existence, you will never be able to provide enough "proof" to convince people of Gods love for them. Attempting to prove Gods existence is doing absolutely nothing for your cause my friend. It may well be doing the opposite, and turning people away. It seems your heart is in the right place, and I admire your concern for the eternal souls of others whom you obviously care about. Yet your mind is just as closed as your opposition when you refuse to open your mind to suggestions of others. You can try your entire life to "prove" to someone that God exists, but you never will. Nothing you say, or any "proof" you provide will do that. A relationship with God the Father is based on faith and faith alone. Not on scientific proof concerning a being so magnificient He is beyond being scientifically proven in the first place. Why not spread the message of faith, Gods unrequited love, and redemption rather than wasting your time trying to prove something that is unprovable?
All I ask is that you please consider what I have said, I mean really think on it and respond in your own words, your own thoughts. No youtube videos please.
Replies: 29
Msg #29: On 8/9/2011 at 3:38:34 AM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #28, saying: Dieter, I appreciate your input. I totally agree that definitive proof of God will never be found. I do believe that there is evidence for what the Bible talks about, but nothing that would absolutely blow the socks off non-believers. Perhaps I have been trying a little too hard to post regularly on the subject. I make a point to come here at least once a day just to update the thread with something new. Perhaps you are right. In my defense, I have tried to respect others by keeping my posts only on my own threads. I’ll admit that I have ignored much of the commentary by the dissenting voices, but as I said early on, I will not, cannot, be swayed from my belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and as such viewing contrary evidence, no matter how conclusive, would only be a waste of time for me and those who insist on posting it. I have also tried to remain as cordial as possible, even when I and my family were being condemned. So, again, perhaps you are right. I will leave the creation science off the boards for now and instead focus on His love for us as you mentioned. Regardless of if one believes in a six-day creation or evolution, I strongly believe that as long as they recognize Jesus as their savior and ask for forgiveness, then the details won’t really matter. I hope I haven’t ruined it for too many people with my quest. I just felt like this is something I should do. Regardless of what happens, I want to thank you be not attacking me just now. I sincerely mean that, Dieter. Replies: 30
Msg #30: On 8/9/2011 at 11:37:25 PM, dieterstark replied to Msg #29, saying: Monki I respect your strong convictions. It is admirable, sticking to your guns in the face of such "condemnation" (for lack of a better word). I believe there is evidence for some of the things in the Bible. There are many archeological sights from antiquity which were mentioned in the Bible that have been discovered. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an enormous comfort to believers like me that The Bible has not been corrupted by the hand of man nearly as much as opposition propose and that the word of God is indeed intact in the Bible. I'm sure you know the implications of the scrolls so there is no need for me to elaborate here. The Bible is the word of God.
However, I do not believe in a fully, 100% literal interpretation of the Bible. Especially of the Old Testament, which took place in a world that was 100% different from the world in the New Testament. I do not believe that the creation story necessarily took place over a litery 7 days consisting of 24 hours. There are many different words for day in the original dialect the Bible was written and meaning different meanings. A "day" in the Old Testament does not by any means equal a "day" in 2012. In fact, I would wager every thing I own on that statement being true. The 24 hour day did not exist back then. I know that God COULD make anything he wanted in 7 twenty four hour days- but that doesn't mean that he SHOULD. Or did. "Day", the word for the amount of time God took in each phase of creating this wonderful world I imagine consisted of thousands, if not millions of "years" in our sense of time. I hope that makes sense.
Jesus is the road to redemption, and none of these details we all bicker about matter at all. Some say the devil is in the details. Gods love and forgivenss is the point...and this is a good example of how that point gets lost in pointless details which just start arguments.
I don't think you have ruined it for anyone. You can't, if anything is going to be ruined for them, they ruined it themselves. You did what you could, you have a good soul Monki. God bless you. Replies: 31
Msg #31: On 8/10/2011 at 1:20:55 AM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #30, saying: I’m not going to dwell on the subject here, but I once looked at Genesis, among other books of the Bible, as simply metaphors or allegories, especially in light of the scientific facts. It was only when I started to watch the Hovind seminars that I began to realize that they were more than that. That’s my belief, anyway. His position on the evidence for creationism aside, he makes some excellent points about why Christians should believe the entirety of the Bible. Regardless, the videos are on my posts if you ever find yourself interested. There is also a site that I visit regularly that offers a free monthly magazine (Acts & Facts) on the Bible and creationism (www.icr.org) and you should sign up if you are interested. As I said it’s free.
Anyway, thanks so much for helping me see what I was doing and setting me right on my course. It also means a lot that you did it without being harsh. Anyway, thanks. God bless you also, my friend...
Replies: 32
Msg #32: On 8/10/2011 at 6:16:46 PM, dieterstark replied to Msg #31, saying: I've been reading off and on some of your "Why I've Returned" post. It has so much information, and each video is nearly an hour long so I haven't by any means watched them all- but, I'm watching Dr. Pattons on evidence for co-habitation between dinosaurs and man- a subject which has fascinated me for as long as I can remember questioning things in the world around me. (The human skull fossilized in the tertiary layer is curious and I'm going to do some google research on that after I finish the video)
It would come as no surprise to me if dinosaurs and man co-habitated in pre-flood Earth. It was a geologically and climatically different world before the flood, and species of animals (especially lizards) grew to enormous sizes. I don't pretend to know the answers, but I love to entertain and think up possibilites.
Some geologists and scholars claim that the Ice Age immediately followed the Genesis Flood , and fossil records from the Ice Age, and pre-Ice Age (before the Flood), indicate that enormous animals existed, perhaps even dinosaurs, or some ancestors of them that found their way onto the ark.
King Nimrod in the Bible was a king living in pre-flood Earth. He was described as being a great hunter in the eyes of the Lord, and some believe he may have hunted dinosaurs.
"He was powerful in hunting and in wickedness before the Lord, for he was a hunter of the sons of men, and he said to them, 'Depart from the judgment of the Lord, and adhere to the judgment of Nimrod.' Therefore is it said: 'As Nimrod the strong one, strong in hunting, and in wickedness before the Lord.'"
The "sons of men" refers to the Nephillim- the hybrid offspring of the fallen angels and human women (and other beautiful animals of the earth). 1/3 of the angels fell with Lucifer as you know, and when they saw how beautiful the human women and some of the animals were they could not help themselves and perverted the human DNA by mixing it with fallen angels. The offspring of these terrible unions were the Nephillim, half human half angelic giants and monsters for lack of better description words. I imagine these creations were the root or even first hand inspiration for legends of mythical beasts from around world like but not limited the centaur, cerberus, sphinx, the Egyptian sun god, most of the ancient Greco-Roman gods, and maybe even some dinosaurs.
So if Nimrod was one of those rare bad-asses, the hunter of the Children of Men, or the "Nephillim", he was a great hunter indeed. I'm sure he was one of but a few men back then who could hunt these fantastical and terror inducing beasts and had such a reputation that he earned a cameo in The Bible. Though he was not a Godly man, Nimrods hunter skill was so great even the Lord our God recognized his talents for it.
What are your opinions on Nephillim monki?
Replies: 33
Msg #33: On 8/10/2011 at 8:58:04 PM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #32, saying: I only recently discovered Don Patton, but I really do like his presentations. I firmly believe that man not only coexisted with dinosaurs, and other extinct lifeforms, early on, but also that there are likely many still alive today, especially in the Likouala region of the Congo.
As far as the nephilim go, I think you’re on the right track with the belief that were, or even inspired, any number of ancient creatures and gods. Speaking of the nephilim, I have recently been toying with an idea about if they could be the contemporary Bigfoot- and Sasquatch-type creatures that are so commonly reported the world over. I am well aware that such creatures are not scientifically accepted, but I believe there is loads of evidence to support their existence. Furthermore, the fact that they haven’t (or even can’t) be captured only makes me feel that much more that there is a spiritual aspect to them; a sentiment shared by nearly every native culture that has encountered them. There are many reports where they not only display intelligence far beyond that of natural animals, but also reports of them being also incorporeal on occasion. Anyway, I’m just considering the possibility of the two being connected lately, but I don’t have anything Biblical to base it on, other than the reference to them being giants (with the average BF being 7-8 feet tall, a giant to us)
Many actually believe that the nephilim are corporeal demonic entities we would recognize as ETs. Perhaps there is some truth in this. I don’t know. I personally do believe that ETs are evil and demonic through, so I wouldn’t be surprised. What are your thoughts on this?
Msg #34: On 8/14/2011 at 11:52:23 AM, dieterstark replied, saying: I think Bigfoot, or Yeti or whatever you want to call it could have existed alongside man in the past but I doubt there are any still around. I could entertain the thoughts of an isolated pocket of beasts(bigfoots, orang-pendek's, whatever) in African or South America where the people don't hunt everything to hell in the surrounding forests/environments but not in North America. I could be wrong though.
If it does exists, it's certainly not uncapturable- anything that walks this earth can be captured by man.
I'm familiar with the spiritual nature given to these things, some call them shapeshifters. Have you read about Skinwalker Ranch and the creatures that have been reported there? A lot of people have been talking about that place lately.
If the nephilim exists I'm sure they would be demonic or evil in nature. I think thats a given. Replies: 35
Msg #35: On 8/15/2011 at 10:40:32 PM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #34, saying: I agree with you that the nephilim are mot certainly evil, no matter what their physical form. As far as the Bigfoot connection, I’m still up in the air on the matter (as far as them being nephilim), but I think that there is a substantial amount of evidence for them, even here in the US. The fact that they may be spiritual in nature provides some insight into how they could exist in our modern world, leaving no bodies and evading even the best attempts to track and or capture them. I have read several cases of encounters where the BFs were essentially translucent, appearing physical yet incorporeal at the same time, or where they would walk across fresh snow or mud without leaving tracks. The tracks themselves are interesting because nearly every time only a few isolated tracks are found, with no tracks leading to or from those discovered. There are even a number of cases where BFs and UFOs are sighted together. As I said, I don’t know if they are the nephilim, but I definitely believe they are real, even in America, and that they are most likely spiritual, probably demonic.
As far as the Skinwalker Ranch, I have heard of some incredible stuff there. A paranormal research would find a little of nearly everything reported there, including sentient animals, cattle mutilation, poltergeist activity, Sasquatch, UFOs, you name it. I have read a lot about it, and though I can’t say if there is any truth to that being reported, I will admit that I used to find it suspicious that, if true, so many (seemingly) unrelated phenomenon were occurring at one place. I now see no real issue with the variety of phenomenon, as I personally feel it all to be evil; just different faces of the same evil. That’s just my personal thoughts on the matter.
Speaking about such things, what do you think about ghosts? Have you ever had any encounters or experiences of any kind?
Replies: 36
Msg #36: On 8/18/2011 at 11:46:09 PM, dieterstark replied to Msg #35, saying: Well it depends on what you mean by the term "ghosts". If the term means “spirit beings,” the answer is a definitive “yes.” If the term means “spirits of people who have died,” the answer is “no.” I think that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and “haunt” the living. I don't believe human spirits would stick around on this shitty earth, even if they could.
I believe that there are indeed spirit beings who can connect with and appear in our physical world. The Bible, one example, identifies these beings as angels and demons. Angels are spirit beings who are faithful in serving God. Angels are righteous, good, and holy. Demons are fallen angels, angels who rebelled against God. Demons are evil, deceptive, and destructive. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as “angels of light” and as “servants of righteousness.” Appearing as a “ghost” and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seems to be within the power and abilities that demons possess. Whatever the spirits are, they have no control over you unless you let them.
