Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[Mr_Dogg]

People might dismiss the flood legend as mere fairy tales, but no one appears to be able to explain why tales of Noah and the Great Flood

turn up in cultures across the globe. Even Red Indian tribes who live in the middle of the North American continent thousands of miles

from the nearest ocean have them.

Apparently some Royal households in Europe can trace their lineage right back to Japeth who was one of the sons of Noah.

Noah didn't just build an Ark he was commanded to be "a preacher of righteousness" The Earth was filled with violence and it was a bad place. Beings from another dimension had bred with female humans and the gene pool of mankind had been corrupted, creating a super human race, which the Bible calls the Nephilim. Sometimes called the Annunaki. The men of fame like Hercules...half man, half God who again ancient civilisations like Greece, Rome commemerated and worshipped even after the flood. The world in which Noah lived had become degenerate.... until “every inclination of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only bad all the time” and the earth became “ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. What's also fascinated me is that in eg Greek/Roman mythology. There are on the also many fables of half beast, half God. Is it possible that these "fallen angels" mixed their genes somehow with beasts, so that the whole Earth became contaminated with unnatural DNA?

The flood wasn't just a rain shower for forty days and nights.... the Bible states that it was a deluge from above and below, which would have had catastrophic consequences on the Earth's climate, tectonics and solar radiation. The Greek word used in the Bible to refer to the Flood, or Deluge, is ka‧ta‧kly‧smos′, a cataclysm.

It has been said that if all the moisture in the atmosphere were suddenly released as rain it would not amount to even a couple of inches if spread over the earth’s surface. So from what source was this vast deluge of Noah’s day? According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah: “Here I [Jehovah] am bringing the deluge [or, “heavenly ocean”; Heb., mab‧bul′] of waters upon the earth.” (Ge 6:17, ftn) Describing what happened, the next chapter says: “All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (Ge 7:11) So overwhelming was the Deluge that “all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.”—Ge 7:19.

Where did this “heavenly ocean” come from? The Genesis account of creation tells how on the second “day” Jehovah made an expanse about the earth, and this expanse (called “Heaven”) formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Ge 1:6-8) The waters suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second “day” of creation until the Flood. This is what the apostle Peter was talking about when he recounted that there “were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God.” Those “heavens” and the waters above and beneath them were the means that God’s word called into operation, and “by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.” (2Pe 3:5, 6) Various explanations have been offered as to how the water was held aloft until the Flood and as to the processes that resulted in its falling. But these are only speculative. The Bible says simply that God made the expanse with waters above it and that he brought the Deluge. His almighty power could easily accomplish it.

Since, as the Genesis account says, “all the tall mountains” were covered with water, where is all that water now? Evidently it is right here on the earth. It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As to the present situation, it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105) So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover “all the tall mountains,” as the inspired record says.—Ge 7:19.

The Bible shows that the flood cleansed the earth and mankind's DNA of this corruption and violence. It also limited mankinds lifespan, presumably due to increased solar radiation damage. Noah and his family were God fearing and peacable and they tried to warn people for many years that God would not allow the Earth to be indefinitely ruined.... for about 40 years while they built the Ark, however people scoffed at them and their message.

Just like Noah and his family Jehovah's Witnesses try and show people from the Bible that God will not put up with the earth being ruined indefinitely and that there is a hope of a world government taking over Earth's affairs where violence, poverty and corruption will not exist.

Martin if you don't want Jehovah's Witnessess to knock on your door, then as you live right by a Kingdom Hall I have said previously

just go & have a word or just push a note through the door with your address on stating that they should no longer call. The congregation should respect your wishes, if they haven't done so then you should complain.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Brumerican]

This might help you understand why slavery was permitted.

https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4264

It doesn't .

It is an opinion piece by a christian who is basically saying that slavery was rife during that era of time so God decided to just turn a blind eye .

God could have made it a commandment but chose not to ...He never condemns the practise and at times even orders it .

The sites you use don't actually explain anything . They just try and bend what the bible says to justify atrocities.

steaknchips, you can't think for yourself at all . I'm actually quite embarrassed for you .

[Sie]

You wouldnt have a link to that please Brum? I would like to take a look.

By the way, the rape, incest stuff etc can all be explained on various web sites...Just google and research it...Ive seen it all before. Its all explained.

This might help you understand why slavery was permitted.

https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4264

Simple explanation - under no circumstance is any of it morally correct. Like ever. The bible sanctions it and people explaining that away to be either morally correct, not really rape, incest, slavery etc or just simply deny its in the bible for convenience are pieces of shit.

Also, go nuts http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Specifically CH500.

[steaknchips]

I like this bit best http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/authors.html

[Sie]

I like this bit best http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/authors.html

Yes, he's the editor. He compiled it. Hows about reading some instead of just alluding that the main editor is untrustworthy because of that. Go on; it's got citations and everything, I bet you'll love those even more!

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you've merrily skipped over the uncomfortable part in my post that you can't directly and concisely respond to for the reason we all know. Damn those elephants in the room eh Steak?

[Kiwivillan]

This web site might give some answers as to the canopy Julie was refering to;

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

Answers? I could say the pyramids were built by hovercrafts with tractor beams and the evidence of this has been lost over time but it would still be bullshit.

[steaknchips]

Alternately mate you read this.It covers the flood in good detail.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml#different

Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense of evolution for two reasons:

To keep from being accused of bias.

To keep from making claims that someone could refute later.

[Sie]

Alternately mate you read this.It covers the flood in good detail.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml#different

Yep. You've still skipped it...

[legov]

People might dismiss the flood legend as mere fairy tales, but no one appears to be able to explain why tales of Noah and the Great Flood

turn up in cultures across the globe. Even Red Indian tribes who live in the middle of the North American continent thousands of miles

from the nearest ocean have them.

Apparently some Royal households in Europe can trace their lineage right back to Japeth who was one of the sons of Noah.

Noah didn't just build an Ark he was commanded to be "a preacher of righteousness" The Earth was filled with violence and it was a bad place. Beings from another dimension had bred with female humans and the gene pool of mankind had been corrupted, creating a super human race, which the Bible calls the Nephilim. Sometimes called the Annunaki. The men of fame like Hercules...half man, half God who again ancient civilisations like Greece, Rome commemerated and worshipped even after the flood. The world in which Noah lived had become degenerate.... until “every inclination of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only bad all the time” and the earth became “ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. What's also fascinated me is that in eg Greek/Roman mythology. There are on the also many fables of half beast, half God. Is it possible that these "fallen angels" mixed their genes somehow with beasts, so that the whole Earth became contaminated with unnatural DNA?

The flood wasn't just a rain shower for forty days and nights.... the Bible states that it was a deluge from above and below, which would have had catastrophic consequences on the Earth's climate, tectonics and solar radiation. The Greek word used in the Bible to refer to the Flood, or Deluge, is ka‧ta‧kly‧smos′, a cataclysm.

It has been said that if all the moisture in the atmosphere were suddenly released as rain it would not amount to even a couple of inches if spread over the earth’s surface. So from what source was this vast deluge of Noah’s day? According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah: “Here I [Jehovah] am bringing the deluge [or, “heavenly ocean”; Heb., mab‧bul′] of waters upon the earth.” (Ge 6:17, ftn) Describing what happened, the next chapter says: “All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (Ge 7:11) So overwhelming was the Deluge that “all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.”—Ge 7:19.

Where did this “heavenly ocean” come from? The Genesis account of creation tells how on the second “day” Jehovah made an expanse about the earth, and this expanse (called “Heaven”) formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Ge 1:6-8) The waters suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second “day” of creation until the Flood. This is what the apostle Peter was talking about when he recounted that there “were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God.” Those “heavens” and the waters above and beneath them were the means that God’s word called into operation, and “by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.” (2Pe 3:5, 6) Various explanations have been offered as to how the water was held aloft until the Flood and as to the processes that resulted in its falling. But these are only speculative. The Bible says simply that God made the expanse with waters above it and that he brought the Deluge. His almighty power could easily accomplish it.

Since, as the Genesis account says, “all the tall mountains” were covered with water, where is all that water now? Evidently it is right here on the earth. It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As to the present situation, it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105) So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover “all the tall mountains,” as the inspired record says.—Ge 7:19.

The Bible shows that the flood cleansed the earth and mankind's DNA of this corruption and violence. It also limited mankinds lifespan, presumably due to increased solar radiation damage. Noah and his family were God fearing and peacable and they tried to warn people for many years that God would not allow the Earth to be indefinitely ruined.... for about 40 years while they built the Ark, however people scoffed at them and their message.

Just like Noah and his family Jehovah's Witnesses try and show people from the Bible that God will not put up with the earth being ruined indefinitely and that there is a hope of a world government taking over Earth's affairs where violence, poverty and corruption will not exist.

Martin if you don't want Jehovah's Witnessess to knock on your door, then as you live right by a Kingdom Hall I have said previously

just go & have a word or just push a note through the door with your address on stating that they should no longer call. The congregation should respect your wishes, if they haven't done so then you should complain.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Gosh, Julie. Floods happen everywhere, but the fact that big floods are alluded to in just about every culture doesn't mean that all those floods happened simultaneously as parts of a worldwide one.

[legov]

Back on topic.

Why is the thread titled in the form of a question anyway as it seems as if the OP already had their answer regardless ?

How did Noah get around all the continents collecting all the indigenous species by the way ?

Marsupials from Australia....Polar bears fro the Arctic etc etc ?

It seems like a logistical nightmare .

I guess it makes it sound like a chance for discussion, when actually it was simply an opportunity for steakandchips to preach nonsense

He's not preaching, hes trolling. Badly, since rather than antagonise hes simply succeeded in getting the readers of the thread to suspect hes retarded.

Of course, if he did actually believe this, you'd be doing him a favour by calling the local asylum.

Playing devil's advocate here, but when has debate* ever been equivalent to trolling?

* Granted, debate with (what seems to me like) flawed logic, but I doubt he's on here merely to irritate and annoy.

[ED]

So Noah's family were the only people to survive this flood, and therefore all our ancestry can be tracked down to this one family, is that right? And before this happened people could live to be hundreds of years old? Just need to clear this up. (hmm where do the dinosaurs fit in? :?)

[ED]

To answer my own question from one of SAC's many links:

Now, what about dinosaurs, were they on the ark and could they fit? (If you do not understand that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time, you need to read our Dinosaurs Page.) We believe dinosaurs were on the ark. The solution to getting the large ones on the ark is in using young dinosaurs. They take up less room, they eat less, and they have more of their reproductive life left for restarting the population. Although out of context for this page, we offer one explanation regarding why most dinosaurs disappeared (after the flood was over and they left the ark) here in our frequently asked questions section.

:?

EDIT it gets better

If you have flown on a plane, you probably noticed how different mountains look from the air than they do from the ground. They look more “wrinkled” than you would expect, and almost “artificial” in appearance. The canyons and rivers that flow out of them look different also—sort of like the seashore after the tide runs out and you see little “grooves” in the sand. This is especially noticeable if you are flying over a part of the world that does not have much vegetation to hide the shape of the land like Arizona, Nevada, and Utah in the United States. The next time you are in a plane and over such an area, look down and see if it makes sense that this appearance could have been caused about 4,000 years ago if everything had been covered with water for a year and then drained off in a short time. We do not claim this as proof, by the way—but this is one of many such observations that make one wonder.

muhaha

[JulieB]

What about me?

I'm still waiting for an answer on how you feel you can quote Einstein in support of your arguments, a guy that said the bible was "pretty childish", a guy that openly rejected the notion of a god saying "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses".

I had already quoted from the Encyclopedia Brittannica regarding Einstein and his non Atheistic beleifs...whilst not believing in a personal God.

It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."4

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

In a general response to matters...

Whilst VT Atheists sit on their self congratulatory thrones convincing themselves that all intelligent persons have no beleif in a Creator, whilst only stupid people have an alternative perspective.... the fact is that their is a global community of information out there on the internet and more and more scientists and researchers are questioning accepted standards of human anthrapology etc and exposing a mass of anomalies, which do not fit the standard.

[regular_john]

What about me?

I'm still waiting for an answer on how you feel you can quote Einstein in support of your arguments, a guy that said the bible was "pretty childish", a guy that openly rejected the notion of a god saying "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses".

I had already quoted from the Encyclopedia Brittannica regarding Einstein and his non Atheistic beleifs...whilst not believing in a personal God.

It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."4

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

In a general response to matters...

Whilst VT Atheists sit on their self congratulatory thrones convincing themselves that all intelligent persons have no beleif in a Creator, whilst only stupid people have an alternative perspective.... the fact is that their is a global community of information out there on the internet and more and more scientists and researchers are questioning accepted standards of human anthrapology etc and exposing a mass of anomalies, which do not fit the standard.

There's a difference between believing in a creator and believing in really dumb shit. I'm not against the idea of there being a God, at least not in the deistic sense. I am, however, very much against fairytale nonsense masquerading as fact under the banner of 'religion'.

There may very well be a God of some sort, there's no evidence one way or the other so it's perfectly acceptable to fall either side of the fence, or on top of it.

What is not acceptable is horse shit nonsense like virgin births, talking snakes, fruits that contain knowledge, global floods, water being turned into wine, WATER-****-CANOPIES and other such gibberish. These things are nothing more than stories, myths and legends, no different in any way to the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Norse etc. etc. myths and legends that fill classic story books.

Julie - I think most of us can take your belief in God seriously, but can you really blame 'us VT atheists' for 'sitting on our self congratulatory thrones' and mocking all the other weird, and clearly false, beliefs that you, steakandcheese, and others like you hold?

[Kiwivillan]

It must be wierd following a religious cult that is derided by atheists and other christians for different reasons.

[legov]

What about me?

I'm still waiting for an answer on how you feel you can quote Einstein in support of your arguments, a guy that said the bible was "pretty childish", a guy that openly rejected the notion of a god saying "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses".

I had already quoted from the Encyclopedia Brittannica regarding Einstein and his non Atheistic beleifs...whilst not believing in a personal God.

It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."4

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

In a general response to matters...

Whilst VT Atheists sit on their self congratulatory thrones convincing themselves that all intelligent persons have no beleif in a Creator, whilst only stupid people have an alternative perspective.... the fact is that their is a global community of information out there on the internet and more and more scientists and researchers are questioning accepted standards of human anthrapology etc and exposing a mass of anomalies, which do not fit the standard.

As you've said, he never professed a belief in a personal God, nor did he have any affinity with organised religion. He was a freethinker, a non-religious person, and trivialities like whether he was "deist" or "atheist" or a "pantheist" are frankly irrelevant.

[JulieB]

- I think most of us can take your belief in God seriously, but can you really blame 'us VT atheists' for 'sitting on our self congratulatory thrones' and mocking all the other weird, and clearly false, beliefs that you, steakandcheese, and others like you hold?

Yes because you all continually deny the existence of any evidence to the contrary, which is actually not the case

What's more our entertainment media is now saturated with the supernatural - when it comes to Vampires, Ghosts, Demons, Witchcraft etc and Atheists don't seem to have a problem with it being consistently portrayed as entertainment to everyone including children. However when someone follows the Bible and forms an opinion of a personal God that's a different kettle of fish all together.

But then I was quite shocked a while ago to read an interview with a LaVeyan Satanist about their beliefs and he said "we worship the same god, “self”. LaVeyan Satanists consider themselves “their own god.” ( In otherwords they are atheistic.) The essence of Satanism is more of living by your own standards. Satanism promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism. It shuns stupidity and conformity"

Of course it would be stupid to say that Atheists in general are Satanists because they are not..... however when you see many Atheist's attitude towards Christianity but their apparent tolerance of the promotion of supernatural, darker elements so that films like Twilight have become a teenage cult, without so much as a query - you have to ask yourself what is going on?

How many Atheists let their kids dress up and attend Halloween parties I wonder? October 31st is a celebration of "All Souls Day" the traditional day that the fallen angels lost their sons the Nephilim in the flood of Noah's day. THAT's how much the flood is ingrained in mankind's psyche - Yet whilst at the same time allowing their family or themselves to celebrate Halloween - Atheists scoff at the very event this celibration comemmorates!! But I am the one called a hypocrite...

It was actually the ancient Egyptians who first proposed Agnosticism and Atheism. For instance they proposed that life could be spontaneous as they observed the young of the Scarab beetles, which appeared to come from nothing as young......just climbing out of the sand. They considered this as a 'spontaneous creation' and worshiped the beetle as the god Khepera.

[NowDoINotLikeThat]

It must be wierd following a religious cult that is derided by atheists and other christians for different reasons.

Not religious at all myself but agree.

I know few christians and lot of them just consider christianity for teachings of Jesus & co. as some moral guide of sorts and ignore old testament or least think of it as parables etc - i aint going to argue with that or whether he exsisted - he probably did - (we know some his disciples certainly did)- probably was a Jesus as some sort of poiltical philsophical rebel of time rather than son of god etc..

Have to say JulieB and steaknchips must be trolling.

I will entertain some myths and even lot of religious stuff but seriously??

JulieB seems to have more in common with the Kabbalah form of Judaism than christianity - is she a Jeehovah witness?

[JulieB]

It must be wierd following a religious cult that is derided by atheists and other christians for different reasons.

Perhaps therefore you might like to do a little research on what forms "a cult" before bandying the term around in such a derogatory manner and how exactly that could refer to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect or a cult?

Some define sect to mean a group that has broken away from an established religion. Others apply the term to a group that follows a particular human leader or teacher. The term is usually used in a derogatory way. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not an offshoot of some church but include persons from all walks of life and from many religious backgrounds. They do not look to any human, but rather to Jesus Christ, as their leader.

A cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox or that emphasizes devotion according to prescribed ritual. Many cults follow a living human leader, and often their adherents live in groups apart from the rest of society. The standard for what is orthodox, however, should be God’s Word, and Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly adhere to the Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion. They neither follow a human nor isolate themselves from the rest of society. They live and work in the midst of other people.

A few years ago a tract was produced in France following some viscious persecution stirred up in the main by members of the Catholic Church to counteract this opposition. It was entitled Jehovah’s Witnesses—What You Need to Know.

This tract impressed many, including public officials. “The criticism leveled at Jehovah’s Witnesses fills me with indignation,” wrote a regional councilman after reading the tract. “Time and again I have come to appreciate the benevolent and unselfish character of your work.” In response to the tract, a member of the European Parliament wrote: “The majority of the people know very well how to tell the difference between the group of Christians of which you are a part and the cults.”

[Kiwivillan]

But then I was quite shocked a while ago to read an interview with a LaVeyan Satanist about their beliefs and he said "we worship the same god, “self”. LaVeyan Satanists consider themselves “their own god.” ( In otherwords they are atheistic.) The essence of Satanism is more of living by your own standards. Satanism promotes indulgence, free thinking, and skepticism. It shuns stupidity and conformity"

What is truly Satanic is refusing a child receive a life-saving blood transfusion because of following a translation of the bible by Charles Taze Russell.

Jehovah's Witness is a cult and has about as much veracity as believing in Jedi.