Messing with Godwinson's head... - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Messing with Godwinson's head...

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Messing with Godwinson's head...

CClark posted 11-20-98 04:52 PM ET
After reading both Maya's thread and Aga1's thread (you know which ones I mean) I uncharacteristically feel like stirring up trouble. Please ignore this thread.
Here's a little argument I tried on a fundamentalist baptist I went to school with many, many years ago.
God is not supposed to interfere with mankind--that's why he sent his son to Earth, right? But, even doing that is technically interferring. One of Satan's most common nicknames/subtitles is "The Great Deciever". Well, suppose that God didn't break his covenant of non-interference and that Jesus was actually an agent of Satan (or even Satan himself). That would be the greatest deception of all, wouldn't it? Knowing the huge amounts of discord that would arise from the new religion (Ireland, Inquisition, Reformation, etc.) and how many murders and wars it would lead to, surely Satan must have ochestrated and been behind the whole Jesus thing. God, being omnipotent surely would have forseen the mess that would come from sending Jesus down to Earth and not have done it. What good has REALLY come from Jesus that wasn't laid out years before in the 10 commandments?
The good news is that if Satan exists, then God must exist too. The bad news is that everything that Jesus said was actually said by Satan (or one of his agents) and that the bulk of the New Testament was designed solely to ignite wars and turn people against each other. (Which, I might add, it's done a pretty good job of--just look at some of the threads in this forum.)
I'd be curious to see how Godwinson would respond. She'd probably point that there is a glaring hole in the argument brought about by the fact that I'm as far from being a religous scholar as you can get! (I know it's a pathetically weak argument (if you can even call it that). But it was a great way to ruffle some classmates in grade school. )
DCA posted 11-20-98 09:52 PM ET
Hey, I like it - disinformation is fun. Didn't Hitler say something like "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it"? Well, this is the ultimate lie, and everybody (um, lots anyway) believes it!! Haha. Everything you know is false! Kill epop, the anti-pope!
You could take it even further and say that the notion of God is actually a lie spread by Satan... The bad news is, of course, that if Satan exists, then God must exist too. (Well, MUST is a strong word - everything is possible!)
As for this being a "pathetically weak argument" - yes and no. Yes, arguments by 'logic' proving or disproving some religious view are inherently bad. No, it doesn't contain any logical fallacies that are apparant to me, at least.
DCA,
Believe nothing, dare all.
Saint Randerolf posted 11-21-98 04:22 PM ET
lol
that kid told you that ?
Maya posted 11-21-98 10:38 PM ET
"After reading both Maya's thread and Aga1's thread (you know which ones I mean) I uncharacteristically feel like stirring up trouble. Please ignore this thread." [CClacrk]
LOL CClark. Don't worry, as long as Octopus doesn't think "black" when you say "white" and "white" when you say "black", you should be just fine! (I'm kidding here Octopus, don't take this the wrong way!) =)
-Maya
SnowFire posted 11-22-98 02:52 PM ET
I think Godwinson's response would be "The problems that resulted from Jesus's coming were evil human's fault, not God's. God is always right, He did not underestimate the power of evil; He only expects His paladins will insure that the evil humans who caused all the trouble with religion will be converted to the true cause (or eliminated, under her breath). So far we haven't held up to God's expectations. Our job is to fix that. Remember Exodus 32.26-29."
DCA posted 11-23-98 03:50 AM ET
"The problems that resulted from Jesus's coming were evil human's fault, not God's."
Sure, but this was undoubtedly something Satan had forseen, non? Set the scene, pull some strings, let humans do the dirty work. And I guess "evil humans" might arguably include Godwinson herself - "or eliminated, under her breath".
Anyway, the reason Godwinson would (should, at least) find it difficult to refute this rather outragous notion is that all the Biblical references allowing her to claim stuff like "God is always right. He did not blah blah. Remember Exodus 32.26-29." are void. Anything that supports Godwinson's POV was obviously included in the Bible by Satan himself! In effect, the Godwinsons of the world are Satan's lackeys, manipulated to fight for the wrong side! Ha. So, the easier it is for Godwinson to refute that 'Jesus is the son of Satan', the more successful Satan's manipulations have been! Hehehe - it's a no-win situation...
OmniDude posted 11-23-98 05:41 AM ET
I would have to point out - without getting too much into the premises of the argument - that I'm pretty sure that more good than evit have come from the legacy of Jesus, whether he was related to God or not. Only the good is much harder than the evil to measure in a historical perspective. Western society - being based on christianity as it is - IS the dominant culture on Earth. Advanced mass cultures like this can do great amounts of good as well as great amounts of evil. And I would say that a premise for mass culture is that you give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt, even if this sometimes result in betrayal.
No pain, no gain, I guess.
Anyway, it's the same ol' thang: Infidels taking the Bible literally and applying logic argumentation to it to prove fallacies. Why is this so much fun? Probably because too many ignorant christians take the bate every time.
It's not the story, but the IDEA behind it that makes the whole christianity thing come together. I wish more people could see that.
Duder
MikeH II posted 11-23-98 05:56 AM ET
Nice argument. Mind if I use it sometime?
OmniDude posted 11-23-98 09:10 AM ET
Whoms (SP?) are you referring to, Mike?
MikeH II posted 11-23-98 09:29 AM ET
CClark's sorry if I didn't make that clear.
tOFfGI posted 11-23-98 09:33 AM ET
God and Jesus are fairytales used to scare children.
CClark posted 11-23-98 12:15 PM ET
MikeH - sure you can use it. The "nice" thing about it is that (as DCA pointed out) it is a no-win argument. It's based on so much fancy and speculation without a single fact that it borders on being ridiculous.
Most religous people (luckily) fall into the category that OmniDude talks about. The ones that don't take the bible stories literally and instead recognize that "it's the thought that counts" as the cliche goes.
But for the preachy fundamentalists, the argument can really work them into a lather in a hurry.
I wonder if Godwinson is a fundamentalist, believing the Bible word-for-word or if she just has a strong faith in God and views the bible as a collection of moral stories? (Yes, I'm pretty sure you can have a strong faith without believing EVER word that's in the bible. Although being a faithless heathen I wouldn't know for sure. )
Octopus posted 11-23-98 12:21 PM ET
You could also point out that Lucifer was a democratic revolutionary, like George Washington, but his attempts to overthrow the oppressive regime in power were put down by God and his jack-booted thugs. Now, Lucifer is stuck in Hell, where he can't get his message across to the masses, while God has the best PR firm available, organized religion.
The are a number of variations you can put on the "everything you believe is wrong" line.
CClark posted 11-23-98 12:30 PM ET
Octopus - I like that take. Lucifer as a losing Washington and "God's got the best PR firm".
Glad to see you have a sense of humour. (If only more people did this world would be a lot better off...)
BoomBoom posted 11-23-98 02:06 PM ET
Maybe God and Satan are one and the same (hpothetically, we all know what i think of religions, otherwise read some of the threads), and is just some fella with a very split personality. Imagine the internal debate going on up there. let's send up some Prozac, that should take care of the problem.
Octopus posted 11-23-98 04:17 PM ET
"Glad to see you have a sense of humour. (If only more people did this world would be a lot better off...)"
Definitely. If more people saw that I had a sense of humor, the world WOULD be better off.
SnowFire posted 11-23-98 05:13 PM ET
I completely agree, Godwinson is one of the "evil people" who misinterpert the true meaning of Christianity. If you examine the early history of the church, it started out as a very pure monkish thing where people gave all their possesions to the poor and gladly let themselves get eaten by lions. After Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome, lots of people joined up to get good governmental positions and to have an excuse to loot the pagan temples. And Christianity became worldly nad "corrupt" for a long time, with the Pope being almost a secular mayor or Rome and later taxing all Europe simply to erect beautiful cathedrals in Italy.
If Godwinson lets other monotheistic religions join in her group, than she can't take a completely literal view of the Bible. Plus, I think 96% of all people who go through seminary can reconcile evolution and creationism, which means that she can probably fit conflicting doctrines (not just in religion, but science too) together. She's not a fanatical idiot.
Jesus was NOT a fairy tale (tOFGI)- he definitely existed. Whether he was the Son of God is up for debate, but I think that very few would debate whether he actually existed. And the religion he founded was pretty succesful...
Roland posted 11-24-98 06:14 AM ET
snowfire: "And the religion he founded was pretty succesful..."
Success in numbers for christianity, ok. But is the christianity - better, are the christianities - we have today the religion Jesus founded ? IMO, at least the catholic church (the one christianity version I know best) isn't.
Trinity is a concept heavily influenced by neo-platonism, the saints and the worship for Mary are the result of "christianising" pagan gods and goddesses, the clergy's power is arrogated etc etc...

OmniDude posted 11-24-98 07:16 AM ET
I agree, Roland. centuries don't pass without leaving their marks.
I solemnly believe that NOTHING just falls from the sky. EVERYTHING has a history and is a result of some sort of evolution. Why should christianity - or any other religion - be any different? The problem seem to be that those who preach religion feel a urge to separate the divine conceptually from the mortal and that's when things start to get messed up. Some no doubt have the best intentions, i.e. to offer hope and relief from a often hard and unjust world, but the stance that christianity is a constant over time is a POW with a hidden trap door leading straight to...well.....atheism , mainly because it's so easily refutable and thus undermines the very foundation of christianity.
SnowFire posted 11-24-98 08:21 PM ET
Okay, I'm probably going to irrevocable offend all the Catholics on these boards, but I agree with your point Roland on Catholism being a perversion of the original spirit of Christianity. All the Saint's days and the miracle healing silliness I dismiss along with you. And it was even worse back in the Middle Ages, when you had people buying "pieces of the cross" (tree branches returning crusaders took with them) at hugely inflated prices from the Church and indulgences being sold (buy some less time in purgatory with your purchase for you and your poor relatives!) and it's relentless "the other side are heathens" approach (Even today, if a Catholic and a non-Catholic are married, the children must be raised Catholic else the marriage will not be "offical" according to the Church). The Catholic Church reformed greatly in the 60's (no more services in Latin), and I consider the modern version as simply another branch of Christianity. I forget where, but I found this book written in the 70's (that would never EVER get published in the 90's by any reputable firm) that was basically a diatribe against various non-Protestant religions. The first four chapters concerned Catholism's errors, the next four an attack on 4 major sects of Christianity (like Jehova's Witnesses, Christian Scientists), the next four on four major world religions (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism) and I didn't read the last four. The interesting thing is, the library was reorganized soon afterwards, and I'm sure that that book was probably burned on a pyre as soon as they found it (due to its extreme reactionism and conservativness in a liberal church). But it did give me many arguments against lots of religions. How'd I end up recanting that story anyway?
Again, no offense against Catholics. I just think that my religion's right (otherwise why would I go there?). And you'll be happy to know that in my view, it's extremely difficult to get into Hell, unlike the Catholic view that all non-Catholics have no hope of that.
SnowFire posted 11-24-98 08:28 PM ET
Heck, while I'm talking about really bad books from the 60's, there was this one author who wrote this string of books decrying rock 'n roll and the Beatles were a communist plot to subvert our young people. I remember seeing the first part of one of his later ones, "Marxist Minstrels," published in '74. To prove this useless ancedote's relevance to the forum, it should be noted that the author was a religious scholar who was a minister, and apperantly a pretty vigourous fanatic in this too. It's funny to see him quote the HUAC so many times, as if not realizing that by the 70's HUAC's work had been completely discredited.
P.S. The author was a Presbyterian too! Gah! But a southern evangelical one, so there's a little less guilt by association.
Tolls posted 11-25-98 10:17 AM ET
We all know the Gnostics were right...why else would the early church have persecuted them? Afraid the truth would come out...
CClark posted 11-25-98 11:46 AM ET
I had to laugh watching this week's episode of ST S9.
Gul Dukat had started up a Pah-wraith cult and kidnapped Kira. He was arguing with her that the reason the occupation of Bajor lasted so long was that The Prophets where really false gods who didn't give a rat's ass about Bajor and that the Pah-Wraiths were the real gods. He argued that the Pah-Wraiths were thrown out of the wormhole because they wanted to go down and meddle in the affairs of Bajor while The Prophets were happy to ignore Bajor.
In the end, Gul Dukat tried to kill all of his followers but Kira thwarted him in good ST fashion. He escaped though, and Kira was a little worried because she thinks that he actually believes everything he said. (He was "kissed by a Pah-Wraith" in the season finale last year and it kind of pushed his already messed up mind over the brink.)
Sound familar? Who's got the better PR firm, eh?
DJ RRebel posted 11-25-98 12:03 PM ET
LMAO ... I can't believe I didn't see this thread before !!!
I love your theory CClark !!!
Although, I don't think there is a God or Satan, your argument would be a good one if they did exist !!! ROTF !!!
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Messing with Godwinson's head...
CClark	posted 11-20-98 04:52 PM ET After reading both Maya's thread and Aga1's thread (you know which ones I mean) I uncharacteristically feel like stirring up trouble. Please ignore this thread. Here's a little argument I tried on a fundamentalist baptist I went to school with many, many years ago. God is not supposed to interfere with mankind--that's why he sent his son to Earth, right? But, even doing that is technically interferring. One of Satan's most common nicknames/subtitles is "The Great Deciever". Well, suppose that God didn't break his covenant of non-interference and that Jesus was actually an agent of Satan (or even Satan himself). That would be the greatest deception of all, wouldn't it? Knowing the huge amounts of discord that would arise from the new religion (Ireland, Inquisition, Reformation, etc.) and how many murders and wars it would lead to, surely Satan must have ochestrated and been behind the whole Jesus thing. God, being omnipotent surely would have forseen the mess that would come from sending Jesus down to Earth and not have done it. What good has REALLY come from Jesus that wasn't laid out years before in the 10 commandments? The good news is that if Satan exists, then God must exist too. The bad news is that everything that Jesus said was actually said by Satan (or one of his agents) and that the bulk of the New Testament was designed solely to ignite wars and turn people against each other. (Which, I might add, it's done a pretty good job of--just look at some of the threads in this forum.) I'd be curious to see how Godwinson would respond. She'd probably point that there is a glaring hole in the argument brought about by the fact that I'm as far from being a religous scholar as you can get! (I know it's a pathetically weak argument (if you can even call it that). But it was a great way to ruffle some classmates in grade school. )
DCA	posted 11-20-98 09:52 PM ET Hey, I like it - disinformation is fun. Didn't Hitler say something like "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it"? Well, this is the ultimate lie, and everybody (um, lots anyway) believes it!! Haha. Everything you know is false! Kill epop, the anti-pope! You could take it even further and say that the notion of God is actually a lie spread by Satan... The bad news is, of course, that if Satan exists, then God must exist too. (Well, MUST is a strong word - everything is possible!) As for this being a "pathetically weak argument" - yes and no. Yes, arguments by 'logic' proving or disproving some religious view are inherently bad. No, it doesn't contain any logical fallacies that are apparant to me, at least. DCA, Believe nothing, dare all.
Saint Randerolf	posted 11-21-98 04:22 PM ET lol that kid told you that ?
Maya	posted 11-21-98 10:38 PM ET "After reading both Maya's thread and Aga1's thread (you know which ones I mean) I uncharacteristically feel like stirring up trouble. Please ignore this thread." [CClacrk] LOL CClark. Don't worry, as long as Octopus doesn't think "black" when you say "white" and "white" when you say "black", you should be just fine! (I'm kidding here Octopus, don't take this the wrong way!) =) -Maya
SnowFire	posted 11-22-98 02:52 PM ET I think Godwinson's response would be "The problems that resulted from Jesus's coming were evil human's fault, not God's. God is always right, He did not underestimate the power of evil; He only expects His paladins will insure that the evil humans who caused all the trouble with religion will be converted to the true cause (or eliminated, under her breath). So far we haven't held up to God's expectations. Our job is to fix that. Remember Exodus 32.26-29."
DCA	posted 11-23-98 03:50 AM ET "The problems that resulted from Jesus's coming were evil human's fault, not God's." Sure, but this was undoubtedly something Satan had forseen, non? Set the scene, pull some strings, let humans do the dirty work. And I guess "evil humans" might arguably include Godwinson herself - "or eliminated, under her breath". Anyway, the reason Godwinson would (should, at least) find it difficult to refute this rather outragous notion is that all the Biblical references allowing her to claim stuff like "God is always right. He did not blah blah. Remember Exodus 32.26-29." are void. Anything that supports Godwinson's POV was obviously included in the Bible by Satan himself! In effect, the Godwinsons of the world are Satan's lackeys, manipulated to fight for the wrong side! Ha. So, the easier it is for Godwinson to refute that 'Jesus is the son of Satan', the more successful Satan's manipulations have been! Hehehe - it's a no-win situation...
OmniDude	posted 11-23-98 05:41 AM ET I would have to point out - without getting too much into the premises of the argument - that I'm pretty sure that more good than evit have come from the legacy of Jesus, whether he was related to God or not. Only the good is much harder than the evil to measure in a historical perspective. Western society - being based on christianity as it is - IS the dominant culture on Earth. Advanced mass cultures like this can do great amounts of good as well as great amounts of evil. And I would say that a premise for mass culture is that you give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt, even if this sometimes result in betrayal. No pain, no gain, I guess. Anyway, it's the same ol' thang: Infidels taking the Bible literally and applying logic argumentation to it to prove fallacies. Why is this so much fun? Probably because too many ignorant christians take the bate every time. It's not the story, but the IDEA behind it that makes the whole christianity thing come together. I wish more people could see that. Duder
MikeH II	posted 11-23-98 05:56 AM ET Nice argument. Mind if I use it sometime?
OmniDude	posted 11-23-98 09:10 AM ET Whoms (SP?) are you referring to, Mike?
MikeH II	posted 11-23-98 09:29 AM ET CClark's sorry if I didn't make that clear.
tOFfGI	posted 11-23-98 09:33 AM ET God and Jesus are fairytales used to scare children.
CClark	posted 11-23-98 12:15 PM ET MikeH - sure you can use it. The "nice" thing about it is that (as DCA pointed out) it is a no-win argument. It's based on so much fancy and speculation without a single fact that it borders on being ridiculous. Most religous people (luckily) fall into the category that OmniDude talks about. The ones that don't take the bible stories literally and instead recognize that "it's the thought that counts" as the cliche goes. But for the preachy fundamentalists, the argument can really work them into a lather in a hurry. I wonder if Godwinson is a fundamentalist, believing the Bible word-for-word or if she just has a strong faith in God and views the bible as a collection of moral stories? (Yes, I'm pretty sure you can have a strong faith without believing EVER word that's in the bible. Although being a faithless heathen I wouldn't know for sure. )
Octopus	posted 11-23-98 12:21 PM ET You could also point out that Lucifer was a democratic revolutionary, like George Washington, but his attempts to overthrow the oppressive regime in power were put down by God and his jack-booted thugs. Now, Lucifer is stuck in Hell, where he can't get his message across to the masses, while God has the best PR firm available, organized religion. The are a number of variations you can put on the "everything you believe is wrong" line.
CClark	posted 11-23-98 12:30 PM ET Octopus - I like that take. Lucifer as a losing Washington and "God's got the best PR firm". Glad to see you have a sense of humour. (If only more people did this world would be a lot better off...)
BoomBoom	posted 11-23-98 02:06 PM ET Maybe God and Satan are one and the same (hpothetically, we all know what i think of religions, otherwise read some of the threads), and is just some fella with a very split personality. Imagine the internal debate going on up there. let's send up some Prozac, that should take care of the problem.
Octopus	posted 11-23-98 04:17 PM ET "Glad to see you have a sense of humour. (If only more people did this world would be a lot better off...)" Definitely. If more people saw that I had a sense of humor, the world WOULD be better off.
SnowFire	posted 11-23-98 05:13 PM ET I completely agree, Godwinson is one of the "evil people" who misinterpert the true meaning of Christianity. If you examine the early history of the church, it started out as a very pure monkish thing where people gave all their possesions to the poor and gladly let themselves get eaten by lions. After Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome, lots of people joined up to get good governmental positions and to have an excuse to loot the pagan temples. And Christianity became worldly nad "corrupt" for a long time, with the Pope being almost a secular mayor or Rome and later taxing all Europe simply to erect beautiful cathedrals in Italy. If Godwinson lets other monotheistic religions join in her group, than she can't take a completely literal view of the Bible. Plus, I think 96% of all people who go through seminary can reconcile evolution and creationism, which means that she can probably fit conflicting doctrines (not just in religion, but science too) together. She's not a fanatical idiot. Jesus was NOT a fairy tale (tOFGI)- he definitely existed. Whether he was the Son of God is up for debate, but I think that very few would debate whether he actually existed. And the religion he founded was pretty succesful...
Roland	posted 11-24-98 06:14 AM ET snowfire: "And the religion he founded was pretty succesful..." Success in numbers for christianity, ok. But is the christianity - better, are the christianities - we have today the religion Jesus founded ? IMO, at least the catholic church (the one christianity version I know best) isn't. Trinity is a concept heavily influenced by neo-platonism, the saints and the worship for Mary are the result of "christianising" pagan gods and goddesses, the clergy's power is arrogated etc etc...
OmniDude	posted 11-24-98 07:16 AM ET I agree, Roland. centuries don't pass without leaving their marks. I solemnly believe that NOTHING just falls from the sky. EVERYTHING has a history and is a result of some sort of evolution. Why should christianity - or any other religion - be any different? The problem seem to be that those who preach religion feel a urge to separate the divine conceptually from the mortal and that's when things start to get messed up. Some no doubt have the best intentions, i.e. to offer hope and relief from a often hard and unjust world, but the stance that christianity is a constant over time is a POW with a hidden trap door leading straight to...well.....atheism , mainly because it's so easily refutable and thus undermines the very foundation of christianity.
SnowFire	posted 11-24-98 08:21 PM ET Okay, I'm probably going to irrevocable offend all the Catholics on these boards, but I agree with your point Roland on Catholism being a perversion of the original spirit of Christianity. All the Saint's days and the miracle healing silliness I dismiss along with you. And it was even worse back in the Middle Ages, when you had people buying "pieces of the cross" (tree branches returning crusaders took with them) at hugely inflated prices from the Church and indulgences being sold (buy some less time in purgatory with your purchase for you and your poor relatives!) and it's relentless "the other side are heathens" approach (Even today, if a Catholic and a non-Catholic are married, the children must be raised Catholic else the marriage will not be "offical" according to the Church). The Catholic Church reformed greatly in the 60's (no more services in Latin), and I consider the modern version as simply another branch of Christianity. I forget where, but I found this book written in the 70's (that would never EVER get published in the 90's by any reputable firm) that was basically a diatribe against various non-Protestant religions. The first four chapters concerned Catholism's errors, the next four an attack on 4 major sects of Christianity (like Jehova's Witnesses, Christian Scientists), the next four on four major world religions (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism) and I didn't read the last four. The interesting thing is, the library was reorganized soon afterwards, and I'm sure that that book was probably burned on a pyre as soon as they found it (due to its extreme reactionism and conservativness in a liberal church). But it did give me many arguments against lots of religions. How'd I end up recanting that story anyway? Again, no offense against Catholics. I just think that my religion's right (otherwise why would I go there?). And you'll be happy to know that in my view, it's extremely difficult to get into Hell, unlike the Catholic view that all non-Catholics have no hope of that.
SnowFire	posted 11-24-98 08:28 PM ET Heck, while I'm talking about really bad books from the 60's, there was this one author who wrote this string of books decrying rock 'n roll and the Beatles were a communist plot to subvert our young people. I remember seeing the first part of one of his later ones, "Marxist Minstrels," published in '74. To prove this useless ancedote's relevance to the forum, it should be noted that the author was a religious scholar who was a minister, and apperantly a pretty vigourous fanatic in this too. It's funny to see him quote the HUAC so many times, as if not realizing that by the 70's HUAC's work had been completely discredited. P.S. The author was a Presbyterian too! Gah! But a southern evangelical one, so there's a little less guilt by association.
Tolls	posted 11-25-98 10:17 AM ET We all know the Gnostics were right...why else would the early church have persecuted them? Afraid the truth would come out...
CClark	posted 11-25-98 11:46 AM ET I had to laugh watching this week's episode of ST S9. Gul Dukat had started up a Pah-wraith cult and kidnapped Kira. He was arguing with her that the reason the occupation of Bajor lasted so long was that The Prophets where really false gods who didn't give a rat's ass about Bajor and that the Pah-Wraiths were the real gods. He argued that the Pah-Wraiths were thrown out of the wormhole because they wanted to go down and meddle in the affairs of Bajor while The Prophets were happy to ignore Bajor. In the end, Gul Dukat tried to kill all of his followers but Kira thwarted him in good ST fashion. He escaped though, and Kira was a little worried because she thinks that he actually believes everything he said. (He was "kissed by a Pah-Wraith" in the season finale last year and it kind of pushed his already messed up mind over the brink.) Sound familar? Who's got the better PR firm, eh?
DJ RRebel	posted 11-25-98 12:03 PM ET LMAO ... I can't believe I didn't see this thread before !!! I love your theory CClark !!! Although, I don't think there is a God or Satan, your argument would be a good one if they did exist !!! ROTF !!!