Theological Opinions

[Lief Erikson]

“The Beast out of the Sea�


My general Baarorg is “The Beast out of the Sea,� that Revelations talks about. He came by sea to the country the Rainbow Order commands, with his newly raised army. In Revelation, Chapter 13:1, the first beast comes out of the sea.


Revelations describes the beast as being very ferocious with multiple descriptions of him being similar to various monstrous animals.

Baarorg conquers everything in his path.


It is written in Revelation, “The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.�

Baarorg’s banner displays the head of a red dragon (complete coincidence- there was no red dragon in my story or plans for the future, at the point of that selection), and my plot already dictated that Baarorg would gain vast authority over the nations. My plot already planned that he would conquer Rainbow Order's nation and lead a great alliance that has dominion over most of the western part of the world.



“One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed,� is written in Revelations.

Baarorg had been severely wounded by the loss of his family and then crushed utterly by the defeat of his kingdom, in the past. He had been thrown into exile, having lost everything. However, in this book he was able to recover, and return in great strength. The fatal wound was healed.


“The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.�

Baarorg gains huge influence over the entire world.


“Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?�

No one can defeat Baarorg in any battle. No military general is like him in skill.


“The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.�

Here is a quote, something that Baarorg says at the end of Book 2.

“You do not know the true black villainy behind the Rainbow Order. You have not seen it first hand as I have. How could I have been so blind, before? They manipulate power over all the kingdoms.

“Maybe Darkagrin and Vaaldin and Merave are all wrong, but to me, they are freedom fighters. Other ways of doing magic than the Rainbow Order’s way are instantly suppressed. Their organization is corrupt at its heart. Many on the outskirts of the politics are unaware, often completely unaware, of how completely they are being manipulated to serve the Rainbow Order’s ends.�

Darkagrin, Vaaldin and Merave are principle villains of the story.



“He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them.

And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.�

Baarorg conquers the saints—the Rainbow Order. He defeats the hosts of the good main characters. He conquers the coalition of the good and makes them flee. By saying he is given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation (I only have one language in my book), it could be also pointed out along the same lines that Baarorg’s rule even takes power in the merkingdoms.


“He who has an ear, let him hear.�

Several prophets of Brell came out to speak to the people in the Rainbow Council before the battle began, and during it.


“If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed.�

Many main characters are captured or killed (as is true in most fantasy books, I am well aware ).


“This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.�

Definitely true of the characters of my book.





“The Beast out of the Earth�


“Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth.�

Here is a statement made by Baarorg. “Runetbar has long been deserted, but it will prove useful to us now. Indeed, a strong magical power is about to be brought there. It will then be transported to the Rainbow Castle. Vaaldin will go with it, and will help teach people the truth in the Rainbow Castle.� Runetbar is a land location in Elerev, and Vaaldin came by that way. I consider Vaaldin to be "the second beast."


“He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon.�

Vaaldin appears to be one of the Rainbow Order. However, the evil god speaks directly through his mouth, as was particularly clearly shown in one of the scenes of Part 2. In that scene, the evil god literally speaks through his mouth to someone else, using Vaaldin like a human telephone.


“He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.�

Vaaldin was given an extremely high position by Baarorg because he served him faithfully, and used that authority on Baarorg's behalf.


“And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.�

The magical power of Vaaldin is far greater than that of almost any other wizard (as is commonly the case for the main baddie, I know). Vaaldin displays this power greatly in the Rainbow Order, to convince people to come and learn from the Flame of Pure Light. The Flame of Pure Light is the fire that falls from heaven. Vaaldin's Flame of Pure Light which he brought to the Rainbow Order is a powerful magical force, an extremely close parallel of "the fire that came down from heaven in the full view of men."

I actually didn't notice this parallel, about the fire from heaven that Vaaldin brought (even though it is an enormously critical part of the story- it's this fire from heaven that seduces the Rainbow Order!). My brother pointed it out to me, while we were talking about the parallels I'd found.

[Lief Erikson]

There are other parallels I could bring, but as I think about it, I realize that this isn't going to get anywhere. These parallels could be seen as completely coincidence, I suppose. A highly interesting coincidence, to me . But my point was that the Christian life simply becomes full of "coincidences". Someone calls you just when you wanted them to call you, a book or missing paperwork or some such is there just when you needed it. Coincidences- many, numerous. Sometimes unexplainable. I think I'll shy away from the parallels as regards my book now, and revert back to the tried and true. The fulfillments of Christ from Old Testament prophecy were impossible coincidences of such caliber that mathmeticians have calculated the odds of someone having been able to fulfill just eight of the prophecies was one in one hundred million billion. Just eight.

I feel like shifting realms of evidence again, into more inexplicable coincidences.

My sister, a few years ago, was listening to her Sunday School teacher. She heard a good message about being able to speak to God through prayer, and was excited. However, she knew herself well enough to know that she wouldn't be able to remember it. So she prayed, "in case I forget, please remind me that I can speak to you through prayer!"

That night, she had forgotten. As she was brushing her teeth, suddenly my mother stepped out of her room and said, "remember, you can talk to God through prayer!"


I have to go now. There are many, many evidences. Many, many stories I could bring up. I could go on for a long time. But my point is that this is a daily, regular experience. I've talked some about prophecies, and mentioned one experience that was important to me, and one that was important to my sister. There are many others. For me, it has primarily started since I was born again, a few years ago.

I feel that I may be rambling, now. This whole argument is a good deal more rambly then I would wish it to be, and I have a feeling that it is rather weak here and there. I almost wish I hadn't brought up my book. My point though is simply that it is a regular experience, and a fantastic one. I hadn't planned any of the parallels that occurred. The symbols of the red dragon, the fire from heaven, the first beast coming over sea while the second came over land, etc. I like them .

Well, that's enough for now. This is a chatty post as well. I'm pretty critical of it, because I feel as though I'm exposing myself in a vulnerable area. I'll be stepping offline now .

[Nurvingiel]

Wow Lief, a four part giant post of hugeness!

I really want to read it all, but the Swedish awaits studying. Too long it has waited...

One small comment from the beginning of the first part though - IIRC the word pagan means not Christian, or at least it refers to more than one religion - Druidism, Wicca, and possibly a Celtic religion (or two? my knowledge ends there).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Wow Lief, a four part giant post of hugeness!

Most of it is superfluous . Unconvincing arguments. Can't delete them though; not without making the other posts cease to make sense.

[Nurvingiel]

I wouldn't say they were unconvincing, as a detraction to the posts. (I still have to read the 4th part, but I get the gist here I think.) Besides, what I gathered you were trying to convince people of was that Christianity is a down-to-Earth sort of religion, (edit: literally bwahaha) something you can experience every day. I don't think you failed here at all - clearly you demonstrated that you do experience God every day. I hope I'm not totally missing your point here.

Even though I don't think your experiences will necessarily apply to others, they certainly are worth occupying space on this board! So don't put yourself down buddy. Plus, now I really want to read your book.

I think many people experience Christianity differently. Unlike you, I do not have conversations with God; we tend to leave eachother text messages if you'll forgive the analogy. However, I also think Christianity is highly personal in a lot of ways, so this makes sense to me. What do you think?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I wouldn't say they were unconvincing, as a detraction to the posts. (I still have to read the 4th part, but I get the gist here I think.) Besides, what I gathered you were trying to convince people of was that Christianity is a down-to-Earth sort of religion, (edit: literally bwahaha) something you can experience every day. I don't think you failed here at all - clearly you demonstrated that you do experience God every day. I hope I'm not totally missing your point here.

No, that was about it .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think many people experience Christianity differently. Unlike you, I do not have conversations with God; we tend to leave eachother text messages if you'll forgive the analogy. However, I also think Christianity is highly personal in a lot of ways, so this makes sense to me. What do you think?

What do you mean by 'text messages'?

As for having conversations with God, if you look through the Bible, New Testament and Old, you'll find that almost every believer described there had direct conversations with God. Not that they always saw angels or anything. Elijah on the mountaintop heard from God through nature. Others encountered him in dreams (like Solomon). Others encountered him in visions, or through several other means. But they did hear directly from him, like through a telephone, or an email service. I can hear from you through telephone, email or MSN (if I access it ). I also can contact you through actual physical conversation. Even as I can meet you in many different ways, God can meet us in many different ways.

I'm not saying that experiencing that in the way I've experienced it is necessary at all. It's just lovely . Also definitely something that's worth seeking. It's available. I'm doing my utmost at every opportunity to convince people to seek it at the youth group I attend (many don't seem to recognize its existence). I do the same here.

[Rían]

*jumps back into the discussion after a long week and not much Moot time*

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The bare, bare, bones is believing in God, and that Jesus is the Son of God, and He died for our sins.

I would also add that IMO it includes that the Bible is the only authoritative book (as in fully inspired by God), and that God is the only God (IOW, He doesn't share top billing with other beings).

I remember a sermon a long time ago that gave three useful areas to compare beliefs in - there were 3 S's, but I can't remember them all - it was something like scriptures, salvation, and then some s-word for the characteristics of the god or gods - perhaps "source"? I'll use "source" for now.

As far as Mormons - they differ in all 3 areas from Christianity (as described Biblically and in the ancient creeds by the early Christians):

Scriptures: the Mormon church authorities accept as Scripture several other writings, including "The Book of Mormon", "Doctrine and Covenants", and "Pearl of Great Price", in addition to the KJV Bible.

Salvation: for Christians this is by grace through faith, and works flow naturally out of faith, but for Mormons salvation requires works and obeying the laws.

Source (or whatever the word was!): Christian doctrine says that God is eternal, the only God in the universe, the supreme creator, and things like that. Mormon doctrine says that God is "progressive" and attained his exalted state by going along the path that his children (Mormons) can follow, too, and they can become gods just like the God of the Bible.

These are very brief, but show some essential differences in the basic doctrines of Mormonism and Christianity. I think those 3 S's are a good tool for analysis and though. Can anyone figure out a better S for the last one?

[Rían]

And as far as Jehovah's Witnesses (since someone asked about both JW's and LDS) -

Scripture: includes the Watchtower.

Salvation: NOT only by grace thru faith; it includes working for your salvation.

Source: Jesus is NOT equal with God, and they deny his bodily resurrection.

I don't know as much about JW's, but their "work schedule" and list of requirements just dismays me. In my experience with Christianity, missionaries leave their home to serve others out of love; OTOH, JW's are required to do door-to-door and other types of witnessing. Also, it seems like the very foundations of JW's are flawed; for example, Russell, the founder, never had any formal theological training. He also claimed to know the Greek alphabet, but under examination he could not read Greek letters.

[Lief Erikson]

They also believe that Jesus' second coming has already occurred.

[Rían]

Yes, several times

What do you think of my 3 S's as a comparison tool?

[Lief Erikson]

Those are deeply essential teachings of Christianity. The first and last . . . I don't know if they belong among the "bare bones" of Christianity. Having some discussion on that would be helpful . Abraham didn't have any authoritative scriptures, so far as we know. On point three, even though the Old Testament indicates in several places the existence of the Trinity, many Jews never realized that there was a Trinity or acknowledged the existence of a "Son of God". Despite their "heresy," many of them managed to get up to heaven anyway. What do you think? Or am I mixing up "Christianity" and "salvation"?

[Nurvingiel]

I don't know if it's a rule, but Jehovah's Witnesses certainly must feel strongly compelled to do this, and any other efforts to convert people, since they believe that at the end of the world, only Jehovah's Witnesses will go to Heaven. IIRC. Apologies if I'm mangling JW theology here.

I don't like the idea that if you're not in a certain religion something awful will happen to you. I don't think JWs are the only ones who believe this.

I agree with your three S's RÃ*an. I can't think of a better one for Source, but it's quite late. (What's wrong with Source anyway?)

Isn't it interesting though that several faiths regard the Bible as Holy? Plus, we share the Old Testament with Judaism IIRC, even though I'm sure the meaning to the respective religions is generally quite different. Does this apply to any other religions?

Lastly, what's the KVJ Bible - King James Bible? What's the V then?

And the only thing I know about the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints is that I always enjoyed their ads. I haven't seen one in years though. Who are the Latter Day Saints (to which the name refers)?

I always mean to invite the next JWs that come to my door in for a cup of tea, because I don't know anything about this religion, and I know their goal is to convert me to it. I can imagine myself converting to a different religion* but that would be on my initiative, not someone else's (if it ever occured).


*it's not likely at the moment, but I can imagine it

[Rían]

I'm talking about using the S's as a tool to compare doctrinal statements.

As far as Abraham and the OT Jews, altho I believe that many were saved by faith, as was Abraham, yet doctrinally Christianity was still in the process of being completely revealed until after the NT writings were finished. The OT describes the old covenant; the NT describes the new covenant based on the old.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lastly, what's the KVJ Bible - King James Bible? What's the V then?

Whoops!!

*runs to fix error*

Um, it's KJV - King James Version.

(Nurv, you naughty thing, go to bed!! [/mothermode] )

[Count Comfect]

The Latter Day Saints are, I believe, the Mormons themselves.

Islam, it should be noted, ALSO shares the Old Testament, as well as the New. It just believes a few more edits came down the road in the form of the Quran.

[Lief Erikson]

There's no "just". They also have made direct changes in the New Testament itself. They believe that the New Testament was tainted by material added later, which is why it does not fully accord with the Koran. Therefore they are at liberty to make as many changes as they want- they're "getting rid of errors." Since they have the truth, they know what the New Testament was essentially supposed to be. Therefore they can change it to conform it more to that image.

A few more points where Islam differs from Christianity lie in the message of their New Testament.

The entire message of the New Testament is excluded from Islam. Jesus was to them one more prophet, not the Son of God. They don't even believe that he died on the cross. They think that Judas was stuck on the cross in place of him- a kind of last minute switch of God's choosing. Because they believe God is just, this makes a kind of sense. It would be God's justice acting on behalf of the innocent, none of the New Testament's "why have you forsaken me?" Jesus dying for the sins of the world is not part of their story. The whole message of grace is absent, because to the Muslims, there was no "fall of man." Their religion does behave with the same basic principles as Christianity does. I definitely grant you that. And I know you're not saying it is the same. I'm just acting as if you are, so that I can post some about the differences between Islam and Christianity .

[Count Comfect]

Lief, I agree that they change it a ton. But the same is true, I would argue, of the Christian reading of the Old Testament. Throw out the dietary restrictions! Throw out divorce! Allow the wearing of mixed fabrics! Make God a Trinity! Etc.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by count

But the same is true, I would argue, of the Christian reading of the Old Testament. Throw out the dietary restrictions! Throw out divorce! Allow the wearing of mixed fabrics! Make God a Trinity!

Count - Your examples 1 and 3 (dietary and fabric) were not matters of "reading", they were matters of actual NT doctrine - they were specifically (dietary) and generally (fabrics) revoked in the NT - it's not a matter of a modern Christian "reading" or interpretation. Refs upon request.

point 2 - divorce was NOT thrown out. What did you mean?

point 4 - The concept of the trinity is described in both old and new testament. Refs upon request.


Now perhaps you're only talking about what an individual Christian might think. But you can't really get anywhere there; I mean, an individual might call themselves a Christian and think that the Bible is junk and the Koran is true and you should kill your neighbor, not love them. That's why I like to talk about specific Christian doctrine and ask for references in that doctrine in discussions like this one.

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah lots of Christians get divorced, except Catholics, and possibly some other denominations. (Or at least, they aren't supposed to.) Why is this? (I'm not criticizing this, though I personally think divorce is okay. I'm just curious about this difference. Does it have something to do with the Pope? )

[Count Comfect]

Divorce was certainly thrown out through the 1600s, at the very least, and Catholics STILL can't get divorced.

EDIT: Because, from the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5:
"[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
(From the KJV)

What I would say is that it is the same as the Muslim "reading" of the New Testament - in the opinion of the religion in question, a subsequent revelation has come along and invalidated the previous. And yes, please do refer me to where the fabrics and the dietary restrictions are voided, (Paul did it, no?).