You've been drinking haven't you? As that is the only way I can possible see how, not knowing me, you would think I was 'preaching at you'.

Why do you feel it is your obligation to preach Jesus to others? If others care, they'll convert their own. I've always believed public preaching should be treated as a public indecency.

I know you have some strange wish to paint me as a straw man, but let me correct a few of your fallacies a) I'm a lefty b) If I was American (which I'm not, I'm Welsh) I would vote Obama.

Finally if you decide to read a thread like this expect to come across a few religious posts

And I presume, having seen my signature you don't have a clue who Nietzsche is.

I've always believed public preaching should be treated as a public indecency.No arguments here, as long as that belief is equally held where non-believers are concerned. Some of them can be rather preachy as well. :smirk2:

Nah, I don't drink Jonathan. I get a little carried away sometimes, sorry man. And I didn't think you were preaching to me. If I did, my response would have gotten me banned.

@ Qliveur - Everyone's preachy and opinionated, the disturbance starts when no one wants to hear about it anymore. Preach Darwinism in the 'god-belt' and you're a public disturbance. So you're right, it goes both ways.

Nah, I don't drink Jonathan. I get a little carried away sometimes, sorry man. And I didn't think you were preaching to me.

No worries, wires crossed; I'd presumed the comment was specifically for me as you had quoted me above.

If I did, my response would have gotten me banned.

I doubt it :)

@ Qliveur - Everyone's preachy and opinionated, the disturbance starts when no one wants to hear about it anymore. Preach Darwinism in the 'god-belt' and you're a public disturbance. So you're right, it goes both ways.

Depends what you mean by "preach", I vehemently believe in the freedom of speech - of some nut wants to get up and preach about the flying spaghetti monster he should be afforded that right - but only in certain places. People don't have to listen to said nut; I just get uncomfortable when governments try and shut people up.

And as mentioned earlier I like Voltaire's way of doing things; I disagree with what you have to say, but defend to the death your right to say it.

With regards Darwinism, people should be allowed to discuss it - indeed if people want to go and preach it in the street (in certain places) they should be afforded that right.

EDIT: And, Achilles, just because Salvation is gained by faith does not mean that a Christian should not do good things. It's not part of getting into the Kingdom, as evidenced by the Thief, but it should be done.
In fact, it's on the Catholic church deepest beliefs that salvation also comes from good deeds.


Hmmm...wouldn't that be impossible considering that new people are born every second? Seems like logistics alone would make that one difficult.
I don't see how it would be, considering children are sinless. Besides, God isn't a bureaucrat, if He arrived now he wouldn't just send Joe Doe who just aged, I dunno, 13 yesterday to hell because he's an unbeliever.

A few months ago my church thought Putin was the antichrist... Then it was Al Gore, and now Obama...
Then I see little point on gathering arguments to use to convince them otherwise. If not Obama, then tommorrow Mugabe (well, I'd even agree he's something similar to the devil).

They're not all to different than Christians on this forum.
That's quite the statement, which I disagree wholeheartedly.

So please explain to me how Obama, who has professed faith in and love for Christ, could possibly be an antichrist. I don't agree with everything Obama or McCain do politically, but that has nothing to do with their religious views. I'd argue that Obama has tried to put his faith into action by championing social issues that are designed to make people's lives better and thus could not possibly be an antichrist.

I'm don't think he is either, but the antichrist will be elected and seem good to all until later in his terms. I just saying that the possibility is there though it is doubtful.

In my opinion I don't think we'll know who the antichrist is until the treaty is signed and we probably won't know who an antichrist is until anti-christ deeds are committed.

cire: Definition of 'grace' from dictionary.com:
5. mercy; clemency; pardon: an act of grace.

You're confusing the act of grace with the honorific afforded a duke, "Your Grace".

Heaven would be a democracy for us westerners
I've always believed public preaching should be treated as a public indecency.
So, democracy and freedom of speech are allowed only for atheists?

Jesus has done so many good things--why would I not want to share the good news? If someone is interested in chatting with me about it, fine, if not, they can always ignore my posts on the subject if it's here (particularly in a religion thread). If we're in person, someone can ask me if we can talk about something else, and I'm happy to honor their request.

In fact, it's on the Catholic church deepest beliefs that salvation also comes from good deeds.

I think that you might be mis-understanding Corinthian. I think. I don't think that you can gain salvation by just doing good deeds. Just by 'being a good-person' or a 'good ' doesn't mean that you are going to get salvation. Sorry, but I believe that the only way to salvation is 'by faith in Jesus Christ'...and truly living your life according to the Word. I don't want to get all preach-y though, that is not the point of this thread. However that doesn't mean that we cannot do good deeds. ;) That is my :twocents:

(Not really directed to you Ctrl ;) Just putting out what I think)

More on topic--I am still studying, but I [i]know that Jesus will come again. Emphasis on the 'I' ;)

I will try and come back to talk later... :/

Jesus has done so many good things--why would I not want to share the good news?

First, it's a few thousand years too old to be news. Whether Jesus existed or not.

Secondly, because most street preachers come off as incessant zealots who only sour non-christians against whatever it is they're trying to preach. It's sanctimonious of them to devote time and effort converting people to Jesus (or at least trying to) instead of doing something constructive.

In fact, it's on the Catholic church deepest beliefs that salvation also comes from good deeds.Technically that's untrue. They believe in salvation through grace (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a1.htm#161)--) but you might have a difficult time finding one who thinks of salvation as something distinct from living "religiously" (and doing good works is very often part of that religious life).

No need to retaliate. :)

_EW_

Yeah, yeah, just go and try to suck all the fun of of life, why don't ya. :xp:

Are you saying you're a Christian? Because I am too. Or are you saying that you believe that Obama's the Antichrist?

If that's the case, then.... :/


_EW_
Technically I'm Roman Catholic. And, no I don't think anyone is the Anti-Christ

They're not all to different than Christians on this forum.
Now I know that's not me, not once in my life have I tried to force my Religion on anyone.

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.

Technically I'm Roman Catholic. And, no I don't think anyone is the Anti-Christ.
Then obviously you were not in the group that I was referring to.

_EW_

I think that you might be mis-understanding Corinthian. I think. I don't think that you can gain salvation by just doing good deeds. Just by 'being a good-person' or a 'good ' doesn't mean that you are going to get salvation. Sorry, but I believe that the only way to salvation is 'by faith in Jesus Christ'...and truly living your life according to the Word. I don't want to get all preach-y though, that is not the point of this thread. However that doesn't mean that we cannot do good deeds. ;) That is my :twocents:


Technically that's untrue. They believe in salvation through grace (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a1.htm#161)--) but you might have a difficult time finding one who thinks of salvation as something [I]distinct from living "religiously" (and doing good works is very often part of that religious life).

Yes, good works alone won't save people, but they're a step closer to God. Specially the works done thinking on Him and His words. And that might be a shot on the dark, but I'm pretty sure every other christian religion out there respect the teaching of loving our brothers as Jesus loved us.

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.
The same answer as before serve for this statement. While Christ has indeed finished his work at the Cross, the good works are a signal that a person is close to God.

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote a few posts above. This (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#1996) might also be helpful to you in correcting your misunderstanding. Good works are not the source of salvation for Catholics any more so than they are for you.

Then obviously you were not in the group that I was referring to.

_EW_
It's pretty much the same thing, with minor differences.

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" - James 2:24;

"... so also faith without works is dead" - James 2:26


Would it help to point out that John was gnostic
Do you think you could provide a source for this claim? It's not one I'm familiar with - and certainly, his writings bear few if any thematic links with the gnostic works that I've read.

@Topic:

"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. "At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' " 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'
"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
Matter settled, I think.

@Rabish: Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

Matter settled, I think.

QFT.

@Rabish: Could you elaborate on what you mean here?
Elaborate on what?

OK, I said "I don't think". It was still qualified. I was more concerned with this part:
I'm a pre-millenialist so the rapture is supposed to come prior to the tribulation

That doesn't sound like an opinion. That sounds like a statement. Again, if you're telling me that it was intended to be an opinion, then I'll take you at your word and we can move on.

Why? You're never going to accept their writings anyway, so I suspect it'd be a waste of time. It seems incredibly insincere to first invite to a dialog and then refuse to participate once I accept. :(

Either you are interested in having a dialog in good faith or you are not. If it the latter, please let me know so that I can take your future remarks in the proper context. Thanks.

You subscribe to a ultra-liberal view of the Bible that is not accepted by most serious Biblical scholars. Considering that you either admitted that you are not a biblical scholar, I am curious as to why you see fit to speak for them now. Help please?

I don't agree with either your views on the Bible or your sourcing of those views.Without asking for them or knowing what they are? You've already made your conclusions about my arguments before I've presented them. Again, this makes it difficult for me to accept that you're even slightly interested in an open-minded dialog.

Well, they saw Christ return after resurrection to His spiritual kingdom. John was allowed to see a preview of Christ's second return. Either or both could apply. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.Those certainly are possible interpretations. Whether either of them are valid or should be considered valid is another question though. The larger point being that the author of that passage (as well as the authors of passages like them) sure did seem to think that the end was nigh. In other words, thinking that the end times are upon is us not a recent social phenonenon; this has been going on since the christianity was founded.

This is the passage I was referring to:
<snip> Yes, since you've quoted it before I suspected that it was. However I don't see how it conflicts with or contradicts what the author of G.Matthew writes in the passage I quoted.

"Sometime between now and the time you die XYZ will occur"
"You won't know the exact hour in which XYX will occur. You must be ready for XYZ to occur"

I don't see a problem there.

Justification by faith does not remove our responsibility to do good works. A Christian who thinks they can just sit back and do nothing because they're saved by faith is mistaken. According to your interpretation anyway. :)

John was most certainly not a Gnostic. Please let me know how you intend to support this argument.

All you have to do is read the Gospel of John to know that he's not a Gnostic. Funny. I would say that all you have to do is read G.John and Revelation (and have some knowledge of gnosticism) to see that he was :D

No serious Biblical scholar has ever even suggested John was a Gnostic--that's left to some liberal fringe types who are uncomfortable with either Christ's divinity or His humanity, or both. Again, these are very curious comments coming from someone who earlier professed not to be a biblical scholar. This leads me to suspect that you are either jumping to conclusions which will be difficult for you to support or you are simply parroting arguments that you've picked up from other sources.

No serious scholar would suggest this? How do you know? Who gets to decide which scholars are "serious" and which ones aren't? You? Someone else? Who gave you or these other people the authority to decide?

These are not rhetorical questions so I would appreciate you replying with answers.

I've read Revelation a number of times. I view it as written by a guy who was shone things from the future and had to try to explain it in language that his contemporaries could understand. How would someone from the 1600's who was shown a glimpse of the 21st century handle explaining ICUs, TVs, computers, the internet, credit cards, ATM machines, atomic bombs, DNA or even cars to someone else from the 1600's? It'd be pretty tough. That's certainly one possible explanation. Another is that they were written by a guy who lived on an island that is rumored to have lots of hallucenegenic mushrooms. I find that explanation lacking though as it is based on rumor and the writing is consistent with other gnostic writing, meaning that accepting John as a gnostic would be a much simpler (and more likely) explanation.

I don't see how it would be, considering children are sinless.Source please?

Besides, God isn't a bureaucrat, Source please?

if He arrived now he wouldn't just send Joe Doe who just aged, I dunno, 13 yesterday to hell because he's an unbeliever.Source please?

Do you think you could provide a source for this claim? It's not one I'm familiar with - and certainly, his writings bear few if any thematic links with the gnostic works that I've read.A second century Greek writing that focused primarily on sprit over flesh, light vs. dark, etc doesn't strike you as being thematically consistent with gnosticism? I sincerely apologize for responding to your question with another question, but I'm at a loss for how else to reply.

It's pretty much the same thing, with minor differences.

Roman Catholics pretty much think that Obama is the antichrist?

Sorry, no.

Elaborate on what?

Your opinion that all sects of Christianity are the same.

That doesn't sound like an opinion. That sounds like a statement. Again, if you're telling me that it was intended to be an opinion, then I'll take you at your word and we can move on. You knew what she meant. :indif:

Source please?


Source please?


Source please?

Funny, yet unnecessary. There's obviously no real proof here.

_EW_

You knew what she meant. :indif:Careful. I do indeed have an opinion on what I think she meant. My purpose here is to find out if what she said and what she meant are the same.

Funny, yet unnecessary. There's obviously no real proof here.Either he has valid sources that I should consider and my skepticism is unfounded or his point are unfounded and therefore should only be considered with a huge chuck o' salt. The most generous way to find out which of these scenarios is the case is to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask for his sources.

Quick question and pause:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the word 'tribulation' is a recent concept? Christian groups in the late 1990s created the term.
I've been hearing a lot lately from many of the people I know in real life that they think the Great Tribulation, (prophecied in the Bible) is going to happen soon. All of the people I go to church with think Obama might be the Antichrist. When an individual is able to amass large groups of individuals, people on the outside tend to make a connection with demonic forces. Thoughout the history of religious groups and world leaders, people such as Obama have the potential of becoming overwhelmed with power. Does this mean that Obama is the Anti-Christ? No. If you look at some of the historical figures of both good and evil, you will find that Obama has similarities with them all. Anyone who can move so many people with slogons and punchlines is a problem. Jimmy Jones, Hitler, JFK, and Martin Luther King all shared the 'Utopian Society' perspective. Even though they shared the same philosophies, (change, hope, and government participation), they were morally different at the core.

Remember this quote, "Its not who we are on the inside, but what we do that defines us." When someone uses the phrases 'change', 'hope', and 'I will set you free", the first thing you should ask is, "What do you mean?"

When it comes to the Anit-Christ perception of Obama, his lack of definition is what is making people worry. Anyone who can get 200,000ish people to gather into one place, and has done nothing to deserve such recognition, has to be approached with cautious skepticism (sp?).

As far as I'm concerned, only the devil can amass such large groups.

Careful. I do indeed have an opinion on what I think she meant. My purpose here is to find out if what she said and what she meant are the same.

Ok then.

Either he has valid sources that I should consider and my skepticism is unfounded or his point are unfounded and therefore should only be considered with a huge chuck o' salt. The most generous way to find out which of these scenarios is the case is to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask for his sources.

He's making a normative and not a descriptive claim. It's all his interpretation.
:)


When it comes to the Anit-Christ, Obama's lack of definition is what is making people worry. Anyone who can get 200,000ish people to gather into one place, and has done nothing to deserve such recognition, has to be approached with cautious skepticism (sp?).
As far as I'm concerned, only the devil can amass such large groups.

Threats of physical harm, even "semi" veiled, have no place here. - d3
This is so ridiculous I'm going to leave this thread because I don't want an infraction.

_EW_

I fixed what was written. I was thinking one way, but I didn't clearly write was in my mind. Fixed.

Mistakes happen. :lol:

Anyone who can get 200,000ish people to gather into one place, and has done nothing to deserve such recognition, has to be approached with cautious skepticism (sp?).

As far as I'm concerned, only the devil can amass such large groups.

I knew NASCAR was pure evil.

Personally, I see no problem with someone that can inspire others towards action. I also fail to see how JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. use of slogans was a problem. One inspired humanity to the moon and into the Peace Corps and the other helped to inspired America not to accept second-class citizenship for a segment of its citizens.

I knew NASCAR was pure evil.

Personally, I see no problem with someone that can inspire others towards action. I also fail to see how JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. use of slogans was a problem. One inspired humanity to the moon and into the Peace Corps and the other helped to inspired America not to accept second-class citizenship for a segment of its citizens. JFK and Martin Luther King did some great things. Keep in mind that Hitler and Jimmy Jones shared their philosophy of a 'Utopian Society', and they took it into the wrong direction. Hitler and Jones promised a world of peace, prosperity, and salvation. Each one sold the philosophy of change, hope, and Eden. After amassing thousands of followers, Hitler and Jones revealed their definition of such slogan and words. Its all about definition.

Anyone who can get 200,000ish people to gather into one place, and has done nothing to deserve such recognition, has to be approached with cautious skepticism (sp?).

But apparently those 200,000ish people think he deserves recognition, no?

JFK and Martin Luther King did some great things.

They're 'great' only insofar as (most) people have decided they are. How are we supposed to determine, in that case, which figures actually deserve the recognition they've gotten? By your own totally arbitrary standards?

(I'm also sure there's a fallacy that corresponds to this, though I can't remember the name. Achilles?)

Source please?
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."



Source please?
No sources, as it's my opinion. But I think you'd agree that time and bureacracy are human made concepts.

Source please?
Refer to the first quotation.

(I'm also sure there's a fallacy that corresponds to this, though I can't remember the name. Achilles?)I don't see The Source's posts so I don't have any context for the quote, but I'll take a stab in the dark and guess that you're either looking for appeal to authority or appeal to popularity.

<snip quote>That doesn't answer the question. You've quoted a fictional character from a text that has undergone numerous revisions and translations and has been subject to forgery, creative editing, mistakes, etc over thousands of years. I was hoping for something more definitive.

No sources, as it's my opinion. Oh, ok.

But I think you'd agree that time and bureacracy are human made concepts.I'm not sure what time has to do with your earlier point, but no I would not agree that time is a human concept. Burearcracy may be, however that doesn't help with your definitive statement that god is not one. However since you've clarified that you were sharing your opinion and nothing more, there's no reason to pursue the issue. Thanks for your assistance with that.

Refer to the first quotation.Please refer to my rebuttal of your first quotation.

Roman Catholics pretty much think that Obama is the antichrist?

Sorry, no.
You know that's not what I meant.

Your opinion that all sects of Christianity are the same.
You know that's not what I said also.

Just because some Christians believe that Obama is the Antichrist doesn't mean all do, that's pretty silly to believe.

And not once did I say all sects of Christianity are the same, I said they have minor differences. Catholocism and Christianity all believe in the one God, and I'm pretty sure all believe in Jesus Christ, as it is called Christianity. The differences are numerous, such as certain dates and the like, but the main principle holds true, if you really want to learn all the differences, there is this nifty thing nowadays, circulating around the net known as Google (http://www.google.com.au/) ;)

I can't speak for Ender, Rabish, but I for one am thoroughly bamboozled as to what you meant. So far, your statements have been, at best, perfunctory and vague.

I can't speak for Ender, Rabish, but I for one am thoroughly bamboozled as to what you meant. So far, your statements have been, at best, perfunctory and vague.

Yes. Yes you can :D

_EW_

@Rabish Bini: Some of your posts have generated more confusion than meaningful discussion (eg. link (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2500722#post2500722),link) (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2501470#post2501470)). Please try to keep future posts unambiguous and on topic. Thanks for your attention to this.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the proper counter argument is that Obama is Jesus

Many people believed that the rapture would occur in 1988 (1988 being forty years, or "one generation" in some interpretations, after the return of "god's chosen" to Israel).

In 1988, George H.W. Bush became President of the U.S.

In 2000 (the year that many people considered to be the beginning of the new millennium) George W. Bush became President of the U.S.

He had been in office for 7 years when Barack Obama announced his candidacy.

Jesus was supposed to return after 7 years of "hell on earth" following the rapture.

Therefore, the rapture happened in 2000 though no one knew about it because only Jim Varney (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/153/826764.jpg) was qualified to go. The 7 years of Bush the Younger's presidency signify the bad parts and Obama himself is Christ returned.

Sure, it's full of holes and doesn't make much sense, but neither did the argument we started with. If nothing else, perhaps Arcesious can use it to frustrate some of his church friends. Glad I could help.

Many people believed that the rapture would occur in 1988 (1988 being forty years, or "one generation" in some interpretations, after the return of "god's chosen" to Israel).

In 1988, George H.W. Bush became President of the U.S.

In 2000 (the year that many people considered to be the beginning of the new millennium) George W. Bush became President of the U.S.

My own favourite Millennium-doomsdayist; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Roa)

Earning Ј20,000 a week; one of the best goalkeepers on the planet at the time - lets retire as the world is going to end...

Ender said that I think all sects of Christianity is the same, yet not once did I state that.

And he said that Roman Catholics believe Obama is the Antichrist, not once did I say that either.

I don't know where he got those thoughts from, but I know for sure I never stated either of those.
Sorry if my posts have confused you, I will try to clarify more in the future.

I wanted to get some thoughts on this.

Now, I've always said belief is irrelevent. Trust me, it is (faith however, is very relevent).
So let's suspend disbelief. For the sake of argument let's say it's real and it's going to happen and get to the point.

What exactly are you expecting?

What do you think will happen?

Just curious ;)

Assuming Jesus is real, I would expect him to do a massive facepalm. With all of the corruptions of his teachings, and the number of people that just don't believe at all I would think he would just shake his head at all the wierdness we have.

However, supposedly before his return we are to expect all the true believers to completely dissappear(taken to heaven). Naturally people like Achilles would be happy to see all those thiests gone from the world. Admittedly I might be happy as well... depending on which version of Christianity is right....

Assuming Jesus is real, I would expect him to do a massive facepalm. With all of the corruptions of his teachings, and the number of people that just don't believe at all I would think he would just shake his head at all the wierdness we have.QFT

Let's just say that anything brought up by fundamentalists, especially the Left Behind series, is a load of rhetorical crap. The notion that only real Christians would be saved and anyone else form other religions would be damned to Hell is rather prejudiced. Personally, I'd like all of the fundamentalists to spirited away, who knows where, I prefer them to be somewhere south of heaven, but hey, according to them, most of us will be in Hell anyways.

My thoughts? There probably won't be any sort of apocalyptic thing. I believe that Revelation was a metaphor for events that had already happened during the time of the Romans, i.e., Peterism.

The notion that only real Christians would be saved and anyone else form other religions would be damned to Hell is rather prejudiced.

Hmmm, what is a Christian? Which isn't perhaps the easiest question to answer. I think perhaps we need to decide that before anything else.

Certainly a creed accepted by all the 'usual' denominations (Catholic, Protestant etc) is this;

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


I dunno, the more pertinent question perhaps is what did Jesus have to say on the matter;

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Of course we also have;

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

So, I think we cannot ultimately judge where people will end up, indeed I think there will be a lot of shocks as to who is, and isn't in heaven. However, you may wish to consider the following;

I think all the great religions of the world-Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism-both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true.

Or to put it differently;

‘To say “All roads lead to God” is as illogical as saying that a bus ride to the shops is much the same as taking a trip to the moon on a space shuttle. The route, mode of transport and destination are all completely different!’

(as this is a big problem, with thinking all religions lead to God)

Under an Islamic conception of God, I'm certainly not going to Paradise, I'm going to hell, because I believe the blasphemy that God came down in human form.

Thoughts?

90 posts, on the next page of this forum :rolleyes::
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=190750)

Merged again ;) -- j7

_EW_

Hmmm, what is a Christian? Which isn't perhaps the easiest question to answer. I think perhaps we need to decide that before anything else.Broadly, anyone who believes that Jesus=God.

(as this is a big problem, with thinking all religions lead to God)Not really. Every religion, at its core, all share similar values, i.e., don't murder, don't steal, etc. Yet, each also have several differences, however, are they really more important than basic tenants, such as not to kill? Are these matters, such as the belief of a god, really matter when compared to actions.

In example form, let's compare a philanthropist and a clergyman. This philanthropist gave away much of his wealth to the poor and the needy, and with that money, he porobably saved thousands from starvation and death. However, he was an atheist. The clergyman, on the other hand, spent his life warning people of selfishness and damnation, however, he himself rarely, if ever gave helped others through charity, yet he believed in God. So, the question is, who would be seen higher in the eyes of God: the generous atheist, or the hypocritical theist?

Under an Islamic conception of God, I'm certainly not going to Paradise, I'm going to hell, because I believe the blasphemy that God came down in human form.And in extreme Christianity, vice-versa.

Let's just say that anything brought up by fundamentalists, especially the Left Behind series, is a load of rhetorical crap. The notion that only real Christians would be saved and anyone else form other religions would be damned to Hell is rather prejudiced
QFE

I tried reading one of the books in that series, but stopped after reading several pages. I do not believe that there will be a rapture of any sorts. IMO, that when/were many Christians will fall because there was no rapture. I am rather pessimistic on the rapture theory--I am either right, or pleasantly surprised. :D

So, the question is, who would be seen higher in the eyes of God: the generous atheist, or the hypocritical theist?
None of them are. All are equal in the eyes of God.

17For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the proper counter argument is that Obama is Jesus

Many people believed that the rapture would occur in 1988 (1988 being forty years, or "one generation" in some interpretations, after the return of "god's chosen" to Israel).

In 1988, George H.W. Bush became President of the U.S.

In 2000 (the year that many people considered to be the beginning of the new millennium) George W. Bush became President of the U.S.

He had been in office for 7 years when Barack Obama announced his candidacy.

Jesus was supposed to return after 7 years of "hell on earth" following the rapture.

Therefore, the rapture happened in 2000 though no one knew about it because only Jim Varney (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/153/826764.jpg) was qualified to go. The 7 years of Bush the Younger's presidency signify the bad parts and Obama himself is Christ returned.

Sure, it's full of holes and doesn't make much sense, but neither did the argument we started with. If nothing else, perhaps Arcesious can use it to frustrate some of his church friends. Glad I could help.

I'm going to say it makes some sense but you've got the players wrong in the scenario you're speaking of. Obama would actually signify the bad parts as you said. I'm not saying he is the being of great evil, just his charisma and the blind devotion he gets from followers like he does fits a great deal more closely than President Bush.

Bush doesn't fit the stuff about the bad ones, because he wasn't out to take over the world. If you looked at the bible the being of great evil is extremely charismatic, something President Bush is not.

However, I'm hoping the world doesn't end in 2012, I'm also hoping the United States still exists as a Constitutional Republic in 2012.

I've been hearing a lot lately from many of the people I know in real life that they think the Great Tribulation, (prophecied in the Bible) is going to happen soon. All of the people I go to church with think Obama might be the Antichrist... This is a really delecate thing to discuss with them. I tend to say 'It's pure speculation' when trying to disprove it... The world is in a pretty big mess, but these kinds of ideas are rather... Disturbing. I've heard them all my life of course, so I pretty much know all about how this prophecy works. I thought this would be interesting to disucuss. We've been talking about aliens and UFOs already, and this particular prophecy is peaking my interest due to the amount of people who beleive it. The whole 666, rapture, antichrist, new world order, tribulation, etc, etc thing is a rather controversal, delicate thing to talk about with the religious.

Your thoughts on this? I don't know a lot of the smaller details on this, and I though it would be interesting to discuss.

No. J7 is the antichrist...:xp::D

Just kidding. Best candidate for the antichrist is Hitler, plain and simple. That would place the rapture about now, sometime around this generation. I think. Religiously speaking. Luckily I'm not religious :xp:

Now Obama is the anti-Christ. :lol:

You’re always good for a laugh. I hope, for your sake, you really don’t believe this stuff and it is all a ploy to get a rise out of the other members.

I wanted to get some thoughts on this.

Now, I've always said belief is irrelevent. Trust me, it is (faith however, is very relevent).
So let's suspend disbelief. For the sake of argument let's say it's real and it's going to happen and get to the point.

What exactly are you expecting?

What do you think will happen?

Just curious ;)
Sticking to the bible as the key reference.

(1) Satan will create a false peace in the Middle East.
(2) Fundamental believers and nonbelievers of Christ will worship the fake Christ.
(3) Everything will slowly come to a hault, and then hell will break loose after a assassination attempt on Satan.
(4) Two witnesses will arrive.
(5) End of act I.

Examination -
(1/2) What will Satan look like? Human leader with blind followers. Could be a religious leader, president, prime minister, etc... Someone with a strong pull on people who are looking for salvation or healing. Followers will believe *he or she is the savior; thus, they will worship *him or her without question.
(3) Satan's ability to amass large amounts of individuals will make him a target. Some unknown person of faith will see through *his or her deception; therefore, he or she will attempt to kill in the name of God. Satan will recover from a wound to the head.
(4) Two witnesses? They will be prophets or observers. Enoch is rumored to be one of them; therefore, one might be an immortal.

*There is a biblical passage of importance; however, I'm not at liberty to point out a flaw in Satan's plan.

I'm going to say it makes some sense but you've got the players wrong in the scenario you're speaking of. Obama would actually signify the bad parts as you said. I'm not saying he is the being of great evil, just his charisma and the blind devotion he gets from followers like he does fits a great deal more closely than President Bush.

Bush doesn't fit the stuff about the bad ones, because he wasn't out to take over the world. If you looked at the bible the being of great evil is extremely charismatic, something President Bush is not.

*facepalm*

Do you even know what satire is?

_EW_