Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by tetsul Originally posted by sewash I hear there is finger popping and 24 hour shopping in rapture.
They'd probably end up going on a three state kill spree.
why do you say that? it seems that you're suggesting that people who are not xians would somehow want to murder. or am i being too logical?
Um what? That part you cut was referring to a specific group. That's got to be the most selective reading I've seen.
Take for example, the guy who runs that site "and you and I have been taken to heaven." Well of course he will. He's apparently God's will now. That's the type I was referring to, the ones who know for sure they'll be saved. What if the Rapture came and he stayed here? He'd probably snap and start shooting people. I don't think I need to point out examples of people who claim to be christians while breaking pretty much every concept when they feel like it. Think they'd be going?
Originally posted by reavo I'm taking a religion class right now and we learned that the "rapture" is a modern creation.
It was made up by a woman in Scotland who had one of those rare discussions with God. It was popularized by an evangelical named Darby in the 1800's. All of this was in response to industrialization and the changing of the education system to accomodate our present economic system. Schools began to teach science and skills and the evangelicals responded by creating stories such as the rapture. It didn't suit the evangelicals well that there was a debate about the authenticity of their book brewing in the higher education facilities.
I don't mean this to sound derogatory, but that's usually what happens when things go bad for the evangelicals. They try to scare people back into the churches.
We're still in the grips of this debate between "modernists", "fundamentalists", and the moderates caught in between.
The concept of "the Rapture" came about as a conglomeration of two major points in the Bible. The first was in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 as I mentioned before where it says "16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." The second point was that after chapter 3 in Revelations the church is no longer mentioned in the detailed plans for the end-times.
As you said, John Nelson Darby was the one to popularize the term in his dissemination of the Dispensational Theology. However, neither he nor the Scottish woman created the ideas that were already written in the Scriptures from centuries before. I will agree with you that some preachers probably were fast to use this as the "Fire and Brimstone" sermon basis to scare some people back into their faith but I don't think this ideas in Dispensationalism were anything more than an interpretation of specific portions of the Bible. The same way that other focuses have brought us many of the dozens of denominations in the Christian faith.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by mithrandir72 In case that seemed like an attack at you, it wasn't just trying to give a couple of points as to why I wouldn't use them, even if I believed in the Rapture. But yeah, well thought out points there. I may disagree with you at some points (not really in this post), but I commend you on the fact that you are definitely the voice of reason among those of us who are religious on MMORPG, Using well thought out arguements and such.
No worries, Mith. I didn't take any of it as an attack. Looked to me you were just asking questions. Thank you very much for what you said there though. That's one heck of a compliment you just gave me and it's greatly appreciated.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Link4009 w00t! 6 more years to live XD
Well maybe, it's the "end of the age" but what does that mean really? That's the end of their calander. They made a calendar thousands of years in the future, made it run to the day of the equinox and stopped. Weird neh? If you actually read up on it a bit there's some pretty interesting solar phenominon related to that date specificially.
Originally posted by Malachi1975 I won't get into what I believe about End Times and Prophecies in this thread but I will say there are things spoken about in the Bible that are coming to a head. If you are actually curious mail me. I will be happy to tell you what I think. But anything else would be useless or unwlecome in this thread.
The problem is... the same prophecies have been fulfilled several times, that's why every "significant event" that happens we get a bunch of doomsayers running around going "the sky is falling the sky is falling." Most of the christian prophecies are pretty vague really... and could have been filled in several ways by dozens of people in the past and dozens more in the future. During the change into the new millenium more than a few big name preachers rattled off the list of prophecies in the bible and said they were fullfilled and said how they were fulfilled... but nothing happened. doh. The same thing has happened in the past many times also, around the turn of 1900 it happened, historical records tell of some pretty crazy crap in monestaries near the 1st millenium.
Regardless of my belief one way or the other, it's pointless to worry, speculate, or even think about it. Live your life how you feel is right (be that christian, pagan, jewish, atheist, buddhist, etc) and be true to yourself.
Originally posted by Aldaron Originally posted by Shadus A lot of people assumed the rapture would happen at the millenium, much like was predicted at the previous millenium. There was no rapture belief at the previous millenium. It's only something that has been popularized over the past 200 years, before then, there was no such belief in what most commonly refer to as the rapture.
See: Nicene Creed. Google it. Yes, it was part of early church doctrine.
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by Aldaron Shadus, I believe, is speaking of those who thought the rapture would take place at the turn of the LAST Millenium, the year 2000. There was indeed belief in The Rapture just a scant 6 years ago. While "The Rapture" and Dispensationalism as concepts were brought about in the late 1800s (1860s for the most part were when the beliefs became widespread), the basis of these beliefs was in Scripture LONG before the concepts were designed. Dispensationalism is nothing more than an amalgamtion of timelines and cross-references of Scriptures. The idea of The Rapture comes namely from 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17. That idea has been around A LOT longer than Dispensationalism which coined the term "The Rapture". That was just a phrase used to describe those beliefs and their interpretation.
Yer right and wrong, I was refering to 1000ad in addition to 2000ad However, the basic concept behind the rapture has been around since ~400. The term was later added and imo was made a bit more literal than it was originally intrepeted. shrug. See: Nicene Creed.
Originally posted by reavo I'm taking a religion class right now and we learned that the "rapture" is a modern creation. It was made up by a woman in Scotland who had one of those rare discussions with God. It was popularized by an evangelical named Darby in the 1800's. All of this was in response to industrialization and the changing of the education system to accomodate our present economic system. Schools began to teach science and skills and the evangelicals responded by creating stories such as the rapture. It didn't suit the evangelicals well that there was a debate about the authenticity of their book brewing in the higher education facilities. I don't mean this to sound derogatory, but that's usually what happens when things go bad for the evangelicals. They try to scare people back into the churches. We're still in the grips of this debate between "modernists", "fundamentalists", and the moderates caught in between.
Ask your professor about the references to the rapture in the nicane creed, and get back with us... I'm curious as to what he will say Been 4-5 years since I got to debate religion with someone who had much back ground in theology.
Way way way back when in the days of the bbs's (before the intarweb) we had a group of people who got togeather on a daily basis on a message board bbs (a forum) and debated religion... we did it for almost 6 years running. Had a nice showing of religions too, a guy in seminary school, a greek orth priest, 2 catholics, a mix of denominations of christians (s.baptist, non-denom, and first friends), a pagan, a shaman, a few agnostics/atheists, and even a token satan worshiper (anton levey variety). Was some of hte best discussions about religion i ever had, found out more about religion and peoples beliefs in general during those 6 years than I had my entire life before or since. I miss it to this day. Humorously, the bbs was ren and stimpy themed, called "Oh Joy!"
Do any of you realise that the bible was written by man? It’s not the word of god rather the thoughts of religious leaders on how we should live our lives
These are the same people that burnt "witches’" at the stake and put anyone to death that said anything other than the world was flat or not the centre of the universe. The bible is fundamentally flawed and contradictory it was written at a time when knowledge of our world was very limited. It has no real relevance on how the world lives today
Faith however is a different matter. Everyone has faith, be it in your partner your family or friends or god or in the law and justice. my faith lies with man every last one of us part of that faith is knowing we all want to live a better life make better choices and do the right thing but that’s my faith that’s what keeps me going when times hard I'm not here to slag off your faith your faith is a good thing but please remember the past and how blind faith held us back and don’t let blind faith do the same to you.
Originally posted by viadi What is wrong with you people?
Do any of you realise that the bible was written by man? It’s not the word of god rather the thoughts of religious leaders on how we should live our lives
These are the same people that burnt "witches’" at the stake and put anyone to death that said anything other than the world was flat or not the centre of the universe. The bible is fundamentally flawed and contradictory it was written at a time when knowledge of our world was very limited. It has no real relevance on how the world lives today
Faith however is a different matter. Everyone has faith, be it in your partner your family or friends or god or in the law and justice. my faith lies with man every last one of us part of that faith is knowing we all want to live a better life make better choices and do the right thing but that’s my faith that’s what keeps me going when times hard I'm not here to slag off your faith your faith is a good thing but please remember the past and how blind faith held us back and don’t let blind faith do the same to you.
No those aren't the same people who Burnt "witches" at the stake and put anyone to death.... Those are the same people that gave food to the hungry, money to the poor, Stopped people from being stonned to death... Educated people, taught them to read and write... "The world was flat" wasn't a Religious belief.. It was a human belief... The bible was(read I believe) written by man but inspired by God.
4000 years from now... We humans will also be justified in saying that Albert Einsteins laws were fundamentally flawed because they were written in a time when knowledge was limited. And the truths of the year 2000 have no real relavence to the world in the year 6000... ... You see where i'm going with this?..... There IS no limit to knowledge... We NEVER know the full story... So if you're so quick to say that people were stupid in the days of jesus... well you might as well not go to school today cuz people are stupid now compared to the folks in the 60th century.
Believe it or not there are some things that remain true INdependant of time... one of them could possibly be God... Right? or are you going to tell me with your infinite allllll knowing powerful brain that "THERE IS no God" because you know for a fact everything there is about the world... how it came to be... blah blah
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by Link4009 This thing is still going?!
Religious debates rarely end, when the majority of the posters have no interest in seeing the other people's side. Debate is best when opposing sides both have open minds to the subject...something which is nearly impossible when you add a touchy subject like religion, with the overwhelming stupidity of the internet.
Believe it or not there are some things that remain true INdependant of time... one of them could possibly be God... Right?
Since the creature (god) is said to be independant of time wouldn't that also mean that he's independent of space? since time and space are relative. if such a being is independent of space, then it does not exist in space.
therefore, one can say with reasonably certainty that god does not exist.
or are you going to tell me with your infinite allllll knowing powerful brain that "THERE IS no God" because you know for a fact everything there is about the world... how it came to be... blah blah
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by methane47
Believe it or not there are some things that remain true INdependant of time... one of them could possibly be God... Right?
Since the creature (god) is said to be independant of time wouldn't that also mean that he's independent of space? since time and space are relative. if such a being is independent of space, then it does not exist in space.
therefore, one can say with reasonably certainty that god does not exist. That's a stretch of a "theory", not a "law" if I've ever heard one. That's assuming, by science's reckoning, that the laws of relativity and physics apply to all possible dimenseions out there. For the sake of scientific arguement, let's assume the String Threory or 10 Universe Theory or Multi-verse theories are correct. if God is the God of all things, with your line of logic, one could be reasonably certain that God is the God of ALL things and dimensions. That would mean that God has the ability to rise above or adapt to the given laws of each dimension. This logic would come from the idea that each set of laws of each possible "universe" were the creations of God and God could at any time re-write or bend those laws. Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. Let us take the walls of Jericho for example that, in the last century, were unearthed. Science was unable to explain with any certainty how the walls of an entire city could fall 10s of metres under the ground in a single piece. There were many theories from sonic resonance to liquification quakes. Of course, the "miracle" would be the timing of whatever natural event that occured. What are the odds that things would have happened specifically at the moment when Joshua and his army were waiting outside those walls to attack? You could argue that this was added after the fact, but sake of the illustration I am making let's say Joshua was waiting outside. Perhaps God used nature, which is His creation, to bring about those end results. Perhaps that is even why he commanded that they march in circles around the city and blow their trumpets at precise moments. Even the creation of man in the Bible could be explained to an extent with science. It says in Genesis that God created Adam from the dust and the sticks and the mud of the earth. Perhaps this was just God using already existing materials, minerals, and other items from our periodic table to create a human body. The miracle would be the life, but the science of creating the body at that moment could be as simple in showing why every mineral in our body is also found in the earth.
or are you going to tell me with your infinite allllll knowing powerful brain that "THERE IS no God" because you know for a fact everything there is about the world... how it came to be... blah blah
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Here I will correct you with a small, short answer (which is uncharacteristic of me :P ). You're partially right in saying "Theism" is nto always equipped to explain changes. However, God is. Our understanding, which is Theism, may be limited, but God Himself, if He created all things, rules, laws of science, and the like, is quite capable of "dealing" with changes.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Malachi1975 I won't get into what I believe about End Times and Prophecies in this thread but I will say there are things spoken about in the Bible that are coming to a head. If you are actually curious mail me. I will be happy to tell you what I think. But anything else would be useless or unwlecome in this thread.
The problem is... the same prophecies have been fulfilled several times, that's why every "significant event" that happens we get a bunch of doomsayers running around going "the sky is falling the sky is falling." Most of the christian prophecies are pretty vague really... and could have been filled in several ways by dozens of people in the past and dozens more in the future. During the change into the new millenium more than a few big name preachers rattled off the list of prophecies in the bible and said they were fullfilled and said how they were fulfilled... but nothing happened. doh. The same thing has happened in the past many times also, around the turn of 1900 it happened, historical records tell of some pretty crazy crap in monestaries near the 1st millenium.
Regardless of my belief one way or the other, it's pointless to worry, speculate, or even think about it. Live your life how you feel is right (be that christian, pagan, jewish, atheist, buddhist, etc) and be true to yourself.
Ack! What you are talking about is Relativism! And that's a scary concept. Live your life as you think is right, with no definitions or right or wrong? At that point there IS no right or wrong. Without SOME guildelines there's no way to decide when murder is right or wrong, when stealing is right or wrong, when violence is right or wrong. I know these are extremes but I am sure you can see what I mean if EVERYone just lives their life how THEY think is right.
I know what you are saying about Biblical Propechy. Some are vague and could be interpretted as already having happened. That's why any Believer with half a mind (something lacking from the doomsayers of the past like the Millerties) can't focus on a SINGLE prophecy but ALL of them together in a chain. This is actually something that is part of Dispensationalism, which I have spoken about a good deal in this thread.
Looking at the Propehcy of the Birth of Christ. I am sure some of the prophecies were fulfilled several times over. But the trick is NEVER before Christ were all 109 prophecies fulfilled. At the very least, 108 were fulfilled. I only leave 1 out because it's the only one that can be argued without any historical proof to back up the Biblical proof. That's the Virgin Birth. But the bloodlines he was to be born to, his place of birth, and so on and so forth are even recorded in Roman documentation of the times. History shows that a man named Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem was born. Of course, history can't confirm that he was the Son of God. But that's not what I am talking about here.
Some prohecies also have NOT been fulfilled even once. Ezekiel 28 and 29, the attack of God and Magog on Israel has not happened. The 7 year treaty with Israel has never been signed as mentioned in Revelations. The Earth's population was not whiped out till it was only 25% left in a 7 year period as mention in Revelations. Isaiah 17 talks of Damascus being left COMPLETELY destroyed. This has yet to happen...though I find it coincidental that Syria, whose capital is Damascus, is now jumping to threaten Israel and up their border security. That doesn't mean anything is going to happen, but it does make me watch these sorts of things.
Some prophecies may have been fulfilled here and there at different times, but when they are laid out in a specific order of chronology in the Scriptures that is where they have NOT been fulfilled normally. Of course, some things have. Like the prophecies of the Messiah. They can obviously be called fulfilled because Christ was born over 2000 years ago. This is why the Bible has to be taken as a whole and not an Astrology chart for "What's going to happen today".
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by methane47
Believe it or not there are some things that remain true INdependant of time... one of them could possibly be God... Right?
Since the creature (god) is said to be independant of time wouldn't that also mean that he's independent of space? since time and space are relative. if such a being is independent of space, then it does not exist in space.
therefore, one can say with reasonably certainty that god does not exist.
That's a stretch of a "theory", not a "law" if I've ever heard one. how? That's assuming, by science's reckoning, that the laws of relativity and physics apply to all possible dimenseions out there. prove/show evidence for other "possible demensions". If you can't then this argument falls flat.
For the sake of s.....{snip}.........-write or bend those laws. string and m-theory is too theoretical to be evidence for multiple demensions.
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and orangesLet us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments. irrelevent to the point.
Even the creation of ma....{snip}.....ral in our body is also found in the earth.
irrelevent to the point.
Weird, it's like you were going to refute my argument, but instead decided to side step it completely and talk about bible events.
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Here I will correct you with a small, short answer (which is uncharacteristic of me :P ). You're partially right in saying "Theism" is not always equipped to explain changes. However, God is. Our understanding, which is Theism, may be limited, but God Himself, if He created all things, rules, laws of science, and the like, is quite capable of "dealing" with changes. you haven't tackled the first point yet. you don't get to use "God" since he doesn't exist in nature.
Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by methane47
Believe it or not there are some things that remain true INdependant of time... one of them could possibly be God... Right?
Since the creature (god) is said to be independant of time wouldn't that also mean that he's independent of space? since time and space are relative. if such a being is independent of space, then it does not exist in space.
therefore, one can say with reasonably certainty that god does not exist.
That's a stretch of a "theory", not a "law" if I've ever heard one. how? That's assuming, by science's reckoning, that the laws of relativity and physics apply to all possible dimenseions out there.You ask me how? You know that you know that you know that ALL space and time are relative? You'd be the first person on the face of this planet with that knowledge if that's the case. So you're using a "theory" to rule out God. Since you're theory hasn't been "proven" you can't use it just as you say I can't use God. prove/show evidence for other "possible demensions". If you can't then this argument falls flat. Prove/show evidence that ALL space and time are relative. If *you* can't you're starting your debate on a shakey foot.
For the sake of s.....{snip}.........-write or bend those laws. string and m-theory is too theoretical to be evidence for multiple demensions. As is the theory of Space and Time's relativity. Hence why it's STILL a "theory" and not a "law". Dunno why this is so hard to understand.
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence(As anecdotal as Netwon's Evidence was when he tried to explain gravity to the people who called him a nut.) That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and orangesLet us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments. irrelevent to the point. Opinion. If it's irrelevant to YOUR point why not move on? I'm still disussing the entire thread as a whole. That was also me taking the time to debate an earlier comment with you where you said "Science and God cannot coexist".
Even the creation of ma....{snip}.....ral in our body is also found in the earth.
irrelevent to the point. See above.
Weird, it's like you were going to refute my argument, but instead decided to side step it completely and talk about bible events. There's no arguement to refute? Only conjecture. You started your entire foundation on something you can't prove, but then don't allow other people to do the same.
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Here I will correct you with a small, short answer (which is uncharacteristic of me :P ). You're partially right in saying "Theism" is not always equipped to explain changes. However, God is. Our understanding, which is Theism, may be limited, but God Himself, if He created all things, rules, laws of science, and the like, is quite capable of "dealing" with changes. you haven't tackled the first point yet. you don't get to use "God" since he doesn't exist in nature.
You don't get to rule out "God" since you can't prove He doesn't exist, especially not with an unproven theory. If you start defining what someone can or cannot use in an arguement we call that "manipulation". You want me to debate something with you with YOUR evidence not my own. Yet you can't seem to bring any proof to the table either. Pretty straight and forward.
I did in fact tackle your "theory" that you were "certain" God does not exists. You used an unproven theory to refure His existence and I provided you with even more scientific theories that make your own theor even more unsure than it was from the beginning. I didn't even bother using faith or God.
You said "space and time ARE relative" as if you can prove that all space and time are to us. You've not yet done so. I providede you with theories of OTHER spaces and times that could even ruin your first theory if those given rules didn't apply to them.
Now who is side-stepping?
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence(As anecdotal as Netwon's Evidence was when he tried to explain gravity to the people who called him a nut.) That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and orangesLet us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments. irrelevent to the point. Opinion. If it's irrelevant to YOUR point why not move on? I'm still disussing the entire thread as a whole. That was also me taking the time to debate an earlier comment with you where you said "Science and God cannot coexist".
Even the creation of ma....{snip}.....ral in our body is also found in the earth.
irrelevent to the point. See above.
Weird, it's like you were going to refute my argument, but instead decided to side step it completely and talk about bible events. There's no arguement to refute? Only conjecture. You started your entire foundation on something you can't prove, but then don't allow other people to do the same.
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Here I will correct you with a small, short answer (which is uncharacteristic of me :P ). You're partially right in saying "Theism" is not always equipped to explain changes. However, God is. Our understanding, which is Theism, may be limited, but God Himself, if He created all things, rules, laws of science, and the like, is quite capable of "dealing" with changes. you haven't tackled the first point yet. you don't get to use "God" since he doesn't exist in nature.
You don't get to rule out "God" since you can't prove He doesn't exist, especially not with an unproven theory. If you start defining what someone can or cannot use in an arguement we call that "manipulation". You want me to debate something with you with YOUR evidence not my own. Yet you can't seem to bring any proof to the table either. Pretty straight and forward.
I did in fact tackle your "theory" that you were "certain" God does not exists. You used an unproven theory to refure His existence and I provided you with even more scientific theories that make your own theor even more unsure than it was from the beginning. I didn't even bother using faith or God.
You said "space and time ARE relative" as if you can prove that all space and time are to us. You've not yet done so. I providede you with theories of OTHER spaces and times that could even ruin your first theory if those given rules didn't apply to them.
Now who is side-stepping?
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence(As anecdotal as Netwon's Evidence was when he tried to explain gravity to the people who called him a nut.) That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and orangesLet us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments. irrelevent to the point. Opinion. If it's irrelevant to YOUR point why not move on? I'm still disussing the entire thread as a whole. That was also me taking the time to debate an earlier comment with you where you said "Science and God cannot coexist".
Even the creation of ma....{snip}.....ral in our body is also found in the earth.
irrelevent to the point. See above.
Weird, it's like you were going to refute my argument, but instead decided to side step it completely and talk about bible events. There's no arguement to refute? Only conjecture. You started your entire foundation on something you can't prove, but then don't allow other people to do the same.
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Here I will correct you with a small, short answer (which is uncharacteristic of me :P ). You're partially right in saying "Theism" is not always equipped to explain changes. However, God is. Our understanding, which is Theism, may be limited, but God Himself, if He created all things, rules, laws of science, and the like, is quite capable of "dealing" with changes. you haven't tackled the first point yet. you don't get to use "God" since he doesn't exist in nature.
You don't get to rule out "God" since you can't prove He doesn't exist, especially not with an unproven theory. If you start defining what someone can or cannot use in an arguement we call that "manipulation". You want me to debate something with you with YOUR evidence not my own. Yet you can't seem to bring any proof to the table either. Pretty straight and forward.
I did in fact tackle your "theory" that you were "certain" God does not exists. You used an unproven theory to refure His existence and I provided you with even more scientific theories that make your own theor even more unsure than it was from the beginning. I didn't even bother using faith or God.
You said "space and time ARE relative" as if you can prove that all space and time are to us. You've not yet done so. I providede you with theories of OTHER spaces and times that could even ruin your first theory if those given rules didn't apply to them.
Now who is side-stepping?
Ah I do so love quoting on MMORPG.COM. How it triples things and randomly moves them around. I was going to clean that up but I will just leave it as is and assume you can see where the system automatically repeated somethings on it's own.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Since the creature (god) is said to be independant of time wouldn't that also mean that he's independent of space? since time and space are relative. if such a being is independent of space, then it does not exist in space.
therefore, one can say with reasonably certainty that god does not exist.
Your reasoning is all wrong. Independant of time and space does not mean one has to not exist for the other to exist. It just means that one's existance is not limited by the other. Just like... I am independant of lays potato chips. And even though lays potato chips exist that does not rule out my existance.... Does it? The word independant is the antonym of the word Dependant. So one who is not dependant on time and space is independant of time and space. One is not dependant on lays potato chips is independant of lays potato chips.
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Science is so called equipped to deal with changes because by Science... If it isn't proven it's not true... So until Newton.... Gravity was a lie and elaborate hoax... used to get tidthes and offering from weak minded fools... Or Until heat was found to be the speed of atoms moving in a space... Heat was an element contained in the body. And anything else was poppycock.... Science isn't truth.. Science is just a big fat shared opinion.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by tetsul Ah, back to the standard God/No God thread, they all seem to turn into that with enough time. So I'm going to randomly throw out stuff. So who's seen that Left Behind game? Is it just me or does something seem really really messed with the whole concept of basing a game on that topic?
LOL i cracked up soooooo much when i heard about that game.. I'm so excited to play it... apparently there's gonna be kililng in the game... In an interview with one of the developers he says they opted to have killing because this is a game that will be a depiction of what the world may be like in the "end of days" So there will be killing...
But i had to laugh because the game was actually featured on the Daily show i think... There was a clip where someone asked about how killing would be handled.. apparently if you kill an innocent you get "negative one spirit points" and if you kill justly you get "2 spirt points" Then Jon steward went on to say "I had no idea the difference between saving a life and taking a life... was.... 3 points".... lol...... this game is gonna rock
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by reavo I'm taking a religion class right now and we learned that the "rapture" is a modern creation.
It was made up by a woman in Scotland who had one of those rare discussions with God. It was popularized by an evangelical named Darby in the 1800's. All of this was in response to industrialization and the changing of the education system to accomodate our present economic system. Schools began to teach science and skills and the evangelicals responded by creating stories such as the rapture. It didn't suit the evangelicals well that there was a debate about the authenticity of their book brewing in the higher education facilities.
I don't mean this to sound derogatory, but that's usually what happens when things go bad for the evangelicals. They try to scare people back into the churches.
We're still in the grips of this debate between "modernists", "fundamentalists", and the moderates caught in between.
The concept of "the Rapture" came about as a conglomeration of two major points in the Bible. The first was in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 as I mentioned before where it says "16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." The second point was that after chapter 3 in Revelations the church is no longer mentioned in the detailed plans for the end-times.
As you said, John Nelson Darby was the one to popularize the term in his dissemination of the Dispensational Theology. However, neither he nor the Scottish woman created the ideas that were already written in the Scriptures from centuries before. I will agree with you that some preachers probably were fast to use this as the "Fire and Brimstone" sermon basis to scare some people back into their faith but I don't think this ideas in Dispensationalism were anything more than an interpretation of specific portions of the Bible. The same way that other focuses have brought us many of the dozens of denominations in the Christian faith.
My professor (a Roman Catholic) says that the "rapture" is all a modern idea that was pretty much intended to sell books and scare people into believing. He asks if it was such an important part of the Bible then why do the orthodox religions reject it? And also he asked the class if it was true then why did it take until the mid 1800's for someone to come up with a Protestant interpretation of verses that were never connected before to mean such a thing. He basically said it was a modern scam promoted by Darby, I.C. Scofield, and a modern writer who's name I can't remember (Sorry) but who wrote a book named "Late Great Planet Earth". It just has caught on as a popular view mostly in the states. He said that the Catholic Church is strongly against the whole interpretation.
I think if anything it's an example of how an idea can take on a popularity and morph into something that people begin to believe just because of it's mainstream status.
Originally posted by tetsul Ah, back to the standard God/No God thread, they all seem to turn into that with enough time. So I'm going to randomly throw out stuff. So who's seen that Left Behind game? Is it just me or does something seem really really messed with the whole concept of basing a game on that topic?
Why is it messed up? It's the end-time battles. In the Christian faith some people will stand WITH the Antichrist and others will stand AGAINST.
Not sure why you think a wargame based on Biblical ideas is messed up since the Bible itself mentions war over 1100 times. Oh...and please through out random stuff. It does actually break up the monotony
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by reavo Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by reavo I'm taking a religion class right now and we learned that the "rapture" is a modern creation.
It was made up by a woman in Scotland who had one of those rare discussions with God. It was popularized by an evangelical named Darby in the 1800's. All of this was in response to industrialization and the changing of the education system to accomodate our present economic system. Schools began to teach science and skills and the evangelicals responded by creating stories such as the rapture. It didn't suit the evangelicals well that there was a debate about the authenticity of their book brewing in the higher education facilities.
I don't mean this to sound derogatory, but that's usually what happens when things go bad for the evangelicals. They try to scare people back into the churches.
We're still in the grips of this debate between "modernists", "fundamentalists", and the moderates caught in between.
The concept of "the Rapture" came about as a conglomeration of two major points in the Bible. The first was in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 as I mentioned before where it says "16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." The second point was that after chapter 3 in Revelations the church is no longer mentioned in the detailed plans for the end-times.
As you said, John Nelson Darby was the one to popularize the term in his dissemination of the Dispensational Theology. However, neither he nor the Scottish woman created the ideas that were already written in the Scriptures from centuries before. I will agree with you that some preachers probably were fast to use this as the "Fire and Brimstone" sermon basis to scare some people back into their faith but I don't think this ideas in Dispensationalism were anything more than an interpretation of specific portions of the Bible. The same way that other focuses have brought us many of the dozens of denominations in the Christian faith.
My professor (a Roman Catholic) says that the "rapture" is all a modern idea that was pretty much intended to sell books and scare people into believing. He asks if it was such an important part of the Bible then why do the orthodox religions reject it? And also he asked the class if it was true then why did it take until the mid 1800's for someone to come up with a Protestant interpretation of verses that were never connected before to mean such a thing. He basically said it was a modern scam promoted by Darby, I.C. Scofield, and a modern writer who's name I can't remember (Sorry) but who wrote a book named "Late Great Planet Earth". It just has caught on as a popular view mostly in the states. He said that the Catholic Church is strongly against the whole interpretation.
I think if anything it's an example of how an idea can take on a popularity and morph into something that people begin to believe just because of it's mainstream status.
Okay. This is gonna be a couple pointer also.
1- Hal Lindsey is the name you are looking for as the author of the Late Great Planet Earth. And that book wasn't as much about "the Rapture" as it was the Endtimes plan. With the 21 Judgements in Revelations, Christianity is the only religion with a detailed, blow by blow description of the final days as we know them.
2- The Catholic Church has no foot to stand on when it comes to interpretation. Nowhere in the Bible does is say a man of faith cannot marry, yet they came up with that one. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that we must pray to the Virgin Mary, but they came up with that one. Mind you, this is all pre-Vatican II, as it has been dubbed. Catholic doctrines have changed a lot in the last 40 years or so.
3- Of COURSE the Catholic Church is against that teaching. They're against PROTESTants in general because the protestants threw off the idea that the Church, the Vatican, was a holy organisation and the Pope was the voice of God on earth. The fact that your teach is Catholic doesn't shock me at all if he is teaching that the "Rapture" is a new idea. It's in the New Testiment long before Dispensationalism was thought about. The TERM "Rapture" is new, but it is a term used to describe the concepts of 1Thes 4:16,17 and the fact that after Rev 3 the church, the members not the building, is no longer mentioned.
4- The apostles believed in the Rapture. Especially Paul, who wrote the letters to the church, one of which being 1 Thessalonians. As loathe as I am to tell your teacher they are wrong, they are. Since the apostles existed LONG before the 1800s.
5- The arguement that has gone on among the churches is actually Pre/Mid/Post Tribulation rapture, of for the sake of arguement, being taken up to meet Christ in the air. The Bible is not specific as to WHEN this event is supposed to take place in the grand scheme of the end-times. Dispensationalism focused on pre-trib rapture, which was the contraversy because the idea was founded on logic not scripture. As to what that logic is, it's for another topic. If you really are curious mail me and I will tell you the 3 theories so as to not bore everyone else here :P
The final note is that not ALL Catholica are against the concept of the Rapture. That organisation itself fractured decades ago and it sounds to me your teacher belongs to the the first group not the second. So he has had it drilled into his head that the idea of the rapture, even though a "taking up" is mentioned in the New Testiment, is wrong. But this is the same group that ignores that concept of "Grace" which is the main focus of the New Testiment and Christ and believes they "earn" their way into heaven on works alone.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Comments
They'd probably end up going on a three state kill spree.
why do you say that? it seems that you're suggesting that people who are not xians would somehow want to murder. or am i being too logical?
Um what? That part you cut was referring to a specific group. That's got to be the most selective reading I've seen.
Take for example, the guy who runs that site "and you and I have been taken to heaven." Well of course he will. He's apparently God's will now. That's the type I was referring to, the ones who know for sure they'll be saved. What if the Rapture came and he stayed here? He'd probably snap and start shooting people. I don't think I need to point out examples of people who claim to be christians while breaking pretty much every concept when they feel like it. Think they'd be going?
The concept of "the Rapture" came about as a conglomeration of two major points in the Bible. The first was in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 as I mentioned before where it says "16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." The second point was that after chapter 3 in Revelations the church is no longer mentioned in the detailed plans for the end-times.
As you said, John Nelson Darby was the one to popularize the term in his dissemination of the Dispensational Theology. However, neither he nor the Scottish woman created the ideas that were already written in the Scriptures from centuries before. I will agree with you that some preachers probably were fast to use this as the "Fire and Brimstone" sermon basis to scare some people back into their faith but I don't think this ideas in Dispensationalism were anything more than an interpretation of specific portions of the Bible. The same way that other focuses have brought us many of the dozens of denominations in the Christian faith.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Well maybe, it's the "end of the age" but what does that mean really? That's the end of their calander. They made a calendar thousands of years in the future, made it run to the day of the equinox and stopped. Weird neh? If you actually read up on it a bit there's some pretty interesting solar phenominon related to that date specificially.
Shadus
The problem is... the same prophecies have been fulfilled several times, that's why every "significant event" that happens we get a bunch of doomsayers running around going "the sky is falling the sky is falling." Most of the christian prophecies are pretty vague really... and could have been filled in several ways by dozens of people in the past and dozens more in the future. During the change into the new millenium more than a few big name preachers rattled off the list of prophecies in the bible and said they were fullfilled and said how they were fulfilled... but nothing happened. doh. The same thing has happened in the past many times also, around the turn of 1900 it happened, historical records tell of some pretty crazy crap in monestaries near the 1st millenium.
Regardless of my belief one way or the other, it's pointless to worry, speculate, or even think about it. Live your life how you feel is right (be that christian, pagan, jewish, atheist, buddhist, etc) and be true to yourself.
Shadus
See: Nicene Creed. Google it. Yes, it was part of early church doctrine.
Shadus
i'll rupture some christians
oh wait, rapture....
dbl post
Yer right and wrong, I was refering to 1000ad in addition to 2000ad
However, the basic concept behind the rapture has been around since ~400. The term was later added and imo was made a bit more literal than it was originally intrepeted. shrug. See: Nicene Creed.
Shadus
Ask your professor about the references to the rapture in the nicane creed, and get back with us... I'm curious as to what he will say
Been 4-5 years since I got to debate religion with someone who had much back ground in theology.
Way way way back when in the days of the bbs's (before the intarweb) we had a group of people who got togeather on a daily basis on a message board bbs (a forum) and debated religion... we did it for almost 6 years running. Had a nice showing of religions too, a guy in seminary school, a greek orth priest, 2 catholics, a mix of denominations of christians (s.baptist, non-denom, and first friends), a pagan, a shaman, a few agnostics/atheists, and even a token satan worshiper (anton levey variety). Was some of hte best discussions about religion i ever had, found out more about religion and peoples beliefs in general during those 6 years than I had my entire life before or since. I miss it to this day. Humorously, the bbs was ren and stimpy themed, called "Oh Joy!"
Shadus
What is wrong with you people?
Do any of you realise that the bible was written by man? It’s not the word of god rather the thoughts of religious leaders on how we should live our lives
These are the same people that burnt "witches’" at the stake and put anyone to death that said anything other than the world was flat or not the centre of the universe. The bible is fundamentally flawed and contradictory it was written at a time when knowledge of our world was very limited. It has no real relevance on how the world lives today
Faith however is a different matter. Everyone has faith, be it in your partner your family or friends or god or in the law and justice. my faith lies with man every last one of us part of that faith is knowing we all want to live a better life make better choices and do the right thing but that’s my faith that’s what keeps me going when times hard I'm not here to slag off your faith your faith is a good thing but please remember the past and how blind faith held us back and don’t let blind faith do the same to you.
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
No those aren't the same people who Burnt "witches" at the stake and put anyone to death.... Those are the same people that gave food to the hungry, money to the poor, Stopped people from being stonned to death... Educated people, taught them to read and write... "The world was flat" wasn't a Religious belief.. It was a human belief... The bible was(read I believe) written by man but inspired by God.
4000 years from now... We humans will also be justified in saying that Albert Einsteins laws were fundamentally flawed because they were written in a time when knowledge was limited. And the truths of the year 2000 have no real relavence to the world in the year 6000... ... You see where i'm going with this?..... There IS no limit to knowledge... We NEVER know the full story... So if you're so quick to say that people were stupid in the days of jesus... well you might as well not go to school today cuz people are stupid now compared to the folks in the 60th century.
Believe it or not there are some things that remain true INdependant of time... one of them could possibly be God... Right? or are you going to tell me with your infinite allllll knowing powerful brain that "THERE IS no God" because you know for a fact everything there is about the world... how it came to be... blah blah
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
==========================
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
The problem is... the same prophecies have been fulfilled several times, that's why every "significant event" that happens we get a bunch of doomsayers running around going "the sky is falling the sky is falling." Most of the christian prophecies are pretty vague really... and could have been filled in several ways by dozens of people in the past and dozens more in the future. During the change into the new millenium more than a few big name preachers rattled off the list of prophecies in the bible and said they were fullfilled and said how they were fulfilled... but nothing happened. doh. The same thing has happened in the past many times also, around the turn of 1900 it happened, historical records tell of some pretty crazy crap in monestaries near the 1st millenium.
Regardless of my belief one way or the other, it's pointless to worry, speculate, or even think about it. Live your life how you feel is right (be that christian, pagan, jewish, atheist, buddhist, etc) and be true to yourself.
Ack! What you are talking about is Relativism! And that's a scary concept. Live your life as you think is right, with no definitions or right or wrong? At that point there IS no right or wrong. Without SOME guildelines there's no way to decide when murder is right or wrong, when stealing is right or wrong, when violence is right or wrong. I know these are extremes but I am sure you can see what I mean if EVERYone just lives their life how THEY think is right.I know what you are saying about Biblical Propechy. Some are vague and could be interpretted as already having happened. That's why any Believer with half a mind (something lacking from the doomsayers of the past like the Millerties) can't focus on a SINGLE prophecy but ALL of them together in a chain. This is actually something that is part of Dispensationalism, which I have spoken about a good deal in this thread.
Looking at the Propehcy of the Birth of Christ. I am sure some of the prophecies were fulfilled several times over. But the trick is NEVER before Christ were all 109 prophecies fulfilled. At the very least, 108 were fulfilled. I only leave 1 out because it's the only one that can be argued without any historical proof to back up the Biblical proof. That's the Virgin Birth. But the bloodlines he was to be born to, his place of birth, and so on and so forth are even recorded in Roman documentation of the times. History shows that a man named Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem was born. Of course, history can't confirm that he was the Son of God. But that's not what I am talking about here.
Some prohecies also have NOT been fulfilled even once. Ezekiel 28 and 29, the attack of God and Magog on Israel has not happened. The 7 year treaty with Israel has never been signed as mentioned in Revelations. The Earth's population was not whiped out till it was only 25% left in a 7 year period as mention in Revelations. Isaiah 17 talks of Damascus being left COMPLETELY destroyed. This has yet to happen...though I find it coincidental that Syria, whose capital is Damascus, is now jumping to threaten Israel and up their border security. That doesn't mean anything is going to happen, but it does make me watch these sorts of things.
Some prophecies may have been fulfilled here and there at different times, but when they are laid out in a specific order of chronology in the Scriptures that is where they have NOT been fulfilled normally. Of course, some things have. Like the prophecies of the Messiah. They can obviously be called fulfilled because Christ was born over 2000 years ago. This is why the Bible has to be taken as a whole and not an Astrology chart for "What's going to happen today".
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
==========================
Ah I do so love quoting on MMORPG.COM. How it triples things and randomly moves them around. I was going to clean that up but I will just leave it as is and assume you can see where the system automatically repeated somethings on it's own.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Ah, back to the standard God/No God thread, they all seem to turn into that with enough time. So I'm going to randomly throw out stuff.
So who's seen that Left Behind game? Is it just me or does something seem really really messed with the whole concept of basing a game on that topic?
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
LOL i cracked up soooooo much when i heard about that game.. I'm so excited to play it... apparently there's gonna be kililng in the game... In an interview with one of the developers he says they opted to have killing because this is a game that will be a depiction of what the world may be like in the "end of days" So there will be killing...
But i had to laugh because the game was actually featured on the Daily show i think... There was a clip where someone asked about how killing would be handled.. apparently if you kill an innocent you get "negative one spirit points" and if you kill justly you get "2 spirt points" Then Jon steward went on to say "I had no idea the difference between saving a life and taking a life... was.... 3 points".... lol...... this game is gonna rock
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
The concept of "the Rapture" came about as a conglomeration of two major points in the Bible. The first was in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 as I mentioned before where it says "16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." The second point was that after chapter 3 in Revelations the church is no longer mentioned in the detailed plans for the end-times.
As you said, John Nelson Darby was the one to popularize the term in his dissemination of the Dispensational Theology. However, neither he nor the Scottish woman created the ideas that were already written in the Scriptures from centuries before. I will agree with you that some preachers probably were fast to use this as the "Fire and Brimstone" sermon basis to scare some people back into their faith but I don't think this ideas in Dispensationalism were anything more than an interpretation of specific portions of the Bible. The same way that other focuses have brought us many of the dozens of denominations in the Christian faith.
My professor (a Roman Catholic) says that the "rapture" is all a modern idea that was pretty much intended to sell books and scare people into believing. He asks if it was such an important part of the Bible then why do the orthodox religions reject it? And also he asked the class if it was true then why did it take until the mid 1800's for someone to come up with a Protestant interpretation of verses that were never connected before to mean such a thing. He basically said it was a modern scam promoted by Darby, I.C. Scofield, and a modern writer who's name I can't remember (Sorry) but who wrote a book named "Late Great Planet Earth". It just has caught on as a popular view mostly in the states. He said that the Catholic Church is strongly against the whole interpretation.
I think if anything it's an example of how an idea can take on a popularity and morph into something that people begin to believe just because of it's mainstream status.
Why is it messed up? It's the end-time battles. In the Christian faith some people will stand WITH the Antichrist and others will stand AGAINST.
Not sure why you think a wargame based on Biblical ideas is messed up since the Bible itself mentions war over 1100 times. Oh...and please through out random stuff. It does actually break up the monotony
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
The concept of "the Rapture" came about as a conglomeration of two major points in the Bible. The first was in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 as I mentioned before where it says "16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." The second point was that after chapter 3 in Revelations the church is no longer mentioned in the detailed plans for the end-times.
As you said, John Nelson Darby was the one to popularize the term in his dissemination of the Dispensational Theology. However, neither he nor the Scottish woman created the ideas that were already written in the Scriptures from centuries before. I will agree with you that some preachers probably were fast to use this as the "Fire and Brimstone" sermon basis to scare some people back into their faith but I don't think this ideas in Dispensationalism were anything more than an interpretation of specific portions of the Bible. The same way that other focuses have brought us many of the dozens of denominations in the Christian faith.
My professor (a Roman Catholic) says that the "rapture" is all a modern idea that was pretty much intended to sell books and scare people into believing. He asks if it was such an important part of the Bible then why do the orthodox religions reject it? And also he asked the class if it was true then why did it take until the mid 1800's for someone to come up with a Protestant interpretation of verses that were never connected before to mean such a thing. He basically said it was a modern scam promoted by Darby, I.C. Scofield, and a modern writer who's name I can't remember (Sorry) but who wrote a book named "Late Great Planet Earth". It just has caught on as a popular view mostly in the states. He said that the Catholic Church is strongly against the whole interpretation.
I think if anything it's an example of how an idea can take on a popularity and morph into something that people begin to believe just because of it's mainstream status.
Okay. This is gonna be a couple pointer also.
1- Hal Lindsey is the name you are looking for as the author of the Late Great Planet Earth. And that book wasn't as much about "the Rapture" as it was the Endtimes plan. With the 21 Judgements in Revelations, Christianity is the only religion with a detailed, blow by blow description of the final days as we know them.
2- The Catholic Church has no foot to stand on when it comes to interpretation. Nowhere in the Bible does is say a man of faith cannot marry, yet they came up with that one. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that we must pray to the Virgin Mary, but they came up with that one. Mind you, this is all pre-Vatican II, as it has been dubbed. Catholic doctrines have changed a lot in the last 40 years or so.
3- Of COURSE the Catholic Church is against that teaching. They're against PROTESTants in general because the protestants threw off the idea that the Church, the Vatican, was a holy organisation and the Pope was the voice of God on earth. The fact that your teach is Catholic doesn't shock me at all if he is teaching that the "Rapture" is a new idea. It's in the New Testiment long before Dispensationalism was thought about. The TERM "Rapture" is new, but it is a term used to describe the concepts of 1Thes 4:16,17 and the fact that after Rev 3 the church, the members not the building, is no longer mentioned.
4- The apostles believed in the Rapture. Especially Paul, who wrote the letters to the church, one of which being 1 Thessalonians. As loathe as I am to tell your teacher they are wrong, they are. Since the apostles existed LONG before the 1800s.
5- The arguement that has gone on among the churches is actually Pre/Mid/Post Tribulation rapture, of for the sake of arguement, being taken up to meet Christ in the air. The Bible is not specific as to WHEN this event is supposed to take place in the grand scheme of the end-times. Dispensationalism focused on pre-trib rapture, which was the contraversy because the idea was founded on logic not scripture. As to what that logic is, it's for another topic. If you really are curious mail me and I will tell you the 3 theories so as to not bore everyone else here :P
The final note is that not ALL Catholica are against the concept of the Rapture. That organisation itself fractured decades ago and it sounds to me your teacher belongs to the the first group not the second. So he has had it drilled into his head that the idea of the rapture, even though a "taking up" is mentioned in the New Testiment, is wrong. But this is the same group that ignores that concept of "Grace" which is the main focus of the New Testiment and Christ and believes they "earn" their way into heaven on works alone.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."