Originally posted by Erom I wish the rapture would happen so you all could go away and leave me alone.
But honestly I have a problem with the whole idea because if only Christians are good enough to be taken when the rapture comes then who is left to fight for good when the whole good and evil war to end all wars happens?
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
There's also a tiny bit of a flaw in your logic of "who would be left to fight." Let's say for arguements sakes that next month 100s of millions of people all disappear. Everyone you've ever known who talks about believing in Jesus is gone. All children and babies are gone. Next you see a man rise to power and promise peace to the world and then even go as far as sign a 7 year treaty with Israel. Then this very same man is killed and raises himself from the dead and pronounces himself as god. Don't you think there are going to be people who've heard the stories, read Revelations (or at the very least grabs a Bible immediately and reads Revelations that moment) and starts to put 2 and 2 together? In essence that is what thing like the Rapture Letters are all about. "If this happens, IF the Bible might be right, IF all those people you heard in your life that talked about Jesus being their savoir are gone then you might want to stop and think about it all." Certianly if everything that I mentioned above happens there will be people who will believe in this man who has risen to power, promises peace, and declares himself god when he rises from the dead. On the other hand there are religions OTHER than Christianity that will give the big ol' "Uh uh...no you didn't!" reaction. Judiasm and Islam are two religions that very quickly would resist this man.
Certianly if everything that I mentioned above happens there will be people who will believe in this man who has risen to power, promises peace, and declares himself god when he rises from the dead. On the other hand there are religions OTHER than Christianity that will give the big ol' "Uh uh...no you didn't!" reaction. Judiasm and Islam are two religions that very quickly would resist this man.
Certianly if everything that I mentioned above happens there will be people who will believe in this man who has risen to power, promises peace, and declares himself god when he rises from the dead. On the other hand there are religions OTHER than Christianity that will give the big ol' "Uh uh...no you didn't!" reaction. Judiasm and Islam are two religions that very quickly would resist this man.
You could go by all this, or you can go with the easy way. The guy who says it's a great idea to put a barcode on your hand or forehead to buy stuff is probably not the best choice to join up with.
Edit: Well I tried. Go ahead and screw up the quote forum. See if I care.
Originally posted by asupermane Originally posted by Erom I wish the rapture would happen so you all could go away and leave me alone.
But honestly I have a problem with the whole idea because if only Christians are good enough to be taken when the rapture comes then who is left to fight for good when the whole good and evil war to end all wars happens?
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
So I can go rape 82 women then kill a horde of babies, but believe in Jesus, and still go poof when the rapture comes? Sign me up! Oh wait, that's flawed christian logic. I see that alot.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by asupermane
Originally posted by Erom I wish the rapture would happen so you all could go away and leave me alone.
But honestly I have a problem with the whole idea because if only Christians are good enough to be taken when the rapture comes then who is left to fight for good when the whole good and evil war to end all wars happens?
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
So I can go rape 82 women then kill a horde of babies, but believe in Jesus, and still go poof when the rapture comes? Sign me up! Oh wait, that's flawed christian logic. I see that alot.
the current number 1 excuse is that you don't need proof to have faith. completely ignoring the fact todays Christian religion is based on a book. yes, a book.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by asupermane Originally posted by Erom I wish the rapture would happen so you all could go away and leave me alone.
But honestly I have a problem with the whole idea because if only Christians are good enough to be taken when the rapture comes then who is left to fight for good when the whole good and evil war to end all wars happens?
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
So I can go rape 82 women then kill a horde of babies, but believe in Jesus, and still go poof when the rapture comes? Sign me up! Oh wait, that's flawed christian logic. I see that alot.
That's actually pretty easily discussed if you're willing to discuss it. The first step in understanding the Judeo-Christian "logic" as you call it is understanding that in the eyes of God sin is sin. Black and white. There are no grayscales here. WE, as humans, like to apply all the different shades in between. Biblically there is only ONE unforgivable sin and that is the active denial of Christ as savoir and Son of God. Everything else is a forgivable sin.
We want to think that there's levels of sin and that's not what we're taught in the Bible. The problem with your logic is you are applying the ideas of right and wrong that have been instilled in you by the area in which you live and the people with which you surround yourself. It's also very easy to take an arrogant stance in saying "Well, my country is right and everyone else is wrong. So what we define as right and wrong is the way it is." Example: You would be horrified if you knew people were marrying off their 12 year old daughters in arranged marriages because to you, and the society in which you live, that is wrong. However, tribes in Africa and many other areas of the world that is the norm. So now who is right and who is wrong?
Logically, the two examples you listed would strike most of us as horrific. I can't really think of anyone that would condone rape but the second example, slaughtering hordes of babies, is VERY relative to one's perspective. To many people abortion is slaughtering a millions of babies every year. However, to you that might be the case. You might find ways to explain or justify the abortions. Perhaps some sceintist told you that a fetus/pregnancy/fetal matter/whatever name given that day is not actually a "life" until a certain point in time, but there's really no way to prove that. So you make a logical decision and stick to it. That doesn't mean the person next to you came to the same logical point.
I'm not arguing pro-choice/pro-life here. Just trying to outline that to God sin is sin. Stealing $10 from your friend is the same as killing someone because you are giving in to your darker nature. I, personally, can't define sin so I go with the outlined precepts in the Bible as to what sin is. Keep in mind, I am just as much a sinner as the next guy or gal, and probably even more so than some others. So I am not taking a "holier than though" stance at all. I am just trying to point out that what YOU might define as horrible and attrocious "sins" in your own mind may not be seen as such by someone else. Then where do we draw the line and decide who is right? Law of the land? Majority rule? Survival of the Fittest? It's just a hard area for us all to agree on.
Now, if you question is could you commit these horrible acts and still have the chance for salvation is you were sincere in repenting and asking for forgivness the answer Biblically is yes. Look at the two men crucified next to Christ. If you're asking "Can I just use this as an insurance policy?" that's a harder area to define. Because only you and God know what your motives really are when you "ask to be forgiven". Ted Bundy wept on his death bed and asked for Christ's forgiveness. Is it my place to say he didn't deserve it? No, that sort of judgement is not mine to make because I can NEVER truly know what happened in that man's life to lead him down that path.
I like to tell people when it comes to Christianity and knowing yourself and your walk with God that you just simply think this: It's not whether a Christian is able to commit these sins knowingly and actively, it's whether you can commit these sins knowingly and actively and still convince yourself that you're a Christian. But that is a PERSONAL debate. It's not something that can be judged by any one of us. I have been a born-again Christian for the majority of my life. I've had some really dirty and dark periods of my life in which I've done things of which I am none too proud. However, when I really sit down and look at myself, push all denial aside and be honest with myself I have to think to myself "If Christ is in my life shouldn't I try to express that in my actions and words?"
It's easy to look at someone doing something wrong and say "Well they must not be a Christian!" but it's much harder to really get to know that person and figure out what has happened in their life that has lead them to that point. That's why I try to go with the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" concept.
"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 Erom I wish the rapture would happen so you all could go away and leave me alone.
But honestly I have a problem with the whole idea because if only Christians are good enough to be taken when the rapture comes then who is left to fight for good when the whole good and evil war to end all wars happens?
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
So I can go rape 82 women then kill a horde of babies, but believe in Jesus, and still go poof when the rapture comes? Sign me up! Oh wait, that's flawed christian logic. I see that alot.
the current number 1 excuse is that you don't need proof to have faith. completely ignoring the fact todays Christian religion is based on a book. yes, a book.
I do have to ask you this. What, that we believe as human beings, isn't based on a "book" as you say? Our languages, our science, our histories, our knowledge, our creations? If you discredit something because it's based on a "book" then you just descredited writing itself and therefore all our knowledge goes right out the window. I know you can say that many of those listed things above can be proven, but even you realise that in many things like history and science there are equally accedited people on many sides of the arguements who don't agree with one another.
If you're saying it's based on a book that was written by man, then maybe I can at least get your point a little better. At that point you're not debating whether or not the words in the book have meaning but whether or not they were inspired by the divine. That's going to be a long-term arguement there that neither or us can back up really. I can't bring you proof that God spoke to the men who wrote the books of the Bible, but you can't bring me proof that God didn't. Belief in the Bible is a personal choice and it even have personal effects on one's life. If someone chooses that they will not believe in the Bible ever, then there's probably no arguement a man could make to change that persons mind. But the like can be said that someone, like me, who has spent years of his life studying and trying to understand all the Bible has to offer and has even had personal experiences that have validated the Bible "for me" probably won't suddenly be dissuaded in it's truth by someone else who just simply doesn't believe.
"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."
You said that stealing $10 is as bad as murder in the eyes of God according to Christians. Being raised Catholic, I'd say you were wrong. Granted, I'm agnostic, but I went to a Catholic school from K-12. Catholics believe in venial and mortal sins. Venial being petty theft, mortal being murder. I didn't think Catholics were the only ones who believed in varying degrees of sin. To name others: Lutherans, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox, I'm sure there are many others. To say that God can't see some sins are worse than others would seem to leave God devoid of logic. Now it comes down to another "who's right" call. Extreme Fundamentalist Christians vs. Liberal Christians. We'll never know. I just think if God is powerful enough to know every thought that every human makes during every waking second, he'd have enough sense to know that stealing a snickers from the grocery store isn't quite as bad as cutting up your neighbor and eating him for Sunday brunch.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I don't necessarily agree with any of the above.
You said that stealing $10 is as bad as murder in the eyes of God according to Christians. Being raised Catholic, I'd say you were wrong. Granted, I'm agnostic, but I went to a Catholic school from K-12. Catholics believe in venial and mortal sins. Venial being petty theft, mortal being murder. I didn't think Catholics were the only ones who believed in varying degrees of sin. To name others: Lutherans, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox, I'm sure there are many others. To say that God can't see some sins are worse than others would seem to leave God devoid of logic. Now it comes down to another "who's right" call. Extreme Fundamentalist Christians vs. Liberal Christians. We'll never know. I just think if God is powerful enough to know every thought that every human makes during every waking second, he'd have enough sense to know that stealing a snickers from the grocery store isn't quite as bad as cutting up your neighbor and eating him for Sunday brunch.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I don't necessarily agree with any of the above.
I can see and understand where you're coming from and it's a well thought out point. The question I would have you pose to anyone who teaches to you that sins have varying levels is to ask them where it says this in the Bible's scriptures.
The first problem is trying to apply our logic to God's mind. That just doesn't work. To paraphrase the Bible, understanding God with our finite minds is like containing the ocean in a thimble. We like to use rationalisations and justifications to set a "degree" to sins.
Though they are never "officially" listed out in any specific place in the Bible, the seven deadly sins pretty much sum up all forms of sin possible. I say they are never "officially" listed because no one scripture puts them all in a single line. All seven are discusses within the Bible. I think you would be hard pressed to point out a "sin" that couldn't be relagated to it's parent "deadly" sin.
Now, my belief that there is only one unforgiveable sin and that all others are forgivable is in the Gospels, but I will quote Matthew as it is the most defined there:
Matt 12:31,32 "31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word agains the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Throughout the Bible every sin spoken of until this point is forgivable. While the punishment may be death here on the earth, the sin itself is forgiven after that. Speaking out against the Holy Spirit is to speak against the salvation and mediation brought upon by Jesus' sacrifice. Therefore denial of the Christ is the only unforgivable sin. The issue that seems to get caught up in poeple's mind is the worldly punishment for a sin and the eternal punishment for a sin. While it is within man's right to punish another man on this earth for a crime or a sin, it is not within our right to deem their punishment in enternity. We're not even remotely worthy of such a judgement. But the Bible itself even tells us that God hates ALL sin. Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness". We want to rationalise that God thinks "Oh, that's a little sin, it's okay I guess.", but we have to remember that to him sin is something which He just cannot condone at all. It is an attack against his holiness, righteousness, and sovereignty.
Now if you are asking me whether or not a man should be imprisoned or killed for the crimes of slaughtering children or raping women, I would say yes. That is the Law of the Land here. If you are asking me that because that same man did those same crimes has lost all hopes of salvation, I would have to say no. That depends solely, in my belief, on whether or not this man denies Jesus the Messiah and the Christ as his savior, thus speaking against the spirit.
I'm really glad you had such an interesting point and that you voiced it. These are the types of discussions we need more of when it comes to religion. Calm and respectful discussions of ideas. I know you said you don't necessarily agree with any of the ideas of which you spoke, I would just like to see what the reactions to people who really teach that there is a difference amongst sins think about what I have to say and if they have scripture to back it up. God knows I don't know every last word of the Bible and I doubt I ever will.
"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 first is in Numbers 15:22-31. Here we read about the appropriate offerings to be made for those who ‘sin unintentionally’ on the one hand, and those who ‘sin defiantly’ on the other. The former phrase translates the Hebrew shagag, meaning ‘to sin inadvertently’ or ‘to go astray’. Such sins, whether committed by a native Israelite or a resident alien, may be atoned for and their guilt forgiven (15:22-29). The latter phrase translates the Hebrew ’asah beyad ramah, meaning literally ‘to act with a high hand’. Such sins, whether committed by a native Israelite or a resident alien, are tantamount to blasphemy and result in total exclusion from God’s people and the full retention of guilt (15:30-31). (A similar distinction seems to be expressed in Psalm 19:12-13 where David prays to be forgiven of his ‘hidden faults’ on the one hand and delivered from ‘willful sins’, which threaten to ‘rule’ over him, on the other.) In such cases no offering or atonement is prescribed. Traditional exegesis takes the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, reported in Numbers 16, as a vivid example of such unrepented blasphemy and its punishment.
Still more apposite are the repeated distinctions our Lord himself makes in the Gospels as to the varying gravity of different sins and their effects. So he distinguishes between the lighter punishment of the servant who does not know his master’s will and the heavier punishment of the servant who does (Lk 12:47-48). Again, Jesus distinguishes between ‘the blind’ (that is, those who confess the blindness of sin), who are not guilty of sin, and those who claim they can ‘see’ and so remain guilty of sin (Jn 9:41; cf. Matt 11:22). By refusing to believe in him, such people will eventually ‘die in their sins’ (Jn 8:24). Through his betrayal and willful apostasy, Judas became ‘guilty of a greater sin’ than Pilate, who in ignorance succumbed to pressure to have Jesus put to death (Jn 19:11). In giving occasion for Jesus’ illegal prosecution and death, Judas is not unlike the person for whom, having caused others to fall away, drowning presents a preferable punishment (Lk 17:1-2). And finally, Jesus draws the well-known distinction between those who sin against the Son of Man and those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. While the many sins of the former are forgivable, the single sin of the latter is not, since they who commit it have thereby become ‘guilty of an eternal sin’ (Mk 3:29; cf. Matt 12:31; Lk 12:10).[10]
What about the other Apostolic writings? Without pursuing a comprehensive examination, which would have to include discussion of the difficult texts in Hebrews (6:4-6; 10:26-31), we may refer first of all to what appears to be an important distinction in St John between ‘having’ (echein) sin and ‘committing’ (poiein) sin. The believer in Christ ‘has’ sin. To claim otherwise is to deceive oneself (1 Jn 1:8). However he does not ‘commit’ sin (1 Jn 3:9), that is, in so far as he remains ‘born of God’. Whoever ‘commits’ sin is ‘of the devil’ (1 Jn 3:8). Implied in the combination poiein hamartian is the notion of a deliberate action, a disposed mindset. On these verses Luther comments:
Nothing is easier than sinning. But to be born of God and to sin are incompatible. While the birth remains, and so long as the seed of God abides in a person who has been born again, he cannot sin. He can, of course, lose his birth and commit sin; but so long as the seed of God is in us, it does not permit that sin to be with it…. Sin incites, murmurs, and desires to rule. But do not let it rule.[11]
Another important passage for consideration is of course 1 John 5:16-17, in which there is distinguished sin that ‘leads to death’ (pros thanaton), and sin that ‘does not lead to death’ (ou pros thanaton).[12] Luther regards the ‘sin unto death’ spoken of here primarily as heresy - the stubborn and persistent rejection of the truth, or else impenitence to the end. ‘[T]his sin, because it is defended after it has been sufficiently revealed and known, is mortal; for it resists the grace of God, the means of salvation, and the remission of sins.’[13] Non-mortal sin, on the other hand, includes sins of ignorance or weakness on the part of the Christian. Citing Romans 7:25 about the conflict between the mind that serves the law of God and the flesh that serves the law of sin, Luther comments further, ‘A Christian is divided into two parts. At times a person is overtaken when that birth [of God] is not sustained on the basis of the Word of God and the flesh prevails, so that he does what he would not do in other circumstances.’[14] Such sins, says Luther, are venial: while they are truly sinful, they do not result in loss of faith and condemnation.
Turning to St Paul’s letter to the Romans, we recognise a similar distinction at work. The Apostle recognises his flesh as the ongoing locus for original sin, even after baptism and conversion (Rom 7:18). Such sin desires what is contrary to the ‘inner man’ (Rom 7:22). To the extent that this conflict actually takes place, with the inner man wanting to do what is right and not wanting to do what is wrong, sin is present but does not ‘rule’. In other words, inhering concupiscence is indeed sin, but not reigning sin – which is what it would become if its impulses were followed and fulfilled (Rom 6:12). Thus it does not damn the believer who ‘according to his inner man’ resists and ‘hates’ (Rom 7:15) its impulses, for ‘there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 8:1). In itself such sin is certainly worthy of eternal condemnation, since it actively opposes God and is hostile to him (Rom 8:7). Yet it does not lead to death because it is not imputed to the believer on account of Christ. It is not the case, as Chemnitz quotes Augustine, that God condemns only some sins and justifies or excuses others. He hates them all. But in the unregenerate he hates sin in such a way that he also condemns the person, whereas in the regenerate he hates sin as a doctor hates a sickness, endeavouring to expel it from the patient unwillingly afflicted by it.[15]
I forgot what this topic was in response to after the first couple pages only remembered when I read a quote in the double digit pages referencing Rapture Letters.
Also, my head started hurting after Malachi and Freethinker (I think it was them) started the page long quotes. My brain got confused halfway through and felt like trying to scroll through and understand the long colorful quote. I now return you to your discussion.
Originally posted by Vercades Crapzilla! There's still these cult followers? I thought they all died out at the Kool-Aid, Comet fiasco.
For starters just because someone has religious beleifs doesnt make there way of beleiving a "Cult". However, the "rapture" beleif although popular in many christian religions has no basis in truth. There is no "biblical" evidence to support the beleif.
Ive found though it doesnt matter what I can prove from the bible to another religous person. For the most part, they beleive what they WANT to beleive.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Biblical Teaching on Distinction between Sins *just edited out the text to shorten the length of the post*
While I am familiar with most of these scriptures off the top of my head I will admit that it is a bit late and to be 100% certain I would have to read each in their entire context again. However, even what this document suggests is what I am saying. There is no differentiation between the individual acts of sin themselves. Numbers itself is speaking of what is know as a "Sin of Omission". That's fairly self explanatory. The rest of the majority of the scriptures here talk about that if one believes in the Christ they should not continue to live in sin. That is not saying that after believing in Christ one becomes perfect and without sin but that one should done one's best to no longer live in their old ways and be a "new thing" in Christ. This is where many people will argue "If you do all these bad things you must not be a perfect little Christian after alll." Of course, we know that no one is perfect and that none of us are sinless. The best that can be asked for is for one to try their best and only God can judge that. While we may see someone and think they are doing horrible things we don't know what in their life lead them there and may explain why they are the way they are. It's much easier to just assume they must be a bad person. To my knowledge, and I will admit I need to read tomorrow to be certain, none the the scriptures listed in that document imply that there are lesser or greater sins, save the denial of the Christ. In that I would say that yes, there are what could be called "mortal" and "non-mortal" sins but the only "mortal" (which is really a bad described word since we're talking about the enternal being, not finite being of a man) being denial of the Truth or denial of the Christ. All other sins would then be "non-mortal". Even Luther's teachings listed above would jibe that theft and murder where in the same category of "non-mortal" or what I would better call "forgivable" sins. Hence, why scripturally, only one sin is ever listed as unforgivable. And it is listed by name and by detail. The ananlogy used in that document of God's hatred of sin liken to a doctor's hatred of sickness is apt, but incomplete. That would lead us to apply OUR logic in priorities. Of course, as a doctor you would treat a patient that is bleeding to death before one that has a cold. But that is our logic, it makes sense to us. We don't know the effects of things in the grand scheme of things.
While I am familiar with most of these scriptures off the top of my head I will admit that it is a bit late and to be 100% certain I would have to read each in their entire context again. However, even what this document suggests is what I am saying. There is no differentiation between the individual acts of sin themselves. Numbers itself is speaking of what is know as a "Sin of Omission". That's fairly self explanatory.
The rest of the majority of the scriptures here talk about that if one believes in the Christ they should not continue to live in sin. That is not saying that after believing in Christ one becomes perfect and without sin but that one should done one's best to no longer live in their old ways and be a "new thing" in Christ. This is where many people will argue "If you do all these bad things you must not be a perfect little Christian after alll." Of course, we know that no one is perfect and that none of us are sinless. The best that can be asked for is for one to try their best and only God can judge that. While we may see someone and think they are doing horrible things we don't know what in their life lead them there and may explain why they are the way they are. It's much easier to just assume they must be a bad person.
To my knowledge, and I will admit I need to read tomorrow to be certain, none the the scriptures listed in that document imply that there are lesser or greater sins, save the denial of the Christ. In that I would say that yes, there are what could be called "mortal" and "non-mortal" sins but the only "mortal" (which is really a bad described word since we're talking about the enternal being, not finite being of a man) being denial of the Truth or denial of the Christ. All other sins would then be "non-mortal". Even Luther's teachings listed above would jibe that theft and murder where in the same category of "non-mortal" or what I would better call "forgivable" sins.
Hence, why scripturally, only one sin is ever listed as unforgivable. And it is listed by name and by detail. The ananlogy used in that document of God's hatred of sin liken to a doctor's hatred of sickness is apt, but incomplete. That would lead us to apply OUR logic in priorities. Of course, as a doctor you would treat a patient that is bleeding to death before one that has a cold. But that is our logic, it makes sense to us. We don't know the effects of things in the grand scheme of things.
"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."
First off, I do not follow a religious path, nor do I consider myself an Atheist. I just try to keep an open mind at all times.
Religion should be based on faith, not "belief". God does not physically exist (just like Santa Clause), and we can prove that he doesn't. He may exist in your "hearts" and "souls" to those that do follow a religious path. There is no need to "prove that wrong" because it is all simply metaphorical.
Darwin and George Washington most likely chose to become religious, which is perfectly fine (or they were born into it which usually messes everything up). If he was born into it, then he basically proved the modern "belief" of god false.
When something happens that cannot be explained (yet), people say god was responsible. Its true if you have faith in god, rather than believe of his physical existance.
IMO, religion was "founded" to give people a sense of where they came from, and also a way to blame (in good ways and bad) an action on their god.
Thats all I have to say for now, this probably doesn't make any sense, because I'm tired as hell.
Originally posted by Vercades Crapzilla! There's still these cult followers? I thought they all died out at the Kool-Aid, Comet fiasco.
For starters just because someone has religious beleifs doesnt make there way of beleiving a "Cult". However, the "rapture" beleif although popular in many christian religions has no basis in truth. There is no "biblical" evidence to support the beleif.
Ive found though it doesnt matter what I can prove from the bible to another religous person. For the most part, they beleive what they WANT to beleive.
To correct you a bit on the highlighted text:
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 "Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have not hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 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. 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 idea of being "caught up" has been there all along. All dispensationalism did when they coined the phrase "The Rapture" (which simply means to be caught up) was to give it a place in the Biblical timeline (ie- placing it before the rise of the Antichrist during the events of Revelations). The "time" given was deduced, and I admit could be wrong, by the fact that the "church" is no longer mentioned after Revelations chapter 3.
There are more scriptures that allude or refer to the belief of being taken up, but those are the easiest to read and see where the belief is founded.
"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 idiots The rapture: When all the believers in Jesus Christ, who have been born again, are taken up to heaven.
After the rapture, there will be a lot of speculation as to why millions of people have just disappeared. Unfortunately, after the rapture, only non believers will be left to come up with answers. You probably have family and friends that you have witnessed to and they just won't listen. After the rapture they probably will, but who will tell them?
We have written a computer program to do just that. It will send an Electronic Message (e-mail) to whomever you want after the rapture has taken place, and you and I have been taken to heaven. How is this accomplished, you might ask. It's a dead man switch that will automatically send the emails when it is not reset.
If you wish to do something now that will help your unbelieving friends and family after the rapture, you need to add those persons email address to our database. Their names will be stored indefinitely and a letter will be sent out to each of them on the first Friday after the rapture. Then they will receive another letter every friday after that.
This rapture letter service is FREE and will hopefully gain the person you send it to an eternity in heaven.
If you would like to see one of the letters which will be sent after the rapture, click here.
This is a personal ministry, if you have any questions or comments please address them to: info@raptureletters.com
Comments
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
You could go by all this, or you can go with the easy way. The guy who says it's a great idea to put a barcode on your hand or forehead to buy stuff is probably not the best choice to join up with.
Edit: Well I tried. Go ahead and screw up the quote forum. See if I care.
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
So I can go rape 82 women then kill a horde of babies, but believe in Jesus, and still go poof when the rapture comes? Sign me up!
Oh wait, that's flawed christian logic. I see that alot.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
So I can go rape 82 women then kill a horde of babies, but believe in Jesus, and still go poof when the rapture comes? Sign me up!
Oh wait, that's flawed christian logic. I see that alot.
the current number 1 excuse is that you don't need proof to have faith. completely ignoring the fact todays Christian religion is based on a book. yes, a book.
Its not about Christians being good enough. I mean, I'm not a good person... I do many things wrong, and have lead astray several times. But Jesus is always there for me. He never leaves me, I'm only good in the sight of God, because Jesus is in my heart. So, If any one accepts Jesus by faith, you can be part of the rapture too, if its that time.
So I can go rape 82 women then kill a horde of babies, but believe in Jesus, and still go poof when the rapture comes? Sign me up!
Oh wait, that's flawed christian logic. I see that alot.
That's actually pretty easily discussed if you're willing to discuss it. The first step in understanding the Judeo-Christian "logic" as you call it is understanding that in the eyes of God sin is sin. Black and white. There are no grayscales here. WE, as humans, like to apply all the different shades in between. Biblically there is only ONE unforgivable sin and that is the active denial of Christ as savoir and Son of God. Everything else is a forgivable sin.
We want to think that there's levels of sin and that's not what we're taught in the Bible. The problem with your logic is you are applying the ideas of right and wrong that have been instilled in you by the area in which you live and the people with which you surround yourself. It's also very easy to take an arrogant stance in saying "Well, my country is right and everyone else is wrong. So what we define as right and wrong is the way it is." Example: You would be horrified if you knew people were marrying off their 12 year old daughters in arranged marriages because to you, and the society in which you live, that is wrong. However, tribes in Africa and many other areas of the world that is the norm. So now who is right and who is wrong?
Logically, the two examples you listed would strike most of us as horrific. I can't really think of anyone that would condone rape but the second example, slaughtering hordes of babies, is VERY relative to one's perspective. To many people abortion is slaughtering a millions of babies every year. However, to you that might be the case. You might find ways to explain or justify the abortions. Perhaps some sceintist told you that a fetus/pregnancy/fetal matter/whatever name given that day is not actually a "life" until a certain point in time, but there's really no way to prove that. So you make a logical decision and stick to it. That doesn't mean the person next to you came to the same logical point.
I'm not arguing pro-choice/pro-life here. Just trying to outline that to God sin is sin. Stealing $10 from your friend is the same as killing someone because you are giving in to your darker nature. I, personally, can't define sin so I go with the outlined precepts in the Bible as to what sin is. Keep in mind, I am just as much a sinner as the next guy or gal, and probably even more so than some others. So I am not taking a "holier than though" stance at all. I am just trying to point out that what YOU might define as horrible and attrocious "sins" in your own mind may not be seen as such by someone else. Then where do we draw the line and decide who is right? Law of the land? Majority rule? Survival of the Fittest? It's just a hard area for us all to agree on.
Now, if you question is could you commit these horrible acts and still have the chance for salvation is you were sincere in repenting and asking for forgivness the answer Biblically is yes. Look at the two men crucified next to Christ. If you're asking "Can I just use this as an insurance policy?" that's a harder area to define. Because only you and God know what your motives really are when you "ask to be forgiven". Ted Bundy wept on his death bed and asked for Christ's forgiveness. Is it my place to say he didn't deserve it? No, that sort of judgement is not mine to make because I can NEVER truly know what happened in that man's life to lead him down that path.
I like to tell people when it comes to Christianity and knowing yourself and your walk with God that you just simply think this: It's not whether a Christian is able to commit these sins knowingly and actively, it's whether you can commit these sins knowingly and actively and still convince yourself that you're a Christian. But that is a PERSONAL debate. It's not something that can be judged by any one of us. I have been a born-again Christian for the majority of my life. I've had some really dirty and dark periods of my life in which I've done things of which I am none too proud. However, when I really sit down and look at myself, push all denial aside and be honest with myself I have to think to myself "If Christ is in my life shouldn't I try to express that in my actions and words?"
It's easy to look at someone doing something wrong and say "Well they must not be a Christian!" but it's much harder to really get to know that person and figure out what has happened in their life that has lead them to that point. That's why I try to go with the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" concept.
"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."
I do have to ask you this. What, that we believe as human beings, isn't based on a "book" as you say? Our languages, our science, our histories, our knowledge, our creations? If you discredit something because it's based on a "book" then you just descredited writing itself and therefore all our knowledge goes right out the window. I know you can say that many of those listed things above can be proven, but even you realise that in many things like history and science there are equally accedited people on many sides of the arguements who don't agree with one another.
If you're saying it's based on a book that was written by man, then maybe I can at least get your point a little better. At that point you're not debating whether or not the words in the book have meaning but whether or not they were inspired by the divine. That's going to be a long-term arguement there that neither or us can back up really. I can't bring you proof that God spoke to the men who wrote the books of the Bible, but you can't bring me proof that God didn't. Belief in the Bible is a personal choice and it even have personal effects on one's life. If someone chooses that they will not believe in the Bible ever, then there's probably no arguement a man could make to change that persons mind. But the like can be said that someone, like me, who has spent years of his life studying and trying to understand all the Bible has to offer and has even had personal experiences that have validated the Bible "for me" probably won't suddenly be dissuaded in it's truth by someone else who just simply doesn't believe.
"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."
I didnt say I do wrong just to do wrong.
The holy spirit convicts me, and I repent. Its not a flawed logic... I dont need proof that Jesus saved me, I just know.
You said that stealing $10 is as bad as murder in the eyes of God according to Christians.
Being raised Catholic, I'd say you were wrong. Granted, I'm agnostic, but I went to a Catholic school from K-12. Catholics believe in venial and mortal sins. Venial being petty theft, mortal being murder. I didn't think Catholics were the only ones who believed in varying degrees of sin. To name others: Lutherans, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox, I'm sure there are many others. To say that God can't see some sins are worse than others would seem to leave God devoid of logic.
Now it comes down to another "who's right" call.
Extreme Fundamentalist Christians vs. Liberal Christians. We'll never know. I just think if God is powerful enough to know every thought that every human makes during every waking second, he'd have enough sense to know that stealing a snickers from the grocery store isn't quite as bad as cutting up your neighbor and eating him for Sunday brunch.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I don't necessarily agree with any of the above.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I can see and understand where you're coming from and it's a well thought out point. The question I would have you pose to anyone who teaches to you that sins have varying levels is to ask them where it says this in the Bible's scriptures.
The first problem is trying to apply our logic to God's mind. That just doesn't work. To paraphrase the Bible, understanding God with our finite minds is like containing the ocean in a thimble. We like to use rationalisations and justifications to set a "degree" to sins.
Though they are never "officially" listed out in any specific place in the Bible, the seven deadly sins pretty much sum up all forms of sin possible. I say they are never "officially" listed because no one scripture puts them all in a single line. All seven are discusses within the Bible. I think you would be hard pressed to point out a "sin" that couldn't be relagated to it's parent "deadly" sin.
Now, my belief that there is only one unforgiveable sin and that all others are forgivable is in the Gospels, but I will quote Matthew as it is the most defined there:
Matt 12:31,32 "31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word agains the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Throughout the Bible every sin spoken of until this point is forgivable. While the punishment may be death here on the earth, the sin itself is forgiven after that. Speaking out against the Holy Spirit is to speak against the salvation and mediation brought upon by Jesus' sacrifice. Therefore denial of the Christ is the only unforgivable sin. The issue that seems to get caught up in poeple's mind is the worldly punishment for a sin and the eternal punishment for a sin. While it is within man's right to punish another man on this earth for a crime or a sin, it is not within our right to deem their punishment in enternity. We're not even remotely worthy of such a judgement. But the Bible itself even tells us that God hates ALL sin. Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness". We want to rationalise that God thinks "Oh, that's a little sin, it's okay I guess.", but we have to remember that to him sin is something which He just cannot condone at all. It is an attack against his holiness, righteousness, and sovereignty.
Now if you are asking me whether or not a man should be imprisoned or killed for the crimes of slaughtering children or raping women, I would say yes. That is the Law of the Land here. If you are asking me that because that same man did those same crimes has lost all hopes of salvation, I would have to say no. That depends solely, in my belief, on whether or not this man denies Jesus the Messiah and the Christ as his savior, thus speaking against the spirit.
I'm really glad you had such an interesting point and that you voiced it. These are the types of discussions we need more of when it comes to religion. Calm and respectful discussions of ideas. I know you said you don't necessarily agree with any of the ideas of which you spoke, I would just like to see what the reactions to people who really teach that there is a difference amongst sins think about what I have to say and if they have scripture to back it up. God knows I don't know every last word of the Bible and I doubt I ever will.
"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."
Biblical Teaching on Distinction between Sins
The first is in Numbers 15:22-31. Here we
read about the appropriate offerings to be made for those who ‘sin
unintentionally’ on the one hand, and those who ‘sin defiantly’ on the other.
The former phrase translates the Hebrew shagag,
meaning ‘to sin inadvertently’ or ‘to go astray’. Such sins, whether committed
by a native Israelite or a resident alien, may be atoned for and their guilt
forgiven (15:22-29). The latter phrase translates the Hebrew ’asah beyad ramah, meaning literally ‘to act
with a high hand’. Such sins, whether committed by a native Israelite or a
resident alien, are tantamount to blasphemy and result in total exclusion from
God’s people and the full retention of guilt (15:30-31). (A similar distinction
seems to be expressed in Psalm 19:12-13 where David prays to be forgiven of his
‘hidden faults’ on the one hand and delivered from ‘willful sins’, which
threaten to ‘rule’ over him, on the other.) In such cases no offering or
atonement is prescribed. Traditional exegesis takes the rebellion of Korah,
Dathan and Abiram, reported in Numbers 16, as a vivid example of such
unrepented blasphemy and its punishment.
Still more apposite are the
repeated distinctions our Lord himself makes in the Gospels as to the varying
gravity of different sins and their effects. So he distinguishes between the
lighter punishment of the servant who does not know his master’s will and the
heavier punishment of the servant who does (Lk 12:47-48). Again, Jesus
distinguishes between ‘the blind’ (that is, those who confess the blindness of
sin), who are not guilty of sin, and those who claim they can ‘see’ and so
remain guilty of sin (Jn 9:41; cf. Matt 11:22). By refusing to believe in him,
such people will eventually ‘die in their sins’ (Jn 8:24). Through his betrayal
and willful apostasy, Judas became ‘guilty of a greater sin’ than Pilate, who
in ignorance succumbed to pressure to have Jesus put to death (Jn 19:11). In
giving occasion for Jesus’ illegal prosecution and death, Judas is not unlike
the person for whom, having caused others to fall away, drowning presents a
preferable punishment (Lk 17:1-2). And finally, Jesus draws the well-known
distinction between those who sin against the Son of Man and those who
blaspheme the Holy Spirit. While the many sins of the former are forgivable,
the single sin of the latter is not, since they who commit it have thereby
become ‘guilty of an eternal sin’ (Mk 3:29; cf. Matt 12:31; Lk 12:10).[10]
What about the other Apostolic
writings? Without pursuing a comprehensive examination, which would have to
include discussion of the difficult texts in Hebrews (6:4-6; 10:26-31), we may
refer first of all to what appears to be an important distinction in St John
between ‘having’ (echein) sin and
‘committing’ (poiein) sin. The
believer in Christ ‘has’ sin. To claim otherwise is to deceive oneself (1 Jn
1:8). However he does not ‘commit’ sin (1 Jn 3:9), that is, in so far as he
remains ‘born of God’. Whoever ‘commits’ sin is ‘of the devil’ (1 Jn 3:8).
Implied in the combination poiein
hamartian is the notion of a deliberate action, a disposed mindset. On
these verses Luther comments:
Nothing is easier than
sinning. But to be born of God and to sin are incompatible. While the birth
remains, and so long as the seed of God abides in a person who has been born
again, he cannot sin. He can, of course, lose his birth and commit sin; but so
long as the seed of God is in us, it does not permit that sin to be with it…. Sin
incites, murmurs, and desires to rule. But do not let it rule.[11]
Another important passage for
Turning to St Paul’s letter toconsideration is of course 1 John 5:16-17, in which there is distinguished sin
that ‘leads to death’ (pros thanaton),
and sin that ‘does not lead to death’ (ou
pros thanaton).[12]
Luther regards the ‘sin unto death’ spoken of here primarily as heresy - the
stubborn and persistent rejection of the truth, or else impenitence to the end.
‘[T]his sin, because it is defended after it has been sufficiently revealed and
known, is mortal; for it resists the grace of God, the means of salvation, and
the remission of sins.’[13]
Non-mortal sin, on the other hand, includes sins of ignorance or weakness on
the part of the Christian. Citing Romans 7:25 about the conflict between the
mind that serves the law of God and the flesh that serves the law of sin,
Luther comments further, ‘A Christian is divided into two parts. At times a
person is overtaken when that birth [of God] is not sustained on the basis of
the Word of God and the flesh prevails, so that he does what he would not do in
other circumstances.’[14]
Such sins, says Luther, are venial: while they are truly sinful, they do not
result in loss of faith and condemnation.
the Romans, we recognise a similar distinction at work. The Apostle recognises
his flesh as the ongoing locus for original sin, even after baptism and
conversion (Rom 7:18). Such sin desires what is contrary to the ‘inner man’
(Rom 7:22). To the extent that this conflict actually takes place, with the
inner man wanting to do what is right and not wanting to do what is wrong, sin
is present but does not ‘rule’. In other words, inhering concupiscence is
indeed sin, but not reigning sin –
which is what it would become if its impulses were followed and fulfilled (Rom
6:12). Thus it does not damn the believer who ‘according to his inner man’
resists and ‘hates’ (Rom 7:15) its impulses, for ‘there is no condemnation for
those in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 8:1). In itself such sin is certainly worthy of
eternal condemnation, since it actively opposes God and is hostile to him (Rom
8:7). Yet it does not lead to death because it is not imputed to the believer
on account of Christ. It is not the case, as Chemnitz quotes Augustine, that
God condemns only some sins and justifies or excuses others. He hates them all.
But in the unregenerate he hates sin in such a way that he also condemns the
person, whereas in the regenerate he hates sin as a doctor hates a sickness,
endeavouring to expel it from the patient unwillingly afflicted by it.[15]
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
*Intermission*
I forgot what this topic was in response to after the first couple pages
only remembered when I read a quote in the double digit pages referencing Rapture Letters.
Also, my head started hurting after Malachi and Freethinker (I think it was them) started the page long quotes. My brain got confused halfway through and felt like
trying to scroll through and understand the long colorful quote. I now return you to your discussion.
*End Intermission*
For starters just because someone has religious beleifs doesnt make there way of beleiving a "Cult". However, the "rapture" beleif although popular in many christian religions has no basis in truth. There is no "biblical" evidence to support the beleif.
Ive found though it doesnt matter what I can prove from the bible to another religous person.
For the most part, they beleive what they WANT to beleive.
While I am familiar with most of these scriptures off the top of my head I will admit that it is a bit late and to be 100% certain I would have to read each in their entire context again. However, even what this document suggests is what I am saying. There is no differentiation between the individual acts of sin themselves. Numbers itself is speaking of what is know as a "Sin of Omission". That's fairly self explanatory.
The rest of the majority of the scriptures here talk about that if one believes in the Christ they should not continue to live in sin. That is not saying that after believing in Christ one becomes perfect and without sin but that one should done one's best to no longer live in their old ways and be a "new thing" in Christ. This is where many people will argue "If you do all these bad things you must not be a perfect little Christian after alll." Of course, we know that no one is perfect and that none of us are sinless. The best that can be asked for is for one to try their best and only God can judge that. While we may see someone and think they are doing horrible things we don't know what in their life lead them there and may explain why they are the way they are. It's much easier to just assume they must be a bad person.
To my knowledge, and I will admit I need to read tomorrow to be certain, none the the scriptures listed in that document imply that there are lesser or greater sins, save the denial of the Christ. In that I would say that yes, there are what could be called "mortal" and "non-mortal" sins but the only "mortal" (which is really a bad described word since we're talking about the enternal being, not finite being of a man) being denial of the Truth or denial of the Christ. All other sins would then be "non-mortal". Even Luther's teachings listed above would jibe that theft and murder where in the same category of "non-mortal" or what I would better call "forgivable" sins.
Hence, why scripturally, only one sin is ever listed as unforgivable. And it is listed by name and by detail. The ananlogy used in that document of God's hatred of sin liken to a doctor's hatred of sickness is apt, but incomplete. That would lead us to apply OUR logic in priorities. Of course, as a doctor you would treat a patient that is bleeding to death before one that has a cold. But that is our logic, it makes sense to us. We don't know the effects of things in the grand scheme of things.
"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."
First off, I do not follow a religious path, nor do I consider myself an Atheist. I just try to keep an open mind at all times.
Religion should be based on faith, not "belief". God does not physically exist (just like Santa Clause), and we can prove that he doesn't. He may exist in your "hearts" and "souls" to those that do follow a religious path. There is no need to "prove that wrong" because it is all simply metaphorical.
Darwin and George Washington most likely chose to become religious, which is perfectly fine (or they were born into it which usually messes everything up). If he was born into it, then he basically proved the modern "belief" of god false.
When something happens that cannot be explained (yet), people say god was responsible. Its true if you have faith in god, rather than believe of his physical existance.
IMO, religion was "founded" to give people a sense of where they came from, and also a way to blame (in good ways and bad) an action on their god.
Thats all I have to say for now, this probably doesn't make any sense, because I'm tired as hell.
For starters just because someone has religious beleifs doesnt make there way of beleiving a "Cult". However, the "rapture" beleif although popular in many christian religions has no basis in truth. There is no "biblical" evidence to support the beleif.
Ive found though it doesnt matter what I can prove from the bible to another religous person.
For the most part, they beleive what they WANT to beleive.
To correct you a bit on the highlighted text:
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 "Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have not hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 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. 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 idea of being "caught up" has been there all along. All dispensationalism did when they coined the phrase "The Rapture" (which simply means to be caught up) was to give it a place in the Biblical timeline (ie- placing it before the rise of the Antichrist during the events of Revelations). The "time" given was deduced, and I admit could be wrong, by the fact that the "church" is no longer mentioned after Revelations chapter 3.
There are more scriptures that allude or refer to the belief of being taken up, but those are the easiest to read and see where the belief is founded.
"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."