|
Post by Colliohn on Apr 18, 2004 20:26:13 GMT -5
lol... but of course you're right, Joel. Absolutes always hold, no matter what. Always. Nothing will ever threaten your views of absolute right and wrong, ever in your entire life or the lives of others who hold the same beliefs. Be content in the fact that you are completely right and you know better than the majority of people who have lived before you and are living now. In fact, I might as well convert to Christianity now, because my beliefs are so far out in left field that they're tailgating in the parking lot of some other baseball field. I mean... anyone like me who actually goes on things like facts and the real world to set up a belief system on his own is obviously flawed compared to someone such as yourself who conforms to hundreds of thousands of other people who follow a book written a few thousand years ago, espcially one like you who picks and chooses seemingly arbitrarily from this book (in essence distilling and filtering your "god's" words).
I bow down to you, Almighty Joel who knows absolute right and wrong, master of the Heavens and the Earth who knows better than billions of other lesser mortals.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Apr 20, 2004 12:46:53 GMT -5
....i enjoyed your irony in that.
i think you should seek out the truth but i think you should also realise that science is flawed and will not always be true. However, I am a human being and i am flawed so i will also be wrong at times, maybe more then not. Im here to debate this issue and im telling you what i believe. I was invited to this forum and i am often told to go check things out on it. You want me here or not? If you do not and if this a waste of time then ill leave.
I dont understand where this is coming from i didnt claim to be right 100% of the time i was just defending my view like you do all the time.
I am not saying we should hug a mad man holding a gun, there are many ways to love someone without hugging them.
And just to let you know i am exploring this idea of relatives. I think there must be relatives. I try to argue this with some christian friends but get shot in the face for it. Isnt the direction up relative? Isnt it relative as to your point on the globe?
Anyway Id like you to explain to me where and when I "picks and chooses seemingly arbitrarily from this book" There a reason i pick and choose verses, because when i do that its simple and it answers questiosn you have. If you would prefer, ever time you ask a question ill throw a bible at youi and tell you to read the entire thing and find the answer for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Apr 20, 2004 21:11:01 GMT -5
I apologize, I may have went overboard with my sarcasm. I was frustrated with your insistence of absolute right and wrong, but am glad to see you are open to the possibility (or at least pondering the possibility) that such things are relative.
About the science: If you told me right now, with proof to back you up, that all modern science was completely wrong, and the proof was verified, I'd have no trouble rethinking what I know the universe to fit the new data. Ask any scientist, and they will readily admit that everything they know about the universe and their field could be totally bogus, but they continue working because they know that as of right now, science has the best explanation for the universe. Not the right one, just the currently best one.
Science is inherently flawed, because the scientific method merely removes the incorrect ideas and the ones left are assumed to be the correct ones. This is a good method for the most science, but sometimes it doesn't work.
The picking and choosing reference was mainly with your stance on gays and other similar issues that you use the old testament to back you up, with little if any new testament also backing you up, while at the same time dismissing, say, the vast majority of Leviticus Law and such.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Apr 22, 2004 16:27:55 GMT -5
Because when Jesus came he got ride of all the laws that have to do with keeping the Jews set apart from the rest of the world. The entire book of galatians talks about this. Go read chapter 5 of Galatians and rethink that. Jesus changed the rules when he but the core values stayed the same. The New Testiment has a lot to say about the issue of homosexuality. EVERY SINGLE TIME it talks about marriage(which is in nearly every book) it talks about a male and a famale. And there are references to it( Tomans 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:9-11)
Many of the laws of leviticus are still in affect but some of the ones regarding to food have changed. The rules about going to God and the process to do it changed because Jesus was offering a personal relationship which was not available before.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Apr 22, 2004 21:00:09 GMT -5
Joel, we need one of those red phone 'hotline' things or whatever that the Premier of the USSR had to the President of the United States: it seems we're the only ones still arguing and it would be easier directly.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Apr 22, 2004 21:50:09 GMT -5
haha, i always wanted a red phone
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Jun 16, 2004 22:40:33 GMT -5
In response to the original question, It is impossible to know how close we are to the end times. However, certain prophesies will be fufilled leading up to the Lord's return. On prophesy fufilled in MODERN TIMES (to answer someone else's question) is the restoration of Israel.
Also, I believe that most of Revelation is literal actually. When the Bible speaks of the demon locusts who will torment the people of earth for five months but are not permitted to kill, a third of the moon, the sun, and the stars being struck and darkened, it is literal. That is the reality of the end times. Some will choose not to repent and have faith in Jesus Christ after seeing these things, yet others will. Those who see the two witnesses raised from the dead "were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven".
And to answer yet another person's question, the Lord could have chosen to place us all in Heaven and not have allowed suffering to occur on Earth, but he didn't. The reason for this is because He wanted to be glorified through showing His amazing grace and mercy. His glory is magnified through this.
If anyone has any questions about what's in this post, be sure to mention it so that I can respond.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Jun 17, 2004 3:19:35 GMT -5
And to answer yet another person's question, the Lord could have chosen to place us all in Heaven and not have allowed suffering to occur on Earth, but he didn't. The reason for this is because He wanted to be glorified through showing His amazing grace and mercy. His glory is magnified through this. So he not only allowed, but instigated all of the suffering and pain in our world to show off how 'great' he is? What an arrogant asshole. Thats all that can be said. We as a world go through unimaginabley painful things so that 'he can be glorified" and show his mercy? So he allows us to be mutilated and beaten to show his mercy. No. So he allows unbelieabley horrible happenings to occur so that he can be glorified? Your god's character cares more about himself than us. Further.. perfect beings do NOT need to be glorified in the first place.. unless of course he is an insecure prick who wants to see others bow to him and exclaim his greatness so that he can manage to tolerate himself. Your 'lord' does not exist. good day ;D
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Jun 18, 2004 21:29:16 GMT -5
So he not only allowed, but instigated all of the suffering and pain in our world to show off how 'great' he is? God allows suffering to occur at different times, but that does not mean that he instigates it. Look at the Book of Revelation, for example. The demon locusts out of the pit are just that: demons. They are satanic yet they will torture mankind for five months and not kill. The Lord would not permit them to do this before, but now he allows Satan and his demons to do some of what they wish to do to their slaves (that is, people who are still slaves to sin and not slaves to righteousness). It is actually quite ironic that these demons cause these non-christians to suffer so much that "...in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them" (Rev 9:6). Anyways, the point of this rant has been to demonstrate that just because God allows suffering to exist in certain cases does not mean that he causes the suffering. Oh, and by the way, John, my Lord does exist and He wants you to know Him personally ;D
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Jun 19, 2004 17:07:00 GMT -5
It is very interesting, John, that in labeling God as "arrogant" (and other expletives I will not mention) you say that
"Your god's character cares more about himself than us."
Now, this is quite interesting because I would consider it supremely arrogant that a mere human being, whose life-span is about 80 years and can be perhaps six feet tall or so, is telling the supreme being of the entire universe (light-years and light-years) that He is incredibly arrogant for not caring about him, the (by comparison) microscopic human.
In fact, it would be quite extraordinary for the divine omnipotent being to even care two-pence for such a creation... in contrast to the rest of His creation.
Why do you claim that He is arrogant?
We serve no "idea-God." We serve the real God, as real as you and I, and He loves, hurts, knows, hates, curses, enjoys, and blesses. He is the foundation of reality. He is the God who is there.
Will you learn to know him today? Jesus stands at the cross, the door is open.
"Come unto me, all you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest..."
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jun 21, 2004 19:19:33 GMT -5
I think everything was fulfilled by the death of the last apostle so Jesus could have returned 1900 years ago. In fact the apostles were eagerly wait for Christ to return because of the way Jesus speaks in matthew 24. The end of the book of John has a conversation which makes the disciples think He was going to return before the death of Peter. People have been saying "this is the season, Christs return is iminate," for thousands of years, just as much as people are saying it today.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Jul 30, 2004 14:27:37 GMT -5
I think everything was fulfilled by the death of the last apostle so Jesus could have returned 1900 years ago. In fact the apostles were eagerly wait for Christ to return because of the way Jesus speaks in matthew 24. The end of the book of John has a conversation which makes the disciples think He was going to return before the death of Peter. People have been saying "this is the season, Christs return is iminate," for thousands of years, just as much as people are saying it today. In hoping to revive this topic, I wanted to respond to this post. Joel, are you saying that everything in the Book of Revelation already occured before John died? If so, I've heard this view espoused before. It relies heavily that everything that happens in the Book of Revelation was symbolism for the sufferings of the Christians under the Romans. However, if this is the case, there are many inconsistencies to deal with. For example, Israel is a heavy focal point of Revelation (the 144,000 for example), unlike the Church. God clearly points out that just because He founded the Church, He is not finished with His people, Israel. Also, out of curiosity, Joel, what do you believe about the concept of the rapture? Oh, and lastly, at the end of the Gospel according to John (Chapter 21), the disciples did not believe that the Lord would come back before Peter's death, since Peter's death is signified in verse 18 (crucifixion). Instead, Jesus tells Peter (concerning John) that "If I want him to remain unil I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!". In verse 23, John explains that some of the Christians believed that John would not die, but he clearly corrects them in the same verse.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jul 30, 2004 20:37:34 GMT -5
Yeah, you are right it is John, not Peter. But still the point is the rumor spread that Jesus would return before Peter died. This is understandable because of what Jesus says. He pretty much tells them "yeah whats it to you if i want to return before he dies."
I believe that most of the things in the book of revelations is literal. Reguarding the Tribulation I hold the Futurist view. I wont be so naize as most evangelical christians are to say that the rapture is limited to happening before the tribulation. I think there is just as much evidence that the ra pture could take place shortly into the begining of the tribulation. I believe in a literal battle of Armageddon and a literal antichrist and all that good stuff. I also belive in the premillennial view point. thats my end times beliefe in a nut shell. I also want to say that i am probably wrong and so are you andf so is every single person who has ever tried to figure out the book of revelations.
I believe that all the stuff was fullfilled that needed to be fullfilled for Jesus to return before the generation he preached to past away. I get this from Matthew 24:34. people always try to tell me that Israel has to be a nation for Jesus to return. Whatever. Jesus is not limited to Israel being a nation or not. People say this because there has to be a peace treaty with Israel. Well that peace treaty could resolve an issue giving the people of former Israel a plot of land and making thme a nation again. Although I still think it was an act of God to have 650,000 well trained arab troops fight and lose to 45,000 jews
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Aug 14, 2004 23:46:26 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that the belief that the rapture will happen before the tribulation is "naive", as you put it Joel. The rapture is something that will happen, and it is discussed in several parts of the Bible, something I think we both agree on. I believe the best defense for a pre-trib rapture is found in Revelation 3:10 which says "Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." This is Jesus speaking to the believers in Philadelphia. It seems to point to a pre-trip rapture in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Aug 15, 2004 23:54:06 GMT -5
What I ment by saying that is I think that a lot of people believe in the rapture before the tribulation because they do not want to have to think about goinging through any suffering on earth. It is much easier to think that God will rescue us from bad stuff. I do not want to trick myself into thinking that the rapture will happen before the trib because if i am wrong and the tribulation begins and i am still on earth then my hopes will be crushed, im just trying to keep an open mind on this subject, which needs to be done when studying end times. Yes I think it is likely we will be saved from a lot of the suffering on earth but not necessarily all the suffering. The rapture could happen 2 weeks into the tribulation and still satisfy that verse that you quoted. If you read Revelations 2:10, 22 Jesus tells the churches to be patient through tribulations, as to what this exactly means i am unsure. Matthew 24:21-22 is Jesus telling his disciples that in the end times the days will be cut short for the sake of the elect. Jesus does not say that they will be gone before the tribulation he implys that it will be shortened. There are a few other arguments but just as the ones above, they are debatable. Prophecy about the end times in never very clear so it really is important to realize we could all be wrong about everything.
|
|