I thought that I would share a prayer I said in the event that May 21st is in fact the day of the rapture:
Dear God, I would like to make a confession. Every bad thing that I have said about my wife over the past year is untrue, it has all been a big lie. I have made the whole thing up. All the times I have asked you to strike her or her mother with a bolt of lighting was totally unjustified. I was wrong. I have also occasionally used your name in vain. In summary, I am a bad person and not worthy of spending eternity with my wife in heaven. My wife, on the other hand, has always been a devout Christian and a shining example (her words) of how I should live my life. I humbly request that if the rapture is on May 21st that you take her in my place because she is so much more deserving than me. Amen
PS - I'll let go ahead and let you know now that she is NOT a morning person.
i dont believe in the rapture that is promoted in christian circles via the media/books/churches as its been called for (or has
occurred since the 1800's, if not earlier ) many yrs in my
long/short christian life.
there may be evidence that hasnt been accurately seen/interpreted from the scriptures yet but, as i see it the cons outweigh the pros of it even being true.
i could be wrong. but if so then.......kewwwwwwl !
for obviously, there is NOTHING GOD cant do, other than
deny himself, as i understand it.
My church is big on the Rapture, I recall a time my Preacher accually mentioned years in 20__ (in the teens) he believed it might happen, but he is against dates, thankfully or I would feel he is a total quack.
I do not believe in this at all. I often think to myself --who are we dear Christian Americans that THINK we are going to get out of all the chaos, the pain & suffering while some of these other countries, their suffering christians have been enslaved, persecuted, locked up, gagged & killed for their beliefs, that somehow God is going to spare US, the Great USA , we are the most spoiled nation on the face of the globe.
If there even was such a concept, I totally expect US to have to go through some serious pain, hellish anquish so we can become Humble again - before Jesus spares US.
I hardly feel the Church is ready in this country, by judging what we see on the American Television every time we turn a christian channel on, all the talk of prosperity & more prosperity in this land of abundance. Shame shame.
I find it very egotistical for american evangelicals to feel they will be spared, taken up in the clouds.
I am also out of touch, have no idea who is broadcasting this coming end of the world -need to google, he will be made a fool of if he gave dates.
The Witnesses are preaching very hard now. They keep on saying that the world is about to end, and they are going to live in paradise, they are waiting anxiously for THIS DAY. And if we don't believe and turn to them to seek refuge, we are like people from Noah's age.
I am so tired of this kind of..........................., and I have to deal with it often, I have to listen to it often.
That's why I am so in favor of Buddhism, it doesn't curse, it doesn't condemn, it only helps us to refine our personalities.
The ironic thing for me here is: I am using Buddhism to deal with Witnesses!
Winner winner chicken dinner - if you guessed sarcasm then you win the prize. I was just thinking what if...
I used to be an agnostic of varying degrees of being close to believeing, but the last couple years have really caused me to see everything differently. I am having somewhat of an ephiny of sorts. I have become completely blown away by educated adults who believe in God. I don't argue with them or challenge them, but it is so surreal to think that they believe in supernatural dieties who can read their mind and then either reward or punish them based on what they think. It's like I woke up in a new place and now see everyone differently. I mentioned something being "bad karma" the other day and was chastised by someone who adamantly expressed to me that there was no such thing as karma. If this person had a total dis-belief in anything supernatural I could have accepted that, but he was a Christian. He believes in one super natural being but ridicules anyone you believes in any others. Another guy, also a Christian, looked at it and rolled his eyes when I talked water dowsers. I don't know if they are legit or not but he blew me away with how arrogant and condensending he was towards me, but he is the one that believes in mythology. Wow, just wow. I'm starting to think we are still in the bronze age. Posted via Mobile Device
I hardly feel the Church is ready in this country, by judging what we see on the American Television every time we turn a christian channel on, all the talk of prosperity & more prosperity in this land of abundance. Shame shame.
Will it ever be ready? I say not. Christianity is on the decline and will eventually (100-200 years from now?) be just another obscure religion. I don't think it was ever meant to exist in the first place. Jesus didn't come to create a new religion. In fact, there was a lot of disagreement the first 300 years about who/what Jesus really was and what message people should get from his teachings. It wasn't until the Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity that it was decided who Jesus was, what Jesus was, which of the 80 gospels were to be canonized into the bible, etc. At that point all other teachings and all other beliefs about Jesus were declared heresy. I'm not so sure they chose the correct path when they excluded all others that some Christian were following at the time. It has always been a lost religion in my opinion - always splintering into smaller and smaller and more exclusive groups all the time. It's a conglomeration of religions all repackaged into a new product. It has always been a merge of something new with something old, having a lot of prior Pagan practices and beliefs woven into it from the beginning. In the 7th century Pope Gregory I declared that the church would accept nearly all of the Pagan customs and practices and fold them into the customs of Christianity. They did this to compete with the other more popular religions of the day. I question whether the path chosen at the time was the correct one. 80% of the new testament was written by Paul, who never even met Jesus. Its not even know if the four gospels were even written by anyone who ever saw Jesus, yet writings by the brother of Jesus (which are radically different than the four gospels) was discarded because it didn't fit in. I question all of it.
I question whether the path chosen at the time was the correct one. 80% of the new testament was written by Paul, who never even met Jesus.
This kind of goofiness is just not worth a lot of time or attention.
Normally I stay out of these discussions, because the irrationality of the objections to Christianity always amazes me, and I have better things to do on this site than point out the abject failures of the objections. I have no intention of getting into this discussion either, other than to point out how weak this "argument" really is:
Paul DID talk meet Jesus, according to the Scriptures.
Now the objection is that this is 'made up' - but the real objection is that this could not have possibly happened. Another claim is made that Paul wrote 80% of the new testament - but you cannot prove that even Paul existed, which means that the '80%' could also be a false statement. Why make one claim, thinking it is true - and reject the other?
The refutation to this is epistemological: "how do you know this was impossible?"
The problem is that anyone who makes this objection can't even tell if they are dreaming this all or not! They have NO knowledge of reality in the first place. Even relying on the senses proves nothing: that could be a dream as well.
Hence, the issue is that in order to refute Scripture, you have to prove 1) that you exist at all, and 2) that it is possible for you to know such things.
If you can prove that you know anything at all, then the debate on how true Scripture is can continue. But again, that's the key - proof is a function of logic, and is found by offering a syllogism, the conclusion of which must of necessity be true. And this is dependent upon the truth of the proposition of which the syllogism is constructed.
So, lay out a syllogism of TRUE propositions (including proofs that they are true, rather than opinion) in which the conclusion shows that the Scripture cannot be true.
Then we can think about the objections to the rest. That's because if you can't prove that you know anything, then any arguments you state are simply opinion, without foundation, and are both useless and irrelevant.
Jesus didn't come to create a new religion. In fact, there was a lot of disagreement the first 300 years about who/what Jesus really was and what message people should get from his teachings. It wasn't until the Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity that it was decided who Jesus was, what Jesus was, which of the 80 gospels were to be canonized into the bible, etc. At that point all other teachings and all other beliefs about Jesus were declared heresy. I'm not so sure they chose the correct path when they excluded all others that some Christian were following at the time.
The Council of Nicea in 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God" (Bishop Alexander won over Arius)....the Council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," and " the Council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God."
Now if all of what these particular Authors are espousing is blatent LIES to damage christianity, that is one thing, but IF there is truth to these historical claims, I personally can not see how anyone can be so SURE of what is absolute Truth & what is not.
Not having had a personal visit from the Lord himself, if he judges me & condemns me to hell for questioning, well, I think that would be a travesty of justice, beings he gave me my mind & expects me to use it.
Further explanation of what you are talking about - Pauline Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There ARE many christians who feel this way, you are not alone Mike. When it comes down to it, I think we all see what we want to see- what makes sense to US personally. Going against that is not even rational, and if we did with the words of our mouth, God would KNOW it anyway!
Some, like Tanelonpete, possess MORE FAITH in the earlier writers than others. Maybe he is more blessed than us. As for me, I have too many issues with scripture. I do not look at it as a historical document or find the writers infallable. Been there, tried to walk that walk, I don’t feel I was a better human being back then for putting my cerebral brain into the sand -as my Pastor encouraged me to do.
Quote:
80% of the new testament was written by Paul, who never even met Jesus. Its not even know if the four gospels were even written by anyone who ever saw Jesus, yet writings by the brother of Jesus (which are radically different than the four gospels) was discarded because it didn't fit in. I question all of it.
There are authors who believe James & Paul was in opposition of each other. I personally fall into this camp of thinking. I lean much heavier towards the humble teachings of James. (Martin Luther wanted to throw that book out of the Bible!) A book I have on my wish list here : http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Words-Ap.../dp/0741429659
I have a problem with someone getting all of their REVELATION after the fact through visions on a road to Damascus, when he never walked, ate , sat at his feet listening to his parables & slept among this Jesus himself. Paul, for me, is a step above a Joseph Smith, highly questionable.
This kind of goofiness is just not worth a lot of time or attention.
Normally I stay out of these discussions, because the irrationality of the objections to Christianity always amazes me, and I have better things to do on this site than point out the abject failures of the objections. I have no intention of getting into this discussion either, other than to point out how weak this "argument" really is:
Paul DID talk meet Jesus, according to the Scriptures.
Now the objection is that this is 'made up' - but the real objection is that this could not have possibly happened. Another claim is made that Paul wrote 80% of the new testament - but you cannot prove that even Paul existed, which means that the '80%' could also be a false statement. Why make one claim, thinking it is true - and reject the other?
The refutation to this is epistemological: "how do you know this was impossible?"
The problem is that anyone who makes this objection can't even tell if they are dreaming this all or not! They have NO knowledge of reality in the first place. Even relying on the senses proves nothing: that could be a dream as well.
Hence, the issue is that in order to refute Scripture, you have to prove 1) that you exist at all, and 2) that it is possible for you to know such things.
If you can prove that you know anything at all, then the debate on how true Scripture is can continue. But again, that's the key - proof is a function of logic, and is found by offering a syllogism, the conclusion of which must of necessity be true. And this is dependent upon the truth of the proposition of which the syllogism is constructed.
So, lay out a syllogism of TRUE propositions (including proofs that they are true, rather than opinion) in which the conclusion shows that the Scripture cannot be true.
Then we can think about the objections to the rest. That's because if you can't prove that you know anything, then any arguments you state are simply opinion, without foundation, and are both useless and irrelevant.
So what you are saying, in essence, is that I have to first prove that I exist and then I have to have been there to witness all of the events take place in order to be qualified to even be able to debate the subject?????
So what you are saying, in essence, is that I have to first prove that I exist and then I have to have been there to witness all of the events take place in order to be qualified to even be able to debate the subject?????
In a sense, yes, at least proving that you exist. As far as you can know, everything is a dream, and none of this is real. Can you prove otherwise? As for having to have been there - that is entirely dependent upon your particular epistemology. Does it require the use of the senses? Or does it derive knowledge from some other source?
Unless you can prove that what you claim is true, unless you can prove (again, a logical process) that the reasons for why you claim phenomena such as revelation, or the existence of God are impossible, then all that you are expressing is simply an opinion, not fact, and as such, it is no more, nor any less relevant than any other opinion.
Since opinion and knowledge are not the same thing (opinion can be true or false, knowledge is always true) what is relevant is knowledge. Hence - prove that what you think is true, and the debate is valid. I imagine that you would agree that debating over opinion is a waste of time, and irrelevant! You are entitled to your opinion, I, mine. What is relevant is truth!
The Rapture 
Re: The Rapture 
not] 
