Christianity and the End Times

Despite my portents of a possible soon-coming Rapture I've certainly had in mind that I could be wrong about the timing, but when I read paranoid crazy stuff like this I have to admit I fervently wish it would happen as soon as possible and dispel such nonsense. If we're gone you can't blame us for the disasters that follow.How you get anything intentionally destructive out of our end times theology I don't know but I guess anything that vilifies us fundamentalists is possible these days. We're probably the only reason the world hasn't already self-destructed a long time ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is a very dangerous lie you keep repeating.

You exaggerate immensely even though the supposed force you are talking about isn't even Christianity but Roman Catholicism. And though you claim evidence you offer none, as usual. There is no genocide in anything you said anyway since no whole tribes or ethnic groups are involved. For the most part true Christian belief simply supplanted the witchcraft and other pagan religions that preceded it when former practitioners became Christians and rejected their old ways. That is generally true wherever Christianity goes, all over the world. Effacing the old religions is what the new believers do, the ones who practiced the old religion and came to recognize that it is demonic. Tribal religions are simply given up by those who learn the truth of Christianity, no force needed.

Whoever suppressed the Indians it wasn't Protestant Christians.And again you offer nothing but assertion, not a shred of evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's easy to get lost in this thread so maybe this has been discussed and I missed it, but I've been pondering these beasts of Revelation 13 and wondering what your view is. The beast from the sea is generally considered to be the Antichrist, and the beast from the land with the horns like a lamb I think the False Prophet.The beast from the sea has all the characteristics of the beasts of Daniel 7 rolled into one: the lion of Babylon, the bear of Medo-Persia and the leopard of Greece, and the beast itself that has all these characteristics must be the Great and Terrible fourth beast from which the little horn comes, which is usually understood to be the Roman Empire in the time of Christ's first coming. The symbolism in Daniel has the beasts being both empires and ultimately a man, represented by Nebuchadnezzar's statue in Daniel 2, to which the Israelites Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow although they were threated with death for their refusal, and God protected them miraculously.So that statue represents the Antichrist who will become a living reality during the Tribulation according to most interpreters. But the beast with horns like a lamb and a mouth that speaks like a dragon seems to be very much like the Little Horn or Daniel 7 which would make HIM the Antichrist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The reason to discuss the beast and Antichrist is so that those who go through the Tribulation will recognize better what's going on.But I'm OK with your not wanting to discuss it.

I don't remember that coming up but clearly it does refer to the Lord's ascension to the throne of God and not His descent to earth.

Where do you get such an idea? Recently I heard a former professor of English talk about her discovery of how sophisticated the Bible is as literature,k which she discovered when she decided to read it in order to debunk it. Instead she recognized that it is a "supernatural" work and it converted her to Christ...

C S Lewis also said somewhere something like how his knowledge of literature gives him the ability to tell that the Bible is not fiction.

The Bible was given to us as evidence. There is tons of witness evidence to communication between God and humanity. Tons and tons and tons and tons. Anyone who thinks the Bible could have been written as fiction has no ability to judge literature.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I watched the video Apollo 16 and end up thinking the crucial point is where the microphone was. That is, it must be in the spacesuit somehow, right? Since he's talking to someone or hearing from someone? If that's the case the mechanical sounds could be transmitted through the spacesuit and not through the "atmosphere" anyway. Or something like that. Not that I know exactly how that would work, just that if the microphone isn't outside then the sound isn't being transmitted to it across the vacuum/"atmosphere"/space anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've read through your post three or four times and fail to see anything in it that pertains to recording sounds on the moon. What am I missing?

All jaywill was talking about was the accusation that religious people will believe anything. Your remark just confuses the point.

Oh nonsense, Phat. Christians don't think that way. Jaywill simply thinks that the presence of sound where there is no atmosphere to transmit it calls the standard explanation into question. He's probably too ready to be suspicious when he should be looking for other explanations but he does have some evidence to base it on.