Fullfilled Bible prophecy

Where to begin with this. I cannot tell you how offensive this post is. The attacks of 9/11 are a dirct result of homosexual marriage? I mean it fits the character of the OT god, kill 4,000 innocents to punish the guilty, but I don't buy it.So because two people who love eac hother wish to have their relationship given equal status under the law God removed some protective blanket and allowed terrorists to attack US soil for the first time. So, responsibility for the attacks is in no way connected to the millions of dollars and extensive training in explosives and guerrila warfare given to Al-Queda by good Christians in our own governenment to stop the evil satanic USSR from holding Afghanistan? (I am not a conspiracist, but I do believe that many cold-war policies are coming home to bite our asses).And this absolutely meaningless point about declining morality in modern times. At the very least it is extremely Anglocentric. These changes Christians like to talk about concern only a small fraction of the world's population. Outside of that the entire idea is without support. The idyllic times people like to reminisce about simply never happened. This idea that for 200 years the United States was a unified Christain utopia is completely BS (I have this argument with a family member quite often).150 years ago I could own another human being. I could torture, beat, even kill that human being with little or no consequence. I would face stronger penalties for beating my horse. My neighbor, who didn't believe in owning human beings, had to keep his mouth shut lest me and my friends string him up before going to church. This system was enforced by law. Many church leaders spoke of the great immorality of abolitionism (I am not ignoring the incredible and brave church leaders in the abolition movement). These same denominational leaders are making the same threats about gay rights.So maybe you strongly disagree with this, Lysimachus, but would consider myself to be a thousandfold more moral human being supporting a society where homosexuals have the right to marry than to live in a society where 20% of the population were legally less than animals.As for the other areas of declining morality (these are arguments countering my relative):abortion: considered in the 1890's to be a protestant woman's right in opposition to Catholicismdrug use: cocaine, morphine and heroin addictions were rampant in the early part of the 20th centurycrime: inner-city gangs and crime were a major problem in the 1920's. Chicago murder capitol of the world.homosexuality: rate today same as estimated by Havelock Ellis in the 1930's. 1910-1920's saw the first US rise in 'lesbian and gay chic' with silent film stars all but openly admitting homosexual dalliances.pornography: I personally own a collection of Victorian era to 1920's erotic literature that takes up two 1.5 meter bookshelves and I own a fraction of what is out there. What are "blue-movies" and "stag-films"?So, by the standards of Christianity it would appear that the first decades of the 20th century were as bad if not worse (remember, they had Jim Crow laws)
by supposed Christian standards. I am, of course, refering to literalists and the like. I believe that most Christians aren't waiting for fire and brimstone to rain from the sky.And while I'm on my soapbox, I want to point out my frustration about treating 9/11 as if it were one of the first terrorist attacks (admittedly the largest and most devastating). For most of the last century it was commonplace for African-American churches in the south to be bombed, burned, or otherwise destroyed. The goal was to make the black popualtion afraid to leave their homes, maybe even to leave altogether. Isn't that terrorism? Pipe bomb in a free-clinic? Attempting to use terror to keep people from frequenting such clinics. Just seems to me that terror is terror, whether it be from overseas or domestic.

Lysimachus wrote: There are significant possibility of error, that's why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. That's why there are thousands more faiths other than Christianity. In considering wether you are in error you also have to be honest enough to consider whether your Christian interpretation is in error and indeed if Christianity itself is in error. To determine the latter you HAVE to delve into not only other religions but also other belief systems that leaves God out of the picture.Forget about praying where you risk self deception. Forget about merely reading Christian apologetics where you risk being deceived by those with an agenda. Use your brain to determine whether you have been deceived. I did and I determined that Christians are being deceived by themselves and others.For me, the realisation of the deception started with Creationism. It is a complex topic, but it is a great place to start to begin to understand ther way Christianity (and religions in general) use a complex web of emotional persuasion and misinformation to obtain and retain converts. Of course there is nothing wrong for Christians to adpat. In the 21st Century unless you want your faith to be an absurd archaic enigma that no longer serves the needs of the people you can either evolve with the times (as the Catholic Church has done) or prove that youare right (which none of them have done). The history of the Christian church shows that it's interpretation of morals is far from immutable, and for the sake of modern society, it is just as well. Your American society did not even emobody the concept of sin into law when it was founded. You have two of the ten commandments reflected in law: killing and stealing. Most of the other "sins" are actually rights of the individual.The lowest moral points in history are those times when totalatarianisms reigned. Of course, the Bible itself preaches blind obedience to those in power.Today we have tolerance, freedom, universal suffrage, respect for human and animal rights, equality, international bodies formulated to protect these rights. Jump up and down all you like in your attempts to support your agenda of repressed sexuality. The rest of us can only hope that the day will never come that the likes of you drag us back into the morality of the Dark Ages. This false notion has been dealt with in this forum repeatedly. Do you own homework and try reading outside Christian apologetics. You might want to start by explaining how your constitution protects the rights of individuals to worship any God they like in direct contrast to the first commandment. Lithodid-Man dealt with this nutty notion well.Whilst I abhor violence, I do believe that America has brought some of the wrath of foreign radicals down upon itself due to it's reprehensible history of dealing with foreign affairs. I do not condone terrorism, but I do understand the notion that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's hard to fight clean when you are dramatically outgunned.I never understood the mentality of Muslim fanatics until the events of the last 3 years demonstrated that that mental state is common to any religion.Fanatics from one religion crash planes into buildings. Fanatics from another bomb and shoot civilians and torture prisoners.Religious tolerance is the key. Why aren't you guys just satisfied with your belief that you are right? Why hassle and kill others that hold different views? Surely those 144,000 places are all full up by now? Now your just making this stuff aren't you. Is this in the Bible or did you get it in a divine message?The rest of the world is telling America to wake up, but as long as some of you nutters believe you are on a mission from God, you wont listen. Where exactly, and how is this applicable to today as opposed to some other time in Christianity's history?I was lead astray by new ideas. Rightly so. The God that you conceive gave me a brain, why did he not expect me to use it? He gave me the courage to resist emotional temptation and blackmail, so why should I not be rewarded for showing it? He gave the ability to identify falsities, why should I be condemned for refusing them? Ok this little speil of unsubstantiated preaching is almost relevant to this thread. Given that the Bible has been incorrect with other prophecy, as demonstrated above, why should we take this, 2000 year overdue prophecy as correct (remember there hasn't been a Christian who ever lived who didn't believe that he was in the end times?)Every good religion has to have a good end time scenario. Why is yours any better?Let me get this right: This is the deity that creates man, throws in irresistable temptation, knowing that he would fall, knowing ultimately only 144,000 out of billions would ever be saved and the rest condemned to eternal damnation.This is not how any person would define love.Now let me finish with a little speil:What are you gambling with here? Most Christians commit their Sundays and one or two nights a week to their faith, over 10-20 years tithing equates to an investment property or the price of decent education for your children, you have to ostracise yourselves from non-believing friends, you can get totally emotionally screwed at any time when your leader goes off the handle which can do anything from tear your family apart (I've seen it happen in Australia), ruin you financially or even kill you (a la Jim Jones amd Koresh), and if you have a mortal soul you may lose that if you have chosen the wrong faith or the wrong Christian interpretation.What a price to pay. You better be checking the validity of your beliefs daily, and reading outside your faith's apologetcis. A wonderful, loving God would expect no less.Edited for typosThis message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-30-2004 12:07 AM

Willow wrote: Ok, ok, if legit, this is a valid point: I did miss this and I apologise. Using Mica 5:2 as the example, can you provide me with the text from the LXX showing that Matthew quoted correctly from it. Can you also show me how in the text of the LXX it unambiguously refers to Bethlehem as a city and not as a family clan. From a non-Christian perspective it looks manufactured. Matthew may have genuinely believed that he had found prophecy fulfilled.By including this link:
Not Found - Webflow HTML website template
I conceded that I have no basis for saying that Matthew intentionally lied. Surely these has to be a deliberate intention to deceive before one can be considered to be lying? Otherwise one is merely honestly mistaken.Why are we still arguing this? It is no skin off my chin whether Matthew made this stuff up deliberately or innocently. It's unconvincing on it's own merits independent of this point. Waffle I can. This is a hobby afterall, not a living.Intelligence doens't really factor into the equation. The initial conversion experience into religion is emoional and trancends intellect. What matters more is how one evaluates evidence and whether they hold beliefs immune to reason and investigation. Of course it does. Here we go playing the make up an alternate definition for a commonly used term game again:Christian:1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.Christian Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comAs you can see, what the person actually claims about their belief ("One who professes") is sufficient as is one's actions ("or follows", "or lives"). I'd say that by both their claims about their faith, or by their following the Christian religion or their Christian-like actions, that some members of the Jesus Seminar are indeed Christians. Disputing the following and actions is merely your opinion.(It is interesting to note that despite the obvious fact that the Bible is the principle source (as well as un-cannonised gospels) of the life and teachings of Jesus, an obsession with the book itself is not essential for being a Christian. This is where a lot of Christians go off the rails and become less Christ-like)The definition above puts you in the fellow Christian company of the Jesus Seminar Fellows, The Pope, Dr Scott, David Koresh, Torquemada, Jim Jones and Mother Teresa, to name a few. This is a purely unsubstantiated claim about over 200 educated, responsible, academically successful fellow Christians that you have probably never met. That's your particular interpretation of Christianity, and it stands on it's own merits. If one professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus or one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus, but one beleives that all of the Bible's supernatural claims are not literal, then one is still a Christian. Nothing in the definition requires a particular Biblical interpretation.The bottom line is fellow Christians, with more knowledge, understanding and honesty about the Bible and it's origins and varicity have declared that much of what you hold to be true, is not true. A frustrated wave of your hand does not dismiss this. It is time to re-assess what you hold to be true on matters in faith inlight of what we know by evidence and rational thinking.It need not lead you to abolish your faith. It doesn't for those Christians in the Jesus Seminar and for some Christians in this forum. If your faith can't absorb new understandings then it is nothing but mere dogma, and it is very, very likely wrong. Didn't the Bible get cannonised on the basis of a vote? This is probably the most liberal thing Christianity has done in it's history. It took another 1600 years until the Jesus Seminar included that same technique for determining the varacity of Bible claims.The technique of colored marble, while applied to the foggy discipline of history, is a brilliant approach. They have only a small core of accepted facts and then build upon them, as determine by the votes of colored balls, out to more tentaively held assumptions. Similar to science and is ceratinly better than having to adhere to the interpretational whims of one nutter at the top, no matter how respected that nutter might be. And your personal beliefs don't enter into your attempts at Biblical interpretation? And remember, some of them are Christians and in the same way some Christians accomodate evolution, you accomodate an old earth, they accomodate non-literal miracles. Believing in uproven and unsubstantiatied miracle claims is not essential for Christian belief.Back up your claims of dishonesty or retract them. Ok. What evidence would be sufficient to contradict a claim that you make? IMO you are often talked into logical corners in many of these threads yet you deny any threat to your faith. And it is not just on matters of Biblical interpretation, you crash and burn on historical claims, claims of fact and even of the definitions of terms. And of course you deal with the conclusions of the Bible scholars of the Jesus Seminar with a wave of your hand.What would be sufficient evidence to contradict a view that you hold? The testimony of an expert? A demonstration or the results of a test?Peer reviewed literature? Only Dr Scott's opinion? A revelation from God?You already presume that you are right, your book is inerrant, your prophet is true and your schitzophrenia messages from God.Give me an example of where you have conceded a point about your faith on this forum. Just one, or are you, in you opinion, always right like I presumed? The second sentence sounds like trying to prove macro-evolution to a creationist: they keep moving the goal posts until they require a fish to grow legs and crawl out of the water before their eyes.Your's is a valid question and, unlike mine, not too ambiguous.Remember I am up for miracle demonstrations and actively seek to see or experience them. That's why I particpate in religious conversion experiences.To be a miracle the event would have to be inexplicable to modern science and independently verifiable by other witnesses who's opinions I respected (because I am aware of the susceptability of the individual human mind to delusion).You know, something like the seas parting, all first borns dying, the sun darkening when it wasn't an eclipse or being able to put my hand in Jesus's spear wound. Nothing too challenging for God!Vague and silly claims about Bible codes, pryramidology, answered prayer, and faith healing don't cut it. This answers your question above: because the writers didn't think they were making false prophecies, amoungst numerous other reasons. Here's a couple: what about Yahweh's failed land pronise? Even the Bible itself admits this failed to come to pass. What about Tyre?No Bible-version/Greek/Aramaic translation chicanery allowed. Not necessarily: they still believe Christ to be the messiah and God to exist. That doesn't pass muster with my atheist world view. Ok, you may well trump me here as I am no Bible scholar.But let's try this for starters. Do you refer to non-cannonised for gospels for assistance in interpreting the Bible, and if not why not?

with the 'erudski' (erudite on certain subjects) I am informed that speaking with vigor is good, making sure facts are clear in head first, is better. I'm told that Tyre as it once was, is no more and never will be again. It must have been truly something. Sorry for being a dip.

Yup, it was rebuilt, many times, but never again to what it once was. In fact, they dug deep, dug hard, dug long to find what was left of its glorious past.
So, as it once was, it is no more, whether it will be again is up to you.

look into it a bit more, and have answered my mistake.
Everyone lies when they feel like it, Ned. Judging from your pic, I'd say you've had time to find that out. Me, too. I'm a Christian, but not an ismist. Meaning, churches scare me to death. Even those who say that Christ has 'sheep in many flocks', say it but don't practice it. Christ, who is no respecter of persons, has sheep in many flocks.

quote:

---

From a non-Christian perspective it looks manufactured. Matthew may have genuinely believed that he had found prophecy fulfilled.

---

Like I said, you only say this because it looks like stunning prophecy fulfillment.

quote:

---

Intelligence doens't really factor into the equation.

---

Intelligence always matters, and you know this.You are really saying that christianity doesn't take much brains. An insult like this has no bearing on evidence and it only compliments your opponents because to have to resort to subtle name calling reveals you are out of intelligent things to say.

quote:

---

Christian:

​

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

---

Your defintion of "christian" is typically defective, originating from sources who are not christians.A christian is a person who has the indwelt Spirit of the Resurrected Christ. This indwelling only manifests when an act of faith upon God's word is commensed and continued. The result of this faith is a literal miracle relationship with Jesus Himself. (John 14:21/Galatians 2:20)

quote:

---

The bottom line is fellow Christians, with more knowledge, understanding and honesty about the Bible and it's origins and varicity have declared that much of what you hold to be true, is not true. A frustrated wave of your hand does not dismiss this. It is time to re-assess what you hold to be true on matters in faith inlight of what we know by evidence and rational thinking.

---

More straw man nonsense about "fellow christians" who do not exist.Your "God" is your defintion of "rational thinking" and this definition conveniently brands everyone who believes in the supernatural to be irrational.The people of "we know" in your statement are of course everyone of your defective God senseless condition.There are TWO and only two camps: Belief in the supernatural and no belief in the supernatural.You and your Jesus Seminar heroes are common atheists who do not believe in miracles. What is so unique about JS conclusions ? Atheists have made the same assertions about christianity for centuries ?Paul said "if Christ be not risen we are liars and our faith is vain".You can define "christian" any way you like and you have. The entire Catholic and Protestant and Eastern Orthodox church worlds base their faith on the literal Risen Christ.A small handful of church-hating "scholars" band together and call themself a euphemism/Jesus Seminar and CLAIM to be christians BUT make the same arguments as atheists and you are cumming all over yourself.Satan's answer to Dr. Scott is the "Jesus" Seminar, this is WHY they arbitrarily assert that the gospels were forgeries written by persons who forged the apostles/disciples names. This position is pure opinion that relies on the strength of the respect of their perceived reputable educational credentials. Dr. Scott, and others, have so thoroughly evidenced the claims of the Bible, all Satan can do is form a group of pseudo scholars and make an "invulnerable claim" about authorship.Laughing about Satan ?He is indigenous to Biblical claims as Jesus or Moses.I only bring him up to show you I am not afraid of anything taught in the Bible.The blatant dishonesty to use the name of Jesus and claim to be christian and then proceed to shit all over the Bible. How low atheists have stooped.I want to take a separate line here to say fellow EvC member Brian, an atheist, a person who completely disagrees with me, has my absolute respect and I do not lump him in with my condemnation of the atheists I am speaking about.

quote:

---

And your personal beliefs don't enter into your attempts at Biblical interpretation?

---

Everyones personal beliefs shape their conclusions. It is you that continually assert that atheists are immune from this.I am honest to admit it - you and the JS are not.

quote:

---

But let's try this for starters. Do you refer to non-cannonised for gospels for assistance in interpreting the Bible, and if not why not?

---

Yes, sometimes.

I obviously forgot who the hell I was debating for a minute, but now I know clearly from your post above...Willow wrote: What? Just because the word Bethlehem appears in Micah 5:2, (albeit in a completely different context referring to a family clan not a city), according to Matthew this prophecises the birth of Christ in Bethlehem???I've challenged you to back up your claim that it is an issue of Bible version by showing me Micah 5:2 from the LXXX. Until you do this, this particular prophecy claim is rebutted.Shall we move on to another? Sticking with Matthew, how about:"In another example, Matthew said that the purchase of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas cast back to the chief priests and elders fulfilled a prophecy made by Jeremiah: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me" (27:9-10). The only problem is that Jeremiah never wrote anything remotely similar to this, so how could this be a fulfillment of "that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet"? Some scholars have suggested that Matthew was quoting "loosely" a statement that was actually written by Zechariah (11:12-13) rather than Jeremiah. If this is true, then one can only wonder why a divinely inspired writer, being guided by the omniscient Holy Spirit, would have said Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. "Farrell Till Prophecy » Internet Infidels I stand by what I said. I would not be so absurd as to impugn the intellect of Christians.I personally know many individuals who are educated and very intelligent and are Christians. Their conversions to Christianity were often dramatic emotional conversions. Hence why I say, enlightenment transcends intellect. Faith is independent of intellect, and it resides in the emotional realm.Christians compartmentalise their mental processes so that their intellect and rational approach to their day to day life need not conflict with their religious life. When you talk to them you can easily identify this line and the grief in causes them when compelled to cross it.There is a classic line from Creationist Kurt Wise in a nasty book that I am presently reading called "In Six Days": "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of god seems to indicate".That is certainly a case of divorcing one's intellect from matters of faith, which leads me back to the questions I asked you: How would you know if you were ever wrong on matters of faith; what form would such evidence have to take? Arguably it would have to be something from your prophet or a personal message from God. You'd better have great faith in those sources because of the gamble I outlined in my post to Lysimachus above. What a gamble this faith thing is.Even when all the evidence of the world intellectually compells you to reject or modify your faith, you still cling to your faith un-revised.And, of course historically, faith has been an atrocious method of gathering correct knowledge. You could well be smarter than I, but your knowledge gathering method is seriously flawed and is so far from the scientific method. I trust my life on my technique, and so do you when you hypocritically take for granted everything it offers you in modern society, like modern transport, medicine and this method of communication, and yet you reject scientific findings on evolution because it disagrees with something you hold on faith... I'm sorry, but you've repeatedly been shown that you cannot just make up your own definitions to suit. There has to be some sort of objective definition for "Christian", and a definition made up by all small sub-group of that faith to exclude all others that they disagree with, doesn't cut it.You already make up your own definition for "fundamentalist" and "religious" as well as make up new words. Feel free to label yourselves with any original term that you see fit, but objectively you will be Christians along with anyone else who professes a belief in Christ or follows his teachings. And this of course includes members of the Jesus Seminar. Who are you to judge whether any of the Jesus Seminar have this spirit or not? Some churches here in Australia say that essential evidence of the Holy Spirit is the ability to speak in tongues (Glossolalia). I can demonstrate glossolalia to the satisfaction of those Christians and I'm an atheist (which they don't know). Go figure.Niether the Bible quotes you gave above, or the objective definition of Christian require an adherence to any particular interpretation of the Bible. I don't think this is a correct use of claim of strawman argument. This is just merely a wave of your hand. When there is no basis or evidence for belief in something, such a belief is irrational.My present God(s), by the way, are Homer Simpson, PC Games, exercise buzz, house music, adrenalin rushes, and apricot danishes. Mmmmm apricot danishes. The people "we know" are those leading international Bible scholars, including Christians and that "God senseless" condition is that convulted, circular and illogical mental state Dr Scott conceived out of Romans to try to reject anyone who had been persuaded by the evidence of evolution.Do you homework, for God's sake, some of the members of the Jesus Seminar are ministers and pastors in Christian churches:Not Found - Webflow HTML website templateIt really irks you when Christians come to different conclusions than you: you either love to ignore the existence of Christians who accept evolution, or apply your "god sense removed" concept, or now when they differ to you on Biblical interpretation, you label them atheists! You really do love extremes, don't you? I'd hate to live in your intense world of black and white, good and evil. Does this flow from your religious view of the world? Have you lost the ability to percieve middle ground? There are, of course, those who reserve verdict on miracles, who are indifferent, unpersuaded, open to and unsure.It's just that we have absolutely no convincing evidence of what is an unambiguos miracle in all of history. They ceratinly aren't occuring today which just so happens to coincide with the time in history when we can apply scientific tests to such claims. Yea, and now some Christians are agreeing with those conclusions because they are probably correct. Delightful turn of phrase from your indwelt spirit. That aside, yes I am quite satisfied that some Christians are being more intellectually honest about Biblical scholarship and Biblical analysis. Our increasingly moral world has increased tolerance towards individuals who seek to verify the varacity of religious claims. We don't burn them anymore. More black amd white. Anything that disagrees with you is this Satanic conspiracy. I thought satan was the deceiver, so why do so many fundies love to distort the truth?I'm afraid that the scholarly weight of the Jesus Seminar trumps one Dr Scott. The Jesus Seminar is not the only body of Biblical scholars who argue that some of the gospels were, what you call, "forgeries" (or at least written by someone other than the name which was given to them: which is not an uncommon literary practice of the time). These arguments are based on very convincing historical textual analysis, not on emotive concerns that one's faith in the inerrancy of the Bible might be undermined.Dr Scott's claims are also trumped regularly in this forum. 'tis a silly concept. We're even on that one. Language. Some of Dr Scott's profanities are rubbing off on you.I've said it before, a belief in a particular interpretation is not fundamental to being a Christian. Do you worship God and Jesus or Dr Scott and the Bible? Thoroughly agree about Brian. I respect the Christians, Trixie and Jar, amoung others, on this forum. Of course I don't.Some personal beliefs are shaped by conclusions. My personal beliefs were an amorphous mass for many years. I set out to find religion and to find God. I already accepted that the scientific method was the best method for knowledge gathering, and that faith alone was not. I came to this conclusion based on the testable results of science and technology and comparing this to the myriad of beserk claims made by faith.I never excluded God. Science doesn't do that, but I fail to see why I couldn't apply the scientific method to religious claims. Unfortunately religion fails on all it's material claims and purely resides in the realms of faith. Even the mental and emotional processes behind faith have adequate scientific explainations.Atheists are rightly smug. They have the demonstrable evidence of science and technology to back up their rebuttal of religious claims. Religion fails material tests.Now my personal beliefs shape my conclusions: but I am honest enought to admit I can, and indeed seek, to be proven wrong. You do no such thing and dwell in the realms of blind adherence to dogma. Great. This is a first step away from worshipping a book for it's own sake.

I don't have time to answer everything that was addressed, since not only am I involved with a hundred other more important topics, but have a broken leg which I'm trying to take care of.First, let me say that nowhere did I say that there are only 144,000 who will be saved. There will be millions upon millions, "a great multitude" of people who will be saved. 144,000 will be the survivors at the end who will not experience death, that is all. The number 144,000 seems to be a lot if you ask me, since it is rare that you find any true sincere christians these days who are will to do what is right and follow their concience.Gilgamish, my beliefs are very unique from popular christianity. I believe that Protestantism will one day unite with Catholicism, as prophecied in Daniel and Revelation. A national Sunday Law will be instituded, intitiated by America, and then the rest of the nations will follow. At this point in time, it seems impossible. What will make this possible is that there will be increased catastrophes world wide--including hurricanes, tidle waves, earthquakes, and deadly storms. As the laws of nature begin to take sway to the point where humanity is incapable of handling them, religious leaders will appeal to congress to bring about religious laws so that "this nation will come back to God". The United States (the little lamb that eventually speaks as a dragon) will unite herself with the Papacy, and together will enforce a subtly enforce international Sunday Laws to which all nations will eventually come to accept. (it will be a law of concience, wherease we will not be able to buy or sell if we do not sign an agreement that Sunday is sacred, not necessarily that we have to attend church). This will be the final test for God's true people.Will the true Christian comprimise with a man-made law? Or will he uphold the Ten Commandments that the Seventh-Day (Saturday) is the Sabbath of which God said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.God's Law which was written in stone will be changed, and God's true Sabbath of which is the day that He rested in commemoration of His 7-day creation will be hammered upon. Man will attempt to change the Law of God, but it shall not happen. His faithful few will uphold the 10 commandments and not submit to the Papal powers.In order to understand more of what I believe concerning end-time prophecies, I recommend you read this booklet, "The Beast, The Dragon, and The Woman":http://www.nisbett.com/prophecy/bdw/beast_dragon_woman.htmThis study will also show that the prophecies of the 1260 days have come true to an EXACT fulfillment. I trust you will read the whole thing.

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

religious leaders will appeal to congress to bring about religious laws so that "this nation will come back to God".

---

The government of the US was never a christian government. In fact, one of our most guarded rights, freedom of religion, goes against one of the Ten Commandments ("have no other gods before me"). Our government is a government of men (non-gender specific), not a government of God. There is nothing to "come back" to by introducing religious laws that are percieved to have disappeared. Jesus fully realised this point in his teachings, telling his followers to follow man's law and to also follow his teachings.

quote:

---

Will the true Christian comprimise with a man-made law?

---

See above. A government has no right in interfering with religious practice. All people have to do is practice the Sabbath on the correct day whether it is ordained by the government or not.

Now that is funny.First, with all the changes to calendars over the years, what makes you think that what we call Sunday is not Saturday?Secondly, is your GOD such a little corner lounging pimpdaddy that you really think he would get bent out of shape because folk take Sunday off instead of Saturday?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here is a Catholic answer:http://cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/1260.htmIf I check an "authoritative history book" will I find that the 538 AD date definitively represents the end of the Ostrogoths or will I see a long war and resurgance under Totila, as Hall says ?And why should the 1796 date refer to the "end" of the reign ? If it meant the end of the Papal States then should not the creation of the Papal states be the start of the reign ? And why shoudl such a short-lived loss of power (the Papal States were restored in 1800) mark a clear end ? If the beginning of the reign refers to the theological authority granted by Justinian why does the end not refer to the Reformation and the loss of that authoprity over the Protestant churches ? Why do the start and end of the 1260 year "reign" seem to refer to different things ?Moreover why should a day in prophecy always refer to a year - even when it is not even given as a number of days ? Ezekiel 4:6 does not establish a general rule nor even refer directly to the use of days in prophecy. The days correspond to "years of iniquity" which are mostly past. Numbers 14:34 is not about the interpretation of prophecy either. It is the reverse of Ezekiel - it is 40 years of punishment based on the 40 days of spying. (The difference of course is that the command to Ezekiel is a symbolic punishment, applied to one man, while that of Numbers 14:34 is an actual punishment and applied to a people).And the interpretation of Daniel 7 is definitely questionable. Daniel 7:17 identifies the four Beasts as Kings, not Empires. And as for the Ten Horns and the little horns, they also make an appearance in Daniel 8, and there they definitely grow not in Western Europe but out of one of the Successor States to Alexander's Empire (Daniel 8:8-9, explained in 8:21-23). An identification of the 4th Beast with Alexander is this consistent with Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 - whereas the reading offered instead contradicts Daniel 7:17 and demands that the same imagery in Daniel 8 refers to different people entirely.How can you claim an EXACT fulfilment with so much uncertainty and so many arbitrary choices ?

quote:

---

I personally know many individuals who are educated and very intelligent and are Christians. Their conversions to Christianity were often dramatic emotional conversions. Hence why I say, enlightenment transcends intellect. Faith is independent of intellect, and it resides in the emotional realm.

---

I am in no way surprised to hear that an atheist believes that "faith is independant of intellect."You could not be anymore wrong about faith residing in the "emotional realm."By faith, when we drive our cars, we believe the cross traffic will stop at the red light, and that they will stay in their lanes. This means the driver is acting upon a belief (cars will stop/stay in lane), and this belief is sustained by confidence that opposing traffic will obey the rules.That is faith. It has an object (other people will do their part).By this definition and example EVERYONE has faith.God wants/demands the object of your faith to be a promise recorded in His word, and when a person makes a promise the object of their actions, belief, and confidence THEN He promises to manifest that promise and make it reality. The purpose of the Bible is to show mankind a source that contains one common denominator message: Good or bad whatever God says will come to pass. When it is ascertained that God will keep His word this is intended to supply the hearer/person with the BASIS to make God's word the object of their faith. When God's word becomes the object of faith the trusting one is assured forgiveness of sins and eternal life AND the hope of receiving the promise of whatever they are acting in faith for.Atheists are attaching themselves to persons who claim to be christians, persons who subscribe to secular worldviews while rubber stamping Jesus name and "teachings" onto it, do so while denying the content of the other 95% of the Bible. Very selective buthchery of Holy Writ in order to justify their clandestine atheist worldview.

quote:

---

How would you know if you were ever wrong on matters of faith; what form would such evidence have to take? Arguably it would have to be something from your prophet or a personal message from God. You'd better have great faith in those sources because of the gamble I outlined in my post to Lysimachus above. What a gamble this faith thing is.

---

There is no risk or gamble involved at all.What you do not understand is the fact that faith has continual results. Initially, when a person receives the born-again conversion experience, this experience was the product of faith directed at Jesus.Jesus responds to this faith and reveals Himself to the "faither".
When this happens they receive the product of their faith - Jesus Himself. He reveals Himself to them incontrovertibly by MIRACLE. When this happens you now know Jesus is alive and real and you have relationship with Him "in the Spirit".John 14:21 And I/Jesus will manifest myself to him. The context of this promise is the gospel which is the new way to relate to God: exclusively by faith.Atheists cannot understand this for the life of them. They invent explanations of delusions and hallucinations and what not. This is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance.Atheists would have everyone believe that tens of millions of people are self-deluded. This is the conclusion of insanity.Atheists make this conclusion because they cannot fathom a God to exist who does not want them. Therefore millions are crazy and a handful are sane.The point is that while faith is eternal (you might not recieve all the manifestation of your faith here and now), faith produces results, which is God changing reality in accordance to your faith.
The chief result of faith is the manifesting of Jesus to the individual in a incontrovertible AND miraculous way. When this happens, all risk and gamble has vanished. But it won't happen until a person comes to God ON HIS TERMS FIRST (the term of faith).

quote:

---

And, of course historically, faith has been an atrocious method of gathering correct knowledge.

---

I do not know what you are talking about here.

quote:

---

You could well be smarter than I, but your knowledge gathering method is seriously flawed and is so far from the scientific method. I trust my life on my technique

---

The theist method is not seriously flawed IF God exists and the Bible contains His word.The fatal defect in the scientific methodolgies is the appearance of Divine neutrality, which in reality is a hostile Divine exclusion.God only wants credit as the Creator, deny Him this (and they have) He removes the capacity to deduce His fingerprints in creation. Persons suffering this wrath cannot see the obvious: Intelligent Design. Romans pefectly explains this current God-hating scientific generation to be the product of His wrath of God sense removal.There is nothing wrong with knowledge and scientific advancement. God's wrath manifests when super smart people USE their intellect to make determinations about the Divine, specifically, that God is not the Creator. How does science contradict or disprove the God of Genesis ? Only when the filter of your worldview is operating.http://EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING -->EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING

quote:

---

Who are you to judge whether any of the Jesus Seminar have this spirit or not?

---

If you deny the Resurrection, then you are saying Jesus does not exist, and if He doesn't exist how could you possess His Spirit ?

quote:

---

Some churches here in Australia say that essential evidence of the Holy Spirit is the ability to speak in tongues (Glossolalia). I can demonstrate glossolalia to the satisfaction of those Christians and I'm an atheist (which they don't know). Go figure.

---

Most Pentecostal churches (worldwide) CLAIM the proof of the Sprirt to be the ability to speak in tongues. I have no doubt that you can "demonstrate" the glossolalia.Speaking in tongues IS NOT the acid proof that the Spirit dwells within.Speaking in tongues can be faked.Witch doctors can speak in tongues and perform mind disturbing miracles.The ONLY acid proof that the Spirit of God dwells within is the one activity that CANNOT be faked. I will only tell you if you ask.

quote:

---

Do you homework, for God's sake, some of the members of the Jesus Seminar are ministers and pastors in Christian churches:

---

I never denied this.They are all secular humanists with Jesus in their lips and Darwin in their heart. Christianity begins with a miracle claim and to deny this fact reveals you are a heretic. They could never make it with God (losers) and recieve the miracle of Jesus revealing Himself. Therefore, miracles don't exist because we could never get God to give us one.

quote:

---

More black amd white. Anything that disagrees with you is this Satanic conspiracy. I thought satan was the deceiver, so why do so many fundies love to distort the truth?

---

Answer: http://EvC Forum: WHAT GOD THINKS OF FUNDEMENTALISM -->EvC Forum: WHAT GOD THINKS OF FUNDEMENTALISM

quote:

---

Thoroughly agree about Brian. I respect the Christians, Trixie and Jar, amoung others, on this forum.

---

Funny you mention Jar and Trixie.I have zero respect for these pseudo-christians. I didn't even know Jar was one. If he is then he is gnostic/heretic.Gil:You are an atheist - so be it.I am a theist - so be it.I have enjoyed this debate with you nontheless.

Only an accident waiting to happen drives by faith. You might as well drive by Braille. There is no more room for Faith in driving than there is in Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i thought that's what those little bumps between the lanes were for...