Thanks. No real need to dig anything up, but it's good to know one isn't as confused as some here would have the forum believe.

 

Of course it can - you're making the rules up as you go along!

 

so you don't respect them for following "the word of god"

a simple question?

 

The question assumes that they are following the word of God. Now, as somebody that believes Jesus Christ is God incarnate (Muslims do not believe this) I do not accept the premise that they are following the "word of God". I think they think they're following the word of Allah as taught by Mohammad, a historical figure who I've rationally and logically concluded to be a false prophet. I understand Islam, but think Muslims have been deceived and I regularly pray for them.

 

cool, so you invoke "dingdongler's paradox"

 

And this kids is the point where debates around religion get scary/dangerous.

 

Yep. Would you say that Jesus Christ was better than Satan? Who would you rather have babysit, a committed Christian or a theistic Satanist? I'm not a relativist you see, Hodgy, I subscribe to the notion of a moral absolute. If somebody says that I think my God's better than some other god I say yes! Of course! Otherwise I'd bend my knee to the latter!

 

And this word of God? It doesn't happen to be made up by some rather influential men 2000 years ago does it? I'm curious as to what mankind did before the year 0? All those poor bu99ers going to Hell (or wherever) because a "God" they didn't know existed, judged them for not forgiving all their "sins" even though they didn't know what sin was.

And since the arrival of "Jesus" man appears to have turned into MUCH more of a deranged psychopath - huge wars, mass genocides, the invention of weapons, torture and of course the nuclear bomb. If we were all "saved" we didn't exactly fulfil the legacy very well.

 

we are not saved - that's JT's whole point Mattee

 

According to 2 Corinthians 4:4 (and other tracts) Satan is the god of this world, as evidenced by your post.

https://www.scoobynet.com/1026662-st...l#post11707393

 

the "forum" - jeez

sorry you speak for yourself

let everyone else speak for themselves

 

JT

can we address the "end of days"

obviously try and use you own words if possible - rather than simply link to a section in the bible

but happy to have a link as well

 

Bloomin' 'eck! There are entire libraries dedicated to eschatology and on some of the major themes I'm undecided. I'm taking my lady to The Pickled Radish tonight for her birthday so may not respond today. We'll see.

 

k, for a minute I read that as "libraries devoted to Scatology" - which would puts us in a whole new world!!!!

undecided?, but what does the Lord/Jesus say - is there wriggle room on this then

seems quite important neigh fundamental to me

 

This is not an attack or sleight James but it seems obfuscation plays a huge part in your explanations.

 

I couldn't agree more. If anyone else other than yourself is struggling with the meaning of the phrase 'to have someone believe something', they should jolly well speak up and request an explanation.

 

According to Paul Benware, there are four main interpretive approaches to the book of Revelation: 1) preterist (which sees all or most of the events in Revelation as having already occurred by the end of the 1st century); 2) historicist (which sees Revelation as a survey of church history from apostolic times to the present); 3) idealist (which sees Revelation as a depiction of the struggle between good and evil); 4) futurist (which sees Revelation as prophecy of events to come).

I think I'm an 'idealist' which, in addition to the above, sees Revelation as spiritual, allegorical and nonliteral. The reason I'm slightly hesitant is that in the same way an allegorical approach to Gen. 1-3 can lead to stumbling blocks, the same can be said for Revelation. For example the notion that the elect will be raised bodily to meet with Christ is for me symbolic, but actually to deny it literally may lead one to question the literal resurrection of Jesus in which I do believe.

It's such a massive discussion point I'd be grateful if you could break down the questions in to manageable chunks for me. Maybe we could start with the Tribulation or the Second Coming or the Antichrist.

 

I may have to look into the book of revelation to know what I am dealing with here

 

Toughest book in the Bible!

 

What are you struggling with, Maz? I'll try and tidy it up a bit.

 

the endings often are

 

I don't wish to trivialise the subject but it's akin to an episode of Red Dwarf I saw. It was the one where Kryten was about to be replaced by a superior android. Kryten's ploy to destroy the new android was to tell it that silicon heaven (the place where all defunct electrics go) didn't exist. This information was enough to cause the new android to self destruct. It couldn't cope with the notion that there was no silicon heaven. I suppose in some way people need the same reassurance for post death.
Is religious belief a mechanism to cope with the inevitable mortality of our existence?

 

It's a central theme within the Christian tradition for sure. Christ's resurrection affords the promise that the fear of death and indeed death itself can be overcome. 1 Corinthians 15:55 says "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" Since my conversion I have no fear of death, I believe Christ's promise.

 

Seriously.

None of us will be rising from anything, you die and get eaten or burned, so you're either **** or ashes. Simples.

All this promise of a life after death that is somehow better than life it's self, have people not noticed how it always contains the things you're not supposed to lust after, a bag of virgins and all the wine you can drink.

Been there done that, so does that make me an angle then.

 

Yes, an obtuse one.

 

Oh the irony.

 

Sorry, John, missed this. Take a look at Romans 6:1-7 as well as Romans 3:7-9, Jude 1:4 and Luke 7:36-50.

Happy to take questions.

 

LOL! Never knew that there's a category for obtuse angels.

 

He might be a cute one, I can't be sure.

 

What he's trying to suggest is that I'm not particularly intelligent, which is one of the definitions, and I concede if intelligence is being measured by ones ability to quote philosophers and their musings, rather than actually possessing or coming up with any original or independent thoughts of your own.