Revelations, the End of the World, and other Fun Stuff.

[spartus]

To continue what was shaping up to be a very interesting (though entirely off-topic) conversation in a clean thread, I've pulled drk's comments (slightly abridged to remain topical) from there over here and added my own.

Spartus, you are quite knowledgeable and articulate. Nice post. You bring up some good points: why not just chuck it all, and give up all materialism, until I die or Jesus returns? I'm looking into that option. That is a tough one, but as you probably are familiar, it's asked of us. I'm not the best at it, YET.

Thanks for that. I am tremendously interested in all this, because it's important to the history (and future) of the world in ways that aren't always apparent from the surface. For instance, the Babylon/Baghdad connection actually makes the whole Iraq war seem marginally more sensible, as it does for the rock-solid and beyond-the-call-of-duty (I'd say maniacal) right-wing support of Israel. Google "Larry Franklin" and "AIPAC" to learn some fun stuff about that. This goes back to my initial point--it's fine to believe this stuff privately, but when you start basing foreign policy (with really, really big international ramifications) on little more than your belief in religious prophecy, this is a problem.

If I ever do go back to school, a few courses in history of religion and/or general religious studies would probably find their way into my courseload. The things we've done over the span of recorded human history in the name of religion--from human sacrifice to wars to inquistions to ritualistic physical mutilation to going to a special room on a particular day of the week to listen to a guy in a long robe talk in a language no one understands--totally fascinates me.

Anyway. You cottoned on to the meaning of my question precisely--why plan on anything beyond the next year or two if you're so very certain it's going to happen? The indelicate way to put it is just to ask you if you're planning for your retirement. But that's rude.

Your question on Satan's delayed imprisionment is, I think, simply answered this way: God's patient. He could end it all today, but He has his own timeframe. Remember, every day you get is another opportunity to make the right decision for your future. For all any of us know, He has a pre-conceived notion of how many souls He will create and allow to be tested on earth, and there are a few more to allow. And while Satan is not necessary for the testing conditions, he is sufficient.

Not "delayed imprisonment" so much as "continued existence". Why would an omnipotent being create an adversary it couldn't defeat? And if God could defeat the devil, why create him at all?

And the bit about creating souls and testing the world still strikes me like a 5 year-old with Tinkertoys, creating intricate worlds only to later play Godzilla and destroy it. Seems a bit, I dunno, self-defeating. What happens then? We all live in Heaven and sing popular Christian rock hits while sitting around a big campfire? Why not just do that from the beginning?

My statement regarding America is, of course, speculation on my part, but I do think that God uses countries for His ultimate purposes. If a country turns away, He can still use them (like Assyria or Egypt were used in antiquity), but the country will not necessarily get His blessings of prosperity. Not to be nutty/alarmist, but you can see a demonstration with the natural disasters recently. Whether God was behind that, I do not know, but all it would take would be a little nudge and our heretofore strong country could be neutralized on the world stage.

I do not think the "officiality" of a country's Christianity influences God; I think it more likely that He knows the hearts of its citizens.

Every day, I hear weird post-hoc justifications of deeply-seated beliefs, and I have to keep reminding myself "Correlation is not causality, correlation is not causality". There are many reasons for America's current position in the driver's seat of the world in economic and military terms, but most of them are boring and not are really germane to the discussion at hand. Christianity is not in that group of things. To tie one to the other is as farcical as tying rising global temperatures to the decreasing number of pirates.



Correlation is not causality. Can't say it enough.

You didn't take the Dobson bait. I was trying to point out that when Christians do get political, they are damned worse than when they stay out of world affairs. The only way they are appreciated is if they deny their faith and promote a popular liberal viewpoint, which is not going to happen. So it's tempting to say "why not sit back and watch it unravel?". It's more useful, though, to fight and suffer predjudice and persecution.

I don't see it that way at all. I'm assuming that when you cite a "popular liberal viewpoint", you're talking about the separation of church and state. There is nothing in keeping religion out of government that requires you to "deny your faith". At all.

It is, I have to say, a wonderfully-phrased talking point. It's perfectly-turned--technically true if looked at very narrowly, and sounds dark and scary, as if commandos are dropping out of black helicopters to steal your crucifixes by night. The only thing that can make you deny your faith is you. All I'm saying is that if rank-and-file believers need every person in the country to affirm it with them, that belief must not be very strong.

I'm all for keeping religion of any kind out of the public sphere. Not because I hate religion, freedom and the Fourth of July (as opponents of the separation seem to paint their enemies), but because religion is a private thing. I don't care what yours is, and mine isn't any of your business. Go to church on Sunday, say grace before meals, live according to what a very old book says is the right way to live and leave it at that.

This is getting unnecessarily long and I'm not sure I'm making the point I meant to make when I started, so I'll toss it back to you.

[chip anderson]

Sho glad I didn't live in 1620, must have been quite cold in the winter.

[drk]

I need to know: how do you make those little "quote windows" within a larger post?

[Spexvet]

I need to know: how do you make those little "quote windows" within a larger post?

what

do

you

mean

?

[QDO1]

I need to know: how do you make those little "quote windows" within a larger post?

type this in, but replace the brackets ( ) with the charactes [ ]

Boy does QDO1 look thirsty

(quote="whoever")
He really likes a pint of larger and def. red wine!
(/quote)

I promise to send QDO1 a crate of beer, and a case of wine

[drk]

Good questions, again.

Regarding a Christian's orientation to the future:

God allows for planning, as long as it's understood that your planning is to be easily superceded by God's will for your life. I plan as a neurotic think, but I don't often fulfill those plans. I have to roll with it, like all do. I attribute the drift to God's will, others to circumstance.

Also, Jesus says to worry about today, and not to worry about tomorrow. Doesn't sound very "self-managey" to me, but what the heck. The gist of it is do what you can do today, and each day will add up.

Jesus is very against saving up material wealth.

Yet Jesus himself did not know when the end of the age was, just God the Father. So, you can't just quit. You have to keep doing God's work in the meanwhile. You're not supposed to love this life, though, more than God.


Regarding God's creation of angels: Not much is revealed in this. But suffice it to say, God could destroy Satan with a mere word. He prefers to imprison him. Maybe He's against the permanent death penalty. Maybe He doesn't want to undo what He did regarding Satan's creation, because He doesn't make mistakes. You are getting to logical arguments, here, regarding God's nature. Just stipulate He is the ultimate in everything, and let your mind go crazy figuring that all out.

It is possible to suppose that God only wants to hang out with people who have chosen Him, isn't it? I hate Christian "rock".


Here's my opinion, and forgive the organ system inexactness: People believe with their hearts, firstly, and their heads, secondly. If your heart is motivated, your head will come up with the justification.

You seem like a good, agnostic, sort of guy. I was you. Fair, logical, sincere. Even secure. Your heart does not need salvation, for you are insensitive to the state of your condition for the lack of listening to your conscience. You and I are both defective, and unacceptable. Yes, you are. You need to fix it or be sent to your bedroom for eternity. God's not going to "unmake" you, He will separate you from all that's good, and fun, and nice, and all that's good is Him. If you are not acceptable, His holy ("separate") nature will be incompatible with you.

My only pass is that I claim Jesus' blood sacrifice for my sins, covering me, making me Holy, making me "in Jesus" or "part of Jesus". Being in the presence of God is going to be a withering, devastating experience, for He will judge. And there is no excuse, none. I am naturally scared, but I have the reassurance that Jesus is sufficient.

It starts in your heart. All the understanding follows. I kid you not, I am not a nut. This is the truth I'm talking. Pray for a new heart.

[Spexvet]

Jesus is very against saving up material wealth.

So conservative republicans are the most hypocritical ilk of all. :finger:

[chip anderson]

Jesus was for voluntarily dispersing one's wealth. Democrats are for the forced contributeing (taxes) of wealth. Ceasar is not the proper distribution channel expecially when it is distributed in the hope of earthly reward (votes, power.)

[Spexvet]

Jesus was for voluntarily dispersing one's wealth. Democrats are for the forced contributeing (taxes) of wealth. Ceasar is not the proper distribution channel expecially when it is distributed in the hope of earthly reward (votes, power.)

Which does not refute that conservative republicans behave in a very un-Christian way, because their main goal is to accumulate wealth, and

Jesus is very against saving up material wealth.

:hammer:

[chip anderson]

Spex: You can't give it away if you don't earn it first. By the way, other than thier political opponents, who said the goal of conservative republicans was to accumulate wealth (other that personal, rather than government supplied retirement.?


Chip

[Spexvet]

... who said the goal of conservative republicans was to accumulate wealth ...

Chip

Their actions.

[drk]

Funny, Spex.

[Spexvet]

Funny, Spex.

That was serious.

[chm2023]

Spex: You can't give it away if you don't earn it first. By the way, other than thier political opponents, who said the goal of conservative republicans was to accumulate wealth (other that personal, rather than government supplied retirement.?


Chip

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...8-1591840198-0

Read this book. The majority of the super-rich are conservative republicans--my guess is they are conservative republicans because the conservative republicans are the ones who helped make them super-rich with tax policies, not because of any ideology.

Of course, the title says it all. Comes the revolution......:D

[chip anderson]

I think you will find that most of the tax code was written by Democrats. Not to mention the famous FDR who gave us income tax as a temporary measure. The Dems had congress for many more years than the republicans and most of what we live with is thier doing. The party in power at the moment doesn't get to start over on all laws and provisions.

In fact Mr. Bush was quick to find out that even firing federal employees left over from previous administrations in nigh on to impossible.

Chip

[chm2023]

I think you will find that most of the tax code was written by Democrats. Not to mention the famous FDR who gave us income tax as a temporary measure. The Dems had congress for many more years than the republicans and most of what we live with is thier doing. The party in power at the moment doesn't get to start over on all laws and provisions.

In fact Mr. Bush was quick to find out that even firing federal employees left over from previous administrations in nigh on to impossible.

Chip

No but they (the party in power, the Republicans have had the House for over 10 years by my count) do get to target tax cuts/increases. Income tax per se is not the problem--the problem is the way some folks and many corporations get out of paying virtually all their taxes. Corporate welfare is the biggest--and most under-reported--ripoff of our time.

[coda]

Not to mention the famous FDR who gave us income tax as a temporary measure.

The income tax in the US was first implemented during the administration of Abraham Lincoln. The 16th ammendment to the Constitution answered the question of legallity once and for all. This ammendemt was ratified in 1913 during the Taft administration (the end of 16 years of Republican administrations and a notably Republican dominated period of US political history). An income tax was implemented immediately.

FDR had nothing to do with implementing the income tax and certainly by the time FDR was around there was no question of it being a 'temporary measure'. But of course FDR is the great satan so I'm sure he was pulling the strings somehow or other.

[finklstiltskin]

So conservative republicans are the most hypocritical ilk of all. :finger:

It's about time someone agreed with me. I'm so tired of this hypocrisy that I experience every single day in the so-called "Bible Belt".

Thanks, Spex.

Finkleberries

[Spexvet]

It's about time someone agreed with me. I'm so tired of this hypocrisy that I experience every single day in the so-called "Bible Belt".

Thanks, Spex.

Finkleberries

My pleasure :cheers:

[Spexvet]

The income tax in the US was first implemented during the administration of Abraham Lincoln. The 16th ammendment to the Constitution answered the question of legallity once and for all. This ammendemt was ratified in 1913 during the Taft administration (the end of 16 years of Republican administrations and a notably Republican dominated period of US political history). An income tax was implemented immediately.

FDR had nothing to do with implementing the income tax and certainly by the time FDR was around there was no question of it being a 'temporary measure'. But of course FDR is the great satan so I'm sure he was pulling the strings somehow or other.

Hey! That fact-thingy stuff you're posting is interfering with Chip's argument! You'll have to stop that, now. ;)
PS - you forgot to mention that Abe was a REPUBLICAN.

[chip anderson]

At least I hope I am correct that FDR blessed us with Social "Security" as a vote getting measure.

[coda]

At least I hope I am correct that FDR blessed us with Social "Security" as a vote getting measure.

I doubt FDR was much concerned with 'getting votes', he won all of his reelections with ease. In fact his electoral %s were: 98%, 81%, 85%. I'd presume Social Security was implemented to address a dire need of the American public.

But then he was the Great Satan so I'm sure he was thinking that in some 50 odd years Social Security would be the only thing that could keep the evil Democrats in power.

[jediron1]

I doubt FDR was much concerned with 'getting votes', he won all of his reelections with ease. In fact his electoral %s were: 98%, 81%, 85%. I'd presume Social Security was implemented to address a dire need of the American public.

But then he was the Great Satan so I'm sure he was thinking that in some 50 odd years Social Security would be the only thing that could keep the evil Democrats in power.

I think I could believe that, on second thought NOT!