Well, yesterday evening I had a little bit of a "rapture discussion" with a friend of mine who feels very passionately about the rapture. My friend was upset because she felt that this individual, and "cooks" like him, give all of Christianity a bad name. So, when somebody who is off in his own world predicts the rapture and it doesn't happen, then everybody thinks all of Christianity is wrong for believing in the rapture at all, when, as my friend stated, the Bible clearly states that no man knoweth the day ... etc..Anyhoo, I started thinking a bit, since I was in the car with somebody talking about the rapture, and started asking a couple of questions that I haven't thought of before. I do wonder what the point of the rapture is, exactly. I mean, what's God supposedly thinking? I don't claim to understand everything the rapture is supposed to be (and I think I understand that different people think it's different things), but my fundamental question is based on it seeming to me that whatever the rapture is supposed to be is basically the same thing as --to those who believe in the rapture-- what is believed happens to everybody when we die anyway. We are judged and sent to heaven or hell ... right? So, I do wonder, what's the point of the rapture at all when, if we just lived out our lives as normal, we'd supposedly all face that judgement anyway? And, if it's something different, like earth becomes a fantastic place to be ... what about all of those people in times before us who faithfully believed in the rapture, lived their lives accordingly, died and got sent to heaven ... and then the rapture comes on earth and, what, they are just missing the party?
I am uncomfortable with anything that appears to give favourable treatment to people who believe in some celestial entity and his son.Thal
A better reason? From what I can tell... It's the behavior right now. Pay in advance, even if there is nothing on the end later.... You go to heaven or hell. One or the other. It's either going to be great or terrible. If you're a good person, you better do a little better in order to deserve going somewhere great. If you're bad, you can still change. And of course no one wants to go to hell... for eternity. *Bob wonders if that's a little bit harsh considering maybe 80 years of life compared to 'forever.'* So the bottom line is you better be good and keep being good otherwise you might not go to heaven.
Define "authority".
Tons of evidence.
That its authors were not guided by the God the book itself promotes. Also, why are you condemning my post, when you don't even know what its claim is?
Define "full of oneself". BTW, who gave you authority to tell me how I should behave?
And your evidence for this and your next sentence is?
So what do they do? Do they include 100-page essays in every single post they write? Just like you?
BTW, strictly speaking, a statement can not be idiotic and substantiated at the same time.So what? Intelligence does not equal rationality. See https://psychcentral.com/lib/2010/what-intelligence-tests-miss/. And, while I'm not entirely sure about it, your statement here smacks of a logical fallacy known as "argument from authority".
Reported.Interesting! You said I'm not intelligent, claimed I'm full of myself, and deemed my comment idiotic; this is another example of how you run around condemning people and making judgments about them, while claiming no one is entitled to do the same.
I have read in the morning paper that Harold Camping was "unavailable for comment".How strange.Thal
Perhaps he was the only one to be raptured? :D:D
Yeah, but if people really thought about it, I mean *really* actually thought about it, they would realize that Jolly Old Saint Nick is already keeping everybody inline with his naughty and nice list ... I mean, you either get a gift or a lump of coal with that. So, that's pretty important.
Santa Claus only gives coal. That's the worst it gets.
That lump of coal isn't looking so bad though. In fact, if you're really bad, you'd end up with a pile of coal and could use that for fuel. Not so bad, eh? Maybe Santa could bring some other types of fuel like gasoline or natural gas gas. Or solar panels or something. And really... Where is Santa Claus getting all that coal? Not everyone is on the Nice list. There must be a significant amount of children on the Naughty list. That requires a lot of coal -- Where's all that coal coming from?
I think that instead of arrogantly mocking religion like this, you should try to get to know it a bit better first. It's really sad how many people think they know everything about religion, when they really know nothing at all. Even most "Christians" never actually read the bible from start to finish, both the old and new testaments. It's really frustrating to see how ignorance leads people to give outrageously stupid examples to attack religion, when those examples don't even reflect what the religion teaches or how it works. Do you guys even know what Christianity is? Once in grade 8 during my social studies class, we were asked to do a religion project with different groups doing different religions. Of the choices, there was christianity, jehovah's witnesses, and catholicism. What? I tried to explain to the teacher (who was a christian) that both jehovah's witnesses and catholics are actually christians as well, but he just won't listen. Christianity doesn't teach that anyone who donates to the Church will be saved and anyone who doesn't will go to hell... that is your own delusional thinking about what you think it is. I'm not here to teach christianity, but before you make ridiculous accusations and attacks, actually learn about what the religion teaches. This doesn't only go towards christianity, but any religion. Remember, it takes faith to believe that ther is no god as well. It takes faith to believe in "science",. And remember, what you think is "science" may not actually be "science" at all.
actually learn about what the religion teaches
I ... actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.all best,gep
Really? Wow! Where might that be? And Alistair, how about some credit for King James?
Judgement Day is subject to a Super Injunction here in England, so we won't get to hear of it until it is too late.
But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional. And mind you, I have studied religion, and was born and raised and actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.It is always illuminating to see the vehement attacks from religious people du moment someone states he/she does reject any or all religion. Atheists are usually, if indeed not always, rather more acceptive of the fact that someone else is religious... The morale of "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself" is something that doesn't figure much in any religion, and for obvious reasons.I would add that most Christians are not Christians and neither would want to be (i.e. live like a faithfull Jew lived 2000 years ago)all best,gep
It is always illuminating to see the vehement attacks from religious people du moment someone states he/she does reject any or all religion.Atheists are usually, if indeed not always, rather more acceptive of the fact that someone else is religious...
Proof? You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidence. And it's not an assumption, more of a claim. A claim without evidence. But you can't say it's 100% false.By the way, I am NOT christian or religious. I do believe that there's a god, but nothing more. I findquite exactly just the opposite. You are vehemently attacking all those who believe in a religion so bluntly without proof or evidence. How many religious people are attacking you? None so far. The fact is, many, if not most athiests think that they are somehow superior to religious people, and think that because they believe in "science" that they are right. And they always laugh and ridicule religious people. I don't think that's very accepting. I haven't seen many religious people laugh and ridicule athests; they might try to convince you to believe god, but they won't outright laugh at you or attack you, unless you did the same to their religion beforehand.
@Ahinton: If you were trying to tell me something, perhaps you should write in English next time
From the little I could understand, I don't think the bible is as bad as you think. There wouldn't be so many professors studying it if it had absolutely no credibility. Sure, the languages have changed overtime, but there are many people who study ancient languages. Just because we don't speak that way now doesn't mean no one understand those languages. These people can then translate for a some-what accurate reflection of the original text. And many of the original texts have been found, like the dead-sea scroll, so I think the translations would be fairly accurate. Of course they always contain their biases, but for the most part, it is a well-written book.
You just cannot seen to travel more than a couple of millimetres withough getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!
If you only read the post from the person I was quoting from, he was he one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.
Whether it's appropriate or not is not for you to say, but certainly your use of the word "seen" after "cannot" is inappropriate.
Whatever, there is no point in arguing with a hollow shell that's nothing but a dictionary with no ability for critical thinking.
I've read it all and,as a consequence, am only too well aware of who brought up what and when; since I've noted your having raised the spectre of "attacks" on several past occasions in various different contexts, I have no reason to change my mind on this now.It was a typo for "seem", which it now is; apologies for any confusion.I have no idea what you're talking about here, but getting paranoid about "attacks" - as you seem to have a habit of doing - is hardly the most sensible or convincing manner in which to set about conducting a legitimate and valid argument about anything in any event.I rest my case.Best,Alistair
You just cannot seem to travel more than a couple of millimetres withough getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!
I would wave next time, or throw something at him to get his attention. I am sure his hearing has gotten even worse, if that's possible.
You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidence
By the way, I am NOT christian or religious. I do believe that there's a god, but nothing more.
You are vehemently attacking all those who believe in a religion so bluntly
that because they believe in "science" that they are right
And they always laugh and ridicule religious people. I don't think that's very accepting. I haven't seen many religious people laugh and ridicule athests; they might try to convince you to believe god, but they won't outright laugh at you or attack you, unless you did the same to their religion beforehand.
Of course they always contain their biases, but for the most part, it is a well-written book
perhaps you should explain what exactly a "withough" is before you put your case to rest.
But neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Santa does not exist.
Over the many millennia that humanity has been inventing religion (basically since the time of the cave paitings, but probably long before that), ther have been thousands of different belief systems, each of which has had its factions and groups, each of which evolved over time, and each of which has the only, the whole, the indisputable, the unquestionable and certainly the indubitable Truth. Basic logical reasoning would indicate that the chances of any one of them being true while all the others are partly or wholly wrong is, let me put it mildly, to be considered at least tentatively doubtful.
I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxical.
Err, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile!
Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion.
Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for others'.
I certainly believe in the scientific method, yes. Facts first, explanation later, based upon known facts. Doing so, I believe I may be wrong, or have incomplete knowledge. As opposed to quite a large fraction (at least) of religious people, who are always Right, and have all the Answers.
Your point being?
Addendum 2: the Dutch Minister of Internal Affairs recently stated that "the increase of anti-semitism is caused by the secularisation". Which I would consider a slight misjudgement both of history and of present-day factuality. (Anti-semitism is increasing in The Netherlands, but almost entirely in the Islamic part of the populace).
That said, humanity has been inventing music for at least as long if not longer, yet the absence of factions and groups until relatively recently has meant that the problem doesn't apply here...
Which means that you can believe in J S Bach as most of the rest of us do!
Sadly, such arrogance of thought is by no means confined to religious people!...
As a matter of interest, do you sense a parallel increase of anti-Islamic feeling amongst the Jewish community in the Netherlands?
was anti-semitism in 1930s/40s Gerrmany an inevitable and sole consequence of "secularisation"?
But neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Sanat does not exist.
Over the many millennia that humanity has been inventing religion (basically since the time of the cave paitings, but probably long before that), ther have been thousands of different belief systems, each of which has had its factions and groups, each of which evolved over time, and each of which has the only, the whole, the undisputable, the unquestionable and certainly the undoubtable Truth. Basic logical reasoning would indicate that the chances of any one of them being true while all the others are partly or wholly wrong is, let me put it mildly, to be considered at least tentativly doubtful.
I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxal.
Err, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile! Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion. Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for other's.
Really?....
So is Lord of the Rings. Your point being?
You've yet to give any evidence that the bible, or indeed any religion is based on a false assumption.
In fact, it models science more than it does religion; the kid sees evidence that he has received presents on december 25th, thus he incorrectly deduces that Santa gave him the presents.
You're assuming that all religions are invented.
For example, if there are 1,000,000 balls in a bucket numbered from 1 to 1,000,000, what are the chances that you'll pick ball number 1? Not very high. But that doesn't mean you won't pick up any ball, simply because the chances for any single ball are low. Understand? Besides, what if I told you that ball number 1 is bigger than the rest? What are the chances of getting it now?
Picking a religion isn't like a lottery ticket, you can have evidence that one is more likely than another.
You fail to realize that believing that there is NO GOD takes faith as well
there is no evidence or proof that there is no god
you were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.
Believing in the scientific method without knowing its limitations is just as bad as believing in religion.
They think that to be scientific is to not believe in god.
If god exists and wants some people to know the truth,
Since there's no way to convince arrogantly stubborn people anything,
I was trying to tell people to stop mocking and attacking religion/religious people especially if you're ignorant about what they believe in.
Since you believe in freedom of religion
surely you will agree with my statement? Then why are you even arguing with me?
What can I say?
Far too much, as evidenced by the remainder of your post which I will not waste valuable forum space by quoting here....(...yawn...)...Best,Alistair
If you would not like to waste valuable forum space, please, stop posting.
Yeah, my Santy post was only partial mock and then mostly just for fun. I actually didn't mean everything I put in that as a tie to religion, but just got into "story telling" mode and went with it. Some people do actually think of the Bible as a story and nothing more ... well, that's not what I am trying to say when I said I went into "story telling" mode and went with it. Honestly. Okay, but seriously, I am actually not an atheist. But, I have almost never found that individuals start a discussion on religion because they want to change anything about the way they believe, or are interested in what other people believe. Generally, there is no interest in group consensus, but in personal conviction, and "discussions" really are more about expressing one's own thoughts and opinions and that's it.*goes to pray*
Anyone else getting the deja vu vibe??
What can I say? I find it funny how gep continues with the plethora of ad hominem accusations without any bit of evidence whatsoever, other than his own delusional thinkings, when he accuses (again, without any evidence whatsoever) that others are delusional. LOL. I really feel sorry for you, gep. Sure, you have the right to argue, it's not like I'm stopping you. But what are you arguing for? Just for the sake of telling everyone how stubbornly ignorant you are? How unaccepting of religion you are? How you feel superior to all religious people? I always welcome opinions that differ from mine, however, they need to be substantiated with evidence and logic. If you just say "the Bible is not true", or "religions are based on a false assumption", I'm afraid that doesn't cut it. It's not about not accepting different opinions, it's about showing how flawed these people who believe themselves to be so intelligent are.PS:GJ for putting your own words into quotes; that's not gonna fool anyone. You were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", own up to it. Do a quick ctrl + f search if you are intelligent enough to know how, and see who was the first to bring it up.
Now that is an ad hominem attack.
ad infant
Ad parvulum vexare, strictly speaking...
Topic: Judgemend day! Beware! 