Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|>|>>
| Author | May 21, 2011-End Of The World? |
|---|
Clearly Christ gave his disciples the signs of the times to look for before his return.
Mark 13
29So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it(my return) is nigh, even at the doors.
Some may call me an idiot for believing what Jesus said, but someone who can't understand plain English when its their native tongue is the real idiot.
Read Mark 13 and you will see Jesus disciples asking him when he will return. He tells them no man can know the hour or day but you can know the signs of the times. It's all about mirroring the Jewish traditional wedding as I already explained but some tools can't even grasp that simple concept. | | nothing its far gone and this is another flop waiting fro december 2012 when the world is realyy expected to end | You have to ask yourself, if you actually believed this life is all there is, would you waste your time sitting in front of a PC for hours on end debating something you don't believe in?
I'd call that person a real loser. Is that the best you can do with your time? Me? I believe I will live forever so I'm in no rush.
If a doctor told you, you have 2 weeks to live, would you be playing LWM? I doubt it. So why then do the godless tools not go outside and live every moment if they believe this is all there is?
Maybe they are morons, or maybe they are total losers. Maybe both. | 2nd Peter
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Thanks for being part of the last days prophecy. What a sport! :P | I will make a list of all the end times signs that are supposed to be evident before the return of Christ. Then when I am finished, each of you can decide if it is amazing that these things could be predicted to happen all in the same era,or if its hogwash? It matters not to me, I'm just doing my job.
1. The whole world able to see a single event at the same time.
Post 175
2.An evident increase in knowledge and travel.
Post 176
3.The contention over Jerusalem.
Post 177
4.The words "peace and safety" connected to other end times prophecy.
Post 178
The list gets larger. | This next sign is ironic in that the secular world has come out and given a name for the people born in recent days, Generation Me or The Me Generation.
Yes the Bible agrees that in the last days:
2 Timothy 3
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
You have got to be joking! Look at that list! Thanks secular world for doing some of my work for me by branding this generation and agreeing with last days prophecy :P
Buy the book :P
http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled/dp/0743276981 | I was reminded by one of my Christian brothers here about "turning the other cheek."
He is right. I am not allowed to live by the "eye for an eye" old LAW.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
So I apologize for my error publicly for it is nothing more than the sin of pride that prompts us to respond to any attack. | What did you smoke, Modi?
You're so eloquent and "peaceful" lately. :D | for Nutella:
Because I was admonished by a brother, reminding me what we were ordered to do.
If Peter can be admonished, who am I to refuse it? What's wrong is wrong.
Galatians 2
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? | Well, first of all, i want to say i’m not interested in personal quarrels. I’ll ignore everyone not engaged in a clear and civilized debate.
Now, to matters:
The “end of the world” is a sort of evidence. To deny this, is to deny the evidence of death. For death is precisely the “end of the world for who dies”, and there is no account of the world than the ones made through singular experience. Which is equivalent to say: the “end of the world” is not an “end of the world for itself”, but always an “end of the world to a point of view over it”. There are then two ways to face this end: as an absolute end, or a relative end (passage to another state of beeing ). In any case, the important thing to retain is that “death” and “the end of the world” are concepts intrinsically related. This is pretty much what we can draw from pure reason.
One can say death is not proved as a fact to come (indeed, the syllogism “every man before me died at some point”, “I am a man”, therefore “I will die at some point” cannot be accepted as definitive as it relies on inductive reasoning and does not hold the conclusion in its premises), and in such a line of reasoning, we prove that we cannot rely on logic to uphold the consistency of a “end of the world” event (if people don’t die, the world must continue… right?).
The problem we face can be put as such: there are accounts of the end “de facto”, and not “de jure”. Although the end appears as evident, this evidence is intuitive and not logical. It derives from the fact that people actually die; but nowhere are we to find the logical structure or law that determines a death. We can at most verify at each step that death occurs and understand parts of the process that leads to it; but we cannot find the law that forces things to be this way. | This said, it’s important to point out that we cannot look only at the structure of representation (physics) for evidence, but also to the structure of the self. And this is where things get complicated: while a shared knowledge holds facts as true for a community, there is no such stance for the self. In ourselves, we can’t even prove how we were born (everyone “wakes up” already alive, and having been born some years back). But the structure of the self is entirely different of that of representation: it does not derive from laws. The structure of the human spirit is “given” without being at all understood. Which means we can sit next to someone who derives entirely different conclusions from what apparently is the same thing (the world we share). And this thread proves this, so I’ll just move on.
The fact that there are prophecies is undeniable. And whoever wants to understand a prophecy, must not only look at the physical evidence of “whatever is the end”, but also to the structure of the self that understands that prophecy and “that end”. For it is true that prophecies exist, and that some people believe in them. The truth of this structure has ontological value: it cannot be dismissed. But it cannot be understood in science, for it belongs to the structure of the spirit. So, unless one engages in the same modal stance as the ones who “believe”, he cannot at all understand what’s contained in a prophecy. And he can’t treat some parts of reality as “rightful” (psysics), and others as “garbage” (religion), as if absent, when both exist. To understand reality, we must accept ALL things real. And faith is as real as things come – but a reality of the spirit, not of matter.
I left out references, or the text would double in size, but I’ll give them to whoever is interested in more about any part of this.
And btw: I’m a Christian. To those who are not interested in what I said: it’s truly a shame to live as children when you should be grown-up and able to face some truths... but maybe it’s not your fault.
Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. | Here's a good "Prophecy" for you.
http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/1945ww_oct_305-308.html
Arthur C Clarke proposed the concept of Communication Satellites in October 1945.
The first truly geosynchronous communications satellite was launched on 19 August 1964.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/376/syncom/syncom.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Orbit
Hi Syrian. Good to finally hear from someone talking in a reasonable and civilised fashion for a change.
I can't say I totally agree with everything you say. For instance "To understand reality, we must accept ALL things real.". If faith is real then so is bigotry, racial hatred, religious hatred and many other negative "spiritual" concepts. I might agree with "we must *acknowledge* all things real" rather than *accept*. Acceptance implies agreeing with something and there are many negative spiritual concepts that I have no desire to agree with.
The problem I have with much of what Modi says is that it is premised on the basis that, because Modi believes in it, it is automatically "right" and "good" and should be accepted by all. His stance usually also assumes that all other religions (and political beliefs) don't matter and are essentially "subservient" to whichever one Modi believes in. Witness post # 72 and the assumption of Israel's conversion to Christ.
I'm very happy to talk in a *civilised* manner and enjoy a good *civilised* debate. I would like to ask something. Can you honestly say that Modi's behaviour and rhetoric, particularly in this thread, could be described as civilised?
Have Fun
Grunge | I can't say I totally agree with everything you say. For instance "To understand reality, we must accept ALL things real.". If faith is real then so is bigotry, racial hatred, religious hatred and many other negative "spiritual" concepts. I might agree with "we must *acknowledge* all things real" rather than *accept*. Acceptance implies agreeing with something and there are many negative spiritual concepts that I have no desire to agree with.
accept all things real, as real. i didn't mean that by accepting this you are not free to fight them into oblivion. that is not the western tradition, anyway. buddhism claims that after you understand everything, all good and bad things that exist (attain nirvana), you'll no longer see right from wrong, for you'll see everything in its place. this is not my view, i see our freedom in another perspective. but nonetheless, a freedom towards what exists (all of it). and obviously, bigotry, racial hatred, religious hatred and many other negative "spiritual" concepts are real. my question here is: in your opinion, where do these come from? and please don't say "bigots, haters and negative ppl". dig as deep as you can
Can you honestly say that Modi's behaviour and rhetoric, particularly in this thread, could be described as civilised?
i'm not interested in comenting Modi, or you. or me. this is an interesting topic, let's explore it. maybe we can keep our egos in the other forums? lol | for Grunge:
While I admitted I should have not gone on the attack in return to you and your pal and what you have been about for many months, chasing me around the forum, you have yet to be honest with yourself and pretend what you are doing and are continuing to do isn't really happening.
That's now your problem. I have taken care of my own. Maybe in the future you can own up to your harassment of me, maybe not.
While I won't continue blasting you like before, it doesn't mean I have to sit and pretend what you and Fishy are doing isn't happening.
You can, but the multiple threads proving you wrong are still available to be read.
Good luck with all of that. | Bit of a cop-out there Syrian.
I would like to say that I would oppose *anyone* who takes such an extreme stance as Modi does on most subjects. The reason I am seen to be in opposition to Modi on a regular basis is because he regularly posts such extreme views and cares not whether anyone else is offended or disagrees with his position.
How about this one?
Personally I do acknowledge the existence of a rich variety of religions. There are so many and with such a wide variety of beliefs and customs. Unfortunately many religious belief systems suppose that they are the only "right" belief system and that all individuals who do not agree will ultimately be punished or penalised. That would be fine if believers in these religions just simply engaged in an internal *belief* in such things. However many individual members of such religions feel entitled, or even *required*, by their belief system to confront and even attack others that do not believe as they do.
Considering that most major religions have proclaimed the Golden Rule (We must treat others as we wish others to treat us) as a "Common principle", and most people with religious beliefs have arrived at their beliefs of their own choosing and without overt interference from others, does it not follow that those holding religious beliefs should allow others to arrive at their own belief system without interference?
Grunge | I would like to say that I would oppose *anyone* who takes such an extreme stance as Modi does on most subjects. The reason I am seen to be in opposition to Modi on a regular basis is because he regularly posts such extreme views and cares not whether anyone else is offended or disagrees with his position.
If this was the only thread you have come at me, I probably would think you were sincere, but its not. We both know the real reason why you dislike me so much. Notice I did not come to your elementary school thread, celebrating my future vacation? No, there is a clear set of attackers here so please stop making excuses for your actions.
As with my own actions, what is wrong is wrong. One of us is man enough to admit it at least.
Yes indeed, lead miniatures is an extreme subject matter. I can see your side and what prompted you to come there and get yourself a three day ban.
Totally rational explanation. Try again?
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1901925 | @Grunge
i didn't cop out. i'm interested in a dialogue. instead of answering what i asked, pursuing the subject you chose from my post, you decided to have another go at Modi. like i said, i don't care for such quarrels. if you're not interested in discussing the subject, just say so. it does seem you have your mind made up, and hey, i respect that. i don't want to waste my time, or yours.
but i will give out a comment on this:
Unfortunately many religious belief systems suppose that they are the only "right" belief system and that all individuals who do not agree will ultimately be punished or penalised.
if you swap the word "religious" for the word "scientific", the sentence works just as well. | if you swap the word "religious" for the word "scientific", the sentence works just as well.
I would disagree. Most religious belief systems have pretty set in stone rules and don't leave room for interpretation. The only interpretation that people dispute are really language issues. Science on the other hand is malleable, and by its very own nature challenges everything and anything including itself. In science you are free to question even the most proven laws. And history has shown us that many old scientific "facts" have been overturned. There is no punishment for not believing in science or questioning of any facts other than some people believing you are a nutcase. | There is no punishment for not believing in science or questioning of any facts other than some people believing you are a nutcase.
A professor passed over for a job because he questioned evolution sued for religious discrimination. The university has settled:
The University of Kentucky will pay $125,000 to an astronomy professor who sued the school for religious discrimination.
“I know this one woman who was studying for her Ph.D. in biology from Rice,” Patton said. “She was told anyone who questioned the theory of evolution was out the door. That’s the worst thing a graduate student can do is get a degree and doesn’t believe in evolution. She decided she didn’t want to do that (believe in evolution) out the door. There’s thousands of scientists who believe this, but can’t come out.”
Ben Stein made a movie called Expelled, dealing with creationists or anyone daring to question evolution, being blackballed, passed over for tenure, or just plain let go.
Of course it is not in the same realm of the Christian version of the Judgment of man but to say there is no punishment for those disagreeing with science isn't totally correct. | I would love to see where the "scientific belief system" supposes it is the only right "belief system". You should really talk to the philosophers about that.
Science isn't really a belief system in the same way that religion is. Many scientists hold religious beliefs, and there is certainly no requirement for one to forgo their religion if they also wish to engage in scientific endeavour.
Science is the systematic accumulation of knowledge and a collection of theorems that attempt to explain the physical universe and predict what may happen to a physical system under a particular set of circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Biology, Mathematics, Etc are the areas where science tries to explain the physical universe. Importantly, science does not claim to be infallible, requiring that theorems be proven by evidence and reproducible, replacing such theorems when another explanation can be shown to be "more" correct.
Most major religions claim to be representative of a perfect, divine being (God). Being representative of a perfect being most religions teach that much of their message is divinely inspired and therefore infallible.
Science is highly unlikely to be able to prove the existence or non-existence of God. However science *can* be used to show whether some elements of religious texts are likely to be correct or have a historical basis.
Science has shown that some elements of the Bible are not correct, sometimes through simple logic. That is not really a problem. In fact, in most cases, the people engaged in the scientific activity were hoping to find confirmation of Biblical information.
The problem lies with the fact that some members of the various Religions claim an infallible, divine basis for their religious texts (particularly Christianity in the case of the Bible). Because of this religion frequently has a problem with science, not the other way around.
Grunge |
<<|<|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|>|>>Back to topics list
|
