Prophecy

BrianCalgary

To get back to Danno's original post. How do people see end times prophecy? Rapture or no? Is the book of Revelation prophetic or has it already happened?
The recent series of books 'Left Behind' was a definite rapture with Revelation unfolding before our very eyes. Hank Hannegraaf is releasing a series of fiction based on Revelation unfolding in the first century.

This is a topic whre I have ideas on but I am not set in my ways. I lean toward a rapture, a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth before the judgement and that Revelation contains commentary on past, first century present and future events.

starn

So what your saying Bian is you actually see a literally see a hell fire and brimstone senario an actuall end of Days. With Christ returning the Four Horse men of the apocolypse etc, etc. Or do you see something more a kin to the movie Homor see's in the Simpsons with everyone Disapeering

BrianCalgary

Hey Starn. To be quite honest I don't know. I can see the possibility of everyone just disappearing as it's alluded to in Ephesians (that view was very helpful when teaching Revelation to 11 year olds, as the little muffins get scared you tell them that they aren't around because they were raptured).

I think that the four horsemen are symbolic of something spiritual or John was trying to describe something he couldn't understand. Imagine a first century person coming to our time and going back to explain technology that we take for granted.

I look at it that at the end mankind tells God that we no longer want Him or need Him in our affairs so He slowly removes Himself. This leads to further degradation of our society and the world itself. People then curse God. The world then runs down, Christ comes for a 1,000 year reign with Satan bound. Satan is then loosed for the final battle and then judgement. Those who have chosen Christ get their wish and spend eternity with Him. Those who reject God get their wish, an eternity without Him, that is known as and described as Hell.

However the end does come about; if you are in right relationship with Christ you will be in the right place at the end.

Danno

At what timespan would you expect the rapture to take place?

I know the "like a thief in the night" saying, but a reasonable time frame - say inside 10 years, inside 50 years, beyond?

pbsuxok1znja4r

You should read C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" for an interesting and thought provoking envisioning of the rapture/end-time. Doesn't set anything in stone, of course. It's only a fictional imagining of it all.

robindch

> How do people see end times prophecy?

Deuteronomy 18:10 has this to say:

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

...which seems to throw the whole concept of divination into a state of some abeyance. More usefully, Melvyn Bragg had an interesting 'In Our Time' on the topic of Revelation a few years back:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20030717.shtml

Enjoy!

BrianCalgary

Thanks for the tips on CS Lewis and on the BBC show.

On the when question? I have no idea. It seems as though every generation throughout history has been able to see signs that the second coming would happen in their lifetime. Especially at the turn of the last millenium (AD1,000).

Having said that I can see signs that indicate that this might be the generation that sees it. I remember that there was a firm date set back in the 70's, it came and went. I will defer to Jesus' advice that we are not to know the date nor the time, just to be ready.

UU

I actually don't know much about the prophecy of the Bible - the book of Revelation. All I know is it is about the Apocalypse and the end of the world and all that stuff but of course there is much more. Who exactly made the predictions - was it Jesus? Although, I don't really believe in it likewise for a lot of superstition but would be rather keen to understand more of what it is about at least.

UU

Thanks!

BrianCalgary

There have been four different viewpoints on the book of Revelation over the centuries. One is the most familiar and that it is a book about future events. The second is that it already happened culminating in the destruction of the temple in AD 72.

It was written by John around AD 95 when he was exiled to Patmos. He received the visions at that time. The visions came from God.

When I taught on end times I started to look at the book as haven been written in past, present and future tense. There is a part where it talks about the Devil being cast down to the Earth (past), the new Heaven and new Jerusalem descending (future) and the letters to the seven churches (present). These are great reads and then compare the commendations and admonishments by Christ to today's churches.

The last two viewpoints I haven't looked into yet as the four views are a new discovery, a revelation so to speak, to me.

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary said:

To get back to Danno's original post. How do people see end times prophecy? Rapture or no? Is the book of Revelation prophetic or has it already happened?

For our non-Christian friends, the rapture refers to the second coming of Christ and His gathering of all the people of God to Himself as He descends upon the clouds. He accomplishes this by resurrecting the dead believers, giving them and the living believers the same sort of glorious body He has. This upward movement of resurrected and living believers is the 'rapture'.

I think most types of Christian hold to the rapture of the church. It is only since the 1800's that the 'secret rapture' was introduced. This teaching holds that Christ's arrival in the clouds and the rapture of the saints will be invisible and unheard, 'secret'. As far as I can gather, it was first declared by a female 'prophetess' associated with Edward Irving's church. She later renounced it as not of the Spirit.

Anyhow, the concept was taken up by some of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren and was popularised by the Scofield Bible. It is held by many/most Evangelicals today.

I take the historic view of the Church, that Christ's coming for His people and the Last day are the one and same event. Every Scripture that refers to rapture makes clear it is neither secret nor followed by years of continued existence for the earth.

Examples:
Matthew 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

2 Thessalonians 1:6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

2 Peter 3: 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

As to the Book of Revelation, it certainly is complex and difficult to exegete. The symbolic nature of its language and the likely restating of the same event in a different image makes one very cautious. I confess myself open to many views as to the historical placement of each vision. My guideline is the principle that the plain, clear Scripture should explain the symbolic, obscure one. So the teaching of the gospels and epistles must inform our interpretation of Revelation, not the reverse. Many of the strange ideas of the 'Left Behind' folks arise because they ignore this.

UU

So let me get this straight. Only Christ's people - Christians - go with Christ on the Apocalypse? What about non-Christians? Do they burn in hell or something even if they're good people? Of course I don't believe in any of it but I'm just curious about what it says.

archdukefranz

UU wrote:

So let me get this straight. Only Christ's people - Christians - go with Christ on the Apocalypse? What about non-Christians? Do they burn in hell or something even if they're good people? Of course I don't believe in any of it but I'm just curious about what it says.

Paul says none are righteous... we're all found guilty of being not nice people but some are pardoned

BrianCalgary

UU wrote:

So let me get this straight. Only Christ's people - Christians - go with Christ on the Apocalypse? What about non-Christians? Do they burn in hell or something even if they're good people? Of course I don't believe in any of it but I'm just curious about what it says.

Yes UU that is how it works. If you seek Christ in this life your wish for eternity will be granted.

If you choose to reject Christ and deny the existence of God you will get your wish and spend eternity without Him.

God even describes to us the results of our choice. Choice 1 is Heaven, described as a place of joy, laughter, no pain, no tears, ect. The 2nd is described as eternal torment.

You stated in an earlier post that you have created your own god, what can that god offer, what does he/she promise? You have made the decision to reject Christ, you want nothing to do with Him, therefore Hell would be desirable to you.

We as Christians are struck with sadness when people make this choice, because to be honest I would love to share a pint with you and robondch and Atheist in Heaven one day and it is disappointing that you continue to reject the love and fulfilling life that God has to offer when you put yourself in His hand.

check out carnduffministry.blogspot.com and see what God has given me.

Excelsior

I think Calvin was right when he avoided writing a Commentary on Revelations because he was confused by the variety of theories men had come up with.

I am sure Jesus was right when he said that the the world is teleological- that it is moving in a direction towards a climax and at that time the world will be judged. I think it is interesting that he talked about judgement in terms of parable- Sheep will be seperated from goats and so on.

Jesus also said that no one will be able to tell when the end is coming. And so from all this I read that:
a) The end is coming. Today, tomorrow or in a million years
b) Jesus will know his followers by name and he will take them with him
c) Those who do not know Jesus will not respond to Jesus

I think Rapture, dispensationalism and all that stuff which holds sway in America is probably a theological fad. I am not saying that isn't how it is going to happen. All I am saying is that there is no substantative reason for me to think it will happen that way as oppossed to some other way.

Finally, if you forced me to give a lead interpretative point for Revelation I would argue that it is describing Good Friday and the turning point of Easter.

starn

BrianCalgary wrote:

To be quite honest I don't know. I can see the possibility of everyone just disappearing as it's alluded to in Ephesians .

With all due respect this is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heared of. Were you taking stupid pills when you wrote this. The events of revelations occured in 71 AD on the battle feild of Har Meggedan in Jerusalem. When the romans sacked Jerusalem

The whole Idea idea of belive or be dammed. Oh thank you lfogiving lord for giving us ALL those options. Why your essentially saying is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's "infinite love".

Whats wrong with just living a good life.

robindch

> I would love to share a pint with you and robondch and
> Atheist in Heaven one day and it is disappointing that you
> continue to reject the love and fulfilling life that God has
> to offer when you put yourself in His hand.

No idea about what The Atheist, Sapien, pH and others believe, but I find absolutely nothing fulfilling about believing that there's a man in the sky who loves me and who'll let me live forever, but only if I say (a) that I believe that he exists and (b) that I believe that he sacrificed himself to himself in some kind of spooky blood exchange for what his images (ourselves) have done.

> carnduffministry.blogspot.com and see what God has given me.

While I thoroughly admire somebody with enough courage to head off to a dangerous country to help people, I can't help but ask -- please forgive my insolence, but I feel it's an important question -- whether or not you'd be doing this if, at the same time, you weren't able to spread your religion?

Charis

starn wrote:

With all due respect this is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heared of. Were you taking stupid pills when you wrote this. The events of revelations occured in 71 AD on the battle feild of Har Meggedan in Jerusalem. When the romans sacked Jerusalem

The whole Idea idea of belive or be dammed. Oh thank you lfogiving lord for giving us ALL those options. Why your essentially saying is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's "infinite love".

Whats wrong with just living a good life.

Living a good life is a nice thing but how does one define good? What is good to you is not necessarily good to another. The issue here, on a Christianity forum, is what does the Christian belief/Bible say about that. The answers are found in looking at Romans 3:23 For all have sinned; and come short of the glory of God.

I don't know if there is anyone who having read the Bible cover to cover could honestly say that they have never sinned by the standards outlined there. The other issue is God and his character. He is a loving God but he is also holy, just, perfect and pure. So by the standards outlined there needed to be a sacrifice, Jesus. I agree that this concept is extremely hard to accept. It is much easier to do something, give money to the homeless, read to the sick in a hospital, send presents to children in orphanges, sponsor an orphan in Africa. All of these are good things and I would encourage them but these actions don't make me good enough for God's standards. Only Jesus can. That is an arguement to take up with the Bible and God. You don't have to accept it and if you are an atheist it shouldn't even bother you (my apologies if you are something else).

Brian, the rapture, Revelation have fascinated me like so many, whether Christian or non-Christian. I would have to say I really think the world is closer to its demise than ever before, certainly certainly Matthew 24.6-7 talks about many things that we see and hear of today. Yes, I believe in Revelation. One area I am often curious about is the questions found in Matthew 24. Any thoughts on the parable of the fig tree. I have heard it refer to the Jewish people and the founding of the Jewish nation after WWII.

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

You stated in an earlier post that you have created your own god, what can that god offer, what does he/she promise? You have made the decision to reject Christ, you want nothing to do with Him, therefore Hell would be desirable to you.

We as Christians are struck with sadness when people make this choice, because to be honest I would love to share a pint with you and robondch and Atheist in Heaven one day and it is disappointing that you continue to reject the love and fulfilling life that God has to offer when you put yourself in His hand.

I think you misunderstood me Brian! I never rejected Jesus and never said I didn't want anything got to do with him. In fact, I feel closer to the spirit of Jesus since I became Unitarian with humanist and Buddhist beliefs. I just don't believe Jesus was a Messiah and the son of God, instead I revere Jesus in a similar way to that of Muslims. I look to Christ for help to achieve perfect spiritual balance through his teachings. So I believe he is a "wise teacher" or "wayshower". Better still "Great Rabbi" as he was Jewish. I still have great love and respect for Jesus as he is one of the very few people on Earth who gained pure enlightenment in his lifetime and really shows the virtue in mankind. I never rejected love either - I believe in it very much and my aim in life is to try to make this a better world through love and compassion.

About "my God"? Well, I really shouldn't say I believe in God as what I believe in is quite far from the definition of God. I believe basically that what we call God is actually a spiritual force that is in every heart, mind and soul of every human and animal. The only way of obtaining a pure soul in this lifetime in by achieving a balance of the "3 aspects of human consciousness" and the "3 precepts of human society" as defined under the Church of Scientific Humanism http://scihuman.org/. This balance will lead to harmony to spiritual fulfillment (also known as enlightenment). Although, to build up enough karma, it takes one several lifetimes of reincarnation to reach to spiritual world called Nirvana. Essentially is have a mixture of different beliefs from different faiths to help me on my path to discovery.

Anyway, I thought the Jews were the chosen people as it says it in the Old Testament - did God change his mind or something as I'm very confused?!

wolfsbane

UU said:

Anyway, I thought the Jews were the chosen people as it says it in the Old Testament - did God change his mind or something as I'm very confused?!

Yes, the Jews were chosen by God. The promise was in fact to Abraham and his seed. God set apart his descendants as a nation to bring His salvation to mankind. The nation, Israel, inherited many earthly blessings - the land of Canaan and all it gave them - but also all the spiritual blessings were theirs alone. God revealed Himself to them alone amongst all the nations of the earth. Forgiveness and eternal life were promised to them if they obeyed Him. More than that, God sent His Son to be born of them and to be their substitute - to fulfil God's demands on man and to bear His wrath for their sins. Jesus was a Jew. Salvation is of the Jews. But God not only promised salvation to Israel, He promised that all the nations would be blessed through them. This happened when Jesus made atonement for all - Jew and Gentile - who believe in Him.

You will note that God's promise of eternal life applied to Israel on condition of their faith in Him - Romans 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

The physical children of Abraham have disobeyed God and so have not inherited the promises - except for the elect among them. So the Israel of God today comprises only a small number of the nation, plus all believing Gentiles. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:11-22;&version=50;49;9;47;

I look for the coming day when this blindness will be removed from the nation and they all will turn to their Messiah, Jesus. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2011;&version=50;49;9;47;

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote:

We as Christians are struck with sadness when people make this choice, because to be honest I would love to share a pint with you and robondch and Atheist in Heaven one day and it is disappointing that you continue to reject the love and fulfilling life that God has to offer when you put yourself in His hand.

A pint would be great. Though I believe we need to do it in this life rather than the next, as for different reasons we'd both agree that the latter won't be possible.

But on the point of acceptance into heaven, isn't it more noble to lead a good life out of compassion, rather than fear? In such circumstances does the idea that failure to worship a God would preclude you from heaven not suggest a certain vanity on the part of that God?

To me it suggests we are projecting a distinctly human trait on what is supposed to be an all-loving diety.

This is before we mention the 2/3rds of the worlds that follow their own religious paths. If all you've been taught is your own society's religion then are you still rejecting Jesus?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

>
No idea about what The Atheist, Sapien, pH and others believe, but I find absolutely nothing fulfilling about believing that there's a man in the sky who loves me and who'll let me live forever, but only if I say (a) that I believe that he exists and (b) that I believe that he sacrificed himself to himself in some kind of spooky blood exchange for what his images (ourselves) have done.

Come to Him and you will find how fulfilling it is, as opposed to working on satisfying our own desires, God comes first. As Christians will testify, a life lived to God's purposes is the best and most fulfilling. Until you try you will never know. I would never know how good Guiness is unless I had first tasted it. Taste God, and then you can't put Him down.

robindch wrote:

>While I thoroughly admire somebody with enough courage to head off to a dangerous country to help people, I can't help but ask -- please forgive my insolence, but I feel it's an important question -- whether or not you'd be doing this if, at the same time, you weren't able to spread your religion?

No insolence. It's a fair question. My goal in going was not to spread religion. It was to answer God's call to send me. I went to develop relationships with very poor kids and to play some soccer with them and give them a few gifts of balls and jerseys. The opportunity to share my faith came up on Wednesday and was set for Thursday.

When you come to know God ans serve Him He gives opportunities to do things. Some that are bigger than others by human measurement, Moses vs what I did, but all effective in touching lives. God does throw you curves form time to time.

BrianCalgary

The Atheist wrote:

But on the point of acceptance into heaven, isn't it more noble to lead a good life out of compassion, rather than fear? In such circumstances does the idea that failure to worship a God would preclude you from heaven not suggest a certain vanity on the part of that God?

The problem is who defines what is a good life? Ian Paisley I'm sure believes that he is leading a good life. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour by eliminating Jews. For a good life the Bible is the greatest "users manual" for this topic. The two great commandments say it all, "love God with all your heart, soul, and mind", "love your neighbour as yourself".

I live my life out of compassion and not fear. I respect God, but fear Him, no.

The Atheist wrote:

This is before we mention the 2/3rds of the worlds that follow their own religious paths. If all you've been taught is your own society's religion then are you still rejecting Jesus?

That is tricky. I would like to hear others take on this. If you have never heard of Jesus can you be rejecting Him? The Psalms say that the heavens declare the glory of God. If you seek God and justice, and manage to keep the two listed commandments I think that their is hope. In having said that, we in western society have heard of Jesus and we have rejected Him outright. We have tossed Him form our schools and governments. We have to answer for those actions.

Not wanting to be insolent to Atheist and Robin, but would you want to spend an eternity with Christ, or do you dislike (hate) His people so much that you would find the whole thought quite "hellish"?

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote:

The problem is who defines what is a good life? Ian Paisley I'm sure believes that he is leading a good life. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour by eliminating Jews. For a good life the Bible is the greatest "users manual" for this topic. The two great commandments say it all, "love God with all your heart, soul, and mind", "love your neighbour as yourself".

I doubt Ian Paisley or Hitler could be accused of adhering to either of those.

But the second one is recognised as a good universal rule. So does failure to comply (through a genuine lack of belief) with rule #1 cancel out a good life led by rule #2?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not wanting to be insolent to Atheist and Robin, but would you want to spend an eternity with Christ, or do you dislike (hate) His people so much that you would find the whole thought quite "hellish"?

Umm, not sure where you're going with this. My wife and most of my family are catholics so as far as I'm concerned my "eternity" will be with his people as it is. I have no idea where the notion of dislike/hate came from.

I want an afterlife. I could have a pint with you, play chess with Asiaprod (when he's done beating Lenin or whoever) and chat with Carl Sagan (;)). The problem is, wanting it can't make me believe it.

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary said:

I live my life out of compassion and not fear. I respect God, but fear Him, no.

Hmmm, I know what you're saying, Brian, but I would modify that: I do not live in fear of a tyrant, but I do toward a Father. I'm only a sinner saved by grace and I'm still prone to wander, to sin. I fear to bring shame on the Name of the One I love; I fear also the natural consequences of sin - broken relationships with my fellowman, for instance; and I fear the divine chastisement my Father will mete out to discourage me from doing that again. Ultimately, I fear that if I sin willingly I will have proved I never was a real Christian in the first place and that I'm still heading for the eternal wrath of God.

That is tricky. I would like to hear others take on this. If you have never heard of Jesus can you be rejecting Him?

No, but you would be guilty of rejecting the Godhead who is revealed in nature and conscience. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

If you seek God and justice, and manage to keep the two listed commandments I think that their is hope.

If you truly seek God you will find Him, and so be a Christian. But those who only seek half-heartedly, who quit their search when they find a false god suitable to their taste - these have no hope. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=2&verse=12&version=50&context=verse

bmoferrall

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is tricky. I would like to hear others take on this. If you have never heard of Jesus can you be rejecting Him?

Brings to mind an anecdote related by DA Carson (mentioned in another thread) at his lecture last night in Dublin. I wasn't there so this is second-hand from someone who did attend and, hence, possibly inaccurate in places.

A muslim student from the Middle East was visiting Canada to study medicine. While staying in a hotel he came across a copy of Gideon's bible. After some weeks spent reading the bible, he was 'convicted of its truth' and resolved to pursue it further. He approached the largest local church he could find and met with the priest in attendance (no mention of denomination by Carson but 'priest' hints at Catholic). The priest advised him strongly not to pursue Christianity any further, for the sake of his own safety on returning home.
Discouraged, but undaunted, he approached another church and met with the clergyman in attendance (again, no mention of denomination, but 'clergyman' hints at Protestant). The clergyman told him not to waste his time as Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
Still determined in the face of discouragement, he resolved to attend a bible college of some description. An internet search pointed him to Harvard Divinity College. On the train to the Harvard college he met a born-again Christian and they got talking about the bible. The Christian advised the student that the Harvard school was not a good place to learn about the bible and pointed him to a small Christian college.
Fast forward to present day. After giving up medicine, the (former) muslim is now evangelising 'underground', at great personal risk, in the Middle East.

Somewhat reminiscent of the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. If someone earnestly seeks the truth, God will surely find a way to cross cultural, religious or geographic barriers, and lead them to it.

By all accounts the lecture (on "Truth and Experience") was superb. Apparently, the 2.5-hour long lecture flew by. The church (Presbyterian church, Adelaide road) was packed to overflowing, spilling out the main door. Sorry I missed it.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote:

BrianCalgary said:


Hmmm, I know what you're saying, Brian, but I would modify that: I do not live in fear of a tyrant, but I do toward a Father. I'm only a sinner saved by grace and I'm still prone to wander, to sin. I fear to bring shame on the Name of the One I love; I fear also the natural consequences of sin - broken relationships with my fellowman, for instance; and I fear the divine chastisement my Father will mete out to discourage me from doing that again. Ultimately, I fear that if I sin willingly I will have proved I never was a real Christian in the first place and that I'm still heading for the eternal wrath of God.

Well articulated Wolfsbane.

BrianCalgary

The Atheist wrote:

I doubt Ian Paisley or Hitler could be accused of adhering to either of those.

You would say that they didn't or are not leading a good life. I would say that both could defend their actions as being good. So then who sets the standard for what is or is not a good life?

The Atheist wrote:

But the second one is recognised as a good universal rule. So does failure to comply (through a genuine lack of belief) with rule #1 cancel out a good life led by rule #2?.

Yes. Because Christ says that the only way to the Father is through Him. I would argue that you can not love your neighbour as you should without the working of the Holy Spirit in your life.

The Atheist wrote:

Umm, not sure where you're going with this. My wife and most of my family are catholics so as far as I'm concerned my "eternity" will be with his people as it is. I have no idea where the notion of dislike/hate came from.

I think where I'm coming from is this: there are those who are hostile against Christians and God to an extant that you could call it hate, I'm sorry if I implied that you or Robin fit here I don't know you well enough to make that call, but if someone did hate God, would they even want to be in His presence for eternity?

How can you say that your eternity will be with your Christian family when you don't accept the same God?

The Atheist wrote:

I want an afterlife. I could have a pint with you, play chess with Asiaprod (when he's done beating Lenin or whoever) and chat with Carl Sagan (;)). The problem is, wanting it can't make me believe it.

If you do want an afterlife why not take on Pascals bet (if there is a God and I reject Him, I have everything to lose. If there isn't a God and I accept Him I have nothing to gain. If there isn't a God and I reject Him I have gained nothing. Therefore I have everything to lose by rejecting Him, so I will accept Him) then watch your life change in ways that you can't even imagine.

UU

. . . then watch your life change in ways that you can't even imagine.

Hmmm . . . Brian. I think that's open for debate! I used to be Catholic and believed in God but since I rejected God and took up Humanism my life has changed in dramatic ways. It's like everything is sparkling in full colour and I can actually have much more of the aspect of Sentience but not too much to cause the imbalance which is Egotism. For me, by looking at a new way of life I can now 'breathe'. Now I can't blame a God for anything as there isn't any. I can finally see the virtue ans the faults in myself and others and really understand humanity like never before. Perhaps Humanism / Atheism is truly the new faith! For once, I am no longer attempting to believe the unbelievable - in something I knew deep down didn't exist. Just like you have found a new brilliant way of living by a God, I have found a new brilliant way of living by no God but nature and humanity.

BrianCalgary

UU wrote:

Hmmm . . . Brian. I think that's open for debate! I used to be Catholic and believed in God but since I rejected God and took up Humanism my life has changed in dramatic ways. It's like everything is sparkling in full colour and I can actually have much more of the aspect of Sentience but not too much to cause the imbalance which is Egotism. For me, by looking at a new way of life I can now 'breathe'. Now I can't blame a God for anything as there isn't any. I can finally see the virtue ans the faults in myself and others and really understand humanity like never before. Perhaps Humanism / Atheism is truly the new faith! For once, I am no longer attempting to believe the unbelievable - in something I knew deep down didn't exist. Just like you have found a new brilliant way of living by a God, I have found a new brilliant way of living by no God but nature and humanity.

I am glad that you are happy, but I would ask if you really knew God? Before I knew God fully , I would have said that I was happy, but once I really got to know Him life has gotten even more fulfilling and what is exciting is that it has just begun. Christianity is not a religion that lives and dies by ritual words said in the same place every service, it is a lifestyle where Jesus becomes the focus, where everything is done in concert with Him, where the Holy Spirit guides your life and tugs at you in different directions, as I was tugged to Guatemala.

Come to know Him, and your life will become clearer and richer and fuller, not easier though, as you enter a spiritual battle.

Dades

Hope we're not hogging the thread here...

BrianCalgary wrote:

You would say that they didn't or are not leading a good life. I would say that both could defend their actions as being good. So then who sets the standard for what is or is not a good life?

I can't speak for Hitler, but isn't Ian Paisley a Christian?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Yes. Because Christ says that the only way to the Father is through Him. I would argue that you can not love your neighbour as you should without the working of the Holy Spirit in your life.

And I would ask you if you believe that non-Christians are incapable of leading a life that would be considered "good" enough for heaven? That's a very righteous claim, to say the least.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think where I'm coming from is this: there are those who are hostile against Christians and God to an extant that you could call it hate, I'm sorry if I implied that you or Robin fit here I don't know you well enough to make that call, but if someone did hate God, would they even want to be in His presence for eternity?

How can you say that your eternity will be with your Christian family when you don't accept the same God?

Firstly to hate God you have to believe he exists. Accordingly I have no feelings one way or another. My eternity will be with my Christian family, as for me eternity ends on death.

Pascals Wager is a flaccid argument. I would feel dishonest to base a belief on the consequences of it, rather than the evidence in front of me. It would be a lie, not a belief and if God existed he would know that.

Dades

wolfsbane wrote:

That is tricky. I would like to hear others take on this. If you have never heard of Jesus can you be rejecting Him?

No, but you would be guilty of rejecting the Godhead who is revealed in nature and conscience. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

wolf,
How can you possibly reject something of which you have no knowledge? Did you find God on your own or was he shown to you by family, media, literature etc? If you were born without a bible on a desert island would the Christian God have manifested itself? Of course not. How would you possibly know of Christianity. You cannot reject or embrace someone whose very existance is not known to you, no matter what bible quote you throw out.

BrianCalgary

The Atheist wrote:

Hope we're not hogging the thread here...
I can't speak for Hitler, but isn't Ian Paisley a Christian?.

Jesus did say that many would come in His name yet He doesn't know them. Pailsey may consider himself a Christian, some of his attitudes could lead me to believe otherwise.

The Atheist wrote:

And I would ask you if you believe that non-Christians are incapable of leading a life that would be considered "good" enough for heaven? That's a very righteous claim, to say the least.

No Christian would ever admit to being good enough for Heaven. None of us are, yet God has given us the ability to reconcile ourselves to Him, and that is through Jesus.

The Atheist wrote:

Firstly to hate God you have to believe he exists. Accordingly I have no feelings one way or another. My eternity will be with my Christian family, as for me eternity ends on death.

Pascals Wager is a flaccid argument. I would feel dishonest to base a belief on the consequences of it, rather than the evidence in front of me. It would be a lie, not a belief and if God existed he would know that.

That answers my question and it makes sense.

wolfsbane

Atheist said:

How can you possibly reject something of which you have no knowledge?

The Romans 1 quote tells us everyone does have sufficient knowledge of God to be guilty of rejecting Him. That applies to those without any contact with the gospel - His creation around us declares the existence of the Creator to whom we must give account. That agrees with my observation of my own conversion. I was familiar with something of the gospel, but it was the magnificence of the heavenly bodies that really made me think that maybe God was a reality. It was not the only factor, but a key one.

If you were born without a bible on a desert island would the Christian God have manifested itself? Of course not. How would you possibly know of Christianity.

I would not have known of Christianity, but I would have known of the existence of its God. That is, known enough about Him - His majesty, His 'eternal power and Godhead' - to make me guilty when I turned away from that knowledge, suppressed it so I could do my own thing. If God were going to save me, He would bring the gospel to me, or me to the gospel. Just as in fact He has done so for millions: missionaries arrive to preach to those who never heard; radio and literature reach into places where missionaries cannot go; economic migration or refugee-flight brings the unevangelised to where the gospel is preached.

Dades

wolfsbane wrote:

I would have known of the existence of its God. That is, known enough about Him - His majesty, His 'eternal power and Godhead'

If you ask two people to think of a colour, and they both say blue - are they thinking of the same colour? Or are there a thousand shades of blue many very different from each other? On the other hand if I hold a card with a random shade of blue on it - they'll likely say - yes that's the colour I was thinking.

BrianCalgary

The Atheist wrote:

If you ask two people to think of a colour, and they both say blue - are they thinking of the same colour? Or are there a thousand shades of blue many very different from each other? On the other hand if I hold a card with a random shade of blue on it - they'll likely say - yes that's the colour I was thinking.

Just as everyone was thinking blue, they then are introduced to the real blue on the card and they recognize it as such. The person who thinks of God, could be different from the one another is thinking of, when shown who God really is they will automatically recognize who He is.

As opposed to the person who comes up with a god that is a different colour will not recognize the real God. ie. Mormons and JW's who have come up with their own god and fail to recognize the God of the Bible.

We in western society have a greater responsibiity because we have been presented with God and reject Him, for many different reasons.

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote:

We in western society have a greater responsibiity because we have been presented with God and reject Him, for many different reasons.

Is there no distinction between rejecting God because of disagreement with his values or a desire to live a life free of his rules; and 'rejection' by virtue of a genuine disbelief in his existence? Are there degrees of rejection?

BrianCalgary

The Atheist wrote:

Is there no distinction between rejecting God because of disagreement with his values or a desire to live a life free of his rules; and 'rejection' by virtue of a genuine disbelief in his existence? Are there degrees of rejection?

I think so. I'm not committed to this piece of theology.
Jesus tells us to build our treasures in Heaven. This could indicate that there are those that are better off in Heaven than others based on our works. Although salvation is not based on works, your heavenly place would be based on your treasure build up.

I therefore would conclude that Hell would be similar. Those who reject God because they don't like the rules might get really tomented as opposed to someone who denied existence may not get as bad torment. Someone who rejects and preaches against and tries to muzzle and persecutes Christians would be in really bad shape.

Now remember I am not sold on the 'degree of Heaven and Hell' and am just conjecturing. Bottom line Heaven is where you want to be, and how do you get there?

wolfsbane

The Atheist said:

Is there no distinction between rejecting God because of disagreement with his values or a desire to live a life free of his rules; and 'rejection' by virtue of a genuine disbelief in his existence? Are there degrees of rejection?

Your 'blue' illustration was a good one to look at. Brian answered spot on. All mankind has sufficient awareness of the True God to make them guilty of rejecting Him.

Now you ask another very pertinent question. Yes, there are degrees of rejection. Those who more clearly recognise His existence and go their own way; and those who see it basically but are then blinded by arguments against His existence. The worst sort of rejection is of course those who have heard the gospel, believe it to be true, but turn away when the cost of following Christ becomes evident. The Parable of the Sower is worth looking at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=50&context=chapter Note the Lord's explanation of it.

Here is how Jesus told of punishment depending on the degree of light enjoyed by the sinner:
Matthew 11:20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

UU

Let me but in but can I pose a scenario regarding all this? What if some being is mentally handicapped or has some other sort of mental disability which prevents them seeking God or something of that sort. It doesn't matter how much one tries to tell them about Christianity and God, they can't communicate with the person. That person has failed to see God in his / her life due to there problems so naturally they'd be excused and allowed to enter heaven unconditionally, right? I was just rather curious -that's all!

robindch

> What if some being is mentally handicapped or has some other
> sort of mental disability which prevents them seeking God or
> something of that sort.

The only religious explanation I've heard for this is that, before birth, the person "chooses" to be born handicapped or incapacitated, and that they are then in a position to be able to "offer up" the pain/incompleteness of their lives for the "sins" of the world. The same person told me that the handicapped/incapacitated person is usually "unaware" that they've "chosen" to spend their lives doing this.

This seems to be a faintly catholic explanation -- I'd certainly be interested in hearing any other religious explanations from anybody with alternate religious leanings.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

This seems to be a faintly catholic explanation -- I'd certainly be interested in hearing any other religious explanations from anybody with alternate religious leanings.

Wow! It is certainly weird and not Christian in any sense.

Scripture teaches that only Christ's suffering atones for sin. It also teaches that we are born as God sees fit, not as we choose.

To UU's question,

What if some being is mentally handicapped or has some other sort of mental disability which prevents them seeking God or something of that sort. It doesn't matter how much one tries to tell them about Christianity and God, they can't communicate with the person. That person has failed to see God in his / her life due to there problems so naturally they'd be excused and allowed to enter heaven unconditionally, right?

No, Scripture is clear that we are all born in sin, born with a sinful nature. So what then of infants dying before they can understand or seek after God, likewise the severely mentally retarded? I think we need to say that our spirit is not identical to our mind. Our brains are the interface with our spirit, enabling us to consciously interact with the world. An example of our spirits being able to respond to God even before we are born is seen in John the Baptist. When in Elizabeth's womb, he heard Mary's voice and jumped for joy that his Saviour was present (in Mary's womb).

Most Reformed Christians hold that those dying before being consciously able to understand are given saving faith before their death, by the direct revelation of God to their spirit. At the least they say that of the elect:
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
But most (to the best of my knowledge) hold that these infants/retarded are all elect and so certain to be saved.

robindch

> Our brains are the interface with our spirit

Could you tell us a bit more about this interface and perhaps a little bit about how it might work?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Could you tell us a bit more about this interface and perhaps a little bit about how it might work?

I know little of the chemistry/biology of the brain. I do know that it seems to be where the real 'me' lives. Cut of my arm and I'm still me. I would be so bold to say a brain-transplant would not only make my body smarter, but would give it a new tenant.

Damage to the brain then can impare 'me' being able to converse with the outside world or even to be aware of my physical existence. As I pointed out in my example, Scripture shows us that an unborn child is spiritually aware. Would that awareness be consciously remembered later? I doubt it, if the memory parts of the brain had not formed sufficienty.

robindch

> I know little of the chemistry/biology of the brain. I do know
> that it seems to be where the real 'me' lives.

I appreciate your honesty in saying that this is where "it seems to be", since we can both then agree that just exactly what consciousness *is*, is still an open question (despite the brave effort of Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained).

However, you haven't answered my question which is: how can a brain (made of chemicals) interface with a 'spirit' (which isn't)?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

However, you haven't answered my question which is: how can a brain (made of chemicals) interface with a 'spirit' (which isn't)?

I don't know. How can gravity pull water up from the ocean? It isn't molecules but it acts upon them.

Are you implying that our persons/minds/egos or however one describes the self are merely chemical reactions?

robindch

> Are you implying that our persons/minds/egos or however
> one describes the self are merely chemical reactions?

I'm asking *you* to tell me if you think that they are not.

You are the one who said that the "brains are the interface with our spirit" -- I'm asking you to explain what you mean, and to justify your statement with some evidence.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I'm asking *you* to tell me if you think that they are not.

I think we are more than mere chemical reactions.

You are the one who said that the "brains are the interface with our spirit" -- I'm asking you to explain what you mean, and to justify your statement with some evidence.

I mean I think it is evident to many/most that we are more than chemical reactions, that there resides within our body a 'person'. Some say we are only self-aware chemical reactions. Neither they nor I can prove different. To do so would require us to separate this person from his body and obseve both, or to destroy the body and be able to show the person did not continue existence elsewhere. I can't think of an easy way to do so. There have been claims of out-of-body experiences, but they are very subjective.

Dades

wolfsbane wrote:

I mean I think it is evident to many/most that we are more than chemical reactions, that there resides within our body a 'person'. Some say we are only self-aware chemical reactions. Neither they nor I can prove different.

I think thats a fair summation. Especially the part about proof either way.
I don't think there's much room for absolutes here.

Tar.Aldarion

I mean I think it is evident to many/most that we are more than chemical reactions, that there resides within our body a 'person'. Some say we are only self-aware chemical reactions. Neither they nor I can prove different.p

Hmm, I don't know about it being evident. Learn about the brain and chemical reactions, happiness, depression, anger, all just chemicals giving seemingly different people existance as mixtures, releases are different. I have no idea if we are more than the sum of our parts, probably not, IMHO.


You are going on about a 'soul' I assume. Article I loved on it:
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html

wolfsbane

Tar.Aldarion said:

I have no idea if we are more than the sum of our parts, probably not, IMHO.

OK, but then I'm puzzled by your (I assume) promotion of vegetarianism. What is the difference, other than taste and certain nutrients, of eating a melon, a monkey or a man?

In other words, how can anyone suggest anything is immoral? Are we all not just slime on an insignificant ball of dirt, in an insignicant stellar system, in an insignificant galaxy, lost somewhere in space?

Now that this slime has become self-aware, why should it restrain itself from any action that gives it pleasure? It has increased its knowledge so that it knows morality is just an artificial construct or even just the random consequence of evolutionary forces that led to our survival. For the individual morality can mean nothing.