Just for argument's sake, I'll ask this

branie

If the world's religious leaders announced that there was no god, and that religion didn't work, how would you react? I'd be stunned, but I would learn to live with it.

jhegarty

Why would you believe them ?

Lab_Mouse

branie wrote: »

If the world's religious leaders announced that there was no god, and that religion didn't work, how would you react? I'd be stunned, but I would learn to live with it.

now that would be funny

PDN

branie wrote: »

If the world's religious leaders announced that there was no god, and that religion didn't work, how would you react? I'd be stunned, but I would learn to live with it.

It wouldn't worry me in the slightest. In fact I'd be delighted to see various kinds of false religion eliminated at one fell swoop.

As for those of us who base our beliefs on the Bible rather than on the pronouncements of religious leaders, we'd continue what we're doing.

branie

PDN wrote: »

It wouldn't worry me in the slightest. In fact I'd be delighted to see various kinds of false religion eliminated at one fell swoop.

As for those of us who base our beliefs on the Bible rather than on the pronouncements of religious leaders, we'd continue what we're doing.

Umm, I think the Bible would be disproved as well.

PDN

branie wrote: »

Umm, I think the Bible would be disproved as well.

By a bunch of men saying so? I think not.

Zombrex

branie wrote: »

Umm, I think the Bible would be disproved as well.

LOL .. while we are at it why don't we have God come down from heaven and say he doesn't exist

lugha

PDN wrote: »

By a bunch of men saying so? I think not.

Don't be dissing men. You only know that the bible is the word of God because some flesh and blood men passed that knowledge through the generations to you. :P

starbelgrade

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL .. while we are at it why don't we have God come down from heaven and say he doesn't exist

The devil is in the detail of that post!

Max Power1

branie wrote: »

If the world's religious leaders announced that there was no god, and that religion didn't work, how would you react? I'd be stunned, but I would learn to live with it.

they wouldnt do that

Where would they get their money and influence from then?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Umm, I think the Bible would be disproved as well.

By a bunch of men saying so? I think not.

Well, a bunch of men wrote it, so logically, you really should allow a bunch of men to disprove it too.

The Rook

Well... with Christianity you've got the tenet of Papal Infallability, so in all matters relating to the Christian Faith the Pope is right in what he says, regardless of what he says.

So if he were to say that Christianity was a load of mumbo jumbo and wasn't real, wouldn't Christians have to believe him?

lugha

The Rook wrote: »

Well... with Christianity you've got the tenet of Papal Infallability, so in all matters relating to the Christian Faith the Pope is right in what he says, regardless of what he says.

So if he were to say that Christianity was a load of mumbo jumbo and wasn't real, wouldn't Christians have to believe him?

I think you might find a Christian or three posting here who doesn't altogether recognize that the Pope is infallible.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, a bunch of men wrote it, so logically, you really should allow a bunch of men to disprove it too.

Disproving it would be one thing. But simply pronouncing it to be false is something else entirely.

However, to be logically fair, if a bunch of men with the same qualifications as those who wrote it (eye witnesses to the resurrection etc.) pronounced the Bible to be untrue then I will give them a fair hearing.

philologos

branie wrote: »

If the world's religious leaders announced that there was no god, and that religion didn't work, how would you react? I'd be stunned, but I would learn to live with it.

My faith isn't at the behest of leaders, but at the behest of God. You would have to disprove the validity of the Bible rather than getting people to make what could be a bogus confession.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

However, to be logically fair, if a bunch of men with the same qualifications as those who wrote it (eye witnesses to the resurrection etc.) pronounced the Bible to be untrue then I will give them a fair hearing.

Quite reasonable, if the authors of the gospels were known to have witnessed the events the texts describe. Most modern authorities believe they did not.

Or, if you wish to leave aside the question of who wrote the four gospels, and move onto Paul's texts and the enormous influence that they've had on the direction and structure of the christian religion, you're in the sticky position of having to give a "fair hearing" to anybody who claims to have met Jesus in what seems to be little different from a dream.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Quite reasonable, if the authors of the gospels were known to have witnessed the events the texts describe. Most modern authorities believe they did not.

That depends on who each of us thinks qualifies as an 'authority'.

Or, if you wish to leave aside the question of who wrote the four gospels, and move onto Paul's texts and the enormous influence that they've had on the direction and structure of the christian religion, you're in the sticky position of having to give a "fair hearing" to anybody who claims to have met Jesus in what seems to be little different from a dream.

No, I'm in the decidedly unsticky position of having to give a fair hearing to anybody who has met loads of eye witnesses to the resurrection, performed numerous miracles, raised the dead, and who was endorsed as an apostle by the eye witnesses.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

That depends on who each of us thinks qualifies as an 'authority'.

Hmm... back again to believing what men have to say! The basic, irresolvable problem with revealed knowledge just keeps on popping up -- who exactly should one believe?

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm in the decidedly unsticky position of having to give a fair hearing to anybody who has met loads of eye witnesses to the resurrection, performed numerous miracles, raised the dead, and who was endorsed as an apostle by the eye witnesses.

And any muslim guy will tell you that his holybook does pretty much the same thing with respect to his deity and 'messenger'. The accounts from the koran and the bible can't both be true, but they can certainly both be wrong.

Or, stepping outside of religion for a moment, it's quite straightforward to produce a large number of people who sincerely believe that they themselves were transported into space ships, there to have exploratory surgery carried out.

I don't believe that you'd accept the eye-witness reports of these extraordinary events uncritically, so it seems unclear why exactly you accept the far more remote, and entirely unverifiable, accounts of far stranger events.

wolfsbane

branie wrote: »

If the world's religious leaders announced that there was no god, and that religion didn't work, how would you react? I'd be stunned, but I would learn to live with it.

That scenario will become reality - almost. All the world's religious leaders will confirm that their gods are phonies and the true god is the wonderful deliverer who has arisen to lead the world to peace & safety:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

jhegarty

The Rook wrote: »

Well... with Christianity you've got the tenet of Papal Infallability, so in all matters relating to the Christian Faith the Pope is right in what he says, regardless of what he says.

So if he were to say that Christianity was a load of mumbo jumbo and wasn't real, wouldn't Christians have to believe him?

Sorry, you are wrong here.

Not everything the pope says is infallible. It's only when he speaks ex cathedra.

This is a very rare event (the last time was in 50's , before that 1850's).

So for example the current Pope's stance on condoms in Africa is not considered infallible.

wolfsbane

jhegarty wrote: »

Sorry, you are wrong here.

Not everything the pope says is infallible. It's only when he speaks ex cathedra.

This is a very rare event (the last time was in 50's , before that 1850's).

So for example the current Pope's stance on condoms in Africa is not considered infallible.

Interesting point. How does one know when the Pope speaks ex cathedra?

If he made a very strong statement about human sexual practices, for instance, and it turned out he was wrong, we would know that had not been ex cathedra. But what about the papal pronouncement on Papal Infallibility at Vatican 1 which established it as dogma? What if he was mistaken about that? Seems a circular argument to me.

jhegarty

wolfsbane wrote: »

Interesting point. How does one know when the Pope speaks ex cathedra?

If he made a very strong statement about human sexual practices, for instance, and it turned out he was wrong, we would know that had not been ex cathedra. But what about the papal pronouncement on Papal Infallibility at Vatican 1 which established it as dogma? What if he was mistaken about that? Seems a circular argument to me.

I am actually not sure if there is a special way it's announced , but it's not hidden that he is speaking ex cathedra.

Some (not very) light reading here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

That scenario will become reality - almost. All the world's religious leaders will confirm that their gods are phonies and the true god is the wonderful deliverer who has arisen to lead the world to peace & safety:

I really hope this isn't taken the wrong way but I had a higher opinion of you before you said that.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

I really hope this isn't taken the wrong way but I had a higher opinion of you before you said that.

Do you understand the meaning of his post?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of his post?

Perfectly which is why I'm disgusted.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Perfectly which is why I'm disgusted.

So the idea that all religions are wrong is OK with you. But the idea that one them is right is disgusting. Is that it?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So the idea that all religions are wrong is OK with you. But the idea that one them is right is disgusting. Is that it?

Now come on PDN, you didn't really think thats what I meant did you ?

No, actually I would have no problem if one was right or they all were wrong or they all were right, I don't care. But if Christianity turns out to be right then I'll just have to answer to 'the man himself' when I go.

My disgust is with the arrogance used in the last posers post. I know most religious people think this but most have a healthy respect for the others or at least common decency not to be so arrogant in their opinions.

I hate to bring it back to other religions but, I have Buddhist, Christian and Muslim friends. The Buddhists would never come out with a comment like the above, simply because they believe everyone has their own 'path' to follow and they see good things in many religions.

The Christians and Muslims of course are a different story.

I believe of course your all wrong but I try not to be arrogant about it. (Except when it comes to Creationists/Intelligent Designers beliefs which I don't really consider Christian anyways)

I won't tell you your wrong and I'm right because I honestly don't believe there is no deity, I'm just very sure there isn't.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Now come on PDN, you didn't really think thats what I meant did you ?

No, actually I would have no problem if one was right or they all were wrong or they all were right, I don't care. But if Christianity turns out to be right then I'll just have to answer to 'the man himself' when I go.

My disgust is with the arrogance used in the last posers post. I know most religious people think this but most have a healthy respect for the others or at least common decency not to be so arrogant in their opinions.

I hate to bring it back to other religions but, I have Buddhist, Christian and Muslim friends. The Buddhists would never come out with a comment like the above, simply because they believe everyone has their own 'path' to follow and they see good things in many religions.

The Christians and Muslims of course are a different story.

I believe of course your all wrong but I try not to be arrogant about it. (Except when it comes to Creationists/Intelligent Designers beliefs which I don't really consider Christian anyways)

I won't tell you your wrong and I'm right because I honestly don't believe there is no deity, I'm just very sure there isn't.

I wouldn't find it at all offensive if a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew or a Buddhist claims that their religion is right and that mine is wrong. Neither do I think their beliefs to be arrogant. Of course they should do it with their own fora, rather than coming in to troll.

I don't find in the slightest bit offensive that atheists think that all religions are wrong. They are entitled to that belief, and it would be weird for me to get offended if they state it as such in the A&A forum.

Yet you get disgusted because a Christian, in the Christianity forum, states his belief that his religion is right and that others are wrong.

With all due respect, I think you are the one who is being intolerant here.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

With all due respect, I think you are the one who is being intolerant here.

I was referring to ..

All the world's religious leaders will confirm that their gods are phonies and the true god is the wonderful deliverer who has arisen to lead the world to peace & safety:

While I may not have much respect for religion, I have respect for peoples beliefs. My point is that even I as a non-religious person find that sentence very insulting.

To think that the other religious people in the world are ... what ? Having a laugh ? That they know Christianity is right but they're taking the mick ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I was referring to ..



While I may not have much respect for religion, I have respect for peoples beliefs. My point is that even I as a non-religious person find that sentence very insulting.

To think that the other religious people in the world are ... what ? Having a laugh ? That they know Christianity is right but they're taking the mick ?

If you find it insulting that Christians think, and state, their beliefs to be right (and by extension that contradictory beliefs are wrong) then I would advise you to avoid reading posts in this forum.

What next? People in the soccer forum not allowed to call it 'the beautiful game' in case a GAA fan gets offended?

Unbelievable.

robindch

monosharp wrote: »

While I may not have much respect for religion, I have respect for peoples beliefs.

Since peoples' beliefs are the religion, I'm not quite sure how you can really square that circle.

It's probably easier to adopt the position that people have a right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, but without providing or implying any respect for the beliefs themselves.

monosharp wrote: »

My point is that even I as a non-religious person find that sentence very insulting.

While it may be provocative to point out that most religious believers regard the deities of most other religions as "phonies" or worse, it's hardly untrue.

And it seems you're buying, at least partially, into the notion backed by many fundamentalists, that certain beliefs should never be openly criticized or ridiculed -- not a good place to be, IMHO.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

If you find it insulting that Christians think, and state, their beliefs to be right (and by extension that contradictory beliefs are wrong) then I would advise you to avoid reading posts in this forum.

What next? People in the soccer forum not allowed to call it 'the beautiful game' in case a GAA fan gets offended?

Unbelievable.

Its not what he said, its the way he said it.

For example, I know we have our differences but I can't imagine you being so blunt.

stevejazzx

monosharp wrote: »

For example, I know we have our differences but I can't imagine you being so blunt.

Man you can't leave a sentence like that just hanging out there, people could get into trouble!

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

For example, I know we have our differences but I can't imagine you being so blunt.

That's because I'm a devious evangelist who pretends to be nice until you're so sucked in that it doesn't matter how nasty our beliefs really are.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

I was referring to ..

All the world's religious leaders will confirm that their gods are phonies and the true god is the wonderful deliverer who has arisen to lead the world to peace & safety:

While I may not have much respect for religion, I have respect for peoples beliefs. My point is that even I as a non-religious person find that sentence very insulting.

To think that the other religious people in the world are ... what ? Having a laugh ? That they know Christianity is right but they're taking the mick ?

It's funny, but I think I interpreted wolfsbane's post differently from everyone else.
I took it to mean that the world's religious leaders will unite under one banner, that of the false Christ, who will bring an era of peace to the world. This is because most world religions(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, New Age) are awaiting some form of Messiah to return.
At that time, true Christians who are not deceived will be scattered. They will remain the "church" (the body of Christ) in spirit, but not have an established church in society.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

It's funny, but I think I interpreted wolfsbane's post differently from everyone else.
I took it to mean that the world's religious leaders will unite under one banner, that of the false Christ, who will bring an era of peace to the world. This is because most world religions(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, New Age) are awaiting some form of Messiah to return.
At that time, true Christians who are not deceived will be scattered. They will remain the "church" (the body of Christ) in spirit, but not have an established church in society.

I think it is the suggestion that the world leaders are deceptive, either at the moment (and will stop being so) or when the anti-Christ comes, that someone could find some what unsettling, this idea that the other religions are not simply mistakes but active deceptions.

Personally though I don't find it offensive, you guys all have interesting ideas about Satan in the hearts of people and all that jazz. But I can see how someone would be like "whoo, did he just say that"

wolfsbane

jhegarty wrote: »

I am actually not sure if there is a special way it's announced , but it's not hidden that he is speaking ex cathedra.

Some (not very) light reading here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

From that article:
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:
a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

Seems to me infallibility covers many dogmas then - a few samples:
The Council of Trent
The canons and decrees of the sacred
and oecumenical Council of Trent,
Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html
CHAPTER XVI.
On the fruit of Justification, that is, on the merit of good works, and on the nature of that merit.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
The Ecumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of the Church. No council has ever had to accomplish its task under more serious difficulties, none has had so many questions of the greatest importance to decide. The assembly proved to the world that notwithstanding repeated apostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles of Christianity. Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of western Europe, yet the infallible Divine truth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to the false doctrines of the day, and in this way a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow of heresy and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in the Church.

[Emphasis in all above is mine].

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

Its not what he said, its the way he said it.

For example, I know we have our differences but I can't imagine you being so blunt.

I aim for clarity and honesty. I have no trouble with any of the atheists here saying plainly how they think my God is unreal and that I am deluded - that is their understanding, and I would think them deceptive if they said otherwise.

The idea that we should all concede that 'all roads lead to the top'/'we are all right and our differences are only a matter of perspective' is in itself an exclusive world-view. That all other exclusive world-views disagree with it should not make you feel insulted.

Anyway, let me spell out exactly what I meant by All the world's religious leaders will confirm that their gods are phonies and the true god is the wonderful deliverer who has arisen to lead the world to peace & safety.

The time will come when all the leaders of the world's religions - both those who are now knowing deceiving their flocks and those who are sincere in their leadership - will be fully persuaded in their minds that this man is the true god manifest in the flesh. All except the elect will believe - including all the atheists then alive:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Soul Winner

wolfsbane wrote: »

I aim for clarity and honesty. I have no trouble with any of the atheists here saying plainly how they think my God is unreal and that I am deluded - that is their understanding, and I would think them deceptive if they said otherwise.

The idea that we should all concede that 'all roads lead to the top'/'we are all right and our differences are only a matter of perspective' is in itself an exclusive world-view. That all other exclusive world-views disagree with it should not make you feel insulted.

Anyway, let me spell out exactly what I meant by All the world's religious leaders will confirm that their gods are phonies and the true god is the wonderful deliverer who has arisen to lead the world to peace & safety.

The time will come when all the leaders of the world's religions - both those who are now knowing deceiving their flocks and those who are sincere in their leadership - will be fully persuaded in their minds that this man is the true god manifest in the flesh. All except the elect will believe - including all the atheists then alive:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Don't forget the falling away first and that the restraining force which keeps him from being revealed before his time is taken out of the way which I believe is the body of true believers which will be in the world at that time. The time of the Rapture is this taking out of the way. Only the people who have God's spirit in them by faith will be going in the Rapture, those who are left in the their churches obviously hadn't got faith and hence will be easy enough to be manipulated by this man of sin, they will swallow his BS. They will be sitting ducks for him.

I don't believe that faithful leaders of flocks will be able to do anything about this man of sin simply because they will be gone in the Rapture. It is only when the world see this man of sin for what he truly is will they then turn to the true God for deliverance and many will be saved during this terrible time, but the church will be gone because this time will be a time of trouble that God Himself puts on the world, and as Jesus already took God's wrath on Himself for us, the body of Christ which will be left on the earth at that time will be taken out before His wrath falls again on those who reject what Christ did for them.

Christ was afflicted once and once only, His body will not be on this earth when it comes time for God to pour out His wrath on sin and the revealing of this man of sin is the start of this time of trouble. He is the man on the white horse in Revelation 6. He is on a white horse imitating the return of Christ in Revelation 19 and he has a bow with no arrow meaning he will come with peace not war fulfilling what Daniel said about him, that he will come in peaceably – Daniel 11:21. That is how I understand it anyway.

chozometroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don't forget the falling away first and that the restraining force which keeps him from being revealed before his time is taken out of the way which I believe is the body of true believers which will be in the world at that time. The time of the Rapture is this taking out of the way. Only the people who have God's spirit in them by faith will be going in the Rapture, those who are left in the their churches obviously hadn't got faith and hence will be easy enough to be manipulated by this man of sin, they will swallow his BS. They will be sitting ducks for him.

I don't believe that faithful leaders of flocks will be able to do anything about this man of sin simply because they will be gone in the Rapture. It is only when the world see this man of sin for what he truly is will they then turn to the true God for deliverance and many will be saved during this terrible time, but the church will be gone because this time will be a time of trouble that God Himself puts on the world, and as Jesus already took God's wrath on Himself for us, the body of Christ which will be left on the earth at that time will be taken out before His wrath falls again on those who reject what Christ did for them.

Christ was afflicted once and once only, His body will not be on this earth when it comes time for God to pour out His wrath on sin and the revealing of this man of sin is the start of this time of trouble. He is the man on the white horse in Revelation 6. He is on a white horse imitating the return of Christ in Revelation 19 and he has a bow with no arrow meaning he will come with peace not war fulfilling what Daniel said about him, that he will come in peaceably – Daniel 11:21. That is how I understand it anyway.

I don't find there to be any scriptural support for a pretribulation rapture. It also makes no sense that people will still be able to be saved after that time, as the Left Behind series shows. I think it's a little late in the game at that point. This is a dangerous doctrine, IMO, that makes people think they can be part of this "left behind" group and "get right" with God during that window of time.

Soul Winner

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't find there to be any scriptural support for a pretribulation rapture. It also makes no sense that people will still be able to be saved after that time, as the Left Behind series shows. I think it's a little late in the game at that point. This is a dangerous doctrine, IMO, that makes people think they can be part of this "left behind" group and "get right" with God during that window of time.

Well there are many which are saved during this time all be it by being martyred for their faith, they appear on the sea of glass which is empty in Rev 4:6 just before the man of sin is revealed in Rev 6 and is full of saints which overcame the beast and his mark in Rev 15:2. How do you explain that?

chozometroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well there are many which are saved during this time all be it by being martyred for their faith, they appear on the sea of glass which is empty in Rev 4:6 just before the man of sin is revealed in Rev 6 and is full of saints which overcame the beast and his mark in Rev 15:2. How do you explain that?

John's vision (like Revelation 6's mention of souls under the altar)was a representation, not a reality. There is also no indication that these people were alive. The question in verse 10: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Since this is all symbolic, this question, and answer, are for living saints(us), not the dead. The dead know nothing, and the answer does not mean anything to them. The answer means a lot to the ones still alive, waiting for God's justice to be done.

That said, I'm not sure I got what you were getting at. I want to be sure I know what you are referring to.
What verses in Rev 6 are you referring to, and how do they represent pretrib raptured people?

Soul Winner

chozometroid wrote: »

I want to be sure I know what you are referring to.
What verses in Rev 6 are you referring to, and how do they represent pretrib raptured people?

Ok let me make myself as clear as I can. It all depends on how you interpret the whole of the scripture. It starts with Moses striking the rock a second time after God clearly commands him to speak to the rock - Numbers 20:8. He was refused admission to the promised land because of this infraction - Numbers 20:12. Paul calls this very rock Christ in the NT - 1 Corinthians 10:4. Put the two of them together and you have your cue. Christ is to smitten once and once only. Why? Because once is enough, what He did is forever adequate to satisfy God's justice and those who trust in this atonement are covered by the redemption which Christ 's death brings

Christ bore the wrath of God that we deserve on Himself so that we don't have to. As long as we remain His house which can only be done through faith then He abides in us and we in Him and we are seen judicially from God's view point as being in Christ because He is in us by faith. When it comes time for God to pour out His wrath on the world the church (the body of true believers) will be gone, because for God's wrath to fall on His body twice is to be guilty of what Moses was guilty of. God was teaching through the sin of Moses that only once shall Christ be smitten.

So with the church gone you have left a world which hitherto did not believe in Christ but after the rapture and the seeing of things which they were told of beforehand by people now gone you have a repentance by this very same people who will not take the mark of the beast and hence be martyred for the name of Jesus. These souls have to wait until their number is complete but until that time white robes are given to them. White robes symbolize their complete sanctification from sin and death. You said that it will be too late for anyone else to be saved by this time but Revelation alone shows that is wrong. Many are saved during this time of great tribulation.

For those who don't beleive that this time of trouble is God's wrath then just read Revelation 6:16-17 where it states that what is befalling the earth is God's wrath see below:

"And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
Revelation 6:16-17

To Wolfsbane; this verse is proof that this is the time of God's wrath not Satan's and you said it yourself that if it can be proven that this time of trouble is God's wrath then the Rapture must happen before the Tribualtion begins. Do you still go along with that and are you now convinced that a pre-tribulation rapture is the right one?

wolfsbane

Soul Winner said:

For those who don't beleive that this time of trouble is God's wrath then just read Revelation 6:16-17 where it states that what is befalling the earth is God's wrath see below:

"And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
Revelation 6:16-17

To Wolfsbane; this verse is proof that this is the time of God's wrath not Satan's and you said it yourself that if it can be proven that this time of trouble is God's wrath then the Rapture must happen before the Tribualtion begins. Do you still go along with that and are you now convinced that a pre-tribulation rapture is the right one?

My apologies for neglecting this until now.

We who deny the pre-tribulation rapture not only believe your passage refers to God's wrath, we insist on it! It is you who have the problem with this passage - and the problem is in when it occurs: after the tribulation.

Go to the first words that come after your passage - what do they say?
Rev. 7:1 After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree.

Then follows the sealing of the 144,000.

Then:
Rev. 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

The question is then asked as to who this great multitude is, and the reply comes:
Rev. 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
14 And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

That's right - the Great Tribulation preceded the Day of God's Wrath. The Great Tribulation is endured by God's people, but the Wrath of God is to come only on the wicked. The Tribulation and the Wrath are not the same event.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok let me make myself as clear as I can. It all depends on how you interpret the whole of the scripture. It starts with Moses striking the rock a second time after God clearly commands him to speak to the rock - Numbers 20:8. He was refused admission to the promised land because of this infraction - Numbers 20:12. Paul calls this very rock Christ in the NT - 1 Corinthians 10:4. Put the two of them together and you have your cue. Christ is to smitten once and once only. Why? Because once is enough, what He did is forever adequate to satisfy God's justice and those who trust in this atonement are covered by the redemption which Christ 's death brings

It does indeed depend how you interpret the whole of the Scripture. You appear to be using an allegorical method of interpretation, whereas I would use a grammatico-historical method.

wolfsbane

Soul Winner said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Anyway, let me spell out exactly what I meant by All the world's religious leaders will confirm that their gods are phonies and the true god is the wonderful deliverer who has arisen to lead the world to peace & safety.

The time will come when all the leaders of the world's religions - both those who are now knowing deceiving their flocks and those who are sincere in their leadership - will be fully persuaded in their minds that this man is the true god manifest in the flesh. All except the elect will believe - including all the atheists then alive:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Don't forget the falling away first and that the restraining force which keeps him from being revealed before his time is taken out of the way which I believe is the body of true believers which will be in the world at that time.

The time of the Rapture is this taking out of the way. Only the people who have God's spirit in them by faith will be going in the Rapture, those who are left in the their churches obviously hadn't got faith and hence will be easy enough to be manipulated by this man of sin, they will swallow his BS. They will be sitting ducks for him.

I don't believe that faithful leaders of flocks will be able to do anything about this man of sin simply because they will be gone in the Rapture.

That is a supposition on your part, not evident in the Bible.

It is only when the world see this man of sin for what he truly is will they then turn to the true God for deliverance and many will be saved during this terrible time,

That's not what the passage says:
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

but the church will be gone because this time will be a time of trouble that God Himself puts on the world, and as Jesus already took God's wrath on Himself for us, the body of Christ which will be left on the earth at that time will be taken out before His wrath falls again on those who reject what Christ did for them.

Christ was afflicted once and once only, His body will not be on this earth when it comes time for God to pour out His wrath on sin and the revealing of this man of sin is the start of this time of trouble. He is the man on the white horse in Revelation 6. He is on a white horse imitating the return of Christ in Revelation 19 and he has a bow with no arrow meaning he will come with peace not war fulfilling what Daniel said about him, that he will come in peaceably – Daniel 11:21. That is how I understand it anyway.

Trouble/Tribulation is is experienced by every generation of God's people. His body is in tribulation in many parts of the world tonight, so it will be in the time of Antichrist.

What it will never face is God's eternal wrath. Even the discipline we face here and now for our sins is in love and always for our good. God's eternal wrath is in justice and for the destruction of the wicked.

Also, your position entails the Tribulation converts not being the body/church. I know some dispensationalists teach God the Father has a wife (Israel) and Jesus has a bride (the Church) but I regard that as a massive misunderstanding of how Israel and the Church ultimately coincide. How many peoples do you say God has?

AudreyHepburn

Unless they could prove it beyond any doubt it wouldn't change my beliefs in the slightest.

If I ever do decide to switch religions or become athiest or whatever it will be at time of my choosing and for my own reasons not because some government minister tells me to change.

wolfsbane

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Unless they could prove it beyond any doubt it wouldn't change my beliefs in the slightest.

If I ever do decide to switch religions or become athiest or whatever it will be at time of my choosing and for my own reasons not because some government minister tells me to change.

Not sure to what you are referring. But if you mean you would not be changing your religion to worship Antichrist, then you miss the point. Only true Christians will hold out. All the rest will not need to be coerced - they will be deluded by the powerful signs and wonders he performs.

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not sure to what you are referring. But if you mean you would not be changing your religion to worship Antichrist, then you miss the point. Only true Christians will hold out. All the rest will not need to be coerced - they will be deluded by the powerful signs and wonders he performs.

I think Audrey is referring to the OP, before all the stuff aboout the Rapture or the AntiChrist was brought into the thread.

dan_d

......we counting buddhism/hindu/muslim etc etc etc here?
Ah, regardless, they still can't answer the question.....where does the essence of a person go once their body has stopped working??? Call it a soul, call it a spirit, whatever you like.Dress it up as heaven, nirvana, some other country, whatever.Prove (or disprove) it with the Bible, the Koran or Dan Brown. There's got to be something else out there. Sketchy on the details myself now, but if you've ever watched someone die in front of you, then you do have to think that their "soul" goes somewhere. They are a person with thoughts and a mind and beliefs. Where does that all vanish to? We are more than the machines we exist in, for some reason. And honestly, if the essence of ourselves simply vanishes into the nether, then what on earth are we bothering with all this for?
Religion exists to try and explain the fact that nobody can prove beyond a doubt what happens after the body stops functioning.Everyone is entitled to what they want to believe I suppose. And I'm guessing it's going to stay that way, regardless of what politicians say.