Religulous type Question

Online Users: 0 guest(s), 0 user(s). Replies: 330


seneedha Posts : 38 Registered: 2/21/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 12:23 AM Go to message in response to: MisterKelley

Now, here's something interesting- Born again christians are always saying how they're ready when the Rapture comes. Ready to assend into heaven and sit beside god. Well Jehoviahs Witnesses believe that only the 144,400 souls mentioned in the book of Revelations make it to heaven. Everyone else is stuck down here on good old Planet Earth.How many of those do you suppose are Christians? and if all of them are christians, I have a pretty good feeling that 144,400 people have become born again long before 2008.

Yes, I do believe that this interpretation in not aligned with my own. This being the purpose of interpretation.... Anywho, this is why I think it is incorrect:

Look up Revelation 7 and read it from beginning to end. You'll notice that if the seventh chapter of Revelation is to be taken literally, heaven would consist of 144,000 Jewish male virgins who were taken from a square-shaped earth and are now worshiping a sheep. This would mean that Peter (not a virgin), the Blessed Mother (not a male), and Jehovah's Witnesses founder Charles Taze Russell (not a Jew) could not be in heaven.
Beyond this, we see in Revelation 14 that the 144,000 stand before the twenty-four elders from Revelation 4:4. This brings the grand total to 144,024 total people. But Scripture indicates that there are still more. Revelation 7:9 speaks of a countless multitude before the throne, which is in heaven (Rev. 14:2-3). We read also that all those with their name in the book of life are in heaven (Rev. 21:27), while all whose names are not in the book of life are thrown into the pool of fire (Rev. 20:15). There is no third "earthly" class.

 

Reply


PharmToxGirl Posts : 5,446 Registered: 8/30/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 2:00 AM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

I feel for you that you just lost your grandfather. 

 




Message was edited by: PharmToxGirl

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 7:57 AM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

Absolutely.  Just because it is expected, just because you know he is at peace and not suffering, it does not make the reality of your loss less.  It might make it easier to bear, but it is still a time of sorrow and grieving.


Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,962 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 10:45 AM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

First off -- if I seem unnecessarily forceful -or rude - in expressing my opinion, it is only because I feel that this country has suffered in the past 8 years under the current administration because of a lack of support for the scientific community and am probably taking some of that out on you.  So to the extent that is unfair, I apologize.

Moreover, if saying I think you are wrong or that I think you don't understand science is the equivalent of calling you an idiot, I am sorry.  It's what I honestly believe, and I don't know of any other way of saying so. 

Also, I am sorry to hear of your grandfather.  Please know this -- I have continued this conversation not to deliberately atagonize you, but because I have a near-pathological need to correct what I find to be inaccuracies for the benefit of others reading it. I acknowledge that this is both a strength and a weakness.  But it's me, and I'll let others judge as they will.

So here's what I want to say:

The thing about your requirements for loads and loads of experimentation. . . .your example of how much work was done to test the theory of gravity before we went to the moon, for example.

Well, it seems to me that one logical conclusion is that we simply differ on how much experimentation is necessary.  Gravity was studied for hundreds of years before we went to the moon -- evolution is a fairly new theory, comparatively.  Yet if we had abandoned the theory of evolution now, it would be like abandoning the theory of gravity long before we went to space.  I'll give you that we cannot "prove" evolution anymore than we can "prove" gravity.  But if we abandon the theory of evolution merely for that reason, I think we would do ourselves a grave disservice -- and this is why I argue with you. 

And as for this:

If human error did occur in humans' reception of the Bible as dictated by God (which I don't believe), then how can we find no scientific inaccuracies in the Bible (or historic inaccuracies, or any other kind of inaccuracies)?

I find this illogical.  Saying "If X then Y" does not mean "if Y then X."  Meaning, saying "if I have a quarter, then I have 25 cents" does not mean "if I have 25 cents, then I have a quarter."  (I could have two dimes and a nickel).  Also, saying "If I punch Jim, then he has a bruise" is not the same as saying "If Jim has a bruise, then I punched him"  (he could have tripped, or someone else could have punched him).

 Likewise, saying "if a chariot crossed the ocean 100 years ago then there are bones at the bottom of the ocean" does not mean "if there are bones at the bottom of the ocean than a chariot  crossed here 100 years ago." 

This is why your logic escapes me. 

__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson


Message was edited by: MsDenuninani (okay, I'll let the thread die now)

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

See, my thing is: there is truly no way to know the truth of the philosophical stuff--until we die, and then only an IF.  What happens after death?  Only one way to know for sure.

We can have our beliefs, our faiths, our sacred truths...but they are not proven.   That's the whole point of faith for some of these questions.

But faith and science are not the same.  I do believe that the two can co-exist.  You can accept both creationism AND evolution.  

My problem is when someone insists that their faith, their belief system, is the only truth, and it is the one that everyone should subscribe to.    That's when my dander gets up.  I accept I don't know.  I know what I believe.  I might be wrong, and I might find that out after I die -- who knows.  But I believe that I'm right for me.  I also believe that all the religions of the world all have validity as God speaks to each of us in the manner we are most ready to embrace.

I love how Seeneda (and I am so sorry about how I'm spelling this...I can't scroll up and check it) discusses it.  She's telling us her feelings, but I don't really get a feeling from her that she doesn't respect that others have a different way to believe, even if she disagrees with them.

I just do not like religious rigidity -- that is what leads to wars.  (How many wars have been fought purportedly in the name of God? How many have been fought in the name of Science?)   I don't think that God wants us offing one another just because we disagree with one another's faith (and if God does... then I would not want anything to do with God).


Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website



Message was edited by: CatStandish

Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,962 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 11:19 AM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

I don't have as much faith as you do, Cat, to believe that creationism and evolution can go together, but I suppose that really is more of an issue for people of faith than it is for me. 

I am absolutely with you as far as the whole I don't know thing, though.  I sometimes feel that people spend entirely too much time worrying about life after death and not enough time living the life before it.

Also, I think I've taken so much issue with some of the views expressed because I feel like others can't accept the idea that their faith or religious beleifs IS the truth -- so they feel the need to disagree with the findings of scientific community.

I almost have more respect for someone who says "the bible is what I believe -- it is the truth" rather than go out of their way to try and prove it true.  Your belief system is what it is -- why try and change the minds of others?  I don't try and change peoples minds about evolution because I get that people just hate the idea that "we come from apes" as they always put it.  Then just don't subscribe to evolution -- heaven knows I can't force you to.  But when they take it a step further, and try and disprove it for no other reason than because it is different from their religious beliefs -- then I get ticked off.

Like it's been said, it's theory.  It can never be more than that.  And I'm open to an alternative theory.  But no on ever has anything better to say than "It's wrong because the bible is true."

Okay, I'll (try to) step off my soapbox now. 


__________________________________________
My new favorite website: www.poptimal.com

"I'd hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson

Reply


MisterKelley Posts : 258 Registered: 7/11/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 11:54 AM Go to message in response to: seneedha

Look up Revelation 7 and read it from beginning to end. You'll notice that if the seventh chapter of Revelation is to be taken literally, heaven would consist of 144,000 Jewish male virgins who were taken from a square-shaped earth and are now worshiping a sheep. This would mean that Peter (not a virgin), the Blessed Mother (not a male), and Jehovah's Witnesses founder Charles Taze Russell (not a Jew) could not be in heaven.
Beyond this, we see in Revelation 14 that the 144,000 stand before the twenty-four elders from Revelation 4:4. This brings the grand total to 144,024 total people. But Scripture indicates that there are still more. Revelation 7:9 speaks of a countless multitude before the throne, which is in heaven (Rev. 14:2-3). We read also that all those with their name in the book of life are in heaven (Rev. 21:27), while all whose names are not in the book of life are thrown into the pool of fire (Rev. 20:15). There is no third "earthly" class.

Yes, this is what Revelations says.  My point in that quote was not to say that one religious group is correct and others are not, there are plenty of people running loose in the world that will tell you that. You don't need me. That quote was to prove that religeous groups do indeed twist and translate the bible into whatever they feel it shoud mean.    

I'm just asking questions about the biblical interpretations of history. I never say that born again christians are wrong, or Jews are wrong or Mormons are wrong, I simply ask questions about the feasability of things written in the bible. I didn't attack anyone's faith, I just asked why did noah decide that dinosaurs and neanderthals and Cromagnum man were left off the passenger manifest. and if there were "Baby Dinosaurs" on board, why do they become extinct? Every last one of them failed to survive. And yet man made it through this cataclysmic event. Why bother putting them on the boat to begin with if they get wiped out within 2000 years? I can theorize that the reason for this is because in order for the Earth to repopulate itself, for all the animals to thrive and repopulate, the Earth needed soil fertiliazed with Dinosaur poop so that plants and trees can grow. After a few hundred years or so when the planet is growing and thriving and didn't need dinosaur poop anymore and seeing as how those nasty dinosaurs were becoming a detrement to the forward progress of man, God wiped them all out. I guarantee you that if I said that to millions of people, in a believable enough way, most would write it off as me being psychotic. But thousands would swear up and down that this is true. And call all non believers in the Dinosaur poop theory, heritics and doomed to burn in a twinkee infested hell - Forever!!!!!

BTW, I think that instead of "Religulous type question, I propose that we change the name of this thread to Dinosaur Poop and Twinkees.

 

MisterKelley - Now specializing in Trainwrecks and Jackassery

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Dinosaur Poop and Twinkies
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 1:26 PM Go to message in response to: MisterKelley

I'd certainly open a thread with this heading--if only out of EXTREME curiousity

Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply


seneedha Posts : 38 Registered: 2/21/08
Re: Dinosaur Poop and Twinkies
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 3:02 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

MK, Questions are good. I have plenty of questions myself. Smile

Reply


SocalGal Posts : 456 Registered: 6/3/06
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 12, 2008 2:00 AM Go to message in response to: MisterKelley

MisterKelley -

In answer to your dinosaur quandry, I posted the scientific version of Creationism...but maybe it got lost amid the evolution debate. 

But quite frankly, I can't believe anyone would subscribe to the dinosaur poop theory, but only because the idea of a twinkee infested hell is an oxymoron...how could it be hell if it's full of twinkees?  Twinkees are the magical offspring of lepruchans and the Trix rabbit, coated in a mixture of pixie dust and glitter, and injected with Doublehawk tears (bonus points to anyone who understand the Demetri Martin reference).

 

 


True love never has a happy ending; true love never ends.

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 12, 2008 12:44 PM Go to message in response to: SocalGal

That explains why they are so good!  They are magically delicious with pixie dust.... can they make us fly? Or is that an evolutionary thing that will take a few generations of ingestion before we reap that benefit?

Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply


SocalGal Posts : 456 Registered: 6/3/06
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 12, 2008 7:40 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

Well, the trick with the pixie dust is that you can't actually eat the twinkie...you'd need to burn it to ash and then inhale exaclt 73.2% of it in order to fly.  Obviously, with the time and math involved in that, most people would rather just enjoy the twinkie.  Especially when the pixie dust only works if you can keep your tongue rolled like a taco.

 


True love never has a happy ending; true love never ends.

Reply


MisterKelley Posts : 258 Registered: 7/11/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 13, 2008 11:53 AM Go to message in response to: SocalGal

Let it be known by all on B's dot C  that SoCalGal is a lying B***h. I tried to smoke a twinkee this morning. I inhaled exactly 73.2% with a rolled tongue as stated and failed to fly anywhere. However, for a brief few minutes I completely understood "God Time".

MisterKelley - Now specializing in Trainwrecks and Jackassery

Reply


nanette927 Posts : 1,748 Registered: 1/28/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 13, 2008 5:22 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

So I thought I'd check in on this thread and clicked on "last page" and there this was..

That explains why they are so good!  They are magically delicious with pixie dust.... can they make us fly? Or is that an evolutionary thing that will take a few generations of ingestion before we reap that benefit?

And I couldn't help but to laugh and had to go back and read where the hell did she come up with that?

By the way what if we hate twinkies??


                              

Check out my Album for wedding pics!

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 13, 2008 10:13 PM Go to message in response to: nanette927

*Gasp*!!  Blasphemer!   I nearly dropped a Starburst I was so shocked.

But it's okay Nanette... I still love you even if you don't like Twinkies (more for me!!)


Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply
RSS

Thank You
for Signing Up!

Check your e-mail inbox for the latest updates from brides.com

Give a Subscription to Brides Magazine as a Gift
Subscribe to Brides magazine