The Rapture (Return of Christ) & Doomsday Predicted
- Thread starter HamannCheese
- Start date
Stanley
Well-Known Member
I have read all five pages, and all I can really find to contribute to this debate is, is Jo cup tied?
Damocles said:
All excellent questions and in all seriousness, I really enjoy these discussions, especially when they don't degenerate into the usual mess. I'll try and answer all your questions, I don't know everything and it's all my opinion. You also seem very well read on these matters so I have a couple of questions of my own if that's ok?
Answers:
1 - I would say God has indeed endued humans with free will amongst other things that makes us special on this earth, and I obviously believe humans have a special place in God's heart and plan otherwise He wouldn't have sent Jesus to die on the cross and be resurrected for us. Also, it's not just humans that have free will, but angels do too which is what happened to the devil.
I don't personally believe in aliens, but I don't think that necessarily aliens would prove or disprove anything. The Bible doesn't mention aliens and so the existence doesn't necessarily contradict the bible. If they are technologically, physically, or mentally superior then this would question the 'special nature' of humans of course, but I think it might be best to cross that bridge when we come to it. A cop out I know, but I don't know everything...
2 - I believe the bible is true, some of it is literal like the gospels talking about Jesus, some of it is symbolic like the prophecies. I don't recall the bible stating that the Pope was infallible, in fact I don't believe the Pope as we know it came in to power until the 5th Century. People often refer to Peter as the first pope because Jesus said to him 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church' but he wasn't saying He would build His church on Peter, but rather that He would build it on the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God (which is what Peter said in the previous verse).
This whole infallible pope nonsense is not scriptural in the least and is one of the many things that the Roman Catholic denomination (not just them though) has introduced in order to remove the ability from their congregants to question what he says. I'm not a Roman Catholic (though I was brought up as such), and this for me is where most people go wrong, they look at this church or the anglican church (which came out of the Catholic church because King Henry wanted to get divorced) and think that what they say is what the bible says but this isn't the case. They actively discourage their members from having their own bibles in order to strengthen that idea in my opinion, and many of the things they do are contrary to the bible. Praying to saints, pergatory, transsubstantiation, going to the priest for absolution etc are all examples of their practise being completely contrary to scripture.
3 - Lots of people have told me that the Bible is the word of God, including the bible itself, but I believe I have had experiences of God or seen God in action that have convinced me of His existence, many of which have come out from reading/studying the bible. You are right, it is entirely possible that I'm completely mistaken and God doesn't exist, but I don't think so, I believe He does exist.
Hope that answers your questions to some degree, now I have a couple if that's ok? I'm not trying to wind you up or anything, genuinely interested in what the current thinking is.
1 - If evolution is true, how is the missing link explained these days and why are the different species so distinct? Why do we not have creatures that are halfway through an evolutionary stage?
2 - How do you explain the origin of the earth and do you think the Large Hadron Collider will succeed in reproducing the big bang?
3 - If science is based on current knowledge, with the understanding that we don't know everything, does that mean that until we know everything, science cannot report anything as fact, opening the door for at least the possibility that God may or may not exist?
4 - Do you think there is absolute truth?
Cheers
Phil<br /><br />-- Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:01 pm --<br /><br />Can I add something to my answer to question 2? Can you point out any contradictions in the bible and we can discuss them further?
HamannCheese
Well-Known Member
quite enjoying this thread! Keep it up guys :D
Skip Donoghue
Well-Known Member
Imagine David ike telling the story of Adam and eve, or Moses and the red sea he would be laughed out of town like he has been for some of the stuff he has told the world ie lizards and he being the son of god, but can anyone tell me what the difference is because to me I can't separate them, all stories from the bible, old testament etc are nothing more than tall tails past through generations and put together by a 2000 year old Hans Christian Anderson
Bluemoon115
Well-Known Member
The Rapture on my 21st!
Nice!
Nice!
CTID Chris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 1,100
Lord of the rings is much better than this story.
My brother got the box set on blu-ray recently, might try and watch them again soon...
My brother got the box set on blu-ray recently, might try and watch them again soon...
big blueballs said:
The main difference as I see it is that Jesus fulfilled a lot of Old Testament prophecy (over 140 individual prophecies) in his birth, life, death and subsequent resurrection, starting in the book of Genesis, and continuing over the course of 2000 years throughout the whole Old Testament. During his time on earth he performed many miracles including healing the sick, feeding multitudes, water into wine etc.
His impact on the world has been massive, even if you don't believe the Bible it's hard to dispute the existence of a man called Jesus, since his life is well documented in historical texts that weren't written by Christians and are generally not disputed in their accuracy. People have and still are being persecuted and killed simply for believing in Jesus. I've personally met several people in India that have been killed because they attend churches. I was also almost stoned (not the drug kind) at a church meeting in India once, again simply because I believe in Jesus and was talking about him to people who were interested in finding out more.
David Ike, however is clearly a lunatic :-)<br /><br />-- Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:14 pm --<br /><br />
CTID Chris said:
JRR Tolkien was a Christian, he even introduce CS Lewis too it and CS Lewis became a Christian too. The Lord of the Rings and the Narnia stories are filled with allegory and symbolism of Christianity and Jesus.
Skip Donoghue
Well-Known Member
I am sorry but there is no proof that Jesus carried out any miracles what so ever just tales in an ancient story book, I don't dispute there may have been a Jesus but he did not have magic powers, he was not the son of god because there is no god or any proof of god appart from the stories in an ancient book, this is why I compared the things David Ike comes out with to the feeding the five thousand
God did not make man, man made god
God did not make man, man made god
big blueballs said:
No need to apologise, you're welcome to your opinion.
I didn't mean to say that the historical evidence proved that Jesus performed miracles, only that he existed.
Many people (myself included) would say that miracles still happen today, I've personally seen people miraculously healed. One person in India was born blind but could see after we'd prayed for her.
Regarding proof of God, that really depends on your perspective, I would say the complexity even at a microscopic level that's present in even the smallest cell in the human body, or any cell in anything, certainly hints at an intelligent designer at least.
One of the classic creationist points is called 'irreducable complexity' which means that even one cell in your body is very complex, and would not work unless all of it worked, implying that for it to work it had to be present in that way at the beginning of the cells life, not evolving through time. That's just one cell, take a step back and look at the human body, how complex even the smallest organs are.
I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution or that it all happened by chance than to believe in God personally...
Stevinio
Well-Known Member
So the rapture has begun and his name is now ALAN.
Hi Phil, thanks for the discussion
Evolution is a product of the animal adapting itself to the most favourable conditions to survive. It isn't a transformation from one thing to another, with stage 1, stage 2, etc, and isn't a force. We see evolution all around us, the simplest one being the zebras and lions.
Think of a pack of zebras and a pack of lions. The lions chase the zebras, then eat them. Due to this, the faster lions will always have the ability to eat, and to breed whereas the slower lions will starve to death thus not passing on their genes. Only the faster lions survive in large numbers and the zebra population is suffering.
The only zebras that survive are those who were quicker than the newly quick lions, or are more agile, and able to evade them.
Thus those zebras are able to breed, producing lots of agile/quick zebras. The lion population starts to die out again as even the newly quick lions can't catch the new zebras. Eventually, the zebra population becomes so big, and more agile lions evolve, meaning a return of lion numbers as they successfully hunt and breed. Perhaps then that one zebra is born with a genetic mutation (not unlike somebody with 12 toes, or Siamese twins or whatever). This zebra may have a better paw pads, meaning more grip, meaning easier turning circle/jumping/speed/whatever.
It works like that, each generation trying to get a little faster or a little more agile to beat the competition to get the chance to breed. This is what was sort of meant by the term "natural selection". The animals adapt to their local environment to survive.
As I say, there's no 'midpoint' just a slow and gradual change based on local environment and competition then adaptations over millions of years to this.
This is a misunderstanding. The LHC isn't there to reproduce the Big Bang, but is there to collide a tiny number of particles together at high energy speeds so that we can answer several physics questions that remain, around the Higgs Boson, Super Symmetry and a few others. There is one experiment at the LHC known as ALICE which is trying to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang to study quark-gluon plasma, but "conditions just after the Big Bang" is just a sensationalised way of saying "very very hot".
Fact in common language and fact in scientific language are two very different things. For example, it is a fact that the Earth moves around the Sun. In physics, that's called the Copernican Heliocentrism Theory. Copernicus came up with it, and it had additions from Newton, Kepler and Einstein.
There is no such thing as a fact in science, just what we call observations. Example, in common language, if I drop a ball, it is a fact that it will fall to the ground. In scientific language, if I drop a ball, I observe that it will fall to the ground.
Theory is also a misunderstood word. In common language, theory means "guess". In scientific standards, theory is something that has been undeniably proven; after hundreds or thousands of attempts to both replicate and disprove the data, the theory still stands as true to life. Theories are composed of several observations, laws, inferences and hypothesis.
In strictly scientific terms, there is no proof to infer that God exists and there is no proof to infer that God does not exist. We can disprove the religious stories in the religious books, because there is undeniable proof on how things like the planets were formed or the Universe was created (sort of, the exact moment of creation is unknown, be we can explain everything about a billionth of a second after that, and some now believe that we can prove the first billionth too).
Anybody who is an atheist is just as unscientific as theists; the only correct answer so far is "I don't know".
I believe that there is absolute truth, but it is a very rare thing. We have constants in maths and in physics which can be called absolute truths. However, relativity also teaches us that the same truth might be different in differing frames of reference.
The only absolute truths that we can hang our hat on are universal constants, such as c.
I'll upload a video for you to watch about evolution and the planets forming in a min.
philinho said:
Evolution is a product of the animal adapting itself to the most favourable conditions to survive. It isn't a transformation from one thing to another, with stage 1, stage 2, etc, and isn't a force. We see evolution all around us, the simplest one being the zebras and lions.
Think of a pack of zebras and a pack of lions. The lions chase the zebras, then eat them. Due to this, the faster lions will always have the ability to eat, and to breed whereas the slower lions will starve to death thus not passing on their genes. Only the faster lions survive in large numbers and the zebra population is suffering.
The only zebras that survive are those who were quicker than the newly quick lions, or are more agile, and able to evade them.
Thus those zebras are able to breed, producing lots of agile/quick zebras. The lion population starts to die out again as even the newly quick lions can't catch the new zebras. Eventually, the zebra population becomes so big, and more agile lions evolve, meaning a return of lion numbers as they successfully hunt and breed. Perhaps then that one zebra is born with a genetic mutation (not unlike somebody with 12 toes, or Siamese twins or whatever). This zebra may have a better paw pads, meaning more grip, meaning easier turning circle/jumping/speed/whatever.
It works like that, each generation trying to get a little faster or a little more agile to beat the competition to get the chance to breed. This is what was sort of meant by the term "natural selection". The animals adapt to their local environment to survive.
As I say, there's no 'midpoint' just a slow and gradual change based on local environment and competition then adaptations over millions of years to this.
This is a misunderstanding. The LHC isn't there to reproduce the Big Bang, but is there to collide a tiny number of particles together at high energy speeds so that we can answer several physics questions that remain, around the Higgs Boson, Super Symmetry and a few others. There is one experiment at the LHC known as ALICE which is trying to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang to study quark-gluon plasma, but "conditions just after the Big Bang" is just a sensationalised way of saying "very very hot".
Fact in common language and fact in scientific language are two very different things. For example, it is a fact that the Earth moves around the Sun. In physics, that's called the Copernican Heliocentrism Theory. Copernicus came up with it, and it had additions from Newton, Kepler and Einstein.
There is no such thing as a fact in science, just what we call observations. Example, in common language, if I drop a ball, it is a fact that it will fall to the ground. In scientific language, if I drop a ball, I observe that it will fall to the ground.
Theory is also a misunderstood word. In common language, theory means "guess". In scientific standards, theory is something that has been undeniably proven; after hundreds or thousands of attempts to both replicate and disprove the data, the theory still stands as true to life. Theories are composed of several observations, laws, inferences and hypothesis.
In strictly scientific terms, there is no proof to infer that God exists and there is no proof to infer that God does not exist. We can disprove the religious stories in the religious books, because there is undeniable proof on how things like the planets were formed or the Universe was created (sort of, the exact moment of creation is unknown, be we can explain everything about a billionth of a second after that, and some now believe that we can prove the first billionth too).
Anybody who is an atheist is just as unscientific as theists; the only correct answer so far is "I don't know".
I believe that there is absolute truth, but it is a very rare thing. We have constants in maths and in physics which can be called absolute truths. However, relativity also teaches us that the same truth might be different in differing frames of reference.
The only absolute truths that we can hang our hat on are universal constants, such as c.
I'll upload a video for you to watch about evolution and the planets forming in a min.
LaLuneBleue
Well-Known Member
To not turn this into an inter-Christianity debate, which denomination are you philinho? Pentecostal/Evangelical? My journey was Catholic-Pentecostal and back to Catholic again (so far) and interested in your beliefs and interpretations.<br /><br />-- Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:44 pm --<br /><br />To not turn this into an inter-Christianity debate, which denomination are you philinho? Pentecostal/Evangelical? My journey was Catholic to Pentecostal and back to Catholic again (so far) and interested in your beliefs and interpretations.
LeftHook said:
Hi LeftHook
I'm a pentecostal, the particular denomination of the church I attend is called Elim, but it's basically pentecostal. If you're interested the church website is http://www.lighthousecc.co.uk
Sorry if my comments earlier on the catholic church were offensive, I didn't mean to imply that all Catholics are wrong, I was just using them as an example to answer the papal infallibility question earlier.<br /><br />-- Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:55 pm --<br /><br />
Damocles said:
OK, this is basically my understanding of the idea too, the thing that always got me (which you may be able to explain) is how different species are formed? Surely what you described would simply result in more effective killers in lions and more effective evaders in zebra's, at what point did the zebra become a zebra? what did it evolve from? If it's always been a zebra, does that mean there must have been a zebra at the start? That's kind of what I was getting at with the midpoints...
For information, I agree with natural selection, it's blatantly obvious in a sense, and explains not just the animal kingdom, but human politics and things like that. Russia won the World Cup bid, not because they were the best host, but because they were the best at doing what needed to be done to become the host if that makes sense. I just don't think that natural selection explains the many different species we have on earth...
Looking forward to the video
You see, evolution happens over the curse of several billion years and several billion species with tiny variations. Zebras are part of the horse genus:
The thing to remember, just like horses and zebras are part of the same evolution series, they both still exist. Evolution is an adaptation to local environment, not a worldwide clock that ticks on mutating things.
Still waiting on this video to upload, should be 5 minutes. It isn't absolute science, but sums up in an easy way the general theory from the Big Bang to now. It is a traceable lineage from humans back to the first particles (admittedly, having to use some logic in places of evolution due to an incomplete fossil record, though no major and ridiculous jumps)
The thing to remember, just like horses and zebras are part of the same evolution series, they both still exist. Evolution is an adaptation to local environment, not a worldwide clock that ticks on mutating things.
Still waiting on this video to upload, should be 5 minutes. It isn't absolute science, but sums up in an easy way the general theory from the Big Bang to now. It is a traceable lineage from humans back to the first particles (admittedly, having to use some logic in places of evolution due to an incomplete fossil record, though no major and ridiculous jumps)
Damocles said:You see, evolution happens over the curse of several billion years and several billion species with tiny variations. Zebras are part of the horse genus:
The thing to remember, just like horses and zebras are part of the same evolution series, they both still exist. Evolution is an adaptation to local environment, not a worldwide clock that ticks on mutating things.
Still waiting on this video to upload, should be 5 minutes. It isn't absolute science, but sums up in an easy way the general theory from the Big Bang to now. It is a traceable lineage from humans back to the first particles (admittedly, having to use some logic in places of evolution due to an incomplete fossil record, though no major and ridiculous jumps)
OK, I can understand how zebras can evolve from horses, since they are basically the same, 4 legs, similar bodies etc... what did horses evolve from?
Also, how is this tested and proven? Is it just from observing the fossil record?
Actually, modern horses evolved from zebras, their stripes were used to keep parasites away. Horses that moved to deserts didn't need them, and colder climates needed thicker coats.
Anyway, the branch of horses comes from a common ancestor of the rhino. The rhino adapted its skin and later on in its evolution whereas the horse stayed furry. This is the ancestor in question:
Notice the bone structure in the diagrams and the picture. As we are going backwards, I suppose you could call this a dinosaur, the ancestor earlier than this used their front legs as 'arms' rather than legs.
This is tested through fossil record, observing patterns in the bone record, and through genetics. DNA is by far the strongest evidence we have.
From this point backwards, we go to the perrisodyactal which is basically a classification of hoofed mammals. We can get back with extremely strong fossil evidence hundreds of millions of years.<br /><br />-- Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:01 pm --<br /><br /><a class="postlink" href="http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ECMTESED" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ECMTESED</a>
Here's that video mate.
Anyway, the branch of horses comes from a common ancestor of the rhino. The rhino adapted its skin and later on in its evolution whereas the horse stayed furry. This is the ancestor in question:
Notice the bone structure in the diagrams and the picture. As we are going backwards, I suppose you could call this a dinosaur, the ancestor earlier than this used their front legs as 'arms' rather than legs.
This is tested through fossil record, observing patterns in the bone record, and through genetics. DNA is by far the strongest evidence we have.
From this point backwards, we go to the perrisodyactal which is basically a classification of hoofed mammals. We can get back with extremely strong fossil evidence hundreds of millions of years.<br /><br />-- Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:01 pm --<br /><br /><a class="postlink" href="http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ECMTESED" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ECMTESED</a>
Here's that video mate.
brass neck
Well-Known Member
wouldn't the lions at some point just fukc off the zebra's and catch slower things. Or even evolve into herbivores?
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
philinho said:
This is very true actually, I'm a huge fan of Tolkein and he really didn't leave any stone unturned with his creation.
As a result Middle Earth even has it's own 'rapture'.
Dagor Dagorath. Look it up if you're interested but essentially it's very similar to the Christian vision.