Behold! The End of Days are Upon us!

[RebelFencer]

Just checking, but you guys do realize that I started this thread as a joke right?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

No, because then we wouldn't need to believe.

?? Wouldn't God be satisfied with just the believing part? Why would he require us to need to believe? What you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

Even Jesus wasn't above "showing the flag" now and again. (Matthew 9: 5-7 "Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home." Then the man got up and went home.")

If Jesus could do a miracle or two now and then to convert people, why doesn't God do one every now and then to keep them converted? Think of it as a maintenance program... Oh, but I forgot. You don't believe Jesus is God. Mybad.

Besides, miracles happen all the time: you just have to know how to find them.

Nothing on the order of water into wine or walking on water, though. Other "miracles" can be explained by chance, however improbable.

Suppose God exists. Is GWB talking to Him directly a bad thing?

LOL! I guess that would depend on what God is telling him.

Two things:
1) I don't think Vel or Frog are Catholic.

Velisarios has said he is Orthodox; fencingfrog, however, stated that she was Catholic.

2) Catholics are an interesting bunch of believers. <snip>

Thank you for the analysis, but I was more interested in what fencingfrog thought Catholics were allowed to do with the Bible, seeing as she is one.

And how does God speak?

Directly, I should think.

Did Moses need a televangelist to tell him what God was saying?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

Just checking, but you guys do realize that I started this thread as a joke right?

Well, duh!

But given the clientele here, you didn't really think it was going to stay there, did you?

[RebelFencer]

In that case:

You all are poorly mistaken and obviously have not read up on any pertinent descriptions of the "End of Days." Essentially after the next Pope is "retired," Tom Cruise is going to use his transdimensional walky talky to contact L. Ron Hubbard. L. Ron will then proceed to contact Xenu: Destroyer of worlds! For the past couple centuries Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! has been drilling through the ice in the Cocytus (9th circle of hell) with his body thetans to capture Satan. After capturing Satan, Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! used modern technology to enhance Satan and turn him into the Robot Devil. Since everyone knows that Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! has already captured the Mormon Dragon God, it stands to reason that the Robot Devil will ride the Mormon God down from space to unleash hell on our populace. Duh.

[latenight]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

In that case:

You all are poorly mistaken and obviously have not read up on any pertinent descriptions of the "End of Days." Essentially after the next Pope is "retired," Tom Cruise is going to use his transdimensional walky talky to contact L. Ron Hubbard. L. Ron will then proceed to contact Xenu: Destroyer of worlds! For the past couple centuries Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! has been drilling through the ice in the Cocytus (9th circle of hell) with his body thetans to capture Satan. After capturing Satan, Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! used modern technology to enhance Satan and turn him into the Robot Devil. Since everyone knows that Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! has already captured the Mormon Dragon God, it stands to reason that the Robot Devil will ride the Mormon God down from space to unleash hell on our populace. Duh.

Nice, I think it should be Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! (tm), though.

[jBirch]

Here's some more fun for the fire...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

Just checking, but you guys do realize that I started this thread as a joke right?

I'm sorry. My religion considers jokes to be the tool of evil.

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

?? Wouldn't God be satisfied with just the believing part? Why would he require us to need to believe? What you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

Beats the hell out of me. I suspect that there is some power in the commitment to belief, regardless of what that belief is.

Even Jesus wasn't above "showing the flag" now and again. (Matthew 9: 5-7 "Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home." Then the man got up and went home.")

Yep. He did a lot of miracles.

If Jesus could do a miracle or two now and then to convert people, why doesn't God do one every now and then to keep them converted? Think of it as a maintenance program...

Nothing on the order of water into wine or walking on water, though. Other "miracles" can be explained by chance, however improbable.

Sure. In order to become a Saint in the Catholic Church, there need to be 3 verified miracles. Over the ages there have been about 3000 saints (probably more though)...so that leaves about 9000 verified miracles in the last 2000 years. Which averages out to roughly 4.25 verified miracles per year.

Here's some fun literature on the nature of miracles...you decide which ones are worthy enough to be called "real" miracles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

LOL! I guess that would depend on what God is telling him.

Ah, so if God says things you agree with, then He's speaking. If not, hearing voices is a sign of not being quite grounded in reality.

Directly, I should think.

Verbally?

James.

[fencingfrog]

oh golly gee.
i found the quote, loch. clear as day. Jesus is speaking to the apostles in Mark 13:32 "But about the exact day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heavan, nor the Son, but only the father."
clear enough? God the Father knows, not God the Son, yet.

*Sigh* The Bible can't be cited as a support for the Bible. That's called a "tautology". Something like:

"Hi. I'm God."
"Really? How can I be sure of that?"
"Because I say I am, and God doesn't lie and I'm God so it must be true."

Surely you can see the problem with the preceding dialogue?

i see the prob, but that is faith!!!! and there is more to it. it has been proven. but u and others just dont accept it yet. the Bible is many separate books put together. so for the sake of argument it's an anthology. so now you can cite books to support other books. and it works.

And while we're on the subject, what happened to all the miracles? God performed all kinds of miracles 4000 years ago to convince people, yet He doesn't see fit to perform even one in the last, oh, 200 years or so. Doesn't that strike you as odd? I mean, if God wanted us to believe--really wanted us to believe--then a few miracles every decade or so would probably do the trick.

someone said this, i think it was jbirch, and yeah there are miracles. u just have to know where to look. God does want us to believe. He loves us, and that is why we all aren't burning in hell. He sent Jesus to save us and give us a second chance.

So you get to pick and choose which Bible parts you'll use? Interesting. I didn't know Catholics could do that.

do i have to quote the entire Bible for you to show you the quote from Mark 13:32 or something?? most quotes make perfect sense on thier own, or with a little background.

Rather, you mean the prophets who claimed that God spoke directly to them.

if you don't want to believe, no one can make you. but who else would give them the power? if the devil exists, then the Lord does too. you can't have good without evil.

Wouldn't God be satisfied with just the believing part? Why would he require us to need to believe? What you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

huh? how can you believe without believing? if you don't believe though, then its like saying you don't need God, and you really do. its like an insult to deny you need to be saved.

Even Jesus wasn't above "showing the flag" now and again. (Matthew 9: 5-7 "Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home." Then the man got up and went home.")

Jesus was called a blasphemer and had to prove himself. plus, what's wrong with helping out a paralytic?

Oh, but I forgot. You don't believe Jesus is God. Mybad.

arg! Jesus and God and the Spirit are the Trinity! they are one and separate!!

Thank you for the analysis, but I was more interested in what fencingfrog thought Catholics were allowed to do with the Bible, seeing as she is one.

what do you mean? we read the Bible and do our best to see the truth!

God speaks with the heart, not ears.

Well, duh!
But given the clientele here, you didn't really think it was going to stay there, did you?

its a way to try and help others from burning in a lake of fire forever. cuz that would really stink. and the Rapture is coming. I have to check up on this, but i know someone who says there was a timeframe given as to when it is. something like 40 years after israel is a nation, but i dont' know if its true. dont start a debate over this yet

just wondering lochinvar, what religion are you?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by fencingfrog

I have to check up on this, but i know someone who says there was a timeframe given as to when it is. something like 40 years after israel is a nation, but i dont' know if its true. dont start a debate over this yet

That would have been 1988. Running a bit late, I see...

just wondering lochinvar, what religion are you?

You mean this life? Or a previous one?

This time I'm Episcopalian. Last time I was Mithraist. I don't remember much about the time before that but I'm pretty sure it was Shamanist.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

In that case:

You all are poorly mistaken and obviously have not read up on any pertinent descriptions of the "End of Days." Essentially after the next Pope is "retired," Tom Cruise is going to use his transdimensional walky talky to contact L. Ron Hubbard. L. Ron will then proceed to contact Xenu: Destroyer of worlds! For the past couple centuries Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! has been drilling through the ice in the Cocytus (9th circle of hell) with his body thetans to capture Satan. After capturing Satan, Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! used modern technology to enhance Satan and turn him into the Robot Devil. Since everyone knows that Xenu: Destroyer of Worlds! has already captured the Mormon Dragon God, it stands to reason that the Robot Devil will ride the Mormon God down from space to unleash hell on our populace. Duh.

Gozer the Gozerian (tm) will roast you in the belly of the Sloar! Be afraid! BE VERY AFRAID!!!

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Beats the hell out of me. I suspect that there is some power in the commitment to belief, regardless of what that belief is.

So you were just pulling it out of your arse, in other words. Nice.

Here's some fun literature on the nature of miracles...you decide which ones are worthy enough to be called "real" miracles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

Thanks. I'll look into it and get back to you.

Ah, so if God says things you agree with, then He's speaking. If not, hearing voices is a sign of not being quite grounded in reality.

Let me pose you a higher case: Suppose God were to tell W that Christianity has gotten it all wrong. Would that then be God speaking, or a loss of grounding in reality?

Verbally?

Yes. That's how he communicated with Moses, Abraham, and Isiah, or so the Book tells us (and a lot of others, if you believe what's written). If it was good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for us?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So you were just pulling it out of your arse, in other words. Nice.

Well, where else does the result of naval gazing end up? *grin*

Why God needs us to believe is anyone's guess. He certainly hasn't seen fit to provide an explanation and no obvious hypothesis offers itself.

As a thought, I have found that self-hypnosis and self-delusion take as core an arbitrary belief. If the concept is that you can form reality by an act of will (belief) then it would explain why the doctrine of religions requires such irrational belief. Beneficial hallucination, as it were. Kind of like writing an album stoned. *grin*

Though this rejects the concept of an external God-entity, implying that God is, instead, a manifestation of our will. The ramification of this though is consistent with Biblical teachings: that we determine whether we end up in heaven or hell by our own feelings about our actions. If we can truly forgive ourselves then we can go to heaven. If we can't, it's the lake of fire. The role of priest in this regard then becomes to merely help us convince ourselves to believe irrationally that all is good at the moment we die. If you only get one dream left, isn't it better to be the one with the naked chicks and not the one with the scary demons?

Let me pose you a higher case: Suppose God were to tell W that Christianity has gotten it all wrong. Would that then be God speaking, or a loss of grounding in reality?

And a fine supposition that is that lets us sequay so artfully into the use of the scientific method in the determination of natural truth!

So, the first part of your supposition takes as premise the concept that God exists and that he communicates to people. The further implied characteristic is that God is infallable. Therefor, a reasoned mind would have no choice but to conclude that Christianity has it all wrong.

But the real question you're asking is how can I, a lowly mortal guy, know whether GWB is full of crap (lying or crazy, makes no matter to the analyis) or really hearing the true word of an omniscient being? A couple of solutions to that problem, depending on your skillset.

1) I could ask God. If He answers my question, I'll know.

2) I could infer the probability of divine intervention based on the observed manifestations of the results of that communique on the world. If we believe that God is good then His message would serve some sort of altruistic purpose. So we take as suppostion that any communication from God would serve some greater good. To evaluate the probability of GWB hearing the word of God (instead of just smoking some really bad crack), we would simply evaluate how much more likely peace, love and understanding are to result from a world with the message being true.

To whit, if Christianity being wrong led to probabilistically more peace, love and understanding then I would conclude that the divine message was most probably real. If it probabilistically led to more strife, then it is probably fake.

Yes. That's how he communicated with Moses, Abraham, and Isiah, or so the Book tells us (and a lot of others, if you believe what's written). If it was good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for us?

Ok. There is some theological research that suggests that the instantaneous "knowing" is another way that God speaks. Intuitive understanding is another way to put it. There is further research that suggests that the creative spark of idea is divine communication. That the random beauty of poets, painters and artists in general is the work of a divine entity.

The implied comment here, of course, is the idea that you don't hear God because you're not listening in the right manner. You don't get much communication done yelling at a deaf man, as it were. *grin*

James.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Why God needs us to believe is anyone's guess. He certainly hasn't seen fit to provide an explanation and no obvious hypothesis offers itself.

Actually, we haven't yet established that God needs us to believe. That was merely an assertion on your part, which I was merely taking as a starting point for some speculation.

In the end, I suspect stongly that God neither needs us to believe nor not to believe.

As a thought, I have found that self-hypnosis and self-delusion take as core an arbitrary belief. If the concept is that you can form reality by an act of will (belief) then it would explain why the doctrine of religions requires such irrational belief.

Sounds suspiciously like Aquarianism (Age of Aquarius circa '70's, known nowadays as New Age--same thing in a new package) which is, in its underlying essence, mere sympathetic magic; by manipulating the "psycho-sphere", to coin a phrase, we can influence the "physio-sphere", or concrete reality. In other words, we can bring peace, love, and justice into existence simply by wishing them hard enough--or (dare I say it?) merely by praying for them.

The ramification of this though is consistent with Biblical teachings: that we determine whether we end up in heaven or hell by our own feelings about our actions. If we can truly forgive ourselves then we can go to heaven. If we can't, it's the lake of fire.

I have a sudden vision of Camus and Sartre as the high priests of The Church of Holy Existentialism--I love it.

So, the first part of your supposition takes as premise the concept that God exists and that he communicates to people. The further implied characteristic is that God is infallable.

All of which is axiomatic to the Christian world-view, or so I have been told.

But the real question you're asking is how can I, a lowly mortal guy, know whether GWB is full of crap (lying or crazy, makes no matter to the analyis) or really hearing the true word of an omniscient being?

I have my own thoughts on that, but we'll let it pass for now...

1) I could ask God. If He answers my question, I'll know.

Always assuming that he answers unequivocably. Otherwise, there's no way to know if it's really God answering or your own pre-dispositions misleading you into seeing an "answer" that isn't really there.

2) I could infer the probability of divine intervention based on the observed manifestations of the results of that communique on the world. If we believe that God is good then His message would serve some sort of altruistic purpose. So we take as suppostion that any communication from God would serve some greater good. To evaluate the probability of GWB hearing the word of God (instead of just smoking some really bad crack), we would simply evaluate how much more likely peace, love and understanding are to result from a world with the message being true.

To whit, if Christianity being wrong led to probabilistically more peace, love and understanding then I would conclude that the divine message was most probably real. If it probabilistically led to more strife, then it is probably fake.

Unfortunately, this method posits an unproven assumption, namely that God is good and wants us to be happy. What if the Manacheans are right, however, and God is really evil?

No, I'm afraid the only way we would really know would be method 1, i.e., God speaking to us/you/me directly.

Ok. There is some theological research that suggests that the instantaneous "knowing" is another way that God speaks. Intuitive understanding is another way to put it. There is further research that suggests that the creative spark of idea is divine communication. That the random beauty of poets, painters and artists in general is the work of a divine entity.

LOL! And now we pass from the realm of the Manacheans into that of the Gnostics!

You really believe in hedging your bets, don't you? Arianism first, then Manacheanism, then Gnosticism...what's next--Zoroastrianism?

The implied comment here, of course, is the idea that you don't hear God because you're not listening in the right manner. You don't get much communication done yelling at a deaf man, as it were. *grin*

So if he's serious about communicating, let him draw me a picture. Just as long as it's unequivocable.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Actually, we haven't yet established that God needs us to believe. That was merely an assertion on your part, which I was merely taking as a starting point for some speculation.

You're right.

In the end, I suspect stongly that God neither needs us to believe nor not to believe.Sounds suspiciously like Aquarianism (Age of Aquarius circa '70's, known nowadays as New Age--same thing in a new package) which is, in its underlying essence, mere sympathetic magic; by manipulating the "psycho-sphere", to coin a phrase, we can influence the "physio-sphere", or concrete reality. In other words, we can bring peace, love, and justice into existence simply by wishing them hard enough--or (dare I say it?) merely by praying for them.

From our personal perspective, yes. Basically, like the X-Rated Hypnosis dude, we really can trick our brain into thinking we're a chicken. The extension into the communal though, (mass hypnosis) is beyond the scope of my supposition.

All of which is axiomatic to the Christian world-view, or so I have been told. I have my own thoughts on that, but we'll let it pass for now...

True enough. That there is One God, He is Good and He is omniscient. I had forgotten that assumption.

Always assuming that he answers unequivocably. Otherwise, there's no way to know if it's really God answering or your own pre-dispositions misleading you into seeing an "answer" that isn't really there.

And the third possibility based on the rejection of the Christian Axioms: that something else answers.

Unfortunately, this method posits an unproven assumption, namely that God is good and wants us to be happy. What if the Manacheans are right, however, and God is really evil?

Then we should most manifestly do the opposite of what God says! *grin*

No, I'm afraid the only way we would really know would be method 1, i.e., God speaking to us/you/me directly.

All that would tell us is that there is a God. It would go nowhere towards determining whether His motives and ours were aligned, nor towards determining whether He is the only one.

LOL! And now we pass from the realm of the Manacheans into that of the Gnostics!

You really believe in hedging your bets, don't you? Arianism first, then Manacheanism